A suggestion on how to handle state qualifying
05/05/2014 4:08:04 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 25
I've been fairly involved in Colorado track & field for the past few years as a parent. I've read with interest the debate on state qualifying - the current format vs the (I think) prior regional qualifying method. Both have merit. As I understand it, the opponents to the regional qualifying method argue that a top athlete could be injured or sick for a regional and should not be punished for that, or that some regions may be stronger in certain events and the kids should not be punished for that randomness. Those that don't like the current system argue that some relays are unjustly sent on to state only to have athletes compete on it that didn't earn the qualifying time, and that some athletes that qualify don't show and cost other kids a chance to compete. There are other issues of course (wind/weather for one), but my suggestion is meant to address the points listed above. I think we should consider making only the athletes and relay teams that "compete" in their conference meet eligible for the state meet. Now, the times these athletes and relay teams ran during the season would count (so as to not punish an off day), but they must be listed on the heat sheet of their conference meet as running that event and it should count towards their 4 event max. I put "compete" in quotes because in reality, it doesn't matter if they actually compete in the event or not. False starts, DQs, or anything else that officially counts as using one of their 4 events for the meet would be considered as competing, whether they actually ran, jumped or threw, etc. This would eliminate the problem of relays qualifying because of elite athletes that won't run in that event at state (there is currently at least one team in a large classification that has a chance to qualify their 4x1, 4x2, 4x4 and 4x8 relays for state and all have a single common athlete on each, who also is a threat to qualify for at least 2 individual events at state). There is also at least one athlete in a large classification who will qualify for state in at least 5 individual events. There is obviously no way a kid can compete in more than 4 events at state, so why allow them to qualify for more than 4 and take up spots that could be given to other (more) deserving athletes? What do you think? Does this idea have merit? Thank you in advance for your consideration.
I've been fairly involved in Colorado track & field for the past few years as a parent. I've read with interest the debate on state qualifying - the current format vs the (I think) prior regional qualifying method. Both have merit. As I understand it, the opponents to the regional qualifying method argue that a top athlete could be injured or sick for a regional and should not be punished for that, or that some regions may be stronger in certain events and the kids should not be punished for that randomness. Those that don't like the current system argue that some relays are unjustly sent on to state only to have athletes compete on it that didn't earn the qualifying time, and that some athletes that qualify don't show and cost other kids a chance to compete. There are other issues of course (wind/weather for one), but my suggestion is meant to address the points listed above.

I think we should consider making only the athletes and relay teams that "compete" in their conference meet eligible for the state meet. Now, the times these athletes and relay teams ran during the season would count (so as to not punish an off day), but they must be listed on the heat sheet of their conference meet as running that event and it should count towards their 4 event max. I put "compete" in quotes because in reality, it doesn't matter if they actually compete in the event or not. False starts, DQs, or anything else that officially counts as using one of their 4 events for the meet would be considered as competing, whether they actually ran, jumped or threw, etc.

This would eliminate the problem of relays qualifying because of elite athletes that won't run in that event at state (there is currently at least one team in a large classification that has a chance to qualify their 4x1, 4x2, 4x4 and 4x8 relays for state and all have a single common athlete on each, who also is a threat to qualify for at least 2 individual events at state). There is also at least one athlete in a large classification who will qualify for state in at least 5 individual events. There is obviously no way a kid can compete in more than 4 events at state, so why allow them to qualify for more than 4 and take up spots that could be given to other (more) deserving athletes?

What do you think? Does this idea have merit? Thank you in advance for your consideration.
05/05/2014 5:19:36 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16
In my opinion, while not perfect the current state qualifying system is the best option. Again, athletes have all season to post his/her best marks and let the times/distances fall where they may. The idea of restricting an athlete to only events they contested in their respective Conference meets would never work. Coaches decisions on which events to slot athletes into can vary greatly between a State and Conference meet based on his/her evaluation of what strategy provides his team with the best opportunity to capture a team title or simply maximize points to improve placement in team standings. The relay argument while interesting again falls victim to this same consideration. And as you have stated, athletes can only compete in 4 events and teams/coaches must declare the 4 events in which they will compete thus opening available slots to other athletes where applicable. Additionally, the point you made about an athlete being sick during a "Regional" qualifying meet would also apply here - an athlete could be sick/injured during the week of the conference meet. So again, while not perfect - the current system is serving its purpose well.
In my opinion, while not perfect the current state qualifying system is the best option. Again, athletes have all season to post his/her best marks and let the times/distances fall where they may. The idea of restricting an athlete to only events they contested in their respective Conference meets would never work. Coaches decisions on which events to slot athletes into can vary greatly between a State and Conference meet based on his/her evaluation of what strategy provides his team with the best opportunity to capture a team title or simply maximize points to improve placement in team standings. The relay argument while interesting again falls victim to this same consideration. And as you have stated, athletes can only compete in 4 events and teams/coaches must declare the 4 events in which they will compete thus opening available slots to other athletes where applicable. Additionally, the point you made about an athlete being sick during a "Regional" qualifying meet would also apply here - an athlete could be sick/injured during the week of the conference meet. So again, while not perfect - the current system is serving its purpose well.
05/05/2014 11:32:30 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 56
How is an athlete that has to rely on another athlete to drop out of an event because they have qualified in more events more deserving. The state qualification debate always comes down to people complaining that the 19th runner didnt get in or another runner that wont run should scratch so someone else can get in. Sorry to say but if an athlete can qualify in more than 4 events they have every right to do so. The rules state they cant run in more than 4 events at state but they have the priority and right to decide which event that they will run in since they earned a top 18 spot. A 19th runner who got in because someone else scratched didnt necessarily earn it. As far as relays go..coaches do not have a good idea of which relays they will run at state. They just need to qualify them. Some athletes get hurt and things change when all rankings are said and done. State contending teams will qualify all relays and they need to decide which events will be best to run to give them the best chance to win. Putting restrictions on that ruins the strategy of state. It stinks when your team is the 19th team but you are still the 19th fastest team regardless of if a top 18 team runs or not.
How is an athlete that has to rely on another athlete to drop out of an event because they have qualified in more events more deserving.

The state qualification debate always comes down to people complaining that the 19th runner didnt get in or another runner that wont run should scratch so someone else can get in. Sorry to say but if an athlete can qualify in more than 4 events they have every right to do so. The rules state they cant run in more than 4 events at state but they have the priority and right to decide which event that they will run in since they earned a top 18 spot. A 19th runner who got in because someone else scratched didnt necessarily earn it.

As far as relays go..coaches do not have a good idea of which relays they will run at state. They just need to qualify them. Some athletes get hurt and things change when all rankings are said and done. State contending teams will qualify all relays and they need to decide which events will be best to run to give them the best chance to win. Putting restrictions on that ruins the strategy of state.

It stinks when your team is the 19th team but you are still the 19th fastest team regardless of if a top 18 team runs or not.
05/06/2014 12:14:31 AM
User
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 25
MT28, those are some very good points. However, who is more deserving - Relay Team A who will be running at state without their 2 fastest runners (which would then make them the 25th fastest) or Relay Team B who was the 19th fastest but would be running with all 4 of the runners that ran that time?
MT28, those are some very good points. However, who is more deserving - Relay Team A who will be running at state without their 2 fastest runners (which would then make them the 25th fastest) or Relay Team B who was the 19th fastest but would be running with all 4 of the runners that ran that time?
05/06/2014 12:56:19 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 56
Team A is still more deserving because they still have the faster runners. Whether the coach decides to run those runners at state is a decision they earned. Fair or not, again even if they decide to not run the faster runners on team A doesnt make them any less deserving. Thats like saying if the Broncos make the superbowl and then play their second string team they no longer deserve to be in the superbowl because the Patriots first team would beat the broncos second team to get to the superbowl. However, if the Broncos earn the superbowl spot they have ever right to sit payton manning and play their second team squad.
Team A is still more deserving because they still have the faster runners. Whether the coach decides to run those runners at state is a decision they earned. Fair or not, again even if they decide to not run the faster runners on team A doesnt make them any less deserving.

Thats like saying if the Broncos make the superbowl and then play their second string team they no longer deserve to be in the superbowl because the Patriots first team would beat the broncos second team to get to the superbowl. However, if the Broncos earn the superbowl spot they have ever right to sit payton manning and play their second team squad.
05/06/2014 7:24:31 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 175
@MT28 I think the Broncos just may have played their 2nd string in the Super Bowl. :`-(
@MT28

I think the Broncos just may have played their 2nd string in the Super Bowl.
05/06/2014 8:47:27 AM
User
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 25
MT 28, I do respect your opinion but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Just curious, do you support the 4 event maximum for athletes?
MT 28, I do respect your opinion but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Just curious, do you support the 4 event maximum for athletes?
05/06/2014 9:48:03 AM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 98
I must be in the minority, because I still can't believe a qualifying time combined with the ranking system wouldn't meet everyone's concerns. If more than 18 qualify, run a extra heat. Wouldn't it be nice to know as you sit in school today with your 10.91 100m in 18th place, looking at your forecast for wind and rain for your final meet, that you were already in, and that the 10.92-10.99 who are right behind you but have a meet with perfect conditions won't pass you by.?? It seems to me we could avoid a great deal of stress with a qualifying mark system. If we don't fill the 18 slots, then take the top available "provisionals." It would be such a relief for athletes and coaches alike to know you are in going into the last couple weeks and race and train with the time/distance/height in pocket. I have been in this a LONG time, I just don't see how a qualifying mark doesn't make things WAY simpler and WAAAAAY less stressful than any other system. AND it is FAIR!
I must be in the minority, because I still can't believe a qualifying time combined with the ranking system wouldn't meet everyone's concerns. If more than 18 qualify, run a extra heat. Wouldn't it be nice to know as you sit in school today with your 10.91 100m in 18th place, looking at your forecast for wind and rain for your final meet, that you were already in, and that the 10.92-10.99 who are right behind you but have a meet with perfect conditions won't pass you by.?? It seems to me we could avoid a great deal of stress with a qualifying mark system. If we don't fill the 18 slots, then take the top available "provisionals." It would be such a relief for athletes and coaches alike to know you are in going into the last couple weeks and race and train with the time/distance/height in pocket. I have been in this a LONG time, I just don't see how a qualifying mark doesn't make things WAY simpler and WAAAAAY less stressful than any other system. AND it is FAIR!
05/06/2014 10:19:41 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 172
@querep But I say with the qualifying mark, also have a regional system. Maybe I have a 10.93 mark to your 10.91 (10.92 is qualifying) If I beat you head-to-head in a regional meet, even if we run 10.93 and 10.94, I think I deserve to get in. I just don't see how beating a clock is better, or more fair, than beating a person.
@querep
But I say with the qualifying mark, also have a regional system. Maybe I have a 10.93 mark to your 10.91 (10.92 is qualifying) If I beat you head-to-head in a regional meet, even if we run 10.93 and 10.94, I think I deserve to get in. I just don't see how beating a clock is better, or more fair, than beating a person.
05/06/2014 10:22:53 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 68
Kinda like how NCAA does it. Auto time & provisional time. Auto = ave of last 5 yrs # X (6,8?) provisional is ave # 24? over last 5 years. Take up to 18 kiddos unless more than 18 over Auto. Just an idea. As for have to be entered in league... Alicia Taurchini can not be at our League meet due to prior obligations. What a disservice to CO track and field it would have been to not have the opportunity to see that young lady run at state because she could not run league. How much fun is state going to be this year! CO T&F is in a pretty good spot right now. A true blessing to be able to coach and watch so many fine athletes!
Kinda like how NCAA does it. Auto time & provisional time. Auto = ave of last 5 yrs # X (6,8?) provisional is ave # 24? over last 5 years. Take up to 18 kiddos unless more than 18 over Auto. Just an idea.

As for have to be entered in league... Alicia Taurchini can not be at our League meet due to prior obligations. What a disservice to CO track and field it would have been to not have the opportunity to see that young lady run at state because she could not run league.

How much fun is state going to be this year! CO T&F is in a pretty good spot right now. A true blessing to be able to coach and watch so many fine athletes!
05/06/2014 10:33:59 AM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 98
Ebell, that is why, if you earn the mark you are in. Settle it at state. I agree completely there is no distinguishing anyone within a tenth in the 100m,a few inches in a jump, or even a second or two in distance events. Again, hit the mark, you are in. I fail to see the problem if we qualify a few too many athletes to the state meet. Run an extra heat. Big deal. In 2000 or 2001 8 teams qualified from the Northern Conference in the 4 X 100. Seven placed. CJ Crow finished 8th in the conference 100m with a 10.86. Fluke? Perfect conditions? Who cares, run them at state and sort it out. I know at Loveland and every other school in the state we are locked in to the weather forecast this week praying that the wind and weather favor our athletes in 15th-25th place. That is frankly, SILLY. They should either know what mark to reach or what place to get to qualify for state. Watching until Saturday to see if you are in is dumb.
Ebell, that is why, if you earn the mark you are in. Settle it at state. I agree completely there is no distinguishing anyone within a tenth in the 100m,a few inches in a jump, or even a second or two in distance events. Again, hit the mark, you are in. I fail to see the problem if we qualify a few too many athletes to the state meet. Run an extra heat. Big deal. In 2000 or 2001 8 teams qualified from the Northern Conference in the 4 X 100. Seven placed. CJ Crow finished 8th in the conference 100m with a 10.86. Fluke? Perfect conditions? Who cares, run them at state and sort it out. I know at Loveland and every other school in the state we are locked in to the weather forecast this week praying that the wind and weather favor our athletes in 15th-25th place. That is frankly, SILLY. They should either know what mark to reach or what place to get to qualify for state. Watching until Saturday to see if you are in is dumb.
05/06/2014 10:37:43 AM
Coach
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 25
Just because an athlete is 19th or 20th does not mean that you cannot enter them into the state meet. You can enter any kid, but it is up to the meet officials and seeding committee on what top 18 entered times/marks make it in. I feel like a lot of people are missing that point. Consider it this way. Athlete A is seeded in the top 18 for LJ, and athlete B is sitting in the 19th spot. Say that athlete A is qualified in five events and can score higher in other events. The coach can only enter him in four events and decides to scratch lj for athlete A. Athlete B is then given the opportunity to jump at state due to the scratch of athlete A. If people are complaining about "oh well we had bad weather" or "it is going to be windy at our league championships" then I would say the blame is on the coaches not the athletes or the weather. We have 10 weeks worth of meets to be able to get our athletes qualifying marks. I assure you that at least half of those were wind legal. If the question is about running kids head to head and it not being fair then maybe some teams should stop going to tiny meets and run at larger meets against better competition to give their kids the best shot at qualifying. As far as coming down to the final weekend and hoping for the best, it doesn't always work out that way but you have to get over it since you had a full season to qualify. I had a girl triple jumper last year who in the final two weeks of the season got her breakthrough performance and jumped 35-7 (would have placed 3rd at state in 4A) yet her wind was 2.1. We went out and tried again the next week and same thing. Is it unfortunate? Yes, but it is what it is and that's life. The best legal performances should compete at the state meet. Not just someone who wins their championship. That plays into the idea that everyone who tries is a winner. Well in life not everyone is a winner. In track only those who work and produce a top-18 output earn that honor deserve a spot at the state meet, not little Billy who wins his region with a 13.4 100m time.
Just because an athlete is 19th or 20th does not mean that you cannot enter them into the state meet. You can enter any kid, but it is up to the meet officials and seeding committee on what top 18 entered times/marks make it in. I feel like a lot of people are missing that point. Consider it this way. Athlete A is seeded in the top 18 for LJ, and athlete B is sitting in the 19th spot. Say that athlete A is qualified in five events and can score higher in other events. The coach can only enter him in four events and decides to scratch lj for athlete A. Athlete B is then given the opportunity to jump at state due to the scratch of athlete A.
If people are complaining about "oh well we had bad weather" or "it is going to be windy at our league championships" then I would say the blame is on the coaches not the athletes or the weather. We have 10 weeks worth of meets to be able to get our athletes qualifying marks. I assure you that at least half of those were wind legal. If the question is about running kids head to head and it not being fair then maybe some teams should stop going to tiny meets and run at larger meets against better competition to give their kids the best shot at qualifying.
As far as coming down to the final weekend and hoping for the best, it doesn't always work out that way but you have to get over it since you had a full season to qualify. I had a girl triple jumper last year who in the final two weeks of the season got her breakthrough performance and jumped 35-7 (would have placed 3rd at state in 4A) yet her wind was 2.1. We went out and tried again the next week and same thing. Is it unfortunate? Yes, but it is what it is and that's life.
The best legal performances should compete at the state meet. Not just someone who wins their championship. That plays into the idea that everyone who tries is a winner. Well in life not everyone is a winner. In track only those who work and produce a top-18 output earn that honor deserve a spot at the state meet, not little Billy who wins his region with a 13.4 100m time.
05/06/2014 10:48:09 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 56
The qualifying mark debate is irrelevant for kids that are 15 - 25 anyway. The pre-qual marks in the regional format still was an avg of the top 6 times for the last 5 years. So why would that matter for a 15-25 kid on the bubble? At least in this format they can still get in by running a time that is top 18. Weather will affect qualifying marks as well. If we go to that format, we would complain about the weather still. Also, like someone mentioned earlier, if the pre-qual was 11.04 and a kid ran 11.05 then everyone would still complain. We have this notion that State is to get everyone we can into the meet, and really state is supposed to be a display of the very best athletes in the state competing head to head. We all have had a kid on the bubble get knocked out or not make it in the top 18, but frankly that is how life works. They will come back next year, train hard and earn the spot. This format allows for the best kids to drop a time and get in (Does Cranny really need to run at a regional meet to prove her spot at state?) and allows for everyone else to work hard to earn their spot. It breeds competition and in result times have gotten faster every year for the most part.
The qualifying mark debate is irrelevant for kids that are 15 - 25 anyway. The pre-qual marks in the regional format still was an avg of the top 6 times for the last 5 years. So why would that matter for a 15-25 kid on the bubble? At least in this format they can still get in by running a time that is top 18.

Weather will affect qualifying marks as well. If we go to that format, we would complain about the weather still.

Also, like someone mentioned earlier, if the pre-qual was 11.04 and a kid ran 11.05 then everyone would still complain.

We have this notion that State is to get everyone we can into the meet, and really state is supposed to be a display of the very best athletes in the state competing head to head.

We all have had a kid on the bubble get knocked out or not make it in the top 18, but frankly that is how life works. They will come back next year, train hard and earn the spot.

This format allows for the best kids to drop a time and get in (Does Cranny really need to run at a regional meet to prove her spot at state?) and allows for everyone else to work hard to earn their spot. It breeds competition and in result times have gotten faster every year for the most part.
05/06/2014 11:02:58 AM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 130
This debate can churn, and has over the past few years. Most any system of qualifying will get the top 8 or 10 athletes to the state meet, with few exceptions, and for the most part, these are the potential state champions. The current system does exactly what it was designed to do -- limit the number of contestants to 18. I can't think of another system that would do this, unless it was very restrictive regional qualification format, and I don't think many of us want that. If we want an all classification meet, held over 3 days or so, then the number of athletes must be limited.
This debate can churn, and has over the past few years. Most any system of qualifying will get the top 8 or 10 athletes to the state meet, with few exceptions, and for the most part, these are the potential state champions. The current system does exactly what it was designed to do -- limit the number of contestants to 18. I can't think of another system that would do this, unless it was very restrictive regional qualification format, and I don't think many of us want that. If we want an all classification meet, held over 3 days or so, then the number of athletes must be limited.
05/06/2014 11:17:21 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 172
@Drussell8207 So, a wind reading barely above the legal limit kept your girl, a top three candidate in the triple jump out of the state meet? And you are ok with that? Seems to me that she should have had a chance (at regionals) to earn that spot!
@Drussell8207 So, a wind reading barely above the legal limit kept your girl, a top three candidate in the triple jump out of the state meet? And you are ok with that? Seems to me that she should have had a chance (at regionals) to earn that spot!
05/06/2014 11:44:40 AM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 98
My last 2 cents and a prediction. 11.0 will place in the 100m. It does almost every year. Even a qualifying time based on top 6 or 8 will be reached throughout the year by alot more than 6 or 8 athletes. I am also not trying to emulate another system, but when you start to look at the higher levels, they race less and less each year to allow for better training and health. It is hard to talk a kid who needs rest into sitting, or trying to run a kid in a occasional odd event when almost every meet ends up counting. We actually have a girl who has run the 200m 6 times. Her best time came when she fell about a meter from the finish and rolled across the line. Of her other 5 times, 4 weren't wind legal, and one was the first meet of the year.
My last 2 cents and a prediction. 11.0 will place in the 100m. It does almost every year. Even a qualifying time based on top 6 or 8 will be reached throughout the year by alot more than 6 or 8 athletes. I am also not trying to emulate another system, but when you start to look at the higher levels, they race less and less each year to allow for better training and health. It is hard to talk a kid who needs rest into sitting, or trying to run a kid in a occasional odd event when almost every meet ends up counting. We actually have a girl who has run the 200m 6 times. Her best time came when she fell about a meter from the finish and rolled across the line. Of her other 5 times, 4 weren't wind legal, and one was the first meet of the year.
05/06/2014 12:14:46 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 56
[quote=bupwj]MT 28, I do respect your opinion but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Just curious, do you support the 4 event maximum for athletes?[/quote] @bupwj Yes, I do support the 4 event maximum. However, I also believe that the coach and the athlete has the right to determine which events those will be. An athlete should not be restricted in qualifying for 8 events if they are good enough. They then can determine which events will help the team the most. Too much governance on qualifying is detrimental to the sport. The regional format also had a restriction of only 3 athletes from a team can qualify in an event. However, if a team has 4 top athletes in the state in a single event like Vista Ridge did a couple years ago, under the regional format they would get penalized for being good.
bupwj wrote:
MT 28, I do respect your opinion but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Just curious, do you support the 4 event maximum for athletes?


@bupwj

Yes, I do support the 4 event maximum. However, I also believe that the coach and the athlete has the right to determine which events those will be. An athlete should not be restricted in qualifying for 8 events if they are good enough. They then can determine which events will help the team the most.

Too much governance on qualifying is detrimental to the sport. The regional format also had a restriction of only 3 athletes from a team can qualify in an event. However, if a team has 4 top athletes in the state in a single event like Vista Ridge did a couple years ago, under the regional format they would get penalized for being good.
05/06/2014 12:41:40 PM
Coach
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 25
@ebell1961 She did have another chance the next week at our league meet. Again the wind was not legal, but she was also thrown off since the meet days and schedule changed about four times completely throwing off everything for us. It isn't ideal, but that is life and that's what I reminded her. Life isn't always fair, but but have to roll with it and make the best of your given situation. Also CHSAA states that if your athlete runs and each of their times is not wind legal then you can still petition to get them into the meet. To @querep You are saying that athletes should run a predetermined qualifying time and then they are secured correct? "I fail to see the problem if we qualify a few too many athletes to the state meet. Run an extra heat". In that same logic we could say well they didn't run the prequalifying mark so they don't make it to state at all. It's okay though because we will just run one heat or a smaller heat. The system works as is wether people like it or not.
@ebell1961
She did have another chance the next week at our league meet. Again the wind was not legal, but she was also thrown off since the meet days and schedule changed about four times completely throwing off everything for us. It isn't ideal, but that is life and that's what I reminded her. Life isn't always fair, but but have to roll with it and make the best of your given situation. Also CHSAA states that if your athlete runs and each of their times is not wind legal then you can still petition to get them into the meet.
To @querep
You are saying that athletes should run a predetermined qualifying time and then they are secured correct? "I fail to see the problem if we qualify a few too many athletes to the state meet. Run an extra heat". In that same logic we could say well they didn't run the prequalifying mark so they don't make it to state at all. It's okay though because we will just run one heat or a smaller heat.
The system works as is wether people like it or not.
05/06/2014 1:59:36 PM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 98
I may be a bit biased by having coached at Mountain Schools, Middle Park, and Battle Mountain, prior to coming to Loveland in 1999, but it is really tough and expensive for those schools to travel to lots of quality meets. I also might suggest that designing a sport around the elite athletes is a disservice to everyone who participates in the wonderful sport of track and field. All student athletes should be considered as we determine procedures. Elites should certainly be considered a priority, but the other 99% are important, too.
I may be a bit biased by having coached at Mountain Schools, Middle Park, and Battle Mountain, prior to coming to Loveland in 1999, but it is really tough and expensive for those schools to travel to lots of quality meets. I also might suggest that designing a sport around the elite athletes is a disservice to everyone who participates in the wonderful sport of track and field. All student athletes should be considered as we determine procedures. Elites should certainly be considered a priority, but the other 99% are important, too.
05/06/2014 2:08:53 PM
Coach
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 25
Oh trust me I am not inferring that the other 99% are not important at all because those athletes make up our future. If they do not earn their spot though then they should not be represented at the state meet is all that I am saying. We will bring our seniors to state if they don't qualify to still get the experience and be with the team, but we don't feel that they are owed a spot or anything like that.
Oh trust me I am not inferring that the other 99% are not important at all because those athletes make up our future. If they do not earn their spot though then they should not be represented at the state meet is all that I am saying. We will bring our seniors to state if they don't qualify to still get the experience and be with the team, but we don't feel that they are owed a spot or anything like that.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.