Six teams from the Beehive State are ranked in the national top 50; three of them are 4A girls squads
Looks like a little research needed to be done on boys 4A. Mt View is the team
to beat, but Maple Mtn and Westlake won't even be in the top ten. Orem,
Bonneville, and Herriman will likely be the challengers. Though the number two
team in 4A didn't qualify for state because 3 of their top 5 runners were sick
at their region meet. Too bad Utah has an outdated system for qualifying for
state. Cross Country is the only sport in Utah that only allows one chance for
making it to state. Maybe its time to listen to the coaches who have been
pushing for a system that protects a good team or individuals who might only
have one bad race the whole season, but it comes at their region meet. We
parents can't do much about this, but maybe others can.
Re: RD1025 We all would love a system that was more like the Track State
qualifying system, but every way you look at it there is no "fair"
way. Every Cross Country course is so vastly different that you can't possibly
set a state qualifying time. What are your ideas for changing the system?All of us XC fans would love more coverage, but lets face it, most people just
don't get it. I'm just glad that the Deseret News will even mention it and give
those hard working athletes and teams a little recognition. The state XC meet is
one of my favorite athletic competitions.
From what I understand the coaches have suggested a ranking system based on team
performance or placement at the meets they run in. Times wouldn't have anything
to do with it, because the courses are all different. But it wouldn't take much
to rank teams on head-to-head competition, as most teams all run against each
other in the big meets. Have a representative from each region submit their top
ten for the week, and then average them together. Not a perfect system, but at
least something would be in place to protect the athletes.
How can you accurately rank a team that has soccer players running cross country
as well? Those athletes are not available for every meet, and are often some of
the best runners. Just something to think about...
That is why most states have rules that set a minimum number of meets an athlete
must run in to be eligible for their region or district meets. This is to
protect the athlete and integrity of the sport from those who would prostitute
their program just to get a trophy. It's not much fun to be that athlete who is
bumped off of varsity by someone who only put in a minimal amount of time for
that sport. If a soccer player only missed a few meets during the season that
wouldn't have much of an effect on the rankings, and no one would care about
that situation. But when someone shows up for the first time at region to help
that team win, what are we then telling the other athletes? The bottom line
is...who are we in this for?
Yeah, the 4A results are definitely not very accurate. I have done quite a bit
of nerd stuff and came up with some rankings for the 4A boys. Here is what I
have:#1) Mountain View#2) Herriman#3) Orem#4)
Bonneville#5) Sky View#6) Springville (didn't make it to state as
previously mentioned)#7) TimpanogosSpringville was good but I
don't think they were #2, even when they were healthy. Bonneville and Sky View
did a good job of hiding from the better 4A teams and have been underrated all
season. In a perfect world, there would be other ways to qualify
for state. This is the first time I have ever seen a team of Springville
caliber not be in the top 4 at region. It would take major problems for a
champion contending team to not be top 4 in a region. I understand Region 8 was
the best region in the state but I haven't ever seen a better proposal. The
points system has merit but I would be afraid of everyone going to the same
meets every week.
If the runners got sick, there is nothing you can do. Being a runner, sickness
is part of it. Should there be a ranking? You bet ya, some regions are deeper
than others. I experienced this at the college level, who ever won our region
was the favorite to battle for the national title. Other regions were weaker,
but were able to put the same amount of teams in the national meet as our
region. Saying that, a ranking system would need the coaches to
send rankings in every week to their region head. That region head would then
need to send the coaches rankings to the division (1A-5A) head. It may need to
go one more step to a state head. That all cost more money than running one
meet per region costs.Does there need to be a fix? Yes. Will there
be one? No.
You have to run in a minimal # of meets to run @ region.
good luck today, runners!
I honestly think the current system is fair and adequate. The beauty of cross
country is that all runners line up as equals and the first one to finish
wins.This is the first year I've seen a potential state podium
contender not qualify out of their region. Region 8 received 5 spots this year
and was simply very deep. Most years even with sick runners and a less than
expected result, Springville would have qualified.Hope everyoen can
get to the state meet today. Perfect weather.
springville not qualifying was huge, it completely changed the face of this
years meet. The lowest they ever finished at a meet this year was 4th and that
was the grass relays where they were behind AF (ranked 2nd nationally) Davis
(also nationally ranked) and Mt. View (nationally ranked majority of the season)
the uhsaa needs to adopt a system more like the NCAA in order to preserve the
pure competitiveness of the sport. Every team has a bad race for springville it
came at the worst possible time in the most competitive region the state has