08 State - 4A Girls (WA) - Christian, Bushman 12-0

[rainbowgirl28]

Code: Select all

Event 49  Girls Pole Vault 4A
===============================================================================
State Record:  12-06  2003        Stevie Marshalek, Kentlake                   
 WA All Time:  12-10  2002        Stevie Marshalek, Kentlake                   
Nat. Fed Rec:  13-09  2005        Mary Saxer, Lancaster, NY                   
USA All Time:  14-00  2005        Tiffany Maskulinski, Elma, NY               
           Name                        Year School            Seed Mark           
===============================================================================
Flight 1  Finals
  1    704 Colvin, Amy                   12 Thomas Jefferson    8-00.00
  2    522 Norman, Sarah                 11 Olympia             9-00.00
  3    134 Anderson, Alyssa              12 Bellarmine          9-06.00
  4    560 Sturdivant, Amy               11 Redmond            10-00.00
  5    426 Clark, Sarah                  10 Marysville-Pil     10-00.00
  6    261 Teuscher, Aimee               12 Evergreen-Van      10-00.00
  7    425 Caldwell, Michaela            12 Marysville-Pil     10-00.00
  8    590 Anderson, Karis               11 Roosevelt          10-00.00
  9    430 Mueller, Robin                12 Marysville-Pil     10-00.00
 10    133 Wessa, Lindsey                12 Battle Ground      10-03.00
 11    303 Williams, Amber               12 Gig Harbor         10-06.00
 12    292 Jones, Laura                  12 Gig Harbor         10-06.00
 13    377 Bueno, Kelsey                 10 Kent Meridian      10-06.00
 14    437 Clark, Tasha                  10 Mead               11-06.00
 15    574 Christian, Jessica            11 Richland           11-09.00
 16    731 Bushman, Shanie               12 Walla Walla        12-00.00


[jumpbackin]

They need to change the distribution of who qualifies. Or, better yet, scratch all distribution and go by heights. In this 4A girls section only three go from the east side leaving home at least a dozen who would destroy some of those girls from the west side. That's bull.

I checked the boys 4A and the girls 3A and find the same (though not to the same degree) unfairness.

[rainbowgirl28]

They need to change the distribution of who qualifies. Or, better yet, scratch all distribution and go by heights. In this 4A girls section only three go from the east side leaving home at least a dozen who would destroy some of those girls from the west side. That's bull.

I checked the boys 4A and the girls 3A and find the same (though not to the same degree) unfairness.

There are qualifying standards. Anyone who meets the qualifying standard at the district meet gets to go: http://www.wiaa.com/athletics/track/08t ... ndards.pdf

These standards are based on the average of the 3rd place finish at state for the past 3 years. I personally would like to see them be slightly easier, perhaps the average of the 5th or 6th place finisher at state.

[jumpbackin]

They need to change the distribution of who qualifies. Or, better yet, scratch all distribution and go by heights. In this 4A girls section only three go from the east side leaving home at least a dozen who would destroy some of those girls from the west side. That's bull.

I checked the boys 4A and the girls 3A and find the same (though not to the same degree) unfairness.

There are qualifying standards. Anyone who meets the qualifying standard at the district meet gets to go: http://www.wiaa.com/athletics/track/08t ... ndards.pdf

These standards are based on the average of the 3rd place finish at state for the past 3 years. I personally would like to see them be slightly easier, perhaps the average of the 5th or 6th place finisher at state.

I agree lowering the qualifying would be in order, or keeping the automatic standard where it is and add a qualifying minimum. I understand one regional meet can have a strong headwind and an 8'6 winner. That winner should be able to go if she's jumped at least 10 feet previously, but if she's only jumped 8'6 or 9 she shouldn't get to go.

Alternately there should be a plan in place for stronger sections to allow a competitor who jumps a high height in the meet but only comes in 4th or 5th place. This would provide the strongest competition and the most deserving competitors.

[rainbowgirl28]

I agree lowering the qualifying would be in order, or keeping the automatic standard where it is and add a qualifying minimum. I understand one regional meet can have a strong headwind and an 8'6 winner. That winner should be able to go if she's jumped at least 10 feet previously, but if she's only jumped 8'6 or 9 she shouldn't get to go.

Alternately there should be a plan in place for stronger sections to allow a competitor who jumps a high height in the meet but only comes in 4th or 5th place. This would provide the strongest competition and the most deserving competitors.

A qualifying minimum would never fly for a long list of reasons.

If you can't jump well that day, you don't deserve to go. I know it sucks for the kids who are ranked high and NH or something like that, but it is just part of being a competitor. Some kids get away with jumping a high bar or too because they go to poorly officiated meets. You know most meets don't weigh in, so maybe that athlete that NH'd at districts did so because they couldn't get on a pole over their weight. Do they deserve to be passed through to state?

Every year there are good athletes who get left home from state. I do think the qualifying standards should be eased a bit, but other than that I don't think we need any changes. In a state meet with 16 athlete fields (like all classifications have except 1B), I think the system generally works pretty well.

[jumpbackin]

I didn't say someone who doesn't do well at regionals should go based on previous height. I'm talking about someone who is in a tough regional section and comes in 4th or 5th should go instead of someone who comes in 2nd or 3rd, or even first in a week section.

You said it yourself, every year good athletes (I read "deserving athletes") get left home. That being the case, the system does need to be changed. I suspect the system favors the West Coast and I'm tempted to do a little digging to see if this is true or if this year is just an anomaly.

[rainbowgirl28]

I didn't say someone who doesn't do well at regionals should go based on previous height. I'm talking about someone who is in a tough regional section and comes in 4th or 5th should go instead of someone who comes in 2nd or 3rd, or even first in a week section.

You said it yourself, every year good athletes (I read "deserving athletes") get left home. That being the case, the system does need to be changed. I suspect the system favors the West Coast and I'm tempted to do a little digging to see if this is true or if this year is just an anomaly.

Different events are always stronger in different districts. Your district may be weaker in some of the other events, for example.

Anyway, the goal of the WIAA is not to get the top 16 athletes to state. The goal is to get the top athletes from each district to state. This is across the board in all sports. That's why you will never ever see a system where an athlete gets left at home for failing to achieve a certain mark if they place high enough at their district meet.

The district allocations are based on how many schools are in each district of a given classification. District 3 is booming with schools, therefore, they ended up with 6 spots to state.

Their #2 vaulter (11'6) NH'd at League, leaving a spot open for a lower vaulter. Their =#4 vaulter (10'6) NH'd at districts.

Statewide in 4A, the =#3 vaulter NH'd at her district meet. A 10'6 girl in district 4 had a bad (9'6) district meet and did not get through.

No one ranked in the top 10 in 4A girls got left behind due to tough competition. The top girls to get left behind in Eastern WA jumped 10 feet, two had 10'3 PRs, which is unlikely to score at State. If they had jumped 11', they would have automatically qualified. There have been occasions when athletes out of that region qualified on auto-marks in the pole vault.

It seems to me like the system is working fine. I still would like to see the standard lowered, but even if it was the average of 6th place at State, I don't think that would have lowered it down that much.

[jumpbackin]

Thank you for providing the details. I only saw the top three marks for the East side and the comparative drop off vs the west side. With no other girls jumping 10'6 or 11 at district, I agree it worked out fairly.

[rainbowgirl28]

Thank you for providing the details. I only saw the top three marks for the East side and the comparative drop off vs the west side. With no other girls jumping 10'6 or 11 at district, I agree it worked out fairly.

There certainly have been years that were less fair, I don't think a perfect system exists that will ever make everyone happy.

And the downside of having low entrants is that opening height is going to be 7'6 (6" below the lowest competitor).

[Robert schmitt]

at our 2A district meet all 8 girls in the 100M final made the state min standard.

[rainbowgirl28]

at our 2A district meet all 8 girls in the 100M final made the state min standard.

You guys are benefiting from years of weaker 2A competition. 2A has gotten much tougher since they reclassified!

[Robert schmitt]

I know we went from 14'6" ish min for boys and 11' min for girls to 9'7" last year and 10' this year and 13'6" for boys. back when we were 3A there were several years that we had auto qualifiers beyond our allocations. I still like what they did in WI after the district meets they would come out with an qualifying standard for state which I think was the 8th best mark of all the district qualifiers for that year. So if at you district meet you posted a mark equal to or better than the 8th best qualifier you are in. I think this is even better than the ave. 6th 0r 8th over three years. I basically is if you proved and performed at the district meet that you can place and score at the state meet you are in.