Interesting thoughts here
https://journalstar.com/sports/high...al&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
https://journalstar.com/sports/high...al&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
Other Sports Should we do away with district track meets?
- Thread starter Alum-Ni
- Start date
Track districts are the oldest constant in Nebraska high school sports. The district system was adopted in 1946 and it is almost identical to the system today, except in the 40s and 50s, a site would often host a couple meets in one day. Columbus would host and A district and a C district. Of course, there were no girls races to run.
I can see the argument for timing-based qualification, but I do have three reservations.
1) access to the best meets at the best tracks which lead to better performances will not be equal
2) I'd like to see there still be district (true area meets) to crown those champions. It's always been a great measure of very good track teams (especially with depth) that state doesn't always reveal if the team does have the stars at top to compete there.
3) I worry a little that it erodes some of the 'team' feel.
I can see the argument for timing-based qualification, but I do have three reservations.
1) access to the best meets at the best tracks which lead to better performances will not be equal
2) I'd like to see there still be district (true area meets) to crown those champions. It's always been a great measure of very good track teams (especially with depth) that state doesn't always reveal if the team does have the stars at top to compete there.
3) I worry a little that it erodes some of the 'team' feel.
After reading this article the other day I had a couple issues with it. How would you be able to account for wind aided runs and jumps? I don't think you can. Also, its pretty much a fact that the spring time weather in central and eastern Nebraska is much more favorable as a whole than the weather in the panhandle. This equals more opportunities to post qualifying times and jumps throughout the season. At the end of the day, one thing I like about sports is getting the opportunity for kids to compete. To make it to state, I feel you should have to win your way there. The qualifying distances and fast times additional qualifiers adequately cover this as far as I can tell.
But what about the students that maybe nursing an injury that have been posting some of the fastest times or the best distances in the field events and then because they have districts aren't able to compete or are slowed because of the injury and need time to rest before state, they run the risk of further injuring themselves just because to qualify for state that have to compete at districts to qualify, I am not saying eliminating districts but there should automatic qualifying standards instead of just additional qualifiers the day of districts. For one I think that it would help with more schools getting on board with electronic timing system and would definitely lead to a more consistent reporting system throughout the state of track times and distances for the entire state of Nebraska.
Should we post pone all state events then for poor Johnny or jenny , injury is part of sports, it happens, its life
If an undefeated, #1 ranked wrestler has to forfeit his matches at districts due to injury he doesn't get a free trip to Omaha. Its life. To me there is no way to take into account for weather conditions, which for those that have participated in track, can make a huge difference by even a few hundredths of a second or 1/4's of inches. To me there is just no way to make it a level playing field.
agree, you would have to have a wind meter at every meet and the difference between northern Nebraska and southern Nebraska can be pretty extreme in the spring. At best you could take out top two and say 1st place qualifies and rest is on times. AS far as the poor injury is not fair liberal attitude Thats crap
It is hard to compare sports that are completely different with wrestling and track. And further more if you read the article swimming does not have districts and is completely based off of times during the year. So why is another sport that is completely based off of times and distances not using this system. Why not take into account wind and electronic timing at every meet, it will be there at the state meet. There is more technology now than before so it should be more accessible. I guess I should have stated my first post differently, but I am someone who would like more consistency across the state in terms of time and results. I am not saying postpone district track meets for injuries, but your points about not able to control weather factors in a track meet could equalized by having qualifying standards for track. And if the standards were set to meet state track results of past results, most athletes would still probably need to compete at districts to qualify for meet.
Interesting Article... I still think the district format is needed. Would a qualifying standard in season be nice? Absolutely, but it would increase the number of participants and thus the length of the state meet. It would be nice to see the state meet made into a week long event. Perhaps divide boys and girls (like state basketball) or by Classes. This would allow for more heats and flights to account for regular season qualifiers. Though I will say I have been to every state meet since the 90s (dates me a little bit) and nothing beats Saturday morning when 4 classes are represented and Burke is packed. Nebraska's State Track Meet is special.
I've been wanting this discussion for quite awhile. Not necessarily eliminating district meets, but changing the qualifying procedure.
Interesting though that the author makes no mention of the field events. My major concern for in-season qualifying would be the accuracy of marks in the jumps and the throws. Jumps probably wouldn't be too bad, but at many C and D meets, the shot put and discus can be pretty sad. Many times the person running the event has very limited knowledge of the event and on top of that, the people helping mark/measure are many times kids who don't accurately spot a mark.
Assuming that issue can be eliminated, the next big obvious issue is weather. Catch the right conditions on the right day, and you punch your ticket. Just look at class C girls discus. 12 additional qualifiers because the wind was great for throws Thursday.
The biggest thing to me is having some kids miss out due to having an illness/injury or just having an off meet. I do have some other ideas, but love to hear others' thoughts. Hopefully this thread won't get buried.
Interesting though that the author makes no mention of the field events. My major concern for in-season qualifying would be the accuracy of marks in the jumps and the throws. Jumps probably wouldn't be too bad, but at many C and D meets, the shot put and discus can be pretty sad. Many times the person running the event has very limited knowledge of the event and on top of that, the people helping mark/measure are many times kids who don't accurately spot a mark.
Assuming that issue can be eliminated, the next big obvious issue is weather. Catch the right conditions on the right day, and you punch your ticket. Just look at class C girls discus. 12 additional qualifiers because the wind was great for throws Thursday.
The biggest thing to me is having some kids miss out due to having an illness/injury or just having an off meet. I do have some other ideas, but love to hear others' thoughts. Hopefully this thread won't get buried.
Last edited:
How, both are based off of beating your opponent to the finish line by having the better time.
Conditions are way different in running and throwing when it comes to effects and weather
I don't like it because I'm selfish and I want to watch everyone compete
Actually swimming is probably the most like track than any other sport the nsaa offers
Random half-baked thought (so don't roast me to bad!) What about having an "A" and "B" standard similar to collegiate track.
Make the "A" standard pretty high, average 6th place like before. The "B" standard would be lower, say - 10th place average. "A" qualifiers are in automatically, then if any remaining spots are open, take that many "B" qualifiers until you have a full field.
Make the "A" standard pretty high, average 6th place like before. The "B" standard would be lower, say - 10th place average. "A" qualifiers are in automatically, then if any remaining spots are open, take that many "B" qualifiers until you have a full field.
Last edited:
Issue there is swimming conditions are as uniform as you can get. Pool is a pool. With track, running surface, throwing rings, weather can all be wildly different.
besides its in the water and the running on land thing and the conditions are completely different, it does start and stop so Yeah sure
Haha. I'm with Alum-Ni. I love the single venue. But I do understand the issues that presents. Rest time, length of time for field events, etc.
I meant its similar in the fact that you compete as an individual, in lanes even, against time and head-to-head, in heats/flights. Sure there are differences, obviously, but there are a lot of similarities too
Biggest issue I have always had with District meets is that countless times countless athletes are given a raw deal solely because of where they live.
Since Districts are drawn based on geographical proximity, You end up with several districts that are stacked in certain events.
The new qualifying format for the track events addressed that somewhat to allow more additional athletes regardless of place. However the field events are only left with the "additional" mark. You could be a great long jumper, but if the top two jumpers in the state happen to share the same district with you? You better get to that additional mark or...tough luck.
That's why I appreciate the additional qualifying mark, but also hate it. A kid could be 1/2" short of the mark and they are out of luck. Now of course, that's a good life lesson. Life's not fair. But when that kid goes home and looks at the other 8 districts and sees that their performance would have qualified in 5 other districts, or even won 2-3 of them? That's a tougher pill to swallow.
Since Districts are drawn based on geographical proximity, You end up with several districts that are stacked in certain events.
The new qualifying format for the track events addressed that somewhat to allow more additional athletes regardless of place. However the field events are only left with the "additional" mark. You could be a great long jumper, but if the top two jumpers in the state happen to share the same district with you? You better get to that additional mark or...tough luck.
That's why I appreciate the additional qualifying mark, but also hate it. A kid could be 1/2" short of the mark and they are out of luck. Now of course, that's a good life lesson. Life's not fair. But when that kid goes home and looks at the other 8 districts and sees that their performance would have qualified in 5 other districts, or even won 2-3 of them? That's a tougher pill to swallow.
Just call districts, state and then they all make it and everyone will be happy and give everyone a medal, I mean why not that is how we have raised them the last 20 years, evryone gets a ribbon, only natural those last 20 years of people want a medal now
Whoa... Take it easy. I'm not lobbying for any of what you just said. I'm wondering out loud in this thread if there is any way to improve the qualification process. I don't think trying to find a better way to give athletes a more equal opportunity to get to state is some capitulation to the participation trophy crowd.
I am by no means an expert on Track & Field, so forgive some of the ignorance here. When I read a proposal like this, the first thing that comes to mind is this: How can someone figure out how to "game" the system?
The thing that comes to mind for me is an athlete entering in single events at given meets for the sake of keeping themselves fresh in order to set a fast mark in that single event. I am sure in Class A or B, single event track athletes may be the normal. In C and D, many of these kids run 4 or more events. 100, 200, 400, and relays for example. The kid is fast, but when you add up all of these events the athlete runs out of gas. I can really see this for the 1,600/3,200 meter athletes. Really fast when they only have to run one of them, but not so much when they run both.
So, why does this matter? Well, if the State field is set based upon times throughout the season...will we end up with a bunch of scratches at the State Meet? A kid qualifies in 3 events, but skips 2 of them in favor of their best event? I don't know if it is a factor or not. Maybe these kids are already skipping events a districts or are already scratching at the State meet.
Just a thought.
The thing that comes to mind for me is an athlete entering in single events at given meets for the sake of keeping themselves fresh in order to set a fast mark in that single event. I am sure in Class A or B, single event track athletes may be the normal. In C and D, many of these kids run 4 or more events. 100, 200, 400, and relays for example. The kid is fast, but when you add up all of these events the athlete runs out of gas. I can really see this for the 1,600/3,200 meter athletes. Really fast when they only have to run one of them, but not so much when they run both.
So, why does this matter? Well, if the State field is set based upon times throughout the season...will we end up with a bunch of scratches at the State Meet? A kid qualifies in 3 events, but skips 2 of them in favor of their best event? I don't know if it is a factor or not. Maybe these kids are already skipping events a districts or are already scratching at the State meet.
Just a thought.
So in other words call it "FOOTBALL" where nearly everyone does qualify for state!??
PS
This comment was made in jest.
Last edited:
The "technology" is quite expensive and requires several people to man and manage during a meet
It is pricey, either to purchase up front or to rent. Not sure about manpower argument, because no you no longer necessarily need timers and pickers.
Cost is a poor excuse, raise entry fee and hire an outside group to do meet, weather and number of state scratches for doing away with districts is better reason. Everyone wants state to be easy to get to and give Jimmy 10 chances to make it, why not make a joke. Look at Class D football its a joke, D1 is a real joke for state, its harder not to go to state than it is
My daughter was in 2-3 meets that didn't have FAT. I didn't even ask her what her time is, only what place she got . Non-FAT meets are a competition against each other, the times are meaningless. That being said, no auto-qualifiers based on season times. If you can't perform at districts, you don't deserve state.
I'm not sure I know which why I lean on the issue. I was thinking about this earlier this week......a lot of sports in the state are now going the "sub-state" route to negate the geography-based districts that may be loaded that keeps quality teams out of state, and to diminish weak districts that send lower-quality teams to state.
Allowing season-long qualifying for state track based on marks, would be similar to the "sub-state" addition in other sports.....giving kids that are in a geographically loaded district a shot at state.
Tell that to the school board/superintendent that is going to OK the cost!
Look states as close as Iowa have been using FAT since 2009 and your southern states have been doing even longer. Its time to advance your school or close it, if you and three other school districts can not afford to go in on a system, then that $5000 on a 4 million to at lowest 3 million dollar budget breaks the bank. Your school should close its doors
Nope, not a track coach. Marks (measurements) aren't meaningles tape measures don't lie. Hand held times are meaningless. Too many variables to count a non-FAT time.
But the huge difference in runways, the direction they run, and the level of the pits do make a difference!
As a track coach districts are finally correct. There are plenty of extra qualifiers and every district has electronic timing. I cant think of anybody that would place at state that did not qualify. I dont understand the injury argument if an athlete is injured and cant compete at districts it is doubtful they can compete at state one week later.