GHSA Region Madness Week 2
10/25/2020 3:21:24 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2899
With regions having to complete their championships by next Saturday, over 30 region meets are left to be contested to determine who advances to the State meet in Carrollton. Some of these regions will be hotly contested, especially for the top 3 team positions. Others will advance athletes who openly walk the Carrollton course. What's the solution? Sectionals..?
With regions having to complete their championships by next Saturday, over 30 region meets are left to be contested to determine who advances to the State meet in Carrollton. Some of these regions will be hotly contested, especially for the top 3 team positions. Others will advance athletes who openly walk the Carrollton course.

What's the solution? Sectionals..?
10/25/2020 10:25:46 AM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 26
@gawebmaster Talking to other coaches, seems like the Sectional idea is gaining momentum. Either that or a return to Areas in 7A. With the hand GHSA is dealing us, Sectionals seems like a good solution. Perhaps something like... 8 regions - top 4 qualify 4 sectionals - top 5 qualify (at least 2 per region?) State - 20 teams Top 20 seems like a fair cutoff. But you can adjust the number of teams making it through to state. Could be top 16, 20, or 24. And you could even take top 5 per region to sectionals if you want. One issue is hosting another meet between region and state. Our calendar would need to adjust. Maybe run region a week earlier? And for schools that host region and sectionals, it would be an added burden. With Areas, that’s not an issue. Comes down to uniting behind something that GHSA is likely to approve.
@gawebmaster

Talking to other coaches, seems like the Sectional idea is gaining momentum. Either that or a return to Areas in 7A.

With the hand GHSA is dealing us, Sectionals seems like a good solution.

Perhaps something like...
8 regions - top 4 qualify
4 sectionals - top 5 qualify (at least 2 per region?)
State - 20 teams

Top 20 seems like a fair cutoff. But you can adjust the number of teams making it through to state. Could be top 16, 20, or 24. And you could even take top 5 per region to sectionals if you want.

One issue is hosting another meet between region and state. Our calendar would need to adjust. Maybe run region a week earlier? And for schools that host region and sectionals, it would be an added burden. With Areas, that's not an issue.

Comes down to uniting behind something that GHSA is likely to approve.
10/25/2020 11:35:41 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 959
@gawebmaster I was going to post this last nite but glad others beat me to it: [i]In 7A, the region versus Area meet change for this season will certainly bring in teams that would normally not be at the state meet and send some other deserving teams home that are faster and in an Area format would have qualified but not in the new & current region format. 7A coaches OVERWELMINGLY made it clear to the GHSA this was our recommendation (keeping with Area meets/2 regions per Area) versus returning to regions but it fell on deaf ears. So when we see athletes walking at the state meet (and we will) in 7A, send your observations to the GHSA EC.[/i]
@gawebmaster I was going to post this last nite but glad others beat me to it:
In 7A, the region versus Area meet change for this season will certainly bring in teams that would normally not be at the state meet and send some other deserving teams home that are faster and in an Area format would have qualified but not in the new & current region format. 7A coaches OVERWELMINGLY made it clear to the GHSA this was our recommendation (keeping with Area meets/2 regions per Area) versus returning to regions but it fell on deaf ears. So when we see athletes walking at the state meet (and we will) in 7A, send your observations to the GHSA EC.
10/25/2020 11:38:32 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 959
@RidgeXC In 2004 we had a sectional meet after regions. Qualify top-2 teams from regions (run 2 weeks before state) & the 3rd & 4th place teams from all the regions would run in a sectional meet the week before state with the top-8 teams making it to state, thus 24 teams, like we had at Area's.
@RidgeXC In 2004 we had a sectional meet after regions.
Qualify top-2 teams from regions (run 2 weeks before state) & the 3rd & 4th place teams from all the regions would run in a sectional meet the week before state with the top-8 teams making it to state, thus 24 teams, like we had at Area's.
10/25/2020 11:48:29 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 642
Sectionals. Georgia needs to figure out if making it to state is a part of sports, where kids learn from winning and losing, or if the State [b]Championship[/b] is an everyone-gets-a-trophy participation activity.
Sectionals.

Georgia needs to figure out if making it to state is a part of sports, where kids learn from winning and losing, or if the State Championship is an everyone-gets-a-trophy participation activity.
10/25/2020 12:24:24 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 25
[quote=RidgeXC]@gawebmaster Talking to other coaches, seems like the Sectional idea is gaining momentum. Either that or a return to Areas in 7A. With the hand GHSA is dealing us, Sectionals seems like a good solution. Perhaps something like... 8 regions - top 4 qualify 4 sectionals - top 5 qualify (at least 2 per region?) State - 20 teams Top 20 seems like a fair cutoff. But you can adjust the number of teams making it through to state. Could be top 16, 20, or 24. And you could even take top 5 per region to sectionals if you want. One issue is hosting another meet between region and state. Our calendar would need to adjust. Maybe run region a week earlier? And for schools that host region and sectionals, it would be an added burden. With Areas, that’s not an issue. Comes down to uniting behind something that GHSA is likely to approve.[/quote] Competitively, it's ridiculous that 71% of 7A teams make it to the state finals. My primary concerns are about the course and the size of the field. Sectionals would be a good solution. Many of our regions already race two weeks before state. Add sectionals to the week in between, and it's done. MANY states do their series this way - Region-Sectional-State in back-to-back-to-back weeks. The sectional meets should be considered the first round of the state playoffs. Therefore, the same number of teams "qualify for state." Given the course at Carrollton, ideally there would only be 16 teams at the state finals. Makes sense to take the top 4 from each region to sectionals. 2 regions per sectional. Top 4 from each sectional. Include some individuals and you've got your state field at a very manageable number, certainly under 130 unless you include a lot of individuals. If we want more teams than this, we need to change the venue. Carrollton does a fabulous job hosting, but the bottle neck in the first 200m is ridiculous with 230 runners, and the 90 degree turn before 400m is equally as silly for a field that large. Neither would be an issue with 100 fewer runners. If we want to keep it more inclusive with 20 or 24 teams, we need a different course. Just one example (there are MANY): a couple of years ago when West Forsyth was vying for the team title, one of their key kids went down in the first 100m or so. The race was called back, but his state meet was essentially over. Without the large numbers (and that was with 24 teams) and the bottleneck of the course, that wouldn't have happened. It shouldn't happen at a state finals meet, and there's no question that it impacted the results of the race, at least individually. Be honest, coaches. How many of you 7A coaches hold your breath as the race starts, praying that one of your kids is not the one who falls and gets trampled? How many other meets on your schedule elicit this pre-race anxiety? I love the Carrollton course. Really. The hosts do a terrific job with it. But in my humble opinion, we should not hold a state finals meet with 230 athletes on that course.
RidgeXC wrote:
@gawebmaster

Talking to other coaches, seems like the Sectional idea is gaining momentum. Either that or a return to Areas in 7A.

With the hand GHSA is dealing us, Sectionals seems like a good solution.

Perhaps something like...
8 regions - top 4 qualify
4 sectionals - top 5 qualify (at least 2 per region?)
State - 20 teams

Top 20 seems like a fair cutoff. But you can adjust the number of teams making it through to state. Could be top 16, 20, or 24. And you could even take top 5 per region to sectionals if you want.

One issue is hosting another meet between region and state. Our calendar would need to adjust. Maybe run region a week earlier? And for schools that host region and sectionals, it would be an added burden. With Areas, that's not an issue.

Comes down to uniting behind something that GHSA is likely to approve.


Competitively, it's ridiculous that 71% of 7A teams make it to the state finals. My primary concerns are about the course and the size of the field. Sectionals would be a good solution.

Many of our regions already race two weeks before state. Add sectionals to the week in between, and it's done. MANY states do their series this way - Region-Sectional-State in back-to-back-to-back weeks.

The sectional meets should be considered the first round of the state playoffs. Therefore, the same number of teams "qualify for state."

Given the course at Carrollton, ideally there would only be 16 teams at the state finals. Makes sense to take the top 4 from each region to sectionals. 2 regions per sectional. Top 4 from each sectional. Include some individuals and you've got your state field at a very manageable number, certainly under 130 unless you include a lot of individuals. If we want more teams than this, we need to change the venue.

Carrollton does a fabulous job hosting, but the bottle neck in the first 200m is ridiculous with 230 runners, and the 90 degree turn before 400m is equally as silly for a field that large. Neither would be an issue with 100 fewer runners.

If we want to keep it more inclusive with 20 or 24 teams, we need a different course. Just one example (there are MANY): a couple of years ago when West Forsyth was vying for the team title, one of their key kids went down in the first 100m or so. The race was called back, but his state meet was essentially over. Without the large numbers (and that was with 24 teams) and the bottleneck of the course, that wouldn't have happened. It shouldn't happen at a state finals meet, and there's no question that it impacted the results of the race, at least individually.

Be honest, coaches. How many of you 7A coaches hold your breath as the race starts, praying that one of your kids is not the one who falls and gets trampled? How many other meets on your schedule elicit this pre-race anxiety?

I love the Carrollton course. Really. The hosts do a terrific job with it. But in my humble opinion, we should not hold a state finals meet with 230 athletes on that course.
10/25/2020 1:15:24 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 806
When I presented to the GHSA this spring, the main reason we were given for 7A to return to Regions seemed to be uniformity, for uniformity's sake. We need to find a way to show the GHSA that it is different with XC. Football doesn't have all teams that make the State playoffs compete against each other at the same time. With that happening in Cross Country, it should change the dynamic of how teams qualify for State, and how many. I know that for some teams this year, getting a taste of the State meet will inspire them to train harder, so that they don't just get there, but they do better when they get there. However, my fear is that for a majority that qualified this year but maybe did not under the Area format, there isn't much motivation to train harder, if there are only 5 teams in their Region and they know they only have to beat one to make it to State. As Coach Dehnke mentioned, 71% of the classification qualifying for State does not make qualifying for State an elite accomplishment. Many states in the U.S. are closer to 20%, which shows you the disparity. At this point, I'd settle for 50%, although that is also high (but what most other classifications are closer to). Then you have Regions like 6-7A, which is by far the hardest to get out of. Look at Gainesville, who was 5th on both the boys and girls sides. They already have a good program, and I bet this will just motivate them even more, but it is disappointing that a program of their caliber won't be at State. However, competitive balance in Regions is another issue. When we had Sectionals in 2002, 2003, and 2004, the issue was that some schools did not show up. So we'd need to tweak the system to to combat that (or just assure the GHSA that it doesn't matter if teams don't come-the competitive teams that want to be at State will come).
When I presented to the GHSA this spring, the main reason we were given for 7A to return to Regions seemed to be uniformity, for uniformity's sake. We need to find a way to show the GHSA that it is different with XC. Football doesn't have all teams that make the State playoffs compete against each other at the same time. With that happening in Cross Country, it should change the dynamic of how teams qualify for State, and how many.

I know that for some teams this year, getting a taste of the State meet will inspire them to train harder, so that they don't just get there, but they do better when they get there. However, my fear is that for a majority that qualified this year but maybe did not under the Area format, there isn't much motivation to train harder, if there are only 5 teams in their Region and they know they only have to beat one to make it to State.

As Coach Dehnke mentioned, 71% of the classification qualifying for State does not make qualifying for State an elite accomplishment. Many states in the U.S. are closer to 20%, which shows you the disparity. At this point, I'd settle for 50%, although that is also high (but what most other classifications are closer to).

Then you have Regions like 6-7A, which is by far the hardest to get out of. Look at Gainesville, who was 5th on both the boys and girls sides. They already have a good program, and I bet this will just motivate them even more, but it is disappointing that a program of their caliber won't be at State. However, competitive balance in Regions is another issue.

When we had Sectionals in 2002, 2003, and 2004, the issue was that some schools did not show up. So we'd need to tweak the system to to combat that (or just assure the GHSA that it doesn't matter if teams don't come-the competitive teams that want to be at State will come).
10/25/2020 3:11:08 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 437
We need a sectional format like we have in track or an area format. I think GHSA would probably go for a sectional format because it would allow 32 teams to make it to the state playoffs like all other sports. The question then becomes how many teams come out from the sectionals. I say 8 teams and top 6 individuals. That way it is 16 teams at the state meet. The sectionals need to be divided up so the best 16 make it to state. I know it would hard to do this because of geographic considerations, but it would make the state way more competitive.
We need a sectional format like we have in track or an area format. I think GHSA would probably go for a sectional format because it would allow 32 teams to make it to the state playoffs like all other sports. The question then becomes how many teams come out from the sectionals. I say 8 teams and top 6 individuals. That way it is 16 teams at the state meet. The sectionals need to be divided up so the best 16 make it to state. I know it would hard to do this because of geographic considerations, but it would make the state way more competitive.
10/25/2020 4:44:32 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 36
@acarr6453 I like your model. Rewards the Top 2 teams from Regionals with a bye week before state. While the other 16 teams(3 and 4 seeds) battle it out for the remaining 8 spots.
@acarr6453

I like your model.

Rewards the Top 2 teams from Regionals with a bye week before state. While the other 16 teams(3 and 4 seeds) battle it out for the remaining 8 spots.
10/25/2020 5:09:31 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 487
@coachbxc Actually, at the 2018 7A guys meet the race was not called back. Our #1 for WFHS got up dead last and finished as our #5 with spike wounds on his hip and back that are still clearly visible 2 years later. Our #4 never got up. He went straight to the medical tent. That is one rule I'd like to see changed in the current state meet format. The line at which the race would be called back due to contact should be moved back to insure the field clears that pinch point where the start narrows. I'm very nervous for the 2020 boys 7A state meet start with 32 teams and the top 1/3 of the field being very evenly matched. The opening 150M could be rock'em sock'em robots. And, don't forget it is 2020! A sink hole might open up and swallow the entire field.
@coachbxc
Actually, at the 2018 7A guys meet the race was not called back. Our #1 for WFHS got up dead last and finished as our #5 with spike wounds on his hip and back that are still clearly visible 2 years later. Our #4 never got up. He went straight to the medical tent. That is one rule I'd like to see changed in the current state meet format. The line at which the race would be called back due to contact should be moved back to insure the field clears that pinch point where the start narrows. I'm very nervous for the 2020 boys 7A state meet start with 32 teams and the top 1/3 of the field being very evenly matched. The opening 150M could be rock'em sock'em robots. And, don't forget it is 2020! A sink hole might open up and swallow the entire field.
10/25/2020 6:39:07 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 180
The coaches association will be looking at a potential Sectionals proposal for XC once this current season is over. However, I will add that the association is not a policy making group. We do not make or set GHSA policy. This past summer we attempted to collect data and make an argument against the GHSA proposal for 7A to go back to Regions. We felt the need to do so because a majority of 7A coaches were in favor of the Area format. The goal of the coaches association is to be a voice for the coaches and that is what we tried to do. From the experience this past summer we learned a lot and one thing I will say is that if you ever feel strongly in support of or against a proposal, you need to speak with your AD, Principal and the GHSA rep for your region to make sure that your voice is heard by the person who will be voting for your region. As an association we can only do so much in terms of communicating and getting the word out. The more coaches that are independently having the conversations with their Admin and Rep, the more effective we can be.
The coaches association will be looking at a potential Sectionals proposal for XC once this current season is over.

However, I will add that the association is not a policy making group. We do not make or set GHSA policy. This past summer we attempted to collect data and make an argument against the GHSA proposal for 7A to go back to Regions. We felt the need to do so because a majority of 7A coaches were in favor of the Area format. The goal of the coaches association is to be a voice for the coaches and that is what we tried to do.

From the experience this past summer we learned a lot and one thing I will say is that if you ever feel strongly in support of or against a proposal, you need to speak with your AD, Principal and the GHSA rep for your region to make sure that your voice is heard by the person who will be voting for your region. As an association we can only do so much in terms of communicating and getting the word out. The more coaches that are independently having the conversations with their Admin and Rep, the more effective we can be.
10/25/2020 8:52:25 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 25
@Sgriff2861 Sorry I got that wrong. I knew you had a guy go down, and I thought that was largely because of the size of the race.
@Sgriff2861

Sorry I got that wrong. I knew you had a guy go down, and I thought that was largely because of the size of the race.
10/26/2020 7:18:54 AM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 26
I’m curious to know what some of the non-7A schools think about having sectionals. Thoughts anybody?
I'm curious to know what some of the non-7A schools think about having sectionals.

Thoughts anybody?
10/26/2020 9:00:29 AM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 806
When I was the XC chair for the Coaches Association, I did a few surveys to find out how people felt. 7A was the only classification that had a majority that wanted Areas instead of Regions. Of course, maybe they will feel different about Sectionals. But the sentiment seemed to be that most schools don't want to jeopardize their chance of qualifying for State. I do remember getting an email from a non-7A coach who said they wished their team had not qualified for state, because, in the coach's opinion, they didn't deserve it. They said they had not worked very hard but their Region was not difficult to get out of, and they felt getting to State should be harder. I know I'm in a privileged position at a large 7A school, but it was refreshing to see someone who was willing to sacrifice their school qualifying if it meant that the state overall would be more competitive.
When I was the XC chair for the Coaches Association, I did a few surveys to find out how people felt. 7A was the only classification that had a majority that wanted Areas instead of Regions. Of course, maybe they will feel different about Sectionals. But the sentiment seemed to be that most schools don't want to jeopardize their chance of qualifying for State.

I do remember getting an email from a non-7A coach who said they wished their team had not qualified for state, because, in the coach's opinion, they didn't deserve it. They said they had not worked very hard but their Region was not difficult to get out of, and they felt getting to State should be harder. I know I'm in a privileged position at a large 7A school, but it was refreshing to see someone who was willing to sacrifice their school qualifying if it meant that the state overall would be more competitive.
10/26/2020 9:37:59 AM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1024
@RidgeXC Honestly? I'm not a fan. I would prefer fewer races overall. In some of these smaller regions in the lower classes, it's hard enough to get everybody in the region to field a full team. I fear some of those sectional meets would be laughable. Finding sectional host sites gets complicated too as we don't know exactly who will race in each sectional. Maybe if we have 2-3 host sites and they each host 3-4 sectionals a piece. That could make for some difficult travel for some teams, which is what I'm guessing the original complaint about sectionals was and/or why teams just didn't bother showing up back when we had them. I also just think that if you finish 5th at the region meet, you didn't earn your spot at state. I know, I know. 5th place in region 3 is better than 1st place in region 6 or whatever. That happens every year. But let's not ignore the advantages that the 5th place team in region 3 likely has over the 1st place team in region 6. I'm not really a fan of making major changes if the primary benefit is for a couple of 5th place teams. I would be fine with a situation like it was when I was in high school. Top 2 at each region get a bye to state and 3-4 (or 3-6 or whatever) race at sectionals for the last 8 spots. I am also on board with a system where we let the region champion or top 2 from each region qualify and the other spots are filled based on power rankings. That seems highly unlikely to ever pass though. Sectionals is mostly a 7A discussion. And it's certainly a discussion that's worth having as everything that's been pointed out is absolutely valid. But really the only benefit for the lower classes would likely be fewer walkers at state. I'd prefer fewer walkers, but I'd rather only race region instead of region and sectionals.
@RidgeXC

Honestly? I'm not a fan. I would prefer fewer races overall. In some of these smaller regions in the lower classes, it's hard enough to get everybody in the region to field a full team. I fear some of those sectional meets would be laughable.

Finding sectional host sites gets complicated too as we don't know exactly who will race in each sectional. Maybe if we have 2-3 host sites and they each host 3-4 sectionals a piece. That could make for some difficult travel for some teams, which is what I'm guessing the original complaint about sectionals was and/or why teams just didn't bother showing up back when we had them.

I also just think that if you finish 5th at the region meet, you didn't earn your spot at state. I know, I know. 5th place in region 3 is better than 1st place in region 6 or whatever. That happens every year. But let's not ignore the advantages that the 5th place team in region 3 likely has over the 1st place team in region 6. I'm not really a fan of making major changes if the primary benefit is for a couple of 5th place teams.

I would be fine with a situation like it was when I was in high school. Top 2 at each region get a bye to state and 3-4 (or 3-6 or whatever) race at sectionals for the last 8 spots.

I am also on board with a system where we let the region champion or top 2 from each region qualify and the other spots are filled based on power rankings. That seems highly unlikely to ever pass though.

Sectionals is mostly a 7A discussion. And it's certainly a discussion that's worth having as everything that's been pointed out is absolutely valid. But really the only benefit for the lower classes would likely be fewer walkers at state. I'd prefer fewer walkers, but I'd rather only race region instead of region and sectionals.
10/26/2020 10:18:45 AM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 806
If there are any changes to State qualifying, it would have to be for all classifications. The GHSA wants uniformity.
If there are any changes to State qualifying, it would have to be for all classifications. The GHSA wants uniformity.
10/26/2020 10:52:08 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 25
[quote=spxcoachrm]@RidgeXC Honestly? I'm not a fan. I would prefer fewer races overall. In some of these smaller regions in the lower classes, it's hard enough to get everybody in the region to field a full team. I fear some of those sectional meets would be laughable. [/quote] I understand wanting to race less often. But adding a round at this point in the season should not negatively impact the state meet or a team's preparation for it in my opinion. Look at track and field as an example. Now that we have sectional meets, the region races are just about qualifying for most of the best kids, and those athletes have learned to manage those races well enough to advance to the next round. The quality of performance at the state meet has not been negatively affected by that added round of qualifying, in fact, the change has been wholly positive. I believe the same would happen with teams and individuals in cross country.
spxcoachrm wrote:
@RidgeXC

Honestly? I'm not a fan. I would prefer fewer races overall. In some of these smaller regions in the lower classes, it's hard enough to get everybody in the region to field a full team. I fear some of those sectional meets would be laughable.



I understand wanting to race less often. But adding a round at this point in the season should not negatively impact the state meet or a team's preparation for it in my opinion.

Look at track and field as an example. Now that we have sectional meets, the region races are just about qualifying for most of the best kids, and those athletes have learned to manage those races well enough to advance to the next round. The quality of performance at the state meet has not been negatively affected by that added round of qualifying, in fact, the change has been wholly positive. I believe the same would happen with teams and individuals in cross country.
10/26/2020 11:27:53 AM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1024
@coachbxc Again I think it’s mostly a 7a issue. I think what you are saying is true at the 7a level but mostly not true at many other levels. Xc and track are two different sports. A “just qualify” strategy is much easier to manage in track season than it is as a team in xc season. But also, I would like for us to not waste late October weekends on extra “just qualify” races if we don’t have to. The more weekends in October we leave open for chasing PR’s the better, given Georgia weather. I know, I know. Xc is not about times, it’s about place. But coaching is about the kids, and kids want to run fast times. Anyway. Just my two cents since it was asked. I think 7a should have sectionals, and if Ghsa does it for 7a only, awesome. But I’m not going to vote in favor of it for my classification.
@coachbxc

Again I think it's mostly a 7a issue. I think what you are saying is true at the 7a level but mostly not true at many other levels. Xc and track are two different sports. A "just qualify" strategy is much easier to manage in track season than it is as a team in xc season. But also, I would like for us to not waste late October weekends on extra "just qualify" races if we don't have to. The more weekends in October we leave open for chasing PR's the better, given Georgia weather. I know, I know. Xc is not about times, it's about place. But coaching is about the kids, and kids want to run fast times.

Anyway. Just my two cents since it was asked. I think 7a should have sectionals, and if Ghsa does it for 7a only, awesome. But I'm not going to vote in favor of it for my classification.
10/26/2020 11:45:24 AM
Power User
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 202
[quote=spxcoachrm]@coachbxc Again I think it’s mostly a 7a issue. I think what you are saying is true at the 7a level but mostly not true at many other levels. Xc and track are two different sports. A “just qualify” strategy is much easier to manage in track season than it is as a team in xc season. But also, I would like for us to not waste late October weekends on extra “just qualify” races if we don’t have to. The more weekends in October we leave open for chasing PR’s the better, given Georgia weather. I know, I know. Xc is not about times, it’s about place. But coaching is about the kids, and kids want to run fast times. Anyway. Just my two cents since it was asked. I think 7a should have sectionals, and if Ghsa does it for 7a only, awesome. But I’m not going to vote in favor of it for my classification. [/quote] This almost seems to suggest the true problem....too many classifications. If we switched to 4 for XC, sectionals would become nessessary and very entertaining. I'm thinking class A-AAA public, A-AAA Private, 4A-6A, 7A? I'm sure this would also get shot down but seriously, it only takes 7(5) students, not sure school size is that important.
spxcoachrm wrote:
@coachbxc

Again I think it's mostly a 7a issue. I think what you are saying is true at the 7a level but mostly not true at many other levels. Xc and track are two different sports. A "just qualify" strategy is much easier to manage in track season than it is as a team in xc season. But also, I would like for us to not waste late October weekends on extra "just qualify" races if we don't have to. The more weekends in October we leave open for chasing PR's the better, given Georgia weather. I know, I know. Xc is not about times, it's about place. But coaching is about the kids, and kids want to run fast times.

Anyway. Just my two cents since it was asked. I think 7a should have sectionals, and if Ghsa does it for 7a only, awesome. But I'm not going to vote in favor of it for my classification.


This almost seems to suggest the true problem....too many classifications. If we switched to 4 for XC, sectionals would become nessessary and very entertaining. I'm thinking class A-AAA public, A-AAA Private, 4A-6A, 7A?

I'm sure this would also get shot down but seriously, it only takes 7(5) students, not sure school size is that important.
10/26/2020 12:39:41 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1024
@8MileGoat Yes, if that happened I would likely be much more in favor of sectionals. I am also in favor of the format you outlined.
@8MileGoat

Yes, if that happened I would likely be much more in favor of sectionals. I am also in favor of the format you outlined.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.