State Qualifying meets
- Thread starter cc coach
- Start date
Is it just me or are the courses being run short of late, I realize kids can improve but I've seen times drop by almost 2 minutes for a lot of meets on the eastern side from one meet to the next. I thought it would be cleared up by there just needing to be one course measured. Are they going to ensure that the district courses are measured correctly atleast?
Which meets are you talking about? The 4A boys times are legit as far as I'm concerned. The top runners are facing each other on fairly nice days and pushing each other to some pretty good performances. It is that time of the season where given the conditions performances start popping.
Yep, my son and daughter both dropped almost two minutes from the first meet in late Aug to the conference meet last week. Both were run at the ISU course in Ames. I'm pretty sure it didn't change and that it was a full 5K.
Cancer Stick, I see what you see.
Typically small 1A & 2A races -
For example - there was a course run 9-29. The varsity winner on the boys' side is a stud. But, to pr there by nearly 1 min - and then jump back up by 81 seconds at his next meet - on a solid course?
As well, at that meet; out of 76 recorded runners, 39 boys were under 18:00 - and 34/ 60 girls were under 22:00. Uh... no.
There was not a convergence of peaking kids, great weather, and brand new shoes. It was a short course.
I'm not typing names - you all can find it if you like - and I don't fault the kids, it's the race organizers.
Is it a serious problem though, when it comes to rankings and district assignments.
It is out of balance due to data that is treated as equal. We are comparing apples to oranges.
Team averages and splits are not going to give a true comparison / measurement on paper. They won't ever - until the state does something about this.
Enforce the distance - (from the 2015 XC manual) - Varsity runners must run 5000 meters (3 miles, 188 yards, 2 inches) in all competitions. Exception: In cases of inclement weather, meet managers may shorten the race distance to a minimum of two miles in the interest of the health and safety of competitors.
So, do it. Or change the data recorded to reflect true minutes/mile pacing.
I guarantee that my numbers will look better if I only run a 4.7k. - but if you apply that factor, you could look at my mile pace and use it fairly.
Typically small 1A & 2A races -
For example - there was a course run 9-29. The varsity winner on the boys' side is a stud. But, to pr there by nearly 1 min - and then jump back up by 81 seconds at his next meet - on a solid course?
As well, at that meet; out of 76 recorded runners, 39 boys were under 18:00 - and 34/ 60 girls were under 22:00. Uh... no.
There was not a convergence of peaking kids, great weather, and brand new shoes. It was a short course.
I'm not typing names - you all can find it if you like - and I don't fault the kids, it's the race organizers.
Is it a serious problem though, when it comes to rankings and district assignments.
It is out of balance due to data that is treated as equal. We are comparing apples to oranges.
Team averages and splits are not going to give a true comparison / measurement on paper. They won't ever - until the state does something about this.
Enforce the distance - (from the 2015 XC manual) - Varsity runners must run 5000 meters (3 miles, 188 yards, 2 inches) in all competitions. Exception: In cases of inclement weather, meet managers may shorten the race distance to a minimum of two miles in the interest of the health and safety of competitors.
So, do it. Or change the data recorded to reflect true minutes/mile pacing.
I guarantee that my numbers will look better if I only run a 4.7k. - but if you apply that factor, you could look at my mile pace and use it fairly.
The Western Christian meet was obviously short. The Union/LaPorte City meet was obviously short. There are others too. A meet being short is not necessarily a "problem." There could be any number of reasons a course is not exact. Could be a construction/maintenance issue at the course from one year to the next and you just work with what you have, could be simply a fact of trying to lay out a good course with a common finish/start area and not add something ridiculous to get some more yardage, could be a mistake, could be whatever....... in and of itself, a regular season course not being exact might not be ideal, but I also don't think anyone is doing it on purpose or to get some sort of advantage.
Now, when it comes to hosting a regional meet - yeah - it better be pretty darn close to "on the money." 10-20-30 meters.... I can live with that. But, a course should not be 3.0 instead of 3.1 when it comes time for a regional meet. A minute of racing can make a big difference in the outcome - so there should be a VERY small margin of error for Regionals.
As far as the impact it has on the rankings...... none, in my opinion. I have helped with the rankings/been in charge of various 1A/2A classes over the past 10 years. Both individual and team. I know a short course when I see one, and so do the other people doing the rankings. I NEVER rank based on time. I rank based on common opponents and how people do head to head. So, when I look at the Union results, I don't think: "Wow, I should rank Grundy Center Girls #1." I realize that if Monticello had run there, they would have put 5 girls between 18:00 and 19:30 and crushed everyone there.
Anybody who ranks cross country races based on times has no idea what they are doing. So, in regard to the impact a short course has on rankings - I would say Zero.
Having the English conversion in parentheses in the manual makes me laugh. Just in case someone has only a ruler to measure the course with. So they can get that last two inches!!!!
Yep looks like you saw the same meets I saw, pretty sure kids that are great and running barely sub 17 and then a week later close to 15 flat something is off. Definitely a meet problem and to be honest it short changes the athletes from knowing if their hard work is paying off because even they know the course is short and arent getting to have more experience on a regulation course. Hope it doesnt back fire for those schools on Thursday.
Do you honestly believe that if a kid races 2.9 vs 3.1 in the weeks leading up to the SQM it is going to adversely affect his/her performance this Thursday? Call it like it is, TERRIBLE meet management by the host. But, not in a moment do I believe a short course here or there is going to adversely affect a runner on the day of qualifying. In fact, I would seek out a "fast" course the week before as a confidence boost if conference wasn't pre-assigned.
The kids know it for what it is - a short course.
As long as the rankings - (and by default the district assignments) - aren't affected, so be it.
The kids need to beat the runners on the course.
But... it should be addressed...?
And if it's ok for reg season meets, why would it not be ok for regional meets?
As long as the State meet isn't seeded based on regional results.
Times are irrelevant at that point.
As long as the rankings - (and by default the district assignments) - aren't affected, so be it.
The kids need to beat the runners on the course.
But... it should be addressed...?
And if it's ok for reg season meets, why would it not be ok for regional meets?
As long as the State meet isn't seeded based on regional results.
Times are irrelevant at that point.
To me, the reason it matters at a state qualifying meet is because a lot can change in the last minute of a race. If one team runs a smart race and passes 2-5 kids each toward the end, and another team goes out too fast and fades...... losing 2-5 places each, it is totally reasonable that a 20+ point swing could happen in team score in the last minute of a race.
If that last minute of the race never happens because the course is short in a regular season meet, it is not a huge issue. If that happened at Regionals......Well, at least to my way of thinking, that is a problem.
It is not so much that it is "OK" in the regular season.... I guess, I just don't think it matters that much.
As far as "personal bests" we always measure the courses we run on, and if they are short, or long, we adjust the times for the kids accordingly as far as keeping track of their personal bests and improvements.
well said, cc coach - you just nailed the issue for me.
Smart, conditioned teams can use the true 5k length of the meet to their advantage.
many teams see their avgs & splits blow up when on a tougher course.
Smart, conditioned teams can use the true 5k length of the meet to their advantage.
many teams see their avgs & splits blow up when on a tougher course.
To your point, the difference between 1st and 12th in our boys conference meet was 20 sec. The difference between 7th and 12th was 3 sec. An extra 100m or short 100m could easily be the difference between an individual or team making state or not.
Huh, now 6 ranked girls teams at Dike. I realize distance plays a big part, but isn't it kind of a stupid thought that at least three ranked teams won't make it out of the same district?
That's pretty tough - in a situation like this, are any of the teams given the option to travel?
And So. Hardin is in there as well. of the "top" 20, you have more than 1/3 of the teams - at one of 5 sites. Not good.
And So. Hardin is in there as well. of the "top" 20, you have more than 1/3 of the teams - at one of 5 sites. Not good.
1A @ Ank Cent is similar, with Pekin, So Ham, Ogden, Colo, Newm Cath, and Pleasantville.
3 rated & 3 "next 5".
3 rated & 3 "next 5".
Rankings change. The same site had girls teams ranked #2, 12, 13, 14, 15, and a team to watch on October 6th. Boys rankings had teams #5, 11, 12, 14 on "the date that mattered". Sending either East Marshall or Dike-New Hartford somewhere else would have been the easiest solution to pull a ranked team off both gender to create competitive balance. Overall, they didn't do too bad because they gave the extra teams a shot versus going to a site with #4, 6, 7, 14 where #14 has no shot
unless my eyes are tricking me (and I haven't had enough coffee yet - so there is that)...
1A Hawarden site has 1 ranked and 1 "next 5" team - OA-BCIG touched #15 last week, but fell back out. That would have been their 3rd.
1A Hawarden site has 1 ranked and 1 "next 5" team - OA-BCIG touched #15 last week, but fell back out. That would have been their 3rd.
You have to remember that both boys and girls (and some degree of consideration for travel) has to enter into the equation. Also....... I think (rightfully so) that the state is A LOT more concerned about the top 10 teams getting dispersed as opposed to whether or not the 14-17 best team makes it.
The state did send Garner and Eagle Grove out west on the boys side..... which made a big difference for the Dike District on that side of things. Had the state not sent those 2 west, the other boys teams at Dike would have basically not even had a chance at all to compete for a top 3 spot.
I was kind of surprised that maybe CMB did not go west..... but, other than that, it is pretty hard to do much else with the district. The state DID obviously go out of its way to spread teams around about as best they could..... not perfect, but they did a pretty good job. I think all of those teams are MUCH happier at Dike than they would be at Columbus Junction.... or, perhaps some would like to volunteer to come run at Monticello.......??
The good thing about the Dike district is that there are 2 spots that are wide open after Osage on the girls side. As of the rankings for Districts, you had 12-13-14-15 fighting for those 2 spots. The difference between who is the 13-15th best team and who is the 16 or 17th best team in the state is essentially nothing. So, whichever of those teams steps up earned their way in. Whichever teams don't ...... well, they had a shot and they happened to fall a little short.
To me, spreading out the best teams is not about making sure the 15 ranked teams get through.... if that is the desire, don't have a state qualifying meet - just invite the top 15 ranked teams. In my opinion, the goal should be that all 15 ranked teams have "a good opportunity" to qualify for state. Which ranked team has no opportunity to make it to state tonight if they run well?? Every ranked team at dike has as good a shot as the others. That is as good as you can really expect to get.
The state did send Garner and Eagle Grove out west on the boys side..... which made a big difference for the Dike District on that side of things. Had the state not sent those 2 west, the other boys teams at Dike would have basically not even had a chance at all to compete for a top 3 spot.
I was kind of surprised that maybe CMB did not go west..... but, other than that, it is pretty hard to do much else with the district. The state DID obviously go out of its way to spread teams around about as best they could..... not perfect, but they did a pretty good job. I think all of those teams are MUCH happier at Dike than they would be at Columbus Junction.... or, perhaps some would like to volunteer to come run at Monticello.......??
The good thing about the Dike district is that there are 2 spots that are wide open after Osage on the girls side. As of the rankings for Districts, you had 12-13-14-15 fighting for those 2 spots. The difference between who is the 13-15th best team and who is the 16 or 17th best team in the state is essentially nothing. So, whichever of those teams steps up earned their way in. Whichever teams don't ...... well, they had a shot and they happened to fall a little short.
To me, spreading out the best teams is not about making sure the 15 ranked teams get through.... if that is the desire, don't have a state qualifying meet - just invite the top 15 ranked teams. In my opinion, the goal should be that all 15 ranked teams have "a good opportunity" to qualify for state. Which ranked team has no opportunity to make it to state tonight if they run well?? Every ranked team at dike has as good a shot as the others. That is as good as you can really expect to get.
On Oct 6th rankings.
Girls:
St Edmond - #7
Emmetsburg - #12
North Iowa #15
Alta - RV
Boys:
St Edmond - #6
OA-BCIG - #15
Emmetsburg - RV
The state did fine in this case too. The problem is the state does not get a lot of bids to be a host school. Understandably so too. The meet start time is when a bulk of staff is unavailable to work the meet, there is little to no concession revenue, and it takes a lot of work to prep a course. With more available hosts, they can avoid choosing sites in the corners such as Treynor, West Sioux, Bettendorf, Shenandoah, Glenwood, Council Bluffs. Those sites limit flexibility in who can be assigned. Get more hosts and that gives the state more flexibility.
Osage ran away with the meet at Dike (as expected). The next four teams finished within 18 points, 6th was another 8 back.
Osage - 32
D-NH - 95
GC-G-R - 97
South Hardin - 105
CMB - 113
E Marshall - 125
On a worse note, my daughter got nipped at the line and finished 16th. On a much worse note, her twin brother made state.
Osage - 32
D-NH - 95
GC-G-R - 97
South Hardin - 105
CMB - 113
E Marshall - 125
On a worse note, my daughter got nipped at the line and finished 16th. On a much worse note, her twin brother made state.
BTW, was anyone at the Columbus meet?
Evidently Zach Hougland from Davis County was the district champ. However, after he was done, a runner from Mediapolis collapsed somewhere on the course. I don't know if he was close to the finish or not. Hougland helped the kid, not knowing how bad it was. The kid apparently ended up being treated where he collapsed and was taken off in an ambulance. They ended up DQ'ing Hougland for assisting the kid.
Now, I get that assisting another runner is grounds for a DQ. However, it would seem that the intent is if you are trying to help someone finish in an attempt to gain a better finish, a better score for the team, etc. I can't imagine that the intent is to punish someone for helping another runner who is in obvious trouble. Last season, at the early season Pella meet (run at Central), during the JV girls race, a girl staggered and collapsed maybe 1/2 mile from the finish. Another girl stopped to help her along with a parent (I ran to get a buddy of mine who was working the meet and had a gator). Another parent told them to leave her alone because she's be DQd. I'm sorry, if the first thought going through anyone's mind in a situation like that is don't get anyone DQ, we are taking it way too far.
Hougland should be getting a pat on the back from the IAHSAA for sportsmanship instead of a DQ, I don't care what the rule says.
Evidently Zach Hougland from Davis County was the district champ. However, after he was done, a runner from Mediapolis collapsed somewhere on the course. I don't know if he was close to the finish or not. Hougland helped the kid, not knowing how bad it was. The kid apparently ended up being treated where he collapsed and was taken off in an ambulance. They ended up DQ'ing Hougland for assisting the kid.
Now, I get that assisting another runner is grounds for a DQ. However, it would seem that the intent is if you are trying to help someone finish in an attempt to gain a better finish, a better score for the team, etc. I can't imagine that the intent is to punish someone for helping another runner who is in obvious trouble. Last season, at the early season Pella meet (run at Central), during the JV girls race, a girl staggered and collapsed maybe 1/2 mile from the finish. Another girl stopped to help her along with a parent (I ran to get a buddy of mine who was working the meet and had a gator). Another parent told them to leave her alone because she's be DQd. I'm sorry, if the first thought going through anyone's mind in a situation like that is don't get anyone DQ, we are taking it way too far.
Hougland should be getting a pat on the back from the IAHSAA for sportsmanship instead of a DQ, I don't care what the rule says.
I was not there - but we've seen Hougland run many times over the last few years.
He's a really great kid first - and a fantastic runner second.
I noticed that Davis made it as the 3rd team - but I missed Hougland on the results.
If he was dq'd from the qualifier, can he be subbed in at state?
I get that he left the course - so don't give him a medal for running last night.
Give him a medal for sportsmanship instead - and let him run at F.D.
He's a really great kid first - and a fantastic runner second.
I noticed that Davis made it as the 3rd team - but I missed Hougland on the results.
If he was dq'd from the qualifier, can he be subbed in at state?
I get that he left the course - so don't give him a medal for running last night.
Give him a medal for sportsmanship instead - and let him run at F.D.
Wow..... I was not there, and I have no insight as to exactly what happened....... but, if it was purely a case of a runner from one team, giving aid to a runner in need from another team, and he got DQ'd for it...... that is pathetic.
The rules are pretty clear -
*You cannot INTERFERE with another competitor.
*You cannot pace a teammate or give a teammate an advantage
*You cannot do unsportsmanlike things (like grasping hands at finish with teammate)
* "It is an unfair act when a competitor RECEIVES any assistance....
I suppose, as far as I can see, it does not actually say you cannot ASSIST/AID a COMPETITOR. I would think there would be enough wiggle room there to justify not DQ'ing a kid for doing something that is the epitome of sportsmanship.
Now - the kid who received help should be DQ'd...... that IS illegal, and very clear for sure.
Again, I don't know the details, so perhaps there is more to this than what pops up on a message board. But, if there was no interference, and the person was not gaining an advantage for his own team, and he was purely doing something that is a clear example of good sportsmanship - then I would agree he should not be DQ'd. If that is the case, then I would hope the IGHSAU/IAHSAA would also stop providing the "sportsmanship paragraph" that they have host schools read at tournament games/meets/matches etc.
At least Davis County qualified as a team and the runner can get a chance to run at state anyway.
The rules are pretty clear -
*You cannot INTERFERE with another competitor.
*You cannot pace a teammate or give a teammate an advantage
*You cannot do unsportsmanlike things (like grasping hands at finish with teammate)
* "It is an unfair act when a competitor RECEIVES any assistance....
I suppose, as far as I can see, it does not actually say you cannot ASSIST/AID a COMPETITOR. I would think there would be enough wiggle room there to justify not DQ'ing a kid for doing something that is the epitome of sportsmanship.
Now - the kid who received help should be DQ'd...... that IS illegal, and very clear for sure.
Again, I don't know the details, so perhaps there is more to this than what pops up on a message board. But, if there was no interference, and the person was not gaining an advantage for his own team, and he was purely doing something that is a clear example of good sportsmanship - then I would agree he should not be DQ'd. If that is the case, then I would hope the IGHSAU/IAHSAA would also stop providing the "sportsmanship paragraph" that they have host schools read at tournament games/meets/matches etc.
At least Davis County qualified as a team and the runner can get a chance to run at state anyway.
copied from a comment on the Davis co fb page;
"apparently this young man ( Zach Houghland) from Davis County came in 1st at the state qualifying meet yesterday. Some time later another young.man from an opposing team fell just before he made it to the finish line and Zach ran over to help him up to cross and finish. This was well after all state qualifiers came in."
"apparently this young man ( Zach Houghland) from Davis County came in 1st at the state qualifying meet yesterday. Some time later another young.man from an opposing team fell just before he made it to the finish line and Zach ran over to help him up to cross and finish. This was well after all state qualifiers came in."
http://www.ottumwacourier.com/sport...cle_d655cf68-7936-11e5-9328-bbb43d462e2c.html
I still don't see (Specifically) where it says in the rule book that you cannot ASSIST a COMPETITOR. You can't assist a teammate. You cannot RECEIVE assistance...... but, does it actually say you cannot help a competitor in a sportsmanlike manner?
At least he will still be running at state.... very fortunate.
I still don't see (Specifically) where it says in the rule book that you cannot ASSIST a COMPETITOR. You can't assist a teammate. You cannot RECEIVE assistance...... but, does it actually say you cannot help a competitor in a sportsmanlike manner?
At least he will still be running at state.... very fortunate.
I think we'd be hard pressed to find one person from any of the teams there yesterday who would not put a medal around his neck.
I was there watching Mid Prairie but missed the incident live, I just saw the Mepo runner laying on the ground after he got across the line. The mood among the runners and fans I saw and talked to was that they thought the DQ was stupid and they were happy that he will still get to run at State. When I was leaving, several MP runners were going to find him and talk to him.
On another note, it has really been fun following MP this year. No superstars, but they have a strong Top 5 with all 5 in the Top 10 last night pre-DQ and just a 31 second spread from 1-5. Hopefully they can stay healthy and their strength in the 3-5 positions can lead them to a good finish in Ft Dodge.
On another note, it has really been fun following MP this year. No superstars, but they have a strong Top 5 with all 5 in the Top 10 last night pre-DQ and just a 31 second spread from 1-5. Hopefully they can stay healthy and their strength in the 3-5 positions can lead them to a good finish in Ft Dodge.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Tennessee continues its dominance over lsu men’s sports- Latest: HONKifUvCOACHED4BAMA
-
-