First of all, let me clarify the discussion by pointing out that between the variables of track length (180y, 200m, 300-320, even 400?) and banked vs. unbanked vs. adjustable banked, we have at LEAST a matrix of six-eight track types we are comparing in the indoor track times. We can all agree that certain tracks ARE indeed faster than others, and this is manifested in the flocking of top-level runners/programs to venues like Dempsey, Notre Dame, Iowa State, the Armory, Fayetteville, etc.. If you are in a program that only gets to compete on 200m unbanked facilities (sometimes at altitude), then yes, you are going to feel "cheated" by the reality that top programs have set the standard in recent years to faster venues. However, to portray these venues as "unfair" ignores the fact that they are indeed becoming the new standard (and are still well under the 400m standard universally accepted for outdoor time).
la la land wrote:
To me, 5 laps to a mile is a grossly oversized track relative to indoor track and a small adjustment is warranted. By no means do I think that we're talking about a lot of time here. I'd say it's something in the order of .2 per curve. So, for a mile, I would compare the 16 turns on an 8 to a mile track to the 10 turn on a 5 to a mile track and cite a differential of 1.2 seconds, as there are 6 fewer turns.
Now I believe we are approaching a "middle ground", but the question is whether somewhere in the range of a second/mile a "gross" differential? Certainly that is a matter of opinion. The tenor of the discussion has been that tracks like Dempsey or Notre Dame are "subtracting" (somewhat bizarre concept relative to 400m as the standard for the vast majority of times run over the course of a year) something like 3-5 seconds per mile, tantamount to cheating of a blatant nature. I think that my examples have shown that if there is a statistical difference between 200m banked and 300+m unbanked, it is negligible (one second or less) over the course of both an indoor and outdoor season.
Here are the standards for DI-DIII + NAIA:
http://www.raceberryjam.com/ncaastandards.htmlObviously, there is no consensus among these entities as to how to deal with "The Matrix", but looking at just 200m banked vs. "oversized" (mostly 306-320m) we have DI giving (over one mile) 0 seconds, DII giving 0.4, and DII 1.2 seconds allowance to the shorter configuration.
This is where the athlete comes in. Now not all runners are going to respond to different configurations in the same way. Just watch what happened to Kiprop vs. Lagat at MSG recently. Clearly Lagat has an advantage in size as well as technique relative to the lanky, inexperienced Kiprop. The extreme of this "ability" to extract performance from a tight running configuration is Eammon Coghlan, who ran sub-3:50 indoors, yet his outdoor 1500 best was only 3:35. At some point running indoor "boards" is almost like comparing the steeple to a flat 3000. Some guys have "the knack", whether through training and experience or through physiognamy. I suspect that this is why we are not seeing conclusive performance differentials in 200 banked vs. 300 tracks: the differential in individual variation is greater than the mechanical differential that exists in theory.
300+m tracks are here to stay. It is a logical configuration relative to the indoor sports facilities being constructed in well-funded schools of the 21st century. More will be built, and programs will flock to them for reaching time standards. If anything they are MORE FAIR to the majority of programs out there. For one thing, if you are in a program that has NO access to a banked 200m track (which is most), then your training on unbanked indoor or outdoor tracks will translate better, and REMOVE THE ADVANTAGE enjoyed by those few who have regular access to banked 200m facilities, when it comes to racing on those specialized configurations.
My suggestion is to reference the NCAA standards and decided for yourself what applies. The good news is, that if you are Sam Bair, you STILL ran a legitimate sub-4:00, and no one can deny that.