|
|
Post by rdrunner on Oct 17, 2009 21:37:03 GMT -5
I find the selection of athletes that make it on to ofsaa xc rather, well STUPID.. Im sure there are others that feel the same about this. Face it, there is no "team aspect" to the sport of cross country!! Really, there should be no teams making it to ofsaa in cross country, or atleast not more then one team per region. I think it should be the top 13 people from each region making it on or have one team and the top 8 or soo make it on to ofsaa.
What do you guys think?
There are many excellent runners (who could probably be atleast top 30 or even top 15 in a hard region) not making it on to ofsaa, while some guy who got 25+ something place at there region making it on because they have a couple 14-20 place guys in they're region and then say a good runner who did put alot time into his/her training got top 8. And then on top of that a 5th runner from that team gets to go who gets 30th-40th, meanwhile the guy who gets 4th and beats that 5th runner for the team by 2 or so minutes doesnt get to go. In some regions I think only about half of the top 10 runners make it on from there region. I hope you guys see the point of what im trying to get at here, obviously this make me a little angry haha.
If any one knows, why do they have the teams or more then one team in cross country making it to ofsaa xc and not have some of the way better more competetive athletes go? which would make the race more competetive, exciting and better. What are your opinions and thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by abrown on Oct 17, 2009 22:43:39 GMT -5
Cross Country is very much a team sport. If you are good enough to be a contender, you will qualify. If not, you may get to experience such a big sporting event with your friends. Once you run University (I'm assuming you're still in HS) you will understand the team aspect a lot better.
|
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Oct 17, 2009 22:51:51 GMT -5
I trust that you aren't on a strong team, if on one at all.
Sorry, but at this level, and University as well - XC is a team sport so get used to it. There are places for individuals to qualify through to OFSAA, you just have to be reasonably good. In fact the only reason that 3 individuals get through per region is that they (theoretically) could place in the top three (medal) individuals at OFSAA, even without a team. There are team awards (top 6) as well anyway, so your rant seems to be a bit self-serving. Also, OFSAA isn't the be all and end all to the sport, there are other equally important races in the following weeks - The club provincial meet (essentially most of the same top individuals, but on different teams), and , of course, Nationals. Perhaps instead of focusing your whole career on OFSAA you might look beyond it to other races as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by im on Oct 18, 2009 5:12:53 GMT -5
Not a team sport? Have you payed attention to one of the worlds best running nations? Winning world xc means everything to Kenya. They take pride in it, maybe you should too...
|
|
|
|
Post by rdrunner on Oct 18, 2009 10:31:37 GMT -5
Ok, I didn't research and didn't think about the actual team part enough and was only thinking about the individual part. I am wrong about xc not being a team sport. I understood the club part of teams at provincials and nationals, but thought it was a bit different because you don't have to qualify to have a team there, but I'm wrong about that too i guess. Thanks for you replies.
|
|
dr1500
Full Member
RADiculous
Posts: 279
|
Post by dr1500 on Oct 18, 2009 12:48:55 GMT -5
Ok, I didn't research and didn't think about the actual team part enough and was only thinking about the individual part. I am wrong about xc not being a team sport. I understood the club part of teams at provincials and nationals, but thought it was a bit different because you don't have to qualify to have a team there, but I'm wrong about that too i guess. Thanks for you replies. This guy needs a slap to open his eyes.. |
|
|
|
Post by eight-hundred on Oct 18, 2009 13:18:46 GMT -5
Ok, I didn't research and didn't think about the actual team part enough and was only thinking about the individual part. I am wrong about xc not being a team sport. I understood the club part of teams at provincials and nationals, but thought it was a bit different because you don't have to qualify to have a team there, but I'm wrong about that too i guess. Thanks for you replies. This guy needs a slap to open his eyes.. give the guy a break hes just expressing how he feels. Besides this doesn't even compare to your worthless opinions, rhetorical questions and not to mention your 585897956867865865746 posts about ropsaa kids. |
|
dr1500
Full Member
RADiculous
Posts: 279
|
Post by dr1500 on Oct 18, 2009 13:57:31 GMT -5
This guy needs a slap to open his eyes.. give the guy a break hes just expressing how he feels. Besides this doesn't even compare to your worthless opinions, rhetorical questions and not to mention your 585897956867865865746 posts about ropsaa kids. You're another idiot who needs a slap..check my posts yes some may be stupid but some are also very helpful in case you didnt notice, and i rarely post about ropssaa you f%*k and when i do it is about legitimate athletes who have a medal chance at ofsaa. |
|
|
|
Post by dnomyar on Oct 18, 2009 16:33:41 GMT -5
I see where you're coming from, the other day I was thinking about that to, but everyone else is right cross is definitly a team sport. It'd be nice if some of the athletes that might have a chance at at least top 20 but are just coming out of a hard region do qualify for OFSAA, maybe like top 7 individuals could make it or something for the bigger regions but the rules are rules and we'll just have to work with what we've got.  |
|
|
|
Post by cfmalone on Oct 18, 2009 16:55:20 GMT -5
Its definitly a team sport and should stay the same in the way that the top 3(or is it top 2?)teams make it, but maybe they could then deal with OFSAA being a bit bigger and either have the top 5 or 7 individuals make it.
|
|
ess92
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by ess92 on Oct 18, 2009 18:46:52 GMT -5
I sympathize with the OP. You can be a decent runner and still not be able to make it through. I know that the 3 individuals in my region are all running high 15's low 16's for 5km (I realize that the races are 7, its just a reference point) so there are a lot of slower guys who can still be considered good who are left out. Of course Ofsaa isn't everything but it is still a pretty big deal to any highschool athlete. If you don't believe that, check out the number of replies on the Ofsaa thread here.
|
|
bg16
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by bg16 on Oct 18, 2009 19:14:54 GMT -5
ofsaa already has 200+ runners in each race, it would be ridiculous for 7 individuals to qualify
|
|
|
|
Post by rdrunner on Oct 18, 2009 19:51:29 GMT -5
If you are from a small school with no team and are a decent runner with a shot at being top 20 at ofsaa, it could be kind of disheartening not to make it to ofsaa.
|
|
oldbones
Full Member
And so it goes ...
Posts: 244
|
Post by oldbones on Oct 19, 2009 9:22:14 GMT -5
This is the same old arguement where we see many "poor" runners making ofsaa due to their team yet many good to very good runners are left out because their region is deep with talent and they have no team.
The "deep region" moves around from year to year ... sometimes East ... then Southwest ... then North ....
It is a valid arguement in my opinion ... but do we ever want a more complex qualification system? I don't think so ...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 19, 2009 10:00:39 GMT -5
I too have a lot of sympathy for the strong individual who can't make the "big show" because he/she comes from a difficult region, and I think the qualification system is unfairly skewed in favour of teams. I'd favour one team and 10 individuals, leaving the numbers about the same and the quality much higher. A strong individual from a school without a big team is, by definition, someone we want to encourage to continue in this sport. Think of the drive it takes to train for X-C more or less on your own all fall. At the school level, it far more often hard work and a serious approach than pure talent that determines who does well, and the kid who finished 4th or 5th individual has almost certainly worked harder and sacrificed more than the kid who's 5th member of the 2nd place team. True, the AO meet offers an open opportunity for serious individuals, but the club and meet fees, not to mention the travel costs, make this a far less accessible option for many kids than OFSAA.
I've heard lots of informal talk on this subject, but has it ever been seriously raised at a committee level? It didn't take long at all for a couple of coaches to get together and run a new mandatory practice rule through the system (that, BTW, creates hassles for serious runners without doing anything to ensure that unprepared runners are kept out). Why not revisit the qualification criteria?
|
|
dr1500
Full Member
RADiculous
Posts: 279
|
Post by dr1500 on Oct 19, 2009 10:29:19 GMT -5
I too have a lot of sympathy for the strong individual who can't make the "big show" because he/she comes from a difficult region, and I think the qualification system is unfairly skewed in favour of teams. I'd favour one team and 10 individuals, leaving the numbers about the same and the quality much higher. A strong individual from a school without a big team is, by definition, someone we want to encourage to continue in this sport. Think of the drive it takes to train for X-C more or less on your own all fall. At the school level, it far more often hard work and a serious approach than pure talent that determines who does well, and the kid who finished 4th or 5th individual has almost certainly worked harder and sacrificed more than the kid who's 5th member of the 2nd place team. True, the AO meet offers an open opportunity for serious individuals, but the club and meet fees, not to mention the travel costs, make this a far less accessible option for many kids than OFSAA. I've heard lots of informal talk on this subject, but has it ever been seriously raised at a committee level? It didn't take long at all for a couple of coaches to get together and run a new mandatory practice rule through the system (that, BTW, creates hassles for serious runners without doing anything to ensure that unprepared runners are kept out). Why not revisit the qualification criteria? Now that is very true maybe only favour one team, but to say 10 individuals get to make it through from each region may be a bit far-fetched. Some regions in the north should not allow 10 individuals to qualify as there are only 3-4 high quality athletes in some regions. I guess whichever way you look at it you are allowing sub par athletes to compete in ofsaa, whether it be 10 indiv. and 1 team or 3 indiv. and two teams. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 19, 2009 11:37:01 GMT -5
In high school sports, teaching and rewarding a team concept should be prioritized over high performance. Yes, there is an imbalance across regions, but favouring individual performances does not necessarily help. For the individual who is 4th (is it top three straight up or top three not on a qualifying team?) yes, it is unfortunate, but that's life. OFSAA is already the most competitive high school cross country meet in North America outside of Foot Locker, in terms of numbers and quality. It's not like there are run/walkers making it to OFSAA. Plenty of quality people don't make it to OFSAA each year. I was consistently 6th or 7th on a very good team in high school. I only made it to OFSAA twice, but I probably could have beaten half the field in the years I didn't go (and yes, half the field puts me in about 100th spot, not really that good anyway). So is it not fair that I didn't go? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by moorezy on Oct 19, 2009 12:00:04 GMT -5
Can't please everyone. P.s its very much a team sport... Jenny B (if you dont know who she is, you better) on Flotrack states that's the major reason why she wanted to come to to Colorado, once you go pro, that ends.
|
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Oct 19, 2009 16:13:35 GMT -5
Another solution would be to go the way of Track - 6 regions (which encompass the 18 associations - 3 assoc. per region). I think Toronto already has 4 teams and six individual qualifiers, so they are almost already acting as a region. As it is now there are 19 groups (including the two from Toronto - 13 athletes each (2 teams of 5, 3 individuals) = 19x13= 247 athletes in each race.
Under this scenario (again not the best, but then dominance shifts in cycles - there was a time, especially in XC, when the North had great teams and individuals - Lockerby, etc.) you could have 6 teams (same as the six there are now from 3 associations) times 5 (on each team) = 30 + 10 individuals per Region (one more than now - 3x3=9 from the associations) = total 40 per region x 6 = 240 athletes. You could increase the number of individual qualifiers to 15 (so 45/region = 270 athletes) if that doesn't seem too many. The quality would be better as poorer representatives would be weeded out at the Regional meet, better individuals would qualify. It means adding a mandatory meet into the schedule after the Association qualifier, but that shouldn't be too difficult to do for XC - it may mean eliminating an Invitational meet from the fixtures list, there are too many (that have little meaning anyway) on the fixtures list now anyway - this would allow athletes whose schools don't go to the "big Invitationals or series" another more meaningful race as a qualifier anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Young Pratticus on Oct 19, 2009 17:36:46 GMT -5
Bystander: The extra meet would probably work well in southern Ontario just as it has for track. However, in Northern Ontario every place is too far away (North Bay to Thunder Bay is a 12 hour drive). For this reason, we don't have a north regional meet for track (3 area winners plus the next best performance give us our 4 athletes).
|
|
|
|
Post by eight-hundred on Oct 19, 2009 17:46:48 GMT -5
give the guy a break hes just expressing how he feels. Besides this doesn't even compare to your worthless opinions, rhetorical questions and not to mention your 585897956867865865746 posts about ropsaa kids. You're another idiot who needs a slap..check my posts yes some may be stupid but some are also very helpful in case you didnt notice, and i rarely post about ropssaa you f%*k and when i do it is about legitimate athletes who have a medal chance at ofsaa. idiot? im offended now. fact is whether you post about ropsaa kids or not, your probably the biggest dickrider on tnf. you basically dismissed the kid, even though he had a legitimate point, except for the fact that xc is a team sport and he realize that. I have sympathy for him because i remember in grade 9 missing ofsaa by one spot and i had trained really hard, and some guys that i beat by 3 minutes get to go to ofsaa. its very frustrating, it motivated me, but it might discourage the most in that same position. |
|
|
|
Post by slapchop on Oct 19, 2009 17:59:19 GMT -5
Agreeing with 'hmm...'. I came one of the smallest schools in my midget year (now I run for one of the best). I was the only one on the cross country team. I told myself, if I didn't qualify for ofsaa I'd quit running forever. Coming from a region with some good competition I managed to make it on the bus by a hair. Just shows that my running career was 3 seconds from being over.
|
|
|
|
Post by ianham on Oct 19, 2009 18:36:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rojocaliente on Oct 19, 2009 19:18:24 GMT -5
Bottom line is that if you miss OFSAA by one spot and get really discouraged and allow it to negatively impact you in the future... running isn't for you. Do you really see the Kenyans complaining that they can't compete in the marathon at world championship meets because their own people are too good? Well it's much easier in country x so why can't we just have the top guys go and screw the regional/country qualifying stuff...
Whether you think so or not, its all pretty comparable so accept it and move on. If there is talk of reform by the people from OFSAA themselves, then it might be valuable to spend time whining about it... but until then, time would be better spent training
|
|
dr1500
Full Member
RADiculous
Posts: 279
|
Post by dr1500 on Oct 19, 2009 19:54:48 GMT -5
You're another idiot who needs a slap..check my posts yes some may be stupid but some are also very helpful in case you didnt notice, and i rarely post about ropssaa you f%*k and when i do it is about legitimate athletes who have a medal chance at ofsaa. idiot? im offended now. fact is whether you post about ropsaa kids or not, your probably the biggest dickrider on tnf. you basically dismissed the kid, even though he had a legitimate point, except for the fact that xc is a team sport and he realize that. I have sympathy for him because i remember in grade 9 missing ofsaa by one spot and i had trained really hard, and some guys that i beat by 3 minutes get to go to ofsaa. its very frustrating, it motivated me, but it might discourage the most in that same position. Okay first of all watch your language on this forum big guy before i bring you down a couple nothces...Second of all like i said athletes with little skill will make it to ofsaa no matter what rules they enforce thats just the way it goes down. Sorry you didnt make ofsaa in gr 9, but i didnt make any ofsaa in my first three years of high school. However in my gr 12 year i made ofsaa xc and track because i stayed with it and trained harder thats all you can really do, so grow up. Remember its not how many times you strike out it how many times you keep stepping up to bat...lol |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 19, 2009 21:25:49 GMT -5
Let's be clear about one thing here: X-C is both a team and and individual sport (or, as I'd prefer, an individual sport SCORED as a team sport, since having a good team does not require that the individuals on it interact with one other on the field of play, train with, or even know one another). When Jenny Barringer talks about wanting to run with the "team" what's she's really talking about is having a great training group, which is a whole different thing than simply a scoring team. (A training group need not be a scoring team, and vice versa. For instance, a national X-C team is not a training group, and the Speed River?Guelph U training group is not a scoring team 99% of the time; and that it is a scoring team 1% of the time is not what makes it a great environment in which to train, nor does the fact that its members train together mean that X-C is inherently a "team sport").
At the OFSAA level, it is clearly recognized that X-C is both a team and an individual thing, since both individuals and teams are recognized. To simply state that "X-C is a team sport" when someone questions the balance between the individual and the team dimensions does not settle the argument any more than telling someone who favours the current balance that X-C is an individual sport settles it. It is legitimate to question the balance between the team and the individual components of the OFSAA qualifying system. The current balance was not ordained by god; it was determined by a committee having the same kind of discussion we're having here. If it is deemed that the rules are, on balance, unfair it's not "just life" for the people to whom they are unfair, in the way that, say, one's genetic endowment or the weather are "just life". People made the rules and people can change them if they want to.
Another of my beefs with the team bias in OFSAA X-C qualifying is that, because OFSAA is not sub-divided based on school size (nor should it be, I think), large schools have an inherent advantage over smaller ones when it comes to OFSAA participation. It is, quite simply, much easier to round up a decent team in a larger school than in a smaller one, unless the smaller one makes a point of specializing in X-C and attracting kids who like to run, The school where I help out is a bigger one, and yet, between football, volleyball, field hockey, and ice hockey, which all have extensive and conflicting practice schedules, it is very difficult to round up 5 kids to fill out a team, let alone train a competitive team. And the 16 practices rules bars having kids come out for the championship meet alone. So, to put this question another way, is it fair to have a set of rules that favour a kids who is probably less talented and less serious over a kid who is probably more talented and more serious simply because the former happens to attend a school of 2000 students while the latter attends a school of 500, particularly when school transfers are restricted both by the rules and simple practicality?
And, BTW, this is not just "whining on a message board". The speed with which the mandatory practice rules were changed (like, less than a year from proposal to passage) shows that it is possible to adjust these rules very quickly if enough people want it to happen, and want it badly enough.
Oh, and I would favour bystander's proposal over the current system. It would be fairer to individuals, I think, and very practical, since the basic structure already exists for track.
|
|
cda
Full Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by cda on Oct 19, 2009 21:41:52 GMT -5
Okay first of all watch your language on this forum big guy before i bring you down a couple nothces...Second of all like i said athletes with little skill will make it to ofsaa no matter what rules they enforce thats just the way it goes down. Sorry you didnt make ofsaa in gr 9, but i didnt make any ofsaa in my first three years of high school. However in my gr 12 year i made ofsaa xc and track because i stayed with it and trained harder thats all you can really do, so grow up. Remember its not how many times you strike out it how many times you keep stepping up to bat...lol How did you even get in to med school? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 20, 2009 6:28:42 GMT -5
People made the rules and people can change them if they want to. When I said "just life" I meant that those are the rules and in life you have to deal with the rules. Yes, they can be changed. I think a focus on individuals would probably give that slow kid you wrote about less of a chance to thrive, and that would be too bad. I'm surprised that you are taking this side of it, as your stance on youth development is much more wholistic and inclusive. Why does OFSAA XC need to have a high performance focus? The school-size point is a very good one, although if the race were subdivided, would you still have 200+ runners in each division? I suppose you could, if the qualifying procedure still allowed for it. That would be an interesting change. But then people would be wanting an "all-around" final of some kind, because it would be interesting to see if the AAA champ could beat the A champ etc. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 20, 2009 9:30:18 GMT -5
People made the rules and people can change them if they want to. When I said "just life" I meant that those are the rules and in life you have to deal with the rules. Yes, they can be changed. I think a focus on individuals would probably give that slow kid you wrote about less of a chance to thrive, and that would be too bad. I'm surprised that you are taking this side of it, as your stance on youth development is much more wholistic and inclusive. Why does OFSAA XC need to have a high performance focus? The school-size point is a very good one, although if the race were subdivided, would you still have 200+ runners in each division? I suppose you could, if the qualifying procedure still allowed for it. That would be an interesting change. But then people would be wanting an "all-around" final of some kind, because it would be interesting to see if the AAA champ could beat the A champ etc. No one's talking about depriving the slower kid of chance to run at all. We're talking only about who gets to go to OFSAA at the end of the season. My point is that, if the rules are going to favour one kind of runner over another-- e.g. a less committed kid who is the 5th member of a second place team from a big school in a relatively weak region over a very committed individual from a smaller school in a relatively strong region-- then I would support rules that favour the individual. Several of the kids I coach will not being going to OFSAA this year (as is the case for most kids running X-C in Ontario). They have all, however, had many chances to race at a competitive level this season, and done some great training. What concerns me is that some of the kids who won't be going are far more serious and talented, and thus deserving of a championship experience, than many of the team-based kids who will get to run at OFSAA. And this is mainly because they are one, perhaps two, kids short of a full team, for reasons alluded to above. Fortunately, however, all of them will get a chance to run AOs a week later; but, only because they happen to be lucky enough to have parents who can afford to put them in a club and pay for them to travel. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachBoy on Oct 20, 2009 9:49:29 GMT -5
Nice video with Jenny Barringer.
She said that she came back to be "part of a team" and a chance for an individual win. Nothing said about coming back for a training group.
The thoughts about sub dividing the schools based on school size is the way the Americans do it, no age groups, varsity and sub varsity. I agree that people would still want an "all-around" final.
I'd like to see a couple more individuals qualify once the team qualifiers are determined, make it 5 individuals qualifying instead of 3, that would add 38 people to each championship race. 288 in a race, PreOFSAA at Boyd had 600 in one of their races.
|
|
