You are comparing apples and oranges. Men are (objectively) taller and bigger physically than women, which is the reason for hurdle and implement differences. There is no such reason for race distance.
Also, many people would like to see women move to the decathlon and that will happen soon probably.
I like the proposal, for the following reasons:
1. I think it'll make the regular season a bit more exciting, with the potential for more quality races from the top teams now that the specter of running 2 10k's in 9-10 days at the end of the season isn't looming.
2. It'll allow a few more exciting mid-distance athletes to compete and factor into individual and team races.
3. In general I just think a xc 8k is a more exciting event than a xc 10k.
dont be reedic wrote:
You are comparing apples and oranges. Men are (objectively) taller and bigger physically than women, which is the reason for hurdle and implement differences. There is no such reason for race distance.
Also, many people would like to see women move to the decathlon and that will happen soon probably.
Couldn’t you though? Why impose competition limits based upon physiological differences of some events but not others? Men are better equipped for long distance due to larger hearts and higher VO2 max on average. Yet women run marathons, 10k, 5k like men. So why not throw and jump with the same implements as men?
If we are serious about making XC a real sport, with actual fans and meaningful team scores, maybe just shortening the races is not the only change. Maybe we should make it more equal and add federally mandated water breaks and share some of the faster runners with less fortunate teams. At least we already have gender neutral porta potties.
Why not just shorten the men's race to 6k for more equality? I mean, its like 8k without that boring extra 2k of running. More than anything, the NCAA is insulting females with such a stupid distance. Why not go all the way down to 4k like the old World XC short course? I mean, market research suggests that 10k of hard running is obviously too dangerous and is a gateway races into half marathons and beyond.
It's not really about consistency, it's just dumb. Going up to 10k after running 8k's all year is like playing all season on a 100 yard football field, then when you get to the Super Bowl, the field is 150 yards... Also, the fact that teams make it into 10k nationals with an at large bid that's based on "points" gotten against teams in 8k races is pretty dumb as well.
I would agree with this. NAIA already has half marathon/marathon championships, and this gives people an opportunity for competitive road races that they otherwise may not get.
okay
Been saying this needs to be done for years. It just doesn't make sense with the current system. Women should be moved up to 8k for the whole season as well, there's absolutely no reason for them to be running a separate distance.
Keep men at 10k, move women up to 8k.
Joe Norm wrote:
It's not really about consistency, it's just dumb. Going up to 10k after running 8k's all year is like playing all season on a 100 yard football field, then when you get to the Super Bowl, the field is 150 yards... Also, the fact that teams make it into 10k nationals with an at large bid that's based on "points" gotten against teams in 8k races is pretty dumb as well.
The reason you don't run 10ks all year is because it's too much to race week after week. It's still a fine championship distance. Furthermore, only the fittest athletes run nationals. The JV guys who aren't ready to race 10k aren't racing regionals or nationals.
This consistency justification is weak.
If you want consistency and 10k, you just legislate that you are only counting at large points from races at 10k. Instantly you get consistency.
In the same way (I know this would also take legislative change for the at large points) you could very well see a bunch of schools changing to run 6k during the season and reserve the 8k for championship season.
I don't have a problem with 8k or 10k, but this is just BS reasoning. The one advantage I see of moving it to 8k is if the move the women to 8k as well. I am in favor of that consistency.
What if we kept men at 10k and moved women up to 8k? That would make it to where both genders are racing somewhat close to the same amount of time while keeping common race distances.
Women shouldn’t move up. At the top level of the NCAA, the women’s 6k championship is almost always more exciting. Girls aren’t afraid to go for it up front and be reckless. Also there is always a couple people in it to win it the last 1k. Team scores much closer too. Moving them up to 8k would just make things boring. They would be out there longer than the guys too. A woman would be running 27-28min while a guy would be 24-25min.
Not sure why the Dave Smith's would be upset? These traditional distance powerhouses may 1 real invitational before their Conference, Regional (where they also sometime sit out best runners), and NCAA. In reality, the very best distance runners run 3-4 races a "season". So ultimately, who cares?
What you said doesn't really make me think any differently about the super bowl analogy, and the part about the fittest athletes running nationals doesn't make any sense. Being in good shape doesn't justify randomly adding 2k to the distance you've been racing all year.
Hardloper wrote:
Joe Norm wrote:
It's not really about consistency, it's just dumb. Going up to 10k after running 8k's all year is like playing all season on a 100 yard football field, then when you get to the Super Bowl, the field is 150 yards... Also, the fact that teams make it into 10k nationals with an at large bid that's based on "points" gotten against teams in 8k races is pretty dumb as well.
The reason you don't run 10ks all year is because it's too much to race week after week. It's still a fine championship distance. Furthermore, only the fittest athletes run nationals. The JV guys who aren't ready to race 10k aren't racing regionals or nationals.
I raced college XC only 1985 and 1986, D2 level. I have been told by my coaches that most college XC meets slightly before I started racing and back into the 1970's were at 6 miles, some were 10k. I do have course maps in my file cabinet that show our on-campus 6 mile courses, so I know our Invy was that distance at least circa 1978-1983. And we raced a lot more back then too. Not sure about D1 teams, did guys race more often back then? I ran 12 meets my junior year and 10 my senior year. Same length of season, but we ran a couple dual meets and had a race on the schedule every weekend. Last fall, the team I coached ran 7 meets, which is typical.
8k or 10k, to me as a coach, I don't see a huge difference racing one vs the other at Regionals/Nationals. Yeah, I'd prefer 10k (for both genders!!!!). My opinion is that the 10k produces a better race at this level. But I also think harder courses produce a better race. That's just my preference. But honestly, 8k or 10k, minor difference at best. The training to optimize at 10k vs at 8k, a little different but it's not like a an athlete is trying to be good at both the 3000 and the half marathon.
Seems like this proposal seeks to fix something that isn't broken.
Not saying that it would be the right or wrong decision, I'll leave that to everyone else.
The only input I bring is that the race would 100% become more interesting. Moving it to 8K opens up the race for mid distance guys without making the 10K guys out classed from a dramatic drop in distance. I personally think it would be cool, but even so, the jump to 10K presents an interesting challenge that almost guarantees the best team comes out on top by the end of the season.
On another note, I don't see this type of dramatic change coming to fruition by 2020. Too much history of the 10K , I can't see it coming into play that fast.
the kids in rec hall wrote:
Keep men at 10k, move women up to 8k.
That would be a good start.
I always felt the 8k was my best event and was disappointed it wasn't a track event. What was even more disappointing was having my best event slip away from me during championship season with the 10k in cross. I think most college runners are would perform better and are more suited for an 8k because their aerobic engines haven't been developed enough to run highly competitive 10ks (for most runners).
Gggvvgg wrote:
8k sounds good but make the courses tougher like what we saw at world xc this year. Rate now it’s a track race on grass
I don't get the hype of world's...the course was very easy. Maybe not compared to other WCs but compared to HS or Juco courses in the midwest it was cake.