1A as a Separate Classification

[brett]

There are 21 2A teams that have cross-country runners in the State with 17 of them fielding full teams in either boys or girls.
There are 25 1A teams that have cross-country runners in the State with about 12 of them fielding full teams in either boys or girls. Is it time for 2A and 1A to separate?

[bravecoach]

As a 5A coach I see no reason not to have a separate class, does this also mean we have a separate 1A race?

We 5A only have 19 schools and while there are far more 1A's only about 25 actually have teams from year to year it could be a potential problem with the economy like it is right now that a school that has a team one year might not have one the next year. Washington deals with this issue by having the number of teams 'float' year to year. If there are at least 16 teams then they qualify 8 to state, if there are 32 or more then 16 qualify. Many years they will have 16 boys teams but only 8 girls teams and it has been known to be the other way around.

Just some thoughts, I hope no matter what happens more students get to participate that's really the bottom line.

[Jeff Horsley]

Is it proposed that the races are run together or separate? Personally, I would like to see them keep the 2A/1A division together. There is some good competition there and would we be watering things down if we divided this division???

I don't have any problems with scoring the race separate, but I would like to see it run together. Or as Coach Hill mentioned in the coaches meeting...run it together, but award the top 1A team as the 1A STATE CHAMPS.

Jeff Horsley
Soda XC

[bruincoach]

I have no objection to a seperate 1-A & 2-A races as long as they are run together. With the rotating state race order to have a seperate race adds more time before some classifications can get on the bus and head home. If you have a 10-12 hour bus ride ahead of you this has to be a consideration. I agree with Jeff's post.

Marty Grindstaff
TF XC

[paullind]

Challis Cross Country Team Thoughts:

My team is torn about splitting out the 1A/2A Divisions. Like Jeff commented, we like the rivalries and competition with the combination; however, we agree that the main reason should be to do what is best for Idaho High School Cross Country, involving more young athletes, and promoting our sport of running.

I think that Splitting out 1A from 2A would, actually, help to include and encourage more athletes to participate in Idaho Cross Country.

But, if we do decide to go this route, then we believe we should completely split out at the State Championships--meaning separate races for the 1A Division. If the goal is to promote the sport, and bring out more athletes, then let them run their own race, and have their own State Champion cross the line first. It adds, at the most, 60-90 minutes to the overall State Meet time.

There are plenty of races throughout the year where they can compete against the entire field of Idaho Runners.

Paul Lind
Challis XC

[Rusty McCrea]

Keep them together. There will always be disparities between schools based on size, location, and demographics. Adding another division simply waters down what it means to be a state champion. We give out medals to the top 20 individuals in each race already, lets continue to have that mean something. At Meridian we are one of the smallest 5A schools in the state, but it meant a lot to our kids to qualify for the state meet and even more to bring home a trophy. For us that was victory. There are schools with 1,000 more students at them than we have, but you can either choose to bemoan your situation or accept the challenge.

[aweber]

I am the one who has been a proponent of a separate classification and has introduced the question again this year.

The "water down" argument: If having a system of schools of similar size competing against one another is watering down competition, then it has already been done. Why do you want to hold XC to a different standard than we do football or volleyball? FB and VB have two 1A classifications and a smaller team size was created for small school FB.

Adding time to the state meet: Would it kill us to start at 10AM instead of 11?

A state medal should mean something: It does mean something. In this particular year, on a particular course a runner finished in the top 20.

In 1990, the first year of our program, one of our girls finished 6th at the district meet out of 24 runners in a time of 24:16 to qualify for the state meet. The classification was A/B then. There were six schools represented; only three had teams. This year 1A/2A we had five girls' teams and 13 individual qualifiers. The cut off time was 24:37.

Has more divisions watered down the competition? No

Do more runners have the chance to participate? Yes

Do numbers fluctuate? Yes

This year we (Troy) were able to once again have a boys' and girls' team. That means more than 10% of the student body in grades 9-12 was participating in XC. Could those of you who coach in larger schools imagine having to do that to field a team?

[cheryl lockard]

I also am a proponent for splitting the division. We coop all season with a 3A school and all season we are competing with 3A, 4A, and 5A schools. So my kids see plenty of competition throughout the season. I don't think splitting the division is "watering" it down; it is putting them on an equal playing field.
Earning that state trip means everything to kids and sure it makes them feel even better if they are able to beat a 2A school, but the odds are usually against them. It is also hard when all the other sports in your school earn that trip by playing only the "little" 1A schools or in track just 1A. The question from my team is always why do we have to compete against the 2A schools when no other sport does.
Coming from one of the "little" 1A schools, promoting XC is hard and being able to have both a girls and boys team for the past three years has been harder still.
As far as running them separate, I am still pondering that one. Why not take it one step at a time.

[bravecoach]

At the IHSAA meeting today the board moved the proposal to add an 1A class to cross country to the action agenda. If the board appoves the motion twice more, once in thier January meeting and again at their April meeting there will be a separate 1A class/race next fall.

Personally I think it's a great idea it gets more students involved in our great sport.

Also at the meeting a motion from the Northern schools to move the state meet permanently to the Treasure Valley also made it to the action agenda. It remains to be seen if that motion will pass and be a reality. A big part of the problem is that there just aren't that many places that are both willing to host and meet all the necessary site requirements.

While I selfishly would not mind seeing the meet here on a permanent basis I don't mind at all when we go to other locations when the meet is well run meet on a carefully constructed course. Kent and his crew did a wonderful job as did Jeff and the Soda folks and Sean and the Idaho Falls people. But all of those efforts maybe trumped by economics, logistics and worst of all politics.

[Jeff Horsley]

The economic argument just doesn't make sense to me...sure when we have to travel, it costs money, but when the state meet is held in your "corner" of the state, travel is limited, doesn't that save the schools in those districts money? Perhaps I'm naïve and don't understand all the economic formulas that are used to make these decisions. This year, our team had the opportunity to meet some amazing people, stay one night and go for a run in Missoula, MT. Run in an incredible location north of Coeur d’Alene…English Point, and run on a good course…Circling Raven…would someone please put a price tag on that for me so I know how much money we are saving?

If it is on a permanent site in Boise each year, everyone in the state has to travel...except those schools in the Boise area...I know there are many schools in the Boise area, but should all the other districts in the state have to spend travel money EVERY year to go to Boise. Shouldn't the coaches have some input on what is decided...apparently the Northern Idaho coaches have decided what they want to do, but what about all the other coaches?

It seems to me that instead of discussing issues (as this message board was set up to do, with very little participation) and doing what is best for the kids, things are done behind the scenes and dumped on coaches that are not in the know...I looked at the action agenda for the December board meeting and didn't see anything about State being discussed on a permanent site, nor did I see anything about where state would be held in 2010...we, Soda Springs, did put in a bid to host the 2010 State Meet, but I guess that decision has already been made, long before the December Board Meeting...wish that I would have been privy to this information earlier and I would not have went to the work of putting together our bid. Shouldn’t these issues be discussed between coaches before decisions are made? Again, excuse me if I’m being naïve about how things SHOULD be decided.

Being one of the low ones on the totem pole, would someone let me know what is going to be done with regards to Idaho High School Cross Country?

Thanks,
Jeff Horsley
Soda Springs Idaho

[paullind]

I will have to admit that I am a proponent of having the State Meet at a specific location each year. And that being said, I think Eagle Island State Park is as absolutely ideal location.

But I, too, didn't see this on the outlined December Meeting Agenda. So, I agree with Jeff, that there is some definite communication gap in getting known information out to all the coaches in a timely manner.

I think this Coaches' Forum helps bridge that gap, and Dave--thanks for keeping us up to speed on the happenings within the IHSAA in near-real time.

It was put out at our District VI post-State coaches meeting that the 2010 State Meet was going to be in Pocatello, at the Highland Golf Course. Was this accurate info?

[aweber]

I am a northern coach, and I was at the meeting
because of my interest in the 1A classification and was
surprised by the permanent location proposal which was not on any agenda. Nor was it mentioned which coaches had sent a letter.

I can see both sides of the argument. I enjoyed having the meet a little over an hour from home this year, but I've enjoyed the other locations as well.

If there is a permanent course comparing times over the years is a little easier, but weather conditions vary a great deal lessening the value of such comparisons.

Budgeting is important. There is, however, a chance Y.E.A. funds might become available.

Gross generalizations and inflammatory statements do not add to discussion. A site has not been chosen yet. It was mentioned by a board member that the economic impact on the host site needs to be considered and that there would be discussion. I inferred the discussion would take place within IHSAA board meetings.

In my experience, cross country coaches have never been very organized. I cannot remember ever having a vote taken on an issue at the coaches' meetings at the state meet or anywhere else.

[Jeff Horsley]

My post was not meant to be inflammatory...but I am frustrated. I just feel like the cross country coaches are the last to know when certain issues are decided...then it is too late to do anything about it.

I did make some generalizations and I apologize for that...Dave's post said that a motion was made by the Northern Idaho coaches...guess that I shouldn't assume that means ALL Northern Idaho Coaches.

Guess we'll just wait and see what happens for next year!

Jeff Horsley
Soda XC

[bravecoach]

Jeff, I too share your frustration many decisions are made with little or no input by the people they effect. That is why we need to be vigilent in watching what is going on, and then speaking up when the decisions don't serve the best interest of the sport.

As far as where the State meet will be next year or in the future no decision has been made, the motion is up for discussion and possible action at the next IHSAA meeting, January 19th. If you feel strongly about this issue one way or the other either be there or write a letter to the board stating your stance. While you might not agree with the outcome your voice will be heard.

If the decision to award a site the state meet is made at that meeting, approval by the board at the April 14th meeting will confirm and finalize that decision.

The same thing is true for the separation of 1A and 2A at the State Cross Country meet. If the board approves the motion at the January 19th meeting, a second approval at the April 14th meeting will finalize the motion and we will have 10 races at State. Girls and Boys 5A to 1A.

[bravecoach]

Paul, So far as anyone knows no one from Pocatello has submitted a bid to host the State Cross Country meet next year. I think some people maybe assuming that because the rotation has the meet going to District 5/6 that it's Pocatello's 'turn'.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Someone has to at least step up and show an interest in holding the meet and Julie Hammons has told me numerous times the only interest has come from Jeff and the Soda Springs area. I have heard a rumor that Highland Golf Course does NOT want the meet back, but that is a rumor I have no confirmation of. If the rumor is true then Pocatello is very limited in the sites it might hold the meet. Freeman Park in Idaho Falls is also a great venue for the state meet but as of this week no one from there has stepped up either. It's a wait and see situation at this point.