New State series format
10/31/2020 2:15:52 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12
For the love of all that is good and holy, can we throw this format for districts out. Adding a class and it becoming twice as hard to get out in class 5 is a shame. Mshsaa needs to stop letting what is good for small classes dictate how big class championships are run. 17;10 not getting out but 19:30s is so bad. Rant over.
For the love of all that is good and holy, can we throw this format for districts out. Adding a class and it becoming twice as hard to get out in class 5 is a shame. Mshsaa needs to stop letting what is good for small classes dictate how big class championships are run. 17;10 not getting out but 19:30s is so bad.

Rant over.
10/31/2020 5:36:57 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 20
First glance, just a glance not analysis, shows a rather significant drop off in times from Class 5 to class 4 in general. Hard to compare until everyone runs the state course next week.
First glance, just a glance not analysis, shows a rather significant drop off in times from Class 5 to class 4 in general. Hard to compare until everyone runs the state course next week.
10/31/2020 9:57:45 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 20
There has to be a better way, as number 6 ranked class 4 team is out, however number 38 ranked Grandview is going to state. Crazy to me. Don’t get me wrong you absolutely have to show up and perform at the district race, but don’t we want the best competition represented?
There has to be a better way, as number 6 ranked class 4 team is out, however number 38 ranked Grandview is going to state. Crazy to me. Don't get me wrong you absolutely have to show up and perform at the district race, but don't we want the best competition represented?
10/31/2020 10:01:18 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 285
[quote=XCMannDad]There has to be a better way, as number 6 ranked class 4 team is out, however number 38 ranked Grandview is going to state. Crazy to me. Don’t get me wrong you absolutely have to show up and perform at the district race, but don’t we want the best competition represented?[/quote] MSHSAA isn't worried about the best teams being at state. Their stance is that if you cou;dn't get there you weren't going to win anyway. MSHSAA wants equal geographic representation. They don't seem to understand what it means for kids to qualify to state and how much it can mean to building programs.
XCMannDad wrote:
There has to be a better way, as number 6 ranked class 4 team is out, however number 38 ranked Grandview is going to state. Crazy to me. Don't get me wrong you absolutely have to show up and perform at the district race, but don't we want the best competition represented?


MSHSAA isn't worried about the best teams being at state. Their stance is that if you cou;dn't get there you weren't going to win anyway. MSHSAA wants equal geographic representation. They don't seem to understand what it means for kids to qualify to state and how much it can mean to building programs.
10/31/2020 10:11:00 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 20
Has to be a better way even geographically speaking to get the best teams and runners to state.
Has to be a better way even geographically speaking to get the best teams and runners to state.
11/01/2020 10:32:24 AM
User
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 20
I think what we get stuck in is putting way too much stock in virtual meets in a cross country season. Sure, if you run a virtual meet of class 4 you see DeSoto at 6th and if you run a virtual meet of the district they finish second. Those times are all from different courses and different conditions and different points in the season. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is what happens when you line up shoulder to shoulder and the gun goes off. Have to make it count when it matters most, and not look to change things up because certain teams didn’t run well enough and on paper should be at State. But, I still think things are a little too tight, and would love to see 3 teams + 10 unattached individuals.
I think what we get stuck in is putting way too much stock in virtual meets in a cross country season. Sure, if you run a virtual meet of class 4 you see DeSoto at 6th and if you run a virtual meet of the district they finish second. Those times are all from different courses and different conditions and different points in the season. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is what happens when you line up shoulder to shoulder and the gun goes off. Have to make it count when it matters most, and not look to change things up because certain teams didn't run well enough and on paper should be at State.

But, I still think things are a little too tight, and would love to see 3 teams + 10 unattached individuals.
11/01/2020 10:52:49 AM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 95
I am going to presume that Class 4 District 7 was only allowed one State qualifying team, and some number less than 15 individual State qualifiers. . If correct, this means that Class 4 high schools are losing the opportunity to send one additional team to the State Meet (15 teams versus 16 teams)plus some number of individual athletes. The potential net of only having a 3 team District. Preference this with the Big Driver course is probably one of the 3 toughest courses in the State, and a primary contributor to why District 4 individual times and average team times are "outlier" to the rest of Class 4. So, giving considering to District 4 and District 1 I am sure there is a 3rd or 4th place girls team finish that would have loved the opportunity to be represented at the State Meet. Especially with a average team time of sub 21 minutes. It is hard to believe that geography was a hurdle that could not have been gotten over in Class 4 to mitigate having "7.5 Districts". "YES", on having the Top 3 teams advance to the State Meet. Also, Districts must be equitable/proportionate in the number of teams competing. Class 4 Girls had a District with as many as 9 teams and as few as 3 teams. Take out the high and low and the middle number is 6 teams.
I am going to presume that Class 4 District 7 was only allowed one State qualifying team, and some number less than 15 individual State qualifiers. . If correct, this means that Class 4 high schools are losing the opportunity to send one additional team to the State Meet (15 teams versus 16 teams)plus some number of individual athletes. The potential net of only having a 3 team District.

Preference this with the Big Driver course is probably one of the 3 toughest courses in the State, and a primary contributor to why District 4 individual times and average team times are "outlier" to the rest of Class 4. So, giving considering to District 4 and District 1 I am sure there is a 3rd or 4th place girls team finish that would have loved the opportunity to be represented at the State Meet. Especially with a average team time of sub 21 minutes.

It is hard to believe that geography was a hurdle that could not have been gotten over in Class 4 to mitigate having "7.5 Districts".

"YES", on having the Top 3 teams advance to the State Meet.

Also, Districts must be equitable/proportionate in the number of teams competing. Class 4 Girls had a District with as many as 9 teams and as few as 3 teams. Take out the high and low and the middle number is 6 teams.
11/01/2020 12:44:45 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1283
In C4 D7 there were 3 scoring teams among the girls and 4 among the boys. Only in C1 where 2 girls districts and 1 boys had only 2 scoring teams entered by 6PM on Monday which is the cutoff to determine the rule.
In C4 D7 there were 3 scoring teams among the girls and 4 among the boys. Only in C1 where 2 girls districts and 1 boys had only 2 scoring teams entered by 6PM on Monday which is the cutoff to determine the rule.
11/02/2020 10:21:11 AM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 95
@coachcasa Is it time for a name change, "Missouri Cross Country Season Finale". :) Let a sponsor organize a qualifying State Championship Meet the following week. No classes just the fasted 150 boys and fasted 150 girls go head to head.
@coachcasa

Is it time for a name change, "Missouri Cross Country Season Finale". :)

Let a sponsor organize a qualifying State Championship Meet the following week. No classes just the fasted 150 boys and fasted 150 girls go head to head.
11/02/2020 11:40:13 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 285
[quote=mcehlen]@coachcasa Is it time for a name change, "Missouri Cross Country Season Finale". :) Let a sponsor organize a qualifying State Championship Meet the following week. No classes just the fasted 150 boys and fasted 150 girls go head to head. [/quote] Believe me when I say I've thought about this kind of thing a number of times. Even if you could get all of the coaches on board, AD's would put a stop to something like this real quick! The irony of all of this is that MSHSAA, like the NCAA, is supposed to work for us, the member schools, to organize our sports. In the end, they do what's in their best interest, rather than that of the athletes. It's always the athletes that seem to come last.
mcehlen wrote:
@coachcasa

Is it time for a name change, "Missouri Cross Country Season Finale". :)

Let a sponsor organize a qualifying State Championship Meet the following week. No classes just the fasted 150 boys and fasted 150 girls go head to head.


Believe me when I say I've thought about this kind of thing a number of times. Even if you could get all of the coaches on board, AD's would put a stop to something like this real quick! The irony of all of this is that MSHSAA, like the NCAA, is supposed to work for us, the member schools, to organize our sports. In the end, they do what's in their best interest, rather than that of the athletes. It's always the athletes that seem to come last.
11/02/2020 12:06:30 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 20
I’ll set it up, just have to do it like all the national events and it will nothing to do with schools however they can still register as a group. AD and MSHSAA cannot dictate independent XC meets.
I'll set it up, just have to do it like all the national events and it will nothing to do with schools however they can still register as a group. AD and MSHSAA cannot dictate independent XC meets.
11/02/2020 12:50:14 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12
@mcehlen I think both Grandview teams qualified based on the front page "qualifiers" writeup.
@mcehlen

I think both Grandview teams qualified based on the front page "qualifiers" writeup.
11/02/2020 2:52:44 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 20
In reference to a 17:10 being sent home and a 19:00 whatever getting in, I got curious... Every year there are complaints about how an individual is staying at home and someone else with a slower time gets in. So I wondered what effect do those final qualifiers have at the state meet? Do they content for All State? How close are we? So I went to last years post season and pulled the last individual qualifier - 15th place in districts, and 30th in sectionals. I then looked to see what place do they finish at the state meet. If you look across all the classes for boys that final individual qualifier averages a 107th place at State in 2019. Across all classes for girls in 2019, the final individual qualifier averages a 104th place at State. There are some outliers one way and the other but it’s a rather large data set to compute an average instead of cherry picking individual data points - A potential outlier vs a potential outlier. My reaction is, it’s still an incredible accomplishment to qualify for state. It really is. But knowing what place on average that final qualifier gets I think brought some great context. That context being they come, and compete but typically aren’t towards the front of the race. That last individual qualifier doesn’t drastically change things at State, the data supports that. So why are we arguing someone else should have their spot instead? So they can finish 80th instead of 110th? Let them have their moment and enjoy it. Context is always nice before we continue to drag programs and individuals through the mud by saying or suggesting they don’t belong there.
In reference to a 17:10 being sent home and a 19:00 whatever getting in, I got curious...

Every year there are complaints about how an individual is staying at home and someone else with a slower time gets in. So I wondered what effect do those final qualifiers have at the state meet? Do they content for All State? How close are we?

So I went to last years post season and pulled the last individual qualifier - 15th place in districts, and 30th in sectionals. I then looked to see what place do they finish at the state meet. If you look across all the classes for boys that final individual qualifier averages a 107th place at State in 2019. Across all classes for girls in 2019, the final individual qualifier averages a 104th place at State. There are some outliers one way and the other but it's a rather large data set to compute an average instead of cherry picking individual data points - A potential outlier vs a potential outlier.

My reaction is, it's still an incredible accomplishment to qualify for state. It really is. But knowing what place on average that final qualifier gets I think brought some great context. That context being they come, and compete but typically aren't towards the front of the race. That last individual qualifier doesn't drastically change things at State, the data supports that. So why are we arguing someone else should have their spot instead? So they can finish 80th instead of 110th? Let them have their moment and enjoy it.

Context is always nice before we continue to drag programs and individuals through the mud by saying or suggesting they don't belong there.
11/09/2020 9:15:41 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12
[quote=MinnesotaSlim]In reference to a 17:10 being sent home and a 19:00 whatever getting in, I got curious... Every year there are complaints about how an individual is staying at home and someone else with a slower time gets in. So I wondered what effect do those final qualifiers have at the state meet? Do they content for All State? How close are we? So I went to last years post season and pulled the last individual qualifier - 15th place in districts, and 30th in sectionals. I then looked to see what place do they finish at the state meet. If you look across all the classes for boys that final individual qualifier averages a 107th place at State in 2019. Across all classes for girls in 2019, the final individual qualifier averages a 104th place at State. There are some outliers one way and the other but it’s a rather large data set to compute an average instead of cherry picking individual data points - A potential outlier vs a potential outlier. My reaction is, it’s still an incredible accomplishment to qualify for state. It really is. But knowing what place on average that final qualifier gets I think brought some great context. That context being they come, and compete but typically aren’t towards the front of the race. That last individual qualifier doesn’t drastically change things at State, the data supports that. So why are we arguing someone else should have their spot instead? So they can finish 80th instead of 110th? Let them have their moment and enjoy it. Context is always nice before we continue to drag programs and individuals through the mud by saying or suggesting they don’t belong there. [/quote] Not this year under this format.
MinnesotaSlim wrote:
In reference to a 17:10 being sent home and a 19:00 whatever getting in, I got curious...

Every year there are complaints about how an individual is staying at home and someone else with a slower time gets in. So I wondered what effect do those final qualifiers have at the state meet? Do they content for All State? How close are we?

So I went to last years post season and pulled the last individual qualifier - 15th place in districts, and 30th in sectionals. I then looked to see what place do they finish at the state meet. If you look across all the classes for boys that final individual qualifier averages a 107th place at State in 2019. Across all classes for girls in 2019, the final individual qualifier averages a 104th place at State. There are some outliers one way and the other but it's a rather large data set to compute an average instead of cherry picking individual data points - A potential outlier vs a potential outlier.

My reaction is, it's still an incredible accomplishment to qualify for state. It really is. But knowing what place on average that final qualifier gets I think brought some great context. That context being they come, and compete but typically aren't towards the front of the race. That last individual qualifier doesn't drastically change things at State, the data supports that. So why are we arguing someone else should have their spot instead? So they can finish 80th instead of 110th? Let them have their moment and enjoy it.

Context is always nice before we continue to drag programs and individuals through the mud by saying or suggesting they don't belong there.


Not this year under this format.
11/09/2020 11:43:56 AM
User
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 20
[quote=erbad8]Not this year under this format. [/quote] Can you elaborate on that? Before I get into it I fully support a 3 team and 10 non attached format. I think it balances the best of both worlds - get best competition to state but also have regional representation. What I was trying to focus on in my post is it’s often suggested the 15th place runner in some districts doesn’t deserve their spot and someone else deserves that spot. That spot can be better used and we are leaving talented athletes at home. I felt we were splitting hairs and wondered typically where that 15th place person finishes? If we knew how the 15th place person on average finished then it’s fair to say the 16th, 17th, 18th place would be, on average, behind that, right? From this years data of 79 total 15th place finishers they averaged 104th place at the State Meet (pretty on par with prior years so the new format didn’t change that). So the kids that got sent home at districts got beat by a position that averaged 104th at State. I just don’t see the point in slinging mud on individuals and saying they don’t deserve it. Especially when we know on average where they finish at State. Now are there individual special cases that beat the norm?? Sure!! In fact, this year the gentlemen in class 3 district 2 finished 15th at districts and 21st at State. Over the couple of years I looked at this, I didn’t see anyone else pull that off. A clear outlier but that was awesome! But I like to look at ALL districts across ALL classes not cherry pick one person out of 80. No matter what format we do there will always be some districts better than others. There will always be people on this board saying good talent left at home. Even under the Top 3 teams and 10 unattached individuals you’re still going to have discrepancies in that final qualifier spot from one district to the next.
rbad8 wrote:
Not this year under this format.


Can you elaborate on that?

Before I get into it I fully support a 3 team and 10 non attached format. I think it balances the best of both worlds - get best competition to state but also have regional representation.

What I was trying to focus on in my post is it's often suggested the 15th place runner in some districts doesn't deserve their spot and someone else deserves that spot. That spot can be better used and we are leaving talented athletes at home. I felt we were splitting hairs and wondered typically where that 15th place person finishes? If we knew how the 15th place person on average finished then it's fair to say the 16th, 17th, 18th place would be, on average, behind that, right?

From this years data of 79 total 15th place finishers they averaged 104th place at the State Meet (pretty on par with prior years so the new format didn't change that). So the kids that got sent home at districts got beat by a position that averaged 104th at State. I just don't see the point in slinging mud on individuals and saying they don't deserve it. Especially when we know on average where they finish at State.

Now are there individual special cases that beat the norm?? Sure!! In fact, this year the gentlemen in class 3 district 2 finished 15th at districts and 21st at State. Over the couple of years I looked at this, I didn't see anyone else pull that off. A clear outlier but that was awesome!

But I like to look at ALL districts across ALL classes not cherry pick one person out of 80. No matter what format we do there will always be some districts better than others. There will always be people on this board saying good talent left at home. Even under the Top 3 teams and 10 unattached individuals you're still going to have discrepancies in that final qualifier spot from one district to the next.
11/09/2020 3:51:36 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 95
@erbad8 Unreal...C4 District 7 Boys and Girls had 66% of the teams qualified for the State Meet. Grandview's Girls Average team time was 24:05. In 2019 (same schools at Class 3), the final finishing team time was 22:27. In 2018 (old course...much harder) the final finishing team time was 24:01. C4 District 1 - Girls, 3rd place (Desoto HS) finishing team's average team time was 20:36. The 7th Place (Perryville HS) finishing team's average team time was 22:18. My apologies to the Desoto Girls Team as a passionate fan and coach of this sport.
@erbad8

Unreal...C4 District 7 Boys and Girls had 66% of the teams qualified for the State Meet.

Grandview's Girls Average team time was 24:05. In 2019 (same schools at Class 3), the final finishing team time was 22:27. In 2018 (old course...much harder) the final finishing team time was 24:01.

C4 District 1 - Girls, 3rd place (Desoto HS) finishing team's average team time was 20:36. The 7th Place (Perryville HS) finishing team's average team time was 22:18.

My apologies to the Desoto Girls Team as a passionate fan and coach of this sport.
11/09/2020 8:23:56 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 20
You have to look at the DeSoto boys team and the Farmington boys teams as well, maybe even Clayton. your talking 4th-7th place state teams when your bottom 7 averaged over 18 min and bottom 4 over 19 min. I honestly believe there has got to be a way to separate the strong year after year district like the class 4 district 1.
You have to look at the DeSoto boys team and the Farmington boys teams as well, maybe even Clayton. your talking 4th-7th place state teams when your bottom 7 averaged over 18 min and bottom 4 over 19 min. I honestly believe there has got to be a way to separate the strong year after year district like the class 4 district 1.
11/09/2020 8:36:19 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 20
I’m tired of good teams being left at home when consistently bad programs get to the state race every year. The answer? Put a sectional back in place!! 64 team districts, 32 team sectionals, and 16 state teams! It’s as easy as that! Eliminate the bad teams! You could also allow more individuals in as well. The whole your going to always have good runners left at home shouldn’t apply! The top 16 teams in each class should go to state!
I'm tired of good teams being left at home when consistently bad programs get to the state race every year.

The answer? Put a sectional back in place!! 64 team districts, 32 team sectionals, and 16 state teams! It's as easy as that! Eliminate the bad teams! You could also allow more individuals in as well.

The whole your going to always have good runners left at home shouldn't apply! The top 16 teams in each class should go to state!
11/10/2020 2:05:20 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12
Taking pure talent and times out of the equation: Large disparity on chances to qualify for state between the classes. Class 1, 2 and 3 need to be condensed. Class Boys ind. chanceBoys Team ChanceGirls ind. chance Girls Team Chance C1 32.9 37.3 47.9 66.7 C2 29.7 32.2 42.7 57.1 C3 28.6 27.2 34.4 57.1 C4 28.6 27.5 32.05 31.7 C5 26.2 22.8 29.4 28.5
Taking pure talent and times out of the equation:

Large disparity on chances to qualify for state between the classes. Class 1, 2 and 3 need to be condensed.
Class Boys ind. chanceBoys Team ChanceGirls ind. chance Girls Team Chance
C1 32.9 37.3 47.9 66.7
C2 29.7 32.2 42.7 57.1
C3 28.6 27.2 34.4 57.1
C4 28.6 27.5 32.05 31.7
C5 26.2 22.8 29.4 28.5
11/12/2020 9:11:17 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 236
@erbad8 What was your math on this? Just curious? Any chance to run a statistical analysis?
@erbad8

What was your math on this? Just curious? Any chance to run a statistical analysis?

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.