Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: State Meet results if everybody uses SS CBEDs

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Laguna Beach
    Posts
    10
    I think it works as is. However, I do think all sections should compete in divisions based off enrollment.
    Last edited by Habadoo; 12-08-2013 at 09:09 PM.

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    231
    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.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal Harkness View Post
    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

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Wiley View Post
    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.

  6. #26

    Joe for President!

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Wiley View Post
    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

  7. #27
    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

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Rainwater View Post
    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...

    “Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re 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 can’t 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.”

    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.

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    11
    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

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    91
    Here is the proposal for a 6th division.
    http://www.cifns.org/AM/bom11-12/11O...tedCouncil.pdf
    Albert Caruana
    Crystal Springs Uplands School

Posting Permissions

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