I find it funny that the executive committee can vote unanimously for something then it gets to the floor they get defeated 2:1.
Served on the D3 track committee at my last job. Half the time the coaches voting don’t listen to ANYTHING they’re told in their breakouts. The coaches on the executive committee go over every potential question AD NASEUM in their meetings and go into the breakouts fully prepared to defend the proposal and they’re ignored which will lead coaches to vote down anything and everything thrown their way.
What’s starting to suck about the convention are the coaches that don’t take anything serious anymore. From talking to a few D1 coaches, they knew a ton of other coaches who voted against themselves. Getting rid of indexing could have potentially helped them, but nope, they didn’t see how it could possibly help them so they voted it down. Frustrating when people talk about “making the sport better” but can’t be bothered to go to the general sessions to actually understand what others have thought up to potentially make the sport better.
I’m not in D1, so I didn’t see the presentation or hear the rationale, but still makes no sense how it didn’t make it through when there’s an obvious majority that would be helped by getting rid of indexing.
Maybe all of this should be presented online? Is there some reason this needs to be cloistered behind closed doors? My simple suggestion is for the purposes of fostering open communication and transparency. I’m not detailing how to do it here, but what’s the big deal?
These altitude conversions are important. There are some very stupid sprint coaches who don't believe there's an advantage to running at altitude and refuse to listen to science. It's just ridiculous. They're the ones voting for no conversions because they honestly think there isn't a difference.
The sprint coaches want to travel to altitude to get all their athletes to qualify in thinner air. Currently sprint times are converted slower at altitude.
Conversions are way to generious and if kept should be adjusted, also why isnt there a temperature conversion?
Southern teams need to travel to colder climates to hit times.
The one thing about running at elevation, is sure the elevation makes things slower, but more often than not in the USA the temperature and humidity are very favorable at higher elevations negating the impacts of the altitude.
You find temperature and humidity affects a lot of indoor meets? Or you see a lot of converted times knocking out relevant athletes for outdoor regionals qualifying?
First off, the best part of the discussion was Michigan getting called out and Kevin Sullivan getting defensive.
Second, I think the majority of the coaches agree that some of the conversions are off, but would like to see some proof or some new science to adjust the numbers. Getting rid of all conversions just seemed extreme!
You weren't in the meetings. Coaches took it seriously.
That's not surprising and it's believable that D3 coaches don't take it seriously but D1 coaches do. There's huge difference in the quality of coaching from D3 to D1.
Yeah, D3 coaches actually coach. D1 coaches just recruit.
Anyone who think altitude conversions are a joke has not raced much at altitude. My sea-level times have always corresponded to my converted times at altitude. I will always take racing at sea-level as opposed to racing at altitude with a conversion. Sea-level racing was always preferred. Senior year I went up against two sub 14 runners (at sea-level) and beat both of them at conference. My time that year was a measly low 14:30s, which converted to around 14:15-20. Our university didn't have the funds to travel to sea-level races during indoor so we took what we could get. Without the conversion I more than likely wouldn't have qualified for the conference race.
Maybe I'm off here, but my take is that the executive committee receives a list of proposals, and then votes on whether they should reach the coaching body for potential vote. They're not necessarily voting on whether it should pass or not.
I see both sides of the issue as it's unfair to make elevation teams to travel for all qualifying times, but then again, some of the conversions are NOT correct. The NCAA's 1500 conversion is definitely a few seconds off the mark. Frustrating to see guys run these converted times at elevation, and then have no chance at hitting the same or faster when they're in good fields at sea level.
Do you mean when Beamish ran 4:06 then won nationals over several sub 4 milers?
Yeah, let's cherry pick the Beamish race and use that to defend an unfair conversion. I mean, it's one race and should be the most defining example of why the current system is perfect! OR you can look at the masses of guys who ran converted marks at altitude last spring, and couldn't come within 2 seconds of these conversions in perfect fields and conditions at Azusa. OR maybe you can explain how the Kenyan 15 guy broke El G's World record for 1500 last year if using the NCAA conversion. Yep, he's the new world record holder right!?
Never happened in the southeast. Check your made up numbers that you posted. They didn't happen. You are probably just ignorant about temperature, dew point, and relative humidity. Educate yourself.
Do you mean when Beamish ran 4:06 then won nationals over several sub 4 milers?
Yeah, let's cherry pick the Beamish race and use that to defend an unfair conversion. I mean, it's one race and should be the most defining example of why the current system is perfect! OR you can look at the masses of guys who ran converted marks at altitude last spring, and couldn't come within 2 seconds of these conversions in perfect fields and conditions at Azusa. OR maybe you can explain how the Kenyan 15 guy broke El G's World record for 1500 last year if using the NCAA conversion. Yep, he's the new world record holder right!?
There is 100% no way anyone will run a national qualifying time in the mile or anything longer at altitude without the conversion. It's just never happening.
What if those schools can't afford to travel to sea level for every meet? What if the conference championships are held at altitude? Are they just out of luck with zero chance to have a qualifier?
Do you mean when Beamish ran 4:06 then won nationals over several sub 4 milers?
Yeah, let's cherry pick the Beamish race and use that to defend an unfair conversion. I mean, it's one race and should be the most defining example of why the current system is perfect! OR you can look at the masses of guys who ran converted marks at altitude last spring, and couldn't come within 2 seconds of these conversions in perfect fields and conditions at Azusa. OR maybe you can explain how the Kenyan 15 guy broke El G's World record for 1500 last year if using the NCAA conversion. Yep, he's the new world record holder right!?
I remember when Soratos ran 3:56 with altitude and track conversions in Bozeman, people railed about the unfairness of it all, saying he couldn't replicate it. Then he went to UW and ran 3:55. People love to complain about altitude conversions but cannot prove they aren't pretty accurate.
Yeah, let's cherry pick the Beamish race and use that to defend an unfair conversion. I mean, it's one race and should be the most defining example of why the current system is perfect! OR you can look at the masses of guys who ran converted marks at altitude last spring, and couldn't come within 2 seconds of these conversions in perfect fields and conditions at Azusa. OR maybe you can explain how the Kenyan 15 guy broke El G's World record for 1500 last year if using the NCAA conversion. Yep, he's the new world record holder right!?
I remember when Soratos ran 3:56 with altitude and track conversions in Bozeman, people railed about the unfairness of it all, saying he couldn't replicate it. Then he went to UW and ran 3:55. People love to complain about altitude conversions but cannot prove they aren't pretty accurate.
Then he ran a 1:51 in the middle of the NCAA mile final after a really slow first 600 to challenge PEAK Cheserek and got 2nd.
Do you mean when Beamish ran 4:06 then won nationals over several sub 4 milers?
Yeah, let's cherry pick the Beamish race and use that to defend an unfair conversion. I mean, it's one race and should be the most defining example of why the current system is perfect! OR you can look at the masses of guys who ran converted marks at altitude last spring, and couldn't come within 2 seconds of these conversions in perfect fields and conditions at Azusa. OR maybe you can explain how the Kenyan 15 guy broke El G's World record for 1500 last year if using the NCAA conversion. Yep, he's the new world record holder right!?
I think you thought you said something smart here.
Maybe I'm off here, but my take is that the executive committee receives a list of proposals, and then votes on whether they should reach the coaching body for potential vote. They're not necessarily voting on whether it should pass or not.
I see both sides of the issue as it's unfair to make elevation teams to travel for all qualifying times, but then again, some of the conversions are NOT correct. The NCAA's 1500 conversion is definitely a few seconds off the mark. Frustrating to see guys run these converted times at elevation, and then have no chance at hitting the same or faster when they're in good fields at sea level.
Beamish qualified for the 2019 indoor championships with a 4:06 at altitude that converted to a 3:57. How'd that work out for him?
That's right, HE WON. By a lot. Against a 3:54 guy and a 3:56 guy.
I'm actually kind of curious why your comment received 21 "upvotes" and very few "downvotes." (There sometimes seems to be a big constituency here for outrageously generous altitude "conversions.") Beamish qualified with a 4:06 at a pretty high altitude, and then won at sea level with something like a 4:07.6. And you're suggesting that this somehow justifies "converting" a 4:06 at higher altitude to a 3:57 at sea level? It seems rather obvious that everyone in the national championship final
There may reasonable justifications for some sort of "conversion" (really, more of a bonus or something) for times at higher altitudes to reduce or remove certain disadvantages for runners who rarely get the chance to run all-out at something near sea level, but it's troubling that many people view these "conversions" as equivalencies. There's no good evidence for that, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Yeah, let's cherry pick the Beamish race and use that to defend an unfair conversion. I mean, it's one race and should be the most defining example of why the current system is perfect! OR you can look at the masses of guys who ran converted marks at altitude last spring, and couldn't come within 2 seconds of these conversions in perfect fields and conditions at Azusa. OR maybe you can explain how the Kenyan 15 guy broke El G's World record for 1500 last year if using the NCAA conversion. Yep, he's the new world record holder right!?
There is 100% no way anyone will run a national qualifying time in the mile or anything longer at altitude without the conversion. It's just never happening.
What if those schools can't afford to travel to sea level for every meet? What if the conference championships are held at altitude? Are they just out of luck with zero chance to have a qualifier?
BS reasoning. If it was SOOOO hard to travel, the following numbers would look VERY different:
Men's 2021-2022 Indoor Top 100 descending order marks using altitude conversions:
800- 6
Mile - 10
3000 - 5
5000 - 4
DMR - 10
Average of 7/100 or 7% of the top 100 marks.
Women's 2021-2022 Indoor Top 100 descending order marks using altitude conversions:
So at the MAXIMUM, 11% of the top 100 marks in the country were CREATED using a formula. If they need them so badly then why are so few taking advantage of them? Because they do not need them. All but one of the Women's 3000m marks using an altitude conversion came from one meet (Mountain West @ ABQ). So by your logic, there must be tons of athletes competing in D1 at altitude that aren't showing up on the list because they're "forced" to compete at altitude? Where are they then?
A VAST majority of these programs can very easily find a 300m flat or a 200m banked track with good competition to run with no conversions and a VAST majority do just that. Therefore, what is the point of having the conversions? If so few are even taking advantage of them, what is the point???
And one more point that has always bothered me about conversions: So we're gonna speed up distance marks, add time to sprint marks, but do nothing about the throws or jumps? You're jumping/throwing through thinner air that has less resistance, but you're not going to adjust those marks? Please make that make sense!!!!!!!
Yeah, let's cherry pick the Beamish race and use that to defend an unfair conversion. I mean, it's one race and should be the most defining example of why the current system is perfect! OR you can look at the masses of guys who ran converted marks at altitude last spring, and couldn't come within 2 seconds of these conversions in perfect fields and conditions at Azusa. OR maybe you can explain how the Kenyan 15 guy broke El G's World record for 1500 last year if using the NCAA conversion. Yep, he's the new world record holder right!?
There is 100% no way anyone will run a national qualifying time in the mile or anything longer at altitude without the conversion. It's just never happening.
What if those schools can't afford to travel to sea level for every meet? What if the conference championships are held at altitude? Are they just out of luck with zero chance to have a qualifier?
if you read my first post you'll see that I defend the need for altitude conversions for the same reasons you mentioned. I just think the current 1500 marks are off for those who train at elevation. If you think the current NCAA adjustments are accurate then you must also believe that the Kenyan that I mentioned who ran adjusted world record at elevation last year is faster than El G right?!