overheard that one of the columbia runners knew mid race that his teammate was going to win thus, never pushed the pace.
overheard that one of the columbia runners knew mid race that his teammate was going to win thus, never pushed the pace.
Jake McKenzie of Yale was 5th from the slow section the last time Heps was here in 2010 and Awad from Penn did the same last year.
In 2011 & 2012, the slow heat winner just missed scoring, finishing 7th both years.
It's not hard to see how this can happen each year, but for the winner to come from the slow heat... wow.
overhearddd wrote:
overheard that one of the columbia runners knew mid race that his teammate was going to win thus, never pushed the pace.
Quite plausible, but the seeded heat had more than Columbia runners in it! What a bunch of numskulls.
So, we may as well entertain ourselves with this nonsense ...
What the opening 400 split in the mile today?
What is the opening 800 in the 5k?
Will the stupid-ass 3k change the behavior today?
Could hap[pen anywhere.
Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb in the fast heat
K5 wrote:
Could hap[pen anywhere.
Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb in the fast heat
This is the exact p*ssy philosophy that sets up this type of crap. There were 12 guys in the hot heat, the slowest with a seasonal best of 8:14. You have no shot to score, why not get out and make the race and shoot for a pr? Jesus, with this type of thinking, along with the p*ssy DQ in the SEC yesterday, no wonder no one takes track seriously.
Burke ran in the first heat. He had never run an NCAA 5k and set the Barton Hall record AND had to lap guys. Fast heat couldn't come close.
Tigertiger wrote:
Burke ran in the first heat. He had never run an NCAA 5k and set the Barton Hall record AND had to lap guys. Fast heat couldn't come close.
Thus making what he did even more impressive.
I have to ask......where the hell were the coaches???
Same thing happened in the ACC Men's 3000. Top 3 came from the slow heat.
The ESPN3 announcers even noted that Happe was a double champ in the 3/5k. They gave blow by blow accounts of both heats, but never noticed the first heat was faster. They never corrected themselves.
THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!! The mile was MORE than respectable, that's what you call racing!!
Same thing happened yesterday in the MPSF mile.
no dog in this fight, but wrote:
I've never really liked the idea of deciding places using multiple heats. Why not have a prelim and a final if you're going to allow a field that is too large to run in a single heat?
This is how they do it at the big Masters' meets. At WMA you would have en entire day devoted to Mens 5000m and a day devoted to Womens 5000m, and about 60-80 people in each age group band. So, they seed the races and at least notionally combine the times. 'A' race goes first. Sometimes, someone in the B race goes off like a bat out of hell and everyone wonders if they are going to solo run to a medal.
I would imagine the cause is the same: there just is not time in the schedule to have heats and finals with adequate recovery in between, and/or people want to double up and run other events too.
Again, were there any coaches in attendance?
no dog in this fight, but wrote:
My point is that it is silly to determine one result from two separate competitions. A race consists of multiple people on the track at the same time trying to beat each other. If you are trying to beat people who aren't running on the same track at the same time, you're just time trialing. I personally prefer watching and competing in races over time trials.
Can someone explain the objection to this? Why is the existing system preferable to either accepting only the number of runners who can run in a single heat final or having a prelim and then a one heat final?
The major benefit is that it gives more athletes the chance to compete. I think that's valuable as long as there are still qualifying standards.
Second benefit is you avoid heats for "small" championship meets (e.g., Heps, ACCs, etc. -- especially indoors). I think most coaches and athletes indoors would prefer not to have to run heats in a race longer than 1500 meters (and often in races shorter).
Furthermore, indoors, sprint races like 4x200, 4x400 require multiple sections anytime you have more than 6 to 8 teams. Sure, line them up slow to fast so the fast heat has the best opportunity, but if you run faster in the slow heat, your time is good. Even in open races and relays with qualifying heats, it's typical to put the fastest teams in separate heats and take top qualifiers in each + enough next fastest times to fill the final. Seems fair to me.
And as others have noted, the fast heats always come later, and so you know exactly how fast you need to run to win. You don't do it in the fast heat, you blundered, period.
The rules are known in advance and they're fair. I also like the fact that there are scenarios were times matter as much as place. It kind of sets an honest effort bar.
Funny story but normally no one gives a shit about the Ivy league
Seriously though - would having 2 final heats really be that bad of a thing? The 'slow' heat is always going to be pr oriented, as who wants to 'win' a tactical 'slow heat'? Instead of having rabbits in the fast heat have the standard of the previous heat dictate things. It'll almost always keep things 'honest'. In fact, It'd be a curious study to see what percentage of major rabbited races actually end with the goal time in mind.
Drew bogoMil wrote:
Funny story but normally no one gives a shit about the Ivy league
It's the BEST meet in the country, dipwad. The performances might not be the best, but it's the best atmosphere you will ever find. PLUS, everyone is an actual student-athlete.
Go the meet once .... you'll be hooked. And that is NO BULLSHIT.
Plus, just to add, I think it's the only meet with an actual Olympian competing.
Also, to Ray ... I would give the coaches the benefit of the doubt. Has every athlete you've coached listened to you 100% of the time? lol
Instead of having a "fast" and a "slow" heat, why not have two heats based on seed times. That is, 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15
etc. in one heat and 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16 in another heat. It's what the NCAA does (or something similar) at the outdoor pre-nats in the 5k.