Something I've been considering...

[YankeeSprinter]

It's always bothered me that essentially, dual meets in the state of CT don't count for anything, save qualifying and maybe in the CCC where I think that dual meet records determine their divisional winners. It's also bothered me that in theory, one kid could win a class meet or the State Open by himself. So maybe there's a better system than the one we have in place now.

Basically what I'm figuring is that a school's record in dual meets would qualify them for a tournament of dual meets. In this way, the schools with truly complete teams would ultimately become state champions. Last year I remember debating who was better, Amity or Weaver. Clearly if the two teams were put in a dual meet, Amity would run away with it. But on the State Open level, Weaver would have beaten Amity by 3 points-maybe more-had Barnaby not dq'd in the 400 at class and fallen during the 200. So would the better team have really come out on top?

Obviously there would be some issues with strength of schedule, but it's not as though other sports don't deal with that too. I also realize this would call for some kind of alternate qualification for State Opens, but that's kind of trivial. The final problem I see with this system is it would pretty much mess with kids 800m+ peaking at the right time, etc. But in the grand scheme of things, during outdoor that's only 3 events (4 with 4x8) out of 18.

Just looking for thoughts. Feel free to dump on it

[cornwall]

This idea has actually be brought up before among the higher ups in the sport. The state meet series would take about a month to get through all the rounds and that would cut the non qualifiers season very short. Most people are against it because it is a major change and people don't like change. But it would require more coaches to spend more time on their 4 best sprinter and learn to balance out their teams more. No most programs who can win with just sprinters or just distance and one thrower. It would be very interesting to hear what people think about this.

[KyleCsigs]

It's a nice idea, I never think that the state would change unless a truly drastic flaw in the system was found, but it IS a nice idea.

I suppose a nice way to determine entry would be all the conference champions get an automatic bid, and then a handful of at-large/wild card bids. Personally I like it, because it rewards the teams that are deeper and more balanced rather then teams which have a couple of elite sprinters (Which seems to be the winning formula for track). While I don't think that it would of changed the state champion over the past couple years (Dbury was just to dominant) I think this method would really shake things up otherwise.

Potential Problems: How would individual bids for New Englands be determined? With no actual State Open meet would it come down to the 6 best times in the whole tournament or something?

[YankeeSprinter]

I suppose a nice way to determine entry would be all the conference champions get an automatic bid, and then a handful of at-large/wild card bids. Personally I like it, because it rewards the teams that are deeper and more balanced rather then teams which have a couple of elite sprinters (Which seems to be the winning formula for track). While I don't think that it would of changed the state champion over the past couple years (Dbury was just to dominant) I think this method would really shake things up otherwise.

Potential Problems: How would individual bids for New Englands be determined? With no actual State Open meet would it come down to the 6 best times in the whole tournament or something?

The Danbury teams of the past couple years are the epitome of balanced teams, they'd still thrive in this system.

And as for New England qualifying, I still think there could be a State Open based exclusively on qualifying times to get in. There would of course be some fudgers, and a good deal of the qualifiers would be off hand times, but the open qualifying marks are relatively elite as it is, so even those "fudged" in wouldn't be far off from undeserving competition.

[xc2008]

This definitely favors the larger schools even more than the present system. At least small schools have a chance (Hyde, Griswold, Career, etc...) to excel at the Open at this stage.

Remember, teams are free to schedule dual meets any time they want.

[KyleCsigs]

This definitely favors the larger schools even more than the present system. At least small schools have a chance (Hyde, Griswold, Career, etc...) to excel at the Open at this stage.

Well I don't think anyone is saying to get rid of classes, but an opportunity for the absolute un-handicapped best team to is intriguing. Yeah this favors the larger schools, but do they deserve to be punished for having a deep pool?

Remember, teams are free to schedule dual meets any time they want.

There's no incentive to, really. I'd be really annoyed if we had to travel anywhere to participate in dual meet that is more or less pointless. When it comes down to states time, the dual meets really mean nothing.

[YankeeSprinter]

This definitely favors the larger schools even more than the present system. At least small schools have a chance (Hyde, Griswold, Career, etc...) to excel at the Open at this stage.

Remember, teams are free to schedule dual meets any time they want.

Nothing's to say that there couldn't be different class tournaments, as in every other sport. I still think it would leave something to be desired, but it would be a step in the right direction.

[xc2008]

I just dont see the point. This is more like wrestling where you are forced to put one kid per slot. I think this system invites putting kids in the wrong spot jsut to score points. I think its much better to be able to adapt. If you have the kids to focus on distance, fine. If you have a diverse team, fine.

Track and Field on almost any level follows this system. And once you get real big (Olympics, etc..) you dont even think of keeping team scores. I think we understand that dual meet and championship scoring are basically two different sports.

[YankeeSprinter]

I just dont see the point. This is more like wrestling where you are forced to put one kid per slot. I think this system invites putting kids in the wrong spot jsut to score points. I think its much better to be able to adapt. If you have the kids to focus on distance, fine. If you have a diverse team, fine.

Track and Field on almost any level follows this system. And once you get real big (Olympics, etc..) you dont even think of keeping team scores. I think we understand that dual meet and championship scoring are basically two different sports.

you've just forced us to make a distinction. Is the point of high school track and field to have success as an individual or as a team?

[xc2008]

I dont think I forced anything. Thats silly. Traditional championship scoring is certainly focussed on team.

[KyleCsigs]

I dont think I forced anything. Thats silly. Traditional championship scoring is certainly focussed on team.

Past 1st and 2nd place I completely disagree. Yes you need to have elite athletes in a variety of events in order to WIN the opens, but to place in the top 10, not at all. Opens rewards the team that has the most elite athletes, but not really the better teams. For example, Glastonbury placed 6th in the state open, yet entirely on the legs of 2 athletes. Trever Johnson and Ryan Pajor either scored individually or were on the relays of all of glastonbury's points.

In the SCC divisional meets (More or less a quad-meet) Hillhouse placed 3rd, losing out to Hand and Law by large margins. Come opens, Hillhouse ties Gbury for 6th, while hand and Law place 41st and 57th, respectively. Out of hillhouse's 22 points, 18 were scored by one elite athlete in two events.

I really don't think the state open does a good job of measuring how good a team is past the first few spots to be honest.

[xc2008]

What year did the best team not win the Open?

Dual meets and championship meets are completely different systems. But I really think the best team is winning each year.

[KyleCsigs]

What year did the best team not win the Open?

Dual meets and championship meets are completely different systems. But I really think the best team is winning each year.

Past 1st and 2nd place

You aren't disagreeing with anything I'm saying

[mkortsep323]

it would be impossible anyway to determine the best "dual meet" track team in the state. personally though i think it would help (not solve, but help) if more spots scored at opens than just the top 8 in each event. maybe making the stop 16 score would help provide more points to the teams with more athletes. this way not only elite athletes score, but also semi-elite athletes. this would at least help teams who have more than 1 good athlete rather than 1 dominating athlete scoring all their points.

[YankeeSprinter]

What year did the best team not win the Open?

Dual meets and championship meets are completely different systems. But I really think the best team is winning each year.

define the best team

it would be impossible anyway to determine the best "dual meet" track team in the state. personally though i think it would help (not solve, but help) if more spots scored at opens than just the top 8 in each event. maybe making the stop 16 score would help provide more points to the teams with more athletes. this way not only elite athletes score, but also semi-elite athletes. this would at least help teams who have more than 1 good athlete rather than 1 dominating athlete scoring all their points.

I don't think it's impossible, but I do see where you're coming from when you say that. In the current system a 2 man team can win. I understand that's the way things are for many levels of track, but invitational scoring just doesn't seem like an adequate means of determining which team is the best in state. I've also thought about a deeper scoring system like you said (which they do in swimming), and I definitely think that would be a move in the direction I'm talking about.

[B Pfalz]

In the current system a 2 man team can win.

I believe that the system for track isnt much more helpful than any other sports system in connecticut in determining solely who has the best all around team because in other sports it could only take two great players to win a state championship as well...for example in soccer ellington went completely undefeated for the 2007 and 2008 seasons including winning the class M championship with arguably only two great players, being brian francolini and tyler cleverdon who were both all-american, the rest of the supporting cast only included two more all conference players..neither of which were all state though

[mkortsep323]

I believe that the system for track isnt much more helpful than any other sports system in connecticut in determining solely who has the best all around team because in other sports it could only take two great players to win a state championship as well...for example in soccer ellington went completely undefeated for the 2007 and 2008 seasons including winning the class M championship with arguably only two great players, being brian francolini and tyler cleverdon who were both all-american, the rest of the supporting cast only included two more all conference players..neither of which were all state though

Yeah but the difference is that in other sports you can win with 2 stars, but the rest of your team still has to compete. In track, you only need two athletes COMPETING and you can be the best team in the state, which is kind of whack. 15 spots or something like that should score, that way teams with a deeper pool of good athletes can contend with the teams who happen to have 2 kids who are each the best or near best in the state in an event.

[reee]

If the school produced the best talent in the state, then it deserves that. You're trying to make track and field into a spectacle that it isn't. It isn't about the hoopla and team aspect as much as we'd like it to be. If one or two guys from the same team can dominate the state, why shouldn't we credit them?

In fact, your idea kills the small schools. They don't have the depth to compete with schools like Danbury and Xavier, so when they have talented athletes, it just makes them completely useless to a program.

Your idea also kills athletes themselves. Coaches would be willing to spread their athletes dry to compete in 4 events each. Not just that, but if you're trying to extent the season to some dual meet tournament you're having kids compete in 4 events twice a week for 3 months straight.

[mkortsep323]

If the school produced the best talent in the state, then it deserves that. You're trying to make track and field into a spectacle that it isn't. It isn't about the hoopla and team aspect as much as we'd like it to be. If one or two guys from the same team can dominate the state, why shouldn't we credit them?

In fact, your idea kills the small schools. They don't have the depth to compete with schools like Danbury and Xavier, so when they have talented athletes, it just makes them completely useless to a program.

Your idea also kills athletes themselves. Coaches would be willing to spread their athletes dry to compete in 4 events each. Not just that, but if you're trying to extent the season to some dual meet tournament you're having kids compete in 4 events twice a week for 3 months straight.

If its not about the team aspect, then there shouldn't even be a winning team at state opens. It should just be the winning individuals and that's it. Small schools should be wiped out if they don't have the depth to compete with the bigger schools. I think another solution is do like they do in soccer and other sports; just have the team champion of each class and stop it there. There shouldn't be a state open team champion, it has too little reflection on the team as a whole when two athletes or even one can put you ahead of many teams. Do team champion of each class and then just individuals at the open level.

[B Pfalz]

Yeah but the difference is that in other sports you can win with 2 stars, but the rest of your team still has to compete. In track, you only need two athletes COMPETING and you can be the best team in the state, which is kind of whack. 15 spots or something like that should score, that way teams with a deeper pool of good athletes can contend with the teams who happen to have 2 kids who are each the best or near best in the state in an event.

well i guess you have a point but its stilll kinda the same way in track..someone mentioned how glastobury got 6th last year on the backs of trevor johnson and ryan pajor but they did relays and if it wasnt for the other 3 people in each relay they wouldnt have gotten 6th...

[xc2008]

I am sure one of you can figure out if the top ten teams would have changed if we scored 15 places. I really doubt it would change much (if at all). Give it a shot.

Remember, some of the teams you have been knocking a bit (Weaver, Hillhouse, etc..) that may have a star and a few good relays could pick up a lot of back end points if we scored to 15, i.e. Their third best relay kid might run a 51--good enough for 4 pts.

Also, are we deep enough to have 15 scoring? Often even the 8th place kid at Opens isn't really elite.

Last years Open (random examples):
800m: 1st 1:50, 8th 1:59, 15th 2:02
4x800m: 1st 7:53, 8th 8:10, 15th 8:18
HJ: 1st 6-6, 8th 6-2, 15th 5-10 (!!)

[B Pfalz]

I am sure one of you can figure out if the top ten teams would have changed if we scored 15 places. I really doubt it would change much (if at all). Give it a shot.

Remember, some of the teams you have been knocking a bit (Weaver, Hillhouse, etc..) that may have a star and a few good relays could pick up a lot of back end points if we scored to 15, i.e. Their third best relay kid might run a 51--good enough for 4 pts.

Also, are we deep enough to have 15 scoring? Often even the 8th place kid at Opens isn't really elite.

Last years Open (random examples):
800m: 1st 1:50, 8th 1:59, 15th 2:02
4x800m: 1st 7:53, 8th 8:10, 15th 8:18
HJ: 1st 6-6, 8th 6-2, 15th 5-10 (!!)

i agree with the lack of depth

but also it would be unfair to score 15 since theirs only 8 lanes on the track. that means that there is always at least 7 people placing that weren't in the fast heat

[BiekXC]

it would be impossible anyway to determine the best "dual meet" track team in the state. personally though i think it would help (not solve, but help) if more spots scored at opens than just the top 8 in each event. maybe making the stop 16 score would help provide more points to the teams with more athletes. this way not only elite athletes score, but also semi-elite athletes. this would at least help teams who have more than 1 good athlete rather than 1 dominating athlete scoring all their points.

The reason for only scoring the top 8 is to give the smaller schools a chance at doing well. If a small school only has one or two great athletes then they would have no chance at doing well. If the scoring was expanded then a large school who has a couple great athletes and some more good athletes then they would win easier. Only scoring the top 8 is the only way to be as fair as possible to all teams, S through LL.

[mkortsep323]

The reason for only scoring the top 8 is to give the smaller schools a chance at doing well. If a small school only has one or two great athletes then they would have no chance at doing well. If the scoring was expanded then a large school who has a couple great athletes and some more good athletes then they would win easier. Only scoring the top 8 is the only way to be as fair as possible to all teams, S through LL.

This again brings us to the problem that this has no reflection on the team as a whole, no matter how "fair" it is to all sized schools. I say the best solution is to not have a state open champion team; that way arguements like this cannot ensue lol. Just have the team champion of each class where all schools are roughly same size in each class and competition is more spread out, and then just do individuals at state opens. This is basically what happens in all the other high school sports, they dont have a State Open to determine the best team, they just have class meets.

[YankeeSprinter]

they just have class meets.

and therefore a playoff system would work on a level of "fairness"

[tollcoach81]

If the school produced the best talent in the state, then it deserves that. You're trying to make track and field into a spectacle that it isn't. It isn't about the hoopla and team aspect as much as we'd like it to be. If one or two guys from the same team can dominate the state, why shouldn't we credit them?

In fact, your idea kills the small schools. They don't have the depth to compete with schools like Danbury and Xavier, so when they have talented athletes, it just makes them completely useless to a program.

Your idea also kills athletes themselves. Coaches would be willing to spread their athletes dry to compete in 4 events each. Not just that, but if you're trying to extent the season to some dual meet tournament you're having kids compete in 4 events twice a week for 3 months straight.

I haven't been on in a while and just stumbled into this and agree this is a very interesting suggestion. I disagree with the notion that it completely kills the small schools though. I am the head coach of the Tolland Girls team and head to head last year we would have matched up with pretty much any team in the state. In fact in smaller Invites we beat about 8 of the teams that finished ahead of us at the open including weaver, Glastonbury, windsor East Hartford and Weston. Now the chance we will ever have a team like last year is probably not that good and it is tougher for us to reload like a Danbury or Amity boys teams or Darien girls team. But I would have found the chance to take those teams on head to head very intriguing.

What I do agree with is that the stress on the athletes could be too much. With so many races in a short time and not much chance to recover, burnout and injury would be a big concern.

[mkortsep323]

What I do agree with is that the stress on the athletes could be too much. With so many races in a short time and not much chance to recover, burnout and injury would be a big concern.

Well obviously the playoff system would not work unless they started it the first week of the season lol. I guess when it comes down to it track and field is more of an individual sport in the latter/ more important parts of the season unless you're on a relay.

[YankeeSprinter]

Well obviously the playoff system would not work unless they started it the first week of the season lol.

truth is football only has 2 rounds in their postseason including the championship

[tollcoach81]

truth is football only has 2 rounds in their postseason including the championship

which i think is great(2 rounds of playoffs). and in that scenario a track playoff would work. The problem I think there is with other sports(basketball, soccer, baseball) is that they invite too many teams to the state tournament. Playoffs aren't an all inclusive thing. Everyone doesnt always deserve a chance. State playoffs should be earned. This rant is more about the other sports actaully due to the article I just read about them expanding the football playoffs to include more teams.

[reee]

The reason for only scoring the top 8 is to give the smaller schools a chance at doing well. If a small school only has one or two great athletes then they would have no chance at doing well. If the scoring was expanded then a large school who has a couple great athletes and some more good athletes then they would win easier. Only scoring the top 8 is the only way to be as fair as possible to all teams, S through LL.

They score 8 spots because that's National Federation rules.

[slimsmitty1602]

define the best team



I don't think it's impossible, but I do see where you're coming from when you say that. In the current system a 2 man team can win. I understand that's the way things are for many levels of track, but invitational scoring just doesn't seem like an adequate means of determining which team is the best in state. I've also thought about a deeper scoring system like you said (which they do in swimming), and I definitely think that would be a move in the direction I'm talking about.
i know the system is different in mass where its 1 running 1 field 1 relay and its 2 running and 2 field in other new england states if i recall but in 2007 lauren barber won the the team title overall by herself(she was the reason why her relay won)winning the 55mH LJ and 4x200. even reducing the number of events wouldnt bring this down even though this is a very rare occasion. only way u can relay stop this is 1 running or 1 field plus 1 relay. but even then at stated above, 2 ppl can win a state title. dosent really define team if u ask me.

[BiekXC]

They score 8 spots because that's National Federation rules.

Ya the National Federation decided how many sports earn points. But im saying why it works for the CT Open. The CIAC could change it if they wanted to.

[reee]

Yea, but name the last time 1 or even 2 athletes won a state championship by themselves.

[old man]

There are probably many occurrences where mediocre TEAMS place very high or win the Open becuase of one or two individuals.

One glaring example is the Wilbur Cross girls' teams from 2002-2004. Especially in 2004 when Calhoun twins went 1-2 in the 100, 200 and 400.

Their overall team was OK with avery good 4x8 and I believe a javelin thrower in the mix, but probably would lose to at least 10% of the girls' teams in the state head to head.

[reee]

That's probably the closest comparison you can make, but the teams in second weren't really that close to winning either. Besides that, they also didn't only have the twins, they had strong relays, especially the 4x800, in that span.

[BeamonStreet]

That's probably the closest comparison you can make, but the teams in second weren't really that close to winning either. Besides that, they also didn't only have the twins, they had strong relays, especially the 4x800, in that span.

1981: Mike Shinsky won the Open for Rippowam HS of Stamford BY HIMSELF (30 points, he won the HJ, TJ, LJ ... would have won both hurdles if he had been able to enter both.
Late 1990's: Hartford Public wins the Open with two guys, 58 points. One guy won the 100, 200, LJ .... the other won the HJ, TJ and second in the LJ to his teammate.

Happens more than you think .....

[sub415]

2005 Outdoor State Open. Hyde and Griswold tied for the title.

Griswold:
1st Place in 1600 with Tradelle Ward
2nd Place in 1600 with Chris Croff

2nd Place in 3200 with Tradelle Ward
4th Place in 3200 with Chris Croff

1st Place Kyle Hoddy in Javelin

So they were co-champions with 3 kids.

Hyde Scored by:
1st in 100/200 same kid
3rd in 110 Hurdles
2nd in 300 Hurdles. Both were the same kid in Hurdles

3rd in the Shot Put
8th in Javelin

So they were co-champs with 4 kids.

Happens quite often

[xc2008]

I dont think 2005 is a great example. Both of those teams had a full squad (check the class results--Hyde scored 118 pts in class meet). I think those teams would have done fine in the dual meet scenario. It just happened to be a year when 40 pts was good enough.

[YankeeSprinter]

http://www.dyestat.com/?pg=us-2010-Outdoor-Nike-Track-Nationals-Press-Release


verrry interesting. the danbury teams of the past two years would've done well in this, even without the relays and javelin

anyone figure some of the teams from this year have a shot?