Why is California CIF SS forced to run MT SAC

Your lack of knowledge and understanding makes it easy. I hope you don’t coach

I wasn't disagreeing. I've been to the course once and I wouldn't want to put my HS team out there before State either. What I am saying is with all the advantages that SS has they can take this one little disadvantage and live with it.

This is your second time making this point.
How about listing those unfair advantages that the SS enjoys.

The bigger issue with the SS is not Mt. Sac, but rather the at large birth given to teams based on the ranking made by one single individual with no oversight. Sure win our league and you are in, or, be ranked in the top ten in our Division and get a at large birth.

That is all well and good, but the rankings are done by a single individual. That is B.S. no other sport in CA has this single individual ranking and you can get in type of system.

Teams get in when they are born?

If you can get ranked by a single individual then your team doesn't deserve to go. Be a better coach and stop complaining.

I remember watching a Newbury park video on that course. On one of the downhills, there is just a 400lb knee level rock right around a bend directly in the middle of the course.

If you're in the front, easy to avoid. But I'm sure many runners deep in the pack got drilled/tripped etc on that thing.

Still funny to me why the race directors didn't just move the tangent a few feet away.

— why am I thinking this is all you got —

The bigger issues are competitive equity. SS uses much higher enrollment numbers per division to compete against smaller sized schools at CIF.

Dana Hills for example is a DII school across other sections but DIII in SS.

SS has more DI schools because higher enrollments relative to the other sections.

Hey Sean, looks like we've got your work schedule all figured out now! 😄 Maybe it's time to explore a career at Letsrun since you're practically on it all day!

Mt Sac Course for anyone that hasn't run there before. The course is measured at 2.93 miles.

I can’t even call that a cross county course. That was bad

Mt. SAC thrown a curve
Pasadena Star-News Online

College: Mt. SAC thrown a curve
Course improvements call into question the validity of new marks
October 18, 2001
By Richard Gonzalez
Staff Writer

October, 2000: Glendale Hoover High's Anita Siraki stuns the national prep
cross country community when she breaks the Mt. San Antonio College course
record by a stunning 17 seconds.
November, 2000: Big Bear High's Ryan Hall runs the Mt. SAC course in
14:28, slicing four seconds off Jeff Nelson's 22-year-old boys course
record.

November, 2000: Don Lugo High's Erick Maldonado smashes the sophomore boys
course record as five of the six fastest 10th-grade course times in
history are achieved. All told, a whopping 39 revisions are made to the
all-time grade lists.

Oddly enough, these standout runners have enjoyed ample success before and
since, but not quite to the degree achieved recently along the revered
2.95-mile Mt. SAC course.

Well, maybe it's because the course had been shortened to 2.91 miles.
Mt. SAC cross country women's coach Doug Todd has confirmed in three
separate interviews since last November that the course has indeed been
shortened, an end result of safety concerns, course upgrades and
environmental effects.

"We struggled not to make the changes, because the Mt. SAC course and the
meet are so steeped in history," said Todd, who oversees this weekend's
conclusion of the 54th annual Mt. SAC Cross Country Invitational, the
nation's largest.
"Some changes were unavoidable, but it doesn't make accepting the changes
any easier."

The most notable change was reconfiguring a portion of the "Valley
Loop"
as a safety matter. With the number of entrants swelling to match the
meet's growth in popularity, maneuvering along the original course's
sharp, jutting turn less than a minute into the race created logistical
problems.

Mt. SAC staff changed it to a sweeping and easier to navigate path, which
Todd estimates cut about five seconds off each loop or 10 seconds per
runner off the double loop. If his estimate is accurate, that translates
to roughly a 50-second team-time (five runners) improvement over
"pre-renovation" years.

Additionally, heavy rains a few years ago caused erosion along some
patches of the course. Throw in the beautification steps imposed in recent
years a wider running path, planting of shade-producing trees along the
route, and considerable landscaping to improve footing and the
once-imposing course becomes a more inviting one.

"We try to respect history and tradition, yet safety becomes a factor too
... a much more important factor," said Mt. SAC men's coach Mike Goff, who
is the one entrusted with the upkeep of the course.
"If course historians have a problem with it, I understand," Goff
added.
"At the same time, if we can improve the course to maximum conditions for
runners, that's great, too. Bottom line, the best teams and runners will
still win."

The only drawback now is that the ever-popular time comparisons by
generations of runners might lack integrity, since the course has changed.
It used to be when one California runner would meet another, the first
question was: "What's your best time at Mt. SAC?"
Regardless, the course still offers a tough test to challengers.

"Well, Mt. SAC's been too hot, too dusty, too slow, too crowded, too
hard," said Goff, echoing some critics over the years. "And now...
theysay it's too fast. That's a new one."

If Mt. Sac is so bad, how come the invitational has so many entries? The only race which is larger by entries in the Country is likely Woodbridge, which frankly is just a joke of a course as it is just a flat course on predominantly artificial turf. But everyone loves the B.S. times they can say they ran. Remember it is CC, it is not times, it is placing. As someone else has said most of the top teams in the CIF SS run the prelims as a tempo. I

As to any injuries, I do not see any more, or less injuries than at other CC course in the SoCal area.

For Footlocker they run the course as 5K, not 2.93, and start in a very large parking lot without the single file start. I get why they do not do this at the invite as you cannot compress the races with a short time between races as the 5K course puts starters running up through the valley just after the start, while the previous race runners would be coming down from reservoir hill. You could do this at SS Finals since there are only ten races, and you could elongate the day. Having the prelims and the finals at different distances would be welcomed by some and hated by others.

Either way, the only thing I know for certain is that regardless of what any one says, any logic used, and opinion made, a large group of LetsRun, will snivel, whine and complain about it.

The same coaches that tolerate long stretches of asphalt, hard packed dirt roads, and putting green trimmed soccerplexes as “cross country”?

It's kinda metaphor for the entire state. I'm always baffled and shocked at the decisions California makes...

Mt. Sac is the most historic XC course in the USA outside of Van Cortland. It’s a fantastic place to race. The Riverside CIF course was crap and everyone hated it, except for teams with a bunch of soccer talent that didn’t know how to race hills. As a coach of more than one California state champion, I was thrilled when CIF was returned to Mount Sac.

Mt Sac is known as the world's toughest cross country course. Kids will brag that they ran Mt Sac for the rest of their lives. It's an honor to run Mt Sac.