Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Time for changes??

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    171

    Time for changes??

    Is it time to evaluate some changes in track and field?

    I contend that there are at least 2 areas where change is needed with Southern Section track and field:

    1) There is a need for a 5th division in track. The sheer number of schools competing in the Southern Section is enormous. Track and Field only has 4 divisions for all of these schools. Even cross country has 5 divisions! Don't even get me started on the number of divisions for Football, Basketball, Baseball etc.!!
    - This would add 2 more heats to the CIF Finals meet in each laned race and another set of field events to get through. I know it can be problematic but i am sure that there can be a solution worked out.

    2) Expand the Masters meet to 18 competitors in each event. Every division winner advances and then the next 13 to bring the field up to 18 total.

    I think these need to be considered at least to better represent the Southern Section athletes.

    Just a lowly former D3 coach's opinion.
    Keith Chann
    Chemistry teacher
    XC Fan
    Rubidoux High School

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Chann View Post
    Is it time to evaluate some changes in track and field?

    I contend that there are at least 2 areas where change is needed with Southern Section track and field:

    1) There is a need for a 5th division in track. The sheer number of schools competing in the Southern Section is enormous. Track and Field only has 4 divisions for all of these schools. Even cross country has 5 divisions! Don't even get me started on the number of divisions for Football, Basketball, Baseball etc.!!
    - This would add 2 more heats to the CIF Finals meet in each laned race and another set of field events to get through. I know it can be problematic but i am sure that there can be a solution worked out.

    2) Expand the Masters meet to 18 competitors in each event. Every division winner advances and then the next 13 to bring the field up to 18 total.

    I think these need to be considered at least to better represent the Southern Section athletes.

    Just a lowly former D3 coach's opinion.
    i'm not sure for the laned races; how would you manage two heats of the 100? an "a" and "b" heat? what if the "b" heat goes faster?

    even if you did not expand the meet to 18 for distance and kept it at 12, i'd still like to see it include division champs. distance races are clearly impacted by competition (or lack of), so time requirements are extremely tough for division 4 athletes in distances (except for the 3200, where they do combine heats) where competitive depth cannot compare to the other divisions. including division champs would really only negatively impact one athlete most of the time, since d1/2/3 individual champs usually go on time anyway.

    at the least, if i were a division 3 or 4 coach, i'd argue to reverse the order. the division 4 athletes should at least have the advantage of knowing exactly what they need to run--the d1 athletes get the double advantage of competitive depth (of course this is a disadvantage at times, too) AND knowing what the prior divisions have run.

    that's my story and i'm sticking to it...
    cush

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    6
    Agreed!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Big Bear Lake
    Posts
    75
    I'd also suggest 6 Divisions for XC, as it gets more and more amazingly competitive here. And in track, allow 12 instead of 9 individuals to advance from CIF-SS Prelims to Finals in the non-laned and field events. Didn't they use to do that anyway?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by yesstiles View Post
    And in track, allow 12 instead of 9 individuals to advance from CIF-SS Prelims to Finals in the non-laned and field events. Didn't they use to do that anyway?
    Since CIF Finals are team-scored, advancing more athletes in some events and not others could create a team imbalance for scoring purposes (and no, the 12 advancers in non-laned events appplies from Finals to Masters.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Palos Verdes
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by RichEde View Post
    Since CIF Finals are team-scored, advancing more athletes in some events and not others could create a team imbalance for scoring purposes (and no, the 12 advancers in non-laned events appplies from Finals to Masters.
    And yet the State meet is team scored, with some events advancing 12 and some events 9. Given that points are awarded to the top 8 places, it shouldn't really matter if there are 9, 12, 18, etc contestants.


    As others have mentioned, I would contend that all CIF divisional event champions should advance to the Masters meet.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    91
    As far as cross country goes, there should definitely be another division and it should be an open division. They have open divisions in many other sports where the best teams face each other. Since California is an NXN qualifying region, this would pit the best teams against each other so that no teams have an advantage of running earlier in the day under presumably better conditions.
    Albert Caruana
    Crystal Springs Uplands School

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Big Bear Lake
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by RichEde View Post
    no, the 12 advancers in non-laned events appplies from Finals to Masters.
    I know that, but I could swear it used to be 12 to Finals some years back. I know other Sections in CIF advance 12 to Finals in the non-laned and field events.

Posting Permissions

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