XC State Qualifying Info

[roller coaster]

Just passed (from the Ihsa website):

The Board approved a recommendation to approve changes to the Cross Country State Final Tournament as a result of the changes to the Classification Policy in June. Each class will now have five Sectionals with three Regionals feeding into each Sectional. The changes will increase the total number of state final qualifiers by 168 student-athletes.

[ICantThinkOfAUserName]

Just passed (from the Ihsa website):

The Board approved a recommendation to approve changes to the Cross Country State Final Tournament as a result of the changes to the Classification Policy in June. Each class will now have five Sectionals with three Regionals feeding into each Sectional. The changes will increase the total number of state final qualifiers by 168 student-athletes.

Three regionals feeding into five sectionals... Have they confirmed anything yet how many teams will advance out of each regional to each sectional? I read somewhere that it was the top seven in each regional to advance to the corresponding sectional.

[roller coaster]

Three regionals feeding into five sectionals... Have they confirmed anything yet how many teams will advance out of each regional to each sectional? I read somewhere that it was the top seven in each regional to advance to the corresponding sectional.

That sounds about right. So 3A will still only be eliminating 2-3 schools per regional.

[ICantThinkOfAUserName]

That sounds about right. So 3A will still only be eliminating 2-3 schools per regional.

I knew I'd read that somewhere:


This year's Regional format will be a new one. There will only be 3 Regionals per Sectional with the top seven teams advancing. We'll probably end up at Busse Woods with a bunch of MSL teams.


Found that in Quick's post on the Palatine CC website: http://www.palatinecc.net

I'm intrigued. Think that should make the regionals more entertaining.

[roller coaster]

I knew I'd read that somewhere:



Found that in Quick's post on the Palatine CC website: http://www.palatinecc.net

I'm intrigued. Think that should make the regionals more entertaining.

Only slightly. Figure between 28-30 teams per sectional, so that's 9-10 teams at the 3 regionals. 7 advance, so you are eliminating 2-3 teams per regional in 3A. But, at least you have to run.

[ILrunna]

Only top 5 teams from each sectional will still advance though?

[ICantThinkOfAUserName]

Only slightly. Figure between 28-30 teams per sectional, so that's 9-10 teams at the 3 regionals. 7 advance, so you are eliminating 2-3 teams per regional in 3A. But, at least you have to run.

Yeah, that does make sense in 2A and 3A, although if there's only 3 regionals, with the top seven advancing, barring any ties, there would be 21 teams at each of the sectionals that qualify from regionals.

It's a little different in 1A though, you've got about 185 teams each for boys and girls so that evens out to about 11-12 teams in each regional. I guess now that I look at the numbers, you're right it only slightly makes the regionals more important.

Either way, everyone knows that sectionals and then state are where it's at. :D

EDIT:

Only top 5 teams from each sectional will still advance though?

Yep. Top five teams in each sectional qualify for the state finals. There's one more sectional in 1A and 2A, so that means all three classes will have 25 teams in each race at state, just like 3A has had for the past couple of years.

[Volsxc1]

http://http://www.ihsa.org/NewsMedia/Announcements/tabid/93/ID/77/categoryId/1/IHSA-Board-Approves-Continuation-of-Performance-Enhancing-Drug-Testing-Program.aspx

Just found this on the IHSA web site, it is confirmed. SHould make things a bit more interesting for A and AA.

[RnnrFrvr]

http://http://www.ihsa.org/NewsMedia/Announcements/tabid/93/ID/77/categoryId/1/IHSA-Board-Approves-Continuation-of-Performance-Enhancing-Drug-Testing-Program.aspx

Just found this on the IHSA web site, it is confirmed. SHould make things a bit more interesting for A and AA.

The link is broken..?

[RnnrFrvr]

http://http://www.ihsa.org/NewsMedia/Announcements/tabid/93/ID/77/categoryId/1/IHSA-Board-Approves-Continuation-of-Performance-Enhancing-Drug-Testing-Program.aspx

Just found this on the IHSA web site, it is confirmed. SHould make things a bit more interesting for A and AA.

The link is broken..? Anyone else notice this?

[RnnrFrvr]

http://http://www.ihsa.org/NewsMedia/Announcements/tabid/93/ID/77/categoryId/1/IHSA-Board-Approves-Continuation-of-Performance-Enhancing-Drug-Testing-Program.aspx

Just found this on the IHSA web site, it is confirmed. SHould make things a bit more interesting for A and AA.

The link isn't working..? Anyone else have this problem?

[quickcm]

You've got to give the IHSA kudos on this one. Instead of shrinking class 3A to equalize it with the other two classes, they chose to expand the state meet. The regionals may be a bit of a joke in terms of qualifying (but harder to win). In Class A and AA they will not have problems with number of teams, but I bet that there will still be some regionals where everyone qualifies due to schools not fielding full teams. Again, do we really want to complain about regional issues when the state has now allocated 15 sectionals and 150 teams (boys and girls in all three classes) for advancement to the state finals? This can only make CC better in Illinois and I applaud the growth and equality across the three classes. As with the introduction of AA, this can only help grow the sport at a minimal cost to the IHSA. Cool stuff.

Quick

[roller coaster]

You've got to give the IHSA kudos on this one. Instead of shrinking class 3A to equalize it with the other two classes, they chose to expand the state meet. The regionals may be a bit of a joke in terms of qualifying (but harder to win). In Class A and AA they will not have problems with number of teams, but I bet that there will still be some regionals where everyone qualifies due to schools not fielding full teams. Again, do we really want to complain about regional issues when the state has now allocated 15 sectionals and 150 teams (boys and girls in all three classes) for advancement to the state finals? This can only make CC better in Illinois and I applaud the growth and equality across the three classes. As with the introduction of AA, this can only help grow the sport at a minimal cost to the IHSA. Cool stuff.

Quick

Couldn't agree more. I don't think anyone was complaining about the regionals, just pointing out that some of them will still be easy. But that's not a bad thing considering that more kids will be running at the state meet.

[konza847]

While having more athletes qualify for the state meet is a good thing, wasting a week of the season for an unnecessary level of the state series is not.

If the purpose of the Regional round is to award a greater number of individual and team awards, then by all means let's retain it. But if the purpose of the Regional round is to cull the field in preparation for later rounds it now eliminates too few teams to be an effective use of a week of an already short season.

The sport would be better served by having all teams qualify for sectional and having approximately the same number of teams and individuals qualify for the state meet.

The issue here is being able to find courses that could accommodate larger sectional fields. If enough courses could be developed that could host 200 runner fields, there would be no need to eliminate teams from the state series before the sectional round.

[roller coaster]

From ihsa.org:

Fall State Series Assignments


Fall State Series Assignments will be released on the website on September 16.

[roller coaster]

IHSA assignments are due today. An interesting note already: Does anybody know how Fenwick is hosting a boys 2A regional & a boys 3A regional? I see that this applies on the girls side as well. And are they running at Schiller or Midlothian Meadows?

[konza847]

A look at yesterday's AAA regional results reveals the following

15 regionals each qualified a maximum of 54 runners for Sectionals next week. That's 810 boys and 810 girls still running in the state series.

It appears that 126 girls and 133 boys were eliminated from the state series yesterday. I say "appears" because it's impossible to tell whether the teams that didn't advance fielded full teams yesterday. Unless there's a good reason to assume otherwise, we'll assume they did.

So the girls' regionals eliminated 13.5% of the field. The boys' regionals eliminated 14.1% of the field. By contrast, assuming nothing funny next week like a tie for 5th place or a top ten full of runners from non-qualifying teams, the sectional round will eliminate 74.1% of the remaining field.

I ask again: Is the regional round, as currently organized, a good use of a week of the season?

[DFLAgain]

A look at yesterday's AAA regional results reveals the following

15 regionals each qualified a maximum of 54 runners for Sectionals next week. That's 810 boys and 810 girls still running in the state series.

It appears that 126 girls and 133 boys were eliminated from the state series yesterday. I say "appears" because it's impossible to tell whether the teams that didn't advance fielded full teams yesterday. Unless there's a good reason to assume otherwise, we'll assume they did.

So the girls' regionals eliminated 13.5% of the field. The boys' regionals eliminated 14.1% of the field. By contrast, assuming nothing funny next week like a tie for 5th place or a top ten full of runners from non-qualifying teams, the sectional round will eliminate 74.1% of the remaining field.

I ask again: Is the regional round, as currently organized, a good use of a week of the season?

Obviously no it is not, but be careful what you wish for when the IHSA is involved with making the decision.

[ICantThinkOfAUserName]

A look at yesterday's AAA regional results reveals the following

15 regionals each qualified a maximum of 54 runners for Sectionals next week. That's 810 boys and 810 girls still running in the state series.

It appears that 126 girls and 133 boys were eliminated from the state series yesterday. I say "appears" because it's impossible to tell whether the teams that didn't advance fielded full teams yesterday. Unless there's a good reason to assume otherwise, we'll assume they did.

So the girls' regionals eliminated 13.5% of the field. The boys' regionals eliminated 14.1% of the field. By contrast, assuming nothing funny next week like a tie for 5th place or a top ten full of runners from non-qualifying teams, the sectional round will eliminate 74.1% of the remaining field.

I ask again: Is the regional round, as currently organized, a good use of a week of the season?

I've thought about this.. and while the drawbacks are obvious (primarily there so few runners getting eliminated and then a massive round of eliminations the next week), I tend to think that while the regional round is -- for the most part -- a joke, it does have some benefits. One such benefit is that some teams can take advantage of it and allow some of their top 7 to rest or take advantage of a race off to get healthy for Sectionals and State.

For some teams that may have had a rougher end to the season, the regional round can also be used to make a statement. For example, Prospect boys upset Buffalo Grove in their regional after Buffalo Grove finished a strong 2nd to Palatine in conference after they had finished a distant 5th to Buffalo Grove.

Granted, I don't know exactly what went down or what the strategy was for some teams, so some runners may not have run as well as they have or have run easily in preparation for the sectional since they knew they were going to advance to the next round anyway.

I guess my warped thinking here kind of tells me that while the regional round is pretty much nothing more than an automatic bye for 80+% of teams, the regionals do provide an opportunity for teams that may be a little banged up or wanting to reassert themselves.

And I think that ends up improving the quality of competition for the sectional and state meets, even though every year some very quality teams get screwed out of a state meet appearance out of sectionals across all classes.

But all that aside, the regionals are still a joke. The real fun begins next Saturday.

[208V]

i wonder how it went for the coaches who had girls in one class and boys in another i see where fenwick hosted a 2a and 3a regional and i see where richmond burton boys are going to the belevidere sectional and the girls are going to lisle they have the split due to the cut off is different for boys then girls

[ICantThinkOfAUserName]

i wonder how it went for the coaches who had girls in one class and boys in another i see where fenwick hosted a 2a and 3a regional and i see where richmond burton boys are going to the belevidere sectional and the girls are going to lisle they have the split due to the cut off is different for boys then girls

Or in the case of the private schools, Lombard (Montini) boys at the Aurora Christian Regional and the girls at the Riverside-Brookfield regional because of the multiplier waivers based on how their programs have fared over the previous six years.

[mc140]

The IHSA would be better off eliminating regionals and just having sectional races at this point. You could add another weekend of invites which would be a good thing. Advancing to sectionals used to be an accomplishment. Now it is a given.

[konza847]

The IHSA initiated the cross-country state series in 1946, but didn't institute a two-meet qualifying series until 1969. The first two years of the girls' state series featured only a sectional meet.

If I remember correctly, the introduction of the (then) District meets in 1969 was driven by the increase in the number of schools participating in the sport. I suspect the same criteria drove the introduction of regional meets in the girls' series in 1981.

I would also suspect the the number of schools in each of the three classes that participate in cross-country is lower than the number of schools that participated in the state series in the late '60's before the introduction of the additional round in the state series.

[DFLAgain]

Back in the 2 class days (ancient history to anyone now in high school), weren't there about 10-13 teams in a regional with 5 advancing? I think some had less teams, but that seems to have been the typical number. The regionals served the purpose of eliminating 50% or more of the field.

That could be done again with something like 2 regionals per sectional, and advance 7 teams from each regional. However, as long as teams are put into regionals solely by geography, there is more chance of having highly imbalanced regionals and potentially leaving a ranked team out of the sectional meet.

[roller coaster]

Back in the 2 class days (ancient history to anyone now in high school), weren't there about 10-13 teams in a regional with 5 advancing? I think some had less teams, but that seems to have been the typical number. The regionals served the purpose of eliminating 50% or more of the field.

That could be done again with something like 2 regionals per sectional, and advance 7 teams from each regional. However, as long as teams are put into regionals solely by geography, there is more chance of having highly imbalanced regionals and potentially leaving a ranked team out of the sectional meet.

Yes - there were over 10 teams per regional back in the 2 class system.

One of the big problems, and this might be bigger in 2A, is the Chicago Public Schools. There has to be some penalty that is strong enough to get them to pay attention to our rules. They continually do not show up for regional meets. They declare that they are participating in the state series, then don't show up. This affects a lot of things, the two biggets being: 1 - Team assignments based on geography. 2 - Teams being put in the proper class by enrollment.

Look no further than the Class 2A Illiana Regional on the Boys side: 5 teams qualified (2 open spots were available for 2 other teams), and 1 individual qualified. SO, everyone that ran & finished qualified to Sectionals. Plus, there were still 2 open team spots available and 4 individual spots left unsed. Meanwhile local teams such as Bremen, Oak Forest, Hillcrest, Rich Central, Tinley Park all travelled over 40 miles to West Chicago for a regional. All of these schools could have been funneled into Illiana Christian or Crete Monee 2A regionals.

If the Chicago public schools had their feet held to the fire a little bit, like maybe penalizing their winter sports (basketball, wrestling, etc) if they fail to fulfill their fall requirements, they might take it a bit more seriously, and schools could be slotted appropriately. Just my 2 cents.

[usnspecialist]

The IHSA would be better off eliminating regionals and just having sectional races at this point. You could add another weekend of invites which would be a good thing. Advancing to sectionals used to be an accomplishment. Now it is a given.

why in the world would another week of invites be a good thing?

[youknow]

Yes - there were over 10 teams per regional back in the 2 class system.

One of the big problems, and this might be bigger in 2A, is the Chicago Public Schools. There has to be some penalty that is strong enough to get them to pay attention to our rules. They continually do not show up for regional meets. They declare that they are participating in the state series, then don't show up. This affects a lot of things, the two biggets being: 1 - Team assignments based on geography. 2 - Teams being put in the proper class by enrollment.

Look no further than the Class 2A Illiana Regional on the Boys side: 5 teams qualified (2 open spots were available for 2 other teams), and 1 individual qualified. SO, everyone that ran & finished qualified to Sectionals. Plus, there were still 2 open team spots available and 4 individual spots left unsed. Meanwhile local teams such as Bremen, Oak Forest, Hillcrest, Rich Central, Tinley Park all travelled over 40 miles to West Chicago for a regional. All of these schools could have been funneled into Illiana Christian or Crete Monee 2A regionals.

If the Chicago public schools had their feet held to the fire a little bit, like maybe penalizing their winter sports (basketball, wrestling, etc) if they fail to fulfill their fall requirements, they might take it a bit more seriously, and schools could be slotted appropriately. Just my 2 cents.

THIS. You are exactly right. The same happened in the 1A Luther North Regional for girls. There will only be 17 teams in the girls Lisle Sectional.

[Volsxc1]

Yes - there were over 10 teams per regional back in the 2 class system.

One of the big problems, and this might be bigger in 2A, is the Chicago Public Schools. There has to be some penalty that is strong enough to get them to pay attention to our rules. They continually do not show up for regional meets. They declare that they are participating in the state series, then don't show up. This affects a lot of things, the two biggets being: 1 - Team assignments based on geography. 2 - Teams being put in the proper class by enrollment.

Look no further than the Class 2A Illiana Regional on the Boys side: 5 teams qualified (2 open spots were available for 2 other teams), and 1 individual qualified. SO, everyone that ran & finished qualified to Sectionals. Plus, there were still 2 open team spots available and 4 individual spots left unsed. Meanwhile local teams such as Bremen, Oak Forest, Hillcrest, Rich Central, Tinley Park all travelled over 40 miles to West Chicago for a regional. All of these schools could have been funneled into Illiana Christian or Crete Monee 2A regionals.

If the Chicago public schools had their feet held to the fire a little bit, like maybe penalizing their winter sports (basketball, wrestling, etc) if they fail to fulfill their fall requirements, they might take it a bit more seriously, and schools could be slotted appropriately. Just my 2 cents.

That would be a great idea. If you look at the central Regionals, most of them were full. Now, by just going to a Sectional Only, and no Regionals might not be such a Hot idea. There are quite a few Sectional Courses that could not handle 40+ teams. I think the Decatur course might be able to, and maybe the South Sectional. I remember seeing pix of some of the northern sectional sights that had some pretty narrow areas on their course, which could cause a problem when you are dealing with 300+ runners.

But the IHSA does need to do a better job of accurately policing those who just don't show up. The Decatur Sectional might not be as loaded if the schools throughout the state accurately marked what they had (full team/individuals - less than 5). That way teams like Olney and Carlinville can go back south and be able to qualify for state, where the other South teams can basically walk to the state meet, and 4-5 good teams will not make it to state b/c of the stacked Decatur Sectional.

[Col Crunch]

The IHSA would be better off eliminating regionals and just having sectional races at this point. You could add another weekend of invites which would be a good thing. Advancing to sectionals used to be an accomplishment. Now it is a given.

Ugh. Most people are over-raced as is.

Frankly, having an "easy" week as regionals currently are is a good thing imho.

[Col Crunch]

Back in the 2 class days (ancient history to anyone now in high school), weren't there about 10-13 teams in a regional with 5 advancing? I think some had less teams, but that seems to have been the typical number. The regionals served the purpose of eliminating 50% or more of the field.

That could be done again with something like 2 regionals per sectional, and advance 7 teams from each regional. However, as long as teams are put into regionals solely by geography, there is more chance of having highly imbalanced regionals and potentially leaving a ranked team out of the sectional meet.

10-13 in Class AA sounds right. Class A usually had close to that scheduled, but a lot of schools would fail to field a whole team. It was not uncommon for a couple Class A Regionals to default to the 4 or 5 full teams that showed up.

[Col Crunch]

Or in the case of the private schools, Lombard (Montini) boys at the Aurora Christian Regional and the girls at the Riverside-Brookfield regional because of the multiplier waivers based on how their programs have fared over the previous six years.

You can always petition to move up in one sport. So if you get split and want to compete at the same Regional, you can do it.

[konza847]

TNow, by just going to a Sectional Only, and no Regionals might not be such a Hot idea. There are quite a few Sectional Courses that could not handle 40+ teams. I think the Decatur course might be able to, and maybe the South Sectional. I remember seeing pix of some of the northern sectional sights that had some pretty narrow areas on their course, which could cause a problem when you are dealing with 300+ runners.

I'm not well versed in A and AA, but if you add the number of runners that qualified in AAA to the number that didn't, the highest number you get is 943. Divide that by 5 and you get about 189, which is less than 200 and thus significantly less than 300.

The answer is pretty obvious; if the sectional fields are going to be larger than 28 teams, increase the number of sectionals. The Detweiller Park course can handle 30 teams, so 6 sectionals each advancing 5 teams works. As does 7 sectionals each advancing 4 teams.

[teamfirst]

While I agree that the major flaw with the current regional is system is how few teams that it eliminates, getting rid of regionals as whole would not be good thing. Winning a regional still is a fairly prestigious accomplishment. Furthermore, most other IHSA sports have regional champions. In fact, it is easier to win a regional in a sport like soccer, volleyball, or basketball where you usually only have to win 2 games to win a regional (being the best of four or five teams if there is a play in). I think the better idea would be to reduce the amount of sectional qualifying to teams to 5 or 6 per regional.

[Volsxc1]

I'm not well versed in A and AA, but if you add the number of runners that qualified in AAA to the number that didn't, the highest number you get is 943. Divide that by 5 and you get about 189, which is less than 200 and thus significantly less than 300.

The answer is pretty obvious; if the sectional fields are going to be larger than 28 teams, increase the number of sectionals. The Detweiller Park course can handle 30 teams, so 6 sectionals each advancing 5 teams works. As does 7 sectionals each advancing 4 teams.

Idk about AAA, or AA, as they have fewer total schools, but in class A, each of the Decatur Sectional Regionals had close to 100 runners each, which would get you about 300 runners at that sectional. Sounds like that no regional format would work better in AAA than A, but I don't see the IHSA totally scrapping regionals, but some re-alignment of who goes where should definitly be looked at in class A.

[roller coaster]

While I agree that the major flaw with the current regional is system is how few teams that it eliminates, getting rid of regionals as whole would not be good thing. Winning a regional still is a fairly prestigious accomplishment. Furthermore, most other IHSA sports have regional champions. In fact, it is easier to win a regional in a sport like soccer, volleyball, or basketball where you usually only have to win 2 games to win a regional (being the best of four or five teams if there is a play in). I think the better idea would be to reduce the amount of sectional qualifying to teams to 5 or 6 per regional.

Not sure where you have been, but it has always been 5 teams advancing to sectionals until this year when they made it 3 regionals per sectional.

[roller coaster]

Idk about AAA, or AA, as they have fewer total schools, but in class A, each of the Decatur Sectional Regionals had close to 100 runners each, which would get you about 300 runners at that sectional. Sounds like that no regional format would work better in AAA than A, but I don't see the IHSA totally scrapping regionals, but some re-alignment of who goes where should definitly be looked at in class A.

If the IHSA would have some real penalties for teams that declare that they will field a cross country program, then they don't, then maybe some teams on the cusp of being class A or 2A or 3A can get put in the correct class. This might help with the distribution of teams to the correct geographical area.

[konza847]

I think the better idea would be to reduce the amount of sectional qualifying to teams to 5 or 6 per regional.

Doing this would reduce the number of teams in sectional fields.

In all of the discussions we've had on this subject on the various forums where it's been discussed, I do not remember ANYONE arguing that sectional fields should be smaller.

[roller coaster]

Doing this would reduce the number of teams in sectional fields.

In all of the discussions we've had on this subject on the various forums where it's been discussed, I do not remember ANYONE arguing that sectional fields should be smaller.

Well, it was his first post.

[DFLAgain]

Back in the 2 class days (ancient history to anyone now in high school), weren't there about 10-13 teams in a regional with 5 advancing? I think some had less teams, but that seems to have been the typical number. The regionals served the purpose of eliminating 50% or more of the field.

That could be done again with something like 2 regionals per sectional, and advance 7 teams from each regional. However, as long as teams are put into regionals solely by geography, there is more chance of having highly imbalanced regionals and potentially leaving a ranked team out of the sectional meet.

Doing this would reduce the number of teams in sectional fields.

In all of the discussions we've had on this subject on the various forums where it's been discussed, I do not remember ANYONE arguing that sectional fields should be smaller.

That's actually what I was trying to allude to. For regionals to have more of a purpose, more teams have to be knocked out in the regional round. That means fewer teams competing in the sectionals. I would welcome removing 5 or 6 teams - as long it's the bottom 5 or 6.

[TCTORNADO]

Has anybody heard that Leroy Oaks might close, due to Boy Scouts buying property and supposedly putting up cabins on the course. Anyone know???

[roller coaster]

I'm not well versed in A and AA, but if you add the number of runners that qualified in AAA to the number that didn't, the highest number you get is 943. Divide that by 5 and you get about 189, which is less than 200 and thus significantly less than 300.

The answer is pretty obvious; if the sectional fields are going to be larger than 28 teams, increase the number of sectionals. The Detweiller Park course can handle 30 teams, so 6 sectionals each advancing 5 teams works. As does 7 sectionals each advancing 4 teams.

Idk about AAA, or AA, as they have fewer total schools, but in class A, each of the Decatur Sectional Regionals had close to 100 runners each, which would get you about 300 runners at that sectional. Sounds like that no regional format would work better in AAA than A, but I don't see the IHSA totally scrapping regionals, but some re-alignment of who goes where should definitly be looked at in class A.


In Boys 2A, the best I can figure without full results is this:

902 runners entered in regional meets, 778 advanced - 86%. 124 were eliminated.

Kind of a waste of a weekend.

[onceastud]

All it would take to fix this problem is to change the geography a bit in the 2a
Instead of a north south geography use a east west and use roads as boundaries. Example schools from I 90 North from 39 on the west to the Lake on the east is one sectional.
North of I88 to south of 90 I39 west to the Lake east is another sectional
North of I 80 to South of I 88 to I 39 west to Indiana is another sectional. Keep the boundaries fixed and stop screwing around with this every freaking year.

Travel around the suburbs and the collar counties is much easier going east to west or west to east because those are the major roads. Not exactly an easy drive from Yorkville to Belvidere. Or Crystal Lake to Kaneland.

Or seed the sport like all other team sports. CROSS COUNTRY IS A TEAM SPORT!!!!!!

[new2you]

The IHSA has done exactly the opposite of what they need to do, from a number-and-size-of-Regional-and Sectional standpoint. They should have reduced the number of Regional meets more drastically so there are between 10 and 15 teams in each, then send 7 team to Sectionals, and only run 3 Sectionals, with 7 teams qualifying from each for State. This guarantees the top 7 teams are at State, which is a better number than historically (been 5 for a long, long time), and makes both Regionals and Sectionals more meaningful and appropriately sized.

[new2you]

AAA boys example:
140: Teams Qual: Qual:
Rgn1 16 7 Sec1

Rgn2 15 7 Sec1 7

Rgn3 16 7 Sec1

Rgn4 15 7 Sec2

Rgn5 16 7 Sec2 7

Rgn6 15 7 Sec2

Rgn7 16 7 Sec3

Rgn8 15 7 Sec3 7

Rgn9 16 7 Sec3


...or, 8 advance from each of the 3 Sectionals = 24 teams in the State Meet.

[new2you]

That should leave just the geography to argue over, which is actually much easier at the Sectional level if you only run 3 of them, and of course the 3 hour drive for some schools to get to their Sectional - boo hoo... the ball sports all seem to do it that way, so no whining - there are only two races and they usually start between noon and 2pm.

[konza847]

The IHSA has done exactly the opposite of what they need to do, from a number-and-size-of-Regional-and Sectional standpoint. They should have reduced the number of Regional meets more drastically so there are between 10 and 15 teams in each, then send 7 team to Sectionals, and only run 3 Sectionals, with 7 teams qualifying from each for State. This guarantees the top 7 teams are at State, which is a better number than historically (been 5 for a long, long time), and makes both Regionals and Sectionals more meaningful and appropriately sized.

At the risk of playing devil's advocate, here are some arguments against a scenario like this:


Travel times to sectional meets would be brutal for a lot of schools
With three sectionals, you can't "isolate" downstate. This is important because one of the missions of the state meet is to bring in teams from all corners of the state. Either the south sectional picks up some suburban areas that are traditionally stronger in cross-country than downstate is (risking shutting downstate out in a lot of years), or you gerrymander the boundaries so that the downstate sectional includes Chicago and the south suburbs- areas that have historically been weaker- and you have some extremely weak teams quaify for State.
To follow on the above, that probably means you have two sectionals in the west, northwest, and north suburbs. Teams that would have qualified in the south sectional wouldn't qualify out of these two. People get upset.
You may have addressed this in your last post but there's no reason to limit the State field to 21 teams. The course can easily handle 27- and there have been as many as 32 teams qualify for the state meet. In your three sectional scenario there would be no good reason not to advance 10 teams from each sectional to state. Doing so would only increase the state field by 10%.It would seem the way to go about this would be:

Decide how many runners you want in your state final
Subtract that from the total number of runners you expect in the state series.
Divide the difference in two
Design the series so that eliminates that number in each of the first two rounds.Using the AAA numbers, you get

210 (that's 25 teams plus 35 individuals)
732
366So somehow you need to eliminate about 50 teams the first weekend and 50 the second weekend. The numbers translate into about 135 teams in AAA. Given that individuals can qualify, each regional needs to eliminate about 4 teams of the 9. That leaves 75 teams qualifying for Sectional. Divide that by 3 and you get 25. By 5, it's 15.

As long as courses can handle them, I have no issue with having more than 15 teams in a sectional field. And I personally don't see the issue with having 189 runners in a Sectional field as opposed to the 162 runners (21 teams, 15 individuals) we'll see this weekend.

[konza847]

Has anybody heard that Leroy Oaks might close, due to Boy Scouts buying property and supposedly putting up cabins on the course. Anyone know???

...but I don't think it gets much traction in this thread.

I doubt the Forest Preserve District can sell land to the Boy Scouts, but they can definitely develop the property for another use. Especially when someone is paying them to use the improvements. And when you're talking about a cross-country course, if you take away the starting area, you've effectively killed the course- at least for big meets.

Post this in the "courses you don't like" thread and see what kind of reaction it generates...

[new2you]

[quote=konza847;276038]At the risk of playing devil's advocate, here are some arguments against a scenario like this:
Travel times to sectional meets would be brutal for a lot of schools - see "boo hoo... ball sports, noon to 2pm" Sectionals, etc.
With three sectionals, you can't "isolate" downstate. This is important because one of the missions of the state meet is to bring in teams from all corners of the state. Either the south sectional picks up some suburban areas that are traditionally stronger in cross-country than downstate is (risking shutting downstate out in a lot of years), or you gerrymander the boundaries so that the downstate sectional includes Chicago and the south suburbs- areas that have historically been weaker- and you have some extremely weak teams quaify for State. We already have some extremely weak teams qualifying, and sending the city and south subs to Decatur, Bloomington, or Detweiller, for that matter, should work nicely.
To follow on the above, that probably means you have two sectionals in the west, northwest, and north suburbs. Teams that would have qualified in the south sectional wouldn't qualify out of these two. People get upset. No change here, except that the top 8 or 9 teams (compromise is nice) would definitely qualify, which is an improvement over what we have now.
You may have addressed this in your last post but there's no reason to limit the State field to 21 teams. The course can easily handle 27- and there have been as many as 32 teams qualify for the state meet. In your three sectional scenario there would be no good reason not to advance 10 teams from each sectional to state. Doing so would only increase the state field by 10%. From being at about 25 of the past 33 State Meets, I'll take that 27 number as a maximum, and therefore optimal.It would seem the way to go about this would be:
Decide how many runners you want in your state final
Subtract that from the total number of runners you expect in the state series.
Divide the difference in two
Design the series so that eliminates that number in each of the first two rounds.Using the AAA numbers, you get
210 (that's 25 teams plus 35 individuals)
732
366So somehow you need to eliminate about 50 teams the first weekend and 50 the second weekend. The numbers translate into about 135 teams in AAA. Given that individuals can qualify, each regional needs to eliminate about 4 teams of the 9. That leaves 75 teams qualifying for Sectional. Divide that by 3 and you get 25. By 5, it's 15.

As long as courses can handle them, I have no issue with having more than 15 teams in a sectional field. And I personally don't see the issue with having 189 runners in a Sectional field as opposed to the 162 runners (21 teams, 15 individuals) we'll see this weekend.Pretty much what I did :)[/quote

[DFLAgain]

It's easy to work out the numbers of sectionals and regionals that seem good. The hard part comes when the IHSA assigns schools to those sectionals and regionals. That's where the real trouble comes from.

[new2you]

It's easy to work out the numbers of sectionals and regionals that seem good. The hard part comes when the IHSA assigns schools to those sectionals and regionals. That's where the real trouble comes from.

Granted, they will find a way to hose it, but I would hope that getting 7 out of each Region and, um, let's say 9 out of each Section, should help to minimize the damage that their ignorance/carelessness will do re: the equality between said fields.

It does seem that there's no realistic way to avoid 1/3 of the teams in the meet being lesser than other teams that fail to qualify, but I think bringing the most teams from the fewest possible Regional races, and the most teams from the fewest realistic number of Sectionals, is the fairest way to ensure that most of the truly worthy teams get a fair shake.

[konza847]

It's easy to work out the numbers of sectionals and regionals that seem good. The hard part comes when the IHSA assigns schools to those sectionals and regionals. That's where the real trouble comes from.

The points are these:

Some, if not all, of the arguments I raised will resonate with the IHSA
The IHSA will assign the schools to regionals and sectionals in a way to try to compensate for them
The sport will suffer as a result.I agree, though, that the larger the fields and the greater the number of qualifiers from each qualifying meet, the lesser your chances are of sending someone home who truly deserves to move forward. I suspect this was the original rationale for the two level qualifying system; the best three teams in the state could have easily been in the same sectional and only two of them could qualify for State. By reducing the numbner of sectionals and instituting a qualifying round, you could send more teams from each area to State without making the Sectionals too large or burdensome to administer.

That being said, with only about 135 teams in the state series, I continue to see no reason to have two levels of meets to reduce the field for the State final.

[teamfirst]

While all sports differ in some way, it is harder to win a regional and sectional in cross country than pretty much all other team sports. That is also something to think about.

For example, in 2A boys soccer(they are a 3 class sport) this year, there are 8 sectional champs and 32 regional champs.

I know that I may be bringing up a different point, but reducing the amount of regionals would allow for even fewer team awards in our sport.

[konza847]

If the purpose of the Regional round is to award a greater number of individual and team awards, then by all means let's retain it. But if the purpose of the Regional round is to cull the field in preparation for later rounds it now eliminates too few teams to be an effective use of a week of an already short season.


I stand by this statement.

If the Regional round were eliminated, what would happen? Would conference meets be moved back a week? Would another week of the season lead to more invitational meets? Would teams shuffle their schedules to strategically select when and where to complete and when to take a week off?

I agree, though, that there's a bit of an "aura" to a championship in a state series that a championship in even a larger, more competitive invitational meet can't match.

I don't think comparing cross-country to one of the bracket sports here is a particularly good argument. In strictly team sports with no individual component, where only two teams can play at the same time, you pretty much have to have a "win or go home" bracket, and after the first round, the number of participants needs to be a power of 2. So the number of teams you send to the state final tournament has to be 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. You decide what you want to call the teams that advance to a certain level. What do you call a football team that advances to the semifinal round? If they lose, you call them out of the tournament and home for the Thanksgiving weekend. Totally different animal than a sport where multiple teams cam compete against each other at the same time.

[AragornstheBoss]

im sorry, idk if this was brought up before but some of these sectionals r really tough and some r super easy, y cant we just let 7 teams out of each sectional, because detweiler can handle it, it has races that r 500 people big, i mean at this poin the state races r like ~215 rite? idk, u guys seems to b experts, sorry if this was already brought up, im bad at following

[konza847]

im sorry, idk if this was brought up before but some of these sectionals r really tough and some r super easy, y cant we just let 7 teams out of each sectional, because detweiler can handle it, it has races that r 500 people big, i mean at this poin the state races r like ~215 rite? idk, u guys seems to b experts, sorry if this was already brought up, im bad at following

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

[AragornstheBoss]

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

a simple "no" would have been fine

[konza847]

1, 2, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 16, 17, 17, 18, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 23, 24, 24, 24, 24, 25, 25, 25, 26, 26, 27, 27, 27, 27, 28, 28, 29, 29, 29, 30, 30, 31, 31, 31, 31, 32, 32, 32, 32, 33, 34, 34, 34, 34, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 36, 36, 36, 36, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 38, 39, 39, 40, 40, 40, 41, 41, 41, 41, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 44, 44, 44, 44, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 46, 46, 46, 46, 47, 47, 47, 47, 47, 47, 47, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 49, 49, 49, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 51, 51, 51, 51, 51, 52, 52, 52, 53, 54, 54, 54.

Give up?

These are the Regional places of the 145 individual qualifiers for this weekend's boys and girls AAA sectional meets.

Why do we advance individuals from Regional to Sectional?

If it's to give more kids the chance to experience a Sectional, then let's keep doing things this way.

If it's because we want the best individuals to have an opportunity to qualify for State, even if they're not running on teams good enough to qualify for Sectional, maybe we should rethink this.

My guess is that only two of these runners (the 1 and 2 are Joe and Matt Stewart from Metea Valley) qualify for State. It's probably also fair to say that only in a rare circumstance will a runner who finishes below 15th in a Regional will qualify for State as an individual.

If you theorize that one's sectional place is three times one's regional place, and thus multiply these finishes by 3, more than 60% of these runners will place 100th or worse at Sectional.

I guess they won't clog the field for the state qualifying contenders, but I don't see the point in qualifying runners for Sectional just so they can fill the back of the field.

[Col Crunch]

These are the Regional places of the 145 individual qualifiers for this weekend's boys and girls AAA sectional meets.

Why do we advance individuals from Regional to Sectional?

If it's to give more kids the chance to experience a Sectional, then let's keep doing things this way.

If it's because we want the best individuals to have an opportunity to qualify for State, even if they're not running on teams good enough to qualify for Sectional, maybe we should rethink this.

My guess is that only two of these runners (the 1 and 2 are Joe and Matt Stewart from Metea Valley) qualify for State. It's probably also fair to say that only in a rare circumstance will a runner who finishes below 15th in a Regional will qualify for State as an individual.

If you theorize that one's sectional place is three times one's regional place, and thus multiply these finishes by 3, more than 60% of these runners will place 100th or worse at Sectional.

I guess they won't clog the field for the state qualifying contenders, but I don't see the point in qualifying runners for Sectional just so they can fill the back of the field.

I think the worst regional finish for an individual qualifier I have seen was 11th, though I think his team qualified for sectionals.

MO advances the top 30 individuals regardless of team place, so it could be a large number or a small number depending on the field. Not really sure what I think of that method.

[roller coaster]

I think the worst regional finish for an individual qualifier I have seen was 11th, though I think his team qualified for sectionals.

MO advances the top 30 individuals regardless of team place, so it could be a large number or a small number depending on the field. Not really sure what I think of that method.

Well, if their team qualified, they would be a team qualifier, not an individual qualifier

[konza847]

Well, if their team qualified, they would be a team qualifier, not an individual qualifier

It really doesn't matter how the runner qualified for Sectional; the point is that runners who finish outside the top ten at Regional rarely qualify for State unless they're on a qualifying team.

Personally I'd advocate drawing the line at 15th place. If you don't finish in the top 15 at Regional and you're not on a qualifying team, you don't qualify for Sectional. I wouldn't have a big problem with drawing the line at 20 or 25; those runners would project in the top half of the Sectional field.

At this point I'm OK with the rules for individuals advancing from Sectional to State.

[Col Crunch]

Well, if their team qualified, they would be a team qualifier, not an individual qualifier

Team qualified for sectionals led by his 11th place finish at regionals. He qualified for state as an individual.

[Col Crunch]

Example from this year:
Jenna Koerner (ACC) qualified as an individual to sectionals by placing 19th at regionals. She qualified for state today by finishing 19th at the Belvidere tsectional too.

[konza847]

The only AAA runners who qualified for State after qualifying for Sectional as individuals were Joe and Matt Stewart of Metea Valley and Ashley Bruner of Waubonsie Valley.

Anybody want to run this scan on AA and A?

[roller coaster]

The only AAA runners who qualified for State after qualifying for Sectional as individuals were Joe and Matt Stewart of Metea Valley and Ashley Bruner of Waubonsie Valley.

Anybody want to run this scan on AA and A?

For girls 2A I know Taylor Galvin(Bremen) made qualified to sectionals and state as an individual.

[Col Crunch]

The only AAA runners who qualified for State after qualifying for Sectional as individuals were Joe and Matt Stewart of Metea Valley and Ashley Bruner of Waubonsie Valley.

Anybody want to run this scan on AA and A?

It is more common in Class A due to the number of teams and size of the teams.
Boys:
Hahne (Danville)
Crutchly (Villa Grove)
Phelps (Marissa)
Rinella (Greenville)
Schlenker (BCC)
Johnson (Manteno)
Shaw (Amboy)


Girls:
Briggs (Argenta)
Quarton (Litchfield)
Hutchenson (cumberland)
Bergbower (Bluford)
Zimmer (Delevan)
Ummel (Lexington)
Sendzik (mt. Assisi)


Apologies for any misspellings.

Oregon Boys, Oregon Girls, and Elmwood Girls all required top 10 to qualify as an individual. The highest finishers to qualify as individuals were in the Decatur Girls (20th) and Lisle/Edwardsville Boys (17th)

[roller coaster]

Nice article on the Rise site by Michael Newman regarding the Advisory Committee meeting that is coming up.

http://rise.espn.go.com/track-and-xc/illinois/2011-XC/TWITF/This-Week-in-Track-and-Field-4.aspx?pursuit=TrackAndXC

[konza847]

In that we haven't yet seen the minutes of the Advisory Committee. let's weigh in on Mike Newman's alternatives.

1. 2 regionals per sectional, 7 teams and 7 runners advance to Sectional. Certainly makes regionals more meaningful, but I don't remember anyone saying sectional fields are too large. Advances fewer individuals who probably shouldn't advance, but at the expense of some teams that probably should. Travel would increase for downstate AAA teams and teams in AA and A. Potential for stacked regionals.

2. Go from 5 sectionals to 4. Keep 3 regionals per sectional. Qualify 7 teams and 7 individuals from each sectional. Now 84 sectional qualifying teams instead of 105; the number of runners eliminated the first weekend is doubled. Sends 3 more teams to the state meet in each class. The devil is in the details here; if the lines are drawn poorly, too many bad teams go to state and too many good ones stay home. I could see the IHSA drawing AAA sectional lines so that one includes downstate and the Chicago Public League and the other three put suburban teams against each other. That being said, there would be 21 suburban teams qualifying as opposed to 20 now.

3. Eliminate regionals. Qualify 5 teams out of each of 6 sectionals. Does this make the state fields too big? What do you do with the extra week of the season? As long as there are courses big enough to host the sectional fields, this works.

4. No change to the structure, but deal with the Chicago Public League differently. Not sure we know exactly why things are the way they are. This might help out the really weak regionals and sectionals, but even in strong sectionals, too few teams are eliminated the first weekend, and too many individuals advance who fill the back of the field the next weekend.

5. Don't change the structure- but seed the regionals. Doesn't solve the problem. You might get better runners at the sectional, but you wouldn't eliminate more runners the first weekend.

6. Don't change anything and wait for the situation to solve itself. It won't.

My preferences, in order? 3-2-5-1-4-6.

What will happen? Any of the proposed changes would be major, so things stay the same for at least one more year.

[CoachJonGordon]

I don’t want to leave people in the dark about next year, and there is a lot of “mis-information” on message boards, so I’m going to do my best to explain it.

First, there is a “myth” as to what can actually be changed by an advisory committee. The IHSA (in accordance with Policy 19) requires that all Regional and Sectional fields be determined strictly by geography. As a result, schools can’t be moved in and out of a Regional for competitive reasons. The geography determines where a school can be placed by the IHSA for Regional and Sectional competition in every sport.

State maps are used to determine a Sectional and a Regional field. The goal of the IHSA is just to have a geographic representation at the State Meet to determine a Champion.

Second, if Regional Competition was eliminated, you would not see more teams in the State meet. There would be 11 Sectionals, and only 2 Teams per Sectional advancing to the State Championships.

The competition at the Sectional level was excellent last year. It is the result of the current system, of 3 Regional Qualifying meets per sectional.

The major problem incurred this past year, was several schools did not show up to their assigned Regional. I was told that there was only two no shows in Class 3A, and the bulk of the “no shows” occurred in Class 2A and Class 1A. The Regional I was in (Class 2A), had every school present that was assigned to it.

Four of the top five schools in our Regional, went on to finish in the Top 6 in our Sectional.

Since Regional competition is determined by geography, it wouldn’t make sense to have less Teams advance from a highly competitive Regional, that has every Team "show up", and be penalized because of the strength of their Regional.

Again, our biggest problem in the sport is the “no shows” at certain Regional meets. Sectional competitions have been outstanding. Why are schools going to their conference meet, and then not showing up for the IHSA State Series? There are a lot of different reasons given. Most thought they didn’t have a chance to advance, and would rather pay a fine to the IHSA then travel to the Regional meet.

This is sad. Even if their respective Team did not advance, they are denying their athletes the opportunity to end the season with another “PR”, and improve for next year. It is also important to learn the Regional course for next year.

Furthermore, all those coaches that didn’t show up to their Regional meet because they thought they didn’t have a chance to advance look foolish right now. The IHSA can’t deny a member school from competing the following year, if they don’t show up. As a result, I think there will always be some school that doesn’t show up in a certain Regional(s).

The advisory committee voted 7-0 to keep everything the same for 2012.

[konza847]

Let's thank a member of the Advisory Committee for taking the time to post on this forum.

Let's also dissect a few of his arguments...
I don’t want to leave people in the dark about next year, and there is a lot of “mis-information” on message boards, so I’m going to do my best to explain it.

First, there is a “myth” as to what can actually be changed by an advisory committee. The IHSA (in accordance with Policy 19) requires that all Regional and Sectional fields be determined strictly by geography. As a result, schools can’t be moved in and out of a Regional for competitive reasons. The geography determines where a school can be placed by the IHSA for Regional and Sectional competition in every sport.

State maps are used to determine a Sectional and a Regional field. The goal of the IHSA is just to have a geographic representation at the State Meet to determine a Champion.

This is all true, but if 2007 taught us anything, it's that the IHSA makes the decisions where to draw the lines. Policy 19 is on the IHSA website. The rules for "bracket sports" (sports in which only two teams can compete at once) are different than the rules for sports like cross-country. The policy for cross-country could be changed if enough of the IHSA membership were in favor of doing so.
Second, if Regional Competition was eliminated, you would not see more teams in the State meet. There would be 11 Sectionals, and only 2 Teams per Sectional advancing to the State Championships.

Please cite a reference for this. This was certainly the case in the early days of the State Series, but eventually the number of qualifying meets was increased. I don't see anything in any thing I've read indicating the IHSA would be somehow forced to set things up this way.
The competition at the Sectional level was excellent last year. It is the result of the current system, of 3 Regional Qualifying meets per sectional.

Competition at the Sectional level has always been excellent. It was excellent when 3 district meets qualified 5 teams each, when 4 regional meets qualified 4 teams each, and when 4 regionals qualified 5 teams each. Competition is excellent because there is so much at stake. The new format isn't responsible for that. It didn't necessarily hurt it, but it didn't particularly help it, either.
The major problem incurred this past year, was several schools did not show up to their assigned Regional. I was told that there was only two no shows in Class 3A, and the bulk of the “no shows” occurred in Class 2A and Class 1A. The Regional I was in (Class 2A), had every school present that was assigned to it

Four of the top five schools in our Regional, went on to finish in the Top 6 in our Sectional.

Since Regional competition is determined by geography, it wouldn’t make sense to have less Teams advance from a highly competitive Regional, that has every Team "show up", and be penalized because of the strength of their Regional.

Again, our biggest problem in the sport is the “no shows” at certain Regional meets. Sectional competitions have been outstanding. Why are schools going to their conference meet, and then not showing up for the IHSA State Series? There are a lot of different reasons given. Most thought they didn’t have a chance to advance, and would rather pay a fine to the IHSA then travel to the Regional meet.

This is sad. Even if their respective Team did not advance, they are denying their athletes the opportunity to end the season with another “PR”, and improve for next year. It is also important to learn the Regional course for next year.

Furthermore, all those coaches that didn’t show up to their Regional meet because they thought they didn’t have a chance to advance look foolish right now. The IHSA can’t deny a member school from competing the following year, if they don’t show up. As a result, I think there will always be some school that doesn’t show up in a certain Regional(s).

No, the biggest problem with the state series, even in strong regionals, is that we use a week of an already short season to eliminate about one-seventh of the regional field. Between strong and weak regionals, it's just a matter of degrees; weaker regionals either eliminate fewer runners (especially in the case of no-shows) or allow the best teams to coast without serious consequences.

The advisory committee voted 7-0 to keep everything the same for 2012.

Which they probably should have. But it would be a serious mistake for the people who care about this sport not to use the next year to work on coming up with a format that makes every level of the state series consequential and compelling.