These are very different indicators of the quality of a high school Track & Field program. While the former typically depends on the depth of your team, the latter is most likely determined by just a handful of elite athletes.
So, which is the better indicator of overall program quality?
Overall performance at Invites and conference meet.
No one with a program worth a shit cares about dual meets. I have also seen a team win a state trophy on multiple occasions with just one athlete winning all 4 events they were entered in,.
dualssuck wrote:
Overall performance at Invites and conference meet.
Mostly agree. Depends on the situation, though.
I would consider the strongest measure of a program's quality as qualifying kids for Championship meets (not limited to the State meet), and then competing well at those meets. Score at the state meet doesn't necessarily represent that very well, although neither does lower level meets.
Scoring at the league/conference meet can be a very good indicator in strong leagues/conferences. In weaker leagues/conferences, it might not say much though.
dualssuck wrote:No one with a program worth a shit cares about dual meets. I have also seen a team win a state trophy on multiple occasions with just one athlete winning all 4 events they were entered in,.
Disagree. There have been plenty of very high level programs that care very much about their dual meet records (just like there have been plenty that take the opposite approach).
Dual meets are the lifeblood of our sport. And while you need to manage distance runners wisely kids understand winning and losing and enjoy being a part of the team.
Athletes need to compete. And often.
How much stock do people put in team scores at large/highly exclusive meets (e.g. State)? They feel artificial when they are based on the performance of such a tiny fraction of the actual team.