Half of DII Nationals Mile/5000 Fields are from Adams State

As you may recall US nationals were just in Albuquerque, the people who usually win at sea level were the people who won at altitude. In the 3k for example, Braun still got beat by Rupp and Bauhs just like he did at Washington. Times are all slower, yes, but they are still equally slow. A lot of shifting in places just didn't happen. I hardly think having the meet at altitude effected the outcome.

You know what's kinda crazy to think about ...

Adams State has more qualifiers to D1 nationals than any other team in the 3k & 5k (3-4 each). They have more qualifiers than Oregon, NAU, Stanford, etc.

That's just sick.

Yes...

In the 5k they'd be:

2nd, 11th, 12th, 31st, 40th

That's better than Oregon, Oklahoma State, etc.

In the 3k they'd be:

4th, 15th, 17th

Ditto, better.

In the mile:

28th, 29th

Not so much ... Oregon 3 guys before Adams State's 1st.

Sorry, to clarify, that's what they would rank on the D1 performance list.

Is Albuquerque unfair for non-altitude runners? Would results be any different at sea level? Poll at d2cross.blogspot.com

dd1288 wrote:

Is Albuquerque unfair for non-altitude runners? Would results be any different at sea level? Poll at d2cross.blogspot.com

First off, I'm not here to argue whether Adams and the rest of the RMAC deserve to be in the NCAA distance races. They have had a great year and it's beyond altitude converted times, (which is sometimes a problem in the 1500m outdoors when Adams/Western get 10 second cushions for racing at home). They would score a ton of points in the mile/5k events at NCAA's regardless of where the championships would have been held this year. BUT with all of this said, there is no denying that holding the championships at altitude gives these athletes an advantage over their sea level counterparts.

There is no argument.

Looking for evidence to support this claim? open any exercise physiology book that discusses the topic, OR, listen to Damon Martin's video interview on Flotrack that was posted several months ago, where he talks openly about how long it takes his athletes to acclimate to training at the higher elevations of Colorado. He mentioned that it oftentimes takes 6-8 weeks for athletes to feel comfortable running up there. Hmm... Last time i checked the NCAA doesn't exactly fly sea level teams to the venue of NCAA's 6-8 weeks in advance.

You can poll athletes all you want, but the bottom line is that the altitude kids will say there is no advantage and the sea level kids will say that there is. The funny thing is that everyone knows the truth. I mean, how many elites move to elevation to gain the physiological advantages that are associated with living and training in the thin air?

The ironic thing here is that ALB, NM is a major destination for those seeking good altitude living and training.

What happened to just running a time and putting them in order?

Only 2 of the auto qualifiers in the mile ran times on the POP that weren't converted.

How did we get into this stupid converting everything business? JUST RUN THE TIME!

If we're going to convert for flat/banked/oversized/altitude/etc why don't we start converting for negative splitting or convert early season times for estimated better fitness at nationals?

It's just a pile of BS to say that all flat tracks are equal and deserve the same conversion, same with oversized. They take the RACING element out of RACING. Maybe that guys that got awesome conversions for 'slow' tracks ran the races of their lives because of how the actual race played out and had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRACK!

Pysiologically-speaking, sea level teams with distance runners should arrive in Albuquerque as late in the week as possible. Teams with DMRs and milers should fly in Thursday evening. Athletes only running the 5k should arrive Friday evening. Maybe not logistically possible for teams to make seperate travel arrangements, but it would greatly offset the effects of going from sea level to altitude.

You could also argue that having nationals at sea level is a huge disadvantage for the RMAC schools, as it is impossible to train at the intensities required for mid-distance events, even the 5k. You simply can't recover as quickly. The research indicates it's best to live high/train low and that's not practical for the schools at altitude. I don't think the NCAA allows altitude teams to fly to sea level for 6-8 weeks in advance of nationals.

With all due respect, you underestimate the effects of altitude, even for athletes that live and train at altitude. Albuquerque's 5-6 second conversion is not unrealistic or "huge" by any means.

You could argue that sea-level teams have an unfair advantage in that they can pursue fast times week after week. It's not easy for Adams or Western to travel to sea level, as it is they are at least a 3 hour drive from any major airport. Most of the runners on those teams get 1, maybe 2, shots at a sea level race each indoor and outdoor season.

I do think altitude conversions should be evaluated based on the latest research, but they are absolutely necessary to creating a level playing field.

Have you ever raced at altitude? It makes a huge difference in performance.

It's pretty difficult for small schools to travel hundreds of miles for multiple meets. And for schools in Colorado, Utah, etc. traveling these long distances is necessary in order to find sea level tracks. To take away the altitude conversion would be extremely unfair to these teams.

You could also argue that having nationals at sea level is a huge disadvantage for the RMAC schools, as it is impossible to train at the intensities required for mid-distance events, even the 5k. You simply can't recover as quickly. The research indicates it's best to live high/train low and that's not practical for the schools at altitude. I don't think the NCAA allows altitude teams to fly to sea level for 6-8 weeks in advance of nationals.

In all due respect Mr. tfc, I think my argument holds more water in the circles of distance running. So you are saying that if Aaron Braun and Med. and the whole Adams crew moved their operation to a sea level location that they'd post even faster 5k marks when racing at sea level? I'll grant you that there is some validity to your argument, but i think the benefits of living and training at higher elevations outweigh the negatives.

Fair enough, but I think you (and others) underestimate the challenges with training full time at altitude. I do believe their are disadvantages to training for the 1500/mile at altitude, so yes, I think those athletes would run faster in the those events if they were able to train at sea level. But I will concede that the 5k is a different ball game. At the same time, it is still very difficult to mimic the intensities (without a ton of recovery) needed to run well even at 5k. Coach Martin mentions this in the videos on Flotrack that you referenced. If you've read Running with the Buffaloes, Coach Wetmore refers to the challenges of training at altitude and that's why he's adopted the tactical approach of going out slower than sea-level-trained teams when racing 8k/10k at sea level.

Too many people (not necessarily you) think that altitude is some magic potion and discredit the successes of Adams and Western by simply saying they train at altitude without even beginning to understand the limitations of running at 7500/7800 ft. day in and day out.

Excuses! Excuses! Excuses! Thats all we hear anymore. The program has slipped a few notches. The DMR was buried by Adams, Metro and Mines last week. Pennel is not in form to run under 14 this year. Accepting mediocracy was never allowed under Vandenbusche.

Eric B. wrote:

Have you ever raced at altitude? It makes a huge difference in performance.

It's pretty difficult for small schools to travel hundreds of miles for multiple meets. And for schools in Colorado, Utah, etc. traveling these long distances is necessary in order to find sea level tracks. To take away the altitude conversion would be extremely unfair to these teams.

Yes, I have. I know it's difficult. My advice would be to not to go those schools if you're not born at a high elevation.

Just like I wouldn't advise a kid from Michigan or Maine to go to Louisiana and expect to race well in the warm months.

Should we convert that kid's time because it's extremely difficult to run well in 90% humidity and 90 degree weather?

My point is that we have a conversion for something that affects everyone differently. SOMEBODY WILL ALWAYS BENEFIT!

just run wrote:

My advice would be to not to go those schools if you're not born at a high elevation.

Racing at altitude still greatly effects those who were born and raised at altitude.

For all the great runners that have gone to CU, Adams, Metro, Western, Mines, CSU, not one of them has ever run a sub 4 mile in Colorado. In fact there has only been one sub 4 equivalent 1500 ever run on CO soil- by Manzano at Big XII's and that is because Pifer went for it, and Manzano had to as well if he wanted to win.

runinto wrote:

please list your pr

and most d2 runners dont have to peak to qualify for nationals, which leads to slower times

what does my PR's have to do with anything?? and would you really believe me even if i stated them?

D2 is just slower than D1. therefore its pretty boring to follow in my mind and i summed it up "sucks". I ran D3, then transfered and ran D1. D3 sucked, and I sucked for being D1. it is what it is.

its like following minor league baseball - sure some of the guys are excellent, but on the whole they'd get spanked by MLB players.

Not taking anything away from Adams, they are totally legit and deserve the recognition, but there aren't very many D2 men's indoor teams. Title 9 has made D2 men's indoor nearly obsolete. All that said, congrats to Adams State.