Running track is fun in Indiana, just for the single-class state meet alone. Our times aren’t always the fastest (save for a recent era…), but I think our nationally subpar times indicate some/many of us were/are underdeveloped. Morgan Uceny and I are six years apart but came from the same regional (state qualifying) meet. We both were 2:13 HS runners (now, she was faster by .6 lol). We know how her story goes — spare me the tripping comments. We’re proud of her and all she did and has done for Northern Indiana. So yeah - long story short, our state meet isn’t the hardest one to qualify for (depending on where you live), but it’s a fun meet when some small schools with studs come close to winning the team championship.
-
10
-
California has deepest talent pool year after year due to shear numbers. XC has 5 divisions, each with it's own champions, so it's a little easier to qualify than TF, which is another thing altogether. The best TF athletes work their way through qualifying and compete in a single championships. This is the participation census for boys and girls:00
-
illrunner wrote:
xcrunner6 wrote:
State as in the entirety of the state. I.E. the ONE state meet that Indiana holds. or the ONE state meet that Ohio holds with three different sections of the ONE state meet.
I don't get why people call it "states" either. It is grammatically incorrect. "States" is plural, you know, as in more than one. "States" would have a more correct meaning if was considered some sort of national meet. The "state meet" would be the meet that culminates at the end of a season in one state, as in the INDIANA STATE MEET. Where does "INDIANA STATES MEET" come from? The schools that don't even teach moderatley decent grammar? Or is this another stupid euro thing, like when the they say Nike like (NighK)...or Puma like (PUooma).
Counties, sectionals, regionals, nationals, states, worlds... what about all these?
10 -
That is harsh wrote:
Having half of sub9 guys not make it is harsh. I always thought it made sense to have some sort of time qualifier, even if very few can reach it. In Texas back in the day (maybe it's different now, idk), there were only 4 regions and one had to finish in the top 2 to make it. Normally, I'd have no issue with this, but not every region was equal (the region with the north Houston burbs were always stronger), and having only 8 runners in the 3200m at State was silly. But, they didn't want more than 8 in the sprints, so whatchyagonna do?
it hasn’t changed in Texas. In fact, it’s actually like, 10x worse these days. You see 40.9 4x100s regularly not making the state meet in 6a and 5a.
i remember in 2022 5 of the top 10 4x400 teams IN THE NATION were in the same race at regionals. two go to states. absolute carnage.
00 -
The question was about XC. The answer was already provided. Minnesota has had multiple teams not qualify for the state meet who ended up qualifying for NXN and some finished very well. No other state had a situation close to that.
16 -
Seems like people are taking one of three different interpretations of this question. All are fair, but each likely has different answers.
1. How fast one needs to run in order to qualify.
2. How many runners qualify relative to how many participate.
3. How hard is the process leading up to qualifying.
00 -
The correct answer though would be; the best team not to qualify to state meet in each state. Compare those and the state with the best therefore is the hardest to qualify in. Minnesota.
12 -
california no question
30 -
The old 6AA wrote:
If one uses an objective criteria, this becomes an answerable question.
Which state has sent the most teams to NXN that were unable to qualify for their own state meet?
Minnesota has had this happen multiple times in the past decade. With Hopkins, Edina, and Wayzata all residing in the same section - only top 2 qualify.
I think New York had something similar where their regional only had one qualifying team.
. It sucked for the athletes, but looking back there was something cool about having such a high concentration of talent in a 10 mile radius.10 -
This quoted post has been removed.
In the interest of neutralizing this obvious troll ...
Well in Alberta it's Provs, not State or States (what did Uncle Rico say - that should be the decider ... but I digress). There are 4 million people in AB, with about 1.3 million each in the Calgary and Edmonton zones. So it is indeed tougher to qualify from Edmonton than from a rural zone. Also, there are no classes, just one big Provincial Meet.
But wait ... each Grade has a race - Junior, Intermediate, Seniors for Grades 10, 11, and 12 (or tenth grade, eleventh grade, twelfth grade as you Yanks say.) Also, there is no team qualification, it's the top 20 or so from each zone in each race.)
So bottom line - it's pretty easy to qualify for Provs (aka Canadian States) in Alberta, especially if you live the NW, SO, or NE zones - as opposed to Calgary or Edmonton. (In some races, every kid who enters the Zone race will qualify.)
Fun fact - I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure Greg qualified all 3 years in high school for XC Provs.
Also, I can't believe I just spent 15 minutes writing this post. I mean in the great scheme of things, who the F8ck cares? Certainly, not me. The Bro man seriously needs to get a life beyond Lets Run.
30 -
xc me wrote:
The question was about XC. The answer was already provided. Minnesota has had multiple teams not qualify for the state meet who ended up qualifying for NXN and some finished very well. No other state had a situation close to that.
no sh*t. i went on a tangent about track. it’s a free country.
11 -
Huangdi wrote:
it hasn’t changed in Texas. In fact, it’s actually like, 10x worse these days. You see 40.9 4x100s regularly not making the state meet in 6a and 5a.
i remember in 2022 5 of the top 10 4x400 teams IN THE NATION were in the same race at regionals. two go to states. absolute carnage.
Wow - that is really bad! We also had a situation like that at my regional meet in the 4x4. Two teams ran 3:10 and the 3rd 3:11-low (and, of course, didn't make it to the state meet). Like your 2022 example, those 3 times were all way up there in the national rankings at the time (in the 1900s century).
00 -
Hoosier girl wrote:
Running track is fun in Indiana, just for the single-class state meet alone. Our times aren’t always the fastest (save for a recent era…), but I think our nationally subpar times indicate some/many of us were/are underdeveloped. Morgan Uceny and I are six years apart but came from the same regional (state qualifying) meet. We both were 2:13 HS runners (now, she was faster by .6 lol). We know how her story goes — spare me the tripping comments. We’re proud of her and all she did and has done for Northern Indiana. So yeah - long story short, our state meet isn’t the hardest one to qualify for (depending on where you live), but it’s a fun meet when some small schools with studs come close to winning the team championship.
Indiana is living in the past. They need to go with the times and have classes. Very few small schools make it to state, especially in track.
00 -
I ran 6A in Texas. Ran 16:0X at my region meet for 5k and was the first individual to not get the state meet qualifier.
00 -
It makes sense that times to qualify would be faster in more populous states.
00 -
xc me wrote:
The correct answer though would be; the best team not to qualify to state meet in each state. Compare those and the state with the best therefore is the hardest to qualify in. Minnesota.
The correct answer would be the worst team to qualify to the state meet in each state. A state can be the easiest state to qualify to state but also have the hardest qualifying race to qualify for state, those things are not mutually exclusive.
00 -
No. That metric would be used to identify the easiest state to qualify in. The state with the best team not to qualify, is the hardest state to qualify in.
If I asked what the hardest college to get admitted to, it is the one in which the smartest kid go rejected. The easiest to get admitted to is the one that has the dumbest kid who got accepted.
00 -
Utah Observer wrote:
I guess I'm just a little more competitive by nature and don't see the point in everyone getting a trophy.
Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple. Ask yourself, is that you? Think of others.
10 -
OED wrote:
I’ve given you far more reason for why they should remain as is than you have for why they should be combined.
The meet you just proposed actually justifies why 5A and 6A are separate groups. Imagine having a state meet where if you aren’t a top 25 national team you have no hope of finishing in the top 3 (let alone winning). Heck, let’s just do away with state meets all together and have one giant national meet. That would be super-awesome, which seems to be the only rational behind your position.
The different time qualifiers for track also demonstrate why having 6 classifications is necessary. 4:56 gets you to state in 1A (very small schools mostly in farming communities where there is little time for sports), but you’ve got to hit 4:19 to qualify in 6A. The only classifications that have times close together are 5A (4:21) and 6A, but there are so many good kids in these classifications that if they were combined you’d have 4:15ish guys not even qualifying for state. That’s a bit extreme. Utah is no different than other states in what they do. You’ve presented no reason for why combining makes sense.
That’s different than how California does it (which has been mentioned in other posts). The only 4:56 milers going to the California State Meet are in the girls race, and even that isn’t a given.
Just looking at last season’s results, a number of 4:15 milers didn’t make the CA state meet.
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun