After the 10,000 any doubts that descending order qualifying is unfair?

malmo wrote:

At National Championships what you did 2 months ago is meaningless.

I agree with you completely about this. I do think that it goes a long way to explaining why we do so poorly at the Olympics. Not because of how one qualifies for Trials, but because Trials are too far before The Games.

lol wrote:

malmo wrote:

Only 3 of the top 8 would have qualified for the NCAAs with a descending order scheme.

NCAA Place and descending order qualifying

1. (1) Sam Chelanga

2. (44) John Kosgei

3. (18) Jake Riley

4. (25) Mohammed Ahmed

5. (45) Kiel Uhl

6. (56) Joe Bosshard

7. (57) Ben Cheruiyot

8. (19) Alfred Kipchumba

None of them tried to run fast because no one had to.

LOL is exactly right. There is no doubt that many of the fastest guys on the descending order list bombed in the late-season. You had 28:30 guys that couldn't break 30:30, which is sad and remarkable at the same time. It is more than fair to be critical of these programs, coaches or athletes (as much as you should be critical of college kids)for not being able to reproduce at the end of the season.

But in this year's system it isn't accurate to use their pre-region times for any kind of comparison to final national finish. As a coach, I knew based on history 29:35 and 29:50 would be safe marks for the west and east regions respectively. Most other coaches and athletes knew this as well and didn't bother chasing huge marks early, or in some cases at all. Judging by the results, this was the smart on their part.

These guys are all proven studs that could have run faster if the system dictated it. If qualifying was through a descending order list these same guys would have run faster during the regular season. 4 of the top 8 didn't even attempt a 10k until conference. They would never take the risk of conference being their sole shot at qualifying for NCAA's if the system were descending order.

malmo wrote:

Only 3 of the top 8 would have qualified for the NCAAs with a descending order scheme.

NCAA Place and descending order qualifying

1. (1) Sam Chelanga

2. (44) John Kosgei

3. (18) Jake Riley

4. (25) Mohammed Ahmed

5. (45) Kiel Uhl

6. (56) Joe Bosshard

7. (57) Ben Cheruiyot

8. (19) Alfred Kipchumba

Almost all of these guys are XC all americans so it is about what you should expect considering so many of the XC All Americans do different events. Their were a few guys who really deserved to make Nationals and didn't, based on their Season Best. I think a mixture of descending order auto qualifiers (like top 10- where each still has to compete at regionals and give an honest effort) plus the next 20 or so best regional qualifiers would make for a great race composed of the best athletes.

So competition is good for colleges, but not good for nationals or Olympic Trials? So getting hot at the right time is good for colleges but 18-month windows with fixed time standards is okay for nationals/Olympic Trials?

I don't know why I am so intent on playing the devils advocate.

I think that the regional qualifying system probably created a better quality field. 1 DNF and only a handful of lapped athletes is probably much better than the average chaos that happens year in and year out in the 10k at nationals. Also after Chelanga the race seemed very close and exciting for 2nd through 9th.

But I still stand by my claim that some of the 5 scorers weren't ranked in the top 24 would have run a time that qualified them for nationals if they needed to.

Since 10k's take a toll on a person's body it would be best to only do them when you have to. Since a lot of these athletes are forced to do them at their conference meet, having a regional forces them to do a minimum of 3 10k's. Thus if you wanted to do an extra 10k to get a time that means 4 10k's. Lets see what the scorers did:

Sam Chelenga: Cardinal, Regionals, Nationals (plus IC4A 5k and Regional 5k)

John Kosgei: Big 12, Regionals, Nationals (plus Mt. Sac 5k, Big 12 5k and 2 1500s)

Jake Riley: Mt. Sac, Pac 10, Regionals, Nationals (plus Cardinal 5k, Pac 10 5k, Regional 5k and dual meet 3k. Dude raced a lot)

Mohammed Ahmed: Big 10, Regionals, Nationals (plus Big 10 5k)

Kiel Uhl: Mt Sac, Big 12, Regionals, Nationals (plus Cardinal 5k, Big 12 5k)

Joe Bosshard: Big 12, Regionals, Nationals (plus Mt. Sac 5k, Big 12 5k, Regional 5k and 2 1500s)

Ben Cheruiyot: SEC, Regionals, Nationals (plus Auburn War Eagle 5k, SEC 5k, Regional 5k and 3k and 4 x mile)

Alfred Kipchumba: Mt Sac, Regionals, Nationals (plus Stanford 5k, Cardinal 5k, 2 1500s)

So out of 8 scorers, 2 did 4 10ks and 6 did the minimum 3 10ks.

I don't think it is necessarally an issue of just peaking too early. Ben Cheruiyot and John Kosgei ran low 13:40's in april which would certainly equate to good 10k's if they chose to run 25 laps instead of 12.5. Ahmed barely raced but since he didn't seem to ever run any faster than he had to I doubt that he couldn't have run atleast 28:40's if he had jumped in the B heat at Cardinal or something.

All of the other guys who did 4 10k's are probably feeling a bit over raced.

So if the regional system sticks around you will probably see a lot less people doing fast early 10ks. It certainly seems as though it would make qualifying for USA champs or Olympic Trials a bit tougher for the college kids but other than that it is probably fine.

Seems like the Regional System works. Yay

Well, whatever. You must be misinterpreting the analogy. To the athletes who should be in contention, the wherefores and whys of qualification are academic. They would be on the starting line if they have to hit a mark, if they have to be high enough on a performance list, if they have to finish in the top x in the qualifying round/race. BFD. Hardly "unfair."However, it not having to race, only pace, to qualify the sport loses out on compelling competition. Also, there is the obvious factor that you point out regarding runners peaking to run a time in April and then being flat come June. This makes the final far less interesting when those who would be top contenders were they peaking correctly for that day are non-factors in the race.

malmo wrote:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

Unfair? Not so much. As with the Olympic Trials, anyone who should be there will be there, regardless of qualifying method.

I do think it robs the sport of compelling competition, though.

Non sequitur.

The Olympic Trials has an 18 month window of opportunity. Additionally OT qualifying is not first 24 based on time, it is a set time standard. If you make the mark, you're in. With descending order qualifying you don't know what the mark is.

Finally, in college competition, most athletes will be competing in Conference Championships at exactly the time they should be at their best fitness. Outside of the sprints, college championships don't really lend themselves to time-trial situations.

Has there been any discussion about the following idea?

Minimum time requirement (i.e. sub 29:30 in the 10k) AND a particular place at a conference meet?

I mean, let's make HEPS, Big East, Pac 10, etc actually mean something. These can be the "1st round" that Regionals was supposed to be this year.

For the weaker conferences, the minimum time would weed out those who weren't really ready. So you could do something like the following:

For the 10k. Need to be in the top 3 at your conference AND have run sub 29:30 at some point during the current year.

If a given conference has no one meet those credentials, then you go to the next fastest 10k'er in the country who was the best finisher at his conference to not advance. For example, if no HEPS athletes run faster then 29:30 all season, no one from the top 3 goes from the Ivies.

If some guy in the PAC 10 has run 28:30 and finishes 4th, then he would get to go, since the HEPS guys were inept.

So you fill the field with those who are top 3 at conference and have run sub 29:30, and then fill out the remaining with the fastest people to place the next best at their conference.

I recognize this could get pretty tricky, but it would make the conference meets actually mean something and ensure that people going to the big dance were in shape at the right time. It would eliminate another meet of running all out (Regionals) and the minimum time requirement would guarantee some sort of base level of competency.

Lots of details to make it work right, but I think with more thought then I just put into it, it could potentially work.

Malley is channeling Matt Fitzgerald's logic center.

malmo, I agree with you, but XC 2010 makes a good point that there is a slight selection bias. Not all the top guys will go and run their fastest time because a super-fast time is not required to make NCAA's. In any case, the current system is far superior to the old system.

Anyone who has witnessed an NCAA Championship 10000 in the past knows that it was a shit-show every year, with seemingly half the field tanking. The new system seems to have remedied that. Only one DNF has to be an NCAA 10000m Championship record. The funny thing about the 03-09 Regionals system was that the 10,000 was the only running event in which the descending-order list was still used, yet it is the one in which the descending-order list is least effective (if you go by the letsrun.com analysis).

Come on guys, 10k's don't kill you THAT much, do they?

They had two weeks to recover. Don't people race 8k's every week for 6-8 weeks during XC?

honest question wrote:

Don't people race 8k's every week for 6-8 weeks during XC?

Top runners don't. Scrubs do.

Track is a competition sport, so the heart of the selection process, I believe, should be in competition, not on the clock.

Descending order is not really a solid option, because it takes the bite out of beating someone out for a spot. If you are neck and neck for the final qualifying spot, then that makes races great, not the fact that 'Runner A' beat 'Runner B' by .2 seconds in a 10K in two different races that could be up to a month apart and nowhere near NCAA's

Whoever has 'it' on the day they need to 'bring it' should get to go to NCCA's. That's the point of the whole journey. Training with a goal of reaching and placing at NCAA's, not peaking in ideal conditions 3 months earlier.

yeah i agree with points made on both sides...but in regards to this comment, although there are set standards the a standard is typically just set really low and the b standsard is high, so basically anyone who is an elite hits the time and the rest dont know, just like ncaa's. in 2008 the a for the mens 800 was 146.5 and the b was 148.5. most athletes were just as with ncaa. in regards to the 18 month window, its only 12 months in us championship years.

some of the guys that wouldnt have gotten in had we used a descending order list, very well may have just done what they needed to do to make regionals. had a descending order list been the method, i think that some of those athleted would have chased and achieved times, cuz thats what they needed to do.

i think while a descending order list may not quite get the best field there, it will do well enough to get the ones there that should be, without adding that stress to the athletes season.

im not really set on it being done either way, but i was just pointing out things u may have not thought of.

Time to kill qualifying for nationals by time in indoors, too, especially with crazy tracks like Washington's.

not really to malmo this time lol but indoors just needs to have converion for oversized tracks, that would help alot i think.

Yes, a conversion needs to be used. Don't D2 and D3 use conversions for their lists? Why doesn't D1?

the rocket. wrote:Their were a few guys who really deserved to make Nationals and didn't, based on their Season Best.

Name them?

Are you guys TRYING not to understand XC 2010? He's not disagreeing with you AND is making a very simple point - that in a time trial competition the guys who did well at Nationals could probably run as fast (or faster) than the guys who made the mistake of peaking too early. There's no harm with agreeing with him - in fact, it would not hurt your own argument at all. The guys who did well at Nationals (in many cases) CHOSE not to run a fast, time-trial type 10k earlier in the year and reaped the benefits now. That doesn't mean they could not run a fast time trial if they wanted to.