Randy - Keep in mind that there are numerous coaches that do not have access to track talk and can't use that as a site for discussion, result seeking, etc. rtmarks65 Nov 8 1. @Marty Bushland I agree that our result page now is not very good. I go to track talk, athletic.net, and pt timing to get most of my info.

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.

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!

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!

@Marty Bushland Responses underlined. 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? I am willing to try and see if we can change that perception with moving a proposal forward. 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. Again, I am willing to put something on the table for the WIAA to consider and see if it will be a yes or no. If we operate by what we've "heard" over the years, I think that is a troubling way to go. 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? I walked away thinking that Kate has a strong knowledge of how the WIAA operates and I believe her that if the membership supports the proposal she will do everything she can to get it passed. Lastly, if we don't give the WIAA something to 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. I ask for your support in voting "yes" so that we can see if there is light at the end of the tunnel on this proposal. I would also be excited to hear what they have to say. But if we don't give them something to consider, we won't really know what "they" think. 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? I wasn't clear in my thoughts. I'm sorry. I meant for it to read that the current amount of qualifiers will stay the same, with the possible addition of a few more across all divisions/genders. So there aren't less qualifiers or a sectional being removed. At the very least, state will get the status quo, with the possibility of a few more teams. Does that make sense? 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 Marty, if our team was ranked as the third "best" team in state and we don't perform at sectionals AND didn't meet the extra qualifier proposal then we obviously didn't do our job on race day. That's not a flaw on a system or sectional arrangement. The flaw lies in how we executed on race day and those other two teams clearly earned the right to compete the following week. 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. Thanks for your support!

@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?

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.