Cross Country State Meet Proposal

CROSS
COUNTRY
STATE
MEET
PROPOSAL
By
Amber
Lassetter
&
Bob
King
PROPOSAL
Create six divisions for the Cross Country State Meet with the new
Division 1 minimum enrollment set at 2600+, the new Division 5
enrollment capped at 1250, and the new Division 6 capped at 500. The
sections would then be able to balance their enrollment numbers for
the new Divisions 2, 3, & 4.
HISTORY
The California Cross Country state championship meet began in 1987 with
a three-division format. That was expanded to four divisions in 1990 and
five in 1996. Until 2008 sections were given enrollment ranges in which to
set up their own divisions for their section meets and for competing at the
State meet.
Beginning with the 2008 season, sections were freed of any range
restrictions (except for D4 and D5). All but one section (the Central
Section) set their divisions with an eye toward numerical balance, i.e.,
having the same number of schools competing in each division at their
respective section meets, then sending the top teams in those divisions to
the state meet. All but the Central Section have put their largest schools in
D1, the next largest in D2, and the rest in D3, D4 (capped at 1250), and D5
(capped at 500).
Two sections (Southern and San Diego) have significantly larger
enrollments, on average, than the other sections in the state. The
immediate and clear result has been dominance by those sections at the
state meet. The other sections find themselves competing against schools
that in their own sections, would be one or even two divisions above them.
The meet has become a two-tiered competition: the Southern and San
Diego sections battling for the top 9-10 spots, the remaining Sections
competing for the remaining 13-14 places.
In 2010, only two teams (out of 144) not from those two sections made it to
the podium in Divisions 1, 2, and 3.
This situation is akin to having wrestlers move up a weight class at the
state championships.
Below is the average CBED for each section in the divisions 1-3. This might
be the simplest way to demonstrate the inequity that presently exists at the
state meet. Here's a summary of that:
Schools and average CBEDS
DIVISION 1
Southern Section 3383
Los Angeles 2993
Central Coast 2656
San Francisco 2597
San Diego 2552
Sac-Joaquin 2503
Central 2398
North Coast 2078
DIVISION 2
Southern Section 2417
San Diego 2216
North Coast 1936
Central 1928
Sac-Joaquin 1915
North 1875
Central Coast 1709
Los Angeles no entries
San Francisco no entries
DIVISION 3
Oakland 1982
Southern Section 1885
San Diego 1666
Central Coast 1396
North Coast 1373
Sac-Joaquin 1336
North 1294
Central 1194
Los Angeles no entries
San Francisco no entries
In D2 the SS average CBED was 2417, SD was 2216, all others 1871.
So the average SS team in D2 was 29% larger than the average of schools
from 5 other sections.
In D3, the SS average CBED was 1885, SD is 1666, all others 1319.
So the average SS team in D3 was 43% larger than the average of schools
from 5 other sections.
The history of the state meet shows a clear, direct relationship between
school enrollment and fast cross country teams. The state has been on the
same course since its inception and the record for the 23 meets and over
2,000 teams through 2009 is that D1 teams run faster than D2 teams and
D2 teams run faster than D3 teams (see the 2010 state meet program, p.
52).
REASONING
Currently each Section is responsible for determining their CBED Divisional
Enrollment numbers for Cross Country Competition within their section.
While this has been helpful at the section level (allowing the sections to
better balance the number of schools in each division) it has had a negative
effect at the State Level in regards to the competition being equitable
based on school size.
Additionally, in 2008 the divisional number ranges were removed allowing
the sections to determine their own CBED divisional enrollment number
ranges. There are a number of teams from various sections that are
competing against schools at the state level that have a significantly larger
population. This inequity is especially apparent at the State Cross Country
Championship.
For example, the SS Division 1 CBEDS are 2640+, while the SJS Division
1 CBEDS are 2101 + and the CCS Div 1 1879+. See Table below with the
breakdown of CBED Divisional numbers for sections that have teams that
place in the top 10 at the state meet.
CCS NCS SJS SDS SS
Division 1 1879+ 2051+ 2101+ 2450+ 2640+
Division 2 1519-1878 1601-2050 1651-2100 1915-2426 2160-2639
Division 3 1157-1518 1151-1600 1051-1650 1255-1888 1251-2159
Division 4 500-1156 500-1150 276-1050 367-1109 501-1250
Division 5 1-1499 1-499 1-275 1-300 1-500
The state office currently has a hard cap on Division 4 at 1250 and on
Division 5 at 500.
Historically, schools that are larger run faster because they have larger
pool of students to build their teams. Since the sections have gone to the
CBED Divisional Model (determine your own CBED numbers), the Sac
Joaquin Section (SJS) has seen a significant drop in their competitiveness
as a section at the state level. Table below shows the Top 10 team
finishes of each section for the past 3 years. (Top 10 finishes are
represented because that is what is used to determine section team
qualifying spots beyond the minimum 2):
SS=Southern
Section;
SDS=SanDiego;
CS=Central
Section;
CCS=Central
Coast;
NCS=North
Coast;
SJS=Sac
Joaquin
D1
VB
D1
VG
D2
VB
D2
VG
D3
VB
D3
VG
2008
SS=7
SDS=2
CS
=
1
SS=
7
SDS=
2
CS
=
1
SS=5
SJS=
1
CCS=
2
NCS
=
1
SS
=
6
SJS=
1
NCS
=
2
CCS
=
1
SS
=
5
SDS=1
NCS
=
2
CCS
=
2
SS=
5
SDS=
2
NCS
=
2
CCS
=
1
2009
SS=
6
SDS=
1
SJS=
1
CS
=
1
NCS
=
1
SS
=
6
SDS=
2
SJS
=
1
CS
=
1
SS
=
7
SDS
=
1
NCS
=
1
CCS
=
1
SS
=
7
SDS
=
1
SJS
=
1
CCS
=
1
SS
=
6
SDS
=
1
SJS
=
1
NCS
=
2
SS
=
4
SDS
=
2
SJS
=
1
CS
=
1
NCS
=
2
2010
SS
=
6
SDS
=
2
CS
=
1
CCS=
1
SS
=
5
SDS
=
3
SJS
=
1
CS
=
1
SS
=
7
SDS
=
2
SJS
=
1
SS
=
7
SDS
=
2
CCS
=
1
SS
=
6
SDS
=
1
NCS
=
2
CCS
=
1
SS
=
7
SDS
=
1
NCS
=
2
Based on their number of team qualifiers (SS has 7 for both girls and boys),
over the past three years in Division 1 Varsity Boys the Southern Section
(SS) has finished in the top 10, 90% of the time and Varsity Girls Div. 1
86% of the time.
In Division 2, SS Varsity Boys 86% & Varsity Girls 95% of the time.
In Division 3, SS Varsity Boys 86% & Varsity Girls 71% of the time.
The teams in Southern California are definitely running faster than the rest
of the state, however, some of that is because their schools have a
significantly larger population than the Divisions 1-3 schools in the rest of
the sections.
For example, the school populations for the six Varsity Boy teams that
finished in the top 10 this year ranged from 2866 (El Toro) to 4909 (Poly
(LB), while the school population for the two teams that represented the
Sac Joaquin Section (SJS), were 2778 (Davis) and 2227 (Oakridge).
The five Varsity Girls teams from the SS ranged from
2646 (Tesoro) to 3218 (Great Oak), while the two teams from the SJS
ranged from 2227 (Oakridge) and 2178 (Granite Bay)- according to the SS
divisions Oakridge Boys & Girls Teams and Granite Bay Girls Team would
have been competing in the Division 2 race.
In the Division 1 Girls race, Granite Bay finished 7th and Oakridge 13th. If
Granite Bay and Oakridge girls teams had competed in the Division 2 race,
Granite Bay would have finished 4th and Oakridge 6th/7th based on team
time.
While the Oakridge Boys finished 17th in the Division 1 Boys race, but
would have finished 13th if competing in Division 2. There are several other
examples of the unequal competition taking place as a result of allowing
each section to establish their CBED divisional numbers.
Unlike, basketball and volleyball, the Cross Country State Championship is
a competition versus 23 other schools at the state meet, not head to
head/one on one competition. Therefore, it is imperative to try to and
create a more equitable racing field for the schools to compete in at the
state level.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
• It is our understanding that Basketball is also pursuing a possible
addition of another division at the state level as well so this proposal
would be in line with the one of the other State Level Sports.
• Additionally, many of our sections have added a significant number of
new schools to their section therefore increasing the total number of
high schools in California by a substantial amount. The State Cross
Country Championship has had 5 divisions for the past approximately
14 years. Given the large number of new high schools it seems
warranted to add another division to accommodate the larger
numbers.
• Most of the Sections will benefit from the addition of another division
because they will send more teams to the state meet.
• If the proposal is successful, the CC/Track State Advisory Committee
will need to determine approximately how many schools will be in the
new Division 1 (2600+) and possibly increase the maximum number
of team qualifiers for those sections that have numerous schools that
fall into this category because many sections will have none or fewer
than 8 teams.
• Two possible benefits of adding another division: 1) Increase the total
number of participants in the meet; 2) Most likely an increase in
revenue for the City of Fresno & State CIF Office due to the increase
in spectators.
• Many of the other states that host a State Cross Country
Championship designate their divisional numbers (OR, IL, NY etc…).
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES IF PROPOSAL DOES NOT PASS
• CIF State Office designate Divisional Numbers for Cross Country
State Championship
• Eliminate the rule that states a team MUST compete in the same
division at the State Meet as in their Final Sectional Meet.
• Explore alternatives to the CA State Meet as we know it now.