There is 100% no way anyone will run a national qualifying time in the mile or anything longer at altitude without the conversion. It's just never happening.
What if those schools can't afford to travel to sea level for every meet? What if the conference championships are held at altitude? Are they just out of luck with zero chance to have a qualifier?
BS reasoning. If it was SOOOO hard to travel, the following numbers would look VERY different:
Men's 2021-2022 Indoor Top 100 descending order marks using altitude conversions:
800- 6
Mile - 10
3000 - 5
5000 - 4
DMR - 10
Average of 7/100 or 7% of the top 100 marks.
Women's 2021-2022 Indoor Top 100 descending order marks using altitude conversions:
So at the MAXIMUM, 11% of the top 100 marks in the country were CREATED using a formula. If they need them so badly then why are so few taking advantage of them? Because they do not need them. All but one of the Women's 3000m marks using an altitude conversion came from one meet (Mountain West @ ABQ). So by your logic, there must be tons of athletes competing in D1 at altitude that aren't showing up on the list because they're "forced" to compete at altitude? Where are they then?
A VAST majority of these programs can very easily find a 300m flat or a 200m banked track with good competition to run with no conversions and a VAST majority do just that. Therefore, what is the point of having the conversions? If so few are even taking advantage of them, what is the point???
And one more point that has always bothered me about conversions: So we're gonna speed up distance marks, add time to sprint marks, but do nothing about the throws or jumps? You're jumping/throwing through thinner air that has less resistance, but you're not going to adjust those marks? Please make that make sense!!!!!!!
You don't realize it, but you are actually providing proof that the conversions may be too small.
Regarding your intended argument - it's bad too. You are arguing that it should be physically impossible for 75% of indoor tracks in the nation to yield an NCAA qualifying mark.
It's irrelevant that many teams travel far anyway (many can't). It should be possible for an athlete to hit a qualifying mark anywhere in the nation.
You mean someone finally beat Kip Keino's 3:23 (or whatever Noakes claimed it was) in 1968?
If the NCAA has some political reason to give bonuses to runners who never get around to running fast races at sea level, perhaps they are warranted in doing so. But don't call them "conversions" and claim they're somehow equivalent to faster times. And for God's sake, don't report them (as I've often seen) as the actual race times when they obviously aren't.
These conversations have come up so many times on this site, and the fundamental questions about the accuracy of these "conversions" really aren't in serious dispute.I don't even know who defends this stuff. I've run virtually every mile of the las 35 years of my life above 6,000 feet and I've never been tempted to lie about how fast I was really running. I just factor it into all of the other circumstances that figure into a running time.
Maybe I'm off here, but my take is that the executive committee receives a list of proposals, and then votes on whether they should reach the coaching body for potential vote. They're not necessarily voting on whether it should pass or not.
I see both sides of the issue as it's unfair to make elevation teams to travel for all qualifying times, but then again, some of the conversions are NOT correct. The NCAA's 1500 conversion is definitely a few seconds off the mark. Frustrating to see guys run these converted times at elevation, and then have no chance at hitting the same or faster when they're in good fields at sea level.
Beamish qualified for the 2019 indoor championships with a 4:06 at altitude that converted to a 3:57. How'd that work out for him?
That's right, HE WON. By a lot. Against a 3:54 guy and a 3:56 guy.
Maybe I'm off here, but my take is that the executive committee receives a list of proposals, and then votes on whether they should reach the coaching body for potential vote. They're not necessarily voting on whether it should pass or not.
I see both sides of the issue as it's unfair to make elevation teams to travel for all qualifying times, but then again, some of the conversions are NOT correct. The NCAA's 1500 conversion is definitely a few seconds off the mark. Frustrating to see guys run these converted times at elevation, and then have no chance at hitting the same or faster when they're in good fields at sea level.
Beamish qualified for the 2019 indoor championships with a 4:06 at altitude that converted to a 3:57. How'd that work out for him?
That's right, HE WON. By a lot. Against a 3:54 guy and a 3:56 guy.
why don't you use as an example the U. Colorado guys from a few years back who had an altitude converted 3:55.5 that failed to qualify for indoor mile final.
Nick Happe's only ever sub four mile was an altitude converted 4:08 at Walk-Up Skydome.
Simply compare the seed time and finish place for everyone at nationals the past 10 years and see if those with an altitude time are outliers on the trend line.
Simply compare the seed time and finish place for everyone at nationals the past 10 years and see if those with an altitude time are outliers on the trend line.
That would be some next level stupidity considering championship races aren't paced efforts like qualifying times are
Simply compare the seed time and finish place for everyone at nationals the past 10 years and see if those with an altitude time are outliers on the trend line.
That would be some next level stupidity considering championship races aren't paced efforts like qualifying times are
Example (I haven't validated any numbers, just making them up as an example):
You should be able to look and see that if you qualify with a 3:55 you typically finish in 10th place. Now of those 3:55 which were altitude times (meaning they actually ran 4:02 or w/e), if they are typically placing way better than 10th, then the conversions are not generous enough. If they are typically placing much worse than 10th, the conversions are too generous.
why don't you use as an example the U. Colorado guys from a few years back who had an altitude converted 3:55.5 that failed to qualify for indoor mile final.
Nick Happe's only ever sub four mile was an altitude converted 4:08 at Walk-Up Skydome.
You mean the year that Kerr qualified with an altitude converted 3:58 (from 4:03) then went on to DESTROY Cheserek who had just broken the collegiate record of 3:52.01???????
That year Saarel had a converted 3:55 and placed 8th in the final running like an idiot in lane 3 the whole race. Klecker had a converted 3:55 and placed 4th in the 3k behind Ches, Justyn Knight, and Marc Scott. Then Perrin had a converted 3:56 and missed out on the final.
Watch Oregon's Edward Cheserek and New Mexico's Josh Kerr battle for the 2017 mile title at the NCAA indoor track and field championships held at the Gilliam...
Obviously championship racing is different than a paced effort and anything can happen at NCAAs. But statistically speaking, an athlete with a superior ranking/seed time will beat a lower ranked athlete. This is universally accepted across all sports. If the altitude and track conversions are inaccurate, it would show in a large enough sample size. I might actually look at it myself if I find the time.
I ran at a CO school and some athletes benefited from the conversions while for others it was the opposite. The conversions are necessary, especially for teams that can't afford to travel to sea level whenever they like. I'm very curious as to how they are determined... anyone know?
You mean someone finally beat Kip Keino's 3:23 (or whatever Noakes claimed it was) in 1968?
If the NCAA has some political reason to give bonuses to runners who never get around to running fast races at sea level, perhaps they are warranted in doing so. But don't call them "conversions" and claim they're somehow equivalent to faster times. And for God's sake, don't report them (as I've often seen) as the actual race times when they obviously aren't.
These conversations have come up so many times on this site, and the fundamental questions about the accuracy of these "conversions" really aren't in serious dispute.I don't even know who defends this stuff. I've run virtually every mile of the las 35 years of my life above 6,000 feet and I've never been tempted to lie about how fast I was really running. I just factor it into all of the other circumstances that figure into a running time.
Unless I’ve missed it, I haven’t seen any mention of barometric pressure.
It’s my understanding that the perfect situation is racing at a higher altitude with a favorable barometric pressure (high). You get a lower “effective” altitude and the altitude conversion.
Until altitude conversions become more complicated by including barometric pressure, there will be some outlier performances that receive conversions that seem unfair.
I’m a little surprised this didn’t make any noise on LR but if you weren’t at convention this week, you probably missed this. There were two proposals put forth to remove each of the two conversion types for D1 T&F marks. The executive committees unanimously and nearly unanimously voted in favor of these two proposals!
I find it funny that the executive committee can vote unanimously for something then it gets to the floor they get defeated 2:1.
I learned why in one of these votes years ago.
An amendment to the proposal came up, and our leader (barrister - lawyer) said vote for it. 2 minutes it was over. Then it whole thing came up and was deep sixed.
It was easier and faster to fight on the last vote, rather than every step of the way
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.