Should women run 10K like the men in NCAA Cross Country?

HardLoper wrote:

I did read it. She is obviously somewhat biased towards wanting longer distances, being a marathon runner. There are probably some 1500 type women who liked the 6k distance over the 10k. A longer distance is not automatically better, there's got to be some ideal distance in the middle that makes for a good race - not too short/crowded, not too long/too big of gaps/too hard on aerobically weak runners. That ideal distance is not necessarily the same for men and women, just as the ideal hurdle height and shot weight are different.

I don't think she would care if it was 6k and 6k. Equality is the point here. And when you say the "ideal distance for women", your attitude is what perpetuates this false notion. Sure, women can't lift or bench or throw as much as men, but when it comes to distance running, women can run as far as men and as mentioned in the piece, "And beyond this, the female body performs better and burns fuel more efficiently than its male counterpart the farther it is tested.". Do some research on Pam Reed then tell me that the ideal distance for women should be shorter than men. You are beyond incorrect.

Both men and women should run 8k

The real issue has nothing to do with xc race distances for both genders, it has to do with football. Most women's college cross country programs exist to give a percieved title ix balance as opportunities equivalent to the number of football players on the College's roster. While most good female cross country runners are capable of racing the men's distance, an increase in the women's distance would result in a decreased number of participants from top to bottom as girls who specialize in middle distances or aren't committed to the training necessary for a longer distance leave the xc team. While creating equality between the men and women who compete in xc it would hurt the current system for finding title ix compliance and cause much larger problems.

Women should run 10k, men should run 6k. All men's hurdles should be lowered to women's height. Men should also do heptathlon instead of decathlon.

coach wrote:

6k for women, 8k for men.

And for championship:

8k for women, 10k for men.

I really can't believe they haven't implemented that most minor of changes yet.

I believe women should continue to run 6k and men should drop down to 8k. Its a long season for a distance runner, I understand crouch is pushing for equality but nothing will ever be equal. I think it hurts womens xc if they move up to 10k. It makes the sport less exciting and I would be willing to bet that a large percentage of women would say they do not want to step up to 10k. Obviously someone will point out that my thinking is exactly the problem. I think the problem is thinking everything should be equal. I will always support women and believe they should be paid the same as there male counterparts when it comes to work. I also think that other things should be equal between the genders. But being different doesn't make you inferior, I enjoy womens xc despite the weird distance. In this case not being able to compare the times to the men is a good thing. If crouch was not capable of running so much mileage and was better at mid Distance she would have a completely different opinion. Also if you want to push for equality you should be pushing for the men to drop down in distance, or compromise at a some other weird distance like 7k. Hell maybe even both could run 8k but the women should not be running 10k. Lastly women and men are not built the same testosterone is amazing its what allows men to run faster, jump farther and if ever such a thing was tested run farther. I have a lot of respect for her coming out and saying what she believes I just believe she is wrong when she says it should be equal and that women should run 10k.

I agree with 8K and 10K, as it would have both running approximately the same amount of time.

Ms. Crouch doesn't lay forth a very good argument, especially when she cites so many examples of where inequality actually helps women's athletics (throws, hurdles)

Imagine if, when women's basketball became a collegiate sport, they had decided to use an 8 1/2 foot rim. We would have dunks, faster paving, etc.

There is no way they would move it up to 10 ft just to make it "equal" while at the same time sacrificing the game.

The women's 6k at nationals is a pretty compelling race. Don't change it

I think it's kind of hilarious that you all think this won't happen. It's going to happen.

The IAAF decided in Fall 2015 to introduce gender parity for the men and women with both racing 10km starting at the 2017 IAAF World Cross Country Championships

http://www.athleticsweekly.com/featured/gender-parity-for-senior-events-at-iaaf-world-cross-35322/

USATF already implemented 10km for both men and women at the 2016 USA Cross Country Championships

http://www.usatf.org/.../USATF-Cross.../Schedule.aspx

It's going to happen in the NCAA. Crouch's point is equality, whether that means both running a 6k (yes, there are middle distance men that would embrace this as well) for both, 8k or 10k.

Sarah who? wrote:

Ms. Crouch doesn't lay forth a very good argument, especially when she cites so many examples of where inequality actually helps women's athletics (throws, hurdles)

Imagine if, when women's basketball became a collegiate sport, they had decided to use an 8 1/2 foot rim. We would have dunks, faster paving, etc.

There is no way they would move it up to 10 ft just to make it "equal" while at the same time sacrificing the game.

The women's 6k at nationals is a pretty compelling race. Don't change it

She said nothing about hurdles or throws, what are you talking about? All she mentioned was the women's Olympic marathon in '84.

Oh, and Sarah who? is the woman who was 11th at the Boston marathon this year. You clearly didn't read the piece.

Since women are about 11% slower their distance should be about 11% shorter to compensate.

Blah Blah Blah. wrote:

Since women are about 11% slower their distance should be about 11% shorter to compensate.

"Even the argument that it takes women a few minutes longer to run a 10K than men falls short because the 10k is contested for both genders at the outdoor track and field championships. Is the Boston Marathon cut three miles short for women because it takes them 20 minutes longer than men to finish?"

The obvious solution... wrote:

Both men and women should run 8k for XC.

Terre Haute should be given a 20 year contract to hold the championship.

The NCAA should have a national MARATHON championship open to any runner on a collegiate team. That marathon should be in the middle of February giving the runners enough time to recover before outdoor track. This would give the true distance runners a race to shoot for since no really long distances are run indoors. The marathon could be run with an established marathon such as Austin.

+1 [but probably too sensible to happen]

This debate has been going on for years. Of course, the women are more than capable of running 8k/10k like the men. However, a lot of the women's coaches prefer 5k/6k. Mike McGuire really likes the fact that he can have a runner who is competitive in XC and also be competitive as low as 800 in track and have a high quality DMR. How often do you see a 800/1500 guy become All American in XC? Occasionally, but not as much as the women who run 800/1500 and then are AA in XC. Mike has built his program around girls who have that versatility (as well as many other coaches).

If you're arguing for longer XC races for women at the NCAA level (the pro/intl changes are irrelevant because we are talking about the best of the best, not 18 year old kids at Local Private College X), you clearly have never seen the daily struggle to field competitive and deep women's XC rosters at the CURRENT distance.

Sure, Oregon and Colorado would be fine because they are getting athletes who can do that work to be prepared. But the reality is that most of the D1 women's XC programs will wither and fail at 8k or 10k. There just simply aren't enough women who can train appropriately for that distance.

And if you're getting all upset because I'm saying some women can't do the same things men can you just don't understand the reality of what most women runners at a college age and level can handle. I am a D1 coach at one of these small schools. My best male runs 24:35 and worst runs 28:00 (3:25 diff); my best girl runs 21:35 and worst runs 28:30 (6:55 diff) (and plenty are over 26:30). We invest the same scholarship into both genders, about 4+ scholarships into each gender. The rosters are similar in size. Many of my women can't handle 6k, hence the huge time range.

Again, moving women up to 8k or 10k would drastically reduce participation and viability of women's XC in the NCAA. Yes, you could say it limits the ability for more men to compete in XC at their current distance but the reality is simply that there are plenty of men to field a majority of D1 teams. I have men running 80-100mpw by the handful every year, 1500m runners up to 10k runners, and my highest volume woman has been 70ish mpw (EVEN our 10km runners!).

The 10k is not a huge distance.

Come on, get with the times. 10k for everyone.

Andrew Wheating was 75th in the NCAA 10k in 2008. Would have been top-5 for all but two schools in the country.

You don't need to make Xc races shorter to accommodate middle distance runners.

I think men should do 8k all year long, don't know why it all of a sudden jumps up to 10k for regionals/nationals. Not that it's that impactful of a change, it just doesn't make sense. I'd also like to see the women move to 8k, but I do think this would have a slight detrimental impact on the popularity and depth of women's college xc, but overall I think it would be worth it. An increase to 10k though just does not make sense.

A 35 minute run is different than a 29 minute run. Do we need to see tens, maybe a hundred runners jogging the last part of the race? Keep it 6k for the women. Everyone can train for it and the distance specialty schools will still do well at this short distance. If you want to kill our dying sport increase the distance