flrunners.com

@jason

jason

Right now the first-tier athletes can basically train through the season because unless they fall down, get injured or false start... the state meet is basically a given. So they can focus completely a state meet peak. Second-tier kids though (especially in tough district/region) have to try to essentially peak three weeks in a row (which you said is impossible). So what I was saying when probably wrongly used the word "cruise" was that they could likely get their qualifying out of the way early and then focus solely on their training and peaking for the state meet. Get a few tests in their mid-season to sharpen at big meets. Again what the first tier athletes already do.

I would argue that hitting a theorhetical state mark time in a sprint early in the season to be able to focus the rest of the season on proper peaking is only going to affect a handful of kids, e.g. Marvin Bracy, Robin Reynolds, Arman Hall, nationally ranked type kids; the few and the rare.

My point was that for the rest of the possibly legitimate state level kids (my impression of the "first tiered kids"), should always be focusing on trying to peak at the end of the season. But this qualifying standard will promote sporadic peaking (whether the athletes are trying to hit the mark, or coaches improperly training their kids to hit the mark) and then will attempt to cruise throughout the rest of the season, thereby allowing "second tiered" kids, more opportunities to shoot for these standards.

jason

Only a small portion of the population who run track are state meet bound or have any realistic shot. For those talented few that is what the entire season is about. Any other victories along the way are just icing. For the rest of the kids though it is those regular season wins and placing well at conference or a new personal best that matters. So I don't think this system would change that much. State bound kids would still focus on that. And the others would still look at head-to-head and simply improving on their previous best marks.

I think every kid enjoys victories, whether large or small, and also enjoys head-to-head races, and improving their PRs. I disagree with this "icing on the cake" and all that matters is State. As a coach, if a kid has the mentality that all that matters is a state medal, then they absolutely have the wrong mentality as an athlete for my program. Kids need to have intrinsic motivational factors which will help them achieve the extrinsic ones. But if all they care about is a physical reward, you've lost them. But hey, what do I know about psychology?

jason

And we can focus on things that will/might happen that we mostly all agree would move the sport forward: two-day state meet.

@CoachRaposo

I agree with you on the peaking and training of the non-elite athlete. But as you so eloquently stated on the head to head if you get a kid in the right race early on in the season or mid season and they have a break out performance. Then as a coach you can use the remaining meets as tune up training (ie , kid makes mile time...not you throw him in 800s, 400s, or even a 2mile at a meet for tune up). Which would give other opportunities for your "2nd tier" hate using these terms ...be able to compete at more of the meets.

jason

Second-tier kids though (especially in tough district/region) have to try to essentially peak three weeks in a row (which you said is impossible).

And here's the crux of the issue: the first-tier kids will probably get through in any system (but we still do need a top-3 finishers + next 4 best marks to go form D to R and R to S), and the third-tier kids won't get through any way, so how best do we ensure the 'best of the rest' are given a fair chance to Q for State?
First of all, peaking three weeks in a row is not impossible; it's done repeatedly year after year everywhere. It all about increasing intensity and decreasing volume at the end of the reg season and into the post-season.
Second of all, the biggest detriment to 'fairness' now is the gross inequality of districts and regions. While head-to-head IS significant, it is NOT as important as the quality of marks an athlete has accomplished. That's why we need a hybrid system that allows athletes to hit a qualifying mark OR advance through head-to-head. We still need D and R as they exist to sort out the latter. An auto-qualed athlete must still participate in D and R, but need only finish in the top 8 to advance to the next round.

@Raycer131

I think those cases are few and far between. Usually only at big-time mid-season meets like UF and FSU where, for whatever reason, the ambiance of the situation causes many PRs, would coaches see state level performances. But as a coach, I should be quick enough to realize that although I know my athlete has state potential, they need to be consistent in their performances in order to properly get them where I need them to be come the end of the season. Not a 'he popped-a-good-one, now let's keep crusin' until the big show'.

My problem with this proposal is that it goes against two things that I think are absolutely paramount in any good training program: progression and consistency. And I truly think that for the vast majority of talented kids, many of which don't have very knowledgeable coaches when it comes to proper training theory, it will yield to improper training and performances. That 4:20s first week of the season 1600m kid might come back and run 4:40s at the end of the season because their body was improperly trained to hit a mark earlier than it should have. No one thinks about it from the backwards perspective of 'you're sending the more talented kids, but that aren't running the proper times that are indicative of their abilities because they peaked a month earlier'.

gpc3

First of all, peaking three weeks in a row is not impossible; it's done repeatedly year after year everywhere.

@gpc3 It's possible, but in proper training theory applications, you shouldn't be able to get a kid dropping PRs for three consecutive weeks in an 800m run for example.

@CoachRaposo

I get your point on the backward thought, but "A good coach and athlete" should plan it right, and this is the format NCAA's uses ( i know we don't run a business as college sports is) but....having a kid hit the time early and be able to use the meets to fine tune and train (not saying avoid) but use the meets as workouts for the end of season as a goal. Look at how the pros train and use meets...do you really think Galen Rupp is gonna compete at the mile / 1500m in london or even attempt to...of course not, but he races that distance to help his speed for his other events. As a coach we can do those same things especially when we have meets every week (for the most part).

I thought the idea of still keeping Districts but also having the qualifying standards was a decent compromise, it would help the elite and near elite athletes, it would also do no damage and give all the non elite the same opportunity they always had, and have the added benefit of not penalizing a strong district. There would be none of the
"my district was so hard and yours was so easy, I was 5th and missed out and those 4 slower guys got in"
Now if you don't have the time you can't complain cause 1 maybe we make it top 2 from district advance and anyone that has his the A standard...or B if not enough A's make it.

Raycer131

but "A good coach and athlete" should plan it right,

Correct. But there aren't that many of those combinations unfortunately.

Raycer131

There would be none of the "my district was so hard and yours was so easy, I was 5th and missed out and those 4 slower guys got in"

Unfortunately that's a part of ALL SPORTS.

Look, I have Lourdes in my District. It's understood that if you make it out of the District in the 3200m run, then you've made it to State. But that's the name of the game. And it's all coaching dependent as well. If I left Ferguson, the program would fade in a couple of years and then the "strong distance district" disappears. It all depends on who is coaching where and what athletes they have. That's life.

I just completely disagree with the "well I think I'm good and should qualify to the next level, but I had a tough district so now let me try to change the entire qualification system"; I think the whole idea is foolish and people need to focus on training harder. Bluntly put, if qualifying to a state meet was all that you cared about, then transfer to a school in a weak region and stop complaining.

@CoachRaposo
I think you are missing my point slightly...
I am not saying they are good so I get to automatically move on to the next level.
I am saying the beginning level is Regionals as it is in many states...and the District meet is your last shot at getting in to the beginning level. Since some places don't have conference it gives them their shot at entering the State series, kinda like the Play in game or conference auto bids for the March Madness tourney... Districts becomes a last chance to win your way in or make the time to get into the State series.

@Raycer131

Better idea than what the others are talking about. But I still favor the current head-to-head system.

@CoachRaposo
you still get your head to head though...You still have the District meet...it will just eliminate the 3rd tier athlete and that has no reason being in a regional 2 mile that they are getting lapped in cause their District 4th place finish moved them on...top 2 are usually reasonable times...and all the rest that will be in the regional meet already ran the time at a some point.

@Raycer131

It's for the most part anecdotal and changes from District to District. Although there are more bad ones than good ones.

CoachRaposo

gpc3First of all, peaking three weeks in a row is not impossible; it's done repeatedly year after year everywhere.
@gpc3 It's possible, but in proper training theory applications, you shouldn't be able to get a kid dropping PRs for three consecutive weeks in an 800m run for example.

At the post-collegiate elite level, no, but with teenagers, absolutely, yes. I only coach hurdlers and jumpers but it's pretty standard that they improve in the post-season as I rest them more and more. Conditions may prevent a PR, but they are all getting better, by and large. I do know that our runners have routinely dropped their times in the post-season, which I attributed to the quality of competition going up.

gpc3

At the post-collegiate elite level, no, but with teenagers, absolutely, yes. I only coach hurdlers and jumpers but it's pretty standard that they improve in the post-season as I rest them more and more. Conditions may prevent a PR, but they are all getting better, by and large. I do know that our runners have routinely dropped their times in the post-season, which I attributed to the quality of competition going up.

@gpc3 For the majority of high school kids, yes. But not for the elite level kids, they shouldn't.

I, personally, think Coach Crandall's plot of a +x (whether it be three from each region and next four, or two and next eight is interchangable) systems is the second best plan. In addition, I have never understood why swimming can do it and not track and field. (Please don't go with your conventional "conditions are all similar" in swimming response as Steve Lochte (Ryan's father and US Swim Team coach) repeatedly used to tell me that certain pools are extremely faster than others)

If I were proposing, it would be that you still had a regional meet setting. Your top two finishers in each even qualify for the state meet (8-total), the next 16 would be filled first with declaring A-standard qualifiers. If there are any spots (of those 16) left, they would be filled with B-standard qualifiers in progression. The athlete would have to be entered (not neccesarily compete, but entered) into the event during the regional meet. All other rules apply (though I am a proponent of the national rule, not the FHSAA rule regarding entries).

I think this eliminates so many problems that I addressed above, and allows for the most level playing field there is. I have done the research on this and since 2001, only two times would there have been an extraordinary number of qualifiers meeting the A standards, I mentioned above. Both were in the beginning years of the girl pole vault. In fact, 65% of the time, only 5-8 people hit the A-standard (I did use only meets that had FAT timing, however, and I would surmise that this would decrease even more if some of the times were ruled illegal because of high winds).

As far as a two-day meet goes, I loved North Carolina's structure when I timed the state meet up there in 2004. It was basically, 4x800 (first event) and 3200 (last event) finals (along with either the shot or discus - it was like male shot, womens discus or vice versa) and prelims on Day 1, then the remainder of the finals on Day 2. I do not remember if they adjusted 1600/800 times.

So many JoeMckinney appearances lately! This reminds me of 2004!