Feb 4

Chad Carsten's Sectional Proposal

47 comments

I appreciate Chad's effort to find a non-biased process of qualifying quality teams to the state meet. I think that this process will also allow some teams that are in very weak sectionals an entry into the state meet. A possible solution could be to use the WCCCA rankings in some way. Maybe state that at least 2 of the top 3 teams need to be ranked in the top 10 in order to be considered as an extra qualifier. I realize that the rankings are never perfect, but the top 10 is usually fairly accurate.

Great post, Mark!

 

I too really appreciate all the work that Chad put in to this proposal, but a quick glance at some of the extra qualifiers that would have advanced clearly shows that placing five runners in the top 29% of your sectional will clearly not determine the best extra qualifiers.

 

The problem of unbalanced sectionals (sectionals with two or more ranked teams, and/or multiple incomplete teams) will, and should be, a major cause of concern with this proposal, just as it is, and should be, with our current set up.

 

Then there is the issue of will we even be allowed to advance more teams to State? In the past the answer to that question has been "NO".

 

I would totally support this plan if all sectionals had a similar make up of complete teams, total runners, and ranked teams. But if that was actually the case, I bet the number of complaints about sectionals would be reduced dramatically.

Feb 6Edited: Feb 6

@Marty Bushland

From what I've been hearing, historically, you are correct Marty. However, I think we would be doomed to always think that must be the case and shouldn't try and come up with alternative solutions. As you may recall, Kate was quite impressive in her answers to your thoughts on this at the clinic last Friday. Lastly, if we don't give the WIAA something top consider then there will never be any changes to our sport.

 

Something to remember....in this proposal the same amount of qualifiers from 2006 (when we went to 10 sectionals for D1 and 8 for D2/D3) are making it to state in 2019 and beyond so there is no change in that regard.

 

Something to think about....is this better than what we have now? Many could argue yes as it doesn't reduce the qualifiers and there is a 77% chance of getting a team into the state meet from a "Top 3 sectional"" based on Kent's data crunching: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xgWKnlpLX0Dbyeda7wrBV7mboiwkKBBaISCi9obRtHI/edit?usp=sharing

 

Lastly, is this something you would support on a 2 or 3 year trial basis?

@Chad Carstens

 

  1. Thanks for the reply, Chad. I replied in bold below.

 

From what I've been hearing, historically, you are correct Marty. And that is the big issue here - WILL more teams be allowed to qualify for State?

 

However, I think we would be doomed to always think that must be the case and shouldn't try and come up with alternative solutions. I agree that we should keep trying to come up with alternative solutions, but after 10+ years of hearing NO MORE TEAMS/RUNNERS at STATE, and with no justification as to why, I get frustrated that you weren't given that parameter to work within, and that we spend time talking about something that has been shot down time and time again in the past.

 

As you may recall, Kate was quite impressive in her answers to your thoughts on this at the clinic last Friday. I definitely give her credit for replying, but what did you feel was impressive?

 

Lastly, if we don't give the WIAA something top consider then there will never be any changes to our sport. I totally agree, but as stated above, I will be shocked if they (Jim/WIAA) allow more teams to advance to State.

 

Something to remember....in this proposal the same amount of qualifiers from 2006 (when we went to 10 sectionals for D1 and 8 for D2/D3) are making it to state in 2019 and beyond so there is no change in that regard. Wait, isn't the point of your plan to add a few of the better teams that meet your top 29% criteria? Wouldn't there be more teams than there there is currently?

 

Something to think about....is this better than what we have now? Sure, adding a few of the 3rd place teams is better, but I don't like the fact that it is not a true predictor of the best 3rd place teams from sectionals

 

Many could argue yes as it doesn't reduce the qualifiers (If it gets passed as is) and there is a 77% chance of getting a team into the state meet from a "Top 3 sectional"" based on Kent's data crunching: Again, I appreciate your work, and Kent's work, but please explain how 23% of the 3rd place teams in "TOP 3 Sectionals" don't also advance as extra qualifiers? How would you feel if you were the 3rd best team in the State and were in the toughest sectional and you don't advance to State but 10 teams you have beaten numerous times advance, including an obviously average, never ranked at all during the season team advances? Have we fixed anything in that secenario? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xgWKnlpLX0Dbyeda7wrBV7mboiwkKBBaISCi9obRtHI/edit?usp=sharing

Lastly, is this something you would support on a 2 or 3 year trial basis? Certainly, if the WIAA would actually allow more teams at State, I have to take my chances that maybe if we were 3rd we could get lucky and pick up one of the EQ spots. But the same complaints, or even more will surface when the best 3rd place teams fail to advance because of the disparities in sectional setups.

 

Load more replies

This is a great proposal and I hope that we can move forward with it. As I mentioned we need to talk to Jim Neuman to see if Ridges can handle any additional runners beyond 20 for the D1 races? I do not see a problem with D2 and D3 as we have the extra boxes.

I'll ask some simple questions:

 

1) Is it typical to see one or two of the best five or six teams in the state fail to qualify? Or is this uncommon?

 

2) If so, who are these great teams that are constantly not making it to state? Which sectionals are, year after year, loaded and constantly putting two teams in the top four every year?

 

3) If this is the case, in some divisions, in some years (or multiple), would this plan alleviate the issue and get those top five or top six type teams to state?

 

 

7 days ago

The Madison West Sectional has had for about 6 years at least 3 sometimes 4 ranked teams in the sectionals. In the past 3 years at least 2 of those team have been in the top 4 in rankings and final placings. That means than anyone ranked below seven or eight has almost no chance of making it to state even if they are the 7th best team in the state. For many team that make it to state even if they are ranked know they probably don't have the firepower to take home a trophy so just being there is a reward. With the present system that reward is given to usually about a third of the field most which don't deserve it except that they happened to be in a sectional with little competition. What are they doing. Rewarding mediocrity and in some sports creating mismatches at the championships level that are embarrassing.

5 days ago

@rtmarks65 Our sectional has had a team finish in the top 3 at state five of the past six years, including a couple of state champs and a runner up. Our sectional has had three of the past 6 individual champs, all from different teams. I'm using the past six years because that was the beginning of the 5k era. Going back further, though, the story is about the same. In the Northwoods, there are some strong girls teams, both presently, and historically. This year, and last, our sectional had four ranked girls teams. This year, our sectional had, perhaps, two of the best teams to not qualify (us and Hudson). Madison Memorial was another great team that did not qualify for state, in that tough sectional, and they might have finished 11th or 12th. I think we, in Menomoine, might have been 14th or 15th - same with Hudson. None of us would have qualified under this plan. In fact, the team closest to extra-qualifying for D1 girls would have been a 3rd place team in a poor sectional that would not have been competitive at state.

 

I know the plan took a lot of work, and I respect that, but it doesn't take into account the strength of the sectional or the quality of the extra qualifier. It just doesn't. Until it does, it won't be equitable.

Thanks for the questions Mark and Craig. This was created by Kent Miehe and was shared at the WISCTA clinic last Friday as part of our discussion. He created a way to find out (other than using state rankings) to see if there is a method to determine what is a "strong" sectional. Here is the information for people to take a look at: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xgWKnlpLX0Dbyeda7wrBV7mboiwkKBBaISCi9obRtHI/edit?usp=sharing

 

I think that might help address some of your questions. If not, I'l be back to check for responses.

Looking at your data, the big assumption is that the next best team to not qualify is the one that is 3rd place in the strongest sectional. In my years of looking at girls D1 rankings, this has only happened once or twice. Last year (2017), Kettle Moraine was most likely the best girls team to not qualify, and they were in the best sectional. This year (2018) this wasn't the case at all. The 3rd place team in the best sectional, which would have qualified under your plan (I think) wasn't even ranked at all during the season and was, perhaps, the 32nd best D1 girls school (based on my data). Meanwile, Pewaukee and Waunakee, both of whom were in sectionals that weren't quite as strong, would have most likely finished 12th or 13th, just behind SPASH at State. Those were the best teams to not qualify.

 

@craig_olson

 

Great point, Craig!

 

If strength of a sectional was to be measured, and only by looking at the top two teams from that sectional - well, then, based on those two data points we have something. But that has no bearing on what could happen with the rest of the teams, the overall quality of the sectional, including total number of complete teams, or total number of runners. This was the major flaw with just using top 25, since all sectionals didn't have the same field size and is the same reason the top 29% does not predict the best extra qualifiers - it's all about overall quality/depth of the sectional, not just how good the top two teams are.

5 days ago

What can be better than state ranking that have been crystallized out over an entire season by people who research the results, discuss the placements afterwords, and then finally make the decision. The proof is in the top 10 of the state results. Why only the top 10? That's because much of the bottom 10 at state shouldn't have been there based on quality of teams. There is definitely a way to balance things without destroying the geographic representation . I just take creativity and a little time and there are probably more than one way to make it much better than the system we have. We end up shooting ourselves in the foot because we can never get together and agree on much.

Load more replies
Feb 6Edited: Feb 6

Guys,

 

I am not going to say anything you don't already know...

 

I think we need to look at this and any other proposal under the lens of does it make things better than they currently are. There are lots of ideas out there, many of which I have started. One of the real positives of this plan is that it doesn't change or take something away from anyone. It is designed to give teams who currently don't have a chance to qualify (3rd place teams) an opportunity. It is not perfect. Chad has acknowledged that from the beginning. Kent's data shows that, more times than not, 3rd place teams from "tougher" sectionals get a chance. That is the complaint we have often heard with our current system and the problem Chad has tried to address from the beginning.

 

This plan can definitely make things better.

 

This does not mean that other ideas cannot also make things better, but this is the one that has the most legs right now. My feeling is that we should continue to look at and propose lots of possible improvements. It gets tiresome watching other sports get ideas approved at the WIAA level while we struggle to even put things in front of them. I guess that is discussion for another forum...

5 days ago

I think the 29% proposal does indeed make it worse not better. List me the ranked teams that would have made to state with this proposal. I venture to say that more and weaker teams would now be allowed to get to state. The rankings as mentioned are pretty darn good to my mind. I never felt our team was misrepresented on them whereas the sectional assignments in our area really were out of wack. I personally do not like the idea of extra qualifiers beyond what we have 20 and 16 is enough. I am quite sure the WIAA will not allow more teams than we have and I think the course dictates that. Either balancing or seeding the present sectionals, going back to 8 sectionals and 6 sectionals with 4 wildcard teams picked by a unbiased coaches committee, or even the 5 supersectionals in D1 picking 4, or in D2 and D3 4 supersectionals picking 4. In any case both would preserve regional representation and balance the power. Nobody is going to give someone a free pass to state without competing for it and raters are smart enough and know the courses well enough not to base their rankings totally on times. Head to head is the primary times would be secondary. Looks at the top half of the state results and tell me the rankers did not nail it pretty well this year. Why not the bottom half- well you have your answer with the way sectionals were set up to knock out about 30% of the best teams and replace them with teams that probably haven't placed in the top 3 in an invitational all year.

5 days agoEdited: 5 days ago

@rtmarks65 there are lots of things going on here. I am a spreadsheet/list guy, so I will list some thoughts...

 

1) Regarding ranked teams that would make it, 62% of the teams that would have qualified under this proposal were ranked teams. There are lots of good teams that would get an opportunity that they wouldn't normally have. That list is in Chad's proposal.

2) From the beginning, Chad has been completely honest about the weaknesses of this plan. I have talked with Chad extensively and helped him collect data to come up with the 29% plan. He is very aware that the 3rd place team in some sectionals have a better chance at meeting this standard than the 3rd place team in a more competitive sectional.

3) The way this is better than our current system is that it gives 3rd place teams a chance they currently don't have. It is as simple as that. My team has been in a loaded sectional each of the five years, with 3-5 ranked teams each year. I know full well that my chances of meeting that 29% is not very good with that many good teams. I know that other "weaker" sectionals will have a better chance at meeting this criteria than we would. However, at least we have that chance with this plan. That is better than what we currently have. Not perfect, but better.

4) As I have said many times, there are lots of ideas out there that are good. Sectional seeding is one great idea. I have officially proposed a four division plan twice that has not moved forward. This 29% proposal is the latest idea that has gotten some traction. Again, it is an idea that does not pretend to solve all the problems. It simply attempts to better our situation by meeting an objective measure at the sectional and giving an opportunity that doesn't currently exist. I think that is better.

5) In the end, our association has to decide if the status quo is the best we can do. If we would like change, we have to get behind something. Do we do that idea by idea and try to make incremental changes? Do we go in feet first with a comprehensive plan that includes a number of ideas and makes a major shift in qualifying procedures? Do we just stay the course we are currently on? I don't have an answer to those questions for our association, but I am firmly in the group that the status quo can be improved, even if we cannot find a perfect solution.

5 days ago

@Kevin Frehner

 

Kevin, do you recall some of the hang ups with the Four Division plans you presented and why that idea has never moved forward?

Load more replies

So here is an angle that I haven't heard discussed with this sectional proposal:

 

Would coaches be willing (especially in Div. 1) to see the automatic qualifying teams be reduced to 16 and then add extra qualifiers, based upon the plan?

 

I understand that it took some work to convince the WIAA to add teams to the State Meet but I know that there are some coaches that believe we "water-downed" the field by adding more teams. I don't remember all of the arguments that went into adding more teams to the State Meet, but I'm guessing it was based upon qualifying numbers in other sports.

 

But an argument could be made that an extra qualifying team in Chad's proposal may be a more competitive team at the State Meet.

 

Thoughts?

5 days ago

Eric: you are partially correct on this but the watering down is really enhanced by the bad sectional alignments that are allowing weak to average teams to get to the championship. The state meet should be the best of the best meeting, a clash of Titans at the top if you wish followed by some pretty tough soldiers. Right now its is the top 12 or so teams embarrassing the bottom 8. I like the 20 teams they have now- it is big enough so you better have good 4-5-6 men to win but not overly large even though I think the course is quite jammed in many spots and forces one to get out harder than normal. The 29% assumes that the WIAA will just say ok to adding more teams than 20 and I believe this is a false assumption dooming the 29% plan.

5 days agoEdited: 5 days ago

Eric: a team like Sun Prairie boys this year would have made it with Chad's plan and they being ranked would have some credibility. The odds are however in favor of having teams like the third place finisher in the Kenosha sectional qualifying(as per Chad's calculations this year) . Why? In that sectional only 2 runners broke 17 minutes in the Madison West sectional more like 15 guys. Which sectional would you rather be in to try and get your top five in the top 29%? The 29% runner a Kenosha was about 17:46 where the same runner at the West sectional was 17:16. If all sectionals were even relatively balanced Chad's system would probably work. They are not and unless something changes or we get behind something that really works everything will stay the same. I remember when Marcy was in charge of CC she and our president at the time would get together and make some attempt to balance things out. She is gone and so is common sense. Even if his plan works we won't get more teams so it is dead before we even start.

May 22

I would like to thank Chad for the massive effort he has put in on this and at least it has brought the problem to the WIAA's attention and it appears they are trying to make some improvements. I agree that anything is better than the thoughtless merely expedient system they have now. My one objection is that in a very weak sectional it will be much easier to get 5 runners in the top 29% and then you just have another even weaker team making it to state. Is there a limit on the extra qualifying teams. The WIAA will not want to many teams. My feeling is that if there is a sectional with no ranked teams then that sectional would be allowed only 1 qualifying team not two. If the sectional has 3 ranked teams then they get 3 qualifying teams which may or may not be the 3 ranked teams as they still have to earn those 3 spots. I personally think 20 teams is enough for that course. There is absolutely no reason to have 2 teams ranked in the top 5 in the same sectional. (Neenah-Spash boys 2018, Middleton-Madison West boys 2018) A third place in those sectionals could probably easily beat champions of at least 4 other sectionals. To qualify when you have the top two teams in the state in your sectional will still be much tougher to get your top 5 in the top 29% than if that same 3rd place team was down in Kenosha or South Milwaukee.

May 22

Also by having the number of teams qualifying to state out of a sectional based on the number of ranked teams in the sectional would force the WIAA to spread the ranked teams around as best as they can and still keep the regional representation since one team from each sectional is guaranteed to qualify to state. How tough can that be? A good playground director or someone at the YMCA could do better than what we have now.

May 22Edited: 5 days ago

I think Eric's idea has quite a bit of merit as well and that would keep the total teams at a manageable 20. Go back to the 8 sectionals and after the 16 pick 4 wildcards. A system to pick the wildcards would be the rub. Rankings- the 29% rule?

May 22

Here's a good one Eric. The reduction of sectionals would save the WIAA money. Knock out 12 sectionals would save them quite a bit. D1 20 schools D2 16 D3

Hi Everyone,

 

I have updated the link that says "Proposal Link" with the 2019 sectional results. Feel free to click on it and see how things shook down this year based on the 29% of the field proposal.

 

As a reminder, it is based on team finishers, not total finishers. As it is a extra team qualifier proposal, it wouldn't make sense to include incomplete runners in the calculation.

 

See you at the Ridges!

Oct 29Edited: Oct 29

I think by looking at the xtra qualifiers for D1 which is where we are we see an obvious monstrous flaw in this system. The system does not taken into consideration the major flaw of the sectional alignments -the imbalance of power in some of the sectionals. The most rather hilarious situation this year is that in probably the weakest sectional there is an extra qualifying team Badger just because they were in a sectional where only 1 runner broke 17 minutes and most ran times that would not have been in the top 25% of almost all the sectionals. Sun Praire the other possible extra qualifier was a solid team but lost to Madison Memorial and Verona in their conference meet.

Verona beat West Allis Hale by over 100 points at Wisco and beat Kenosha Indian trail by 60 and now your system allows a team that Kenosha IT beat to advance to state while Whitefish Bay, Verona, Madison Memorial, Marshfield and probably Kimberly as well could easily beat KIT, Hale, Westosha, and West Bend West which Verona beat by over 100 points at Lourdes. This system will get more teams to state but many times it's just more teams that shouldn't be there. I feel the WIAA will not allow more than 20 teams and I happen to agree with them on this as the course is overloaded right now. This system will NOT resolve the problems. - I would not vote to have this system. I was suspicious of it before and now I see it's potential of getting more to state without solving the embedded problem. I would rather see 8 sectionals qualifying 2 and then have a committee pick four wild cards. Using the rankings and head to heads any good playground director could pick those teams. Who would they be this year- Madison Memorial, Kimberly, Verona, and Whitefish Bay with Marshfield right in there as well. Those who disagree with me let me know what teams you would pick. All four of these teams were ranked in the top 15 in the state during this season and proved themselves. Everyone one of these teams were in sectionals with at least 3 highly ranked teams with Verona and Madison Memorial being in the sectional with 5 teams that were ranked or had been. #2, #5, #12, #15 and Sauk Prairie that had been ranked as high as 18th. We need to do a better job of seeding the sectionals while keeping a reasonable geographic representation or go back to 8 sectionals and pick 4 wildcards. Football coaches seed their own sectionals, tennis coaches seed their sectional. Our ranking now are pretty darn close and could now easily be used to pick wildcards. I am not in favor of this new plan. It is too complicated and it does not get enough of the best teams to state. You are for sure leaving at least 20-25% of the top 15 teams in the state at home this year and it's not because they weren't good enough it's because the system isn't good enough and is letting kids down that achieved a certain level of excellence. I am not sure the WIAA is trying to encourage that with this broken system.

 

 

 

 

 

The fundamental flaw with CC Sectionals is the lack of balance between them in the number of complete teams, total runners, and depth of quality runners. D2 Girls had the largest disparity with the Wisco Sectional only having SEVEN complete teams and 57 finishers in comparison to FIVE other D2 sectionals that had 14 or 15 complete teams and 95-103 finishers on the girls side!?!? So,7 vs. 15, and 57 vs. 103...that simply should never be allowed to happen.

 

Even D1 had a sectional with only EIGHT complete teams and 61 finishers whereas 12/84 should be the norm...

 

Then you have some sectionals with five ranked teams and neighboring sectionals with one or less ranked teams. So...the luck or unluckiness of your sectional placement may be a greater factor on qualifying for state than the health, and quality of your team...

 

With the dumping of 40ish small former D2 teams in to D3 appears to have helped offset some of the big disparities that have existed in the past, but 11 vs. 17 and 92 vs. 123 still did occur! Looking at comparing divisions you have 7 vs 17 and two teams make it out of each, and then the next five best runners not on those teams would mean FIVE out a field of 43 vs. Five out of a field of 109...shocking that this has been allowed to continue to happen!

 

As Randy mentioned, with the use of some ranking data, AND factual data on the incomplete, weak, average, and good to highly ranked teams - we certainly should be able come up with much better balanced sectionals, and THEN a system like what Chad has worked on would have much more merit.

 

Can the D1 coaches explain why they are not pushing for combining sectionals? 8-12 teams seems like such a small meet, especially when you have 20 in the State Field. If Eight D3 schools were able to host sectionals with 20-22 starting boxes, I would think finding Five sectional sites for D1 that could handle 20-24 teams wouldn't be an issue.

 

Let's hope Chad's plan and the current unbalanced set up of sectionals sparks some positive discussion and workable solutions that can be sold to the powers that be at the WIAA!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oct 29

Chad just because I disagree with your proposal I applaud your passion and attempt at resolving this mess. It is just that your system would only work if each of the sectionals were reasonably balanced in the talent pool. Many are not so obviously it is much easier to achieve your 29% rule in a weak sectional than it would be in a loaded sectional. For example using your 29% rule the 24th place at Kenosha ran 17:46 whereas the 24 place at the Madison West invitational ran 17:16. We do know that different course have different difficulties but in this case have seen times from both courses during the season they are pretty similar. So the 29% set us up with the same problem if I take my team to Kenosha and run the same times from West we place our 5th man about 18th which easily falls within the 29% at Kenosha but not at West. The 29% just does not give a good indicator of a teams quality. I think KIT ran well enough to deserve a trip to state in some other sectionals as well but putting in the third place team here is definitely not correct even the second place team would not have made it out of any other sectional except maybe Manitowoc.

Oct 29

I could almost guarantee that if the association got behind a workable plan with at least 80% of the membership supporting it we could get some positive changes made. I have seen over the years that complaining about inequities in the sectionals has produced results. Strange how suddenly this year Muskego girls were removed from that loaded sectional and sent south which was a good move. Why does it take phone calls or complaints to make things happen that should already be obvious to the people in charge of CC at the WIAA and they could make the changes to make the state meet the premier CC event of the Wisconsin High School CC season. For example in the move of Muskego girls to Kenosha now you have another top 10 team that won't get knocked out of the state meet needlessly in the other sectional and you remove a team that is nowhere near as good as Waukesha West or Arrowhead girls.

7 days agoEdited: 7 days ago

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. Conversations are great to have!

 

I want to encourage everyone to be sure and look across all divisions and genders when voting for items when they are on the table. If coaches only focus on their division or the gender they coach, is that the healthiest point of view for the entire sport of cross country?

 

Randy - voting is open if you haven't voted yet. Bryon emailed all coaches several months ago. I do think there will be another push in the coming weeks to get people to vote. Whether people like something or dislike it, we need to vote. If we don't vote, our voices will never be heard at the top level of the WIAA. That I know for sure.

 

If you want to see this be implemented on a two-year trial, vote yes.

If you don't want to see this implemented in a two-year trial, vote no.

 

Either way....please vote!

7 days ago

Did we ever hear back from the WIAA if they would allow MORE teams to advance to state as extra qualifiers? Again, in the past, I have been told we need to work with the 52 teams we currently get per gender, but could split them up in any format we agreed on...so even when four divisions was being discussed, we would still need to stay with the same number of total qualifying teams as we currently have even if we voted to go to four or five divisions.

7 days ago

Marty - I haven't been told no in the conversations I have been a part of since making this public two years ago. Jim Newman is willing to do what the WIAA and the association decides together should be contested at the state meet.

7 days ago

That's what I have been thinking, and that is why it is so disappointing that the WIAA hasn't shared the parameters in which you need to work. I'm hoping I'm wrong, and that the WIAA will welcome FIVE more teams at State like your plan would allow for if it was in place this season. Yet, even if that happens, we will still have the same complaints as we do now, and probably more, because of which teams are extra qualifiers. Again, better balance (don't worry about trying to create perfectly balanced sectionals) the neighboring sectionals, THEN, your idea could have some real merit. Right now, based on the huge discrepancies between sectionals, luck or lack of luck, will play as much or more in to who qualifies versus who actually deserves to qualify.

7 days ago

Another big problem we have in our association was coined by a fellow coach that he heard said about us. I can't repeat or even give an acronym for it but it wasn't good. About the only good thing we have accomplished as an association to improve cross country is the 10 medals and going back to the indoor awards. We fought over the 5K move and waited until the WIAA shoved it down our throats and now we see that it improved the sport and gave us equity that we should have seen long ago. I can almost guarantee that if this association gets behind something totally that we can accomplish many more improvements in our sport. We, like the law makers in our country and state have factions that fight for their own sometimes selfish and petty ideas and never get anything positive done as a result. I know if I was 20 years younger I would run for president(of our association) and try hard to pull everyone together but my time is past to do that and must trust that younger coaches will see what is best for the kids in our sport. First and foremost get rid of the idea that prevails today of giving away rewards to those who don't earn them. Like being forced to give someone who hasn't earned it an A in a class. The association can accomplish a lot by working together if not we will remain the butt of jokes compared to the other associations.

© 2019 by Wisconsin Cross Country Coaches Association.

    Proudly created with Wix.com

A list of our sponsors will be in the footer.

  • w-facebook