South Carolina qualifing for state meet
05/06/2018 1:36:28 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 39
The qualifing meet process to get into the state meet is Just stupid. We wasted our entire Saturday to go to a meet that is not scored. It would make much more sense to just take the top 8 from lower state And upper state ranking to the state meet State qualifing meets is a waste of time and money Use rankings to set the state meet. Plus the state meet is supposed to be about the best competing fo a state title the current plan doesn't even allow the best to make the state meet A really terrible qualifing process SCHSL has this all wrong.
The qualifing meet process to get into the state meet is
Just stupid.
We wasted our entire Saturday to go to a meet that is not scored.
It would make much more sense to just take the top 8 from lower state
And upper state ranking to the state meet

State qualifing meets is a waste of time and money
Use rankings to set the state meet.

Plus the state meet is supposed to be about the best competing fo a state title the current plan doesn't even allow the best to make the state meet

A really terrible qualifing process
SCHSL has this all wrong.
05/07/2018 6:53:06 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
In my opinion, they should go to a set of qualifying standards/times. That way you'd get the fastest kids in the state regardless of where they live. For example, this past week's state qualifier had 4 kids from the upstate running the 1600m about 2 minutes faster than the lower state kids that qualified, while probably 8-10 more from the upstate that run significantly faster are left out.
In my opinion, they should go to a set of qualifying standards/times. That way you'd get the fastest kids in the state regardless of where they live. For example, this past week's state qualifier had 4 kids from the upstate running the 1600m about 2 minutes faster than the lower state kids that qualified, while probably 8-10 more from the upstate that run significantly faster are left out.
05/07/2018 11:27:32 AM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 1
This was my first time at a qualifying meet in my 25 years of coaching. Before Saturday, I was 100% for an upperstate/lowerstate format. After Saturday, I am for the qualifying meet. Yes it is a long drive from Chesnee to Columbia back to back weekends but the qualifying meet gives us the top 8 at state. I would not mind qualifying standards for making it to a qualifying meet then narrow down the top 8 for the state meet.
This was my first time at a qualifying meet in my 25 years of coaching. Before Saturday, I was 100% for an upperstate/lowerstate format. After Saturday, I am for the qualifying meet. Yes it is a long drive from Chesnee to Columbia back to back weekends but the qualifying meet gives us the top 8 at state. I would not mind qualifying standards for making it to a qualifying meet then narrow down the top 8 for the state meet.
05/07/2018 1:01:03 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 1
I agree. The way it is set up right now only works if the regions are balanced. Runners ranked in the top 10 of their division in the state were left out of the qualifier this past weekend because their regions are fast. I'm sure all solutions have their cons, but there has to be a better way.
I agree. The way it is set up right now only works if the regions are balanced. Runners ranked in the top 10 of their division in the state were left out of the qualifier this past weekend because their regions are fast. I'm sure all solutions have their cons, but there has to be a better way.
05/07/2018 1:57:18 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 41
Rankings are absolutely useless to determine who gets to State Meet. Look at the rankings and then see when some of the top performances were achieved. Many were at the same early season meets and never achieved again. So someone who has a suspect time should advance to State Meet. Absolutely not. We currently use a playoff system; either with one qualifying meet or separate Upper and Lower State Meets. The participants at these meets qualified out from their region meets. Either way is ok. There has been discussion to use a performance standard to qualify to the State qualifier, what ever type a classification uses. But there would still be head to head competition for the 8 slots in the State Meet. Simply using a time from any meet during the season to get into the State Meet is , to put it mildly, a horrible idea and would result in all types of , well, for lack of a nice way of sayint it, LYING. But I do have one question, what is the particular burr under you saddle about the current system? What has suddenly caused this emotional outburst of criticism of the current system? Inquiring minds want to know
Rankings are absolutely useless to determine who gets to State Meet. Look at the rankings and then see when some of the top performances were achieved. Many were at the same early season meets and never achieved again. So someone who has a suspect time should advance to State Meet. Absolutely not. We currently use a playoff system; either with one qualifying meet or separate Upper and Lower State Meets. The participants at these meets qualified out from their region meets. Either way is ok. There has been discussion to use a performance standard to qualify to the State qualifier, what ever type a classification uses. But there would still be head to head competition for the 8 slots in the State Meet. Simply using a time from any meet during the season to get into the State Meet is , to put it mildly, a horrible idea and would result in all types of , well, for lack of a nice way of sayint it, LYING.
But I do have one question, what is the particular burr under you saddle about the current system? What has suddenly caused this emotional outburst of criticism of the current system?
Inquiring minds want to know
05/07/2018 9:19:35 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 39
to be honest everything about South Carolina high school league get under my skin. It is so unfriendly toward track and field And the qualifing process for the state meet is a terrible system I would have no problem with the process if the set auto qualifiers for the state meet Good way would be same system as now but allow in athlete who gets qualifing marks automatically makes it in the state meet. Auto qualifier should be 4th place mark from previous years state meet and have to be done in a meet with 10 or more schools. This would allow the best kids to make the state meet. Then lastly the schl should allow indoor track so athletes in sc have a fair playing field with other states Our athletes barely get into shape before track season is over.
to be honest everything about South Carolina high school league get under my skin.
It is so unfriendly toward track and field
And the qualifing process for the state meet is a terrible system
I would have no problem with the process if the set auto qualifiers for the state meet

Good way would be same system as now but allow in athlete who gets qualifing marks automatically makes it in the state meet.

Auto qualifier should be 4th place mark from previous years state meet and have to be done in a meet with 10 or more schools.

This would allow the best kids to make the state meet.

Then lastly the schl should allow indoor track so athletes in sc have a fair playing field with other states
Our athletes barely get into shape before track season is over.
05/07/2018 10:33:13 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
@1throwsman Here's my problem with it: Take Region 1-2A 1600m for example: only the top 4 qualify, and 4th place ran a 5:34. The next 6 girls ran under 6:30, but didn't qualify to move on. Instead, you had 17 kids with slower times from different regions qualify. Does that make sense? How about the 3200m from the same region? The top 4 were under 12:47. Places 5-9 who didn't qualify were under 15:25. Instead, 9 kids with much slower times qualified. How about the 800m? Top 4 were under 2:31. 5 thru 15 were all under 3:00, but didn't qualify. Instead, 8 slower kids qualified out of other regions. The same times/results are examples in the boys too but I'm not going to bore you with more stats. If you don't see an issue with this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The point of the playoffs/state meets should be to get kids in the championship meets that can compete and make for races where all 8 kids could win or come close. Come watch Saturday's 2A meet and tell me if you see that.
@1throwsman Here's my problem with it:
Take Region 1-2A 1600m for example: only the top 4 qualify, and 4th place ran a 5:34. The next 6 girls ran under 6:30, but didn't qualify to move on. Instead, you had 17 kids with slower times from different regions qualify. Does that make sense?
How about the 3200m from the same region? The top 4 were under 12:47. Places 5-9 who didn't qualify were under 15:25. Instead, 9 kids with much slower times qualified.
How about the 800m? Top 4 were under 2:31. 5 thru 15 were all under 3:00, but didn't qualify. Instead, 8 slower kids qualified out of other regions.
The same times/results are examples in the boys too but I'm not going to bore you with more stats. If you don't see an issue with this, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The point of the playoffs/state meets should be to get kids in the championship meets that can compete and make for races where all 8 kids could win or come close. Come watch Saturday's 2A meet and tell me if you see that.
05/08/2018 7:08:42 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 41
To knnmcdaniel Many of the points you bring up have been lamented and discussed for many yers. Attempts have been made to have automatic qualifiers to the qualifier meets, but not the state meet. The general concensus has always been that head to head should be best for qualifying to states. Several proposals have been made over the years to allow for auto qualifiers to the qualifying meets. The HSL will never change the format of the State Meet. There has been a proposal to have 16 qualifiers to the State Meet, but it too, has been defeated at the League level. I have personally worked on, with others, standards for the auto qualifiers. Not enough ability to think what could be rather than maintaining what is. Indoor track is another matter. There is absolutely no logical reason for not having indoor track. Both USC and Clemson have indoor facilities, with others not far away in NC. We use to go to indoor meets, but the current regime does not allow it. We could talk a long time about the inconsistencies in how the league allows new sports to start. Hopefully indoor will be allowed in the future. Appreciate the thoughts and comments; now if you are not already involved with the Track and CC Coaches' Assoc., get involved. It is through that organization that suggestions are made to the League pertaining to changes in our sport.
To knnmcdaniel
Many of the points you bring up have been lamented and discussed for many yers. Attempts have been made to have automatic qualifiers to the qualifier meets, but not the state meet. The general concensus has always been that head to head should be best for qualifying to states. Several proposals have been made over the years to allow for auto qualifiers to the qualifying meets. The HSL will never change the format of the State Meet. There has been a proposal to have 16 qualifiers to the State Meet, but it too, has been defeated at the League level. I have personally worked on, with others, standards for the auto qualifiers. Not enough ability to think what could be rather than maintaining what is.
Indoor track is another matter. There is absolutely no logical reason for not having indoor track. Both USC and Clemson have indoor facilities, with others not far away in NC. We use to go to indoor meets, but the current regime does not allow it.
We could talk a long time about the inconsistencies in how the league allows new sports to start. Hopefully indoor will be allowed in the future.
Appreciate the thoughts and comments; now if you are not already involved with the Track and CC Coaches' Assoc., get involved. It is through that organization that suggestions are made to the League pertaining to changes in our sport.
05/08/2018 8:58:42 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 94
I like the idea of having automatic qualifying standards to advance to the state qualifier. You could still advance a certain number from each region, but if someone meets a certain standard they should be allowed to compete at the qualifier. For example, this year a 5' 2" jump wasn't enough to advance in girls high jump out of region 4, yet 5' 0" is what made it to state. I do think that in order to advance to state, it should be based on your performance at the qualifier and not based on a performance from earlier in the season. Also, I support sending 16 to the state meet. I feel like you should have to compete to score points and not just show up. Just curious if anyone knows why the SCHSL has rejected the proposal of sending 16 to state?
I like the idea of having automatic qualifying standards to advance to the state qualifier. You could still advance a certain number from each region, but if someone meets a certain standard they should be allowed to compete at the qualifier. For example, this year a 5' 2" jump wasn't enough to advance in girls high jump out of region 4, yet 5' 0" is what made it to state. I do think that in order to advance to state, it should be based on your performance at the qualifier and not based on a performance from earlier in the season. Also, I support sending 16 to the state meet. I feel like you should have to compete to score points and not just show up.

Just curious if anyone knows why the SCHSL has rejected the proposal of sending 16 to state?
05/08/2018 9:12:53 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 2
I'm not totally sold on automatic qualifiers. Why yes it is unfortunate that an athlete that placed say 5th in their region meet does not make it to the State Qualifying meet, that athlete just placed 5th in the most important meet of the season thus far. If you can't place in the top four for the region meet, why should anyone expect to see that change at the qualifier. Unfortunately just like any other post season format, once you lose you are out. Just like in any other sport, a bracket may allow for a weaker team or individual to advance farther than a stronger team or individual based on how the bracket is set up. Track and Field is no different. My argument would be if you are good enough to go to the state meet, you should be good enough to place in the top 4 in your region. If you can't crack the top four, than there is little to suggest you would place inside that top four in any future meet as well.
I'm not totally sold on automatic qualifiers. Why yes it is unfortunate that an athlete that placed say 5th in their region meet does not make it to the State Qualifying meet, that athlete just placed 5th in the most important meet of the season thus far. If you can't place in the top four for the region meet, why should anyone expect to see that change at the qualifier. Unfortunately just like any other post season format, once you lose you are out. Just like in any other sport, a bracket may allow for a weaker team or individual to advance farther than a stronger team or individual based on how the bracket is set up. Track and Field is no different. My argument would be if you are good enough to go to the state meet, you should be good enough to place in the top 4 in your region. If you can't crack the top four, than there is little to suggest you would place inside that top four in any future meet as well.
05/08/2018 10:12:46 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 21
5th place boy in 3200 in region 3 5A ran 9:58. That didn't qualify because he had to be top 4 but his time would've given him the 8th best seed time at the 5A Qualifier. That isn't good enough in your opinion? That doesn't make sense. At the Qualifier, 9:57 was the 8th place time to make it to State...just pointing that out. No way someone can say it's fair that a 9:58 kid at his region meet is sitting in the stands at the Qualifier. What about requiring each region to have automatic timing. Take top 3 in each region and then next best 8 from any region, based on marks at region meet. That's your auto qualifiers and it's at the region meet, not an early meet. 8 regions so that would give you 24 advancing by place and 8 by performance.
5th place boy in 3200 in region 3 5A ran 9:58. That didn't qualify because he had to be top 4 but his time would've given him the 8th best seed time at the 5A Qualifier. That isn't good enough in your opinion? That doesn't make sense. At the Qualifier, 9:57 was the 8th place time to make it to State...just pointing that out. No way someone can say it's fair that a 9:58 kid at his region meet is sitting in the stands at the Qualifier. What about requiring each region to have automatic timing. Take top 3 in each region and then next best 8 from any region, based on marks at region meet. That's your auto qualifiers and it's at the region meet, not an early meet. 8 regions so that would give you 24 advancing by place and 8 by performance.
05/08/2018 10:55:58 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 94
When the 5th and 6th place girls in region 4 jump higher at their region meet than the 8th place qualifier at state qualifier (and would have come into state qualifier as the number 7 and 8 seeds) then yeah, I think there is a reasonable chance that one or both could have advanced to state given the opportunity. The difference between this sport and football/baseball/basketball, etc. is that we have the ability to structure our qualifying procedures to ensure we get the best athletes competing in the post season. We already made some adjustments by allowing regions with more teams to advance more athletes to qualifier. So when 2 girls that jump 5-2 don’t make it to the qualifier, but girls that jump 4-4 make it, then I think some adjustments could be made. Another example is from the boys 3200 in region 3 where the 5th place finisher ran sub 10 but did not make it out of the region. He would have been seeded 8th overall at SQ had he been allowed to compete as he had the 8th fastest time out of all the region meets. Of course, none of these athletes would have been guaranteed to qualify for state, but I think their performances at their region meets earned them the right to compete for one. To be clear, I do not think athletes should be able to automatically qualify to the state meet from performances during the season, and I believe any automatic qualifier to advance to SQ should come from the region meet. Also, I think any qualifying standard should be fairly strict so that we increase the level of competition and not water it down. (One reason why I am not in favor of expanding the individual qualifiers for XC, but that is another topic) ETA: Just saw that Urban posted the example from region 3.
When the 5th and 6th place girls in region 4 jump higher at their region meet than the 8th place qualifier at state qualifier (and would have come into state qualifier as the number 7 and 8 seeds) then yeah, I think there is a reasonable chance that one or both could have advanced to state given the opportunity. The difference between this sport and football/baseball/basketball, etc. is that we have the ability to structure our qualifying procedures to ensure we get the best athletes competing in the post season. We already made some adjustments by allowing regions with more teams to advance more athletes to qualifier. So when 2 girls that jump 5-2 don't make it to the qualifier, but girls that jump 4-4 make it, then I think some adjustments could be made. Another example is from the boys 3200 in region 3 where the 5th place finisher ran sub 10 but did not make it out of the region. He would have been seeded 8th overall at SQ had he been allowed to compete as he had the 8th fastest time out of all the region meets. Of course, none of these athletes would have been guaranteed to qualify for state, but I think their performances at their region meets earned them the right to compete for one.

To be clear, I do not think athletes should be able to automatically qualify to the state meet from performances during the season, and I believe any automatic qualifier to advance to SQ should come from the region meet. Also, I think any qualifying standard should be fairly strict so that we increase the level of competition and not water it down. (One reason why I am not in favor of expanding the individual qualifiers for XC, but that is another topic)

ETA: Just saw that Urban posted the example from region 3.
05/08/2018 3:06:50 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
@pcanter33 The argument that if you're not good enough to finish top 4 in your region, you're not good enough to go to state is bogus. So you're telling me that a kid running a 7:15 1600m and finishing 3rd in their region is more deserving and has a better shot of winning at state than a kid who ran a 5:45 1600m and finished 5th in their region. I have seen numerous occasions where kids finishing 4th in their region have won the next week, so there's no reason a kid that's a few seconds slower that finished 5th couldn't do it as well.
@pcanter33 The argument that if you're not good enough to finish top 4 in your region, you're not good enough to go to state is bogus. So you're telling me that a kid running a 7:15 1600m and finishing 3rd in their region is more deserving and has a better shot of winning at state than a kid who ran a 5:45 1600m and finished 5th in their region. I have seen numerous occasions where kids finishing 4th in their region have won the next week, so there's no reason a kid that's a few seconds slower that finished 5th couldn't do it as well.
05/08/2018 9:52:25 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2
I can agree with comments made from both sides given the individuals involved. The top 8 should be able to compete in the state meet but sometimes its fair and often times its not. A few years ago after HHIHS put 7 in the top 8 in CC, they likely could have booked 7 of the 8 spots in the 3200 meters. Im sure this would have been frowned upon like Alabama/LSU and Alabama/UGA in the NCAA Football Championships. I know during my senior season, running the region meet and qualifier races as workouts, helped me continued to improve up to the state meet. This was especially helpful when running 4 or more races in each of the meets. While I understand that my success was uncommon, some runners are able to run just to qualify and save their efforts for the big day. Having standards such as A and B like at the NCAA level could be a good way though. The A standard could be Elite enough that a performance of this caliber couldn't be a fluke. A single B standard performance may not be enough but could given a weaker class.
I can agree with comments made from both sides given the individuals involved. The top 8 should be able to compete in the state meet but sometimes its fair and often times its not. A few years ago after HHIHS put 7 in the top 8 in CC, they likely could have booked 7 of the 8 spots in the 3200 meters. Im sure this would have been frowned upon like Alabama/LSU and Alabama/UGA in the NCAA Football Championships. I know during my senior season, running the region meet and qualifier races as workouts, helped me continued to improve up to the state meet. This was especially helpful when running 4 or more races in each of the meets. While I understand that my success was uncommon, some runners are able to run just to qualify and save their efforts for the big day.

Having standards such as A and B like at the NCAA level could be a good way though. The A standard could be Elite enough that a performance of this caliber couldn't be a fluke. A single B standard performance may not be enough but could given a weaker class.
05/09/2018 9:00:08 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 2
@ryansummey while I agree that no qualification system is perfect. How is our situation in South Carolina any different than say the Olympics. Every four years it seems we read or watch a situation where the fourth best American athlete is a Track and Field Event is left home while the top three compete at the Olympics. Meanwhile other countries may not have the same level of competition making it easier to qualify. I don't think this makes any athlete more or less deserving to go to the Olympics, however the fact of the matter is those who placed in the top 3 qualified, the fourth place athlete did not. While I fully recognize South Carolina High School Track and Field is not the olympics, its still the same concept. We can't take everyone to the State Meet or even Qualifiers. And while I can agree with you that any and every system for qualification will have its drawbacks. I just don't think having automatic qualifiers would be an improvement on that situation. But that's just me... @Urban I think you have an interesting point about taking some at large entries. But I think you run into trouble when region meets take place in different locations with different conditions on different days. Playing devil's advocate, but how do correct for a wind aided 100m in the Upstate, vs. a no wind 100m in the Midlands, vs. headwind in the lowcountry. The wind aided runner will advance every time. Once again I think its an intrigue idea, but it goes back to my thought that I don't think any system would be perfect.
@ryansummey while I agree that no qualification system is perfect. How is our situation in South Carolina any different than say the Olympics. Every four years it seems we read or watch a situation where the fourth best American athlete is a Track and Field Event is left home while the top three compete at the Olympics. Meanwhile other countries may not have the same level of competition making it easier to qualify. I don't think this makes any athlete more or less deserving to go to the Olympics, however the fact of the matter is those who placed in the top 3 qualified, the fourth place athlete did not. While I fully recognize South Carolina High School Track and Field is not the olympics, its still the same concept. We can't take everyone to the State Meet or even Qualifiers. And while I can agree with you that any and every system for qualification will have its drawbacks. I just don't think having automatic qualifiers would be an improvement on that situation. But that's just me...

@Urban I think you have an interesting point about taking some at large entries. But I think you run into trouble when region meets take place in different locations with different conditions on different days. Playing devil's advocate, but how do correct for a wind aided 100m in the Upstate, vs. a no wind 100m in the Midlands, vs. headwind in the lowcountry. The wind aided runner will advance every time. Once again I think its an intrigue idea, but it goes back to my thought that I don't think any system would be perfect.
05/09/2018 10:50:44 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 21
@pcanter33 you bring up some very valid points regarding wind and I am not certain what the answer is. It is something I have considered. I am not sure what the answer is and like you say, no qualifying system is perfect. However, I think my idea of 3 from each region and then 8 based on performance from any region, is better than the current system. That's my opinion. I am thinking about writing a proposal for this summer's coaches meeting. If any coaches have input on my idea, or you'd like to write the proposal together, let me know. I am specifically referring to 5A because that's the classification I coach in.
@pcanter33 you bring up some very valid points regarding wind and I am not certain what the answer is. It is something I have considered. I am not sure what the answer is and like you say, no qualifying system is perfect. However, I think my idea of 3 from each region and then 8 based on performance from any region, is better than the current system. That's my opinion. I am thinking about writing a proposal for this summer's coaches meeting. If any coaches have input on my idea, or you'd like to write the proposal together, let me know. I am specifically referring to 5A because that's the classification I coach in.
05/10/2018 7:34:35 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1
This topic is pretty dear to me, and it's something that I've spent hours working on over the past few years. I was the head of the committee put together by the SCTCCCA that came up with the plan to take 16 to the state meet (a committee that was comprised of 19 volunteers from the coaches association which represented 31 state championships in XC/Track, 4 association hall of famers, 4 current or former presidents of the SCTCCCA, and 6 coaches who have served as meet directors for a qualifying meet or the state meet). We discussed all of these ideas, and had great discussion about them. In an ideal world, we would drop an atomic bomb on the system and start over from scratch, but the issue is that we have to sell the AD's and principals on whatever changes we make-the more changes we make the harder that is. The ideas NEVER GET TO THE HSL if they don't get through the principals and AD's, and this idea didn't get through. When AD's and principals meet, there are no members of the SCTCCCA present in those meetings (unless they are an AD), so we can't try to sell our ideas to them in person. We have to sell our ideas through our own AD, who may or may not be able to verbalize the reasons why we want change. Reading through this post, you can see how many ideas are out there and how even the 5-8 people who have contributed to this post don't completely agree. Now take those differences, and add a middle man (the AD) who needs to take that argument to the body to try to make change, and nothing happens. Our proposal for 16 would have been a step in the direction of change, and it was shot down by 5A, 3A has still not voted on in (although there was positive response from what I hear), and I have not heard any response by 1, 2 and 4A. Sometimes they don't even get a chance to talk about what we propose. There are a couple steps that would help us move our state forward- 1.) Allow the coaches association to have representatives to talk to a group of ADs and sell our ideas to them. We are talking as a board for the association about how we can make this happen soon. 2.) We need to decide what our main goal is. The state track meet is used to determine the "best" track team in the state and declare them state champions. Is that what is really happening? We often see teams win a state championship (especially in the lower classifications) that have one or two superstars and no depth, is that the best track "team"? Should one team be able to beat the state championship team in a dual meet or even the region, but not in the state? If our goal is to determine the best athlete in each event vs. to determine the best team overall- that changes what might be considered the "best process". A couple statistics- 1.) We are one of 5 states in the country that runs less than 16 in the state championship (TX, LA, SC, MS, NV). 2.) 88% of the states run prelims in the state meet in the 100/High Hurdles, 76% run prelims in the 200. 3.) 67% of the states have a Track and Field Official's Association (we talked about lying for qualifying times- most of our regular season meets are officiated by coaches- adding this body would help) 4.) Over the past 5 years- events have not had all places scored because someone did not show up to compete 12% of the time (not false starts or DQ's- these kids just didn't show up)
This topic is pretty dear to me, and it's something that I've spent hours working on over the past few years. I was the head of the committee put together by the SCTCCCA that came up with the plan to take 16 to the state meet (a committee that was comprised of 19 volunteers from the coaches association which represented 31 state championships in XC/Track, 4 association hall of famers, 4 current or former presidents of the SCTCCCA, and 6 coaches who have served as meet directors for a qualifying meet or the state meet). We discussed all of these ideas, and had great discussion about them. In an ideal world, we would drop an atomic bomb on the system and start over from scratch, but the issue is that we have to sell the AD's and principals on whatever changes we make-the more changes we make the harder that is. The ideas NEVER GET TO THE HSL if they don't get through the principals and AD's, and this idea didn't get through. When AD's and principals meet, there are no members of the SCTCCCA present in those meetings (unless they are an AD), so we can't try to sell our ideas to them in person. We have to sell our ideas through our own AD, who may or may not be able to verbalize the reasons why we want change.

Reading through this post, you can see how many ideas are out there and how even the 5-8 people who have contributed to this post don't completely agree. Now take those differences, and add a middle man (the AD) who needs to take that argument to the body to try to make change, and nothing happens. Our proposal for 16 would have been a step in the direction of change, and it was shot down by 5A, 3A has still not voted on in (although there was positive response from what I hear), and I have not heard any response by 1, 2 and 4A. Sometimes they don't even get a chance to talk about what we propose.

There are a couple steps that would help us move our state forward-
1.) Allow the coaches association to have representatives to talk to a group of ADs and sell our ideas to them. We are talking as a board for the association about how we can make this happen soon.
2.) We need to decide what our main goal is. The state track meet is used to determine the "best" track team in the state and declare them state champions. Is that what is really happening? We often see teams win a state championship (especially in the lower classifications) that have one or two superstars and no depth, is that the best track "team"? Should one team be able to beat the state championship team in a dual meet or even the region, but not in the state? If our goal is to determine the best athlete in each event vs. to determine the best team overall- that changes what might be considered the "best process".

A couple statistics-
1.) We are one of 5 states in the country that runs less than 16 in the state championship (TX, LA, SC, MS, NV).
2.) 88% of the states run prelims in the state meet in the 100/High Hurdles, 76% run prelims in the 200.
3.) 67% of the states have a Track and Field Official's Association (we talked about lying for qualifying times- most of our regular season meets are officiated by coaches- adding this body would help)
4.) Over the past 5 years- events have not had all places scored because someone did not show up to compete 12% of the time (not false starts or DQ's- these kids just didn't show up)
05/10/2018 1:54:46 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 44
@chrisamie and everyone else........WE HAVE BEEN TRYING! I as president sat on this committee and every committee we have had over the past 12 years. @chrisamie is exactly correct and we had a good idea and process and got shot down by a group of AD's that do not want to listen to what we as an association say. Nothing is perfect, but our state is behind the rest of the country as a whole! I have had girls teams where I had to cut girls before Region (not being in the teams top 4) that were sub 5:25 milers and sub 2:26 800m runners and even sub 11:45 two milers.....The kids always know what it takes to advance and move on. This part we can all agree on, the kids know where they have to be. Coaches know where their kids need to be. I don't think the process is where it needs to be, but every kid and coach knows what they have to do to advance out of region to their qualifier and out of qualifier to state. The complaining does nothing for our sport and makes it harder on us as an association as we try to make the fixes we are trying to make. As the current President of the Association and a 20+ year member, 1.COME TO MEETINGS 2.HAVE A PLAN IN WRITING 3.DONT TAKE COMMENTS PERSONAL, WE WILL PLAY DEVILS ADVOCATE (BEING DOING THIS LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE QUESTIONED). WE ALL WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE KIDS......
@chrisamie and everyone else........WE HAVE BEEN TRYING! I as president sat on this committee and every committee we have had over the past 12 years. @chrisamie is exactly correct and we had a good idea and process and got shot down by a group of AD's that do not want to listen to what we as an association say. Nothing is perfect, but our state is behind the rest of the country as a whole!

I have had girls teams where I had to cut girls before Region (not being in the teams top 4) that were sub 5:25 milers and sub 2:26 800m runners and even sub 11:45 two milers.....The kids always know what it takes to advance and move on. This part we can all agree on, the kids know where they have to be. Coaches know where their kids need to be. I don't think the process is where it needs to be, but every kid and coach knows what they have to do to advance out of region to their qualifier and out of qualifier to state.

The complaining does nothing for our sport and makes it harder on us as an association as we try to make the fixes we are trying to make. As the current President of the Association and a 20+ year member,
1.COME TO MEETINGS
2.HAVE A PLAN IN WRITING
3.DONT TAKE COMMENTS PERSONAL, WE WILL PLAY DEVILS ADVOCATE (BEING DOING THIS LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE QUESTIONED).

WE ALL WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE KIDS......
05/10/2018 7:11:57 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
@chrisamie I think the issue of kids not showing up would get better once we get to where all 8 (or 16 if you're successful) of the kids are competitive. With the system like it is, we end up with several kids that finished in the top 8 in the qualifier but were beaten badly the week before. With qualifying standard times, the kids would be a lot more competitive 1-8 and you wouldn't have discouraged kids not showing up.
@chrisamie I think the issue of kids not showing up would get better once we get to where all 8 (or 16 if you're successful) of the kids are competitive. With the system like it is, we end up with several kids that finished in the top 8 in the qualifier but were beaten badly the week before. With qualifying standard times, the kids would be a lot more competitive 1-8 and you wouldn't have discouraged kids not showing up.
05/11/2018 2:06:55 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 116
I coach in NC where we have qualifying times that get you into the indoor state meet. There are no prior rounds to the indoor state meet, so hitting the mark is the only way to get there. It is the only option with the limited number of indoor sites available. In outdoor track we have 4 regional meets. Each regional then sends the top 4 in each event to the state meet. There are two ways to get in a regional. The 1st is an auto qualifier. The 2nd is if less there are less than 16 auto qualifiers, the field will be filled by the next best marks that entered the meet, up to the max of 16. If there are more than 16 auto qualifiers they all get in. Although this system works well for regional entry, there are still complaints about disparities between regions. And there are many. We even have coaches that want to make conference champions auto entries into a regional. My biggest issue with qualifying times is I feel like all we do is try to attain times/marks. It is mostly about getting a good time/mark to get in the regional. The idea of competing is lost in the process. At times it feels like a college system where all we do is chase times/marks, especially during indoor season.
I coach in NC where we have qualifying times that get you into the indoor state meet. There are no prior rounds to the indoor state meet, so hitting the mark is the only way to get there. It is the only option with the limited number of indoor sites available.

In outdoor track we have 4 regional meets. Each regional then sends the top 4 in each event to the state meet. There are two ways to get in a regional. The 1st is an auto qualifier. The 2nd is if less there are less than 16 auto qualifiers, the field will be filled by the next best marks that entered the meet, up to the max of 16. If there are more than 16 auto qualifiers they all get in. Although this system works well for regional entry, there are still complaints about disparities between regions. And there are many. We even have coaches that want to make conference champions auto entries into a regional.

My biggest issue with qualifying times is I feel like all we do is try to attain times/marks. It is mostly about getting a good time/mark to get in the regional. The idea of competing is lost in the process. At times it feels like a college system where all we do is chase times/marks, especially during indoor season.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.