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

I was quite successful (all american twice), and my program did everything in minutes. Example - 5x10min at x pace etc. Worked well for us back in the early 2000's

Let the women decide wrote:

You men stay out of it, unless you're going to be supportive of women.

I think discussing health is being supportive of the women. It doesn't mean the female athlete is weaker. It's a reality that women suffer more injuries than men in running. It's a reality that many of those injuries are single leg injuries. It's a reality that many of them are caused by over-training and/or nutrition deficiency.

On 60 miles per week, a 6km represents 6.25% of their weekly mileage and a 10km represents 10.33% of their weekly mileage. Putting 10% of your volume into a race is a lot. Fatigued muscles lead to form breaking down/poor mechanics and that can result in injury.

If you want the 10km to represent the same percentage of weekly volume that a 6km did on the 60 miles per week, then the 10km runner would be at 100 miles per week. I don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate for a female collegian to be running 100 mpw. But, 60 mpw is nothing to flinch at and yet many still are accumulating injuries.

title ix sucks wrote:

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

Sad but true wrote:

Because of selfish men who try to take everything away from women to try and boost their own weak egos as they don't like getting beat by the women.

football is fine wrote:

As long as [ their ] are interested fans and participants, there will be women's sports. It is telling that you think women's sports would disappear without title IX because you are admitting there is ZERO real interest in them.

The only thing I'm admitting is that you're a jerk, and probably a pedophile.

P.S. Learn to spell.

JRBB wrote:

I was quite successful (all american twice), and my program did everything in minutes. Example - 5x10min at x pace etc.

Worked well for us back in the early 2000's

Same at Iowa State and now Boise State under Coach Corey Ihmels.

The cross-state rival trains in miles/meters under Coach Layne Anderson.

RunCogRun wrote:

I think discussing health is being supportive of the women.

You probably think raping women is supportive of them too.

6k = 10k wrote:

Moving the distance for both men and women to 6k or 8k isn't a matter of being "fair" to 800/1500 runners. It's beneficial to a running program because if you've already got a track team running 800/1500/5000/10000 in the spring, if you run an intermediate distance like 6k or 8k for CC, then you have more runners to choose from for your CC team in the fall, and more of your athletes have a chance to run in the fall. Making it 10000m for either men or women cuts down on the talent available.

So indoors,

The distance guys get the 5000m

The mid-distance guys get 800, 1500, 3000, DMR.

By having all those mid-distance events, all of your mid-d runners that can't hack it in cross have something to do. Our third best mid-d runner can't run cross but he can score points indoor conference in the DMR. Our third best distance runner can score in cross but not indoor.

You make the assumption that all of your XC runners are traveling for track. Many schools have a 5th woman/man that is a walk on or partial, because they only use 3 or so scholarships on distance.

Women should definitely run 10k.

Sexist Witch Hunt wrote:

What's fictional is that you think everything must be a result of sexist/misogyny/evil women hating patriarchy. If they ever decide to 10K I will not care one bit because it won't affect me. But they do not need to move to 10K for the false sense of equality. 6K is a perfectly valid distance with many advantages to it too and many women prefer it to 10K. There are many examples in sports where the men and women play by different rules and specifications, and no one cries sexism, because it isn't.

I didn't say that nor do I think that. What I believe is that there AREN'T "many advantages" to it and most mid-d people are completely capable of contributing to cross team at 10K and I cite many examples. As I said, tons of mid-d guys credit running cross as contributing to their success.

This is just the last remaining vestige of a ridiculous mindset.

1. Yes you do think it is sexism/patriarchy.

2. For every example of a successful mid-d guy who ran cross there are tons who don't.

You idiots favoring the status quo in XC are too clever by half. You compose reams of crap about title IX and women's alleged fragility when it comes to longer distances, and sound as though you were arguing against some radical new proposal-- equal distances for men and women-- when, in fact, we already have, and have had for decades, equal distances for men and women in every discipline where people are not running on grass and mud!

If people are so adamantly opposed to equal distances for men and women in XC, why is there no movement for a reversion to UN-equal distance on the roads and track, or in high and middle school? And why did the sky not fall when equality was introduced in those other disciplines and at those other levels years/decades ago?

Instead, you know what happen as a result of equality on the roads and track? Women got better across the board at distance running.

And to the high-octane moron who said that the logical upshot of the claim that women do better relative to men as distance increases is that women are BETTER than men at longer distances, and should thus race directly against them: You are an example of how sexism addles the brain. Again, the claim is that, all other things being equal, women can be expected to be relatively CLOSER to men the longer the distance; hence, women are arguably RELATIVELY BETTER SUITED to long distance running than to short distance running-- relative to men's performance, that is-- and should be racing at least as far as men in XC.

I often think of Wottle running cross. Don Paige also ran cross, as did the Seton Hall 400 meter runners back in the day. Cross Country for ALL!!!!

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? 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

As a civilian runner, if I entered a road race and the distances for the women were shorter than the distances for the men, there would be a public outcry. There will always be slower, less aerobic runners, in high school, college and the REAL WORLD. Just because you all live in the precious NCAA bubble, doesn't make the inequality right.

I'm in the women run 8k, men run 10k camp, and here's why:

The amount of time out on the course for each race will be about equal. This gives both groups an equal amount of time to compete, and allows spectators to have the same amount of time to watch both races.

Also, with the fields as large as they are, the additional time out on the course allows the race to spread out a little more, which I think for both the runners and spectators is preferable.

Also let's change the 100 meters to 80 meters for the women.

lmb wrote:

I often think of Wottle running cross. Don Paige also ran cross, as did the Seton Hall 400 meter runners back in the day. Cross Country for ALL!!!!

You would expect pretty much all 1500m runners (i.e. wottle was a 3:53 miler) to do ok at XC. There are a few that are really speed based but most people running 4 min miles and 70+ miles per week are going to be able to crank out a sub 30 min 10k. And the good ones go well sub 29.