There has been a fair amount of talk recently about changes that need to be made in West Virginia Cross Country in order for our athletes to be more prepared to compete on a regional and national level. The question is, do these proposed changes have any merit? Is West Virginia behind the rest of the country when it comes to affording our athletes the best opportunities to succeed? Is West Virginia simply matching what other states are doing? Or is West Virginia actually a leader in progressive cross country? RunWV wanted to know the answers to these questions, so we embarked on some research. We planned to visit the websites of the governing bodies of every state and the District of Columbia. Unfortunately, we did not find information on every state, but we found enough to draw some conclusions. We found at least a little information on 46 states and quite a bit of meaningful information from over 60% of them. Here is a summary of what we found.

Much of the discussion regarding the rules that govern West Virginia Cross Country revolved around the length of our cross country season. Many speculated that our season was shorter than the seasons in other states. We were able to find the beginning and ending dates of 33 states. In these 33 states, we found season lengths ranging from a long of 113 days (Kentucky) to a short of 62 days (Alaska). West Virginia's season began on August 14th, the first day of practice, and ended on October 28th, the day of the state meet. That makes West Virginia's season 76 days long (August 14th-31st, 18 days, September 30 days, and October 1st-28th, 28 days). The average length of season for the 33 states was 85.1 days. The median length was 83 days. Of the states in question, 23 had longer seasons than West Virginia, while only 4 had shorter seasons. Those with shorter seasons were South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Alaska. There were several states from which we could not garner all the information necessary to complete this category. For the states whose season length was unknown, but a state meet date was known, 9 had state meets after West Virginia's, 1 had a state meet before ours, and 2 had state meets on the same day as ours.

Another point of interest that has been discussed is the length of the competitive season, meaning the length of time meets are being held. We were able to find this information for 35 states. Competitive season length ranged from a long of 87 days (Mississippi) to a short of 51 days (Nebraska and Alaska). West Virginia's competitive season began on August 30th, the earliest day for meets, and ended on October 28th, the day of the state meet. That makes West Virginia's competitive season 60 days long (2 days in August, 30 in September, and 28 in October). The average competitive season length for the 35 states was 68.9 Days. The median length was 69 days. Of the states in question, 27 had longer competitive seasons than West Virginia while only 7 had shorter seasons. Those with shorter seasons were Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Nebraska, and Alaska. For states whose competitive season length was unknown, but a state meet date was found, 7 had their state meet after West Virginia's, 1 had their state meet earlier, and 2 on the same day as ours.

A point of contention that has arisen recently is that the early end to our season hinders us when we choose to compete on the regional or national level at venues such as the Mid-East Meet of Champions or the Footlocker Meets. We managed to find the state meet dates for 46 states. The dates of these meets ranged from an earliest meet of September 30th (Alaska) to the latest November 25th (California). Of the states in question, 30 featured a state meet later than ours, while only 6 had their state meet earlier. Those states that had earlier state meets than West Virginia were South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, Utah, and Alaska.

A part of the call to extend our season was to begin practice earlier in the year. We found beginning practice dates for 34 states. The beginning practice dates ranged from an earliest of July 15th (Kentucky) to a latest of September 1st (New Jersey). Of the states in question, 18 began practicing earlier than West Virginia, while only 4 began practicing later. Those that began practicing later were Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, and New Jersey. There was also one state (Arkansas) that reported having year-round practice.

While there was no call to begin meets earlier, we did compile that information as well. We found beginning meet dates for 35 states. Opening meet dates ranged from August 10th (Mississippi) to September 9th (Hawaii). Of the states in question, 22 started having meets earlier than West Virginia while 12 began competition later.

All the above topics are inherently related in the same general category of season length, which was one of two primary areas of reform that are desired. The other is the method of advancement from Regional Meets to the State Meet. These results are a bit more difficult to quantify due to the varying nature of the criteria. We found advancement criteria for teams for 39 states. Please note that in this case a state may be represented more than twice in the statistical breakdown if it has different criteria for different divisions. For example, Colorado has different advancement criteria for Class 1A through 3A than it does for 4A and 5A. Since Colorado has two different sets of criteria and each needs to be counted, Colorado is represented twice in this analysis. There are several states that feature varying criteria. Of the 39 states, 24 advance teams to the state meet on a straight number basis, meaning that 4 (or some other set number) advance from each Region, 14 advance teams on a tiered basis, and 1 features an open state meet in which any team may participate. Two states also admitted At-Large teams to their state meets using specific, performance based criteria. It is difficult to draw any true conclusions about the advancement in "straight number" states without knowing the number of teams in the respective regions or the number of regions in the state. Of the "straight number" states, 5 advance two teams, 7 advance three teams, 3 advance four teams, 5 advance five teams, 2 advance six teams, and 1 advances twelve teams (that state is divided into an upper and lower half and thus has only two regions). The tiered advancement states range from 1/4 of all teams in the region, to 40% of teams, to 1/2 of all teams in the region, to our 1-3 teams per region, to 1-4 teams per region, to 3 or 4 teams, to 4 or 5 teams, to 3 or 5 teams, to 1-7 teams (which for that state basically amounted to 1/2 of all teams, rounding up). There did not appear to be a prevalent tiering system in use by these states. Looking at the meet results of most states, however, it was readily apparent that most of them advance more teams to the state meet than we do.

Related to the above item is the advancement of individuals from the Regional meets to the State meet. We were able to find the individual advancement criteria of 37 states. Please note again the qualification listed above regarding states counting more than once. There has been much debate over whether individual advancement should be determined on an inclusive or exclusive basis. Inclusive basis means that the top X individuals advance. Exclusive basis means that the top X individuals that were not a part of an advancing team advance. For the states viewed, 16 used exclusive advancement and 20 used inclusive advancement, while one offered an open state meet. For the Exclusive advancers, 5 states advanced five exclusive individuals, 1 state advanced six exclusive, 5 states advanced seven exclusive, 4 states advanced ten exclusive, and 1 state advanced their individuals exclusively, but on a tiered basis. The average exclusive advancement was 6.7 exclusive individuals. For the Inclusive advancers, 2 states advanced 7 inclusive, 1 state advanced 8 inclusive, 5 states advanced 10 inclusive, 7 states advanced 15 inclusive, 1 state advanced 20 inclusive, 1 state advanced 30 inclusive, 1 state advanced 45 inclusive, and 2 states advanced their inclusive individuals on a tiered basis. The average inclusive advancement was 15.1 inclusive individuals. Of the 37 states viewed, only two are more restrictive than West Virginia when it comes to advancing individuals. Five others could be considered equal if one contends that 5 exclusive and 8 inclusive are equal advancement criteria.

There were several questions posed at the beginning of this article. They can now be answered with some degree of confidence. The calls for reform do have merit, as it appears that West Virginia is more restrictive in its treatment of cross country than most other states. We are lagging behind when it comes to offering our cross country athletes the best opportunities to succeed. Will making changes to the season lengths and advancement criteria automatically turn our athletes into national contenders? Of course not. That will be up to the athletes, but at least a few simple changes can put our athletes on par with other states and with other athletes against whom we are competing for scholarships. To be an average cross country body, we would need to extend the season by one week and advance more teams and individuals to the state meet. To be a progressive one, we would need to extend the season by two weeks; beginning practice a week early and holding the state meet a week later. Another progressive step would be to hold an All-Class state meet the week following the Class Championships. This would be a true, cream-of-the-crop race and could produce some outstanding times as well as an excellent opportunity to be seen by collegiate recruiters. A final progressive step that could be taken would be to allow at-large teams into the state meet. Any at-large advancement would have to be performance based to prevent any political bickering. Several meets could be used throughout the year to produce at-large teams. At each meet, there would need to be a specific total team time (the sum of the times of a team's first five runners) that would have to be met. At-Large individual advancement would be a possible progressive change as well. Any runner meeting a certain time on a certain course would advance to the state meet regardless of his or her regional performance. This would prevent an athlete who has excelled all year but comes down with a temperature of 102 on the day of the regional meet from losing the state meet bid he or she deserves.

The research has been done, and West Virginia is behind. Coaches and principals need to utilize this information to try to create reform in our cross country standards, and athletes need to use any reforms to the best of their ability to increase their performance. All the change and reform in the world will be meaningless unless the athletes follow it through with increased work ethic.