"Playoffs after next realignment."
10/27/2016 10:00:12 PM
User
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 155
I see where you are coming from and in a perfect world more of our kids would be able to compete at the championship level. But, that is the thing, when you get to the conference, regional and state meet, those are meets for the "best of the best". Why do we have to water down things just to include more kids? All coaches, I hope, like to work with kids who are their "project", but we have to look at the big picture. There are kids who are talented and kids who have no hope in running at the conference meet, let alone a state meet. As a coach you just have to be positive and keep your kids excited about the sport. As to the elimination of "rounds", I like that. Our kids already run too many races as it is....When I was in HS I had ONE chance to make it to the XC state and track meet (we had zero time standards and you had to be in the top 2, unless you ran a certain time AT THE REGIONAL meet). Championship meets are just that...to see who the best athletes are...I don't want to see a 5 minute boy miler in the finals in June.
I see where you are coming from and in a perfect world more of our kids would be able to compete at the championship level. But, that is the thing, when you get to the conference, regional and state meet, those are meets for the "best of the best".

Why do we have to water down things just to include more kids?

All coaches, I hope, like to work with kids who are their "project", but we have to look at the big picture. There are kids who are talented and kids who have no hope in running at the conference meet, let alone a state meet. As a coach you just have to be positive and keep your kids excited about the sport.

As to the elimination of "rounds", I like that. Our kids already run too many races as it is....When I was in HS I had ONE chance to make it to the XC state and track meet (we had zero time standards and you had to be in the top 2, unless you ran a certain time AT THE REGIONAL meet).

Championship meets are just that...to see who the best athletes are...I don't want to see a 5 minute boy miler in the finals in June.
10/28/2016 8:32:19 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 27
@mattymath Did you hear anything on how many individuals might make it out of regionals under the new classification? I was just wondering as my daughter is on an average team (one that normally makes regionals but not states). Unfortunately, under realignment she will be in the region that will boast both Blacksburg and EC Glass who could possibly be the defending 3A and 4A state champions next year.
@mattymath
Did you hear anything on how many individuals might make it out of regionals under the new classification? I was just wondering as my daughter is on an average team (one that normally makes regionals but not states). Unfortunately, under realignment she will be in the region that will boast both Blacksburg and EC Glass who could possibly be the defending 3A and 4A state champions next year.
10/28/2016 10:10:11 AM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 415
I am in agreement with much of what has been said. I agree that the model we have works, with conference/district to regionals, and regionals to state. I agree that for a lot of athletes, their post-season experience (and shot at individual and team success) may be found at districts, and just in making it to regionals, while the state meet is for the best of the best to duke it out. While nothing is set in stone yet, though, what is getting lost in the discussion is that while the state (VHSL) sets the qualifications of advancement from regionals to states, it will be up to the individual districts/conferences, and the regions, as to whether or not there will be district meets, and how that affects advancement to regionals. It, apparently, will not be a one-size fits all approach (there are pros & cons to this). I know in talking with my DSA, that our region will continue to have district meets, and I get a general sense that more districts/conferences will too, than those who won't. I hate to say that it all comes down to money....so I won't say it. I will say that this is a good time to lobby your individual DSAs, though, if you want your opinions heard. Change is coming, whether we like it or not, but if we don't speak up (and I don't just mean on a Milestat message board), we won't have an opportunity for maintaining what we want.
I am in agreement with much of what has been said. I agree that the model we have works, with conference/district to regionals, and regionals to state. I agree that for a lot of athletes, their post-season experience (and shot at individual and team success) may be found at districts, and just in making it to regionals, while the state meet is for the best of the best to duke it out.

While nothing is set in stone yet, though, what is getting lost in the discussion is that while the state (VHSL) sets the qualifications of advancement from regionals to states, it will be up to the individual districts/conferences, and the regions, as to whether or not there will be district meets, and how that affects advancement to regionals. It, apparently, will not be a one-size fits all approach (there are pros & cons to this). I know in talking with my DSA, that our region will continue to have district meets, and I get a general sense that more districts/conferences will too, than those who won't. I hate to say that it all comes down to money....so I won't say it.

I will say that this is a good time to lobby your individual DSAs, though, if you want your opinions heard. Change is coming, whether we like it or not, but if we don't speak up (and I don't just mean on a Milestat message board), we won't have an opportunity for maintaining what we want.
10/28/2016 10:55:29 AM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 415
I realize that there are no more conferences, but there are districts....and while I recognize that there are differences between the two, it is essentially semantics....it is a subdivision of the individual regions. I also recognize that some of these districts are comprised of teams from different classifications, which makes things tricky. The point I was trying to make, though, is that advancement to the regional meet, if I understand it correctly, is not dictated by the VHSL, rather, it is dictated by the regions. Some regions (including mine), will be holding district meets, and I am told will be using it as an advancement meet to the regional level. For other regions, especially those with only 10 or fewer schools, maybe this doesn't make sense (I am still in favor of district meets, but I understand logistically why it is less necessary. I think this is a bit confusing to a lot of people, because there is no official word on how it is working, although in talking with the VHSL, I understand that these are decisions being made in December. They said if you want things to be a certain way, then lobby your DSAs. To be clear, I am only talking about track/cross country. I can't speak for how they are doing it in other sports. If I am way off base, and there is someone who has a clearer view of this, please speak up, but having gone back & forth on this with my DSA and the VHSL, this is my understanding of the situation. I will say that given the disparity of region sizes and the confusion this is bringing, it re-inforces my opinion all along that 6 classifications is too many. If three was too few for some a few years ago, I could've seen going to 4 classifications, but 6 just dilutes things to much, in my humble opinion.
I realize that there are no more conferences, but there are districts....and while I recognize that there are differences between the two, it is essentially semantics....it is a subdivision of the individual regions. I also recognize that some of these districts are comprised of teams from different classifications, which makes things tricky.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that advancement to the regional meet, if I understand it correctly, is not dictated by the VHSL, rather, it is dictated by the regions. Some regions (including mine), will be holding district meets, and I am told will be using it as an advancement meet to the regional level. For other regions, especially those with only 10 or fewer schools, maybe this doesn't make sense (I am still in favor of district meets, but I understand logistically why it is less necessary. I think this is a bit confusing to a lot of people, because there is no official word on how it is working, although in talking with the VHSL, I understand that these are decisions being made in December. They said if you want things to be a certain way, then lobby your DSAs.

To be clear, I am only talking about track/cross country. I can't speak for how they are doing it in other sports. If I am way off base, and there is someone who has a clearer view of this, please speak up, but having gone back & forth on this with my DSA and the VHSL, this is my understanding of the situation.

I will say that given the disparity of region sizes and the confusion this is bringing, it re-inforces my opinion all along that 6 classifications is too many. If three was too few for some a few years ago, I could've seen going to 4 classifications, but 6 just dilutes things to much, in my humble opinion.
10/28/2016 11:35:54 AM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
MattyM Let me say. If everyone does what your region is looking at things will be ok. I am greatly concerned but I have heard that most regions were going all in and may only send 3 teams to cross country and give all schools 2 entries to track plus qualifying marks. The problem is with all the split districts. There are some districts that are going to have 3 classifications. A district championship will not work. What is needed is a sub region. We need to keep participation high. Only allowing 3 teams in cross country while it would be the same number as now, is a bad idea because it could be all in. We are seeing A.D.s supporting a potential system that only has one level of recognition for kids. And I'll tell you, if the kids at your school are anything like mine. If there is no way to get some success in the post season they aren't going to last long. I would like to encourage the VHSL and regions to continue to qualify individuals who are not on the qualifying teams. This was one of the biggest positives I had from the new system. Qualifying 6 teams and 10 individuals not on those teams instead of just the top 15 overall. I know there are others who hated this, but I can say without that change, my school would probably not have XC anymore. Now we have record numbers out for our program. As for track, I would be ok with 3 at least, I don't think I have had any event at a 1A school where I would have needed to enter more. I could see this being a big problem. There needs to be a qualifying tournament before regions in every sport. All the VHSL is worried about is getting back to having a quarterfinals in basketball.
MattyM

Let me say. If everyone does what your region is looking at things will be ok. I am greatly concerned but I have heard that most regions were going all in and may only send 3 teams to cross country and give all schools 2 entries to track plus qualifying marks.

The problem is with all the split districts. There are some districts that are going to have 3 classifications. A district championship will not work. What is needed is a sub region.

We need to keep participation high. Only allowing 3 teams in cross country while it would be the same number as now, is a bad idea because it could be all in. We are seeing A.D.s supporting a potential system that only has one level of recognition for kids. And I'll tell you, if the kids at your school are anything like mine. If there is no way to get some success in the post season they aren't going to last long.

I would like to encourage the VHSL and regions to continue to qualify individuals who are not on the qualifying teams. This was one of the biggest positives I had from the new system. Qualifying 6 teams and 10 individuals not on those teams instead of just the top 15 overall. I know there are others who hated this, but I can say without that change, my school would probably not have XC anymore. Now we have record numbers out for our program.

As for track, I would be ok with 3 at least, I don't think I have had any event at a 1A school where I would have needed to enter more. I could see this being a big problem.

There needs to be a qualifying tournament before regions in every sport. All the VHSL is worried about is getting back to having a quarterfinals in basketball.
10/28/2016 2:04:28 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
Sub Regions would definitely work. I sat down and broke out Group 1 and 2, and they actually work really well in sub regions. Most work out geographically as well.
Sub Regions would definitely work. I sat down and broke out Group 1 and 2, and they actually work really well in sub regions. Most work out geographically as well.
10/29/2016 7:46:20 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 211
I see a trend beginning that may help us out here. The VA Dept of Education went crazy several years ago with SOL testing against the better judgement of their teachers and now they are realizing that mistake. The SOL requirements are now dwindling and it won't surprise me if they're totally gone soon. Albemarle County (and many other districts) went to 8 classes for it students (against the better judgement of its teachers, no one listens to us) and is now realizing its mistake as we are hearing talk about cutting back on this load. Maybe the VHSL will realize its mistake of going to 6 divisions and go back to the way it was before. The issues brought up in these posts did not exist back then. The only reason I ever heard for going to 6 is that it cut down on travel for a handful of schools and I really do not think that has happened to any noticeable extent. LET'S GO BACK! State meet on one day! No "combined" State track meets!
I see a trend beginning that may help us out here. The VA Dept of Education went crazy several years ago with SOL testing against the better judgement of their teachers and now they are realizing that mistake. The SOL requirements are now dwindling and it won't surprise me if they're totally gone soon. Albemarle County (and many other districts) went to 8 classes for it students (against the better judgement of its teachers, no one listens to us) and is now realizing its mistake as we are hearing talk about cutting back on this load. Maybe the VHSL will realize its mistake of going to 6 divisions and go back to the way it was before. The issues brought up in these posts did not exist back then. The only reason I ever heard for going to 6 is that it cut down on travel for a handful of schools and I really do not think that has happened to any noticeable extent. LET'S GO BACK! State meet on one day! No "combined" State track meets!
10/30/2016 3:01:37 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
I am not in favor of moving back from 6 classifications, although the combined track meets are badly devised. I don't see it happening. The trend nationally looks to have been to add classifications. We are not competing in the time of 20 years ago and no I don't care that California only has 1 classification. In these days of justifying the expenses of athletic programs schools should not have to compete for a state meet with teams more than twice their size. This is something that the old AAA doesn't really ever get because they never had to do it. Another reason however that each classification should be able to exercise more independence. We have the conference week that is going to disappear, track can hold a sub region that week. If we have an all in regional then personally I would love to see the state meet move up a week and maybe catch some better weather for cross country.
I am not in favor of moving back from 6 classifications, although the combined track meets are badly devised. I don't see it happening. The trend nationally looks to have been to add classifications. We are not competing in the time of 20 years ago and no I don't care that California only has 1 classification. In these days of justifying the expenses of athletic programs schools should not have to compete for a state meet with teams more than twice their size. This is something that the old AAA doesn't really ever get because they never had to do it. Another reason however that each classification should be able to exercise more independence. We have the conference week that is going to disappear, track can hold a sub region that week.

If we have an all in regional then personally I would love to see the state meet move up a week and maybe catch some better weather for cross country.
11/01/2016 5:02:31 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 188
The VTCA is developing a policy position on this issue. We are looking forward to working with the VHSL with a protocol that makes sense and is in the best of interest of athletes and the sports of Cross Country, Track and Field. These sports represent the highest participation of students in the Commonwealth and accordingly should reflect a fair and balance method of advancement in the Championship seasons. If you have an idea or position email it to vtca2016@yahoo.com Thank you.
The VTCA is developing a policy position on this issue. We are looking forward to working with the VHSL with a protocol that makes sense and is in the best of interest of athletes and the sports of Cross Country, Track and Field. These sports represent the highest participation of students in the Commonwealth and accordingly should reflect a fair and balance method of advancement in the Championship seasons.

If you have an idea or position email it to vtca2016@yahoo.com

Thank you.
03/04/2017 9:40:46 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 98
@CoachStinger Thanks Coach Feldman. All coaches out there who are not yet members of VTCA please join and get involved. One united voice can make a big difference especially if it comes from us, the coaches of the sport. We are the ones in the trenches and our vision of reality may be quite different then a "what looks good on paper plan." VTCA is good for our sport and we need a voice to better Track and Field in the state of Virginia
@CoachStinger Thanks Coach Feldman. All coaches out there who are not yet members of VTCA please join and get involved. One united voice can make a big difference especially if it comes from us, the coaches of the sport. We are the ones in the trenches and our vision of reality may be quite different then a "what looks good on paper plan." VTCA is good for our sport and we need a voice to better Track and Field in the state of Virginia
03/04/2017 10:16:41 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
I think most regions have already settled on what they are doing. Group 1 Midwest Each district sends top 6 in each event and then top 6 in region. In the multiclass district they will have an overall district meet taking the top 6 from each class finishing in the meet.
I think most regions have already settled on what they are doing. Group 1 Midwest Each district sends top 6 in each event and then top 6 in region. In the multiclass district they will have an overall district meet taking the top 6 from each class finishing in the meet.
06/08/2017 1:53:22 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
The VHSL Executive Committee is meeting June 20 to finalize postseason info for next year.
The VHSL Executive Committee is meeting June 20 to finalize postseason info for next year.
06/08/2017 5:18:55 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 387
@rsullins Where did you see this listed? - Nolan
@rsullins Where did you see this listed?

* Nolan
06/08/2017 5:51:33 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
I just emailed you.
I just emailed you.
06/12/2017 1:03:57 AM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
One of the big problems remains and that is the competitive imbalance among the regions in many sports. In almost every sport there are going to be teams staying at home that could have qualified in the other regions. I would have actually preferred to have stayed with 2 regions. They want the numbers to stay similar to what they were for previous years but I already hear they are increasing the number of qualifiers for wrestling and track may be 6 per region which would double the number of participants.
One of the big problems remains and that is the competitive imbalance among the regions in many sports. In almost every sport there are going to be teams staying at home that could have qualified in the other regions. I would have actually preferred to have stayed with 2 regions.

They want the numbers to stay similar to what they were for previous years but I already hear they are increasing the number of qualifiers for wrestling and track may be 6 per region which would double the number of participants.
06/20/2017 10:10:41 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
Does anyone have any info from the VHSL meeting today.
Does anyone have any info from the VHSL meeting today.
06/22/2017 12:44:09 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 415
I have heard that the VHSL decided to go with 3 teams per region advancing, plus 5 individuals not on those teams. Personally, I am not happy. Given the discrepancy of size within the regions (8 teams vs. 18 in 6A for example), I would've thought either 4 teams moving on, and either any individual in the top 15, or the next 10 individuals would've been fair. In this new model, I believe that there will be far too many deserving, All-State Caliber athletes/teams who may be shut out of deeper regions, all in the name of keeping it small, or even...or whatever rationale they are using. I realize that the regionals are smaller now, and there are more classifications.....but going back 4 years ago, before reclassification, 4 teams and anyone in the top 15 was the norm going back to the early 90s. 16 teams in a state race is a good size, rather than these micro-state meets they created in recent years. I have heard for track, the top 4 will advance from region to state, along with any autoqualifiers. This is a bit more reasonable, but I'm still not sure what was wrong w/6, given that at regionals, you may have had athletes who place, who end up not running those events at states, and thus you end up with races (especially in indoors) where there are barely enough people to score. I don't mind saying today that I am disappointed, and that I feel like as a coach, and as an advocate of this sport for the last 23+ years, I feel like the VHSL could've done better.....I know they say that they are all in it for our kids, but somehow, I sense there is a different motivation that guided their latest round of decisions.
I have heard that the VHSL decided to go with 3 teams per region advancing, plus 5 individuals not on those teams.

Personally, I am not happy. Given the discrepancy of size within the regions (8 teams vs. 18 in 6A for example), I would've thought either 4 teams moving on, and either any individual in the top 15, or the next 10 individuals would've been fair. In this new model, I believe that there will be far too many deserving, All-State Caliber athletes/teams who may be shut out of deeper regions, all in the name of keeping it small, or even...or whatever rationale they are using.

I realize that the regionals are smaller now, and there are more classifications.....but going back 4 years ago, before reclassification, 4 teams and anyone in the top 15 was the norm going back to the early 90s. 16 teams in a state race is a good size, rather than these micro-state meets they created in recent years.

I have heard for track, the top 4 will advance from region to state, along with any autoqualifiers. This is a bit more reasonable, but I'm still not sure what was wrong w/6, given that at regionals, you may have had athletes who place, who end up not running those events at states, and thus you end up with races (especially in indoors) where there are barely enough people to score.

I don't mind saying today that I am disappointed, and that I feel like as a coach, and as an advocate of this sport for the last 23+ years, I feel like the VHSL could've done better.....I know they say that they are all in it for our kids, but somehow, I sense there is a different motivation that guided their latest round of decisions.
06/22/2017 9:21:24 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
While I'm disappointed with the decision for cross country. I thought it should be 4 teams and maybe 5 not on one of those teams. It is important that they continued doing individuals as they have for the last 4 years. But I am really unhappy with track. There are going to be a ton of kids who would qualify easily out of another region, not even get there. Its hard to grow the sport when you only have 4 spots to send out of a region.
While I'm disappointed with the decision for cross country. I thought it should be 4 teams and maybe 5 not on one of those teams. It is important that they continued doing individuals as they have for the last 4 years.

But I am really unhappy with track. There are going to be a ton of kids who would qualify easily out of another region, not even get there. Its hard to grow the sport when you only have 4 spots to send out of a region.
07/30/2017 7:45:54 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
From what I understand, it still was not voted on?
From what I understand, it still was not voted on?
08/02/2017 4:26:42 PM
Coach
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 109
This has not been voted on. My AD attended a VHSL regional meeting today and several things were discussed. Apparently each region will have a meeting before the VHSL makes the final decision. If anyone has issues it is advised that coaches let their A.D.s/Principals know so that they can bring issues up at Region meetings so Region reps can pass it on at the state meeting.
This has not been voted on. My AD attended a VHSL regional meeting today and several things were discussed. Apparently each region will have a meeting before the VHSL makes the final decision. If anyone has issues it is advised that coaches let their A.D.s/Principals know so that they can bring issues up at Region meetings so Region reps can pass it on at the state meeting.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.