Would bringing back the mile for the NCAA take away opportunities for the best collegians to post qualifying times for the Olympic trials/national championships?
As for the idea that the mile will somehow bring renewed interest in t and f, fuhgeddaboutit. Not a chance. If that were the case, wouldn't the mile at the indoor meet be more popualr than it is?
Genzebe Dibaba does not sit and kick.
what about the 440, 880 , and 1720??????
asfdsa wrote:
Would bringing back the mile for the NCAA take away opportunities for the best collegians to post qualifying times for the Olympic trials/national championships?
Nope! For recent Olympic Trials and USA Outdoor Championships, one could qualify for 1500 with a Mile time.
Fifteen Hundo wrote:
Imagine all the middle of the road high schoolers working just a little harder to run a sub 4 1500.
Another benefit to 1500 is starting on a straightaway instead of a curve.
It starts on the curve on almost all tracks.
Race Tactician wrote:
Sit and kick baby. That's all you need to know for world class 800, 1500, 1600, and mile race tactics.
It's also why the sport is losing interest. Can you say boring?
It's been a sit and kick race forever, whether the sport was popular or not.
Fifteen Hundo wrote:
Another benefit to 1500 is starting on a straightaway instead of a curve.
The 1500 starts on a curve.
The mile starts on a straightaway.
But great try
You Know Me wrote:
The whole bring back the mile thing makes no sense to me. We have it during indoor track and does that make it more marketable? Does the general public get excited about the Sorotos v Ches matchup, because it's a mile? Nobody is going to tune in except the die hards, and we will regardless if it's a mile, 1500, 1600, 2000, 1000, etc.
What's more important is continuing our trend of closing the gap on the rest of the world, and that's not going to happen by running different distances.
Nobody cares about indoor track in general. But the common folk can relate to the mile. Remember when Webb went on Letterman after his historic Pre mile performance? Most male runners want to finish their careers having broken at least 4:00 for the mile (3:50 for the elite). I remember NCAA steeplechase champ Karl Van Calcar from Oregon State in the late 80s wanted to close his career with a sub-4:00 min mile, not a sub-3:43 1500 or whatever the conversion is.
Or Falcon's 3:49 at the Dream mile in Oslo? Or Cram's WR. Or all of the guys from that era who wanted to run in the "Dream Mile." It wasn't the "Dream 1500."
Most prep runners know roughly what they can run for the mile based on the 1600 conversion, so why not just go to the full mile? We don't race road 1500s because nobody in this country gives a shit about the metric distance. However, there is a general public awareness of the mile and what a good mile time is. No reason not to bring it back into focus.
What happened to that "Dream Mile" anyways? Died many years ago.
Dream Mile wrote:
What happened to that "Dream Mile" anyways? Died many years ago.
Are you serious?
Wait! Are we talking about bringing back the full mile, cause that's a different story if you are talking about the FULL mile?!?
How about we go back to measuring field events in feet too? Track should have never been an early adopter of the metric system in the US. The day you can only get metric tape measures at Home Depot and the speedometers on all cars sold in the US have only kilometers per hour on them should have been the day track goes to metric.
The Full Monty Mile wrote:
Wait! Are we talking about bringing back the full mile, cause that's a different story if you are talking about the FULL mile?!?
Yep, I am talking about the FULL mile as compared to the metric equivalent of 1600 meters or the Olympic distance of 1500 meters. Remember, Bannister was recognized as the first man under 4:00 for the FULL mile, not the first man under 3:43 for 3 3/4 laps. And he wasn't even American.
You ever see a 42.2k sticker on an automobile? Or a 21.1k for that matter? You have to run the extra 0.2 miles or it doesn't count as a full marathon.
I sort of like the current set up. Mile indoor, plenty of people break 4 minutes. 1500 outdoor, which is in line with the rest of the world. A nice way to have different mindsets indoor to outdoor and avoid monotony.
I don't see the urgency in changing things up for outdoor. Indoor mile is plenty.
The 1500 is a ridiculous distance that completely breaks the 100-200-400-800 sequence. It doesn't even make sense in terms of starting points on a track. The 1600 is the real winner here, although the mile is a close second. It also allows for easy split analysis and has a communal start/finish point, which is great.
We need to agree that the 1600 must go in high school.
Either move the start line back 9 meters or up 100m.
Star wrote:
We need to agree that the 1600 must go in high school.
Either move the start line back 9 meters or up 100m.
Absolutely the 1500m in HS. Runners should get used to running the distance the rest of the world runs. Also, 3000m, not 3200m. Time for the passed to move on.
On the rare occasions the mile or 2 mile are run there would be more nostalgia interest. Now it's like, blah.
Oslo Dream Mile still runs wrote:
Dream Mile wrote:What happened to that "Dream Mile" anyways? Died many years ago.
Are you serious?
Ummm, the mile record at Oslo was set nearly 20 years ago; sub 3:45. This year the winning time was 3:51+. So, what happened to that "Dream Mile" anyways?
Bring Back the Mile wrote:
There is no doubt that the Mile is one of the most important events in the U.S. for the sport, the media and the general public.
I've been an avid runner all my life, and have ZERO interest in the mile.
Even for high school I'd much rather they were running 1500 meters, instead of being treated like second class citizens and running not only one, but two different strange distances, both of them starting on the curve.
The 1500 meters, by starting on the back straight, is already ideal as it is.
What is sad is all the mile aficionados wanting to screw up this event even more.
Every world class 1500 is won by seconds, if that. Why r we training our young runners to run the 1600 or the mile and then expect them to know how to time their energy perfectly for a different event.
If I know exactly how fast I can go for a mile, how do u expect me to compete against people that know exactly how fast they can go for the 1500? No wonder Americans rarely win the 1500 anymore.