|
Post by Shawn Lawler on Dec 11, 2009 11:18:12 GMT -5
Regarding the issue of a permanent site for the state cross country meet, there a few things that need to be clarified. First, when the letter was sent to the IHSAA it was signed "District 1 Coaches". I know, because I wrote it. Like many of fellow coaches, I wanted to see a permanent site for the same reasons that have been argued over the years at the meeting before the state cross country meet. I know that many of us voice our opinions, as we do on this site, with no change. I decided, along with other District 1 Coaches, that if we wanted real change, we needed to go to the IHSAA board. We simply used the same rationale only in a different format to a different audience. The intention was never to offend, but rather to have our voices heard.
Shawn Lawler Timberlake XC
|
|
|
Post by Chris Belcher on Dec 11, 2009 17:03:03 GMT -5
Mr. Lawler, would you be willing to post a complete copy of the letter and all of the associated attachments that you sent to the IHSAA regarding the District 1 Coaches proposal to have permanent site for the state XC meet.
The arguments that exist in your letter may help clarify the District 1 Coaches position concerning the use of a permanent site for the state XC meet.
Thank you,
Dr. Chris Belcher Highland XC.
|
|
|
Post by Shawn Lawler on Dec 11, 2009 18:03:21 GMT -5
Mr. Belcher,
The reason I chose not to post the letter earlier, is because I don't see what it will accomplish. It's a moot point. The IHSAA board will make a decision regardless. Posting the letter would only bring the same debate we have each year at the meeting. In fact, it may bring dissension among regional coaches. The intention is to help the sport, not hurt.
Shawn Lawler Timberlake XC
|
|
|
Post by Chris Belcher on Dec 12, 2009 17:36:35 GMT -5
Mr. Lawler I understand your reluctance to post the document you and the other Region 1 coaches submitted to the IHSAA concerning a permanent site for the state XC Meet.
I do not believe, however, that it would be a moot point to submit a copy of the letter and its related documents to this forum. If it was a moot point then you and the other region coaches would not have submitted the document to the IHSAA.
In addition, only a small minority of coaches attend the coaches meeting that is held every year at the state meet. The coaches who fail to attend this meeting may be unaware of previous discussions concerning the identification of a permanent site for the state XC meet and/or unaware of new developments or arguments concerning this issue.
Generally speaking, Mr. Hill has created a forum that allows the coaches to freely discuss, and at times argue, particular points concerning the sport of cross country in Idaho. In my opinion open debate and discussion of any topic, provided the correct information is given, is the most healthy and promising way to accomplish a particular goal, or in this case to help the sport.
Also, it has been my observation that some coaches see the proposal submitted by the Region 1 coaches as an attempt to protect themselves from racing at altitude, rather than an economic issue concerning travel.
Consequently, posting the document submitted to the IHSAA from the Region 1 coaches would go a long way to clear up any dependencies in what other coaches outside of Region 1 may or may not believe. Furthermore, several regions throughout the state are currently under economic pressure, and the arguments made by the Region 1 coaches may provide insight to other coaches and regions, helping these regions develop a similar proposal which may or may not be more refined that the proposal submitted by the Region 1 coaches.
Finally, Mr. Lawler as an educator, I am sure you are aware of the saying that, "knowledge is power". . . . failure to provide knowledge to others, is also a form of power.
Providing a copy of the proposal submitted to the IHSAA by the Region 1 coaches would essentially empower all of the coaches who participant or periodically check this message board. Thus, allowing a collective of coaches to understand one another and work together. While at times we as coaches may argue over the various issues presented on this or other message boards, such arguments allow us, as a particpative majority, to find creative solutions to the difficult problems that are currently present in our sport.
Sincerely,
Dr. Chris Belcher Highland XC
|
|
|
Post by paullind on Dec 14, 2009 14:36:00 GMT -5
These are all good discussions and arguments on both sides for the single versus rotational state cross country course locations. I've started a new and separate thread for these discussions so that we can keep this forum specific to the 1A as a Separate Classification. You'll find the State Course Thread on General Message Board and can continue these needed discussions there.
Thanks,
Paul Lind Challis XC
|
|
|
Post by paullind on Jan 5, 2010 18:21:17 GMT -5
The January IHSAA Board Meeting which will include formal discussion on 1A XC as a separate classification is on JANUARY 19th.
I will be there representing 1A schools, bringing justification to the table in support of separating 1A from 2A.
I encourage other 1A schools (ie-coaches, AD's, principles) to at least email the IHSAA Board, expressing their thoughts one way or the other.
In the survey put out earlier, 100% of the 1A returned surveys were in support of splitting out.
Like Dave said earlier, if you want your voice heard, you have to do more than just talk in your school or read this message board.
Write to the Board, or attend the meeting if possible.
-Paul Lind Challis XC
|
|
|
Post by bravecoach on Jan 19, 2010 14:34:01 GMT -5
At the IHSAA Board meeting this morning the board tabled the issue of running the 1A Classification as a separate class so they could gather more information as to whether there are enough schools and team participating at the 1A level. There is no doubt a large number of schools would like to see a separate class but are there enough complete teams to have a viable race each year at state. The schools will be polled in the coming weeks to see. i hope that enough schools can answer positively.
|
|
|
Post by paullind on Jan 19, 2010 15:20:55 GMT -5
The Board will be requesting the 1A participants lists from the 2009 District Meet Results from the 1A/2A Meet Managers, and it is crucial that these accurately reflect ALL 1A participants. There is no doubt that there are sufficient numbers of individuals in the 1A schools to justify a separate classification, but the Board expressed concern over the total number of complete teams that would be fielded.
I have somewhat of a hard spot with this, but understand their interest in getting all the facts before moving on. With the large number of 1A schools in Idaho (more than 60), there may be a disproportionate number who can field full teams (when compared to the other classifications), but there are a large number of individual runners, deserving of representation at a State Championship, that are being penalized for attending a small school.
I surely do not want the split to occur if the result is a "watered-down" State Championship Race. This may have been the case in the past, but the number of runners in today's Idaho XC environment justify the creation of a separate class now.
-Paul Lind Challis XC
|
|