Thurl Ravenscroft wrote:
Mizzou Runner???? wrote:
Really? Measure it yourself before you start making assumptions. It was less than 100 meters short.
Sure it was Chachi.
But I'm a certified hobby jogger, so how would I have a clue about anything? I'll just shut my trapper Mrs. C.
Without a doubt short... guys with 15 flat PRs for the 5k were splitting sub 15 at the 5k.. ahh.. I don't think so buddy. Could be as much as 500m meters or more short.
I know a guy who can't break 10 who ran 5 flat pace. I'm thinking this is 400 short at least.
All of those por guys who will never run within a minute of their PR again. It feels good for a while but ends up backfiring when they get frustrated. Some of these guys will barely be able to run a faster pace for 5k on the track.
Larryfinkelstein wrote:
I know a guy who can't break 10 who ran 5 flat pace. I'm thinking this is 400 short at least.
Who the blazes is running in the SEC that can't break 10?!?
Runs like 29's at a crappy college wrote:
Larryfinkelstein wrote:
I know a guy who can't break 10 who ran 5 flat pace. I'm thinking this is 400 short at least.
Who the blazes is running in the SEC that can't break 10?!?
Haha! SEC SUCKS!
Mizzou Distance wrote:
nopeie wrote:
82 meters short, that's all. Flat and fast, great weather. That's the conditions that you pr in;)
My coach measured it with the wheel during our shakeout the day before and it only came out about 72 meters short. The SEC was simply stacked this year and had a lot of talent up front. Will be interesting to see howthey stack up against the slower times of the Big 12, Big 10, and Pac 12 at nationals. I’m guessing the SEC, and specifically Missouri, surprises some people this year.
LOL. Does your coach now a wheel isn’t an accepted method for measuring a course?
Who cares if it was short? Not me! This generation was brought up on 'times' for XC. Why? Every course is different, so every course record is different, but they don't matter. Winning does.
Give me a winner every day. Individual, team, I really don't care if the course was short or long. The winners won!
There may be a PR (PERSONAL record) on any given course. But it's your PR, and that course, condition, weather, etc. have nothing to do with mine. That's why there are no RECORDS for XC in the NCAA, USTAFF or IAAF.
Right. Times in cross country. That's something to worry about.
All this thread proves is that, despite all their talk, D1 runners' thoughts aren't much different than hobbyjoggers' thoughts. Hopefully, they all got their finisher medal.
Runs like 29's at a crappy college wrote:
Larryfinkelstein wrote:
I know a guy who can't break 10 who ran 5 flat pace. I'm thinking this is 400 short at least.
Who the blazes is running in the SEC that can't break 10?!?
Just want to point out that I have split 9:50 when my pr was 9:58 and I have split 15:45 when my pr was 15:51. Blew up in bthat second race.
Times in Xc are just for comparisons guys. Everyone in the country is not running on a identical course or in identical weather. You should learn in hs that xc times can be a joke if you consider the accuracy of every course.
NC Runner 34 wrote:
According to GPS it was about 100m short for then men, 75m for the women
You sure you're not from South Carolina? The letter N is only about 500m from the letter S on the keyboard and that to me would make a lot more sense.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/educationlimitless wrote:
Who cares if it was short? Not me! This generation was brought up on 'times' for XC. Why? Every course is different, so every course record is different, but they don't matter. Winning does.
Give me a winner every day. Individual, team, I really don't care if the course was short or long. The winners won!
There may be a PR (PERSONAL record) on any given course. But it's your PR, and that course, condition, weather, etc. have nothing to do with mine. That's why there are no RECORDS for XC in the NCAA, USTAFF or IAAF.
Exactly. If everyone is so deeply offended that the course was a bit short, they should much more upset that men aren't running 10k the whole season. So these guys ran a course that is 77-78% of the championship distance compared to running roughly 80% the whole year; big deal.
People that worry about cross country "PRs" really concern me. Does anybody really believe that all courses are measured accurately? I've been to a HS state meet where, miraculously, nearly every kid and every team "PRed!" They all "peaked" at exactly the right time! Cross country is only about times when comparing results on the same course. Other than that, it is about beating people. Quit worrying about XC times and race people. Then this spring you can start worrying about times on the track. (Except for at Stanford because we all know that track is short!)
No cross country course is long or short. They are what they are. The course at Auburn had a starting line and a finish line. Everybody that lined up in the race knew where they both were located.
The course was accurately measured initially. A few of the coaches complained about one of the turns at the coaches' meeting, so they decided to change it, knowing that the course would be short. 3 or 4 loops exaggerates a relatively small change.
Lucas Mowery 9:54
Alex Tucker 4:34 mile
Blake Baldasysaro 10:06
Jesse Millson 11:11
Kyle Montgomery 10:36
SEC doubter wrote:
Lucas Mowery 9:54
Alex Tucker 4:34 mile
Blake Baldasysaro 10:06
Jesse Millson 11:11
Kyle Montgomery 10:36
wha'eva, LSU just shows up ready to roll for SECs - they were training through the meets where they ran 27-28 minutes for 10k; conference matters! :)
The 2017/2018 NCAA Track and Field and Cross Country Rules book reads exactly: Rule 1, Section 12, Cross Country, Course Lengths, Article 1, a, Men, 2nd sentence - "The distance for any championship race shall not be shorter than 8000m and not longer than 10,000m." The 2017/2018 NCAA Track and Field and Cross Country Rules book reads exactly: Rule 1, Section 12, Cross Country, Course Lengths, Article 1, a, Men, 2nd sentence - "The distance for any championship race shall not be shorter than 8000m and not longer than 10,000m."
So, "shall not be shorter" is emphatically indicative that if anything, it "must" be equal to 8000m or longer up to 10,000m. Maybe there was a change to this rule unbeknownst to some of us. Or is there a margin of error cited for measuring race distances in NCAA cross country? I am unaware of such.
To be "prudent" and in accordance with the NCAA rules, the course would better to be measured and layed out 'longer' than 8000m so as to 'avoid' breaking this rule. This exact measurement could then be properly announced and disseminated to all participants.
Also, it 'appears' that there may exist historical accounts of this course having been short several years before this. There has been ample time to correct the course 'if' this is the case. And 'if' it was known by some to be short, was this information disseminated to all participants? I am unaware if it was.
Also, it 'appears' that there may exist historical accounts of this course having been short several years before this. There has been ample time to correct the course 'if' this is the case. And 'if' it was known by some to be short, was this information disseminated to all participants properly? Heck, why not just measure it out as 7000m, then, if you are not going to adhere to the official rules? Oh, "it is just cross country", some folks say! Well, heck, then why not measure out to be 6,500m! The rule book addresses this type of insipid dialogue so as to make clear how far the course "must" be! "The distance for any championship race shall not be shorter than 8000m and not longer than 10,000m."
LOL. Does your coach now a wheel isn’t an accepted method for measuring a course?
LOL? GPS watches are far more inaccurate than the wheel. The wheel actually rolls on the ground the runner is covering/running and always makes courses far longer than a GPS watch. So if this course measured short on people’s GPS watches then it was even farther off for the wheel. Maybe as much as 400. Also with the wheel it’s supposed to be measured the shortest distance you can travel on the course. So if you run anywhere in the middle or wide on the turns you are just adding extra distance on your GPS watch that doesn’t really count toward actual distance of the course. Someone did a study on all the different types of GPS watches and the inaccuracies was pretty prevalent in the most commonly used Garmins everyone wears. As much as 40 seconds per mile at 5:30 pace. 60+ feet per mile discrepancy on some models.
Anyway, it’s about beating people on any given day on any given course. Hopefully this boosts some of their confidence and hopefully they can carry that confidence into their Regional races. They know it’s short, but it doesn’t matter how short.
UnsureSherlock wrote:
Disgraceful if this course is short! If intentional by Auburn, then cheating! If not intentional, then grossly negligent! In this age of precise measuring and GPS verification methods, this "needs to be investigated".
Nobody would think it okay to suddenly have an NCAA football game or basketball game "end with time still on the clock"! "If" 300 meters short, then how many place changes could have occurred in the finish of this race if all competitors ran the "full" distance?
In the end of the day a cross country race is about place and team scores. Regardless of time, everyone ran the same course even if it was (it definitely was lol) short. A friend of mine with a PR of 24:49 (ran at Paul Short) ran somewhere around 23:50..
dogsclalder wrote:
SEC doubter wrote:
Lucas Mowery 9:54
Alex Tucker 4:34 mile
Blake Baldasysaro 10:06
Jesse Millson 11:11
Kyle Montgomery 10:36
wha'eva, LSU just shows up ready to roll for SECs - they were training through the meets where they ran 27-28 minutes for 10k; conference matters! :)
Idiotic Louisiana troller... you see all these guys and only focused on Montgomery. Dummy