Are there any other 1A, 2A and 3A coaches out there who are opposed to the ranking system?

Personally, I am extremely surprised at the lack of controversy over the approval to remove the regional meets for the 1A, 2A, and 3A schools and adopt the ranking system. I have several reasons why I am opposed to this decision.

1. I believe this is going to hurt the sport of track and field in the rural area schools of Colorado. I just held a pre-season meeting with our track and field athletes and described to them the new change and the reaction I got from all of them was extremely discouraging. Without a regional meet, it makes it difficult to keep that carrot dangled in front of the athletes and focused on the realistic goal of finishing in the top three performances at the regional meet. This seems much more attainable for an athlete than having to post a top 16 performance from a state-wide pool of athletes.

2. For our school, location is huge. On any given scheduled meet day in the spring, Buena Vista may not be able to make a track meet due to weather and there usually is not an option to find another qualifying meet close by. Re-scheduled meets during the week are usually not meets that we are able to attend.

3. Not only does location play a factor, but other scenarios as well. I think the ranking system favors the schools located in highly populated areas. A good portion of the 2A and 3A schools that are located along the Front Range are private or charter schools. They have the resources, the high population, and feeder programs to draw from, which are things that rural schools simply do not. If we are going to keep the ranking system and level the playing field, maybe we should look at giving private and charter schools their own classification.

4. Without an entry limitation from any given school, this could potentially make it possible for one school to have more than three athletes in any one event. I don’t want to go to the state track meet to watch a few ‘powerhouse’ schools compete for the state championship.

5. Finally, the 3A and 2A classification of schools seem to be the most representative of schools located throughout the entire state of Colorado. By taking away the regional meets, I feel we are taking away a state meet that is representative of the entire state.

Does anyone agree? If not, can anyone tell me why I should change my opinion?

Mark, I'm probably the last one you want to see replying to your e-mail, but I respect what you do as a coach too much to just ignore what you're saying. With respect to 1A, part of the proposal they came in with for a separate classification the state meet was to do it with rankings. Frankly, some of the sentiment I heard was that they [i]didn't[/i] want the burden of travel to some very far-flung regional meets. I'm sure that wasn't a universal sentiment, but it was there. I can't tell you why most 2A and 3A leagues voted as they did. Honestly, I thought Tri-Peaks was going to cast "no" votes, but the CHSAA record clearly shows they did otherwise. My AD told me our league was voting "no," twice. With regard to rankings/prequalifying meets last spring, there were only two weekends BV was not involved in such a meet last year that we were. One was March 14. I assume BV didn't schedule a meet that weekend (and never has, in my memory) on account of kids still playing basketball. So far, we've never sent a basketball team--boys or girls--to state, so we automatically schedule that weekend for track. And, honestly, from a rankings perspective, March 14 is a pointless meet. Nobody's March 14 time/mark is going to stand through the season. The other weekend was April 2/3. We were at Sand Creek that weekend--a meet BV has gone to several previous years. I'm not sure if you got weathered out that weekend or just didn't schedule a meet. I would agree it's more convenient for Front Range schools to get to prequalifying/rankings meets, but I don't see the absence of opportunity for rural schools. I would also agree that Buena Vista is about as far from a synthetic surface track as any place in Colorado gets. I'm guessing the closest are in Gunnison, Alamosa, Center, Pueblo, Canon, Manitou, and Colorado Springs. Canon's track is a little marginal for utility these days and they don't host many rankings meets, anyway. Manitou doesn't host a rankings meet. Maybe they should look into that. Of course, you don't have to have a synthetic surface to have a rankings meet, but it does help. From a rankings perspective, I feel like meets taking place prior to the Mullen Runners Roost (April 10 this year) are almost completely meaningless. I'm sure there was a mark or two prior to that date that actually qualified an athlete for state last year, but I'm pretty sure the whole of them could be counted on your fingers. That means, essentially, that we all have five or six weekends to lock in rankings meets and get marks on the board. It may be fun to go to rankings meets prior to that time, but it's completely non-essential. If I was hosting or scheduling a non-rankings meet, I'd definitely be looking to do it early in the season and get down to qualifying business later. I predict that is very much the wave of the future for track and field in Colorado. Once people start scheduling that way, your situation will become easier. I hope there's something helpful for you in there.

[quote=MarkLWalters]I think the ranking system favors the schools located in highly populated areas. A good portion of the 2A and 3A schools that are located along the Front Range are private or charter schools. They have the resources, the high population, and feeder programs to draw from, which are things that rural schools simply do not. If we are going to keep the ranking system and level the playing field, maybe we should look at giving private and charter schools their own classification.[/quote] I'm not sure I get it. Buena Vista has won how many individual state titles in the last decade with DeMoor, Gioscia, Jacobson, Finley, Wyatt, relays, et al? Buena Vista is hardly a sisters of the poor program. While not winning any recent state track team titles this is not a school that should be pleading that they [b]can't[/b] win titles. BV came darn near winning a state title last spring and could have but for a couple things not quite going their way at state. They were second at state the year before! Bv should be looking at recent history and saying yes we can, and will, do this again! The echoes can't be asleep yet-no school in 3A track and field has more history on its side than Buena Vista.

Thanks for your response! Please don’t get me wrong, I am not pleading poor us by any means. You are right, we have had some outstanding athletes come through our program here at Buena Vista, and I have had the privilege of watching just a few of the many you mentioned develop and succeed at a high level, including many individual state titles. Yes, we will use all of the resources we have available to develop great athletes and more importantly great young men and women. When I wrote this, I was thinking about all of the 2A and 3A schools around the state. My question was simply this: Is the playing field level for 2A and 3A [b]rural[/b] schools to compete with the [b]private[/b] and [b]charter[/b] schools, which the majority of are in the 2A and 3A classifications, given the fact that most of these schools are located in the most highly populated areas of the state? I will say after speaking to many coaches at the clinic this weekend, I understand the reasons in favor of the ranking system, though I am not totally convinced it is better than keeping regional meets.

Mark,
I am a 3A coach at Hotchkiss, and I am in total agreement with you. I like the regional format as do other 2A-3A coaches that I have talked with. The regional meets definitely gave athletes a last shot at qualifying, and that is a great incentive.
Why does it need to be a meet for only the top 18, and not one of regional representation? There are so many weather/altitude variables in our state, which fits better with a regional format.
If the rankings system is definite, I am definitely in favor of a limitation on entries. What is wrong with 3 as it has been?
Rhonda did say at the clinic that the regional format is not completely out, but if it is kept, there would be no pre-qualifiers. Even knowing this, I am in favor of regionals. There is definitely a lot of pressure in this scenario, but the same is true for almost every other sport that the kids participate in.
Last spring I also brought up the idea of leveling the playing field, and I am still in favor of that.

I'd like to know everyones opinion of a regional meet/ranking list mix. For example, if you had five regions, take the top two from each region and use a VarVee list to take the next nine. With four regions, take the top three. Use the VarVee rankings to take the next six. No prequals with this "mixed" system. From CHSAA's standpoint, would this be more work than the current 4A & 5A setup?

I brought that up at the committee meeting and it was shot down fast by Rhonda. I for one was against the rankings last year but after comparing the two systems, I'm now for it. I would have brought 6 more events to state last year and lost 2, for a net gain of 4. We are in a really tough region having placed 5 of the top 12 girls teams. It was not fair that my athletes that performed better throughout the season and at regionals should be left home. I had 3 girls long jump over 15' at regionals and none of them made it to state. Sure there will be some kids left home that would have made it but there will also be higher performing athletes that make it with a rankings system. I absolutely do not want to ever go back to a region only format (no pre-quals). That would be a disaster. Finally, the mandate by the committee in November was to reduce the number of regions down to 5 from 6 and only have 3 qualifiers from each region. If there was no rankings system then only 15 athletes + pre-qualifiers would have made it to state. In some events we would have seen a reduction in participants. Rhonda wanted only 2 heats of prelims at state.

[quote=XC_SB_Patriots]I'd like to know everyones opinion of a regional meet/ranking list mix. For example, if you had five regions, take the top two from each region and use a VarVee list to take the next nine. With four regions, take the top three. Use the VarVee rankings to take the next six.[/quote] For those who are concerned about schools getting more than three entries, this hybrid system probably has the greatest opportunity for "exploitation" by schools that are loaded in a particular event. You rest any from your school who are in the top eight and enter the others at regionals. Depending a little on the strength of the region, you might end up taking an athlete or two to state who wouldn't make it there under either of the two pure systems (rankings or regionals). In principle, I think it's a workable system, but it is somewhat vulnerable to manipulation. That said, I believe what Dan just said--it's not going to fly with CHSAA--is the reality. The options stated on Saturday were that either 2A and 3A go with the same thing 4A and 5A have (straight-up rankings) or 2A and 3A have (five) regionals without prequalifiers.

I feel that this ranking system will end up working out for the majority of coaches. We can all retell stories about a kid who is in the 1st flight and throws, jumps, or runs a far below par distance/time. We cringe when we know a kid of ours is sitting at home who is better, or much better, than some regional qualifiers. It is not fair to have someone from a weaker regional go to State and take a spot away from someone who is much more talented. I am all for getting everyone involved and spreading the joy of track to all who practice with us, but State is supposed to be the best the state has to offer. I would agree that a cap of 3 should be upheld, but the Pomonas, GJ Centrals, and Lovelands will always find kids to fill State spots in 5A throwing. GREAT! I want to be like that! Some years we get that and others we don't. As stated above, the rules can be manipulated to sneak another kid into the top 3 at Regionals. I haven't seen it done, but have heard of it. Another year of comparing what you have and what goes to State may lessen some frustration. I saw a great State track meet last year.

I would prefer a regional / ranking split as previously mentioned. My biggest issue now though is the last meet mandated to be a league meet. Due to team sizes (2A league) our current league meet only takes about 5 hours to complete, not giving kids much of any break between events. Not a great day to have your last chance to qualify on (plus its in Kremmling - beautiful facility, but usually with wind and at 7400 ft.)