New qualifying procedure for track


#1

I am hearing that the qualifying procedure for both boys and girl’s state track will be changing for the upcoming season. Instead of the boy’s changing to the girl’s procedure, (like many people wanted) they will both be changing to the same system. I am somewhat confused with what I heard but basically they are trying to get the fastest people to state and will not go by district place alone. It is still in the works right now and I will post the information when I hear it. From what I do know you better hope you are on a good track for regionals or you will be bumped for faster people in other regionals.


#2

That is interesting. I could see that being workable, though. What to me is ridiculous is the current boy’s set up where it is solely place at districts. It’s crazy (to use girls’ times) that you could run a 10:58 at a great district and get 4th and your screwed while at others kids are getting in running 11:30.

To me what would be really worrisome is weather. Say the district is at West, which happens to be faced differently than many tracks with the 100 running East to West and it’s a day with a 20-30 mph wind. You could be in big trouble with sub 13 quality girls all running over 13 and no recourse. OR, conversely kids at some site with wind strongly at their backs turning in throws, jumps, or 100 times that are way beyond what they’re normally capable of. Or a strong storm is moving west and pounds meets out west, but doesn’t get to the east until the meets are over.

That’s why I’ve always liked the girls system. It rewards quality performances with the at large spots, but also has some safeguarded places for being a top placer at the district you are at.

Where have you heard this, runfair?


#3

I copied this from the IGHSAU website. Definitely a huge step backward for the girls, probably a minor improvement for the boys.

State Meet qualifying procedures – Anderson issued proposal with new qualifying standards in both boys and girls competition. New proposal states: 1) All district/regional champions will be automatic qualifiers; 2) A provisional qualifier list will be created using place winners at the district/regional meets (Class 4A - Champion, Runner-up, Third and Fourth; Class 3A & 2A Champion, Runner-up, Third; Class 1A - Champion, Runner-up); 3) All district/regional place winner performances equal to or better than the twelfth performance on the list will become qualifiers. Poorer performances will be eliminated starting with the poorest performance and moving up the list to keep the qualifying field at 24 qualifiers. No district/regional champions will be eliminated; 4) If there is a tie for a qualifying position, the higher district/regional place winner will qualify; 5) If the tie is not resolved by district/regional place, the first alphabetical, by the district/regional school entry name will qualify.
Committee discussed at length the new proposal, concurring this idea would improve the field by bringing in athletes that deserve to be at state. Duea motion to use the above proposal for boys and girls, Pohlman second. Duea then called for a roll call: Stanley-yes, Galvin-yes, Roth-yes, Cuvelier-yes, Thompson-yes, Pohlman-yes, Wilden-yes. Passed unanimously.


#4

Is it a step backward for the girls? It eliminates automatically getting in if you are second or third at a crappy district, but if you come in second and can’t get a top 24 performance, do you belong at state? It looks to me like there are fewer locked in qualifiers and more open to quality performers. I wonder, in reality, how many kids that would currently get an automatic spot now will not. I would guess only a handful.

Am I reading it correctly? Runningnome, what leads you to see it as a step back? It totally may be and I’m just not seeing it.


#5

Do they mean “place winners” as in 1-6 will be put on the potential qualifier list or only this down to 4th in 4A, 3rd in 3A, etc… list? That would make a big difference. Are they saying that in 1A, only the 1st and 2nd place finishers are even eligible to be on the qualifier list? If so, I agree, that is a step backward.
What if you were a 1A girl running the 800 in 2:15 back when North Tama had those really fast 800 sisters? How would that guarantee a faster field?

I think I’m confused.


#6

It is very confusing - let’s see if I can explain on paper what’s in my head:

The 6 District winners are safe, they’re in. The next best 6 times are safe, they’re in. Those 12 are automatic. The next best 12 get in as long as a 5th-8th at a District doesn’t run faster than the 12th fastest time. Reread that, because it’s confusing.

So let’s say that Suzi runs a 2:20 in the 800 and is the 12th fastest overall. She’s in. Now the 13th - 24th fastest times are provisional qualifiers, they get in as long as a 5th-8th place finisher didn’t run faster than 2:20. If a 5th-8th runs faster than 2:20, they bump the #24 provisional qualifier. All 5th-8th runners that run faster than 2:20 bump a provisional qualifier.

Does that make any sense?

I got an email about a month ago that has made the rounds. I should have kept it, but it was long ago deleted. One of the CIML girls coaches did some research on this. He took his District and applied the new rules to last year’s District Meet. It was amazing the number of kids who ran at last year’s State Meet that wouldn’t get in. The one that stands out the most to me is Ankeny’s Sprint Medley. They qualified for State after placing 5th at their District. They had the 18th fastest qualifying time, but at State finished 2nd. Under this year’s rules, they wouldn’t qualify. As a 5th place finisher, their time was not better than the 12th fastest, so they get left out. The 2nd best Sprint Medley team in the state would get left out under the new system!

I believe this coach found 16 kids who qualified last year that would have been left out under the new system, and something like 4 of those kids went on to place at State. But under the new system, they’re watching from the stands. That’s why I believe the new system is worse. State Meet place winners last year would not have qualified if the current system was in place.

Now, this all makes sense to me. Did my explanation clear it up or make it worse?!

I’ll look again to see if I still have that email - my explanation doesn’t really do it justice.


#7

So, basically, 1 is in no matter what and in 4A 2-4 are tentatively in UNLESS there is a 5-8 somewhere that is faster than them and then they are bumped?

One thing it will for sure do, is limit the flexibility teams have at districts. Take that Ankeny relay that qualified 18th but finished 2nd. I’d bet anything they ran a slower lineup at districts knowing they’d get in and had a horse run somewhere else to help another relay qualify and then shuffled things around at state. Now, teams will need to be very careful about doing things like that for fear they won’t get in at all.

When I coached in Iowa, except for my last year, you didn’t even have to declare your 6 entrants per relay. You could run 4 kids at district in a relay and then move every single one out and put in 4 new kids at state. It was a real chess game trying to figure out how to best maximize points and guess what other teams were going to do. Those were the days!


#8

A couple of questions here:

This would significantly change how coaches approach their line-up at Districts verus prior years, especially if your in a weaker district meet.

Sprints: Do all districts use FAT timing? Lot’s of room for error with hand held timing in the 100M, 200M and 100 Hurdles etc.

Individuals who wish to qualify in mulitple events have to go hard to ensure qualification. Districts are run in one evening so coaches will have to make decisions on girls who wish to qualify in the 800M, 1500M and 3000M.


#9

In Illinois we have qualifying times that get you into the State Meet if you don’t finish 1st or 2nd at Sectionals. You have to run them at Sectionals. This is a very good way to ensure the best runners run at the State Meet and not bump 2nd place finishers. The system you guys have to contend with seems a bit Looney.:confused:


#10

Sort of. 1 is in no matter what. 2-4 can only get bumped by a 5-8 if the 5-8 ran faster than the 12th overall kid. I’m laughing out loud as I reread what I just wrote! How are coaches going to explain this to their teams?

We had a system where the 24 best times from Districts made it to State. We’ve traded that for confusing mess that will keep some of our top kids out. It’s sad for the kids and has to be frustrating for the coaches. I think most of the girls coaches loved the old system.


#11

Example: below is the 2010 state qualifiers under the current system for the 4A Girls 1500M by time and by their respective finish at district. Hanna Savage had the 12th fastest time as a #1 district winner. The lowest qualifier ran was 5th in the Waukee District running 5:00.09. If I’m reading this right, a 2-4 can be bumped if a 5-8 runs faster than the 12th place qualifying time? If you look through the results, you will see only 3 runners finished 5 or greater at Districts and did not run faster than the 12th place qualifier. The current girls system works, the top runners do get in.

1. Flood, Katie 12 Dowling C, W 04:34.9 Waukee District 6
2. Decker, Ashlie 12 Dowling C, W 04:36.8 Waukee District 6
3. Hubbell, Madie 12 DSM, Rooseve 04:39.7 Waukee District 6
1. Criner, Nicole 09 Valley, WDM 04:43.4 Urbandale District 5
1. Houlihan, Shelby 11 SC, East 04:47.7 Sioux City North District 4
1. Peer, Anna 09 Bettendorf 04:50.6 North Scott District 3
1. Rethwisch, Rebecca 11 IC, City Hig 04:51.7 Iowa City West District 1
2. Maxcy, Kate 10 Valley, WDM 04:52.5 Urbandale District 5
2. Nickels, Megan 09 Bettendorf 04:52.8 North Scott District 3
3. Bruett, Sammi 12 Urbandale 04:53.4 Urbandale District 5
2. Fagan, Emily 12 IC, City Hig 04:54.2 Iowa City West District 1
1. Savage, Hannah 10 Cedar Falls 04:55.0 Marshalltown District 2
2. Becker, Maddy 12 CR Washington 04:55.0 Marshalltown District 2
2. Jansen, Josee 11 SC, North 04:56.1 Sioux City North District 4
3. Martin, Lydia 11 Marshalltown 04:57.0 Marshalltown District 2
3. Malmgren, Avery 11 Pleasant Val 04:57.8 North Scott District 3
4. Gregg, Allison 09 Cedar Falls 04:58.0 Marshalltown District 2
4. Eppard, Bailey 09 Johnston 04:58.2 Urbandale District 5
5. Kleve, Maddie 10 Johnston 04:58.7 Urbandale District 5
3. Martin, Courtney 10 Ames 05:00.3 Sioux City North District 4
6. Lang, Taylor 10 Ankeny 05:00.6 Urbandale District 5
4. Brush, Emily 10 Waukee 05:00.6 Waukee District 6
3. Silverman, Pombie 09 IC, West 05:00.7 Iowa City West District 1
5. Hutson, Emma 10 DSM, Rooseve 05:00.9 Waukee District 6


#12

Below is last springs 4A girls 1500M qualifiers for State. I sorted the list by time (1-24) with their district placement in front. If I am reading the proposed change to qualifying properly, the list of qualifiers is established by taking the top 4 in each region (6 districts x 4) to establish the list. The district winner is an automatic qualifier AND as long as you finish in the top 4 in your District (4A) and your time is 12th or better, you are an automatic qualifier. Then the next 12 fastest times qualify for State provided you placed 8th or better at Districts. I don’t see this as a huge change to the girls qualifying system, I think the current girls qualifying system does get the top 24 at State. This proposed qualifying system does improve the the boy’s system and I would recommend the change for both.

As you will see below, Taylor Lang of Ankeny finished 6th in her District but still qualified for State under the current girls system along with Kleve (Johnston) and Hutson (Roosevelt) who both finished 5th in their districts. All three would still qualify under the proposed system.

On the other hand, under the boy’s qualifying system, no finisher out of the top 4 at Districts qualified for State and this was a huge detriment to getting the best field at State. The boy’s Districts in Eastern Iowa alway’s seems to have stronger fields and the top boy’s never got a fair chance to qualify for State.

1. Flood, Katie 12 Dowling C, W Waukee (District 6) 04:34.9
2. Decker, Ashlie 12 Dowling C, W Waukee (District 6) 04:36.8
3. Hubbell, Madie 12 DSM, Rooseve Waukee (District 6) 04:39.7
1. Criner, Nicole 09 Valley, WDM Urbandale (District 5) 04:43.4
1. Houlihan, Shelby 11 SC, East Sioux City North (District 4) 04:47.5
1. Peer, Anna 09 Bettendorf North Scott (District 3) 04:50.6
1. Rethwisch, Rebecca 11 IC, City Hig Iowa City West (District 1) 04:51.7
2. Maxcy, Kate 10 Valley, WDM Urbandale (District 5) 04:52.5
2. Nickels, Megan 09 Bettendorf North Scott (District 3) 04:52.8
3. Bruett, Sammi 12 Urbandale Urbandale (District 5) 04:53.4
2. Fagan, Emily 12 IC, City Hig Iowa City West (District 1) 04:54
1. Savage, Hannah 10 Cedar Falls Marshalltown (District 2) 04:55.0 --(12th fastest time)
2. Jansen, Josee 11 SC, North Sioux City North (District 4) 04:56.1
2. Martin, Lydia 11 Marshalltown Marshalltown (District 2) 04:57.0
3. Malmgren, Avery 11 Pleasant Val North Scott (District 3) 04:57.8
3. Gregg, Allison 09 Cedar Falls Marshalltown (District 2) 04:58.0
4. Eppard, Bailey 09 Johnston Urbandale (District 5) 04:58.2
5. Kleve, Maddie 10 Johnston Urbandale (District 5) 04:58.7
4. Becker, Maddy 12 CR Washingto Marshalltown (District 2) 05:00.1
3. Martin, Courtney 10 Ames Sioux City North (District 4) 05:00.6
6. Lang, Taylor 10 Ankeny Urbandale (District 5) 05:00.6
4. Brush, Emily 10 Waukee Waukee (District 6) 05:00.6
3. Silverman, Pombie 09 IC, West Iowa City West (District 1) 05:00.7
5. Hutson, Emma 10 DSM, Rooseve Waukee (District 6) 05:01.0


#13

Interesting that in this event, it wouldn’t have made any difference. Do folks think it will impact smaller schools more?

The larger question. While it’s obvious why they’d want to tinker with the boy’s qualifying system, what was broken with the girls? And, so much so that the group unanimously voted to adopt this seemingly much more arcane formula.


#14

Actually, Lang, Kleve, and Hutson would not qualify under the new system. Since their time did not beat the 12th best time, they get left out. The only way a 5th-8th gets in is if their time is better than the 12th best.

Confusing at the least. Unfortunate for those exact kinds of kids who will get left out this year.


#15

I don’t see where a 5-8 has to run faster than the 12th best time to qualify in any of the memo’s?


#16

Maybe I’m interpreting this incorrectly. Here’s where I’m basing that assumption:

  1. All district/regional place winner performances equal to or better than the twelfth performance on the list will become qualifiers. Poorer performances will be eliminated starting with the poorest performance and moving up the list to keep the qualifying field at 24 qualifiers. No district/regional champions will be eliminated;

I believe they consider district place winners to be 1st-8th place at each district. So the top 4 from each district make their “provisional” list, then the 5th-8th can bump the last 12 if they beat the 12th best time.

Now that I take another look at things, I may be misinterpreting the new rules. It shouldn’t be this confusing! Anyone out there in the know that can explain this?


#17

I read the proposed changes to establish the provisional list as the top 4 places (4A only) in each district (6 districts X 4). Then the 1st -12th fastest times are automatic qualifiers along with every District champion. Then the remaining 2nd through 8th place finishers at Districts may qualify based on the next 12 fastest times. There could be an instance where a district champions time is slower than the 12th fastest time, in this case, the district champion is an automatic qualifier and there would be less “at large” qualifiers based on times.


#18

You could be correct on that. The part that I keep getting hung up on is the wording “performances equal to or better than the twelfth performance on the list will become qualifiers.” To me that means if you’re not on the provisional list, your only way in is to be better than the 12th best performance. But the more I look into this, the less convinced I am of that (or should I say, the more confused I am:confused: ).


#19

I am with Roaminggnome in his confusion. What you are saying runfan would make the most sense, but the wording of the change does seem to suggest, at least at first blush, something like RGs assumption about it.


#20

I absolutely could be wrong here but I read the proposal as the district place winner performances (meaning top 4 in each district) equal to or better than the twelfth performance will become automatic qualifiers. I do not see or read any qualifying statements regarding the next 12 at large qualifiers tying in their requirement to exceed the twelfth place finishers time to qualify for State. I’m sure this will be clarified soon

  1. All district/regional place winner performances equal to or better than the twelfth performance on the list will become qualifiers.