At-Large Impact at State Meet
05/08/2018 9:48:54 AM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 163
The at-large qualifiers had a substantial impact at the state meet over the weekend. The numbers don't lie. The number of scorers (regardless of class and gender) are listed below by place: State Champions - 1 2nd - 4 3rd - 9 4th - 6 5th - 9 6th - 23 7th - 25 8th - 19 300 points were scored by at-large qualifiers at the state meet this year. There's still more to be done, but we're on our way. Ed Thompson - FHSAA
The at-large qualifiers had a substantial impact at the state meet over the weekend. The numbers don't lie. The number of scorers (regardless of class and gender) are listed below by place:

State Champions - 1
2nd - 4
3rd - 9
4th - 6
5th - 9
6th - 23
7th - 25
8th - 19

300 points were scored by at-large qualifiers at the state meet this year.

There's still more to be done, but we're on our way.

Ed Thompson - FHSAA
05/08/2018 9:58:57 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 42
@edwardjthompson I completely agree with that. The at-large setup isn't perfect, but it made the state meet of a higher quality. There are things that could be tightened up, but the main goal of the change was, in my view, accomplished. Great job by the state be identifying a major problem with the old top-4 only format and and working to correct it.
@edwardjthompson
I completely agree with that. The at-large setup isn't perfect, but it made the state meet of a higher quality. There are things that could be tightened up, but the main goal of the change was, in my view, accomplished. Great job by the state be identifying a major problem with the old top-4 only format and and working to correct it.
05/08/2018 10:11:19 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 126
@edwardjthompson Just out of curiosity, who was the one state champion from at large?
@edwardjthompson
Just out of curiosity, who was the one state champion from at large?
05/08/2018 10:21:01 AM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 163
@mlyons 2A Boys High Jump
@mlyons 2A Boys High Jump
05/08/2018 10:34:50 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3779
I knew it! Ryan Raposo.....any comment?
I knew it! Ryan Raposo.....any comment?
05/08/2018 10:50:54 AM
Coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2798
@jdpsu wait for it, wait for it, wait for it .......
@jdpsu wait for it, wait for it, wait for it .......
05/08/2018 11:27:35 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 589
Before you get on Ryan's case... realize that they were also dozens of state scorers who were not in the top 16 performances in their events, but who nonetheless scored at state (yet wouldn't have made it to state unless 4 from each region were guaranteed).
Before you get on Ryan's case... realize that they were also dozens of state scorers who were not in the top 16 performances in their events, but who nonetheless scored at state (yet wouldn't have made it to state unless 4 from each region were guaranteed).
05/08/2018 12:00:46 PM
Power User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1913
[quote=jdpsu]I knew it! Ryan Raposo.....any comment?[/quote] @jdpsu I'm glad someone looked it up! Those were definitely numbers I wanted to know. And while I acknowledge there were many athletes who did perform well and medaled (96 at large), there are still a large number of issues concerning the at large process which I have beaten to death on this forum for years and don't need to get into (Can't replace a head-to-head competition, yadda, yadda, yadda...). However, while 96 did medal, taking 8 at large per event for 34 events for four classes added an extra 1088 competitors / relays to the meet. Which means while those 96 did make an impact, they were only 8.8% of the at-large bids. And I'm willing to bet that many came out of very specific regions simply because of the depth / difficulty in those regions (e.g.: 2A Region 4, 4A Region 1, 4A Region 4). The question then becomes, is this giant of a meet worth the financial and time costs to bring the additional 91.2% of those kids to the event who did not medal? Or is state turning into more of an all-comers meet? I'm sure most would say it's worth it, and as usual I'd be in the unspoken minority. But if we are to keep this format, I personally would prefer a two weekend scenario like I proposed to the FHSAA in 2012... [i]"The proposal, as desired by the coaches directly involved in the Florida Athletic Coaches Association, would be a two-day format in which preliminary rounds for classes 1A and 2A would be on a Friday, with final rounds for both 1A and 2A classes being held on the following day, Saturday. This set-up would also be utilized for classes 3A and 4A the following weekend."[/i]
jdpsu wrote:
I knew it! Ryan Raposo.....any comment?

@jdpsu I'm glad someone looked it up! Those were definitely numbers I wanted to know. And while I acknowledge there were many athletes who did perform well and medaled (96 at large), there are still a large number of issues concerning the at large process which I have beaten to death on this forum for years and don't need to get into (Can't replace a head-to-head competition, yadda, yadda, yadda...).

However, while 96 did medal, taking 8 at large per event for 34 events for four classes added an extra 1088 competitors / relays to the meet. Which means while those 96 did make an impact, they were only 8.8% of the at-large bids. And I'm willing to bet that many came out of very specific regions simply because of the depth / difficulty in those regions (e.g.: 2A Region 4, 4A Region 1, 4A Region 4).

The question then becomes, is this giant of a meet worth the financial and time costs to bring the additional 91.2% of those kids to the event who did not medal? Or is state turning into more of an all-comers meet? I'm sure most would say it's worth it, and as usual I'd be in the unspoken minority. But if we are to keep this format, I personally would prefer a two weekend scenario like I proposed to the FHSAA in 2012...

"The proposal, as desired by the coaches directly involved in the Florida Athletic Coaches Association, would be a two-day format in which preliminary rounds for classes 1A and 2A would be on a Friday, with final rounds for both 1A and 2A classes being held on the following day, Saturday. This set-up would also be utilized for classes 3A and 4A the following weekend."
05/08/2018 12:18:55 PM
Power User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1913
[quote=edwardjthompson]Not gonna happen. That would be way more expensive and time consuming.[/quote] @edwardjthompson For the staff and officials, yes, not for the schools though.
dwardjthompson wrote:
Not gonna happen. That would be way more expensive and time consuming.

@edwardjthompson For the staff and officials, yes, not for the schools though.
05/08/2018 12:40:34 PM
Power User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1913
[quote=edwardjthompson]CoachRaposo How so? You're still looking at the same number of meals and nights in a hotel with vans/busses.[/quote] @edwardjthompson Having state spread over two weekends wouldn't change the cost for schools; it's still two days. It would only be more expensive for the host staff and officials. Although technically, it could possibly reduce the cost for some schools as the time schedule would be tighter which would allow for transportation to the event on Friday morning rather than having to lodge on Thursday night.
dwardjthompson wrote:
CoachRaposo How so? You're still looking at the same number of meals and nights in a hotel with vans/busses.

@edwardjthompson Having state spread over two weekends wouldn't change the cost for schools; it's still two days. It would only be more expensive for the host staff and officials.

Although technically, it could possibly reduce the cost for some schools as the time schedule would be tighter which would allow for transportation to the event on Friday morning rather than having to lodge on Thursday night.
05/08/2018 12:57:07 PM
Coach
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 11
@edwardjthompson I'm curious to see the number of these athletes that would have still qualified when taking 16 athletes using an AL system (3 Auto + 4 At-Large) instead of 24. I do like the at-large system but 24 qualifiers in every event (especially relays) is excessive and makes Regionals insignificant. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (Gold, Silver, and Bronze) at Regionals automatically advancing also makes more sense than 4. I looked through both the 1A Girls and Boys 800m, 1600, and 3200m. All scorers at the State meet would have still advanced using a 3 Auto + 4 AL system. This is obviously a small sample size and I'm interested to see how this plays out across all classes and events (I may run through this in it's entirety one time if I have time). I'd wager that 90%+ of the State meet scorers would still advance using a 3+4 system. This allows the best athletes to qualify for State from each Region while maintaining a level of competitiveness in the qualification process.
@edwardjthompson I'm curious to see the number of these athletes that would have still qualified when taking 16 athletes using an AL system (3 Auto + 4 At-Large) instead of 24. I do like the at-large system but 24 qualifiers in every event (especially relays) is excessive and makes Regionals insignificant. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (Gold, Silver, and Bronze) at Regionals automatically advancing also makes more sense than 4.

I looked through both the 1A Girls and Boys 800m, 1600, and 3200m. All scorers at the State meet would have still advanced using a 3 Auto + 4 AL system. This is obviously a small sample size and I'm interested to see how this plays out across all classes and events (I may run through this in it's entirety one time if I have time). I'd wager that 90%+ of the State meet scorers would still advance using a 3+4 system. This allows the best athletes to qualify for State from each Region while maintaining a level of competitiveness in the qualification process.
05/08/2018 1:18:23 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3779
[quote=jtaylor186]@edwardjthompson I'm curious to see the number of these athletes that would have still qualified when taking 16 athletes using an AL system (3 Auto + 4 At-Large) instead of 24. I do like the at-large system but 24 qualifiers in every event (especially relays) is excessive and makes Regionals insignificant. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (Gold, Silver, and Bronze) at Regionals automatically advancing also makes more sense than 4. [/quote] @jtaylor186 I always thought the 3 Auto & 4 at large made the most sense, but that was a non-starter for the Raposo crowd....
jtaylor186 wrote:
@edwardjthompson I'm curious to see the number of these athletes that would have still qualified when taking 16 athletes using an AL system (3 Auto + 4 At-Large) instead of 24. I do like the at-large system but 24 qualifiers in every event (especially relays) is excessive and makes Regionals insignificant. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (Gold, Silver, and Bronze) at Regionals automatically advancing also makes more sense than 4.


@jtaylor186 I always thought the 3 Auto & 4 at large made the most sense, but that was a non-starter for the Raposo crowd....
05/08/2018 1:36:56 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 144
[quote=jtaylor186]@edwardjthompson I'm curious to see the number of these athletes that would have still qualified when taking 16 athletes using an AL system (3 Auto + 4 At-Large) instead of 24. I do like the at-large system but 24 qualifiers in every event (especially relays) is excessive and makes Regionals insignificant. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (Gold, Silver, and Bronze) at Regionals automatically advancing also makes more sense than 4. I looked through both the 1A Girls and Boys 800m, 1600, and 3200m. All scorers at the State meet would have still advanced using a 3 Auto + 4 AL system. This is obviously a small sample size and I'm interested to see how this plays out across all classes and events (I may run through this in it's entirety one time if I have time). I'd wager that 90%+ of the State meet scorers would still advance using a 3+4 system. This allows the best athletes to qualify for State from each Region while maintaining a level of competitiveness in the qualification process.[/quote] @jtaylor186 The girl who placed 4th in 4A 800 finished 7th at 4A Region 1 and she ran in the slow heat at States. Also, the girl who placed 2nd in the slow heat finished 5th in the 800. They were seeded 3rd and 4th in the slow heat. So the opportunity this format provided allowed these 2 girls to shine at States.
jtaylor186 wrote:
@edwardjthompson I'm curious to see the number of these athletes that would have still qualified when taking 16 athletes using an AL system (3 Auto + 4 At-Large) instead of 24. I do like the at-large system but 24 qualifiers in every event (especially relays) is excessive and makes Regionals insignificant. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (Gold, Silver, and Bronze) at Regionals automatically advancing also makes more sense than 4.

I looked through both the 1A Girls and Boys 800m, 1600, and 3200m. All scorers at the State meet would have still advanced using a 3 Auto + 4 AL system. This is obviously a small sample size and I'm interested to see how this plays out across all classes and events (I may run through this in it's entirety one time if I have time). I'd wager that 90%+ of the State meet scorers would still advance using a 3+4 system. This allows the best athletes to qualify for State from each Region while maintaining a level of competitiveness in the qualification process.


@jtaylor186

The girl who placed 4th in 4A 800 finished 7th at 4A Region 1 and she ran in the slow heat at States. Also, the girl who placed 2nd in the slow heat finished 5th in the 800. They were seeded 3rd and 4th in the slow heat.

So the opportunity this format provided allowed these 2 girls to shine at States.
05/08/2018 2:02:19 PM
Power User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1913
[quote=jdpsu]I always thought the 3 Auto & 4 at large made the most sense, but that was a non-starter for the Raposo crowd....[/quote] @jdpsu Let me go back to this post: http://fl.milesplit.com/discussion/topics/150114 where people asked how a girl PRed by well over 2 feet to jump 20-8.5 / 6.31m at the Miami County Championship and I had to explain not only was there regular 3m/s wind pushing but that also the athletes were jumping into a major hole possibly 6-8 inches deep. Anyhow, although I never posted it, I immediately went to the track to figure out how below level the sand actually was, and it was actually 9 inches (see picture). To which I repeat [i]"This is just one example (of many) as to why we should NOT have state qualifiers based solely on marks; sandpits and weather conditions around the state are definitely not, and never will be, equal."[/i] even though that statement garnered dislikes from the powers at be. [img]http://cache.milesplit.com/user_files/30321/133381/img_4561_2.jpg[/img]
jdpsu wrote:
I always thought the 3 Auto & 4 at large made the most sense, but that was a non-starter for the Raposo crowd....

@jdpsu Let me go back to this post: http://fl.milesplit.com/discussion/topics/150114 where people asked how a girl PRed by well over 2 feet to jump 20-8.5 / 6.31m at the Miami County Championship and I had to explain not only was there regular 3m/s wind pushing but that also the athletes were jumping into a major hole possibly 6-8 inches deep.

Anyhow, although I never posted it, I immediately went to the track to figure out how below level the sand actually was, and it was actually 9 inches (see picture). To which I repeat "This is just one example (of many) as to why we should NOT have state qualifiers based solely on marks; sandpits and weather conditions around the state are definitely not, and never will be, equal." even though that statement garnered dislikes from the powers at be.

05/08/2018 2:09:01 PM
Coach
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 11
@Hamilax I didn't even want to touch the absurdity of 2-heat "Finals" :) That alone is worth having 16 athletes at State per event rather than 24. Regarding the athlete who finished 7th at Regionals and performed well at State. There will, of course, be some examples of that and I'm not saying 3 Auto + 4 At-Large is 100%. However, it does allow the best athletes to qualify to State while still maintaining a level of competition at the regional level. You don't advance a pole vaulter who no heights at Regionals, relay team who get's DQ'd, or athlete who false starts. Part of the competition is stepping up and performing well at each level. If you can't finish Top-3 at Regions or receive one of 4 At-Large places, then I'm not sure you have a solid argument for being there. IMO, it's not justifiable to have excessive numbers at the State meet (1,000 extra slots) just because a few athletes don't perform well at the Region meet.
@Hamilax I didn't even want to touch the absurdity of 2-heat "Finals" :) That alone is worth having 16 athletes at State per event rather than 24.

Regarding the athlete who finished 7th at Regionals and performed well at State. There will, of course, be some examples of that and I'm not saying 3 Auto + 4 At-Large is 100%. However, it does allow the best athletes to qualify to State while still maintaining a level of competition at the regional level. You don't advance a pole vaulter who no heights at Regionals, relay team who get's DQ'd, or athlete who false starts. Part of the competition is stepping up and performing well at each level. If you can't finish Top-3 at Regions or receive one of 4 At-Large places, then I'm not sure you have a solid argument for being there. IMO, it's not justifiable to have excessive numbers at the State meet (1,000 extra slots) just because a few athletes don't perform well at the Region meet.
05/08/2018 4:06:47 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3779
@jtaylor186 Exactly.
@jtaylor186 Exactly.
05/08/2018 4:27:03 PM
Power User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 522
Part of this is also due to the fact that the Regional schedule differs from that of the State Meet...Meaning more rest between events, way more rest at the State meet for sure given rather that 1 or 2 races between each gender race there were 7? That time is enormous. I like the 3Auto with 4AL, or even 2Auto and 8AL. Make them earn it 2 A and 8 AL would guarantee the 16 fastest would be at the State meet. Also in the Distance events I feel that the 4 Regional Champs should get lane preference then the remaining 12 by time. we increased the size of the meet by 50%, of that extra 50%, just under 10% made a difference which mathematically means 3.3333333% of the athletes overall approximately. 100 athletes increases to 150 athletes 10% of the 50 is 5 5 of the 150 athletes is 3.333333%
Part of this is also due to the fact that the Regional schedule differs from that of the State Meet...Meaning more rest between events, way more rest at the State meet for sure given rather that 1 or 2 races between each gender race there were 7? That time is enormous. I like the 3Auto with 4AL, or even 2Auto and 8AL. Make them earn it 2 A and 8 AL would guarantee the 16 fastest would be at the State meet. Also in the Distance events I feel that the 4 Regional Champs should get lane preference then the remaining 12 by time. we increased the size of the meet by 50%, of that extra 50%, just under 10% made a difference which mathematically means 3.3333333% of the athletes overall approximately.

100 athletes increases to 150 athletes
10% of the 50 is 5
5 of the 150 athletes is 3.333333%
05/08/2018 8:31:46 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8
Impact of At-Large to TEAM scores? 8-)
Impact of At-Large to TEAM scores?
05/09/2018 4:03:43 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 283
[quote=Raycer131]Part of this is also due to the fact that the Regional schedule differs from that of the State Meet...Meaning more rest between events, way more rest at the State meet for sure given rather that 1 or 2 races between each gender race there were 7? That time is enormous. I like the 3Auto with 4AL, or even 2Auto and 8AL. Make them earn it 2 A and 8 AL would guarantee the 16 fastest would be at the State meet. [/quote] @Raycer131 What I hear you saying is make them earn it at the Region meet. 2A and 8 AL would guarantee the 16 fastest that DAY, assuming weather is equal everywhere. If we really want the 16 fastest it should be based on FAT performance lists from the season. And while that would work for running events, as Ryan and other have/will point out, field events still present a problem.
Raycer131 wrote:
Part of this is also due to the fact that the Regional schedule differs from that of the State Meet...Meaning more rest between events, way more rest at the State meet for sure given rather that 1 or 2 races between each gender race there were 7? That time is enormous. I like the 3Auto with 4AL, or even 2Auto and 8AL. Make them earn it 2 A and 8 AL would guarantee the 16 fastest would be at the State meet.


@Raycer131 What I hear you saying is make them earn it at the Region meet. 2A and 8 AL would guarantee the 16 fastest that DAY, assuming weather is equal everywhere. If we really want the 16 fastest it should be based on FAT performance lists from the season. And while that would work for running events, as Ryan and other have/will point out, field events still present a problem.
05/09/2018 4:36:08 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 589
@jlafollette If at large bids were made on season bests those long jumps in pits missing 9 inches of sand will be at a premium Bad idea
@jlafollette

If at large bids were made on season bests those long jumps in pits missing 9 inches of sand will be at a premium

Bad idea

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.