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

one mo mile wrote:

meninist wrote:

She never said race against the men. She said race the same distance. running out of arguments much?

But why don't you (not "she" - you're the same person) want to run against the men? Seriously, why not? You're equally capable of racing the distance right?

Uh OKAY, since you need to be walked through it, if women's times are going to be slightly slower then obviously for the nightmare of trying to score two sexes at once, the races should be run separately but on the same course.

Title XI wrote:

Title IX requires equality between the sexes, not among different sports. It does not require equality between track athletes and football players.

Men's programs get cut or eliminated to preserve athletic opportunities for male football players because most universities value football a lot more than track. The much greater popularity of football for men over track for men is not the fault of female track athletes. Your real complaint should be with male football players taking up all of the men's slots, not with women athletes.

No, the real complaint should be directed at Title IX. Get rid of it and let female sports stand on their own.

meninist wrote:

one mo mile wrote:

But why don't you (not "she" - you're the same person) want to run against the men? Seriously, why not? You're equally capable of racing the distance right?

Uh OKAY, since you need to be walked through it, if women's times are going to be slightly slower then obviously for the nightmare of trying to score two sexes at once, the races should be run separately but on the same course.

There won't be two races going on at once. There only needs to be one race. The women are competing against the men.

one mo mile wrote:

meninist wrote:

Uh OKAY, since you need to be walked through it, if women's times are going to be slightly slower then obviously for the nightmare of trying to score two sexes at once, the races should be run separately but on the same course.

There won't be two races going on at once. There only needs to be one race. The women are competing against the men.

You are the only one saying the women should compete against the men.

The women should not run 10k like men at NCAAs, but the distance should at least move up to 8k for the championship races as the men move from 8k-10k. Having the 6k for xc is a joke because it gives the opportunity for 800/1500 women to be all americans when they really shouldn't. Yes, their are always those exceptions that a truly talented mid distance runner becomes all american but it should be made so that it doesn't happen every year.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Then why not make XC races 800m or 1500m?

Why not include steeple barriers to allow more steeple chasers to compete?

Why not add in some pole vault and shot put along the way so Ashton Eaton can dominate cross country?

Because participation in the 800, 1500, steeple and decathlon does not put one in a protected class. Seriously, you just make yourself look silly and ignorant.

The protected classes are: Race, sex, religion, color, age, national origin, disability and genetic information (under GINA, passed in 2008).

Women running different distances than men in cross is a slam-dunk Title IX case which is why even just the mere threat of one is enough to make HS activities associations immediately make the switch. Blatant sex discrimination but because college coaches like being able to use their 800 runner easier in cross, the switch won't happen until a Title IX complaint to the OCR shoves it down the NCAA's throat.

meninist wrote:

You are the only one saying the women should compete against the men.

I know. Why don't you? You think women are equally if not more capable of racing long distances, why shouldn't they race against each other? Why do they need their own segregated division?

I'm not the one who brought up the argument that XC races should be 6K so that middle-distance runners would place higher. That was another guy. I was just shooting some holes in that logic.

I agree that this should be very easily to accomplish based on Title IX. What I have a harder time believing is that a majority of women and coaches see it as ideal. I would guess that most female runners have no problem running 6K, and are not concerned with how that stacks up against men. Maybe I'm wrong.

one mo mile wrote:

meninist wrote:

You are the only one saying the women should compete against the men.

I know. Why don't you? You think women are equally if not more capable of racing long distances, why shouldn't they race against each other? Why do they need their own segregated division?

Okay, let me grab your hand and walk you across the street to the next obvious point.

Equal 10k distances are run at outdoor track but the men and women don't run together.

A woman champion deserves the chance to cross the finish line alone. Race tactics at the front are much easier to follow because the sexes run separately. Okay, now let me go warm up your bottle and tuck you in.

one mo mile wrote:

meninist wrote:

You are the only one saying the women should compete against the men.

I know. Why don't you? You think women are equally if not more capable of racing long distances, why shouldn't they race against each other? Why do they need their own segregated division?

I agree with this guy, too. So now that is two people saying that women should compete alongside men. That's how it works in every 5K, 10K, half marathon, and marathon that takes place around me. If it's run on the same course, why take twice as long to run two different races?

meninist wrote:

one mo mile wrote:

I know. Why don't you? You think women are equally if not more capable of racing long distances, why shouldn't they race against each other? Why do they need their own segregated division?

Okay, let me grab your hand and walk you across the street to the next obvious point.

Equal 10k distances are run at outdoor track but the men and women don't run together.

A woman champion deserves the chance to cross the finish line alone. Race tactics at the front are much easier to follow because the sexes run separately. Okay, now let me go warm up your bottle and tuck you in.

Why should there be a "woman champion"? Why not just have one open race with one champion, whoever finishes first, man or woman? You said the female body performs just as well if not better over long distances.

No that's your own misguided interpretation of Title IX. Title IX is very short and simple:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Notice nowhere in TItle IX does it say anything about football scholarships need to be balanced with female non-football scholarships. That's simply a complete perversion of a law that originally had good intentions.

My real complaint with Crouch is that she is a hypocrite and, if she really cared about equality, she also would be complaining about men's teams getting cut and men's teams with fewer scholarships than sister women's teams all because of a complete misapplication of the law. It is beyond ridiculous that you think it's perfectly acceptable for a school to cut a men's track team but keep a women's team and then claim there is equality between the sexes.

Zat0pek wrote:

Women running different distances than men in cross is a slam-dunk Title IX case which is why even just the mere threat of one is enough to make HS activities associations immediately make the switch. Blatant sex discrimination but because college coaches like being able to use their 800 runner easier in cross, the switch won't happen until a Title IX complaint to the OCR shoves it down the NCAA's throat.

I fail to see how its a slam dunk case. The staples of many successful training programs are rooted deeply in minutes for training. The long run is xx minutes long, the tempo workout is yy minutes, recovery runs are zz minutes. This is mostly effective training for slow/fast and male/female runners. With age and experience, more minutes are added but still comparable. Training is done by minutes. Races, therefore, should take approximately the same number of minutes to complete.

In the midwest, most states in the past two years have bumped their girls from 4k to 5k. This is not because of the likelihood of winning or losing a Title IX suit, but simply due to the legal fees to fight the lawsuit.

Previously, a top20 female 4k runner raced under 14:30. A top20 5k male runner raced under 15:30. Those two are quite similar. A mid-pack 4k female raced about 19:00 and a mid-pack 5k male raced about 19:30. Again, quite similar.

Now, the top20 female runners are about 18:30 and the mid-pack females take 24:30. They are now on the course exerting their bodies at a high level for 30% more duration than their male counterparts despite the fact that they are not practicing 30% more minutes. Therefore, a higher percentage of their training week is done in races, further adding to the risk high school (and more so collegiate) females have to becoming injured.

Your argument is lacking evidence.

The overwhelming majority of programs base their training on mileage, not time.

Examples:

Coaches say: Run 8 miles. Not, Run for 60 minutes

Coaches say: We are doing mile repeats today. Not, We are doing 6 minute, 30 second repeats today.

Coaches say: Make your move around the 2-mile mark. Not, make your move around the 12:00 mark.

But, I would agree that by and large, girls train less (in mileage volume) than boys:

If a boy runs for an hour a day at 7/min pace, and a girl runs for an hour a day at 8/min pace, then the boy runs 17.5 extra miles. So I agree that in a situation where the race distances are equal. the girl runner is less prepared for the demands of the event, and should run longer in training.

coach wrote:

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?

The runners you coach don't qualify, so that's unlikely to happen.

one mo mile wrote:

meninist wrote:

She never said race against the men. She said race the same distance. running out of arguments much?

But why don't you (not "she" - you're the same person) want to run against the men? Seriously, why not? You're equally capable of racing the distance right?

Welcome to LR!

title ix sucks wrote:

No, the real complaint should be directed at Title IX. Get rid of it and let female sports stand on their own.

There'd be no more women's sports, and twice as many guys playing football.

Lucky guess!

That's not how it works wrote:

title ix sucks wrote:

No, the real complaint should be directed at Title IX. Get rid of it and let female sports stand on their own.

There'd be no more women's sports, and twice as many guys playing football.

Why can't women's sports stand on their own? Why shouldn't they? And why is having more guys play football a problem?