Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: State XC meet divisions need to be adjusted

  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Charlie please read again. I stated that we have "near 600 schools". We presently have 575 member schools in our section and yes I admit not all field XC teams. As for qualifying, I see that indeed you would be competitive against the Southern Section teams and probably place higher against DIII schools. But there is no guarantee of getting out of our section due to the competitiveness. Reshuffling after qualifying is simply not acceptable or fair, as this may put too many teams on the line for a specific race. It is far simpler and easier to do this before your sections qualifying meet. Why wait until after and expect the state to sort it out, when the section can do it themselves.

  2. #12
    My apologies Anthony, I was looking at just XC teams, and probably didn't count unreported enrollment schools in D5. I agree it would be very competitive, but last year anyways, think we could have made it out in the top 7, it would certainly be a fun challenge!

    I still find it hard to believe it is that unfair when after reshuffling it moves teams closer together in enrollment sizes (especially for D2). When I did it to test, I just sorted from smallest school to the largest, and went down the column creating field sizes of 24, then depending on how big the schools were left in D1 and D2 I made field sizes from 18 to 24 with Class A (D1) being the smallest. (Most total teams in 2011-13 for 5 divisions were about 112-115 teams). The "classes" were not created with any particular enrollment range in mind, just taking whoever qualified and then arranging as described. Like I mentioned before, it is sort of like a time qualification because statistically larger schools, or at least schools from like size enrollment, will have faster times than smaller groups, so you're pairing by ability, as you would in practice with groups of kids. I agree you do not want to have too large of a field.

    I also think folks in SS are having a difficult time accepting the challenge it is for sections to just not have D1 teams. It is not far simpler and easier to do so. That argument for why it isn't has been made and is valid IMO.

  3. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    I do see your point and how it works. I have another suggestion. It's not new, but would be helpful to all. A sixth division. This would help many throughout the state, especially those in divisions 2 and 3 right now. It has been a while since we added a division, but with increased schools and population across the state it is overdue. Check the numbers and see how this might help everyone. Hal I know it's been talked about for years, but what are the chances?

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    231
    Zero

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    That's what I thought. Thanks. Silly in that many other sports have at least 6 divisions now. Not complaining about you. I know you continue to be a great voice and helpful to us all. Thank you very much Hal for all that you do. It is greatly appreciated.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    231
    Thank you for the kind words. The section meets vs state meet in cross country is a perplexing problem. To adequately fix equity on one side, the other gets totally screwed up..either way. Rearranging entries/divisions on the fly will never be approved as there needs to be active participation by section commissioners or their assistants as they ultimately responsible for who their section sends to state championship events. The other is the time frame on what is Thanksgiving week ahead with three working days which leave no time to do anything with entries, names, etc. as the process for the program, bibs, chips and packets has to begin on Sunday afternoon and has to be finished before the end of the day on Wednesday.

  7. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    You are most welcome.

  8. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    11
    "put them where there enrollment would naturally place them"

    Doesn't this assume that the Southern Section divisional breakdown is the natural placement? Why is that?

    Another method would be to take all the teams in the state with teams and divide them into 5 equal enrollment divisions. I have no idea if that would coincide with the SS breakdown or not, but it might be a more "natural" placement.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    231
    It has nothing to do the SS Divisions. It is assumed that D1 will be made up with very, very large schools. If your enrollment doesn't match those numbers, don't enter D1. What's so hard about that? Breaking the State down to five equal divisions totally wipes out section equality. Name one section that has schools that fall anywhere equally over 5 divisions? Why in section competition should division x have 70 schools and division y have 10. Where is the logic in that? There is no simple solution that both serves the section championships and the state meet.

Posting Permissions

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