Wow, that would have to really hurt. That is why the rule should be changed. I have yet to talk to anyone who is in favor of this rule as it is.

 

KY track and field is very regulated. To turn a phrase, I sometimes wonder if the movers and shakers were toilet-trained at gunpoint.

 

My original premise was that it is now too easy to qualify for the state track meet. I stand by that.

 

My dad had many of his football players also come out for track in the spring. It seems as though these days, though, kids are being forced to concentrate on and participate in only one sport on a year-round basis.

KY track and field is very regulated. To turn a phrase, I sometimes wonder if the movers and shakers were toilet-trained at gunpoint.

My original premise was that it is now too easy to qualify for the state track meet. I stand by that.

 

My dad had many of his football players also come out for track in the spring. It seems as though these days, though, kids are being forced to concentrate on and participate in only one sport on a year-round basis.

 

:laugh:

 

I know in the early 1980's, top 4 (I think) in each per region went to sectionals, top 2 in each event at sectionals went to state. I believe there were 8 sections (or semistates), so only 16 participants in the sprints at the state. I think there may have been more in some other events, but I remember 16 being the magic number in the sprints. 24 now is another heat. I am sort of torn in that I like to see more kids getting that opportunity and there is always the possibility that fewer slots would mean less incentive for some kids to participate. I just know that the times really aren't where the used to be overall.

:laugh:

 

I know in the early 1980's, top 4 (I think) in each per region went to sectionals, top 2 in each event at sectionals went to state. I believe there were 8 sections (or semistates), so only 16 participants in the sprints at the state. I think there may have been more in some other events, but I remember 16 being the magic number in the sprints. 24 now is another heat. I am sort of torn in that I like to see more kids getting that opportunity and there is always the possibility that fewer slots would mean less incentive for some kids to participate. I just know that the times really aren't where the used to be overall.

 

I think that 16 was the magic number up until this year. Top 2 from 6 regions, next 4 best results from across the state. The only time you had more than 16 was primarily in the vertical jumps - high jump and pole vault - because of ties.

I think that 16 was the magic number up until this year. Top 2 from 6 regions, next 4 best results from across the state. The only time you had more than 16 was primarily in the vertical jumps - high jump and pole vault - because of ties.

 

Therefore, the net effect was to:

 

a) Increase the number of state qualifiers by 50%

b) thereby the diluting overall talent pool

 

 

Look, I'm as happy as the next guy for folks qualifying for the state meet. But it seems like track and field has adopted the same mentality that pervades sports all over - let's give everybody a medal or a ribbon.

Here's an example of why track and field doesn't attract the caliber of athlete it once did on a consistent basis.

 

I know Andy reasonably well - not bosom buddies or anything, but my daughter was starting on Mason County's team as Andy was finishing.

 

He demolished the state competition (regardless of class) his senior year in the shot and discus. He won NATIONAL titles, indoor and outdoor in the shot his senior year.

 

And I may be mistaken, but I believe that he recieved a HALF scholarship to throw at UK.

Great point, until I started going on track recruiting visits this year with my son I never knew that Division I track programs all have the same number of schooarships, 12.5 versus football and basketball which have more that three per starting position. My son was offered and accepted a 30% scholarship to Indiana State University for the first year and the funds for the remainder of his college are based on performance. I had n idea that track programs had to spread 12.5 full rides over about 80 members. Went to U of L, Purdue, ISU, SIU, Western Kentucky and got the same story.

Great point, until I started going on track recruiting visits this year with my son I never knew that Division I track programs all have the same number of schooarships, 12.5 versus football and basketball which have more that three per starting position. My son was offered and accepted a 30% scholarship to Indiana State University for the first year and the funds for the remainder of his college are based on performance. I had n idea that track programs had to spread 12.5 full rides over about 80 members. Went to U of L, Purdue, ISU, SIU, Western Kentucky and got the same story.

 

 

Congratulations to your son; a 30% scholly is pretty daggone good for a track athlete.:thumb:

 

The 12.5 sounds a lot like baseball; I had always heard that it was something like 11.5 to spread across the baseball roster.

Great point, until I started going on track recruiting visits this year with my son I never knew that Division I track programs all have the same number of schooarships, 12.5 versus football and basketball which have more that three per starting position. My son was offered and accepted a 30% scholarship to Indiana State University for the first year and the funds for the remainder of his college are based on performance. I had n idea that track programs had to spread 12.5 full rides over about 80 members. Went to U of L, Purdue, ISU, SIU, Western Kentucky and got the same story.

 

That's pretty much it. The non revenue generating sports are always short on schollys. Years ago, the NAIA schools used to give as much and in some cases more in track schollys than many major D1 programs. Now, nearly all colleges that have track schollys have to spread them out over a number of athletes. 30% is pretty darned good for track these days! :thumb:

My son's teammate and fellow a high jumper (7'1") got 50% from Purdue and will be jumping in the Big Ten next year and with training the olympics!

Back to the first point I was trying to make, my son is a decent runner and would probably finish very high or win several events at the Kentucky State meet but he only runs as a reserve and he goes 50.5 in the 400, 11.3 in the 100, and 22.8 in the 200, not blazing times but decent so he runs the relays. Colleges look for him to participate in one of the multi-event events.

7 regions, top two finishers in each event are automatic state qualifiers, then the next 10 best times/distances/heights statewide (without regard to region) also qualify.

 

It used to be that the top two finishers in each event from each region (and there may have been 6 regions as opposed to 7), plus the next 4 statewide finishers qualified.

If you truely want the best of the best in the meet you have to take more than just the top 2 qualifers from the 7 regions. Some regions are so much better than others that the 4th or 5th best in one region is better than the top qualifer in another. Whether it should the next 10 best is debatable, but at least the next 5 or 6 have to go.

I have to agree that it is watered down. I liked it the way it was before.

 

Lets face it, track meets are very long and the state meet takes an entire day. Tough when your event "barely qualifies". As a parent and student it is tough to be ranked 12th or worse, spend the entire day to likely finish 12th, or worse.

You DON'T have to go if you feel you have no chance, but that sure is selling the kids short. Participating in the state meet is an honor. The meets actually took about 4 1/2 hours, not all day, and you can leave after your child participates if you want. Don't think it is too much to ask of a parent to watch your child participate in a state meet if they qualify, even if they do finish 12th.

And by the way, it's nice to have a meaningful discussion here on BGP related to track and field. :thumb: I know way too may people who think that the only thing more boring than track is field.

I agree with you. I see about 10-15 meets a year and enjoy every minute of it. Something is always going on, with very little down time compared to almost all other sports.

As long as there are two automatic qualifiers from each region (a premise with which I agree), that shouldn't ba a problem. That guarantees 14 state qualifiers.

 

I think it borders on the ridiculous that EVERY SINGLE Class A girl pole vaulter that participated in the regionals also qualified for the state meet.

Obviously the best girl won .

I have to agree that it is watered down. I liked it the way it was before.

 

Lets face it, track meets are very long and the state meet takes an entire day. Tough when your event "barely qualifies". As a parent and student it is tough to be ranked 12th or worse, spend the entire day to likely finish 12th, or worse.

 

Well, one of the problems is having the next best 10 qualify instead of the next best 4 (the old format). One issue that I have also is the fact that there are some schools competing in classes that they are too big for (size-wise). Class A is a good example. Some of those schools compete in Class AA or AAA in every other sport they have. There's no way some of those schools should compete in Class A when they are bigger than Class A status in every other sport they compete in. I don't see why they cannot have four "true" classes in track (like the old football format).

 

Just a thought...

Edited May 25, 200917 yr by The Cerebral Assassin
spelling

A problem that came up this year is teams running an event in the regional and qualifying then not participating in that event at the state meet. They have effectively blocked anyone from that region from participating in that event and then chosen not to participate thier team at state. I did not realize until this year this was possible.