USATF Club XC more competive than NCAA

Are you serious? Clubs is a bunch of washed up pros. NCAA DI is the future.

How do you even know what the results are...nothing is pulling up for me.

http://www.usatf.org/getattachment/Events---Calendar/2014/USATF-National-Club-Cross-Country-Championships/Unofficial-Results/MEN-S-TEAM---OPEN-RESULTS.pdf.aspx

Harder to win: clearly NCAA's

Harder to get top 40: Maybe club XC?

ForReal? wrote:

Are you serious? Clubs is a bunch of washed up pros. NCAA DI is the future.

Found results for top 162 on runnerspace.

This was being discussed on the drive home. Obviously there is no true comparing XC and NCAA is much more prestigious than CLubs. But times per place look rather comparable.

ForReal? wrote:

Are you serious? Clubs is a bunch of washed up pros. NCAA DI is the future.

some of these "washed up pros" should not be "washed up" and certainly shouldn't be mobbing the club meet. Am I the only one who thinks that is ridiculous?

Kim_Putnam_Eagan wrote:

some of these "washed up pros" should not be "washed up" and certainly shouldn't be mobbing the club meet. Am I the only one who thinks that is ridiculous?

Yes. The rest of us love to toe the line against the top talent and see where we stand ( and take the occasional scalp on a good day).

Holy crap

http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?do=view_event&event_id=16&mgroup_id=45365&year=2014

572 male finishers.

20 sub 30.

172 sub 32.

551 sub 40

I am trying to imagine 572 starters for a cross country race!

The separate Masters race: 588 male runners!

275 sub 40.

Club XCs has gotten really more popular than the regular National XC competition

In comparison:

NCAA 2014 XC Nats:

0 sub 30.

43 sub 31.

158 sub 32

222 sub 33.

Club XCs:

20 sub 30.

82 sub 31

173 sub 32

264 sub 33.

So, yes, Club XC was more competitive than NCAA XCs this year.

Race highlights:

http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?mgroup_id=45365&mgroup_event_id=16&year=2014&do=videos&video_id=129027

Chris Derrick and Elliot Heath would have run this race but were injured/ill otherwise we could have a bunch more sub 30.

It is an apples to oranges comparison. Anyone can sign up for the club race. You must qualify for the NCAAs. So I imagine there are a bunch of sub 31 athletes on teams that did not make it. Also, 570 in the club race, 250? at the NCAAs.Much respect for both.

deepest ever wrote:

In comparison:

NCAA 2014 XC Nats:

0 sub 30.

43 sub 31.

158 sub 32

222 sub 33.

Club XCs:

20 sub 30.

82 sub 31

173 sub 32

264 sub 33.

So, yes, Club XC was more competitive than NCAA XCs this year.

deepest ever wrote:

Holy crap

http://www.usatf.tv/gprofile.php?do=view_event&event_id=16&mgroup_id=45365&year=2014

572 male finishers.

20 sub 30.

172 sub 32.

551 sub 40

I am trying to imagine 572 starters for a cross country race!

The course was very roomy at the start so it didn't seem to be a big deal, but it was definitely an incredible sight, a giant rainbow of singlets.

There is talk about implementing a qualifying procedure next year because SF can't handle that many people on the course. No idea if they'll follow through. East coast turnout is always higher though

This is great to see, wish they would start something like this for track at the national level. The way things have been going with college track, this may be the future of the sport in the US.

Why wouldn't clubs be more competitive on the top end? Post collegiates from all 3 divisions, the naia, and that guy who asked letsrun for money are there. It only makes sense that athletes who continue running after college get faster.

co coach wrote:

This is great to see, wish they would start something like this for track at the national level. The way things have been going with college track, this may be the future of the sport in the US.

They do hold a track club nationals every year, just nobody actually goes.

although anyone can sign up, i'm certain plenty of fast guys couldn't travel to race club nats because of other work/school/family/training/racing obligations, lack of $$$, etc. for example, CIM was a pretty deep marathon last weekend (also USATF PA champs race), but none of those guys were coming back to race club nats. another example would be Hansons. they've sent a full squad the past few years, but not this year for a variety of reasons (Bobby Curtis was pacing Fukuoka, Mike Morgan became a new daddy (congrats!), etc.) so you have a point with fast guys left out at NCAAs, but plenty of sub-31 guys didn't make it to PA for club nats this year either.

LI Runner wrote:

It is an apples to oranges comparison. Anyone can sign up for the club race. You must qualify for the NCAAs. So I imagine there are a bunch of sub 31 athletes on teams that did not make it.

Also, 570 in the club race, 250? at the NCAAs.

Much respect for both.

deepest ever wrote:

In comparison:

NCAA 2014 XC Nats:

0 sub 30.

43 sub 31.

158 sub 32

222 sub 33.

Club XCs:

20 sub 30.

82 sub 31

173 sub 32

264 sub 33.

So, yes, Club XC was more competitive than NCAA XCs this year.

I think club cross was better. They're basically half of the All Americans from the last 6 years with 1-6 more years of training behind them. I may have made up that stat but it's not going to be that far off the mark.

And your top 3 were a 13:15 guy, a 2:13 marathoner and a 3:34/13:2x guy. I think it's safe to say that Ches would have won club cross, but getting 2nd-60th place was harder.

They're probably pretty comparable. Times are irrelevant not only because the courses are different (actually they are pretty similar, I think Terre Haute is tougher though), but also because the ncaa men's race went out slow (leaders at 15:30 through 5k).

I'm pretty sure ncaa d1 is more competitive by a decent margin if you look at places, say, 25, 50, 75, 100. But I don't have hard evidence to back that up.

What this guy said. The top 40 or so at club nats (at least when I ran it) is pretty deep. That being said I was 83rd at NCAAs in college and like 50-60ish I think (I don't even remember) at club Nats (last guy for Hansons for sure though!) several years ago. I'd say overall NCAAs is probably deeper, but club Nats is pretty crazy with big names and all sorts of guys that were All-American. Tons of talent all over the place in both races...it's a real crap shoot.

competitive ignorance wrote:

Harder to win: clearly NCAA's

Harder to get top 40: Maybe club XC?