67th New England Championships Thorton Academy Saco,Maine

[MA2010]

The only video I could find was just an interview after the race. Just wondering what Colin Bennie had to run to win the race? Heard that Connor Rog from Fairfield Prep ran a nice third leg for Fairfield Prep moving them into first at the last exchange.

Thanks in advance!

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by MA2010

The only video I could find was just an interview after the race. Just wondering what Colin Bennie had to run to win the race? Heard that Connor Rog from Fairfield Prep ran a nice third leg for Fairfield Prep moving them into first at the last exchange.

Thanks in advance!

I had Colin Bennie at 1:53.5, but I was not in a perfect spot. I was on the backstretch and might have gotten a little trigger happy. Either way, it was no worse than a high 1:54.

[trackmanpete]

Originally Posted by guru

Perhaps it is stupid, but that is the way it has been done for as long as I have known.

Ok, I am going to stick my neck out on last time before summer break. There are other things with this meet that need attention, but I don't think anyone in power is interested in listening.
1. Allow only top 4 (max of 24 per event) from each state to compete (meet is much too long and drawn out).
2. Allow athletes to switch events so a distance runner doesn't have to run 3 weeks of the 2 mile or mile in a row. You qualify for the meet, you run. You get to pick the event you run.
3. There should only be one section of the 2 mile for each gender and the event should not be run back to back.
4. Look into having only 3-4 attempts in the field events (get away from the miss-miss-make jumping that causes a field event to last 3 or more hours).
5. Meet directors and officials need to set a time schedule that has the meet completed in less than 4 hours. If a meet director can't do that, he or she should not be allowed to run the meet. Find someone who can run an efficient and quick moving meet.
6. Have the meet in a central location, not at the ends of the earth (Burlington, VT) where 95% of the athletes and fans have to travel more than 3 hours and run into beach traffic, parades, car washes, etc. (In other words, plan better so that there are no conflicts with other activities going on near the venue).
7. Make the meet a showcase for the best in New England, not an all comers meet. (Sorry, but we have too many meets where everyone gets to participate).

That's it. Have a great summer and keep thinking of better ways to help our sport prosper and grow.

[guru]

Originally Posted by trackmanpete

Ok, I am going to stick my neck out on last time before summer break. There are other things with this meet that need attention, but I don't think anyone in power is interested in listening.
1. Allow only top 4 (max of 24 per event) from each state to compete (meet is much too long and drawn out).
2. Allow athletes to switch events so a distance runner doesn't have to run 3 weeks of the 2 mile or mile in a row. You qualify for the meet, you run. You get to pick the event you run.
3. There should only be one section of the 2 mile for each gender and the event should not be run back to back.
4. Look into having only 3-4 attempts in the field events (get away from the miss-miss-make jumping that causes a field event to last 3 or more hours).
5. Meet directors and officials need to set a time schedule that has the meet completed in less than 4 hours. If a meet director can't do that, he or she should not be allowed to run the meet. Find someone who can run an efficient and quick moving meet.
6. Have the meet in a central location, not at the ends of the earth (Burlington, VT) where 95% of the athletes and fans have to travel more than 3 hours and run into beach traffic, parades, car washes, etc. (In other words, plan better so that there are no conflicts with other activities going on near the venue).
7. Make the meet a showcase for the best in New England, not an all comers meet. (Sorry, but we have too many meets where everyone gets to participate).

That's it. Have a great summer and keep thinking of better ways to help our sport prosper and grow.

I actually like some of your ideas. Since I was the meet director Saturday and for the previous 2 run at Thornton Academy, 05 and 08. I will answer them to the best of my ability.
1. I think 36 is a lot, normally each field averages less than 30, I haven't looked at the exact numbers for this year but I think most were more than 30. Approximately 10 years ago, New Hampshire proposed a minimum of 3 entries per state and a state could enter up to 6, if all reached a certain standard. I think the standard would not have been a problem for Massachusetts or Connecticut to send 6, but normally would have been for the other 4 states in different events. The New England Council voted against it. I don't know if they feel they need 6 per state to make ends meet financially. I am told that in wrestling, that different states have a different number of qualifiers, so why you can not in other sports, I don not know.
2. I assume that you are limiting choices to the distance runners, because you are afraid they will get stale running the same event 3 weeks in a row, This will not fly, unless you allow it for all events. Coaches will want it to be the same. Also, if you do allow this you could very easily end up with more than 24 runners in an event.
3. Many years there is only 1 race per gender of the 3200, numbers did not allow it this year and also may not allow with your proposal of choosing your race if many choose the 3200. Most would probably move down, but one never knows.
4. Sorry, you can not change the rules for a field event in the athlete's biggest meet of the year. Do you mean just change the rules of the high jump and pole vault for all time? Spoken like a man who only cares about running events.
5. Can not be done. In 2008, the running events were done around 4:30, to my knowledge that is the quickest the running events have finished. The two time meet the meet were held in Plymouth, Mass. the running events finished a little after 5.
6. You can only have the meet at a place that wants to host it. Or in some cases a place that has been asked. Also a school can not control what goes on in the rest of the city.
7. Totally agree

[MassFartlek]

I agree with certain points, you should be allowed to send a max of 6, but set a standard like the vault or hj, its a shame when you see seed times and half of CT, MA kids run those times/distances but are home or going to Nationals, but athletes from weaker states get in.....Problem #1

Problem #2 Vermont-The guy who ran that is a USATF guy, they ran the 4 x 800 in lanes? seriously ? -4 heats of 4 x 800-8 teams each....Vermont should be banned--they wonder why USATF officials have a horrible reputation-don't get me wrong there are good guys/gals, but stay with the MA officials, CT does a great job too....take some notes Maine!

Set a standard-love the idea!

New Englands just loves the receipts...probally funds other sports....look at Indoors, the place is usualy packed, or with the fire marshall present at the door.....

Ultimately, the good teams stay away from NE's in the distance events, like trackmanpete says....three weeks is alot, for sprints, field events, sure, but when its time to go to NC...rested and peaked is the way to go

[trackmanpete]

Originally Posted by guru

I actually like some of your ideas. Since I was the meet director Saturday and for the previous 2 run at Thornton Academy, 05 and 08. I will answer them to the best of my ability.
1. I think 36 is a lot, normally each field averages less than 30, I haven't looked at the exact numbers for this year but I think most were more than 30. Approximately 10 years ago, New Hampshire proposed a minimum of 3 entries per state and a state could enter up to 6, if all reached a certain standard. I think the standard would not have been a problem for Massachusetts or Connecticut to send 6, but normally would have been for the other 4 states in different events. The New England Council voted against it. I don't know if they feel they need 6 per state to make ends meet financially. I am told that in wrestling, that different states have a different number of qualifiers, so why you can not in other sports, I don not know.
2. I assume that you are limiting choices to the distance runners, because you are afraid they will get stale running the same event 3 weeks in a row, This will not fly, unless you allow it for all events. Coaches will want it to be the same. Also, if you do allow this you could very easily end up with more than 24 runners in an event.
3. Many years there is only 1 race per gender of the 3200, numbers did not allow it this year and also may not allow with your proposal of choosing your race if many choose the 3200. Most would probably move down, but one never knows.
4. Sorry, you can not change the rules for a field event in the athlete's biggest meet of the year. Do you mean just change the rules of the high jump and pole vault for all time? Spoken like a man who only cares about running events.
5. Can not be done. In 2008, the running events were done around 4:30, to my knowledge that is the quickest the running events have finished. The two time meet the meet were held in Plymouth, Mass. the running events finished a little after 5.
6. You can only have the meet at a place that wants to host it. Or in some cases a place that has been asked. Also a school can not control what goes on in the rest of the city.
7. Totally agree

Thanks for your quick reply and I agree with your points, as well. I was just trying to provide some outside of the box thinking as our sport has some major issues with time management and enjoyment of the meet, in my opinion since being a part of this great sport for almost 50 years. I cringe when we have to get up at 6:30 am, ride a bus, sit around all day and then get home as the sun sets. What other sport does that?

I am an advocate of the field events, but find that the structure of those events are difficult to manage at large invitationals, from a meet managing point of view. I ran meets with over 3000 competitors for over 20 years and it was always the triple jump and pole vault that ended after everything else was completed. I could never figure out a way to make an improvement on that format to get the meet completed in a timely manner.

The option to choose your event would be open to all athletes, with the idea being that 24 athletes qualify for an event, seeded on performance marks (this would have to be a performance list of best season marks) and if you don't qualify as one of the 24 you have a second choice or you stay in the event you qualified for. A bit more work, but doable with Hytek and with performance lists generated by athletic.net and milesplit.com. This is done at the collegiate New England meet and has worked well for years.

As I said, the New England meet should be a premier meet showcasing the best of New England. If entry fees need to be increased with reduction of numbers, maybe that is the way to go. I would just love to see a great meet where the athletes can perform at their best without having to spend another whole day waiting to go on stage. I would also not want to exclude states where performances are below other states. Every state should have a minimum of at least 3 participants per event.

The numbers were quite high this year, with many of the pre meet seed lists having 334-35 entries. Good for track and field, not so good for running a high quality event.

I hope you don't view my posts as criticism of your efforts, as I know how difficult it is to run a meet. I am also realistic enough to understand that the nature of this meet will probably not change, as numbers are a big factor in making this meet happen. Maybe having lots of participants is the way to go and we just have to grin and accept the fact that this is how track and field operates. Certainly, the popularity of our sport continues to grow, so I may just be behind the times with my thinking.

[phillup]

Originally Posted by MA2010

Here is their article from today's paper - they think that Oxford CT, who place 4th in the 4x800 was actually from Oxford MA! You would think that someone would have checked so they don't have egg on face AGAIN!

if you check the results the team from Oxford CT is actually listed as from MA. It's a mistake on the side of the timing company or officials/meet management. While checking the results online after reading your comment I happened to catch it by chance. I agree with you that the Globe and T&G need to check their facts and that they do mediocre coverage at best, but if they're checking their facts based off of the "official results" then I can see where an honest mistake could be made. YES they should know that the Oxford MA team didn't qualify, BUT at least its a little more understandable than printing seed lists as results. That's pretty darn bad

Take a look at the 4x800 "official" results:

http://www.runnerspace.com/news.php?...-Championships

1 Wachusett - MA 7:54.36 1) Brian Cusack 11 2) Colin Bennie 11 3) Jeremy Bennie 12 4) Hayden Frechette-McCall 12

2 Fairfield Prep - CT 7:55.63 1) Adam Vare 10 2) Christian Alvarado 10 3) Connor Rog 12 4) Patrick Corono 12

3 Simsbury - CT 7:57.72 1) Joel Kirk 12 2) Kyle Heubner 11 3) Jefferson Wilkes 12 4) Kevin Stanko 12

4 Souhegan - NH 8:03.70 1) Tanner Kent 11 2) Jacob Kittredge 11 3) Nathan Kittredge 11 4) Bert DeForest 12

5 Oxford - MA 8:04.62 1) Brandon Au 11 2) Ryan Flach 10 3) Michael Morton 12 4) Cameron Swift 11

[RMT]

Originally Posted by MassFartlek

I agree with certain points, you should be allowed to send a max of 6, but set a standard like the vault or hj, its a shame when you see seed times and half of CT, MA kids run those times/distances but are home or going to Nationals, but athletes from weaker states get in.....Problem #1

I think the best way to go about fixing the problem of say mass's #9 guy in an event being equivalent to another states #4 guy, but that #4 guy gets in where the #9 guy does not, would be to set up auto and provisional standards. That way that talent would be better represented, and you could probably cut down the field a little bit... at the same time, not a lot of people would like this idea, because in reality, mass and CT would fill up most of the spots, seeing as how they have way more people than all the other states.

Maybe... this is a little crazy idea that popped into my head... what if it was done where top 3 from each state automatically qualified, and were seeded appropriately. This provides obviously provides for 18 in an event. Then, the next 12 best overall times/marks from the region would be allowed in. 30 people in an event, I think that is a fair amount. If people who finish top 3 scratch, nobody may move up as an automatic qualifier, but 30 spots would still be open. So more than 12 "at large" qualifiers would be allowed in in the case of a scratch by a top 3 athlete.

I really like that 2nd idea (mainly because it's mine) and I think it could work well and help to balance out the talent. Also, each state has a decent amount of representation with 3 people per event. What do you guys think about it?

[MA2010]

Originally Posted by phillup

if you check the results the team from Oxford CT is actually listed as from MA. It's a mistake on the side of the timing company or officials/meet management. While checking the results online after reading your comment I happened to catch it by chance. I agree with you that the Globe and T&G need to check their facts and that they do mediocre coverage at best, but if they're checking their facts based off of the "official results" then I can see where an honest mistake could be made. YES they should know that the Oxford MA team didn't qualify, BUT at least its a little more understandable than printing seed lists as results. That's pretty darn bad

Take a look at the 4x800 "official" results:

http://www.runnerspace.com/news.php?...-Championships

1 Wachusett - MA 7:54.36 1) Brian Cusack 11 2) Colin Bennie 11 3) Jeremy Bennie 12 4) Hayden Frechette-McCall 12

2 Fairfield Prep - CT 7:55.63 1) Adam Vare 10 2) Christian Alvarado 10 3) Connor Rog 12 4) Patrick Corono 12

3 Simsbury - CT 7:57.72 1) Joel Kirk 12 2) Kyle Heubner 11 3) Jefferson Wilkes 12 4) Kevin Stanko 12

4 Souhegan - NH 8:03.70 1) Tanner Kent 11 2) Jacob Kittredge 11 3) Nathan Kittredge 11 4) Bert DeForest 12

5 Oxford - MA 8:04.62 1) Brandon Au 11 2) Ryan Flach 10 3) Michael Morton 12 4) Cameron Swift 11

I agree that it is listed as Oxford MA in the results -and if all they did was run the results I might be a little bit more forgiving - but they chose to "pull" that information out and list the team and runners in an article! Since they messed up once already - you would think that they would check/re-check the information!

If the T&G followed MA Track and Field correctly, they would know that to get to NE's you would 1) need to "qualify" to get to Central MA meet, 2) then "qualify" for the AS meet and 3) then "qualify" for NE's from that meet - seems like three "strikes" to me. So since Oxford did not even have a team running at the Central MA meet, it would be impossible for them to run at NE's!

Is it unfair to expect the Sports writer/editor of the only "major" newspaper in Central MA to know that/check that before putting it in the paper?

I don't think so & I am not asking them to love the sport the way that I do - but how hard is it to know how qualifying works?

Would they print that Oxford MA competed in a state/regional championship in Baseball, Football, Hockey, Basketball, (fill in the blank for any other sport) in error if Oxford CT won it instead? Of course not, because they would know the qualifying rules/standards and know that they were not playing anymore and that would be impossible - so why accept the "double standard" for track? I for one will not.

[Rustamon]

I like some of the out of the box thinking to make the New England Meet a better event. I would add that I think the events (fall, winter, spring) are in a struggle for relevancy. There are two issues: 1) The timing of the participants own state meets; and, 2) The increasing popularity of the National events.

Timing has been discussed elsewhere on TT and I don't think there is any easy fix. Last fall the New England meet was the same weekend as the class meets for MA. Question: Will MA kids ever run in the NE XC meet? I doubt it. This spring, participation from MA was light because the MA All-state meet was postponed making it a difficult "double" for the distance kids anyway.

Increasing popularity isn't the only dimension for the national events. The XC races (both Nike and FL) are really regional events which I fear will be an ongoing threat to the relevancy of the New England meet. Same is true for the NBIN which is not explicitly regional but location and participation make it effectively regional.

I think that the New England meet promoters should focus on one event per year - the outdoor meet in the late spring. In addition to the tactical suggestions already made, I would consider running it as a mid-season invitational - the first meet of the championship season, if you will. You would have to sort out qualifying a different way but I think it could easily displace the Loucks meet and draw the best from New England into a great event - one in which all states could reasonably participate.