CCS At-Large Proposal

Coaches I'll try to keep this brief. What I'm proposing that the SCVAL submit to the CCS office is in addition to the Team At-Large time standard that we already have of going from Leagues to CCS that we also create an INDIVIDUAL At-Large standard to get from Leagues to CCS. Right now, the only way an Individual can go on to CCS is if they're the Top 3 finishers, not on an advancing team, from Leagues. In the past, if you run 17:15-17:20 for guys and sub 21:00 for gals, you usually would be one of those Top 3 individuals and you would go on. There have been cases in the last two years where some individuals ran faster than these times but did not get to move on since they weren't in the Top 'x' finishers needed from their respective league (mostly the WCAL is getting the short end of the stick). I'll admit that I started looking into this for I feel that this year and next, I might have a runner break 17:00 but end up not finishing in the Top 3 - hence why I started to look at this in depth. This proposal can benefit all leagues and runners that are fast enough to be in the CCS meet but for some reason are left home. Using the same formula as the Team At-Large calculation, I went back 4 years (assuming that Crystal & Toro times were basically equal) and calculated what the %50 Avg individual time would be (see Table #1). Feeling that these times were too easy to achieve, I went and found the %25 Avg time would be (Table #2) and this seemed to fall in line more with what it seems to take to qualify as an Individual. I then went back to past League results for the past 4 years (Table #3) to see how many additional runners would have been added to the CCS Meet had this Individual At-Large Time standard had been in place - as you can see, some but not many would have been added. I believe those individuals that didn't get to go on were robbed of the opportunity to compete at the CCS finals. Given that the CCS office is now looking at standards in order to go on from Leagues to CCS for Track, I see no reason that the same logic not be applied to XC as well. I would like everyone to take a look at this and be prepared to discuss it at our end of year meeting. If we as coaches think we should proceed with this, then I will take in on to go to our League Commisioner (Tony Nunes) and present to him along with the coaches feedback on this issue. Hopefully, with his approval, we would then be able to submit to the CCS BOM so that they might act on it at their Jan meeting and this could become policy by 2006 XC season (2007 at the latest). Thanks for your consideration. hank lawson Lynbrook XC TABLE #1 2001 (CS) 2002 (Toro) 2003 (CS) 2004 (Toro) Top 50% Avg Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls D1 17:26 21:54 17:27 21:57 17:17 21:31 17:42 21:57 17:28 21:50 D2 18:05 21:35 18:12 22:02 17:53 21:55 17:27 21:07 17:54 21:40 D3 17:20 21:09 17:45 21:21 18:10 21:37 17:48 22:26 17:45 21:38 D4 17:54 22:55 18:19 22:30 17:49 22:06 18:00 22:46 18:00 22:34 TABLE #2 2001 (CS) 2002 (Toro) 2003 (CS) 2004 (Toro) Top 25% Avg Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls D1 16:48 20:29 16:55 21:07 16:38 20:35 17:02 20:46 16:50 20:44 D2 17:11 20:22 17:33 21:04 17:15 20:57 16:57 20:17 17:14 20:31 D3 16:51 20:08 17:15 20:22 17:20 20:28 17:18 20:52 17:11 20:27 D4 17:08 21:28 17:25 21:24 16:59 20:59 17:14 20:55 17:11 21:14 TABLE #3 Added Runners reaching 25% Standard from League Meets 2001 (CS) 2002 (Toro) 2003 (CS) 2004 (Toro) Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls D1 D2 2 2 D3 3 1 D4 1 1 1