Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: State Meet results if everybody uses SS CBEDs

  1. #11
    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...
    Last edited by cush; 12-03-2013 at 01:49 PM.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Laguna Beach
    Posts
    31
    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.
    Scott Wittkop
    Laguna Beach High School
    Head Boys Cross Country
    Head Boys Track & Field

  3. #13
    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

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach Ibarra View Post
    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?

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    91
    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.
    Albert Caruana
    Crystal Springs Uplands School

  6. #16
    [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?

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Big Bear Lake
    Posts
    75
    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.
    Last edited by yesstiles; 12-06-2013 at 04:14 PM.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by yesstiles View Post
    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/bom11-12/11O...tedCouncil.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...
    Last edited by Joe Wiley; 12-06-2013 at 05:19 PM.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Laguna Beach
    Posts
    31
    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.
    Scott Wittkop
    Laguna Beach High School
    Head Boys Cross Country
    Head Boys Track & Field

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Whittier, California, United States
    Posts
    73
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •