NCHSAA 4A West Regional 2015
10/23/2015 10:25:02 AM
Coach
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1
What times are the races? Thanks!
What times are the races? Thanks!
10/23/2015 12:04:22 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 49
If you go under the 3A Midwest Regional it has race times. Only enter 7 per gender & we will deal with necessary substitutions as they arise. 10:00 AM- 3A Midwest Boys 10:30 AM- 4A West Boys 11:00 AM- 3A Midwest Girls 11:30 AM- 4A West Girls NCHSAA State Meet Advancement (revised for 2015): Top 4 teams & top 7 individuals not on those 4 teams.
If you go under the 3A Midwest Regional it has race times.
Only enter 7 per gender & we will deal with necessary substitutions as they arise.

10:00 AM- 3A Midwest Boys
10:30 AM- 4A West Boys
11:00 AM- 3A Midwest Girls
11:30 AM- 4A West Girls

NCHSAA State Meet Advancement (revised for 2015): Top 4 teams & top 7 individuals not on those 4 teams.
10/30/2015 5:07:09 AM
User
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1
@Ajtrack2014 If I NEED TO MAKE A SUBSTITUATION BECAUSE OF AN INJURED RUNNER, HOW DO I DO IT? CAN I MAKE THE CHANGE ON RACE DAY WITH THE MEET DIRECTOR?
@Ajtrack2014

If I NEED TO MAKE A SUBSTITUATION BECAUSE OF AN INJURED RUNNER, HOW DO I DO IT? CAN I MAKE THE CHANGE ON RACE DAY WITH THE MEET DIRECTOR?
10/30/2015 5:24:35 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
@HLPitt Contact the meet director by email today if possible - but there should be a coaches' meeting on race day and you should be able to substitute there.
@HLPitt Contact the meet director by email today if possible - but there should be a coaches' meeting on race day and you should be able to substitute there.
10/31/2015 3:56:08 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 29
After having my team run in 2 races at the New (Old) McAlpine and discussions with both coaches from Providence HS and several other Charlotte area schools. the general consensus is that the course is 20-30 seconds slower for the boys and for the girls it is 45 seconds to 1 minute. Not one girl broke 19 minutes in the 4A race, one in the 3A race and 3 total for all three races for the NCISAA. So we can end the New (Old) McAlpine discussion and just call it New and begin a new set of course records starting with all races run after the new loop and changes were added. Oh and we can also end the discussion on carrying over the records for the course at Ivey Redmon for the state meet since it is not even remotely the same course. @coachgeorgerjr
After having my team run in 2 races at the New (Old) McAlpine and discussions with both coaches from Providence HS and several other Charlotte area schools. the general consensus is that the course is 20-30 seconds slower for the boys and for the girls it is 45 seconds to 1 minute. Not one girl broke 19 minutes in the 4A race, one in the 3A race and 3 total for all three races for the NCISAA. So we can end the New (Old) McAlpine discussion and just call it New and begin a new set of course records starting with all races run after the new loop and changes were added. Oh and we can also end the discussion on carrying over the records for the course at Ivey Redmon for the state meet since it is not even remotely the same course. @coachgeorgerjr
10/31/2015 4:20:03 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
@tonyjdai Thanks for expressing your opinion, even though you wrote it in the form of a command or an order. I'll take your words under advisement as I continue the ongoing conversation with the people that do keep official records in the state of NC.
@tonyjdai Thanks for expressing your opinion, even though you wrote it in the form of a command or an order. I'll take your words under advisement as I continue the ongoing conversation with the people that do keep official records in the state of NC.
10/31/2015 5:45:38 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 214
The TC Roberson runners, male and female, matched or exceeded the performances they did on the Asheville Christian Academy course. A course where quite a few people beat the times they ran at United Way. A course where Anna Vess twice broke 17:55 in races where no one else was under 19:00. I know the weather was perfect (or at least was 60 miles away at Freedom) and that can lead to some really fast races at McAlpine. But these results look totally legit to me, as something that is at most 10-15 seconds longer/slower than it was before. I have no idea how a course that is 90 percent the same could be 45 seconds slower.
The TC Roberson runners, male and female, matched or exceeded the performances they did on the Asheville Christian Academy course. A course where quite a few people beat the times they ran at United Way. A course where Anna Vess twice broke 17:55 in races where no one else was under 19:00.
I know the weather was perfect (or at least was 60 miles away at Freedom) and that can lead to some really fast races at McAlpine. But these results look totally legit to me, as something that is at most 10-15 seconds longer/slower than it was before. I have no idea how a course that is 90 percent the same could be 45 seconds slower.
10/31/2015 7:45:45 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 156
If the course is 70m longer than it was last year & 90m longer than it was at Providence Invitational, using math, you get the following conversion (first pre-2015, second Prov Inv): 16:00 runner- :14, :17 20:00 runner- :17, :22 22:00 runner- :19, :24 I felt like my own athletes did fair, but using this conversion to compare to last year & beyond, it looks more favorable. I was always inclined to believe McAlpine was a little short but it was what it was. I haven't figured out what McAlpine + 70 (or 90) meters is yet. If you tell someone who graduated just last year, "I ran 16:00," the reaction might be different than if you told them that would equate to a 15:46 last year. I was told by someone very much in the know that Redmon is 80m longer than it was prior to this year in addition to being more challenging according to some. I still see it as no harder except for the addition of 80m. Correct about the 80m? OBVIOUSLY, placing matters above all, but it would also be nice to have an idea of what the times mean too. We'll adjust in time. In the long run, it was the right thing to do, but changing a truly historic course like McAlpine- or the State Meet course kinda stinks for comparison purposes to the athletes & coaches in the present. ...and don't get me wrong- I like the new Redmon format.
If the course is 70m longer than it was last year & 90m longer than it was at Providence Invitational, using math, you get the following conversion (first pre-2015, second Prov Inv):
16:00 runner- :14, :17
20:00 runner- :17, :22
22:00 runner- :19, :24

I felt like my own athletes did fair, but using this conversion to compare to last year & beyond, it looks more favorable. I was always inclined to believe McAlpine was a little short but it was what it was. I haven't figured out what McAlpine + 70 (or 90) meters is yet. If you tell someone who graduated just last year, "I ran 16:00," the reaction might be different than if you told them that would equate to a 15:46 last year.

I was told by someone very much in the know that Redmon is 80m longer than it was prior to this year in addition to being more challenging according to some. I still see it as no harder except for the addition of 80m. Correct about the 80m?

OBVIOUSLY, placing matters above all, but it would also be nice to have an idea of what the times mean too. We'll adjust in time. In the long run, it was the right thing to do, but changing a truly historic course like McAlpine- or the State Meet course kinda stinks for comparison purposes to the athletes & coaches in the present. ...and don't get me wrong- I like the new Redmon format.
10/31/2015 7:56:49 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 45
I believe the new loop added 60 meters to the course. At 19:00 pace for 5,000 meters that would be 13.68 seconds. The trail is wider, the starting line is better. Great job to the guys that did the work!
I believe the new loop added 60 meters to the course. At 19:00 pace for 5,000 meters that would be 13.68 seconds. The trail is wider, the starting line is better. Great job to the guys that did the work!
10/31/2015 8:07:34 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
@CoachSpencer I don't think Ivey Redmon is 80 meters longer. I measured it at 4940 or 4945 (can't remember which) two years ago, and I don't think anything changed that length last year. That would mean it could be as much as 60 meters longer this year, if it's now a true 5K. 2015 will henceforth be know as the year of the course readjustment. For the record, I think there's a much stronger case to start a new record for Ivey Redmon (which is a completely different layout) than there is for McAlpine, which was just put back to the length it used to be some years ago.
@CoachSpencer I don't think Ivey Redmon is 80 meters longer. I measured it at 4940 or 4945 (can't remember which) two years ago, and I don't think anything changed that length last year. That would mean it could be as much as 60 meters longer this year, if it's now a true 5K.

2015 will henceforth be know as the year of the course readjustment. For the record, I think there's a much stronger case to start a new record for Ivey Redmon (which is a completely different layout) than there is for McAlpine, which was just put back to the length it used to be some years ago.
10/31/2015 8:21:52 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 156
I plan to offset this by looking for a 5000m (down)hill somewhere. ;-)
I plan to offset this by looking for a 5000m (down)hill somewhere.
10/31/2015 8:24:53 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 27
The new course at Ivey M Redmon is 50m longer this year and now right at 4990. More challenging? Perhaps. I think both courses are now likely to give a little more credibility to NC kids on the National scene when they run well. Things change. Let's move forward. Next weekend multiple state champions will be crowned. Footlocker and NXN will choose National candidates. We have great courses here. It is nice to compare the past and present. Let's look forward to more NC kids and teams making noise on the National scene. During track season we can look at times and have it mean something.
The new course at Ivey M Redmon is 50m longer this year and now right at 4990. More challenging? Perhaps. I think both courses are now likely to give a little more credibility to NC kids on the National scene when they run well. Things change. Let's move forward. Next weekend multiple state champions will be crowned. Footlocker and NXN will choose National candidates. We have great courses here. It is nice to compare the past and present. Let's look forward to more NC kids and teams making noise on the National scene. During track season we can look at times and have it mean something.
10/31/2015 8:31:00 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 156
@kentstate Numbers I got from Jeff's article & those who run there everyday was 70m from last year & 90m from Prov Inv. I agree the start is much better & the work that's gone into the course by Larry & others is amazing. He's younger than my dad but listening to him talk about the old days, I feel like I might as well be talking to Daniel Boone. :) When Richard Prince told me today when they were coming up there were old timers showing them the ropes, I was flabbergasted. I'm NOT making light of their age- just in awe of their experience. The one thing I hope improves is the drainage. We've had a lot of rain this season but I haven't been over there when the straightaway wasn't a swamp... perhaps the natural order of things as its in a flood plane.
@kentstate
Numbers I got from Jeff's article & those who run there everyday was 70m from last year & 90m from Prov Inv. I agree the start is much better & the work that's gone into the course by Larry & others is amazing. He's younger than my dad but listening to him talk about the old days, I feel like I might as well be talking to Daniel Boone. :) When Richard Prince told me today when they were coming up there were old timers showing them the ropes, I was flabbergasted. I'm NOT making light of their age- just in awe of their experience.

The one thing I hope improves is the drainage. We've had a lot of rain this season but I haven't been over there when the straightaway wasn't a swamp... perhaps the natural order of things as its in a flood plane.
10/31/2015 8:38:07 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 29
If the course kept getting shorter and the times kept getting faster over a period of time. How do you determine which record or records are legitimate? In a sport like XC or Track where we run specific distances and read times to the 1/100th, "close enough", whether it is 60, 80 or 90 meters is improper. Think of it this way, move the start line 2 meters forward for the 100m dash and call that close enough. Not one person would accept that argument. I think the fairest and easiest way to bypass the debate about the length of McAlpine is just reset the records starting with the first race after the changes made in 2015. It makes sense, it is honest and will improve the way in which we measure our athletes performance at the gold standard of courses in North Carolina. It does not detract from the records set before that date and allows those racing and coaching to understand that the new records reflect those changes that were made. It will take time for all to adjust even those who rely on databases to keep them informed. As to the state meet course I agree with Coach Spencer, a much improved course for fans to watch and a completely different course that compels those that maintain databases with records to start over in 2015 by adding a new column to their database with new names and new times. Pretty simple actually. I am looking forward to seeing how the times shape up at the New Ivey Redmon course for the state meet and getting a chance to watch the best runners and teams at the meet.
If the course kept getting shorter and the times kept getting faster over a period of time. How do you determine which record or records are legitimate? In a sport like XC or Track where we run specific distances and read times to the 1/100th, "close enough", whether it is 60, 80 or 90 meters is improper. Think of it this way, move the start line 2 meters forward for the 100m dash and call that close enough. Not one person would accept that argument. I think the fairest and easiest way to bypass the debate about the length of McAlpine is just reset the records starting with the first race after the changes made in 2015. It makes sense, it is honest and will improve the way in which we measure our athletes performance at the gold standard of courses in North Carolina. It does not detract from the records set before that date and allows those racing and coaching to understand that the new records reflect those changes that were made. It will take time for all to adjust even those who rely on databases to keep them informed. As to the state meet course I agree with Coach Spencer, a much improved course for fans to watch and a completely different course that compels those that maintain databases with records to start over in 2015 by adding a new column to their database with new names and new times. Pretty simple actually. I am looking forward to seeing how the times shape up at the New Ivey Redmon course for the state meet and getting a chance to watch the best runners and teams at the meet.
10/31/2015 9:06:07 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
@tonyjdai So, the times that kids ran this year on a 5K course at McAlpine shouldn't be compared to the times run 10, 15, 20, or 35 years ago on a 5K course at McAlpine? How does that make sense? If you have any argument at all, it's that the times in recent years BEFORE the course correction should be excluded, not the times AFTER the correction, which returned the course to the length it was for most of its history. Of course, the problem with that idea is obvious: nobody has year-to-year measurements of the course to determine when it became "too short" to include in course records (not to mention nobody agrees on what "too short" means). I do think that this year's Providence Invitational times are problematic, but I'm not sure what the solution is. The state's two most prominent historians, who compiled the McAlpine course records that you can find on NCPrepTrack.com, and the course's primary caretake have all said they feel the course is comparable to what it was for most of its history, and that we should therefore maintain one set of records. For the time being, until I have a chance to develop more data and really examine it in detail (which will be time-consuming), I defer to them. In truth, ALL courses evolve over time, even when the length stays the same. Check out [url=http://events.mtsac.edu/ccinvite/oldsite/coursemisconceptions.htm]this debate over Mt. SAC in California[/url], where the length has never changed but the smoothness of the terrain has, making it faster. Guess what? They still keep one set of records, even though the nature of the course has changed considerably. There are MANY factors to be considered here, and focusing solely on length doesn't do the discussion full justice. By the way, I should point out that you were the one advocating quite strongly that we should hold to the exact letter of our "anything over 4900 meters is a 5K" policy during the conversation over Freedom Park. Considering that McAlpine has always been over 4900 meters, even when it was "short," I find it ironic that now you want to start a completely new set of records for it.
@tonyjdai So, the times that kids ran this year on a 5K course at McAlpine shouldn't be compared to the times run 10, 15, 20, or 35 years ago on a 5K course at McAlpine? How does that make sense? If you have any argument at all, it's that the times in recent years BEFORE the course correction should be excluded, not the times AFTER the correction, which returned the course to the length it was for most of its history. Of course, the problem with that idea is obvious: nobody has year-to-year measurements of the course to determine when it became "too short" to include in course records (not to mention nobody agrees on what "too short" means). I do think that this year's Providence Invitational times are problematic, but I'm not sure what the solution is.

The state's two most prominent historians, who compiled the McAlpine course records that you can find on NCPrepTrack.com, and the course's primary caretake have all said they feel the course is comparable to what it was for most of its history, and that we should therefore maintain one set of records. For the time being, until I have a chance to develop more data and really examine it in detail (which will be time-consuming), I defer to them.

In truth, ALL courses evolve over time, even when the length stays the same. Check out this debate over Mt. SAC in California, where the length has never changed but the smoothness of the terrain has, making it faster. Guess what? They still keep one set of records, even though the nature of the course has changed considerably. There are MANY factors to be considered here, and focusing solely on length doesn't do the discussion full justice.

By the way, I should point out that you were the one advocating quite strongly that we should hold to the exact letter of our "anything over 4900 meters is a 5K" policy during the conversation over Freedom Park. Considering that McAlpine has always been over 4900 meters, even when it was "short," I find it ironic that now you want to start a completely new set of records for it.
10/31/2015 9:39:32 PM
User
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 50
Gentlemen, while we can argue about the length and history and records and comparisons? Let's remember one thing, they are just that....comparisons. we just use it to compare athletes and to gauge or competition on similar courses. While we are here talking about length over the past 10, 15, 20 years, to make a prefect comparison you would need to know the weather back in time? , the course conditions? , if it was windy day? , if a runner ran the race alone or with competition, etc? ? In the long run it didn't matter because that's why we race? Every runner on a particular day has to run the same course and the same conditions as all the others in the race. This is why cross country comparisons are always subjective, unlike track. Next weekend at Ivy Redmond , 140 runners will start each race. They all will run the same course. The state champion will be crowned and forever go into the record book as such. They won't have an asterisk by their name which reads "not the fastest time ever on the course so really not the champion" I think it's fun to discuss different courses and different years however let's remember that this is why XC is one of the hardest and best sports out there.
Gentlemen, while we can argue about the length and history and records and comparisons? Let's remember one thing, they are just that....comparisons. we just use it to compare athletes and to gauge or competition on similar courses. While we are here talking about length over the past 10, 15, 20 years, to make a prefect comparison you would need to know the weather back in time? , the course conditions? , if it was windy day? , if a runner ran the race alone or with competition, etc? ?
In the long run it didn't matter because that's why we race? Every runner on a particular day has to run the same course and the same conditions as all the others in the race. This is why cross country comparisons are always subjective, unlike track.
Next weekend at Ivy Redmond , 140 runners will start each race. They all will run the same course. The state champion will be crowned and forever go into the record book as such. They won't have an asterisk by their name which reads "not the fastest time ever on the course so really not the champion"
I think it's fun to discuss different courses and different years however let's remember that this is why XC is one of the hardest and best sports out there.
11/01/2015 10:34:03 AM
Coach
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
I just read the article on Mt SAC. It looks like a different situation than McAlpine to me. They have a great reference that proves that the course distance has not changed. We have verified proof that McAlpine did change. We have the new length, the Prov Invite length and last years length just to name 3. Not on a yearly basis by one person so it is impossible to judge on a yearly basis with facts(measured with a wheel) since 1980. As coaches, we know that courses are different, times don't matter in xc, etc. We still use this data to develop race plans, track progression and motivate kids to move up on top whatever lists in school, course and state history. Runners and their parents look at these lists and they only see the times so for that reason we should want them as accurate as possible if we want our sport taken seriously. Our school record at McAlpine was tied last year. A girl will have to run AT LEAST 15 seconds faster on the same course now to break that record. That doesn't seem fair to me. If your argument is different weather and different days with different competition, why even keep the lists? Make them as accurate as possible if you are going to do it.
I just read the article on Mt SAC. It looks like a different situation than McAlpine to me. They have a great reference that proves that the course distance has not changed. We have verified proof that McAlpine did change. We have the new length, the Prov Invite length and last years length just to name 3. Not on a yearly basis by one person so it is impossible to judge on a yearly basis with facts(measured with a wheel) since 1980. As coaches, we know that courses are different, times don't matter in xc, etc. We still use this data to develop race plans, track progression and motivate kids to move up on top whatever lists in school, course and state history. Runners and their parents look at these lists and they only see the times so for that reason we should want them as accurate as possible if we want our sport taken seriously. Our school record at McAlpine was tied last year. A girl will have to run AT LEAST 15 seconds faster on the same course now to break that record. That doesn't seem fair to me. If your argument is different weather and different days with different competition, why even keep the lists? Make them as accurate as possible if you are going to do it.
11/01/2015 10:56:15 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
@lhayes Good point about your school record - but I would argue that it's LAST YEAR'S time that needs to be thrown out, not this year's. After all, the course is back to 5K now; it was "short" last year. Your argument still doesn't explain why we should start a new list with this year's times, when this year's times are quite comparable to most of the course's history. It's the short years that are the problem, not this year. But how do we decide which years to eliminate?
@lhayes Good point about your school record - but I would argue that it's LAST YEAR'S time that needs to be thrown out, not this year's. After all, the course is back to 5K now; it was "short" last year. Your argument still doesn't explain why we should start a new list with this year's times, when this year's times are quite comparable to most of the course's history. It's the short years that are the problem, not this year. But how do we decide which years to eliminate?
11/01/2015 12:01:31 PM
Coach
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
I don't think that eliminating any years is the answer since there are no yearly course measurement to judge by. It wouldn't be fair for those kids to throw their times out. I think that being able to point to a major change that we know makes a difference is a good place to start a new list. We know for a fact that any kid that is going to break the course record in the future will have to run 15-20 seconds faster than the record. For a elite runners 15 seconds is big drop. It is hard to pinpoint when the course became significantly short unless there is someone that has documented measurements. I would bet that if the course records are from the last 8-10 years or so that they will not be approached any time soon. There is nothing that can be done about the past at this point so lets focus on the best practices moving forward. Should courses be verified every year or 2 if you are holding major races? I measure mine and adjust the finish line accordingly but I am not a certified measurer. There are plenty in the state and I would be willing to pay to have mine certified if that became the standard. That would also allow us to rate courses for better course to course rankings.I don't think that anybody is suggesting that we start a new list every year. Moving a finish line 3-4 meters every year is not that big of a deal. If you move it 5m for 30 years in a row then the course has changed. The issue is not whether or not times should be thrown out but how they should be documented so that we are not comparing apples to oranges on the same list.
I don't think that eliminating any years is the answer since there are no yearly course measurement to judge by. It wouldn't be fair for those kids to throw their times out. I think that being able to point to a major change that we know makes a difference is a good place to start a new list. We know for a fact that any kid that is going to break the course record in the future will have to run 15-20 seconds faster than the record. For a elite runners 15 seconds is big drop. It is hard to pinpoint when the course became significantly short unless there is someone that has documented measurements. I would bet that if the course records are from the last 8-10 years or so that they will not be approached any time soon. There is nothing that can be done about the past at this point so lets focus on the best practices moving forward. Should courses be verified every year or 2 if you are holding major races? I measure mine and adjust the finish line accordingly but I am not a certified measurer. There are plenty in the state and I would be willing to pay to have mine certified if that became the standard. That would also allow us to rate courses for better course to course rankings.I don't think that anybody is suggesting that we start a new list every year. Moving a finish line 3-4 meters every year is not that big of a deal. If you move it 5m for 30 years in a row then the course has changed. The issue is not whether or not times should be thrown out but how they should be documented so that we are not comparing apples to oranges on the same list.
11/01/2015 12:05:48 PM
Coach
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
[quote=CoachGeorgeRJR]@lhayes Good point about your school record - but I would argue that it's LAST YEAR'S time that needs to be thrown out, not this year's. After all, the course is back to 5K now; it was "short" last year. Your argument still doesn't explain why we should start a new list with this year's times, when this year's times are quite comparable to most of the course's history. It's the short years that are the problem, not this year. But how do we decide which years to eliminate?[/quote] @CoachGeorgeRJR If it was short last year, It was short before that since there were no big changes last year. There is no way to tell when it became "short" which by the book would be anything under 5000m using the tangents.
CoachGeorgeRJR wrote:
@lhayes Good point about your school record - but I would argue that it's LAST YEAR'S time that needs to be thrown out, not this year's. After all, the course is back to 5K now; it was "short" last year. Your argument still doesn't explain why we should start a new list with this year's times, when this year's times are quite comparable to most of the course's history. It's the short years that are the problem, not this year. But how do we decide which years to eliminate?


@CoachGeorgeRJR

If it was short last year, It was short before that since there were no big changes last year. There is no way to tell when it became "short" which by the book would be anything under 5000m using the tangents.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.