Nice of you to pick which rules are important and which aren’t. PA says if 5 qualify, they can score. That’s the rule.
Butler Fan wrote:
bruce denton's gold medal wrote:
Why not? I'm not saying that to be a jerk, just curious as to the rationale.
Exactly like I said. Under their rules, the top 2 TEAMS advance. They did not run well enough as a team to finish in the top 2 at their regional (or whatever it was). Since their TEAM did not advance, they are individuals from that point on.
Audax wrote:
Unlike AL, PA does not allow every District to qualify the same number of teams. Some Districts get more or less based on the number of teams in that classification in that District. For example, District 1 has 8 teams in Class A, so gets 1 team plus 5 individuals; while District 3 has 38 Class A teams and gets 4 teams plus 20 individual qualifiers. This can still mean that some weak teams go from weak Districts, but those aren't keeping a team that would medal/place at States out, it's just some geographic representation.
While you’re correct that weak districts aren’t necessarily keeping good teams out of the state meet, it does feel like there should be at large bids of some kind for some teams in strong districts. For example, district 10 1A only takes two teams. 2nd place has 75 points, 3rd place has 76 points and didn’t qualify. There was a mistake in the scoring that was discovered after the 2nd place team was already invited and entered in the state meet, so they allowed the third place team to come as well (because after the scores were adjusted they took 2nd). Well the 2nd and 3rd place teams took 9th and 10th at the state meet, beating half the teams there. Seems weird that under normal circumstances, the 9th best team in the state wouldn’t even get to compete.
Similarly a few years ago in district 10 2A there were 3-4 teams ranked in the top 7-8 or so in the state, but only two teams got to qualify. With at large bids, at least there would be a better chance for the best teams to all be competing at the state meet.
I'm okay with them counting and scoring but just a thought...did they really earn the right to compete? They did not qualify as a team since only two teams were allotted for their qualifying race. Every state has examples of districts or regions or sections that are very hard to get out of and sometimes good teams get left out. Isn't that what happen here? They just got lucky that it is a soft region in terms of individuals and they allowed enough individuals to qualify that five of them made it.
There should never be a possibility of a team not qualifying but 5 team members qualiying. The rules need to be changed. Just take the overall top 15 individuals in the race regardless of team.
Morunner wrote:
Missouri allows this as well. If you have 5 individual qualifiers, you can get a team score (but you don’t get to run a 6 or 7 runner in the next meet).
I’m fine with it - it rarely happens, but when it does it’s usually because there was a super tight team race (and a significant drop off to the non qualifying teams).
In my experience, Missouri does allow the 6-7 runners to compete if the 5 individuals make it in. I was part of a team in 2010 that did this, and we took our whole team on to sectionals the next weekend. Granted, it rarely happens, but the rules do allow it.
Boo Pig wrote:
Morunner wrote:
Missouri allows this as well. If you have 5 individual qualifiers, you can get a team score (but you don’t get to run a 6 or 7 runner in the next meet).
I’m fine with it - it rarely happens, but when it does it’s usually because there was a super tight team race (and a significant drop off to the non qualifying teams).
In my experience, Missouri does allow the 6-7 runners to compete if the 5 individuals make it in. I was part of a team in 2010 that did this, and we took our whole team on to sectionals the next weekend. Granted, it rarely happens, but the rules do allow it.
Actually the rules have been changed. The rules now state that only the runners that qualified are allowed to run in the next race. You do not get to bring the 6/7 runners and you cannot make a substitution for any of the individuals that qualified. The individuals will receive a team score as long as all 5 runners finish the race.
That is how it should be.
The 5 individuals all get to go on and run in the meet that they qualified for and they will receive a team score as long as all 5 finish the race.
Maker of systems wrote:
There should never be a possibility of a team not qualifying but 5 team members qualiying. The rules need to be changed. Just take the overall top 15 individuals in the race regardless of team.
You could still easily have the 3rd place team qualify 5 individuals in that scenario. In fact that is exactly how small class qualification works in Missouri. The top 2 teams and any runners in the top 15 move on from districts to state. It is very possible for the 3rd place team to qualify 5 individuals this way. It does not happen very often but it does happen.
Old is as old does wrote:
As a coach in the PIAA, I can say that this is definitely not the first time a team has run as a team based on having 5 individuals qualify. It does need to be noted that the PIAA does have to approve them as a scoring team and it is noted in the championship program.
This is the first time such a squad has won.
This is very helpful. Can you quote the rule that allows 5 qualifying individuals to score as a team? Is the approval to be a scoring team discretionary? On what basis is that approval given or withheld?
I was against this on first read, because it appeared to me that it was kind of made up on the spot, but if this is anticipated and within the rules, then fair play to the winning team.
The only scenario where it is possible is if the 1st and 2nd teams place all runners 1-10 and the next 5 are from the nonqualifying team. It will never happen.
Another oddity is that AL allows 10 runners on a team to compete at sectionals then state. They score 5, and 6-7 displace other runners but 8-10 are removed from the scoring altogether. My point is that only 16 teams qualify but there are 160 runners in the race. I'd rather we run top 7 (like rest of the world) and then invite 2-3 at large teams or more individuals from each section. On most teams the 6th or 7th can race better on any given day better than top 5 runner but seldom would an 8th-10th runner matter. It clogs up the race but lines the states pockets with parents and friends of 8th-10th runners who made it to State.
One of the weird quirks of cross country (and track, for that matter), is that a team can be built to win big competitions but not small competitions. At conference, a team with good depth but no stars can do pretty well because you can have runners who lose by over a minute to some superstars, but only score a few more points. At state, the point difference between those same runners can be huge.
I find this quirk of XC to add some drama and entertainment to being a fan, but at the same time, I don't really think the point of the sport is to force teams to run a gauntlet of different kinds of challenges in order to prove they're the best. The championship race is the real crucible, and the qualifiers are just a tool for sorting the teams that have the best shot at winning.
In any event, once we decide to allow individuals to compete in what is essentially a team race, we might as well let them score. It's not like they aren't adding to the scores of other runners and affecting the race already. The alternative of trying to remove them from scoring, and perhaps making them wear special numbers to identify them to competitors is also problematic because it would mean that they're REALLY not in the same race at all and are basically just getting in the way. If we're going to let individuals line up alongside full teams, we should allow them to really be in the race to the fullest extent possible.
Maker of systems wrote:
There should never be a possibility of a team not qualifying but 5 team members qualiying. The rules need to be changed. Just take the overall top 15 individuals in the race regardless of team.
Maybe I'm confused about what you are proposing, because it seems like your plan would do exactly what you claim not to want. You don't want complete scoring teams of individual qualifiers, but you want to get rid of team qualification and only take individual qualifiers? So do you not want teams to consist of individual qualifiers, or do you want every team to consist entirely of individual qualifiers?
i dont know about that one chief wrote:
I'm okay with them counting and scoring but just a thought...did they really earn the right to compete? They did not qualify as a team since only two teams were allotted for their qualifying race. Every state has examples of districts or regions or sections that are very hard to get out of and sometimes good teams get left out. Isn't that what happen here? They just got lucky that it is a soft region in terms of individuals and they allowed enough individuals to qualify that five of them made it.
Ok, so you have three really, really, really good teams in one district. You are telling me that since the 5 girls who qualified to state and then OUT RAN EVERYONE ELSE IN THE STATE should not be awarded the team trophy because they were third the previous week? You are ignorant of the rules and do not understand sportsmanship at all.
OF COURSE THEY SHOULD BE CHAMPIONS! It's not even a question that should be considered.
Maker of systems wrote:
There should never be a possibility of a team not qualifying but 5 team members qualiying. The rules need to be changed. Just take the overall top 15 individuals in the race regardless of team.
Uh....you could still have the same result. If the first 15 runners are all from three schools, one team is left out but 5 girls from third place run the next week.
Never happen that 15 are from 3 different teams without 1 other team or 6 from one of the teams. If you are that worried about the nearly impossible, cut it to 14.
Milesplit rules HS wrote:
Never happen that 15 are from 3 different teams without 1 other team or 6 from one of the teams. If you are that worried about the nearly impossible, cut it to 14.
The opposite is more likely, where you end up with few or no complete scoring teams moving on to states out of a given district. Then you end up with a state championship that is mostly individuals and only a few actual scoring teams. That doesn't seem like an improvement.
Why change the whole system just to prevent something that has apparently happened exactly one time in the history of PIAA XC?
800 dude wrote:
One of the weird quirks of cross country (and track, for that matter), is that a team can be built to win big competitions but not small competitions. At conference, a team with good depth but no stars can do pretty well because you can have runners who lose by over a minute to some superstars, but only score a few more points. At state, the point difference between those same runners can be huge.
I find this quirk of XC to add some drama and entertainment to being a fan, but at the same time, I don't really think the point of the sport is to force teams to run a gauntlet of different kinds of challenges in order to prove they're the best. The championship race is the real crucible, and the qualifiers are just a tool for sorting the teams that have the best shot at winning.
In any event, once we decide to allow individuals to compete in what is essentially a team race, we might as well let them score. It's not like they aren't adding to the scores of other runners and affecting the race already. The alternative of trying to remove them from scoring, and perhaps making them wear special numbers to identify them to competitors is also problematic because it would mean that they're REALLY not in the same race at all and are basically just getting in the way. If we're going to let individuals line up alongside full teams, we should allow them to really be in the race to the fullest extent possible.
They do remove individual qualifiers from team scoring. That is why you see a kid place 25 but add 15 points to the team school at a State meet. Because 10 individual qualifiers not counting towards to team school finished ahead of him. They also don't require them to wear special pieces of flair.
That is why in this case they had to get approval to count as a team because otherwise being individual qualifiers there placings wouldn't displace the outright teams competing.
FWIW here are the results of the District and State meets. You can see how close the three teams are. So any given Saturday here.
Districts.
1 Westmont Hilltop 51 3+5+9+10+24 (26+60) 2:04 1-5 Split | 20:26 Avg
2 Marion Center Area 52 2+4+11+17+18 (22+28) 1:24 1-5 Split | 20:27 Avg
3 Saint Joseph's Catholic Academy 57 7+8+13+14+15 (53) 0:44 1-5 Split | 20:33 Avg
https://pa.milesplit.com/meets/372976/results/678904/formatted#.XcGqzHt7mUk
States.
1 Saint Joseph's Catholic Academy 93 4+19+21+22+27 1:15 1-5 Split | 21:01 Avg
2 Marion Center Area 116 14+18+23+29+32 (49+59) 0:35 1-5 Split | 21:17 Avg
3 Camp Hill 119 9+13+17+37+43 (64+73) 1:43 1-5 Split | 21:20 Avg
4 Wilmington 149 2+28+30+42+47 (72+75) 2:42 1-5 Split | 21:25 Avg
5 Westmont Hilltop 160 5+10+34+55+56 (114) 2:09 1-5 Split | 21:33 Avg
https://pa.milesplit.com/meets/365148/results/679792/formatted#.XcGqwHt7mUk
Again I think the right decision was made but to argue the point someone had made about them earning the right to compete they technically didn't in one sense. I know the rules allow for this scenario but without it they didn't meet the requirements of being top 2 in their district to advance.
Parity will always be an issue in any sport, a really good football team loses a early playoff to the team that eventually wins states. Even though they might be better than the other teams that went further they don't get to advance because they didn't win. Granted this isn't a perfect example because multiple teams can compete.
How about this one, let's say that district 6 has the 1, 2, 3 ranked teams in the state while district 10 has 5, 6, 7. The 4th ranked team is in district 6 and the 8th ranked team is in district 10. Each district advances the top 3 teams and 5 individuals. In district 10 the 8th ranked team has no other teams or individuals to contend with and takes 5 of 5 individual qualifying spots. However in district 6 other good runners mix in and the 4th ranked team only qualifies 4 individuals despite being just 1 point behind the number 3 team in the state. You are telling me that in this scenario the number 8 team is more deserving?
We can also look at this system in track and field because from what I remember of PA (unless this has changed) you not only have to hit the state qualifying standard at the district championship but must also be in the top 8. So in this situation you punish deserving runners who achieve the qualifying time but not place while people who don't hit the time get a auto bid for other districts.
Audax wrote:
Unlike AL, PA does not allow every District to qualify the same number of teams. Some Districts get more or less based on the number of teams in that classification in that District. For example, District 1 has 8 teams in Class A, so gets 1 team plus 5 individuals; while District 3 has 38 Class A teams and gets 4 teams plus 20 individual qualifiers. This can still mean that some weak teams go from weak Districts, but those aren't keeping a team that would medal/place at States out, it's just some geographic representation.
Seems really lazy that PA has predefined geographical regions like that instead of setting floating criteria by classification before each year. Way better system is to have like 8-10 districts of say 15-20 teams each and qualify top 3 or 4 to state than have districts of all sorts of random sizes of teams with different qualifying standards. I guess out here in the Midwest we are just far smarter with how we classify HS sports by district than you all are out East.