PDA

View Full Version : State Meet results if everybody uses SS CBEDs



Albert Caruana
12-02-2013, 10:56 AM
http://www.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2013/statecbe.htm

Joe Wiley
12-02-2013, 04:41 PM
Actually, that's not the state meet results if everybody uses SS CBEDs. That's just merging results from different heats that were run in different conditions against different competitors.

There is too much importance on competing against the clock in running and not enough on competing against those who actually toe the line.

Albert Caruana
12-02-2013, 07:57 PM
Actually, that's not the state meet results if everybody uses SS CBEDs. That's just merging results from different heats that were run in different conditions against different competitors.

There is too much importance on competing against the clock in running and not enough on competing against those who actually toe the line.

You are missing the point. Right now, you have much larger SS schools competing against smaller schools from other sections in Divisions I, II and III. When you match the teams against teams of equal size, you get fair competition. The problem is that most sections don't really have true Division I schools which forces Division II and III teams up to higher divisions to even out the competition.

The really sad part is the Central Section which has McFarland competing in Division II when they should be in IV (would McFarland have won all those state championships in higher divisions?) and Clovis North in Division I when they would have had an opportunity to win the Division III girls race.

Joe Wiley
12-02-2013, 08:36 PM
You are missing the point. Right now, you have much larger SS schools competing against smaller schools from other sections in Divisions I, II and III. When you match the teams against teams of equal size, you get fair competition. The problem is that most sections don't really have true Division I schools which forces Division II and III teams up to higher divisions to even out the competition.

The really sad part is the Central Section which has McFarland competing in Division II when they should be in IV (would McFarland have won all those state championships in higher divisions?) and Clovis North in Division I when they would have had an opportunity to win the Division III girls race.

Your point is definitely lost on me. Matching teams/schools of equal size against one another doesn't really have much to do with "fair competition." If that were the case, the collective might of over 300,000,000 US citizens wouldn't get trounced by 5,000,000 Kalenjins.

I understand your line of thinking, but mine is the opposite; I find it "sad" that we can't compete in Division I just because less kids attend our school.

Albert Caruana
12-02-2013, 10:05 PM
Your point is definitely lost on me. Matching teams/schools of equal size against one another doesn't really have much to do with "fair competition." If that were the case, the collective might of over 300,000,000 US citizens wouldn't get trounced by 5,000,000 Kalenjins.

I understand your line of thinking, but mine is the opposite; I find it "sad" that we can't compete in Division I just because less kids attend our school.

So we agree that Division I is the best division because it fields the largest schools. Thank you.

Joe Wiley
12-03-2013, 12:55 AM
So we agree that Division I is the best division because it fields the largest schools. Thank you.

Are you by chance a politician?


What do you suppose it is about increasing a school's population that makes the school better so much more effectively than simply combining smaller schools at a meet to make a larger team to compete against bigger schools.

For instance, how can the 7 kids from Arcadia, with a student population of 3600, beat the entire D5 field of 198 kids from 52 different schools, by a score of 25 (1, 3, 5, 6, 10) - 30 (2, 4, 7, 8, 9)? Arcadia narrowly loses when pitted against the entire D4 field. Maybe it's just the advantage of having more kids to train with? It's obviously not due to overall population, as those 52 schools surely have a combined population that far exceeds Arcadia's.

If it's the strength and depth of the training group that matters, maybe we should be rounding up the neighboring schools and training together once or twice a week? I think that in Iten it's normal for their weekly Fartlek run to start off with several hundred runners.

Remylive
12-03-2013, 05:57 AM
Are you by chance a politician?


What do you suppose it is about increasing a school's population that makes the school better so much more effectively than simply combining smaller schools at a meet to make a larger team to compete against bigger schools.

For instance, how can the 7 kids from Arcadia, with a student population of 3600, beat the entire D5 field of 198 kids from 52 different schools, by a score of 25 (1, 3, 5, 6, 10) - 30 (2, 4, 7, 8, 9)? Arcadia narrowly loses when pitted against the entire D4 field. Maybe it's just the advantage of having more kids to train with? It's obviously not due to overall population, as those 52 schools surely have a combined population that far exceeds Arcadia's.

If it's the strength and depth of the training group that matters, maybe we should be rounding up the neighboring schools and training together once or twice a week? I think that in Iten it's normal for their weekly Fartlek run to start off with several hundred runners.

A school with a higher enrollment doesn't have an advantage over school with a smaller enrollment? Now you're just being ridiculous.

Want to make NXN? Simple solution. Have your athletes run faster.

Joe Wiley
12-03-2013, 09:21 AM
A school with a higher enrollment doesn't have an advantage over school with a smaller enrollment? Now you're just being ridiculous.

Want to make NXN? Simple solution. Have your athletes run faster.

Maybe I'm not the best writer. I wasn't trying to say that higher enrollment isn't an advantage, but that it's only one out of many possible advantages. For instance, St. Patrick's High School in Iten has roughly 500 students and any given year they could field a team that would have a good shot at beating a team combined of all of the roughly 7,500,000 boys that are enrolled in US high schools. Now maybe I'm being ridiculous by cherry picking a school 9500 miles away, but clearly population base isn't the most important factor in running.

Possibly a more appropriate example in the form of a question would be: "Which school has the greater advantage and success 5 years down the line? Take the current DIV school that is ranked 75th in the state and double it's student enrollment. Also, take that same DIV school and keep enrollment numbers the same, but replace the current coach with Coach Paragas." I'll bet on the second school in this scenario to win. :)

We have differences of opinion, hopefully you guys are OK with that. I'd say a team's actual performance has more to do with the merit of "fair competition" than how many classmates they have. Someone mentioned in a recent thread that Football and Basketball divisions are structured based on performance, which sounds nice.

I won't argue with the simplicity of your solution, though: run faster.

cush
12-03-2013, 10:06 AM
Someone mentioned in a recent thread that Football and Basketball divisions are structured based on performance, which sounds nice.

the problem with comparing sports is what works for one will not work for another, and each sport has its own idiosyncrasies, obstacles, and advantages. with sports that require specific skill-sets and/or benefit from huge youth organizations and/or affluence and/or gender/cultural factors, there are going to be huge demographic factors influencing success, so i'm thankful that a school like century in santa ana (where i teach) does not have to play mater dei (also in santa ana, and roughly the same school size) in football or basketball, although they can beat them regularly in soccer. and, while i coached x-c at century, it was probably a given that my boys team was always going to be better than my girls team relative to the county/section/state; however, while my girls were generally going to get crushed at cif, i was glad that the leagues here in oc were generally by strength of athletic programs, so we were reasonably competitive...

cross country, as a relatively non-skill sport where youth involvement is not as big a determiner in success (for every outlier like sarah baxter or austin tamagno, there are many, many others who didn't start running until h.s.), and where affluence is not a huge factor, quite simply it becomes a numbers game. for every exception you can come up with, the odds will dictate that there will be hundreds of teams that prove numbers matter, especially when you need 7 for a team (and you can't underestimate the advantage the best teams have when they run 10-12 deep when injuries and sicknesses occur).

obviously a large school population does not guarantee x-c success, but it's a good place to start; a small school does not mean no chance at success in x-c, but it's a tough hurdle to overcome. as impressive as it is for some of the d3 teams to place in the top 10 merged scores, they are clearly surrounded by a majority of d1/d2 teams for a reason...

xcbreak
12-03-2013, 12:36 PM
There are so many other factors than just the population of schools. Open enrollment and private schools can have a huge advantage in all sports via recruitment. Even if they don't recruit once they have success many parents will seek out those programs for their kids. If anyone thinks that they don't have a huge advantage just watch the D-4 track prelims and finals, it is near impossible for a public school to compete with the likes of Serra, Oaks Christain and St Marys to name a few.

cush
12-03-2013, 12:44 PM
undoubtedly true, but proves my main point: track is clearly different than x-c (for many of the reasons i stated in my earlier post: skill-sets, affluence, etc.), and because of those differences population size in track is NOT the hurdle that it is in x-c...

xcbreak
12-03-2013, 12:53 PM
I agree track is different just using that as an example, but in my case for cross we get athletes from an area 7 miles long and 3 miles wide and we do not accept any transfers, much different than a private school or a school that has open enrollment. No matter how it is done, there will be advantages and disadvantages for programs. Although I would love a private school division for track.

Coach Ibarra
12-05-2013, 01:39 PM
I think the main point is this....if you are a large school your chances of doing well in cross country are greater than if you are a small school. I think this statement is very true in general. You could obviously pick and choose examples of this not being the case but that's all they are, specific examples. I'm sure there is a small team out there somewhere that can put 5 studs on the line and run with anybody. That being said, I would bet anything that most top teams will always be in DI and most lower performing schools will be in D5. Just browse state results year in and year out. The cream of the crop is in the upper divisions...
that being said, we come from CCS where our enrollment figures don't match other sections at all, especially the SS. So, when we get to state we usually face tough odds when we face teams twice or three times our size. Can we beat them? Of course! We placed 2nd at state in 2004 in D2 with 1200 students and 4th at state in D3 in 2003. That being said, I just found out that we will be D4 next year! I am happy as can be! I would much rather race teams our size at state instead of teams we've faced in the past in D3 and D2. I'm sure we will find more success at state just because we are facing schools our size. Not rocket science.
I think that's all Albert was saying. In a sport where we have divisions based on school size, it would make sense to actually race teams our size at a DIVISIONAL STATE MEET! IF we are going to forget school size then yes, let's all run in one big marathon start and let the one team be the champ. McFarland not being able to represent small schools and their section at state is ridiculous! Not sure what the section folks are thinking there...
Coach Ibarra
North Monterey County

Joe Wiley
12-05-2013, 05:50 PM
I think the main point is this....if you are a large school your chances of doing well in cross country are greater than if you are a small school. I think this statement is very true in general. You could obviously pick and choose examples of this not being the case but that's all they are, specific examples. I'm sure there is a small team out there somewhere that can put 5 studs on the line and run with anybody. That being said, I would bet anything that most top teams will always be in DI and most lower performing schools will be in D5. Just browse state results year in and year out. The cream of the crop is in the upper divisions...
that being said, we come from CCS where our enrollment figures don't match other sections at all, especially the SS. So, when we get to state we usually face tough odds when we face teams twice or three times our size. Can we beat them? Of course! We placed 2nd at state in 2004 in D2 with 1200 students and 4th at state in D3 in 2003. That being said, I just found out that we will be D4 next year! I am happy as can be! I would much rather race teams our size at state instead of teams we've faced in the past in D3 and D2. I'm sure we will find more success at state just because we are facing schools our size. Not rocket science.
I think that's all Albert was saying. In a sport where we have divisions based on school size, it would make sense to actually race teams our size at a DIVISIONAL STATE MEET! IF we are going to forget school size then yes, let's all run in one big marathon start and let the one team be the champ. McFarland not being able to represent small schools and their section at state is ridiculous! Not sure what the section folks are thinking there...
Coach Ibarra
North Monterey County

What you are saying makes sense. It isn't logical to have a divisional state meet if the criteria differs from one school/section to another.

What I had issue with most was Albert saying so matter of factly "State Meet results if everybody uses SS CBEDs" followed by a list of merged races that were held at different times of the day against different competitors. As a specific example of what I found to be ridiculous is that the list gives the impression Blake Haney would have beaten Garrett Corcoran.

Even if we pretend such a merged list was accurate, every single divisional team winner stays the same on the boys side. On the girls side Clovis North appears to be the only school that could have potentially challenged for the win if the divisions in the north and south were based on the same enrollment size. So 9 out of 10 teams win just the same. Definitely a bummer for Clovis North if they would have preferred to compete in the DIII race.

1 divisional winner out of 10 may have changed. Do we have any Statistics teachers in the house? What level of confidence could we say that is significant to?

Albert Caruana
12-05-2013, 06:09 PM
I never said the merged results were perfect. There is no question weather had an effect on the later races and I can vouch for that since my boys ran in the last race. You have already stated multiple times that you do not agree with the merged races and that is OK.

For the record, there are other schools that were effected besides the Clovis North girls. De La Salle and Clovis North boys would have had a chance to reach the podium in Division III. McFarland and Bishop O'Dowd boys would have had the opportunity to make the podium in Div. IV and the Bishop O'Dowd girls would have had a chance to make the podium in Division IV.

There are also more teams that were effected that didn't even make the state meet. Teams that would have qualified to state if they ran against teams of the same size.

Joe Wiley
12-06-2013, 01:51 AM
[QUOTE=Albert Caruana;1829]I never said the merged results were perfect. There is no question weather had an effect on the later races and I can vouch for that since my boys ran in the last race. You have already stated multiple times that you do not agree with the merged races and that is OK.

For the record, there are other schools that were effected besides the Clovis North girls. De La Salle and Clovis North boys would have had a chance to reach the podium in Division III. McFarland and Bishop O'Dowd boys would have had the opportunity to make the podium in Div. IV and the Bishop O'Dowd girls would have had a chance to make the podium in Division IV.

There are also more teams that were effected that didn't even make the state meet. Teams that would have qualified to state if they ran against teams of the same size.[/QUOTE

With the merged-results-if-everybody-uses-SS-CBEDs there are a total of 23 spots opened up for teams that could be added to the D1 and D2 races. However, 22 of the teams in the D3 and D4 races would have had to stay home. In D5, there was only one team too many on the boys side and one too few on the girls.

Based on the SS CBED Merge here is some data for % of each section's teams in top half of the results:

33% 07/21 - Central
34% 10/29 - Central Coast
00% 00/04 - Los Angeles
58% 21/36 - North Coast
20% 02/10 - Northern
00% 00/02 - Oakland
28% 07/25 - Sac-Joaquin
19% 06/31 - San Diego
00% 00/02 - San Francisco
85% 60/70 - Southern Section

If I'm interpreting the results correctly and this years' results are typical this indicates that the state meet is not an accurate representation of the best teams in California from first through last place. The podiums wouldn't change, of course, but it appears there are a lot of berths being gifted that aren't deserved if the state meet is supposed to be for the best of the best. Ideally, each section would have 50% of their teams in the top half of the results and 50% in the bottom half. For that to happen, it looks like the Southern Section would need an additional 50 berths and the North Coast section an additional 6 berths. Of course those 56 berths would come at the expense of the other sections.

Maybe these results just indicate the SS CBEDS range from minimum to maximum is too much in D3 and D4?

yesstiles
12-06-2013, 01:02 PM
But Joe, remember the goal of the State Meet, as has always been stated by CIF, is to have the top teams from the different regions of the state come together to compete, not simply the top teams in the state. That policy affected my boys team directly this year, who would have without a doubt placed in the top 10 at State had they been there, but CIF's goal is not to have the State Meet taken up by all SS teams, but instead to allow every area of the State to have their best teams compete there.

Joe Wiley
12-06-2013, 03:55 PM
But Joe, remember the goal of the State Meet, as has always been stated by CIF, is to have the top teams from the different regions of the state come together to compete, not simply the top teams in the state. That policy affected my boys team directly this year, who would have without a doubt placed in the top 10 at State had they been there, but CIF's goal is not to have the State Meet taken up by all SS teams, but instead to allow every area of the State to have their best teams compete there.

I'm new to the game and didn't realize that was the goal of CIF for cross country.

Looking at this further I understand better why Albert would be frustrated with the CBEDs. They don't make much sense, do they? It's difficult to find charts online, but so far I did find this article with some numbers charted.
http://www.cifns.org/AM/bom11-12/11October19/FC_CrossCountyDivisionalProposal_FederatedCouncil. pdf

On the fourth page there are CBEDs listed for D1 - 5 for CCS, NCS, SJS, SDS and SS.

The rate at which each division gets larger is neither consistent from one section to another or even within each section. The caps are 500 for D5 and 1250 for D4 I believe, then it's up to each section. For instance, the SS is as follows...
D5 0001-0500
D4 0501-1250 (150% increase for maximum enrollment vs D5)
D3 1251-2159 (73% increase vs D4)
D2 2160-2639 (22% increase vs D3)
D1 2640+

A more organic increase would be something like a 61.8% increase for each division. (Golden Spiral for the Golden State, seems fitting.)
D5 0001-0500
D4 0501-0809
D3 0810-1309
D2 1310-2118
D1 2119-3426+

Any ideas how the state meet results look based on merges using those enrollment figures? You know, weather and all that aside...

xcbreak
12-07-2013, 06:45 AM
What about adding a 6th division (aka an open division). Teams from any Division could be granted in and only those would have a chance to compete at Nationals.

Tony DiMarco
12-07-2013, 12:14 PM
If the goal is to have every section represented... Here's my idea, each section gets one automatic birth to the state meet in each division. After that, the rest of the field is based on times or rankings or whatever, run at their sectional finals or performances throughout the season. I'm sure this would be the part that would get the most debate... but I'm pretty sure there is a standard measurement that Rich has used for each course.

Every section is then represented and also the top teams are represented as well. Instead of the Southern Section only getting 7 teams... it's possible to get up to 14 teams...

10 sections = 10 automatic teams plus 13 At-large teams

Habadoo
12-07-2013, 02:26 PM
I think it works as is. However, I do think all sections should compete in divisions based off enrollment.

Coach Barnes
12-08-2013, 10:42 AM
There is no simple fix. The current system is by far the best it has ever been and probably should not be changed. Although it is true that each section may distribute their divisions as they see fit, it works for each section. The greater problem is and always will be in the composition of the ten sections. Until there is a change in the sections themselves there will always be some teams left out. The Southern Section (SS) is far too large in comparison. Other sections are gaining in size and beginning feel the pressure and competitiveness that this creates. But certainly the SS Finals is in its own right equivalent, not necessarily better (although some would argue better), than most other State Meet Finals. A sixth division is a great idea and overdue, but with the similar structure as we already have in place. Many other sports are now enjoying more than 5 divisions. As for attempting to go back to using polls or comparing courses, please let's not go back to that system. It had many flaws. Our state is much too large and can have varying conditions from year to year or Section to Section, even they use the same course each year. It is great that we can all discuss this here, but true change needs to start with making the Sections themselves more equal in size. Unfortunately, due to many reasons, this is not likely to happen any time soon. So if you are in the SS enjoy the level of competitiveness and success of all our runners as a section and bask in the glory of it all as it raises the quality of all our performances. :)

Hal Harkness
12-08-2013, 12:01 PM
The same division concept for the entire state was the way enrollment based playoffs were conducted until the "flex" system was adopted several years ago.

The "same" idea ruins section level championships and the "flex" idea impacts state championships. No one section under the "same" formula is evenly balanced numerically in each of the five divisions making their number in schools in each divisions totally out of wack with each other. The "flex" idea was incorporated to allow sections to better align their divisions numerically for section championships. Under CIF governance structure, you can't get it right both ways. Value judgement as to which is more important, currently toward the sections, not the state.

Joe Wiley
12-08-2013, 01:14 PM
The same division concept for the entire state was the way enrollment based playoffs were conducted until the "flex" system was adopted several years ago.

The "same" idea ruins section level championships and the "flex" idea impacts state championships. No one section under the "same" formula is evenly balanced numerically in each of the five divisions making their number in schools in each divisions totally out of wack with each other. The "flex" idea was incorporated to allow sections to better align their divisions numerically for section championships. Under CIF governance structure, you can't get it right both ways. Value judgement as to which is more important, currently toward the sections, not the state.

That makes sense. What if State had a "flex" idea as well? For instance, schools qualify for state as they currently do within their division and section. Then at state the divisions are as follows...

D1 - The 23 schools with the largest enrollment figures
D2 - 24 - 46 largest enrollment
D3 - 47 - 69
D4 - 70 - 92
D5 - 93 - 115

RichEde
12-08-2013, 09:12 PM
That makes sense. What if State had a "flex" idea as well? For instance, schools qualify for state as they currently do within their division and section. Then at state the divisions are as follows...



Interesting concept. It seems to be somewhat is done in soccer regionals and football state bowls. The logistics could be manageable. The main drawback I can see is not knowing in which division you will be competing until all sections have finalized their entries. Selling the concept to the media (at least that part that doesn't perk up until section and state meets) could be difficult, and it really does not address those (both of them) who see the state meet as just a NXN qualifier.

Coach Ibarra
12-09-2013, 09:40 AM
That makes sense. What if State had a "flex" idea as well? For instance, schools qualify for state as they currently do within their division and section. Then at state the divisions are as follows...

D1 - The 23 schools with the largest enrollment figures
D2 - 24 - 46 largest enrollment
D3 - 47 - 69
D4 - 70 - 92
D5 - 93 - 115

Joe,
You are the man! I think that is a GREAT idea!! Let the sections do whatever they wish at that level and then line up with schools more our size at state...
I'm sure someone would find a way to block this idea but I love it...
Coach Ibarra
NMC

Matt Rainwater
12-09-2013, 10:45 AM
NXN is yet to be the tail that wags the dog in California but that may change. By placing decision making roles on key players in our arena Nike may eventually lead a change in the way that our post season is conducted. I think the key thing to recognize is that we don't have the power to implement change or have our suggestions for change considered (even when our opinions are solicited). The powers-to-be often favor tradition over the evolution of our sport. As Coach Barns said, we need to reconfigure the sections, SS is way to large and the city sections are a joke. After a reconfiguration it would make sense to change the championship format and season. I like Coach Wiley's suggestion of dividing the participants at State based on the schools that qualify and then have a true State Championship/NXN qualifier a week later. As for qualifying for NXN in the near future, Nike should consider adopting a time adjustment based on temperature. I know that this year at State DI and DII schools had more favorable weather because they just got the luck of the draw. In the future DI will be the last race of the day and that will drastically influence which teams make it to NXN.

Think of all of the time/mark adjustments for NCAA DII indoor Nationals (this may be true for other big meets as well). They have adjustments for elevation, distance of the race, size of track, flat v. banked in order to field the best DII athletes in the nation.

Matt

Joe Wiley
12-09-2013, 11:10 AM
I think the key thing to recognize is that we don't have the power to implement change or have our suggestions for change considered (even when our opinions are solicited). The powers-to-be often favor tradition over the evolution of our sport.

Matt

I know you're fond of quotes...

ďHereís to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. Theyíre not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify and vilify them. About the only thing you canít do is ignore them because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as crazy, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.Ē

Personally, I like the Freudian slip of "powers-TO-be" you threw out there versus the typical "powers-that-be". Clearly you have a little crazy in you.

Walt Lange
12-10-2013, 06:40 PM
Coach Ibarra and others,

You may have not noticed this thread in the California Coaches forum: " Fantasy Cross Country!" Some of us have been doing what Joe proposes for several years. Here's the post:

It’s that time of year again: Fantasy Cross Country!

Haven’t heard of it? It’s been really popular in certain parts of our state for just about five years!

Here’s how it works: take the state meet team entries and their enrollment numbers, sort them by enrollment, then divide them into five equal divisions (kind of like most Sections do for their own championships!).

When the real meet results are published, see how different the podium looks using the fantasy starting list! It’s amazing!

It really is fun to play!

Look! Someone has already created the fantasy starting list for the boys’ teams!

http://tinyurl.com/lqk8o5c

The Sac-Joaquin Section put forth a proposal (if not last year, then the year before) to raise the number of divisions to 6. The thinking was that the SS would buy in, and it would somewhat alleviate the present imbalances. The measure, I believe, received exactly one vote.

I see what I call "re-shuffling the deck" as another way to address the problem. Seems like that's what most sections do anyway (except Central), but they do it a 2 months prior to their section meets, not the week of.

--Walt

Albert Caruana
12-10-2013, 06:48 PM
Here is the proposal for a 6th division.
http://www.cifns.org/AM/bom11-12/11October19/FC_CrossCountyDivisionalProposal_FederatedCouncil. pdf

Coach Ibarra
12-10-2013, 07:20 PM
Coach Ibarra and others,

You may have not noticed this thread in the California Coaches forum: " Fantasy Cross Country!" Some of us have been doing what Joe proposes for several years. Here's the post:

Itís that time of year again: Fantasy Cross Country!

Havenít heard of it? Itís been really popular in certain parts of our state for just about five years!

Hereís how it works: take the state meet team entries and their enrollment numbers, sort them by enrollment, then divide them into five equal divisions (kind of like most Sections do for their own championships!).

When the real meet results are published, see how different the podium looks using the fantasy starting list! Itís amazing!

It really is fun to play!

Look! Someone has already created the fantasy starting list for the boysí teams!

http://tinyurl.com/lqk8o5c

The Sac-Joaquin Section put forth a proposal (if not last year, then the year before) to raise the number of divisions to 6. The thinking was that the SS would buy in, and it would somewhat alleviate the present imbalances. The measure, I believe, received exactly one vote.

I see what I call "re-shuffling the deck" as another way to address the problem. Seems like that's what most sections do anyway (except Central), but they do it a 2 months prior to their section meets, not the week of.

--Walt

Walt,
Love it! We should start making fantasy plaques to hand out ;)