Upload a Photo Upload a Video Add a News article Write a Blog Add a Comment
Blog Feed News Feed Video Feed All Feeds

News

Write News
RSS Feed
 

Folders

Featured 0
Misc News 44
Results 0
All 44
Search
 

 

CIF-SS Masters Qualifiers 2014

Published by
DyeStatCAL.com   May 25th 2014, 4:24pm
Attached Documents
Posted 05/25/2014 (4009 downloads)

The CIF Southern Section Finals is perhaps the biggest hurdle on The Road To State for Southern Section athletes. Athletes advance from the four divisions based solely on their marks, with 9 athletes advancing from the laned events (Sprints, Hurdles, and Relays) and 12 from the rest (Distance and Field).

CIF-SS Masters Qualifiers

To see all elite athlete performances from CIF-SS in order, check out our TFX Database.

5/28 - Scratches and Replacements Updated:

Girls 1600 - OUT Bethan Knights (Northwood), IN Kailie Grimes (Beaumont)
Girls 400 - OUT Roberts (LB Poly), IN Van Buren (Vista Murrieta)
Boys 1600 - OUT Doan (Great Oak), IN McAndrews (Loyola)



Hashtags#dyestatcal #high-school #california
 

More news

 2014 Results - California CIF Outdoor State Championships
2014 Results - California CIF SS Masters - Southern Section
13 comment(s)
 Scott Joerger
CIF-SS Masters - scratches and their replacements have been added
MatthewXCountry

Hal Harkness, on , said:

You will climb Mt. Everest before Division Champs are automatically advanced to the Masters Meet in any division. Just not a popular idea.


Fair enough. Really the only event where I see the D4 athletes having a big beef is the 1600 (since the 3200 is paired in divisional finals). I think if you implemented a tough B standard for the 1600, say 1.01 x state at large standard, coaches could get behind it, but certainly without a major modification coaches are not going to get behind it.
Hal Harkness
You will climb Mt. Everest before Division Champs are automatically advanced to the Masters Meet in any division. Just not a popular idea.
MatthewXCountry

Hal Harkness, on , said:

When the Masters Meet was created over 30 years ago the Division Champions were advanced from the Finals and that lasted exactly one year. The coaches did not auto advancers from any division that were not in the time/distance mix with the rest of the field and the process was quickly changed into the performance model that has been used since.


But that was back when there was only 8 or 9 athletes that made it in 1600m final (note I'm only proposing this for the distance events). With 12 now making it, I would argue that it's a bit different now because under the division champs all make it scenario, we still have at least the 9 fastest runners in the masters meet. I also think if a "B standard" was incorporated that would ease the concerns of the coaches. No one wants a 5:25 D4 champion advancing over a 4:55 D1 8th place finisher, but I don't think it's fair that a 5:01 D4 champion is passed over for a D1 8th place finisher who ran 4:59. Who had the "better performance". I'd argue the D4 champ.
Hal Harkness
When the Masters Meet was created over 30 years ago the Division Champions were advanced from the Finals and that lasted exactly one year. The coaches did not auto advancers from any division that were not in the time/distance mix with the rest of the field and the process was quickly changed into the performance model that has been used since.
Hal Harkness

MatthewXCountry, on , said:

But can't that be satisfied by making the at large standards tougher to hit, rather than heavily disadvantaging division 4 athletes from qualifying? Champions deserve an opportunity to compete for one of those 6 spots (at least in the distances where having weaker competition is a major disadvantage). It seems to me, by not giving division 4 champions an equal opportunity to qualify for state, we are doing something very similar to those who would argue that SF and Oakland don't deserve auto spots at state. No one is saying give SS more spots. People here are saying "make the at large standards tougher".

Is what Southern Section does the norm? Do the other sections with masters meets not guarantee division champions a spot in the masters competition? From growing up in a section where all athletes had an equal opportunity to qualify for state regardless of school size (clearly not the case in SS), it seems very strange to do it this way.
MatthewXCountry

Hal Harkness, on , said:

We live in a bigger world than the Southern Section. We are allowed 6 automatic entries to the State Meet and we have pushed the envelope with the At-Large process that was not implemented to aid the SS. Simply, we do not have Carte Blanche. (Unlimited) entries into the state meet. There is a governance structure within the CIF that has to be followed and we do not have unilateral authority to increase entries. At this point, we are doing the best we can and don't expect it to change anytime soon.


But can't that be satisfied by making the at large standards tougher to hit, rather than heavily disadvantaging division 4 athletes from qualifying? Champions deserve an opportunity to compete for one of those 6 spots (at least in the distances where having weaker competition is a major disadvantage). It seems to me, by not giving division 4 champions an equal opportunity to qualify for state, we are doing something very similar to those who would argue that SF and Oakland don't deserve auto spots at state. No one is saying give SS more spots. People here are saying "make the at large standards tougher".

Is what Southern Section does the norm? Do the other sections with masters meets not guarantee division champions a spot in the masters competition? From growing up in a section where all athletes had an equal opportunity to qualify for state regardless of school size (clearly not the case in SS), it seems very strange to do it this way.
Hal Harkness
We live in a bigger world than the Southern Section. We are allowed 6 automatic entries to the State Meet and we have pushed the envelope with the At-Large process that was not implemented to aid the SS. Simply, we do not have Carte Blanche. (Unlimited) entries into the state meet. There is a governance structure within the CIF that has to be followed and we do not have unilateral authority to increase entries. At this point, we are doing the best we can and don't expect it to change anytime soon.
cerutty fan
Using a championship event (CIF Finals) as a qualifer for another qualifer (Masters) for another qualifier (State Prelims) for the State Champs is flawed at best. If an SAT question asks, "Which of the above four do not belong?", the clear answer is "Masters".

Delete Masters altogether. Division winners should automatically advance to State Prelims, as should all other CIF Finals competitors who have the State qualifying standard during the current season. If that qualifies too many people to run State Prelims in one day then make the standard tougher to hit.

CIF Finals is a championship event, which means the distance races will be tactical affairs, as they should be. By having a time standard at CIF Finals to advance towards State, it takes away the legitimacy of the championship for the distance races to a certain degree.
MatthewXCountry
Another point is that the at-large marks (as crazy fast as they are) are actually kept weaker than they should be, by keeping athletes home that make the mark in divisional finals. If some of these athletes made state, the state meet might get faster in the minor positions, in turn making the future at-large marks faster. It would take 3 years or so for the at-large marks to reach an equilibrium (or stationary distribution as we'd say in statistics).

The funny thing is that my proposal might not change things that much well into the future because less athletes would hit the at large marks during the SS finals. However, I think it is still good because it would mean "outlier" years for certain events still give all their athletes a fair shot.
MatthewXCountry

Scott Joerger, on , said:

I think that idea has some merit but I'm not sold. Under your scenario, this year George Gleason who ran 4:11.58 in the D1 race would be be bumped out by D4 winner Ruben Dominguez who ran 4:13.92 to win D4. That's 1.5 seconds which isn't that great. But would you still be ok with that bump if Dominguez won in 4:20? That would advance him as the #23 performer in the event. As it stands, Dominguez is the #15 performer.

However - I do think it's unfair that athletes can run the state at-large standard at CIF SS Finals and be left home from Masters. That did in fact happen to 13 athletes plus four relays yesterday (inclusive of my example, Dominguez).

Here are those who hit the state at-large standards but were eliminated as they didn't finish in the top 9/12 to move on:

B-200 (Standard 21.75)
Name School Event Performance Notes
Davis, Dominic (2015) Alemany, CA B-200 21.48 #5
Hurst, Matt (2014) Corona Del Mar, CA B-200 21.61 #6
Hall, Ronny (2014) Serra Gardena, CA B-200 21.62 #1 D4 Champ
Dubots, Cole (2017) Vista Murrieta, CA B-200 21.70 #4
Seaton, Michael (2014) Oaks Christian, CA B-200 21.73 #2
Zigler, Zamore (2015) Carter, CA B-200 21.73 #3
Harris, Mar'Yea (2015) Long Beach Poly, CA B-200 21.73 #5

B-1600 (Standard 4:14.2)
Name School Event Performance Notes
Mcandrews, John (2014) Loyola, CA B-1600 4:12.36 #6
Ernst, William (2015) San Luis Obispo, CA B-1600 4:13.81 #5
Dominguez, Ruben (2014) Don Bosco Tech, CA B-1600 4:13.92 #1 D4 Champ

G-200 (Standard 24.5)
Name School Event Performance Notes
Reed, Jasmin (2017) Serra Gardena, CA G-200 24.42 #4
Vanburen, Amanda (2016) Vista Murrieta, CA G-200 24.49 #5
Limp, Sara (2015) Los Alamitos, CA G-200 24.49 #6

G-4x100 (Standard 47.53)
Name School Event Performance Notes
Girls Relay Harvard-Westlake, CA G-4x100 47.23 #2
Girls Relay Great Oak, CA G-4x100 47.32 #5
Girls Relay Redondo Union, CA G-4x100 47.41 #1 D2 Champ
Girls Relay Mater Dei, CA G-4x100 47.41 #2


I would like to see a system where these athletes would continue. I think it would be doable in field events and distance events, but the laned events are a problem. We'd have to have heats at Masters which isn't ideal, but there really isn't a championship meet anyway - it's just a way to merge the divisions into a single pool to go on to state. I think the inconvenience of multiple heats in some events would be worth it to keep state-level athletes a fair shot to move on.


I think for races like the 1600m and 3200m and field events, there really is no reason to send athletes home who won their division or made the at large standard. My ideal proposal is that all division winners + the next fastest 8 times + all athletes faster than the state at large mark, should make the finals. If more than X athletes make the finals, a double waterfall start is used.

For laned races I think anyone who made the at large mark in divisional finals should be allowed to run in a preliminary time trial race (the same day, but prior to the main event) to get the at large mark. If it is one person running a time trial that is perfectly fine with me but I'd also be OK with allowing divisional winners who were not fast enough for the main event as well, to help fill out the lanes (although its not so clear to me how much competition helps in laned events).

As for your initial question, if Dominguez ran 4:20, I'd certainly prefer he'd make masters over a 4:15 athlete but not necessarily a 4:11 one. But as I didn't mention in my initial post. I'd prefer all at large athletes make the finals, so this point is moot.
Scott Joerger
I think that idea has some merit but I'm not sold. Under your scenario, this year George Gleason who ran 4:11.58 in the D1 race would be be bumped out by D4 winner Ruben Dominguez who ran 4:13.92 to win D4. That's 1.5 seconds which isn't that great. But would you still be ok with that bump if Dominguez won in 4:20? That would advance him as the #23 performer in the event. As it stands, Dominguez is the #15 performer.

However - I do think it's unfair that athletes can run the state at-large standard at CIF SS Finals and be left home from Masters. That did in fact happen to 13 athletes plus four relays yesterday (inclusive of my example, Dominguez).

Here are those who hit the state at-large standards but were eliminated as they didn't finish in the top 9/12 to move on:

B-200 (Standard 21.75)
Name School Event Performance Notes
Davis, Dominic (2015) Alemany, CA B-200 21.48 #5
Hurst, Matt (2014) Corona Del Mar, CA B-200 21.61 #6
Hall, Ronny (2014) Serra Gardena, CA B-200 21.62 #1 D4 Champ
Dubots, Cole (2017) Vista Murrieta, CA B-200 21.70 #4
Seaton, Michael (2014) Oaks Christian, CA B-200 21.73 #2
Zigler, Zamore (2015) Carter, CA B-200 21.73 #3
Harris, Mar'Yea (2015) Long Beach Poly, CA B-200 21.73 #5

B-1600 (Standard 4:14.2)
Name School Event Performance Notes
Mcandrews, John (2014) Loyola, CA B-1600 4:12.36 #6
Ernst, William (2015) San Luis Obispo, CA B-1600 4:13.81 #5
Dominguez, Ruben (2014) Don Bosco Tech, CA B-1600 4:13.92 #1 D4 Champ

G-200 (Standard 24.5)
Name School Event Performance Notes
Reed, Jasmin (2017) Serra Gardena, CA G-200 24.42 #4
Vanburen, Amanda (2016) Vista Murrieta, CA G-200 24.49 #5
Limp, Sara (2015) Los Alamitos, CA G-200 24.49 #6

G-4x100 (Standard 47.53)
Name School Event Performance Notes
Girls Relay Harvard-Westlake, CA G-4x100 47.23 #2
Girls Relay Great Oak, CA G-4x100 47.32 #5
Girls Relay Redondo Union, CA G-4x100 47.41 #1 D2 Champ
Girls Relay Mater Dei, CA G-4x100 47.41 #2


I would like to see a system where these athletes would continue. I think it would be doable in field events and distance events, but the laned events are a problem. We'd have to have heats at Masters which isn't ideal, but there really isn't a championship meet anyway - it's just a way to merge the divisions into a single pool to go on to state. I think the inconvenience of multiple heats in some events would be worth it to keep state-level athletes a fair shot to move on.
MatthewXCountry
In my opinion, in the distances, the masters meet is unfair to athletes that happen to compete in weaker divisions, and hence can't get paced to fast times. In the distances, where 12 qualify instead of 9, I think all division winners should automatically qualify, provided they meet a "B" standard, which could be something like 1.03 times the state at large standard (this year that would be 5:03.85, 10:54.86 for girls and 4:21.87, 9:25.1 for boys). Who has a better chance at placing top 6 in the masters meet, and hence going to state, the winner of division 4 in 5:01.86 or the 8th place finisher in division 1 in 4:59.99? Any division winner who is "competitive" deserves a shot. Honestly, the 3200 field could be expanded anyways, so in that race it could be the 12 fastest plus any division winners who did not qualify based on time. What are people's thoughts?
History for TOHS Track and Field
YearVideosNewsPhotosBlogs
2022 1      
2021 2      
2020 2      
Show 15 more
Hashtags#dyestatcal #high-school #california
 
 
+PLUS highlights
+PLUS coverage
Live Events
Get +PLUS!