It doesn't make sense to me that Indoor Track, alone among MIAA sports, holds both statewide divisional team competitions and an "all-state" team competition that combines all the divisions. Other MIAA sports do one of the following:
1. Hold statewide team championships by division (Baseball, Basketball, Cross-Country, Field Hockey, Football, Golf, Hockey, Lacrosse, Soccer, Softball, Swimming and Diving, Tennis, Volleyball, Wrestling)
2. For sports with smaller numbers, hold regional meets (all divisions) followed by a single statewide team championship (Alpine Skiing, Nordic Skiing, Gymnastics)
(Outdoor track doesn't really fit in either category, since it holds regional divisional Meets, followed by a single statewide competition. As with indoor track, I like the all-state meet format for individuals, but not for teams. The problem is that if you eliminated the team competition from the all-state meet in outdoor track, you would be left with NO statewide team championships, so outdoor track can stay the way it is.)
However, it makes NO sense to me to hold a statewide team championship for Division I, and then the next week hold an All-State team championship for all divisions. Here are six reasons why I think it's a flawed idea:
1. It dilutes the meaning of the State Division Championships. Other sports don't create this dilution; why does indoor track?
2. The division championship is a truer test of team strength. While the division championships are truly team competitions, the All-State meet tends to be dominated by a much smaller number of outstanding individuals. Indeed, it is quite possible for a "team" to win the All-State meet with one or two athletes.
3. It values the same performances differently. What I mean is, the exact same performance (time, distance, height) will typically earn a different score in the divisional meet than in the all-state meet. Theoretically two teams could perform IDENTICALLY in the two meets, but Team A wins the first meet, and Team B wins the second.
4. It creates a conflict between competing as an individual and competing as a team. The divisional meet is the perfect meet to focus on team performance; the all-state meet is the perfect meet to focus on individual performance. But because there is a team competition at all-state, athletes are competing in multiple events for team points (perhaps weakening their chances in individual events), or competing in events that are not their best. Coaches and athletes make decisions about which events to run in the divisional meets based on maximizing team points. For example, a natural two-miler runs in the mile to have more time to recover for the 4x800 relay. One of the best high jumpers in the state fails to qualify because after doubling in the 600, he misses three times at a height he could clear easily were his legs not completely dead from his race.
I acknowledge that these conflicts might occur anyway, but the chase for team points makes them more frequent. Of course, since the State Division championships serve as qualifier for the All-State championships, once committed to an event, the athlete is locked in. So if the 4x800 team fails to advance, the two-miler who entered the mile to have more time to recover for the relay, can't switch but must stay in the mile.
5. For all the but the very deepest teams, the all-state meet involves a tiny fraction of the actual team. For example, last year at the Indoor All-State Meet, Brookline won with six athletes scoring. Xaverian, third, scored 20 points in three events with five athletes. Minnechaug, fourth, scored 18 points in two events with four athletes. (Newton was an exception, scoring 21 points with 9 athletes.) In the girls meet, I'm not sure how many athletes scored for Acton-Boxboro, but the second-place team, Wachusett scored 22 points in two events with four athletes. Newton South tied for third with 20 points, using five athletes. Medford also had twenty points with only one athlete (Aranxta King)!
6. And finally, the result is often an anti-climax. At the conclusion of last year's all-state meet, the few remaining members of the Brookline team seemed bemused that they had won. They had not realized that their team had been in contention. When the trophies were presented, there were only a handful of people left in the Reggie Lewis Center.
So let's keep the meet, but change the focus. Make it a championship for the individual athletes, not the teams.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Football championships are not state wide.
But football championships ARE divisional, which is the point.
I've been preachin' this one for years. When I was in school, Lexington won the "state" title with about 5 people. New Hampshire and New York don't have a scored state meet. It should be a "Meet of Champions." The Class Meet (or for the youngsters, the division meet) should be the final scored meet. Tranchita has always thought this way, he's right.
Jon, the question is, will it ever change? I know I would like to see this happen, because if Aranxta King is the team state champion this winter, which is a real possibility, the MIAA will have to take a long look at the meet scoring format. I hope they do, rather than continue to dilute the incredible task of winning the divisional meet.
Post a Comment