How can we go about increasing the women's race distance to at least 8k?

I think 8k is a great distance for cross country. It's long enough to be a long-distance event but short enough that a few stellar milers can be a factor.

I think the mens race should be 8k rather than 10, but I'm pretty sure I'm the only one.

I like the idea of the men's race being 8K as well. For years I keep hearing how XC challenges milers and 10K runners so make the race distance more fair for both,

I think the collegians should move to full IAAF distances. 8k for the women and a hearty 12k for the men.

kinda but not really not smart wrote:

I think the collegians should move to full IAAF distances. 8k for the women and a hearty 12k for the men.

I would agree with that if it weren't for frequent races.

As for moving the women's distance up, I don't know. 6k is a very different race than 1500m. It would seem to me 5k and 10k women would have a large advantage over 1500m runners. If the 1500m runners are able to beat the long distance girls at their own game, so be it.

I agree. I think since they bump the men up to the 10K they should bump the women to an 8K. We're talking 5 miles - cross is for distance runners - we can handle that.

Everyone runs 10k, Cmon those girls can run 6 miles. This is 2011, not 1911.

bump

Guppy wrote:

As for moving the women's distance up, I don't know. 6k is a very different race than 1500m. It would seem to me 5k and 10k women would have a large advantage over 1500m runners. If the 1500m runners are able to beat the long distance girls at their own game, so be it.

I've never understood this argument. OK, so some milers would not be able to compete at the longer distance. This is already true with some guys who are middle distance specialists. If anything the women, with their larger number of scholarships available, should be better able to absorb this sort of change.

Everyone should run 8k. Done.

The women will not move up to 8k because it will eliminate the middle distance runner from cross country. And the participation rate for women's cross country would drop. With the current distance of 6k, it barely allows an 800 meter runner to participate and be competitive. If the women's race gets moved to 8k, it would eliminate most 800 meter runners and even some 1500 runners from the mix. Participation numbers are important to the NCAA, and this change would have a negative effect on numbers.

Angus T wrote:

The women will not move up to 8k because it will eliminate the middle distance runner from cross country. And the participation rate for women's cross country would drop. With the current distance of 6k, it barely allows an 800 meter runner to participate and be competitive. If the women's race gets moved to 8k, it would eliminate most 800 meter runners and even some 1500 runners from the mix. Participation numbers are important to the NCAA, and this change would have a negative effect on numbers.

Nonesense. If Robbie Andrews can run a credible (not great, but credible) season on the men's side working on his base then there is not reason women 800m runners can't move up. Women already have virtually unlimited roster spots at many schools, surely they can find 7 runners to compete at the 8k distance.

It may hurt the depth of the field but that is not the same thing as saying it will hurt participation numbers. As for depth, maybe they will have to put a few more of their many scholarships towards 5k-10k types. I don't think that is a bad thing.

while were at it, lets say baseball pitchers have to pitch the ball with their feet. otherwise, how are the soccer players supposed to compete with them?

all divisions of men should run 10k, all divisions of women should run 8k. at least for the NCAA regions and championships.

Really? Are women so frail as to 2k more is going to actually drop participation levels? This isn't middle school. Male 800 and 1500 runners aren't driven away from cross just because it's 8k.

Well we could write the NCAA. Start a petition, maybe. Get signatures at big meets like Griak or Pre-Nats.

As another female D1 runner, I'd also like to see the change implemented to running at least 8k (probably better to go for 8k first than 10k). At the 8k distance the finishing times for men and women are also comparable.

Can we start an online petition to get this going? We'll need a big voice for the NCAA to not ignore us. Anyone want to make a facebook group to raise awareness?

another runner wrote:

As another female D1 runner, I'd also like to see the change implemented to running at least 8k (probably better to go for 8k first than 10k). At the 8k distance the finishing times for men and women are also comparable.

Can we start an online petition to get this going? We'll need a big voice for the NCAA to not ignore us. Anyone want to make a facebook group to raise awareness?

I lol'd

I think it is a bad idea and have said so repeatedly. There will be winners and losers and you are likely among the winners. However, 1) the women's field has no where near the depth of the men's field, thus losing the middle-distance runners that do not extend well is not a big deal; 2) women generally do not train as much in college as the men and do not do so in high school. It generally takes longer to get up to the mileage common at big programs (e.g., Wisconsin, OSU, ...) which is in the 100miles/week range; 3) the race will be relatively uninteresting because too many runners will not be running well over 8k, since the women already spread out over as large a range as the men even at 6k.

The effect ov going to 7 or 8 K will not be too bad but 10k would be a big mistake. Look at the World XC, the women run significantly less than the men despite these contestants be far more seasoned than the average DI woman.

I thought we were all about equality in 'Murica? Guys have to move up so girls should too. Both should do 8k. 10k's are for Road Racing.

no I don't think so. 6k is good for freshman and all types of runners (800m up to 10k). 2k longer is a huge difference. Absolutely not, never, uh uh...nope!