Article Comment: How Many Athletes Hit The NCHSAA Qualifying Standard...
02/21/2017 11:25:41 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 52
What I would really like to see is a breakdown of 1A and 2A athletes. How many from each classification qualified. As the article states, 1A schools are competing in Indoor Track in greater numbers. It may be time for the NCHSAA to consider separating 1A and 2A into their own championships, especially since most charter, prep schools, etc. are placed in 1A. If the goal of the NCHSAA is to promote athletics participation, then separating into 4 classifications each with their own qualifying standards will accomplish this. I know some of you will argue that we are "watering down" the competition if we do this. An easy way to fix this is set a standard and take all qualifiers or up to 16 non-qualifiers like we do in outdoor track regionals.
What I would really like to see is a breakdown of 1A and 2A athletes. How many from each classification qualified. As the article states, 1A schools are competing in Indoor Track in greater numbers. It may be time for the NCHSAA to consider separating 1A and 2A into their own championships, especially since most charter, prep schools, etc. are placed in 1A.

If the goal of the NCHSAA is to promote athletics participation, then separating into 4 classifications each with their own qualifying standards will accomplish this. I know some of you will argue that we are "watering down" the competition if we do this. An easy way to fix this is set a standard and take all qualifiers or up to 16 non-qualifiers like we do in outdoor track regionals.
02/21/2017 12:58:54 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 168
Here is an article I ran on how many athletes were competing at the state championships for each team. So if you separate the 1A schools from the 2A schools you can see that breakdown. http://nc.milesplit.com/articles/201972?page=4 Jason
Here is an article I ran on how many athletes were competing at the state championships for each team. So if you separate the 1A schools from the 2A schools you can see that breakdown.

http://nc.milesplit.com/articles/201972?page=4

Jason
02/21/2017 1:42:00 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 213
@hthstrack I don't remember what the number is, but the NCHSAA has a specific benchmark on how many schools have to participate in a sport within a classification for it to get its own championship. 3A got to that point in indoor, so they made a separate 3A championship. As a practical matter, this percentage threshold will pretty much always be reached by 2A before 1A, but once you create a separate 2A championship 1A basically gets its own championship by default. tl;dr - The question is really not whether 1A schools would benefit from a separate meet; it's whether/when there enough 2A schools to split.
@hthstrack
I don't remember what the number is, but the NCHSAA has a specific benchmark on how many schools have to participate in a sport within a classification for it to get its own championship. 3A got to that point in indoor, so they made a separate 3A championship.
As a practical matter, this percentage threshold will pretty much always be reached by 2A before 1A, but once you create a separate 2A championship 1A basically gets its own championship by default.
tl;dr - The question is really not whether 1A schools would benefit from a separate meet; it's whether/when there enough 2A schools to split.
02/21/2017 2:21:31 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 154
I think (think) the standard is at least 50% of the member schools in a classification participating in the sport. 2A probably exceeds that, but I doubt 1A does and may never get that many due purely to number of athletes in winter sports and size of schools. I believe indoor and swimming might be in the same boat as far as participating schools in 1A. I doubt the State would split 1A/2A unless 1A had enough member schools involved to be self sustaining in competition numbers. 1A will become even smaller this re-class cycle as the split is now going to be 20% - 30% - 30% - 20%.
I think (think) the standard is at least 50% of the member schools in a classification participating in the sport. 2A probably exceeds that, but I doubt 1A does and may never get that many due purely to number of athletes in winter sports and size of schools. I believe indoor and swimming might be in the same boat as far as participating schools in 1A. I doubt the State would split 1A/2A unless 1A had enough member schools involved to be self sustaining in competition numbers. 1A will become even smaller this re-class cycle as the split is now going to be 20% - 30% - 30% - 20%.
02/22/2017 11:56:09 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 109
The other issue is can JDL or JDL willing to host 4 state meets. It would be hard to run 2 meets on Friday with parking and businesses operating during the day. Might have to do the outdoor format where we combine 2 together. Have 4A 55m then 2A 55m and so on. Or push the state meet to two weekends or try to use Chapel Hill. Also need to look at the realignment and see the numbers and how that shakes out.
The other issue is can JDL or JDL willing to host 4 state meets. It would be hard to run 2 meets on Friday with parking and businesses operating during the day. Might have to do the outdoor format where we combine 2 together. Have 4A 55m then 2A 55m and so on. Or push the state meet to two weekends or try to use Chapel Hill. Also need to look at the realignment and see the numbers and how that shakes out.
02/22/2017 3:00:48 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 255
@jds0130 JDL could easily host two meets on Friday similar to how the meets on Saturday are arranged. I think that would be easier than splitting and hosting some at UNC as NCHSAA staff would be stretched too thin to host championships at two venues. My main recommendation is to limit each event to the top competitors. NCAA, for instances, takes the top 16 individuals and top 12 relays in each event based on a descending order list. I think that makes the most sense, as you would have a definite idea of how long the meet would last. You could easily do a meet in 3-4 hours and get it done and the facility turned over for the next group. You could still have a minimum mark that must be met or even do some sort of automatic/provisional like NCAA D2 or NAIA does.
@jds0130 JDL could easily host two meets on Friday similar to how the meets on Saturday are arranged. I think that would be easier than splitting and hosting some at UNC as NCHSAA staff would be stretched too thin to host championships at two venues.

My main recommendation is to limit each event to the top competitors. NCAA, for instances, takes the top 16 individuals and top 12 relays in each event based on a descending order list. I think that makes the most sense, as you would have a definite idea of how long the meet would last. You could easily do a meet in 3-4 hours and get it done and the facility turned over for the next group. You could still have a minimum mark that must be met or even do some sort of automatic/provisional like NCAA D2 or NAIA does.
02/22/2017 8:38:45 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2419
@clonghurst We've been recommending this to the NCHSAA for YEARS, and I can't understand why they refuse to consider it. Top 16 for indoor state, and top 16 for all outdoor regionals, makes perfect sense. The only flaw in that idea: too many polar bears with "questionable" hand times that would bump out legitimate indoor times.
@clonghurst We've been recommending this to the NCHSAA for YEARS, and I can't understand why they refuse to consider it. Top 16 for indoor state, and top 16 for all outdoor regionals, makes perfect sense.

The only flaw in that idea: too many polar bears with "questionable" hand times that would bump out legitimate indoor times.
02/22/2017 8:49:18 PM
User
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 50
As an avid spectator and fan i have always liked the idea of using the same format for qualifications as outdoor. Take the top 16 plus any other automatic qualifiers, and fill the 16 if needed with the next fastest runners if 16 dont meet the standard. I agree there would be an issue with hand times but i see two possible solutions. With the amount of indoor meets at JDL and Raliegh area, as well as the amount of "polar bear" meets that have FAT timing, the first solution would be that you ONLY observe the FAT times? OR Secondly, have a seperate "hand time" standard which obviously would be significantly lower than FAT standards? However, i am partial to just making FAT times the standard.
As an avid spectator and fan i have always liked the idea of using the same format for qualifications as outdoor. Take the top 16 plus any other automatic qualifiers, and fill the 16 if needed with the next fastest runners if 16 dont meet the standard. I agree there would be an issue with hand times but i see two possible solutions. With the amount of indoor meets at JDL and Raliegh area, as well as the amount of "polar bear" meets that have FAT timing, the first solution would be that you ONLY observe the FAT times? OR Secondly, have a seperate "hand time" standard which obviously would be significantly lower than FAT standards? However, i am partial to just making FAT times the standard.
02/23/2017 8:23:54 AM
Coach
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 68
The difference between indoor and outdoor state qualifying can also come down to outdoor season having Regionals. We take the top 16 into Regionals and then take the top 4. This removes the issue of "questionable" times being used for qualifying because state qualification is based on performance at that meet, not their seed times. I don't see a feasible way to hold "Regionals" for Indoor. It would require reserving most likely JDL and Chapel Hill the weekend before and each place hosting three meets. And even in that situation we would calling Chapel Hill the "Eastern" region which means teams from Brunswick County and the other coastal counties would have back to back weekends of multiple hour drives/hotel stays. Reverse that situation in the West with teams from Jackson/Mitchell/Avery. In short, without the filter of Regionals taking the top whatever is going to cause false times to make the state meet and keep out legitimate times.
The difference between indoor and outdoor state qualifying can also come down to outdoor season having Regionals. We take the top 16 into Regionals and then take the top 4. This removes the issue of "questionable" times being used for qualifying because state qualification is based on performance at that meet, not their seed times. I don't see a feasible way to hold "Regionals" for Indoor. It would require reserving most likely JDL and Chapel Hill the weekend before and each place hosting three meets. And even in that situation we would calling Chapel Hill the "Eastern" region which means teams from Brunswick County and the other coastal counties would have back to back weekends of multiple hour drives/hotel stays. Reverse that situation in the West with teams from Jackson/Mitchell/Avery.

In short, without the filter of Regionals taking the top whatever is going to cause false times to make the state meet and keep out legitimate times.
02/24/2017 11:05:40 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 52
Here we go again with the "questionable times" and "only allow FAT" arguments. I don't know about anyone else but I am sick of being included in with the "questionable times" people because my school can't afford to purchase an FAT system. I take my job as a hand timer very seriously and would never knowingly report a fictitious time or support another coach that did. In the past we would never see FAT until we reach the indoor state meet or the outdoor regionals. Jeff is trying to eliminate that problem with the Eastern Tour Meets during Outdoor Season (Thanks Jeff!). I just don't see how you can argue that only FAT times should be allowed for qualifying. We don't all live within an hour of JDL, nor do we all have the financial means to go to weekend invitationals. How is this for a solution... The NCHSAA can take some of the money they have in the Endowment Fund and build an Indoor Facility in the East. Then we can use JDL and this facility to host Indoor Regionals. We can rotate the state meet each year. (I'm joking here)
Here we go again with the "questionable times" and "only allow FAT" arguments. I don't know about anyone else but I am sick of being included in with the "questionable times" people because my school can't afford to purchase an FAT system. I take my job as a hand timer very seriously and would never knowingly report a fictitious time or support another coach that did. In the past we would never see FAT until we reach the indoor state meet or the outdoor regionals. Jeff is trying to eliminate that problem with the Eastern Tour Meets during Outdoor Season (Thanks Jeff!).

I just don't see how you can argue that only FAT times should be allowed for qualifying. We don't all live within an hour of JDL, nor do we all have the financial means to go to weekend invitationals.

How is this for a solution... The NCHSAA can take some of the money they have in the Endowment Fund and build an Indoor Facility in the East. Then we can use JDL and this facility to host Indoor Regionals. We can rotate the state meet each year. (I'm joking here)
02/24/2017 11:31:11 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 154
Started looking at this yesterday and what I found with the 55 meters was very interesting. I can only address 1A/2A right now because that is what I had done some qualifying looks on before the State meet. In the 1A/2A girls' 55 meters, 17 of the top 27 and 8 of the top 17 (tie at 16) initial qualifying times were hand times. At the State meet, the girls' 55 finals included 3 hand times (1st, and T-3 on preliminary list) and 5 FAT. FAT entries finished 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th. Obviously, the top three entered hand times were not far off, and two others finished 13th and 15th in the preliminaries. Only two entered hand times in the top 16 finished 17th or worse. It would appear hand vs. FAT did not have any effect on the girls' 55 this year. In the boys' 55 meters, it was 17 of the top 21 initial qualifiers and 10 of the top 14 hand timed. Only one finalist was a FAT time, all others had been hand timed in their qualification. In this case, taking the top 16 times from MileSplit would have kept a finalist out of the meet as he was tied with seven others at 17th with a converted time of 6.74. Whether we are getting better at our hand times, or the particularly warm winter played a part, allowing sprinters to get better times outdoors, this year there seems to be no discernible difference in performance at the 1A/2A State meet between hand and FAT in the 55 meters.
Started looking at this yesterday and what I found with the 55 meters was very interesting.

I can only address 1A/2A right now because that is what I had done some qualifying looks on before the State meet. In the 1A/2A girls' 55 meters, 17 of the top 27 and 8 of the top 17 (tie at 16) initial qualifying times were hand times. At the State meet, the girls' 55 finals included 3 hand times (1st, and T-3 on preliminary list) and 5 FAT. FAT entries finished 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th. Obviously, the top three entered hand times were not far off, and two others finished 13th and 15th in the preliminaries. Only two entered hand times in the top 16 finished 17th or worse. It would appear hand vs. FAT did not have any effect on the girls' 55 this year.

In the boys' 55 meters, it was 17 of the top 21 initial qualifiers and 10 of the top 14 hand timed. Only one finalist was a FAT time, all others had been hand timed in their qualification. In this case, taking the top 16 times from MileSplit would have kept a finalist out of the meet as he was tied with seven others at 17th with a converted time of 6.74.

Whether we are getting better at our hand times, or the particularly warm winter played a part, allowing sprinters to get better times outdoors, this year there seems to be no discernible difference in performance at the 1A/2A State meet between hand and FAT in the 55 meters.
02/24/2017 3:10:45 PM
Coach
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 68
@hthstrack I didn't once say only use FAT times. I understand that not everyone has access to meet with timing system and my school takes a 3 hour drive along with expenses to my kids to get to JDL. I actually agree that we can't go to only FAT for those very reasons. I'm glad you are offended by being included, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What I am saying that there are times that get turned in for the State meet for Indoor and Regionals that don't jive with the performance that follows at said meets. I'm glad that Pam did the research on this year's data for the 55. If it continues to show that type of results then I'll recant. But it's not just short sprint problem. It's an issue at meets where times for distance events are being called at the line without a printout or a split being hit on a stopwatch. The MileSplit database has helped to bring to light some of these situations but nonetheless they continue. And that is why Regionals in Spring are important. I would love to a Regional setup for Indoor the follows the Outdoor model but our state lacks the facilities to make it a reality at this time. As for another indoor facility, I'd love to see 2-3 more be built. But it's probably going to happen the same way it happened for JDL. Someone with a passion and the resources. Look at the data showing how much Indoor track is growing in NC. And this is on the heels of several years back running outside in Fayetteville. We were very close to losing the sport.
@hthstrack I didn't once say only use FAT times. I understand that not everyone has access to meet with timing system and my school takes a 3 hour drive along with expenses to my kids to get to JDL. I actually agree that we can't go to only FAT for those very reasons.

I'm glad you are offended by being included, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What I am saying that there are times that get turned in for the State meet for Indoor and Regionals that don't jive with the performance that follows at said meets. I'm glad that Pam did the research on this year's data for the 55. If it continues to show that type of results then I'll recant. But it's not just short sprint problem. It's an issue at meets where times for distance events are being called at the line without a printout or a split being hit on a stopwatch. The MileSplit database has helped to bring to light some of these situations but nonetheless they continue. And that is why Regionals in Spring are important. I would love to a Regional setup for Indoor the follows the Outdoor model but our state lacks the facilities to make it a reality at this time.

As for another indoor facility, I'd love to see 2-3 more be built. But it's probably going to happen the same way it happened for JDL. Someone with a passion and the resources. Look at the data showing how much Indoor track is growing in NC. And this is on the heels of several years back running outside in Fayetteville. We were very close to losing the sport.
02/24/2017 3:15:23 PM
Coach
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 68
@hthstrack One other thing. Not sure what Region you are in but would love to have someone with your passion be part of the NCTCCCA Board of Directors.
@hthstrack One other thing. Not sure what Region you are in but would love to have someone with your passion be part of the NCTCCCA Board of Directors.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.