No Sectionals for Class 4 or 5 Next Season
12/06/2019 10:01:19 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 138
What are everyone's thoughts about their not being Sectionals in Class 4 or 5 next year? Qualifying will be the same as Class 1-3 with top 2 teams and top 15 individuals at Districts advancing to State. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Using the track districts as a guide (I know MSHSAA could change everything and is unpredictable), there could be some real balance issues as far as individual qualifying goes.
What are everyone's thoughts about their not being Sectionals in Class 4 or 5 next year? Qualifying will be the same as Class 1-3 with top 2 teams and top 15 individuals at Districts advancing to State. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Using the track districts as a guide (I know MSHSAA could change everything and is unpredictable), there could be some real balance issues as far as individual qualifying goes.
12/06/2019 10:20:31 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 260
@R-Taylor As a state, we just took a HUGE step backward. We've tried for years to come up with a better plan on ensuring the best teams make it to the state championship (Banta and others have worked for years on the super-sectional idea). This does the opposite. Nice work MSHSAA. ***Edit*** I forgot to mention that the MSHSAA Board of Directors denied the Cross Country Advisory committee's recommendation of keeping the sectional meet. On a side note, what does this mean for track? Why have sectionals for track if we don't have them for cross country? As they are similar sports, one would think those qualifying meets would be similar.
@R-Taylor

As a state, we just took a HUGE step backward. We've tried for years to come up with a better plan on ensuring the best teams make it to the state championship (Banta and others have worked for years on the super-sectional idea). This does the opposite. Nice work MSHSAA.

***Edit***

I forgot to mention that the MSHSAA Board of Directors denied the Cross Country Advisory committee's recommendation of keeping the sectional meet.

On a side note, what does this mean for track? Why have sectionals for track if we don't have them for cross country? As they are similar sports, one would think those qualifying meets would be similar.
12/06/2019 11:57:38 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 10
Very disappointing. I see the reasoning is less teams. Am I wrong in thinking this is truly a cost saving measure for them...and really is not related to the number of teams.
Very disappointing. I see the reasoning is less teams. Am I wrong in thinking this is truly a cost saving measure for them...and really is not related to the number of teams.
12/06/2019 12:16:39 PM
Coach
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 17
@CoachSwift Unfortunately, there two groups with different goals approaching this situation. Coaches would like to have the best possible teams at the state meet. However, the impression I got for the 15 or so years I was our school's AD, MSHSAA's goal is to have equal geographic representation at state championships. So there is no system (at least they haven't found one) that will make both sides happy and MSHSAA makes the rules.
@CoachSwift

Unfortunately, there two groups with different goals approaching this situation. Coaches would like to have the best possible teams at the state meet. However, the impression I got for the 15 or so years I was our school's AD, MSHSAA's goal is to have equal geographic representation at state championships. So there is no system (at least they haven't found one) that will make both sides happy and MSHSAA makes the rules.
12/06/2019 12:32:45 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 340
I am betting this has more to do with the point system and when teams get split under that system being able to be placed in a common location and for it to only happen one weekend. For instance if a team has a boys team in class 2 and girls in class 5. Since they release classes so late it would be possible to try and coordinate a class 2 and 5 split. The state created the issue to begin with penalizing successful teams and now there are other consequences. Just my two cents. BTW why was the point system created? My guess it is for football and all other sports are getting lumped under the same umbrella. What this will do is water down the state meet and exclude several teams that should be running. Many many times I have been at sectional meets where three teams make it to the state meet from a particular district. I have no problem going to a one weekend qualifier but do 4 districts (essentially our current sectional system) for each class and qualify 4 teams and 30 individuals. There would still be geographical representation and no more runners then we currently have at the state meet.
I am betting this has more to do with the point system and when teams get split under that system being able to be placed in a common location and for it to only happen one weekend. For instance if a team has a boys team in class 2 and girls in class 5. Since they release classes so late it would be possible to try and coordinate a class 2 and 5 split. The state created the issue to begin with penalizing successful teams and now there are other consequences. Just my two cents.

BTW why was the point system created? My guess it is for football and all other sports are getting lumped under the same umbrella.

What this will do is water down the state meet and exclude several teams that should be running. Many many times I have been at sectional meets where three teams make it to the state meet from a particular district. I have no problem going to a one weekend qualifier but do 4 districts (essentially our current sectional system) for each class and qualify 4 teams and 30 individuals. There would still be geographical representation and no more runners then we currently have at the state meet.
12/06/2019 1:13:47 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 260
@lswdistance Agreed, the super-sectional would be a great idea for ALL classes. It would help ensure the state meet has the best teams, plus save MSHSAA thousands of dollars in those extra qualifying meets. 5 classes of 4 sections = 20 total post season meets (plus the state championships). 5 classes of 8 districts = 40 post season meets. Those extra 20 meets are more expensive than most realize ($75 for the meet manager, $200+ for meet officials, $1000+ for porta-potties, $500-1000 for timing companies, medical/custodial/gate staff, extra cost in trophies/medals, etc....). The required gate/admission doesn't come close to covering those costs.
@lswdistance

Agreed, the super-sectional would be a great idea for ALL classes. It would help ensure the state meet has the best teams, plus save MSHSAA thousands of dollars in those extra qualifying meets. 5 classes of 4 sections = 20 total post season meets (plus the state championships). 5 classes of 8 districts = 40 post season meets. Those extra 20 meets are more expensive than most realize ($75 for the meet manager, $200+ for meet officials, $1000+ for porta-potties, $500-1000 for timing companies, medical/custodial/gate staff, extra cost in trophies/medals, etc....). The required gate/admission doesn't come close to covering those costs.
12/06/2019 3:23:13 PM
Power User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2052
I like super sectionals Here is what I wrote on our email thread. We might need to put a petition into place. Dean told us they were going to do this and once again he was proven correct. Petition to get it on the ballot takes time to set up as well. It will be important for us to be on the same page as what we want. I would assume keep sectionals with 4 qualifying teams and 30 individuals would be the easiest because it was already in place. If they dig their heels in on not have sectionals then they should allow 3-4 teams per district and 30 athletes because that helps ensure the best teams and athletes are at the meet. Thus a precedent has been set for a few decades. We just need the class 3 schools that have not experienced that previously to be on board. Also, we need a vote at the buisness meeting of the membership and it needs to be a large percentage. Secondly, your ADs need to send an email expressing their displeasure to the choice. Make sure the CC you. If you have your Admins approval sending an email yourself can be helpful as well. Even if they dont change their minds we can put together a petition but again it can only be one, it needs to be clear, and be prepared for them to try and change your ADs mind. You need to be clear about way this is an issue and must be fixed. Even if your school is not impacted it is important to show solidarity and show your displeasure to them going against the advisory boards board wishes.
I like super sectionals

Here is what I wrote on our email thread. We might need to put a petition into place. Dean told us they were going to do this and once again he was proven correct. Petition to get it on the ballot takes time to set up as well. It will be important for us to be on the same page as what we want. I would assume keep sectionals with 4 qualifying teams and 30 individuals would be the easiest because it was already in place. If they dig their heels in on not have sectionals then they should allow 3-4 teams per district and 30 athletes because that helps ensure the best teams and athletes are at the meet. Thus a precedent has been set for a few decades. We just need the class 3 schools that have not experienced that previously to be on board. Also, we need a vote at the buisness meeting of the membership and it needs to be a large percentage. Secondly, your ADs need to send an email expressing their displeasure to the choice. Make sure the CC you. If you have your Admins approval sending an email yourself can be helpful as well. Even if they dont change their minds we can put together a petition but again it can only be one, it needs to be clear, and be prepared for them to try and change your ADs mind. You need to be clear about way this is an issue and must be fixed. Even if your school is not impacted it is important to show solidarity and show your displeasure to them going against the advisory boards board wishes.
12/06/2019 3:29:57 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2
I'm a little worried that people think there are now less teams and less individuals going to State... Let's do some math. [b]Old system:[/b] Class 4 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Class 3 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Class 2 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Class 1 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Total: 64 teams, minimum 480 individuals [b]New approved system:[/b] Class 5 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Class 4 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Class 3 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Class 2 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Class 1 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals Total: 80 teams, minimum 600 individuals The State Meet just got a lot bigger, and there are now more individuals and teams at State. Which depending on your view point, that could be a good or bad thing. The only issue we should really have is the chance that a team that could finish top 4 or an individual who could finish top 25 gets eliminated before the State meet. With our old system, this couldn't happen as long as you ran well. The new system it is definitely possible that the 3rd or 4th best team in the State is eliminated at Districts. I highly doubt a 16th place finisher at a District could have been a top 25 finisher at State. Only way that happens to an individual is if there is a super super stacked District. So the only issue that needs resolving is how do you ensure that the top 4 teams make it to State regardless of district? [b]Easy way:[/b] Make it so top 3 teams at District make it to State. We have already increased the number of teams making it to state by 16, this would add another 8. This board often complains that Track is now watered down, making an additional 24 teams at State is an awful lot. [b]NXR Way:[/b] Come up with some sort of advisory board or committee. They give out 2 at large bids to teams that were eliminated at District but the group feels they are strong enough to run at State. Little bit tougher since it's quite subjective, but it's an option. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Things that I don't think work: [b]Time Qualifiers[/b] - Virtual meets and times in Cross Country don't mean that much. There is such a wide wide range of courses and difficulty. If we switch to time qualifiers and only the fastest times make it in, no one will ever run on a tough course ever again. Everyone will schedule the courses that are the flattest, most downhill, and their 5k distance is questionable. [b]Super Sectional[/b] - In general I think it's a start in the right direction, don't get me wrong. But if you do a super Sectional, instead of 8 teams racing and a few individuals to fight for a shot at State. You're now looking at ~20 teams on one course fighting for State. There aren't many courses that are wide enough to adequately handle that. With so many people in one race you have a chance of just over-crowding being the reason you're eliminated. I would hate for the course I'm running to have a bottleneck somewhere or very tight paths which make it hard to pass. If you have a rough start, it's going to take some work to move around 20 teams. A lot of coaches were strongly against the All Suburban Conference meet that happens at McNair every single year - perhaps attitudes have changed and we are back to loving large meets again? My two cents.
I'm a little worried that people think there are now less teams and less individuals going to State...

Let's do some math.
Old system:
Class 4 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Class 3 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Class 2 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Class 1 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Total: 64 teams, minimum 480 individuals

New approved system:
Class 5 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Class 4 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Class 3 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Class 2 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Class 1 - 16 teams, minimum 120 individuals
Total: 80 teams, minimum 600 individuals

The State Meet just got a lot bigger, and there are now more individuals and teams at State. Which depending on your view point, that could be a good or bad thing.

The only issue we should really have is the chance that a team that could finish top 4 or an individual who could finish top 25 gets eliminated before the State meet. With our old system, this couldn't happen as long as you ran well. The new system it is definitely possible that the 3rd or 4th best team in the State is eliminated at Districts. I highly doubt a 16th place finisher at a District could have been a top 25 finisher at State. Only way that happens to an individual is if there is a super super stacked District. So the only issue that needs resolving is how do you ensure that the top 4 teams make it to State regardless of district?

Easy way: Make it so top 3 teams at District make it to State. We have already increased the number of teams making it to state by 16, this would add another 8. This board often complains that Track is now watered down, making an additional 24 teams at State is an awful lot.

NXR Way: Come up with some sort of advisory board or committee. They give out 2 at large bids to teams that were eliminated at District but the group feels they are strong enough to run at State. Little bit tougher since it's quite subjective, but it's an option.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things that I don't think work:
Time Qualifiers - Virtual meets and times in Cross Country don't mean that much. There is such a wide wide range of courses and difficulty. If we switch to time qualifiers and only the fastest times make it in, no one will ever run on a tough course ever again. Everyone will schedule the courses that are the flattest, most downhill, and their 5k distance is questionable.

Super Sectional - In general I think it's a start in the right direction, don't get me wrong. But if you do a super Sectional, instead of 8 teams racing and a few individuals to fight for a shot at State. You're now looking at ~20 teams on one course fighting for State. There aren't many courses that are wide enough to adequately handle that. With so many people in one race you have a chance of just over-crowding being the reason you're eliminated. I would hate for the course I'm running to have a bottleneck somewhere or very tight paths which make it hard to pass. If you have a rough start, it's going to take some work to move around 20 teams. A lot of coaches were strongly against the All Suburban Conference meet that happens at McNair every single year - perhaps attitudes have changed and we are back to loving large meets again?

My two cents.
12/06/2019 3:56:14 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 41
@Genohall Agree! We now have a starting line that has 41 boxes. We can easily accommodate 24 -32 teams. The more teams and the more kids the better. IMO I also agree with Jesee. I bet this is because of the "Championship Factor"!
@Genohall

Agree!

We now have a starting line that has 41 boxes. We can easily accommodate 24 -32 teams. The more teams and the more kids the better. IMO

I also agree with Jesee. I bet this is because of the "Championship Factor"!
12/06/2019 5:23:24 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 2
Another food for thought, MSHSAA has made it clear they care about geographical representation and at the minimum making sure a trophy team will absolutely make it to State. If someone cares to do the digging, I'm wondering in the history of Class 4 (or any class that ever had a District -> Sectional -> State, format), has a 3rd place team from Districts ever made the podium at State. Bonus points if you know how many times an individual finished outside the top 15 in a district meet, to go on and finish 25 at State. If both are close to 0, then MSHSAA is staying true to their word, and also appealing to those that have requested more teams make it to State.
Another food for thought, MSHSAA has made it clear they care about geographical representation and at the minimum making sure a trophy team will absolutely make it to State.

If someone cares to do the digging, I'm wondering in the history of Class 4 (or any class that ever had a District -> Sectional -> State, format), has a 3rd place team from Districts ever made the podium at State.

Bonus points if you know how many times an individual finished outside the top 15 in a district meet, to go on and finish 25 at State.

If both are close to 0, then MSHSAA is staying true to their word, and also appealing to those that have requested more teams make it to State.
12/06/2019 6:17:42 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1267
Boys 1994 Kickapoo 4th at District - 3rd at state (teams in 2nd and 3rd did not Qualify for state) 2008 Lebanon 3rd – 4th (1st and 2nd went 6-9 at state) 2016 Blue Springs 3rd – 4th (1st and 2nd went 1-12 at state) 2018 Lafayette 3rd – 4th (1st and 2nd went 1-5 at state) Girls 1997 Nerinx Hall 3rd – 4th (1st and 2nd went 1-9 at state) 1998 Lee’s Summit North 3rd – 3rd (1st and 2nd went 5-9 at state) 2004 Eureka 3rd – 4th (1st and 2nd went 6-7 at state) 2009 Lee’s Summit North 3rd – 3rd (1st and 2nd went 1-6 at state 2009 St. Teresa’s 4th – 4th Ditto Since we went to 4 sectionals in 1988 (496 meets), only once have at least 3 trophy teams coming from the same district. I have found 5 boys and 7 girls who were 16-25 at district and wound up in the top 25 at state. Some of that district data is incomplete, but since 2010, there are a total of 4 out of 1600 possible.
Boys
1994 Kickapoo 4th at District - 3rd at state (teams in 2nd and 3rd did not Qualify for state)
2008 Lebanon 3rd -- 4th (1st and 2nd went 6-9 at state)
2016 Blue Springs 3rd -- 4th (1st and 2nd went 1-12 at state)
2018 Lafayette 3rd -- 4th (1st and 2nd went 1-5 at state)
Girls
1997 Nerinx Hall 3rd -- 4th (1st and 2nd went 1-9 at state)
1998 Lee's Summit North 3rd -- 3rd (1st and 2nd went 5-9 at state)
2004 Eureka 3rd -- 4th (1st and 2nd went 6-7 at state)
2009 Lee's Summit North 3rd -- 3rd (1st and 2nd went 1-6 at state
2009 St. Teresa's 4th -- 4th Ditto
Since we went to 4 sectionals in 1988 (496 meets), only once have at least 3 trophy teams coming from the same district.
I have found 5 boys and 7 girls who were 16-25 at district and wound up in the top 25 at state. Some of that district data is incomplete, but since 2010, there are a total of 4 out of 1600 possible.
12/06/2019 6:54:11 PM
Power User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2052
All these numbers are great but the issue is that is only for one class where four teams and 30 individuals get to go. That data doesnt exist for the other classes. Those stats dont take into consideration the other 3 levels with only two and 15 I bet dollars to donuts those numbers would be a higher number if class 3 on this side of the state would have a sectional. The number of 80 teams is not entirely helpful either if a large number of the 80 teams are filled with schools who would not rank in the top 16. Again the issue grows at the top because the number of participants excluded. In one class four district there are more runners who completed a 5k that in two entire classifications for the entire state. That is a major hidden issue that needs to be understood
All these numbers are great but the issue is that is only for one class where four teams and 30 individuals get to go. That data doesnt exist for the other classes.

Those stats dont take into consideration the other 3 levels with only two and 15 I bet dollars to donuts those numbers would be a higher number if class 3 on this side of the state would have a sectional.

The number of 80 teams is not entirely helpful either if a large number of the 80 teams are filled with schools who would not rank in the top 16.

Again the issue grows at the top because the number of participants excluded. In one class four district there are more runners who completed a 5k that in two entire classifications for the entire state. That is a major hidden issue that needs to be understood
12/06/2019 8:23:17 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 283
While this sounds like a terribly bad idea at first glance, until I know how the classes and districts look, I won’t know how bad. However, if there is a way to do things that is bad for our kids, you can usually count on MSHSAA deciding to do just that. Looking at class 4 in the past each of the 8 districts had 11-13 teams and the top 4 qualified, So we had roughly 1/3 of the teams qualifying to sectionals. Most of the districts seemed to have 80-90 runners and 30 qualified, which is roughly 33-38% of the runners. If we assume there will be 8-9 teams in the new class 4 and 5 (I think that's what was being discussed-I don't remember now.) that means that 22-25% of teams will qualify and 15 our of 50-60 runners, which amounts to 25-30% of the runners. On both counts it makes it harder to qualify both as a team or individual. I've long wanted to eliminate one step of state qualifying, but instead of 8 districts with 2 teams and 15 individuals qualifying, we should be having 4 districts with 4 teams and 30 runners qualifying from each. Less races is more cost effective for MSHSAA. My other question is how the schedule will work. Are we eliminating a week of the season and moving state up a week? Or is there a week off between district and state? If we are eliminating a week, I urge MSHSAA to move the district meet back one week so that it is when the old sectional meets were. The later we go the better in my opinion because if we move state up there is a better chance of having a hot day and with 2 extra races in the state day, we are now going to be racing into the mid-afternoon. I wish we started our season a month later in September and state was the weekend before Thanksgiving.
While this sounds like a terribly bad idea at first glance, until I know how the classes and districts look, I won't know how bad. However, if there is a way to do things that is bad for our kids, you can usually count on MSHSAA deciding to do just that. Looking at class 4 in the past each of the 8 districts had 11-13 teams and the top 4 qualified, So we had roughly 1/3 of the teams qualifying to sectionals. Most of the districts seemed to have 80-90 runners and 30 qualified, which is roughly 33-38% of the runners. If we assume there will be 8-9 teams in the new class 4 and 5 (I think that's what was being discussed-I don't remember now.) that means that 22-25% of teams will qualify and 15 our of 50-60 runners, which amounts to 25-30% of the runners. On both counts it makes it harder to qualify both as a team or individual. I've long wanted to eliminate one step of state qualifying, but instead of 8 districts with 2 teams and 15 individuals qualifying, we should be having 4 districts with 4 teams and 30 runners qualifying from each. Less races is more cost effective for MSHSAA.

My other question is how the schedule will work. Are we eliminating a week of the season and moving state up a week? Or is there a week off between district and state? If we are eliminating a week, I urge MSHSAA to move the district meet back one week so that it is when the old sectional meets were. The later we go the better in my opinion because if we move state up there is a better chance of having a hot day and with 2 extra races in the state day, we are now going to be racing into the mid-afternoon. I wish we started our season a month later in September and state was the weekend before Thanksgiving.
12/08/2019 3:37:54 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 349
@coachcasa It looks like Districts are scheduled for October 31st this year, so the same number of weeks in the season. Conference meets may need to move. Ours would be three weeks before districts with no other scheduled meets as new meets would have to fill in the open weekend if people wanted to race again.
@coachcasa

It looks like Districts are scheduled for October 31st this year, so the same number of weeks in the season.

Conference meets may need to move.

Ours would be three weeks before districts with no other scheduled meets as new meets would have to fill in the open weekend if people wanted to race again.
12/08/2019 10:08:18 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 283
[quote=mutiger31]@coachcasa It looks like Districts are scheduled for October 31st this year, so the same number of weeks in the season. Conference meets may need to move. Ours would be three weeks before districts with no other scheduled meets as new meets would have to fill in the open weekend if people wanted to race again. [/quote] That works perfect for the St. Louis Suburban Conferences teams, as the dumb "conference" meet we are forced to run will remain the same and allow us to keep our schedules the same.
mutiger31 wrote:
@coachcasa

It looks like Districts are scheduled for October 31st this year, so the same number of weeks in the season.

Conference meets may need to move.

Ours would be three weeks before districts with no other scheduled meets as new meets would have to fill in the open weekend if people wanted to race again.


That works perfect for the St. Louis Suburban Conferences teams, as the dumb "conference" meet we are forced to run will remain the same and allow us to keep our schedules the same.
12/10/2019 11:54:29 AM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1107
Back around the turn of the century we were in class 3 for 4 years. We were in one of the weakest districts in the state, and we benefited from that at least one time. I didn't like the "district only" system then (even though we benefited from it), and I don't like it now. The potential for the 3rd best team in the state to not even be at the state meet is ridiculous. I don't care if it only happens once a decade, that is still too often. Silly to do it this way when we could simply have superdistrict meets instead of district meets. If the rationale for not doing this is to prevent a team from being split that had a class 5 boys team and a class 4 girls team, then simply synchronize the classes so that if you are class 5 in boys then you are class 5 in girls as well. That couldn't possibly affect very many teams...oh, wait, it might, now that we have this ridiculous new rule that penalizes private school teams that do well by moving them up a class. Talk about a socialist rule!!! Sean Nunn Raytown South
Back around the turn of the century we were in class 3 for 4 years. We were in one of the weakest districts in the state, and we benefited from that at least one time. I didn't like the "district only" system then (even though we benefited from it), and I don't like it now. The potential for the 3rd best team in the state to not even be at the state meet is ridiculous. I don't care if it only happens once a decade, that is still too often. Silly to do it this way when we could simply have superdistrict meets instead of district meets.

If the rationale for not doing this is to prevent a team from being split that had a class 5 boys team and a class 4 girls team, then simply synchronize the classes so that if you are class 5 in boys then you are class 5 in girls as well. That couldn't possibly affect very many teams...oh, wait, it might, now that we have this ridiculous new rule that penalizes private school teams that do well by moving them up a class. Talk about a socialist rule!!!

Sean Nunn
Raytown South
12/10/2019 2:57:56 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 41
@seannunn I could be wrong! (I have been many times) But I was told that the "Championship Factor" was actually suggested by the Private schools. So if it is a "socialist Rule" it was brought to us by the privates. Whose ideology would lean more to the conservative side. IMO
@seannunn

I could be wrong! (I have been many times) But I was told that the "Championship Factor" was actually suggested by the Private schools.
So if it is a "socialist Rule" it was brought to us by the privates. Whose ideology would lean more to the conservative side. IMO
12/11/2019 1:50:43 PM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1107
[quote=JIMKASTEN1]@seannunn I could be wrong! (I have been many times) But I was told that the "Championship Factor" was actually suggested by the Private schools. So if it is a "socialist Rule" it was brought to us by the privates. Whose ideology would lean more to the conservative side. IMO[/quote] I was not literally referring to socialism, but rather the mentality that if you do well then we should take something away from you. Win too many state trophies and we move you up a class. Now I know that obviously private schools have many advantages, but I thought the multiplier rule was a good way to compensate for that. If we are going to move private schools up who win too many trophies, why not do the same for public schools? Sean Nunn Raytown South
JIMKASTEN1 wrote:
@seannunn

I could be wrong! (I have been many times) But I was told that the "Championship Factor" was actually suggested by the Private schools.
So if it is a "socialist Rule" it was brought to us by the privates. Whose ideology would lean more to the conservative side. IMO


I was not literally referring to socialism, but rather the mentality that if you do well then we should take something away from you. Win too many state trophies and we move you up a class. Now I know that obviously private schools have many advantages, but I thought the multiplier rule was a good way to compensate for that.
If we are going to move private schools up who win too many trophies, why not do the same for public schools?

Sean Nunn
Raytown South
12/12/2019 6:50:51 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 140
As I previously stated in a post I am OK getting bumped a class, 2 or even 4. There is no contact in our sport but to ask a school like mine (Valle Catholic) that has ONLY 67 boys and an enrolment of 105 next year for 9-11 to play schools that have almost 600 kids of which 300 are boys that is a safety issue.
As I previously stated in a post I am OK getting bumped a class, 2 or even 4. There is no contact in our sport but to ask a school like mine (Valle Catholic) that has ONLY 67 boys and an enrolment of 105 next year for 9-11 to play schools that have almost 600 kids of which 300 are boys that is a safety issue.
12/12/2019 12:52:34 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 41
[quote=seannunn][quote=JIMKASTEN1]@seannunn I could be wrong! (I have been many times) But I was told that the "Championship Factor" was actually suggested by the Private schools. So if it is a "socialist Rule" it was brought to us by the privates. Whose ideology would lean more to the conservative side. IMO[/quote] I was not literally referring to socialism, but rather the mentality that if you do well then we should take something away from you. Win too many state trophies and we move you up a class. Now I know that obviously private schools have many advantages, but I thought the multiplier rule was a good way to compensate for that. If we are going to move private schools up who win too many trophies, why not do the same for public schools? Sean Nunn Raytown South[/quote] I agree Coach. I think the "Championship Factor" is not the answer. I was told (again this could be bad info) that the private schools wanted this or they would leave and form their own separate state championship series. So many schools voted for this. I was for expanding the multiplier. The problem is that private schools can take who they want. Public schools have to take all that are in their districts. Many of these students are not able to do sports for multiple reasons yet they count as part of the enrollment. Also, as you know, public schools have boundaries that dictate who is eligible to attend and participate. Privates can even take students that don't live anywhere near the school ( or even be from Missouri). Also, several private schools can require students to participate in a school activity. Which many times is a sport. So they have many advantages. So because of these advantages there is a need to level the playing field. In some states they automatically move all the private schools up one or two classes. I do not think we should punish success at any school but there does need to be leveler to the playing field. IMO
seannunn wrote:
JIMKASTEN1 wrote:
@seannunn

I could be wrong! (I have been many times) But I was told that the "Championship Factor" was actually suggested by the Private schools.
So if it is a "socialist Rule" it was brought to us by the privates. Whose ideology would lean more to the conservative side. IMO


I was not literally referring to socialism, but rather the mentality that if you do well then we should take something away from you. Win too many state trophies and we move you up a class. Now I know that obviously private schools have many advantages, but I thought the multiplier rule was a good way to compensate for that.
If we are going to move private schools up who win too many trophies, why not do the same for public schools?

Sean Nunn
Raytown South


I agree Coach. I think the "Championship Factor" is not the answer. I was told (again this could be bad info) that the private schools wanted this or they would leave and form their own separate state championship series. So many schools voted for this.
I was for expanding the multiplier.
The problem is that private schools can take who they want. Public schools have to take all that are in their districts. Many of these students are not able to do sports for multiple reasons yet they count as part of the enrollment. Also, as you know, public schools have boundaries that dictate who is eligible to attend and participate. Privates can even take students that don't live anywhere near the school ( or even be from Missouri). Also, several private schools can require students to participate in a school activity. Which many times is a sport. So they have many advantages. So because of these advantages there is a need to level the playing field. In some states they automatically move all the private schools up one or two classes.
I do not think we should punish success at any school but there does need to be leveler to the playing field. IMO

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.