How do we feel about the way that Track and Field is scored? A Few Elites > Well Balanced Teams. Good for the sport?

Very few coaches I have known do anything differently with respect to team points when it comes to enter people in races. At the end of the day, you want individuals to do as well as they can in individual events.

I've always felt one solution for making track more popular/understandable for HS, College, and pro is to have fewer events. Honestly, just use the decathlon events put have it be a team competition.

Also, how is your argument about winning a state title with 3 great athletes any different than a sport like basketball? 3 super stars are going to beat a squad with 10 slightly above average players coming off the bench.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Very few coaches I have known do anything differently with respect to team points when it comes to enter people in races. At the end of the day, you want individuals to do as well as they can in individual events.

I've always felt one solution for making track more popular/understandable for HS, College, and pro is to have fewer events. Honestly, just use the decathlon events put have it be a team competition.

Also, how is your argument about winning a state title with 3 great athletes any different than a sport like basketball? 3 super stars are going to beat a squad with 10 slightly above average players coming off the bench.

Interesting idea on the Team Decathlon. I still don't wan't my throwers pole vaulting, tho :-) There does seem to be a lot of overlap in track distances, though. The same guy wins the 100/200 more often than not; same story with the 16/32. Maybe a 100, 400, 1600, and 5000, along with some relays and hurdles, IS the way to go. But man, I would miss the 800 :-)

I disagree with your second point. The 3 great athletes I had in mind, let's say a thrower, a hurdler, and a distance runner, may never even see each other in practice. There is no "team" there; the basketball studs still have to function as a unit. At least in basketball, there is a reasonable chance of the well-rounded-but-less-athletic team back-cutting the superstar team to death. On the other hand, the only thing that can keep the track studs from winning would be an accident/injury.

I don't know if you can. If your school is talented enough to outscore teams with 10+ athletes, with only 3 athletes, why shouldn't you win? The scoring in T&F is about as objective as possible, I don't think there is a way to change it to favor "well-balanced" teams, besides most teams that win championships are usually pretty well-rounded anyways. Any good state/national meet is hardly ever won by 1-3 athletes - even when Oregon was winning championships with Ches, he didn't do it alone.

I've always preferred using the dual meet system, with playoffs, to find team champions. The high schools in the Pittsburgh area do this (PIAA District 7, aka the WPIAL) and as far as I know that is pretty rare.

They hold a separate meet (a week later in the season) to determine the individual champion in every event, but there is no team scoring there.

Minnesota has a "true team" state meet. Each school gets 2 or 3 entries per event depending on the school size division. Scoring is that the last place gets one point and every place ahead gets an extra point. Every athlete scores (unless they DNF, no height, or foul every attempt).

There are true team section meets, a true team state meet and then two weeks later there is the normal section and state meets like every other team has.

That is really interesting.

1. It almost seems to swing too far in the other direction... 1 point for participation? Lol :-)

2. When the hell do these leagues have time for a regular season???

MN Run, Jump, Throw wrote:

http://www.mshsca.org/page/show/2375969-true-team

Minnesota has a "true team" state meet. Each school gets 2 or 3 entries per event depending on the school size division. Scoring is that the last place gets one point and every place ahead gets an extra point. Every athlete scores (unless they DNF, no height, or foul every attempt).

There are true team section meets, a true team state meet and then two weeks later there is the normal section and state meets like every other team has.

Michigan also has a "true" team state meet but it is not sanctioned as a state championship by the MHSAA. It is run by MITCA and is scored like you describe. The MHSAA meet is 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, as I recall. While one team could win both in their division, you won't get a sniff of the "true" team without breadth and depth and you won't win the MHSAA without serious horses in a few events (+a relay or two, typically).

How many schools really care? Track isn't that much of a team sport. There are so many schools that send few if any participants to state meets. In the schools that have larger groups, there are still only a few who are competitive for the team title.

Three?, schools have won state championships on the back of one athlete. Three would be a luxury to them.

thejeff wrote:

That is really interesting.

1. It almost seems to swing too far in the other direction... 1 point for participation? Lol :-)

2. When the hell do these leagues have time for a regular season???

1. Example from this years MN true team meet in the mile

Edina: 1st (4:19), 5th (4:22) & 15th (4:29)

Wayzata: 4th (4:21), 6th (4:22), & 10th (4:26)

Traditional Scoring: Edina - 14, Wayzata - 8

True Team - Edina - 63, Wayzata - 64

Both teams have three runners so why does the traditional score only take two into consideration?

In true team scoring it matters just as much if your top guy outkicks three people in the home stretch as it does when your worst guy outkicks three people.

2. In my conference we run tri meets from mid April through mid May with a few invitationals on the weekends like pretty much every HS track program.

A. We have a week off from normal competition for the true team section meet.

B. The next week is true team state. Most schools have a normal meet schedule this week as well. If you qualify for true team state just send top JV kids to compete at the varsity meet you had scheduled that week.

C. Next week is the conference meet

D. Normal section Meet

E. Normal state meet

Not that different from this for the last 5 weeks of the season

A. Big Invite

B. Tri Meet

C. Conference

D. Section

E. State

What do you have, about 15 individual events in track? So in your scenario you'd have three people that are in the top 40 track and field athletes in the state vs. 10 people that are just scraping into the top 150 track and field athletes in the state. In basically every high school sport, including track and field, the team with three athletes in the top 40 would be superior. I don't see anything wrong here. But go ahead and try to do a statewide duals competition. I think they may do it in wrestling sometimes.

hankus hill wrote:

What do you have, about 15 individual events in track? So in your scenario you'd have three people that are in the top 40 track and field athletes in the state vs. 10 people that are just scraping into the top 150 track and field athletes in the state. In basically every high school sport, including track and field, the team with three athletes in the top 40 would be superior. I don't see anything wrong here. But go ahead and try to do a statewide duals competition. I think they may do it in wrestling sometimes.

PA does this in wrestling, as well as the above poster said, in track in the Pittsburgh area.

The con is that it favors schools that are larger, but I do think ultimately it's a more accurate representation of a "team" title.

In Oregon, the winning teams have superstars in many events.

In Texas, you can definitely win with less than a handful. The winning team usually has elites and variety, but several teams at or near the top are just 2-3 studs. One 6A girls team just had a distance runner and hurdler. Well, that was 5 events and they did well in all of them.

Single individuals have won state team titles in the smaller classifications.

the keystone dude wrote:

hankus hill wrote:

What do you have, about 15 individual events in track? So in your scenario you'd have three people that are in the top 40 track and field athletes in the state vs. 10 people that are just scraping into the top 150 track and field athletes in the state. In basically every high school sport, including track and field, the team with three athletes in the top 40 would be superior. I don't see anything wrong here. But go ahead and try to do a statewide duals competition. I think they may do it in wrestling sometimes.

PA does this in wrestling, as well as the above poster said, in track in the Pittsburgh area.

The con is that it favors schools that are larger, but I do think ultimately it's a more accurate representation of a "team" title.

The way I view it is that if one individual can, in theory, win a "team" title, then it's not an accurate assessment of the best "team". But I admit that, having competed in the WPIAL, I am very biased towards their system and think it's the best way to decide the team championship.

Track is a good counterpoint to XC. In the fall, you get rewarded for being well-rounded. In the spring, you get rewarded for having standout athletes. That's just the nature of track, and I don't really see it as a bad thing that needs to change.

I've thought about this- at the typical invitational the top 6 score.

There could be 30-40 or even more in each event.

Should/could more score?

Could it be based on the number of entrants?

More kids could contribute.