How to people even think the Texas state meet is on the same level as California???

we have aldrich bailey

your move, California

Not exactly an equivalent comparison, is it? Texas has a five division state meet with at least 45 finalists in each event. California has a single division state meet with a range of qualifiers in each event (due to time/distance auto qualification) but always fewer than 45. Additionally, the Texas state meet is a single-day meet for each division with no qualifying heats. California state has Friday qualifying and Saturday finals in every event except the 3200. Not that this makes a difference but Texas also has morning 3200s and afternoon or evening 1600s. Perhaps seasonal bests would provide a better overall comparison.

watchout wrote:

This is an example of why people say Texas is faster...

Top-5 averages from 2011 -

100m: Texas 10.41/11.75, California 10.66/11.87

200m: Texas 21.17/23.77, California 21.47/24.22

400m: Texas 47.20/54.34, California 47.78/54.69

800m: California 1:50.42/2:07.54, Texas 1:51.92/2:13.46

1600m: California 4:05.38/4:44.17, Texas 4:09.64/4:57.31

3200m: California 8:52.20/10:19.98, Texas 9:03.07/10:18.55

HH: Texas 13.73/13.88, California 14.37/13.91

300H: Texas 36.70/42.18, California 37.72/42.46

4x100m: Texas 40.79/46.35, California 41.59/46.52

4x400m: Texas 3:14.64/3:45.40, California 3:15.21/3:46.31

... California only ahead in the distance races, and Texas also has the 4x200m while California does not.

Another CA Guy wrote:

Not exactly an equivalent comparison, is it? Texas has a five division state meet with at least 45 finalists in each event. California has a single division state meet with a range of qualifiers in each event (due to time/distance auto qualification) but always fewer than 45. Additionally, the Texas state meet is a single-day meet for each division with no qualifying heats. California state has Friday qualifying and Saturday finals in every event except the 3200. Not that this makes a difference but Texas also has morning 3200s and afternoon or evening 1600s.

Perhaps seasonal bests would provide a better overall comparison.

You do understand the purpose of the 5 divisions right? The most popular sport in the state is football. It would hardly be fair for a school with >5000 students to play a game against a school with only 500 students.

Also Texas uses multiple meets to qualify to state.

The first is the district meet in mid-April. Top three qualify to the regional meet usually two weeks later. Each region has 24 athletes per event so there are prelims. Top two make it to state from each regional event. There is also a ninth seed since the UT Austin track has nine lanes so its the next fastest runner from any of the regions.

Do I wish that the state switched to time qualifications? Not really, because the current setup stresses racing, not time trialing. Perhaps that's a reason the state championship times are slower in the distance events because there aren't a bunch of guys there who stupidly go out too fast at the beginning of races. Take a look at the 5A Boys 3200 where Craig Nowak ran 4:40/4:19 and returned later in the afternoon to run 4:06 with a 55 last 400m. Even that out and he probably could have had a good shot at Colby Lowe's record. I hope that some of the Texas guys decide to run the post season meets so we can see how they stack up with the rest of the country.

722 wrote:

You do understand the purpose of the 5 divisions right? The most popular sport in the state is football. It would hardly be fair for a school with >5000 students to play a game against a school with only 500 students.

What does that have to do with track? In PA, we have four divisions for football and two for track. You don't have to have the same number of divisions for each sport.

Divisions make sense in football, but not in track. For football, you need to get a bunch of good players together to have a good team. The odds of having 20 good players in a school of 2,000 is much better than the odds of having 20 good players in a school of 200 students. Track is an individual sport. My individual odds of running a 4:10 1600m don't depend upon the size of my school.

Say you have one school with 3,000 students and 30 schools each with 100 students. The big school is going to beat the crap out of any of the little schools in football. Any school with 100 students just isn't going to be able to put more than a few decent football players on the field. But a really good individual runner could come out of any one of those 31 schools. I, as a runner, am not hindered by going to a small school or aided by going to a big school.

722 wrote: You do understand the purpose of the 5 divisions right? The most popular sport in the state is football. It would hardly be fair for a school with >5000 students to play a game against a school with only 500 students.

What? T&F is not the same type of team event. Sure there is an overall state champion, but the real champions are in the individual events.

Having multiple divisions in a state champions for individual events doesn't make a lot of sense. The fast person is the fastest person regardless of the size school they went to.

Jesus....some of you people are stupid.

Watchout's data makes an obvious point. May weather in Texas is conducive to incredible sprint performances. It is not ideal for distance races, which is why Texas Relays usually produces the fastest times.

There was decent weather and a good field this year for the meet, so you saw some solid times. The weather was even better on Friday night...thus the 400 and 800 records.

California is good for distance running year round. It is also favorable for sprints. Just not as favorable for Texas.

Both states are incredible. We just take different paths to excellence.

Cali has the best college football, and track & field programs by far. The PAC-12 Super Conference make the most money in the NCAA due to football. USC has the most football NCs, most NFL head coaches, and most NFL active players. USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal lead the nation in T&F medals at the WCs and Olys. West L.A. and South Central L.A. has dominated the sprints & hurdles for the past 100 teats with an astounding amount of sprints & hurdles medals from the likes of Allyson Felix, Shawn Crawford, Jason Richardson, Maurice Green, Kerron Clement, Dawn Harper, Carmelita Jeter, Joanna Hayes, Flo Jo, Felix Sanchez, Sholonda Solomon, (there isn't enough bytes on letsrun.com's server to list all)...

Not gonna get in this battle both states are great.

A crazy stat

5th place in the 5A 200m dash in Texas yesterday 20.90

That would be the state record in most states.

A good point brought up about the weather. Last year at the California State Meet, it was cold and rainy. Jonathan Cabral was going after the 110H National Record, but he slipped due to the wet ground.

Another CA Guy wrote:

Not exactly an equivalent comparison, is it? Texas has a five division state meet with at least 45 finalists in each event. California has a single division state meet with a range of qualifiers in each event (due to time/distance auto qualification) but always fewer than 45. Additionally, the Texas state meet is a single-day meet for each division with no qualifying heats. California state has Friday qualifying and Saturday finals in every event except the 3200. Not that this makes a difference but Texas also has morning 3200s and afternoon or evening 1600s.

Perhaps seasonal bests would provide a better overall comparison.

Sorry, what athletes that were among the 5 best in California failed to qualify for state?

I used a top-5 because it seemed reasonable to include in the comparison both the BEST athlete (the winner of each race) as well as most of the scoring athletes (the rest of the top 5), while not going too deep that some of the top athletes didn't qualify (which is going to be more of a problem in Texas than in California, given the aforementioned 9 athletes per event in each division from the 4 regionals)

End of thread.

End of thread.

This was the case for Craig Lutz last year in the 1600 because he got sick before his district meet and only qualified for the 3200

That guy. wrote: This was the case for Craig Lutz last year in the 1600 because he got sick before his district meet and only qualified for the 3200

This type of thing happens all the time.

At the HS I went to the track team was heavily favored to win the state championship. The top sprinter went down. There went the likely 1st or 2nd places in the 200mm and 400m, 400m relay, and 1600m relay. There went the state championship.

Think of the children!!! wrote:

I don't think that makes a difference. It's 2-mile/3200 in my mind.

If you disagree, make sure and give Ryan Hall a Call and let him know that he is the national high school record holder in the 1600.

3200m wrote:

I don't know the specific circumstances of the races under discussion, but an intermediate time can be used as a record if and only if an official time is taken at the intermediate point.

This isn't a particularly valid point.

1) The 2-mile is LONGER than the 3200m

2) Verzbicas' 2-mile time is FASTER than Fernandez' 3200m time

It's quite honestly impossible argue that Verzbicas ran a slower 3200m than Fernandez

Oh yes, there are "official rules" to the matter, but they should not be valid in this sort of situation.

Notice anything? That's right, nobody on this thread is using the term "states" meet. That's because it's called the "state" meet (no pluralization). It's singular because we're talking about ONE FREAKING STATE. You mongoloids who still refer to the state meet as the states meet need to grow up, fly straight, and keep your stinking nostrils clean.

Seyta wrote:

Think of the children!!! wrote:

I don't think that makes a difference. It's 2-mile/3200 in my mind.

If you disagree, make sure and give Ryan Hall a Call and let him know that he is the national high school record holder in the 1600.

3200m wrote:

I don't know the specific circumstances of the races under discussion, but an intermediate time can be used as a record if and only if an official time is taken at the intermediate point.

This isn't a particularly valid point.

1) The 2-mile is LONGER than the 3200m

2) Verzbicas' 2-mile time is FASTER than Fernandez' 3200m time

It's quite honestly impossible argue that Verzbicas ran a slower 3200m than Fernandez

Oh yes, there are "official rules" to the matter, but they should not be valid in this sort of situation.

Seriously. Only total morons would argue that a slower time for a shorter distance supersedes a faster time for a longer distance.

STATE MEET (not STATES MEAT) wrote:

It's singular because we're talking about ONE FREAKING STATE.

Well we're actually talking about two states' meets but I digress....

Texas is better at sprints because we have all the black people.