PIAA to formally discuss 3 classifications for track & field
12/16/2015 10:23:58 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10
http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/December%20_2015.pdf 3rd page down, thankfully proposed by Scott Heinauer, Mars High School. With the sweeping changes made to classifications in other sports, how realistic is this? What does the process look like that this would need to move through? Based on previous posts on this subject, it seems like the biggest (and possibly the only) impediment would be the unwillingness to restructure the state meet. Are there any other reasons why people at the PIAA would be against adding another classification?
http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/December%20_2015.pdf

3rd page down, thankfully proposed by Scott Heinauer, Mars High School.

With the sweeping changes made to classifications in other sports, how realistic is this? What does the process look like that this would need to move through?

Based on previous posts on this subject, it seems like the biggest (and possibly the only) impediment would be the unwillingness to restructure the state meet. Are there any other reasons why people at the PIAA would be against adding another classification?
12/17/2015 10:26:48 AM
Wb3
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 19
Everyone always asks "Are there any other reasons why people at the PIAA would be against adding another classification?", as you have. I never hear someone ask, "Is there any other reason for adding another class, for track & field, other than giving more kids awards and calling 50% more kids "state champion". The kids know who runs the fastest, or jumps the highest, or throws the farthest. Most of the top kids are going to Invitationals where they compete against all kids, not just kids in their class. What is the purpose of the state meet? Giving out more awards or giving the top kids in the state a chance to compete against each other. The only decent argument for going to a 3rd class, in my mind, is the team award component. The top kids will always be the top kids, regardless of class. However, numbers do make a difference for teams. One good sprinter or distance kid, does not make a great team. Bigger schools simply have more kids and a greater chance to have a decent team. If that is the argument, make it. If it's just to name a few more state champions then two classifications are just fine.
Everyone always asks "Are there any other reasons why people at the PIAA would be against adding another classification?", as you have.

I never hear someone ask, "Is there any other reason for adding another class, for track & field, other than giving more kids awards and calling 50% more kids "state champion".

The kids know who runs the fastest, or jumps the highest, or throws the farthest. Most of the top kids are going to Invitationals where they compete against all kids, not just kids in their class.

What is the purpose of the state meet? Giving out more awards or giving the top kids in the state a chance to compete against each other.

The only decent argument for going to a 3rd class, in my mind, is the team award component. The top kids will always be the top kids, regardless of class. However, numbers do make a difference for teams. One good sprinter or distance kid, does not make a great team. Bigger schools simply have more kids and a greater chance to have a decent team.

If that is the argument, make it. If it's just to name a few more state champions then two classifications are just fine.
12/17/2015 1:03:27 PM
User
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 66
Personally, I'm still sad that XC is three classifications now. I feel like we have been robbed of some brilliant races. That being said, I understand some schools in relays, etc are at a disadvantage here and don't have a real chance of competing with the big boys. I'm cool with adding another classification, but I want some type of meet of champs set up then to let the best race the best. I got a small taste of it at Henderson last June and that was pretty fun.
Personally, I'm still sad that XC is three classifications now. I feel like we have been robbed of some brilliant races. That being said, I understand some schools in relays, etc are at a disadvantage here and don't have a real chance of competing with the big boys.

I'm cool with adding another classification, but I want some type of meet of champs set up then to let the best race the best. I got a small taste of it at Henderson last June and that was pretty fun.
12/19/2015 1:43:21 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1501
[quote=WaltBumgarner] The only decent argument for going to a 3rd class, in my mind, is the team award component. The top kids will always be the top kids, regardless of class. However, numbers do make a difference for teams. One good sprinter or distance kid, does not make a great team. Bigger schools simply have more kids and a greater chance to have a decent team. If that is the argument, make it. If it's just to name a few more state champions then two classifications are just fine.[/quote] @WaltBumgarner Actually, one good sprinter CAN give a team a pretty good shot at a team title. A really good sprinter can run multiple events, and are often good jumpers. So if you have a guy who can win the 100, 200, LJ, and Triple jump it can put a team on top. It doesn't work that way with distance guys, though. It's tough to qualify and finish high in both 1600 and 3200. There aren't many Sam Havko guys.
WaltBumgarner wrote:


The only decent argument for going to a 3rd class, in my mind, is the team award component. The top kids will always be the top kids, regardless of class. However, numbers do make a difference for teams. One good sprinter or distance kid, does not make a great team. Bigger schools simply have more kids and a greater chance to have a decent team.

If that is the argument, make it. If it's just to name a few more state champions then two classifications are just fine.


@WaltBumgarner

Actually, one good sprinter CAN give a team a pretty good shot at a team title. A really good sprinter can run multiple events, and are often good jumpers. So if you have a guy who can win the 100, 200, LJ, and Triple jump it can put a team on top. It doesn't work that way with distance guys, though. It's tough to qualify and finish high in both 1600 and 3200. There aren't many Sam Havko guys.
12/19/2015 10:11:11 PM
User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 166
@JimDillner That actually happened. Leroy Burrell of Penn Wood won the State meet by himself by winning the 100,200,LJ,and TJ.
@JimDillner

That actually happened. Leroy Burrell of Penn Wood won the State meet by himself by winning the 100,200,LJ,and TJ.
12/19/2015 11:02:02 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1501
@mschwartzusatf Great comment! I didn't remember that, but I've seen quite a few sprinters pile up points in our league meets and other big meets. It's one of the realities of sport. Olympic swimmers can win a gold for a 50 meter swim, (then go on to win multiple medals) whereas a decathalon winner has to compete in events for two days to have the chance at a medal.
@mschwartzusatf

Great comment! I didn't remember that, but I've seen quite a few sprinters pile up points in our league meets and other big meets.

It's one of the realities of sport. Olympic swimmers can win a gold for a 50 meter swim, (then go on to win multiple medals) whereas a decathalon winner has to compete in events for two days to have the chance at a medal.
12/23/2015 7:05:56 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 152
I would like to see a realignment of the Districts and then a change in the enrollment # in order to retain a 2 Classification Meet.
I would like to see a realignment of the Districts and then a change in the
enrollment # in order to retain a 2 Classification Meet.
12/31/2015 1:50:55 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 289
@mastermirthmaker I completely agree. I cannot believe that PIAA has not even discussed realigning the districts. My alumni is literally by themselves for their classification for about 4-5 sports in their district. For cross country, they will compete against 2 other schools to win a district title. Now, if you combine districts 6,8,9, and 10, you could have about 14-15 schools competing for a title. I understand the reasons behind adding classifications, but if a team automatically makes the playoffs, or doesn't even have to win a district championship to advance, then they need to come up with a different system. I am completely against adding another classification for track unless they realign the districts. As it is right now, with only 2 classifications, there are between 12-15 schools competing for the title in my district, which still means that events sometimes don't even fill up the medal stand, such as the high jump, or pole vault. If you add another classification, you would basically have a tri-meet to determine who advances to the state championship.
@mastermirthmaker

I completely agree. I cannot believe that PIAA has not even discussed realigning the districts. My alumni is literally by themselves for their classification for about 4-5 sports in their district. For cross country, they will compete against 2 other schools to win a district title. Now, if you combine districts 6,8,9, and 10, you could have about 14-15 schools competing for a title.

I understand the reasons behind adding classifications, but if a team automatically makes the playoffs, or doesn't even have to win a district championship to advance, then they need to come up with a different system.

I am completely against adding another classification for track unless they realign the districts. As it is right now, with only 2 classifications, there are between 12-15 schools competing for the title in my district, which still means that events sometimes don't even fill up the medal stand, such as the high jump, or pole vault. If you add another classification, you would basically have a tri-meet to determine who advances to the state championship.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.