I look at it the same way as I look at the Ky-Ind HS hoops series, which Indiana dominates in both boys and girls. Just a deeper talent pool to pick from because of population. Kentucky will have its up years where a top-flite talent may be able to win their event in three dozen states. But more often than not, with a thin talent pool, Ky's gonna lag behind our more heavily populated states.

 

That's a really good explanation of the difference. Really I never stopped to think about the population when I started the thread, I was merely comparing the two neighoring states. After my son failed to qualify here and his times and jumps were much higher and faster than most of the winners in Kentucky I started this thread. His cousins really gave it to him also because they made it to state in their events.

Most of the times I see in track and field now are actually slower than they were in the 1980s. I see winning times at regional meets that wouldn't have won or even placed at many of the smaller all comers meets 20-30 years ago. The talent pool is thinner, but I also think there isn't as much interest (overall) with the advent of summer boys and girls basketball, travel baseball & softball, football clinics and camps, travel soccer etc taking many of the better athletes at our schools in other directions in the past 15+ years.

Most of the times I see in track and field now are actually slower than they were in the 1980s. I see winning times at regional meets that wouldn't have won or even placed at many of the smaller all comers meets 20-30 years ago. The talent pool is thinner, but I also think there isn't as much interest (overall) with the advent of summer boys and girls basketball, travel baseball & softball, football clinics and camps, travel soccer etc taking many of the better athletes at our schools in other directions in the past 15+ years.

 

I agree that the year-round nature of many sports has probably diluted the talent pool for track and field.

 

In the sprints, could it be possible that electronic timing could factor into the slower times. It seems like 0.24 seconds or some such number is added to hand-timed results to equate to electronic timing.

I agree that the year-round nature of many sports has probably diluted the talent pool for track and field.

 

In the sprints, could it be possible that electronic timing could factor into the slower times. It seems like 0.24 seconds or some such number is added to hand-timed results to equate to electronic timing.

 

The electronic vs hand timed difference is a factor and I agree that at the state, that can make a difference. However, I see regional sprint times that were handtimed that look very slow to see winning and going to state. Even regular season meets have times that appear very slow. 100 meter dashes winning regionals on hand timers in the mid 11's? That is surprising.

Mid 11's are middle school times for the most part here in Indianapolis.