It's official: to make NCAA's as a distance runner you have to run at UW

"One other point: Between the Portland and Eugene-based athletes (including UO), Dempsey is Nike's indoor facility, de facto. This drives the competition level up overall, at least for the Husky Invite (theother meets are not nearly as deep)."

Just wait until Oregon builds their indoor facility...the Dempsey will be be down and Eugene will be the place to be for a major indoor event too!

Check out what it might look like here:

http://www.tvaarchitects.com/#

Enter

Under Current Projects click on Hayward Field Renovation

View the master plan and a video of what the indoor facility could look like!

ahhhhh, crawling out of bed on sunday morning to post on LetsRun. Nothin beats it.

What the record books don't show is that Arkansas' guys (for years the best in the country, and in many cases the world), professional runners, and the hottest collegiates have run at Tyson and at the Arkansas track. So the times are fast. This has not been the case with UW for nearly as long.

I know fast kids and pros run fast times.

What I didn't realize, until this weekend, was how otherwise accomplished but not star runners could go to UW, get on the ncaa auto qualifier rabbit train and ride their way to 7:55 3k! Dear Billy: why should you come to our school? Rhetorical question! Because I coached 3 1:49 guys last season. Oh, where did they run that? In a race? No, in a fabricated time trial in Washington. They were 31st, 32nd and 40th in the race.

By the way, the suggestion of running at the Kentucky track is priceless. Yea, running at all the big invites they have there? Load up chilluns, weez headed to Kenturkey!

You are all a bunch of idiots? UW run a distance meet the way its supposed to be run. No one wants to see a slow race.

So stop feeling sorry for yourself,go Seattle...if you can't hang maybe this whole thing is not for you...period

More records are still being set at Tyson than Dempsey, and in particular, Ark is faster for sprints, period. From all accounts, Boston's Reggie Lewis facility is plenty fast as well. Dempsey is merely a case of west coast parity with previous eastern domination of indoor track.

What's ironic about all of this whinging is that the same guys that complain that Dempsey is "too big" are the same crowd that every spring would accuse the Stanford track of being too short.

Since when is putting strong fields on a fast surface in (occasionally) paced conditions a form of cheating? The Europeans have been doing it for decades. Maybe U.S. athletes should refuse to run the Golden League?

correction fluid

I second your opinion.

UW = UW-Madison?

We got 1 shot each year to qualify to nationals - indoor and outdoor. For indoors, usually a good winter of base training followed by a rust buster mile/DMR in late January at one of the tracks in the Midwest. Nebraska has a great facility as does New Mexico. However, Nebraska never had the fields and New Mexico is at altitude. Then, you load up and fly to "the meet" to get your 3k/5k qualifier. 1 shot. You don't go to Tyson because there is only 1 good heat. If your good enough to be in that heat then you probably aren't worrying about getting a qualifier. You go to either Boston or Seattle, however the Boston meet has declined. You follow the fields, period. It's not about the track. Then you jump on the time trial train, take your shot at qualifying. You are not going to qualify at your conference meet as the racing tactical. So that's it, that's why people go there. If everyone decided to go to Texas Tech to qualify then it would happen there. The magic isn't the track, the magic is the fields. You can argue all you want about fast or slow surface, what's that worth 1 second in a 5k? Whatever. It's the fields.

Same for outdoor. You only have so many 10k or 5k races in you a season. Might as well run the time trial.

Penn Relays was great because of its history, but nobody goes there to run a fast individual qualifier.

Notre Dame has a 320m indoor track. I'm surprised more people don't make it out there

Here are the factors that make the UW track fast for distance races:

1. 307 meters, so at distance racing speeds, the corners don't feel tight at all.

2. It is a Mondo surface, and very fast, but the track is also suspended, so you get a nice little bounce and energy return from it without is wearing on your legs.

3. You will have trouble getting any closer to sea level than at UW.

4. The facility is relatively large, and with relatively mild weather outside, they don't have to blast the heat to keep place warm. The result is that the air inside is a nice temperature for distance racing, but it also has some humidity left in it so you don't get the same indoor/dry air hack like you get if you race indoor at a lot of other places.

5. Most importantly, however, it is now a place where people go and expect to run fast. Don't underestimate the mental aspect of simply expecting to run fast because you know all of the factors above are not working against you. Just like with the Stanford meets, people started running fast because of the good conditions, but then lots of people started to run fast there because they expected to. Load up fields and heats with good runners who expect to run fast and you will get lots of solid performances.

Can someone explain the rationale of these oversized tracks. Why aren't they all standardized to 200m? You don't see universities going out an building a 607m outdoor track, let alone a 800m track. What gives?

I'm just speculating, but I'd guess the reason odd-sized tracks are built is b/c the tracks are often built inside of indoor practice facilities or basketball arenas & the building itself is odd-sized - the track was an after-thought or second priority, at best & has to fit in w/o disrupting the primary use of the facility. I think UW football uses Dempsey for practices (could be wrong) & I know other varsity & club sports do, too - I'm certain the track wasn't the top priority when it was built, so UW fit it in around the perimeter of the practice field.

Ive posted this before, the Dempsey is 307m because that is the shortest track possible to fit around the 100yrd playing surface of a football field. The endzones are cut off.

I have heard, but cannot verify, that the NCAA is not certifying anymore over-sized track for competition.

jfc. wrote:

'gone,' not 'went.'

You expect me to know that? I said I was from Ohio!!!

I can't get over the fact that these kind of meets are not good for college track and field. It's a simple matter of costs. Not every team out there can afford to fly out to Washington indoor or to Stanford outdoor. There are programs that are being cut because schools realize that they can't afford to spend the money to be competitive. Another post summed it up above: you just want a fast field so you try to get to a good meet but Arkansas and Boston are too hard to get into so you go to Washington where they have 7 sections of the mile, 5 in the 3k, 4 in the 5k. It seems like they'll accept anyone rather than cap the field sizes and run a few competitive races.

Also, you no longer have a track and field meet that is palatable for fans. Instead you have an all day for 2 days time trial festival that seems more like watching 10 consecutive marathons. I have not been to the UW facility but it looks like there are few seats judging by the number of people standing on the infield. So if you ask someone to come and watch the meet they have to stand for hours just to catch a top end competition once every 8 races. Boston, Millrose, and Arkansas cap their field sizes. They are built for spectators and they are on TV. If we capped field sizes, either by NCAA rule or by self regulation we could split that field up into smaller meets all over the country and maybe start attracting fans again. If it were really just the track causing fast times you would have a bunch of qualifiers out of Akron, another 300m mondo track. It's not the track it's the meet, and that's the problem.

I have a similar concern about these types of meets. I have also noticed that a very large portion of the competiors do not approach these times outdoor. Indoor on the oversized tracks has actually become faster than outdoor. These times are usually accomplished on far less training emphasizing just how much faster these large tracks with controlled climates actually are. Although they may be good for individuals, I see them as a negative for the sport in general as the above poster described.

correction fluid: wrote:

More records are still being set at Tyson than Dempsey, and in particular, Ark is faster for sprints, period.

Records (NCAA, World Sr.,Jr.) can only be set on 200m banked tracks.

I think the Dempsey is okay for spectators. There are bleachers by the finish and you can usually get a seat in them. Being on the infield puts you very close to the action. You have good views of the pole vault and high jump also.

Since you have not been to the UW facility, and also apparently never looked at an event schedule, you don't know what you're talking about. The first part of the day is devoted to all the slower heats, then the second half of the day contains generally the two fastest heats for each event back to back. So no, you are not waiting 8 races to see one top end competition. Every final save for the 60's was contained in about three and a half hours. Go look for yourself

http://gohuskies.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/wash/sports/c-track/auto_pdf/09HuskyClassic

here is some ideas wrote:

East Tennessee State University is capable of hosting a meet like this. It is a better venue. There is TONS of seating and a 300 meter track.

Unfortunately, all the good runners are from Colorado and on West. Sure, there are exceptions, but the good distance runners are in the West, the good sprinters are in the South.

ETSU has really tight corners and long straightaways. Dempsey is way easier to run on.

ETSU definitely has better seating, that's why you'll never see a National Championship held at UW. UW does the best they can with the setup, but it was never designed to be a spectator facility, it was designed as a football practice facility.

I hope this is useful to some of you. I have links to all these tracks, but I can't insert more than 5 links without causing letsrun to block this post as spam.

200m Banked Indoor Tracks

North-East:

1. Boston University (2003, Track & Tennis Center, 60K sq ft, 1.5K seating, Boston, MA)

http://www.bu.edu/fitrec/facilities/more/tracktennis.html

2. Reggie Lewis (1995, Track & Athletic Center, 70K sq ft, 3.5K seating, Boston, MA)

http://rltac.com/

3. Harvard (1981, 220yds=201m, Al Gordon Track & Tennis Center, 2.0K seating, Cambridge, MA)

https://admin.xosn.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9000&ATCLID=1478306

4. Yale (2005/1928, only 4 lanes, Coxe Cage, 58K/26K sq ft, 1.2K seating, New Haven, CT)

5. NYC Armory (1995, Armory T&F Center, 96K? sq ft, 3.0K seating, New York City, NY)

6. The Lawrenceville (High) School (4 lanes, Lavino Field House, Sometimes used by Princeton Univ., NJ)

7. Penn State (2000, $16M, hydraulic banking, Ashenfelter Track Complex, .8K seating, State College, PA)

8. Navy (2009, hydraulic banking, Wesley A. Brown Field House, 140K/76K sq ft, almost no seating, Annapolis, MD)

http://navysports.cstv.com/facilities/wbfh.html

9. Virginia Tech (1997, Rector Fieldhouse, Blacksburg, VA)

10. VMI-Virginia Military Institute (Cormack Fieldhouse, Lexington, VA)

Mid-West:

11. Indiana University (2006/??, Gladstein Fieldhouse, Bloomington, IN)

12. Univ. of Nebraska (2000/1976. One of three hydraulic-banked tracks in the USA and one of seven in the world. Largest radius (67 feet) of any indoor-banked track in the world. 70K sq ft, 5K seating, Devaney Sports Arena, Lincoln, NB)

South:

13. Clemson (2004, Rock Norman T&F Complex, Clemson, SC)

14. Univ. of Arkansas (2000, Randal Tyson Center, 5K seating, Fayetteville, AK)

15. Texas A & M (2009, $36M, Gilliam Stadium, 115K sq ft, 5K seating, track not close to seating, College Station, TX

http://www.aggieathletics.com/sports/c-xctrack/tam-c-xctrack-body.html

16. U of New Mexico (New Mexico Convention Center, 5,120’ elevation, Albuquerque, NM)

West:

17. Boise State (Idaho Sports Center, 97K/63K sq ft, 2,490’ elevation, Boise/Nampa, ID)

18. Montana State (1956, Worthington Arena, Rob Stark oval, 6.4K seating, 4,926’ elevation, Bozeman, MT) 19. Idaho State (1972, Wooden track, Holt Arena, 4465’ elevation, Pocatello, ID)

.

Jumbo 300m+ Oversized indoor tracks (Below list might be missing a few 300m+ tracks.)

The NCAA rules prohibit qualifying on tracks over 322m (or 5 laps/mile, which is the size of the Notre Dame track, currently the largest in NCAA). There is also a rule in place which doesn't allow for any NEW tracks to be over 300m (and be used for qualifying).

1. Univ. of Washington, 307m (2000, $29M, Dempsey Indoor, 80K sq ft, Seattle, WA)

2. Iowa State, 300m (Lied Recreational Center, Ames, IA)

3. Notre Dame, 352 yards = 322m (Loftus Center, South Bend, IN)

4. Univ. of Akron, 300m (Stile Athletics Field House, Akron, OH)

5. Kent State Univ., 300m (Only Mondo Beijing indoor surface in the world. Field House, Kent, OH)

6. Grand Valley State Univ., 300m (New. Laker Turf Building, Allendale, MI)

7. Missouri State Univ., 300m (New, Springfield, MO)

8. East Tennessee State Univ., 293 (Johnson City, TN)

9. Univ. of Kentucky, 291m (Lexington, KY)

10. Appalachian State University, 300m (Holmes Center, Boone, NC)

11. University of Idaho, 290m (8 lane circular, Kibbie-ASUI Activity Center, Moscow, ID)

12. Rutgers, 314m (New Brunswick, NJ)

13. Northern Arizona Univ., 300m (Flagstaff, AZ)

• Brigham Young Univ., 352yd=322m (Not used for meets. Smith Fieldhouse, Provo, UT)

• The Dome, 413m? (Not used by a college. Anchorage, AK)

• Utah Olympic Oval, 442m (4 lane Mondo track. Located around the old Olympic speed skating track. Marks are not allowed for any college qualifying purposes. Used by the Univ. of Utah and Brigham Young University. Located in Kearns, UT)

Best Indoor Tracks *** Fast

200m Banked

• Texas A&M

• University of Arkansas***

• Boston University***

• Univ. of Nebraska

• NYC Armory

• Reggie Lewis (inadequate banking?)

• Penn State (minimal seating, too bouncy?)

• Harvard (220yds? = 201m, getting old)

• Yale (Only 4 lanes)

Oversize

• University of Washington, 307m***

• Iowa State Univ, 300m*** (Plus 400m 4-lane warm-up track around the 300m track.)

• Notre Dame, 322m

• University of Akron, 300m

• Kent State Univ, 300m