Anybody go to a one day region meet?
04/18/2017 6:34:14 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1036
With how small our regions are now, it seems borderline silly to have prelims and finals. I know in our region we will be taking more to finals than not. And that will likely be true for anybody with fewer than 8 teams in their region, which is a lot more regions than it used to be. We only have 6 teams, so we could easily just do one "fast" heat of 8 and a "slow" heat of 4, seeded by season pr. And if anybody from the "slow" heat gets a top 4 time, then they move on to sectionals. I see ups and downs to this, but I'm just curious if anybody went this route this year.
With how small our regions are now, it seems borderline silly to have prelims and finals. I know in our region we will be taking more to finals than not. And that will likely be true for anybody with fewer than 8 teams in their region, which is a lot more regions than it used to be. We only have 6 teams, so we could easily just do one "fast" heat of 8 and a "slow" heat of 4, seeded by season pr. And if anybody from the "slow" heat gets a top 4 time, then they move on to sectionals.

I see ups and downs to this, but I'm just curious if anybody went this route this year.
04/18/2017 8:13:15 AM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 812
I know some regions still want to simulate State by having qualifying. Our Region elected to just have the 800 as a final on the 2nd day, with all 14 runners in alleys. Will make it easier for the 800/1600 runners. Of course at Sectionals you have to do both in the same day.
I know some regions still want to simulate State by having qualifying. Our Region elected to just have the 800 as a final on the 2nd day, with all 14 runners in alleys. Will make it easier for the 800/1600 runners. Of course at Sectionals you have to do both in the same day.
04/18/2017 9:19:26 AM
Power User
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 600
Our region is tabling that idea at our coaches meeting today, but actually having a field event/1600m day and a finals only the next. I personally would like to see us start researching/collecting/collaborating on info to present of qualifying standards straight to sectionals, like many other states do. Our region will not have qualifying in the girls 4x1, girls 800m or girls/boys 4x4. They will be finals only. It is as much because regions are a few teams smaller in our classification as much as anything.
Our region is tabling that idea at our coaches meeting today, but actually having a field event/1600m day and a finals only the next.

I personally would like to see us start researching/collecting/collaborating on info to present of qualifying standards straight to sectionals, like many other states do.

Our region will not have qualifying in the girls 4x1, girls 800m or girls/boys 4x4. They will be finals only.

It is as much because regions are a few teams smaller in our classification as much as anything.
04/18/2017 9:33:27 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 307
It's ironic that this topic came up because our 1A Private Area/Region has the most teams in years. We have 10 teams in our Area and 9 of those will enter a full track and field team. Other classifications are getting more compact and less teams and 1A private's have all grown much larger.
It's ironic that this topic came up because our 1A Private Area/Region has the most teams in years. We have 10 teams in our Area and 9 of those will enter a full track and field team. Other classifications are getting more compact and less teams and 1A private's have all grown much larger.
04/18/2017 10:03:39 AM
Coach
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 38
@mbeaudreau Yes, Class A is on the other end of the spectrum since there are 4 areas. Area 1 public has around 20 teams and Area 2 public has 16 teams. Which make for some really good finals! I could see some of the upper classes exploring a 1 day meet format and it going smoothly.
@mbeaudreau

Yes, Class A is on the other end of the spectrum since there are 4 areas. Area 1 public has around 20 teams and Area 2 public has 16 teams. Which make for some really good finals!

I could see some of the upper classes exploring a 1 day meet format and it going smoothly.
04/18/2017 10:18:47 AM
Power User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 835
We have five schools with a maximum of 10 total entries in our region. Go figure.
We have five schools with a maximum of 10 total entries in our region. Go figure.
04/18/2017 10:33:41 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 124
@MaristXCcoach Our region of 6 teams is doing the full Prelims and finals while carrying 8 athletes to the finals. Our region coaches also elected to score 8 athletes though we have 6 teams.
@MaristXCcoach

Our region of 6 teams is doing the full Prelims and finals while carrying 8 athletes to the finals. Our region coaches also elected to score 8 athletes though we have 6 teams.
04/18/2017 11:41:48 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 187
[quote=ParkviewTrack] I personally would like to see us start researching/collecting/collaborating on info to present of qualifying standards straight to sectionals, like many other states do. .[/quote] @ParkviewTrack I also would like to see this!
ParkviewTrack wrote:


I personally would like to see us start researching/collecting/collaborating on info to present of qualifying standards straight to sectionals, like many other states do.

.


@ParkviewTrack I also would like to see this!
04/18/2017 12:44:37 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1036
[quote=ParkviewTrack] I personally would like to see us start researching/collecting/collaborating on info to present of qualifying standards straight to sectionals, like many other states do. [/quote] @ParkviewTrack Would this be to replace region? Would sectionals then have prelims and finals? I personally am not a fan of skipping region and going straight to sectionals. Track and Field is a sport that requires multiple rounds of qualification, and kids who are peaking at the end of the season and beat somebody head to head should be rewarded. Running a fast time on March 1st should not guarantee you a spot at sectionals, and it definitely should not guarantee you a spot at state (I know you never said state, but I know there are plenty who think we should just take the top 16 FAT times to state and skip region/sectionals all together) I like the fact that you have to qualify twice (Region and sectionals) and then still do prelims at state. Often times just getting a faster time is a result of getting in the right race, or getting the perfect conditions. Racing head to head means everybody is on an even playing field to get to sectionals and state. And speaking of conditions, I also think that is what makes this approach REALLY dangerous. There are so few meets in our state where we use wind gauges. If no wind gauge is used, we have no idea if those times were wind legal. I think we also still have meets that use hand times, though that seems to be diminishing which is good. There are other factors in play too. I've heard multiple times over the years people complain about a kids' long/triple jump or shot/discus throw being measured incorrectly. Again, a result of us being self-officiated versus always hiring certified officials. Just too much inconsistency across the board in my opinion to go that route. This method works well enough in college because they always hire certified officials and have wind gauges, altitude conversions, etc..
ParkviewTrack wrote:

I personally would like to see us start researching/collecting/collaborating on info to present of qualifying standards straight to sectionals, like many other states do.


@ParkviewTrack

Would this be to replace region? Would sectionals then have prelims and finals?

I personally am not a fan of skipping region and going straight to sectionals. Track and Field is a sport that requires multiple rounds of qualification, and kids who are peaking at the end of the season and beat somebody head to head should be rewarded. Running a fast time on March 1st should not guarantee you a spot at sectionals, and it definitely should not guarantee you a spot at state (I know you never said state, but I know there are plenty who think we should just take the top 16 FAT times to state and skip region/sectionals all together)

I like the fact that you have to qualify twice (Region and sectionals) and then still do prelims at state. Often times just getting a faster time is a result of getting in the right race, or getting the perfect conditions. Racing head to head means everybody is on an even playing field to get to sectionals and state.

And speaking of conditions, I also think that is what makes this approach REALLY dangerous. There are so few meets in our state where we use wind gauges. If no wind gauge is used, we have no idea if those times were wind legal. I think we also still have meets that use hand times, though that seems to be diminishing which is good. There are other factors in play too. I've heard multiple times over the years people complain about a kids' long/triple jump or shot/discus throw being measured incorrectly. Again, a result of us being self-officiated versus always hiring certified officials.

Just too much inconsistency across the board in my opinion to go that route. This method works well enough in college because they always hire certified officials and have wind gauges, altitude conversions, etc..
04/18/2017 12:46:11 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1036
In reference to the original topic though, I am glad to hear that there were regions that at least discussed it! Smart people doing some good thinking. Our meet starts tomorrow, and I literally didn't even think about this until this morning. I wish I had brought it up earlier. The 800 is a perfect example of an event that probably doesn't need prelims in most regions.
In reference to the original topic though, I am glad to hear that there were regions that at least discussed it! Smart people doing some good thinking. Our meet starts tomorrow, and I literally didn't even think about this until this morning. I wish I had brought it up earlier. The 800 is a perfect example of an event that probably doesn't need prelims in most regions.
04/18/2017 1:45:48 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 187
@spxcoachrm While I would like to see some type of time standard qualification be researched, I think you are right that we could never go to that because of the lack of consistency that we have at meets across the State. We would have to implement certain requirements to host a meet and then I would imagine that there would be a decrease in the number of meets offered each season because of the lack of certified officials etc.
@spxcoachrm While I would like to see some type of time standard qualification be researched, I think you are right that we could never go to that because of the lack of consistency that we have at meets across the State. We would have to implement certain requirements to host a meet and then I would imagine that there would be a decrease in the number of meets offered each season because of the lack of certified officials etc.
04/18/2017 2:19:27 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 494
Region 5-7A had our day 1 on Monday. No prelims for 800M which will be run as a final. Rounds for all other running events, including relays. With only 6 teams, running prelims taking 8 to a final that started with only 12 athletes felt completely unnecessary. Coaches yesterday discussed moving to a one day meet. Wish we had run the 4X400 as a final. Only 9 squads participated and we took 8 to the final. For 7A, if the the decision is made to stay with 2 day region meets, I'd love to see a rule change to open region up to 3 athletes per team. 7A's largest region only has 7 teams. Fits easily into a 3 heat qualification prelim. Even if the rules stay the same and a team can't take more than 2 athletes per event to sectionals even if they make top 4, if we are going to the trouble of 2 days and prelims, it would be great to give more athletes a chance to compete against the best while on peak form. If the regions decide to move to one day meet, I think it should be uniform across the classification and not a region by region decision.
Region 5-7A had our day 1 on Monday. No prelims for 800M which will be run as a final. Rounds for all other running events, including relays. With only 6 teams, running prelims taking 8 to a final that started with only 12 athletes felt completely unnecessary. Coaches yesterday discussed moving to a one day meet. Wish we had run the 4X400 as a final. Only 9 squads participated and we took 8 to the final.

For 7A, if the the decision is made to stay with 2 day region meets, I'd love to see a rule change to open region up to 3 athletes per team. 7A's largest region only has 7 teams. Fits easily into a 3 heat qualification prelim. Even if the rules stay the same and a team can't take more than 2 athletes per event to sectionals even if they make top 4, if we are going to the trouble of 2 days and prelims, it would be great to give more athletes a chance to compete against the best while on peak form.

If the regions decide to move to one day meet, I think it should be uniform across the classification and not a region by region decision.
04/18/2017 3:34:17 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 104
Region 2-AAAAAA will be having a one day meet. What are everyone thoughts on scoring a 5 team meet?
Region 2-AAAAAA will be having a one day meet. What are everyone thoughts on scoring a 5 team meet?
04/18/2017 7:37:04 PM
Coach
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 38
[quote=Bansley2]Region 2-AAAAAA will be having a one day meet. What are everyone thoughts on scoring a 5 team meet?[/quote] @Bansley2 I beleive per nfhs it is individual scoring: 8-6-4-2-1 and 8-6-4-2 for relays.
Bansley2 wrote:
Region 2-AAAAAA will be having a one day meet. What are everyone thoughts on scoring a 5 team meet?


@Bansley2

I beleive per nfhs it is individual scoring: 8-6-4-2-1 and 8-6-4-2 for relays.
04/18/2017 8:06:36 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 706
Our region just reduced the 800 field from 17 to 8 for the finals. Only thing I see it helped was guys who ran the 1600 didn't have to be at top form a couple hours later.
Our region just reduced the 800 field from 17 to 8 for the finals. Only thing I see it helped was guys who ran the 1600 didn't have to be at top form a couple hours later.
04/18/2017 8:28:23 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1036
@crossfan2861 I love these ideas, for all classifications. I think you're really onto something here in terms of letting teams enter more than 2 athletes per event at region. 3-4 would be awesome, even if we stuck to only 2 per team go to sectionals/state. There are tons of teams out there every year who have run-offs between their 2-4 runners. Imagine if they didn't have to? Let region be the run off. That'd be awesome! I also agree that it would be better if it was consistent among all regions.
@crossfan2861

I love these ideas, for all classifications. I think you're really onto something here in terms of letting teams enter more than 2 athletes per event at region. 3-4 would be awesome, even if we stuck to only 2 per team go to sectionals/state. There are tons of teams out there every year who have run-offs between their 2-4 runners. Imagine if they didn't have to? Let region be the run off. That'd be awesome!

I also agree that it would be better if it was consistent among all regions.
04/19/2017 7:46:15 AM
Power User
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 600
@spxcoachrm I don't think we get rid of region at all--I'm aware of the qualify/finals/advance process, but I also was in another state for a few years that already had standards in place. It always helped programs who may be dealing a sore hamstring, sickness, etc., because the kid would be able make a standard at a meet. Region (conference in a lot of other states) is important, and I also would like to see being able to enter 3 athletes per open event (as other states allow), or possibly more. I don't agree with the argument that times won't be valid for a standards-process; I think any FAT meet (which most are now) is sufficient. In terms of field events, I hate to say that unless we we have automatic markers/board devices that register fouls (neither of which are needed), that the tape can still be stretched a little farther/measured a little longer and that is never going to be fixable unless you have multiple judges--certified or not. And "certified" official is not always more than a title; there are plenty of qualified coaches who can judge/run/officiate events. I do like the process and would LOVE to see this become a part of coaching education/staff development REQUIRED of head coaches (maybe a GATFXCCA initiative down the road). When our old Region 8 elected to use verified FAT times only a few years ago (a process that I am proud to see that many have adopted, too), this cleaned up the skewing of heats. I see world records entered at our Relay meet every year, and a national record was entered for the Coaches Invite this year in a relay but the team didn't come close to that time. Field events are different--kids that can jump/throw/vault can do so whether they have a valid mark or not. A kid entered at 11.0 in the 100m with a true FAT time of 11.55 will NOT run faster because of the competition around him--and several people do believe in that process and at some meets continue to enter times that are not close hoping/expecting their kids will PR. That's why we always see scoreres/placers from heat 2/3 or farther in some meets. The hurdler from South Gwinnett was entered in the 400m Hurdles at Bojangles with NT because his coach either elected not to try and estimate/convert from his 300mH time, yet he ran in the first heat and finished 2nd overall. So, now that my random/exhausted/region qualifying mental hangover/ stream of consciousness is over, developing standards is still something I have been a part of and think could be good here. It doesn't mean it will ever happen, but our job as coaches is to have discussions like this to continue to progress and reform to improve our sports. I love the fact that we have a topic on the message board that has a few recent responses!
@spxcoachrm

I don't think we get rid of region at all--I'm aware of the qualify/finals/advance process, but I also was in another state for a few years that already had standards in place. It always helped programs who may be dealing a sore hamstring, sickness, etc., because the kid would be able make a standard at a meet.

Region (conference in a lot of other states) is important, and I also would like to see being able to enter 3 athletes per open event (as other states allow), or possibly more.

I don't agree with the argument that times won't be valid for a standards-process; I think any FAT meet (which most are now) is sufficient.

In terms of field events, I hate to say that unless we we have automatic markers/board devices that register fouls (neither of which are needed), that the tape can still be stretched a little farther/measured a little longer and that is never going to be fixable unless you have multiple judges--certified or not. And "certified" official is not always more than a title; there are plenty of qualified coaches who can judge/run/officiate events. I do like the process and would LOVE to see this become a part of coaching education/staff development REQUIRED of head coaches (maybe a GATFXCCA initiative down the road).

When our old Region 8 elected to use verified FAT times only a few years ago (a process that I am proud to see that many have adopted, too), this cleaned up the skewing of heats. I see world records entered at our Relay meet every year, and a national record was entered for the Coaches Invite this year in a relay but the team didn't come close to that time. Field events are different--kids that can jump/throw/vault can do so whether they have a valid mark or not.

A kid entered at 11.0 in the 100m with a true FAT time of 11.55 will NOT run faster because of the competition around him--and several people do believe in that process and at some meets continue to enter times that are not close hoping/expecting their kids will PR. That's why we always see scoreres/placers from heat 2/3 or farther in some meets. The hurdler from South Gwinnett was entered in the 400m Hurdles at Bojangles with NT because his coach either elected not to try and estimate/convert from his 300mH time, yet he ran in the first heat and finished 2nd overall.

So, now that my random/exhausted/region qualifying mental hangover/ stream of consciousness is over, developing standards is still something I have been a part of and think could be good here. It doesn't mean it will ever happen, but our job as coaches is to have discussions like this to continue to progress and reform to improve our sports.

I love the fact that we have a topic on the message board that has a few recent responses!
04/19/2017 9:21:12 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 83
@ParkviewTrack You put everything into words what I was thinking. Came from the same state. Had Qualifying Standards to move on, but still held Conference/Regional Championships. I would like to see us adopt a dual qualifying process. Have qualifying standards as well as qualifying out of your Region Meet Championships.
@ParkviewTrack

You put everything into words what I was thinking. Came from the same state. Had Qualifying Standards to move on, but still held Conference/Regional Championships. I would like to see us adopt a dual qualifying process. Have qualifying standards as well as qualifying out of your Region Meet Championships.
04/19/2017 2:29:52 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 113
I have q question. I noticed that there was a proposal to reduce the classifications from 7 back down to 6. I know it didn't move forward or however you would word it. My thought process to the Question is simple...is that idea truly dead? Because if it isn't, then it would seem this discussion is null and void. Well, not completely...qualifying standards is still a legit discussion. I just meant the process of moving down to one final versus the process of qualifying rounds.
I have q question. I noticed that there was a proposal to reduce the classifications from 7 back down to 6. I know it didn't move forward or however you would word it. My thought process to the Question is simple...is that idea truly dead? Because if it isn't, then it would seem this discussion is null and void. Well, not completely...qualifying standards is still a legit discussion. I just meant the process of moving down to one final versus the process of qualifying rounds.
04/19/2017 2:36:00 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 440
@FloweryBranch I thinks its dead for now, at least that's what I get from reading the GHSA minutes.
@FloweryBranch I thinks its dead for now, at least that's what I get from reading the GHSA minutes.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.