North Dakota Preps

Just from looking at the qualifying list so far this year, and based on qualifiers from recent years, should qualifying times be adjusted? i'm talking class B boys especially. Looking at the Class B boys performance list is very small so far, particularly in the distance events. Even last year I think there was only 2 or 3 boys who qualified by time in the 800, and you didnt even have to run qualifying standards to place in the 800-3200. i'm not saying just drop standards by 10 seconds, but maybe adopt a sort of floating scale like South Dakota uses. (their qualifying standards change from year to year and they calculate them based on like the average time of the 8th place finisher for the last 5 years or something like that. i'm not sure exactly how it works but it is along those lines) it just seems to me that some events are in a drought right now and something like that would make up for it. is this something you would like to see or are you happy with only a few athletes qualifying by time and the rest of the field being filled out by region winners?

Its still early in Class B. I'm pretty sure that by mid-season (early May) there will be more names that have qualified in Class B. Also there is the possibility with the new region setup to have more possible qualifiers at state then last year. Last year each region (8 regions) were allowed top 2 at regions to qualify for State...this year each region (6 regions) are allowed Top 3 at regions to qualify for the State Meet. That's a jump of at least two (and this is not including those who already qualify by the time standard).

Also there are several athletes who are close to the qualifying standard for Class B (about 3-5 boys and girls for the 800; 2-3 boys and girls in the 3200; etc.)

Give it a little time...if we were in this position of low qualifying numbers in early May...then I would be concerned.

I'll tell you what needs to be changed. Last year the rules were changed to allow athletes to run up to 5600m in a one-day meet. If you add the numbers, that allows an 800, 1600, and 3200. Almost all the Class B coaches have been taking advantage of this and having their kids run the 4x8, 16, AND 32 in one meet! Now most of these meets are small and the 4x8 may be only 40-45 minutes before the 1600. Of course nobody is going to run qualifying times! Shame on coaches that put their kids through that, even multiple times a week! The example I notice the most is the Lisbon distance runners. Those kids run way to many races to be able to stay healthy, let alone qualify. Not even the college or pro runners do that kind of racing. It's stupid. Ken Wells, the only guy to get those distance qualifying times in the first half of season, he ran all 3 distance races in quite a few meets as well. It's ridiculous. All these kids will burn out if their coaches are having them do that.

theman wrote:I'll tell you what needs to be changed. Last year the rules were changed to allow athletes to run up to 5600m in a one-day meet. If you add the numbers, that allows an 800, 1600, and 3200. Almost all the Class B coaches have been taking advantage of this and having their kids run the 4x8, 16, AND 32 in one meet! Now most of these meets are small and the 4x8 may be only 40-45 minutes before the 1600. Of course nobody is going to run qualifying times! Shame on coaches that put their kids through that, even multiple times a week! The example I notice the most is the Lisbon distance runners. Those kids run way to many races to be able to stay healthy, let alone qualify. Not even the college or pro runners do that kind of racing. It's stupid. Ken Wells, the only guy to get those distance qualifying times in the first half of season, he ran all 3 distance races in quite a few meets as well. It's ridiculous. All these kids will burn out if their coaches are having them do that.

Many of the Lisbon runners have not been doing the 4x8, 1600 and 3200 this year. As I have seen in results, Gallagher, Horgeshimer and Hall have been doing 2 of those races consistantly throughout the year. Not sure what they all did yesterday in Valley City; but in other meets this year its been 1 or 2 of those events. I know they finally ran their top 4x8 squad yesterday and got it qualified.

Running the 4x8, mile, and 2 mile is a lot for one meet. but it isn't impossible. i remember a couple times in high school running all three events, but not often. but i think your distance runners should always at least do 2 events. if you're fast enough to qualify you're strong enough to run two races in a day and still qualify. unless you're really focused on the 2-mile. and even then, there is enough meets in the year when you can take a meet and just only run the 2-mile. but once you get to state you're going to have to double up. i remember doing the 1600 on friday and then then the 2 mile, 800, and 4x4 on saturday. you need to be prepared for that amount of work. it's always good to get races in. but then again a lot of coaches will say "you don't improve by racing" but i dont know how much i believe that. i think racing has a lot of benefit.

RunOrDie wrote:Running the 4x8, mile, and 2 mile is a lot for one meet. but it isn't impossible. i remember a couple times in high school running all three events, but not often. but i think your distance runners should always at least do 2 events. if you're fast enough to qualify you're strong enough to run two races in a day and still qualify. unless you're really focused on the 2-mile. and even then, there is enough meets in the year when you can take a meet and just only run the 2-mile. but once you get to state you're going to have to double up. i remember doing the 1600 on friday and then then the 2 mile, 800, and 4x4 on saturday. you need to be prepared for that amount of work. it's always good to get races in. but then again a lot of coaches will say "you don't improve by racing" but i dont know how much i believe that. i think racing has a lot of benefit.

As somebody who ran the 4x8, 1600, 800, and 3200 at state, I know that it is not easy. But you also have to understand that the state meet is two days long. There is way more rest. I would never recommend more than 4x8 and 3200 at one meet, because most meets in this state are fairly small and running three distance events just overdoes it. I can understand coaches wanting to win meets by having their good distance runners in a ton of events, but all it does is just hurt them in the long run. You peak too early.

theman wrote:The example I notice the most is the Lisbon distance runners.

What's your bone with Lisbon?

Find ONE example of any runner from Lisbon that has ran the 4X800, 1600, and 3200 in a meet. Or even within a 2-3 day period for that matter.

I think that the qualifying by regions should be changed. The state meet doesn't have all the best runners because of it. For example: Tim Clifton is going to state in the 3200 with a 11:15 instead of Gallagher's bad race of a 10:45ish. That doesn't even make sense, thats losing a lot of quality of runners with this system

What kind of adjustment would you like? I suppose they could take the top two at every region and then the next six fastest times in that event at all the regionals combined.

We had the same situation in the girls two mile in our region (North Central). We had Three very fast times; 12:08, 12:11 and 12:11. This prevented Clair Brien from Northern Lights from getting into state. She is a very consistant 12:30 two mile runner and a state placer from last year. She will have to stay home this year, while some runners in other regions made it to state running in the 13 min range in the two mile.

I guess there is no way to make everything fair. It is just the nature of sports.

How about having an a and b standard for qualifying. For example: Boys class B 3200 Meters. The a standard could be the current qualifying time of 10:20 and the b standard could be 10:35 or so. If 12 runners (or any other number chosen) reach the a standard then the b qualifiers wouldn't run at state. However in a year like this one, the b standard runners would be included. I believe South Dakota does this for their state track meet.

This is just my personal opinion, but if they are still allowing the top 2 in each event at the Regional meets into the state meet they are simply watering down the meet in order to get more bodies there. (Which means more money for rooms, meals, possibly parents attending, etc...) I think that you should only be allowed to qualify by meeting or beating the state standard set for your event(s). I havn't been to a state meet in about 6 years, but when I did go almost every year I remember many kids who really didn't belong in the state meet and got beat badly in the prelims of their event. Just my opinion - I also think that only the top 2 in each weight class should qualify for state wrestling instead of the top 4 but that is a topic for another forum.

Sportsrube wrote:This is just my personal opinion, but if they are still allowing the top 2 in each event at the Regional meets into the state meet they are simply watering down the meet in order to get more bodies there. (Which means more money for rooms, meals, possibly parents attending, etc...) I think that you should only be allowed to qualify by meeting or beating the state standard set for your event(s). I havn't been to a state meet in about 6 years, but when I did go almost every year I remember many kids who really didn't belong in the state meet and got beat badly in the prelims of their event. Just my opinion - I also think that only the top 2 in each weight class should qualify for state wrestling instead of the top 4 but that is a topic for another forum.

In Class B it is actually now Top 3 from each region since there are now only Six Regions.

I have no qualms with the current qualifying standards or system of top 3 from each of 6 regions... I think it works, and I think the coaches that advise on the qualifying standards do a good job. They are slow to change standards but keep an eye on the returning field year and year and make small adjustments when necessary. I personally don't think the qualifying standard is meant to guarantee that we have 10-15 automatic qualifiers every year... I think it's meant to ensure that the "top dogs", so to speak, make it to state even if something happened and they had a poor regional meet, so having a high standard is a good thing.

However, now that we've moved to 6 regions, I really like the suggestion someone made of taking the top 2 from each region and then the next 6 best times/marks from the regionals. That way you could end up taking all the third places, or you could end up taking 3rd and 4th place from a certain region or two and not the 3rd place from a couple other regions. It would be easy enough to coordinate with only 6 meet results to look at. Personally I think that's an exciting and fantastic idea.

How do you accommodate for weather differences at the regionals when you take the next 6 best times/marks?

Hinsa wrote:How do you accommodate for weather differences at the regionals when you take the next 6 best times/marks?

That's a great question... and an angle I hadn't thought of yet. Not sure how I feel about it.

Obviously, you can't accommodate for weather differences... if one region had great weather and another crappy that would be one of those situations that would have to be chalked up to "that's life."

While it makes me rethink the idea, it's possible I still support it (I'll let you know if I make up my mind). On one hand, weather differences is an obvious detracting factor. On the other, you're still taking top 2 out of each region- and I bet taking the next 6 times gets better competition to the state meet more consistently than when weather fouls it up.

By weather differences I'm not just thinking rain vs. sunshine, I'm thinking also about the wind or lack thereof and the effect wind would have depending on the orientation of the track. One region could very likely be running with the wind, another against the wind, another with a cross-wind.

During the season, do qualifying times count if they are wind-aided, or is no distinction made? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.....

Hinsa wrote:During the season, do qualifying times count if they are wind-aided, or is no distinction made? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.....

there is no distinction made

Flip wrote:

Hinsa wrote:During the season, do qualifying times count if they are wind-aided, or is no distinction made? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.....

there is no distinction made

Truth. That's why some meets you'll see 65 million kids qualify in the 100 and 200, because they'll run the races whichever direction gives the wind at the kids' backs, but then at state they don't do that.