runnerexpert wrote:
While we are at it, can we get rid of the 5k, 4k, 3k xc races at the D1 level. There are actually 3k xc races, that is middle school stuff.
Those are usually rust buster races early season, let's athletes not get in their head and bust their rust while they're running on tired legs
What men ran a 5k. 4k, or 3k this year?
This was proposed at the convention last time around and it got shot down. Coaches argued that the women couldn't handle the longer distance.
This is stupid. The races during the season for women are usually 5K or 6K. The early races are the 5K races and then there is an increase to the 6K distance later in the season. If the distance is changed to 8K, then there will also need to be longer races during the season to prep the women for the longer distance. The early races would probably be 6K and then the later races would be 8K.
Conceivably I could also see this hurting the numbers of participants. At a 5k or 6K distance, the team picks up some runners that are primarily 800 to 1500 runners in track. Even 5 to 6 K is a bit much for some of them. If the distance goes to 8K some of them will just say "screw it." The D1 runners will have coaches that insist that they run cross but do you honestly think that some D3 runners are going to want to run that longer distance if they're not required to? Some will be OK with it but others won't. This may actually be counterproductive so the petitioner should be careful what they're wishing for.
As far as the men are concerned, the championship distance for D2 & D3 is already 8K. I don't think it would be that big of a deal if D1 went down to 8K. Actually, some of the guys would welcome the change, particularly the guys that run the 800 & 1500. There are some guys that run an occasional 400, the 4x4 relay, and are primarily 800 guys. Some of those guys run cross and they really hate it when the distance is increased to 10K at the end of the year. I always thought that it was strange how most races through the season for D1 guys are 8K and then for regionals and the national championship meet it's increased to 10K. I always thought that if they were going to do that they should run at least one 10K meet prior to the regional meet. Some guys struggle with the increase in distance.
How about just one distance, one race, one vision:
I am genuinely interested, is there any reason to believe that women are less able to handle distance than men? My layman's understanding is that women are more fatigue-resistant than men. I know young women are vulnerable to stress fractures, and the toll of overtraining is perhaps worse for women than men. But, I can't see the argument for running 6k rather than 8k.
Personally, I think college cross country races should be at least 10k. It is a time for distance runners to shine! I would love to see both a 4k short course and a 10k (perhaps even 12k) long course for men and women.
As a mid major coach I can say that most (but certainly not all) of the women on my teams over the years do not want this. That may not be the best argument against this proposal, but it is the truth.
Injuries have already been mentioned, but another reason to maintain the shorter distance has to do with maintaining a certain level of parity. Long distance oriented programs in the top third of the P5 conferences would benefit. BYU, Colorado and OK State would likely be stronger than they are now.
But there are more women's programs competing for a smaller talent pool than on the men's side. While the top 50 distance programs in the country would pull away from the pack more than a few women's DI teams would be registering a top 5 average in excess of 33:30 at conference meetings.
I am not as opposed to the shortening of the men's race. 8k is what they do all year so in a lot of ways it makes more sense to do it at championships. I think the parity argument comes into play again, though. I believe the 10k came about as a way to spread very tight talent fields and packs out a bit.
No one looks at softball and says women need to play on 90ft base paths and throw overhand to the batter. People also seem inherently OK with the fact that women's gymnasts compete in entirely different events than the men. Even women's lacrosse equipment is different than their male counterparts. Why are we not looking to change that?
to make it more of a direct comparison, it would be like if women played softball in the fall and then switched to baseball in the spring. if we're so concerned about women running longer distances, why do we let them run the 10K in track? or, gasp, the MARATHON at the olympics? if you're running in college you should be able to handle a 5+ mile race. will it be your best distance? maybe not, but at least you still have track.
knees getting old wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
The 4K at the World XC championships when they had it was awesome.
I wish the NCAA had a two-distance race format similar to that old worlds setup.
Coaches could divide up their squad based on shorter or longer guys, and they could choose to roll the dice and have someone run both (a la Bekele).
I have no problem with women running 6k.
This. ^^^. I think I love the idea of XC having a short race and a long race.
Throw a timing mat down at 1000m. That is one of your 5 scorers.
the 6K 10K disparity is absurd.
honestly I think men have the worse deal. 10K on grass is a long way for milers, where as female milers can compete and benefit more from XC.
The more I think about this, the more I'm actually ok with it. I always wondered how men made the jump from 5K to 10K in college. For women, the transition wasn't scary at all.
Fair arguments both ways. There isn't a clear right or wrong answer. As an MD guy, the jump from High School 5K to College 8K was brutal my first year, but stepping up to 10K at Regionals wasn't too bad after racing 8K's all year.
NCAA women are capable of racing 8K. It would take some significant alterations to summer and in-season training by coaches, but they certainly could make the same step-up in distance. The biggest change in the landscape we would see is the majority of Freshmen women red-shirting (and many already do). Adjust to the program, build your base without getting injured, adjust to altitude (if necessary), and then race 8K in your 2nd year.
Eliminating the Men's 10K from XC wouldn't make much sense. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No one loves that extra 2K more than Conner Mantz and his old man strength.
CarlyRaeJepsensMalort wrote:
to make it more of a direct comparison, it would be like if women played softball in the fall and then switched to baseball in the spring. if we're so concerned about women running longer distances, why do we let them run the 10K in track? or, gasp, the MARATHON at the olympics? if you're running in college you should be able to handle a 5+ mile race. will it be your best distance? maybe not, but at least you still have track.
No, my comparison is fair. XC and track are different sports with different seasons. Track has very little to do with this.
And to clarify, I am not concerned about women running longer distances. They won't die. I also don't completely subscribe to the idea that there will be way more injuries simply from increasing the distance (though the longer training volume required should be a consideration).
I just don't think it is good for the sport. You say that college athletes should be able to handle a 5 mile race. But or a lot of teams that is not the case. As I said before, the top third of DI programs have the athletes to do it. The bottom two thirds of programs are going to have some top 7 runners coming in at 34 minutes. A good amount of programs will have top 5 athletes registering a time in that range. At that point it is no longer racing as it should be at the DI level, it is just a battle of attrition.
Personally, I think my top 5 would fare better from a competitive standpoint. I don't recruit the 800m/Mile nearly as much as I do the 3200m and I like internationals with distance backgrounds. But, my title IX numbers would almost certainly suffer. With fewer women doing XC I may have to reduce my men's squad down to 8.
ared wrote:
change is good wrote:
8k standard distance for both genders would be a great change. 10k is too long for men to run all season and 6k is a horrible distance.
10k it too long???? Wtf is this beta doing on a running website?
Please. It is too long to run all season. That is why they currently run 8k all season. Even then many teams run only half the top guys for a lot of races. D2 and D3 already run 8k at championships. There is no reason other than historical to run 10k.
On the woman’s side 6k is a bad distance. Course configurations would be much easier if the distances matched the mens. High school girls run the same distances as the boys. 6k is just a hold over from when hs girls only ran 2 miles and women were not allowed to run 10k on the track.
CarlyRaeJepsensMalort wrote:
to make it more of a direct comparison, it would be like if women played softball in the fall and then switched to baseball in the spring. if we're so concerned about women running longer distances, why do we let them run the 10K in track? or, gasp, the MARATHON at the olympics? if you're running in college you should be able to handle a 5+ mile race. will it be your best distance? maybe not, but at least you still have track.
First off no one forces women to run 10k on the track, for many they work up to being able to do that event or commit to the longer distance. In cross country you don't get to choose an event, its a standard distance all have to run. Also most college age woman would never run a marathon. You would scare the majority of them away from the sport. 6k might be an odd distance but it is a great distance for woman. You should poll every woman's team in D1 to ask if they would prefer moving the distance up or keeping it the same. I would be willing to wager that far more would want it kept the same. I also think decisions like this that have a profound impact on the athlete, should be decided by the athletes. You also don't understand that for many programs it is hard to field a competitive team much less a team capable of running 6k. You are blinded and because of this you are not thinking about what is best for the people who participate in the sport. I enjoy watching the women run 6k and would not enjoy 8k. I would like to see the men move the championship down to 8k and women stay the same distance. However I don't think its that big of deal to change anything. Nothing wrong with current system you are looking for issues where they do not exist.
600yd/600m man wrote:
U.S. is a 100m to 800m nation plus jumps, hurdles and throws. U.S. is actually the best 400m & 400mH nation with a bit of decrease in success at 200m & 600m. The fall of at 800m is so severe partly because U.S. high school and college XC racing distances are too long which deter 800m runners from participating and those who do participate don't feel like they are part of the team, XC.
I recall Grete Waitz stating how unfair it was to have 1500m as the longest Olympic T&F event for women. Women have 3000mSC, 5000m & 10000m during outdoor T&F season at collegiate level. Is there a problem now? Are 400m & 800m women dominating fall XC? Grete W. could not win at 1500m but she felt she could win if there were longer distances. I would think the best women 5000m & 10000m runners win 6K XC races. Yes or no?
If U.S. had 3K high school XC, both genders. The best distance runners would still win 3K XC but 800m runners would feel more a part of the team and occasional 400m athletes would participate in XC. If college XC at all levels were 5K, 800m runners would feel like they are a members of the team. Five-thousand metres XC, both genders only can increase the likelihood of U.S. 800m medals without decreasing opportunities for U.S. 5000m & 10000m runners.
XC is for distance runners and not to develop 400/800 guys. There have been many great 800 runners that didn't compete in XC. A 3K for HS is a non-starter. The college men have been running 10k for 60+ years and it's the perfect distance. There has been talk of increasing the women's race to 10K and 8K is a good compromise.
8k for women would be an unmitigated DISASTER.
A good recruit for a D1 mid-major is a 5:00 miler that ran 25 miles per week in high school. 3 months after she graduates high school she has to race an 8k? You are asking for triple the amount of injuries.
You realize that most freshman men in the NCAA run 70+ miles per week to prepare for the 8k?
change is good wrote:
8k standard distance for both genders would be a great change. 10k is too long for men to run all season and 6k is a horrible distance.
All season? The men run a 10k twice.
I would have a little more confidence that posters on this thread know what they are talking about if some weren't repeating that DII is 8k. DII has run 10k since 1975. I also would like to know how many of the posters have run full seasons of NCAA XC. It is reasonable to run an 8k race every two weeks for a season. It is very challenging to run two good 10k races two weeks apart. If you want to see more teams running more meets each XC season instead of just a big invitational, a conference meet and NCAAs, then stop forcing them to have a training program focused on the 10k distance just for Nationals.
8k at the college level still is a good intersection for distance and mid-distance athletes to test themselves against each other.
Runner10287 wrote:
change is good wrote:
8k standard distance for both genders would be a great change. 10k is too long for men to run all season and 6k is a horrible distance.
All season? The men run a 10k twice.
Yes, because 10k is too long to run all season.