You realize most of this list was just All-American in cross country right?
so what? It's still just a complete guess of a time. Amy Bunnage finished 59th and over 80 seconds behind Parker Valby at XC nationals yet is in there 1 second behind Valby on the entries because both of their coaches used actual track times they've run to enter them. Would you not laugh if Will Palmer entered Valby at 14:50 or whatever crazy shape people think she's in?
You realize most of this list was just All-American in cross country right?
so what? It's still just a complete guess of a time. Amy Bunnage finished 59th and over 80 seconds behind Parker Valby at XC nationals yet is in there 1 second behind Valby on the entries because both of their coaches used actual track times they've run to enter them. Would you not laugh if Will Palmer entered Valby at 14:50 or whatever crazy shape people think she's in?
so what would make you happy? Use only actual times (like Bunnage even tho it seems she is not in that fitness)? Or only use a coach's (hopefully realistic) expectation? Both can lead to mis-seedings.
List 5 guys who exagerrated their time by 20+ seconds. That doesn't include guys who have an equivalent 3000.
wasn't just talking about guys first of all, but here's 5 names from a quick scan that didn't feel right
Rosina Machu listed at 15:29. Tfrrs has her at 15:59/9:29 3k
Kenzie Doyle listed at 15:32. Tfrrs has her at 16:00/9:14
Fatima Alanis listed at 15:40. Tfrrs has her at 16:04/9:22
Sam Lawler listed at 13:32. Tffrs has him at 13:52/8:09 3k
Chris Devaney listed at 13:29. Tfrrs has him at 13:52 and a 7:56 does not convert to a 13:29 in any way.
Or this one that i can only hope is a typo on BU's part, Angelina Napoleon listed at a 4:33 mile. She's a freshman who redshirted XC and ran 4:22 1500 and 4:46 mile in high school.
While I see your point with many of these you have to consider a few things. The meet directors and the coaches of these athletes do communicate. The meet directors aren’t letting just anybody seed their athletes at very fast times. They have to have a reason to believe it is realistic.
Also, check out Kenzie Doyle’s Strava. She seems in far better shape than her PRs would suggest. I attached it below.
Kenzie Doyle is a runner from United States. Join Strava to track your activities, analyze your performance, and follow friends. Strava members can plan routes, participate in motivating challenges, and join clubs. Get starte...
so what? It's still just a complete guess of a time. Amy Bunnage finished 59th and over 80 seconds behind Parker Valby at XC nationals yet is in there 1 second behind Valby on the entries because both of their coaches used actual track times they've run to enter them. Would you not laugh if Will Palmer entered Valby at 14:50 or whatever crazy shape people think she's in?
so what would make you happy? Use only actual times (like Bunnage even tho it seems she is not in that fitness)? Or only use a coach's (hopefully realistic) expectation? Both can lead to mis-seedings.
Im not mad about anything, ive stated several times i just find how they do it funny. Of course there is no perfect system, but acting like XC and track are the same thing is just not true. There are countless examples every year of athletes who are great in XC and then mediocre in track or vice versa. There are examples every year of athletes who are great at nationals in xc and then run closer to their track bests than their XC form 2 weeks later at this meet, for better or worse.
…but acting like XC and track are the same thing is just not true. There are countless examples every year of athletes who are great in XC and then mediocre in track or vice versa. There are examples every year of athletes who are great at nationals in xc and then run closer to their track bests than their XC form 2 weeks later at this meet, for better or worse.
Yes, there is a difference between cross-country and track running, so that is one factor that varies between athletes.
The other factor is that for various reasons, (depending upon the athlete and which heat they are in) track race conditions are not always conducive to running an all-out time trial.
…but acting like XC and track are the same thing is just not true. There are countless examples every year of athletes who are great in XC and then mediocre in track or vice versa. There are examples every year of athletes who are great at nationals in xc and then run closer to their track bests than their XC form 2 weeks later at this meet, for better or worse.
Yes, there is a difference between cross-country and track running, so that is one factor that varies between athletes.
The other factor is that for various reasons, (depending upon the athlete and which heat they are in) track race conditions are not always conducive to running an all-out time trial.
And, I suppose, the third factor is that an athlete (and coach’s objectives) are not always to run an all-out time trial.
so what? It's still just a complete guess of a time. Amy Bunnage finished 59th and over 80 seconds behind Parker Valby at XC nationals yet is in there 1 second behind Valby on the entries because both of their coaches used actual track times they've run to enter them. Would you not laugh if Will Palmer entered Valby at 14:50 or whatever crazy shape people think she's in?
so what would make you happy? Use only actual times (like Bunnage even tho it seems she is not in that fitness)? Or only use a coach's (hopefully realistic) expectation? Both can lead to mis-seedings.
I think Bunnage may just be highly inconsistent at this point in her career, and/or lack the strength to race on hills. If you looked at her PAC-12 win you’d think she was in good form. I won’t be surprised if she bounces back and runs sub-15:30.
And, I suppose, the third factor is that an athlete (and coach’s objectives) are not always to run an all-out time trial.
And to the ignorant that downvoted this, OBVIOUSLY, if the pace is set to several seconds below an athlete’s top fitness, then it WAS NOT an objective, in the first place, to run an all-out time trial.
And, I suppose, the third factor is that an athlete (and coach’s objectives) are not always to run an all-out time trial.
And to the ignorant that downvoted this, OBVIOUSLY, if the pace is set to several seconds below an athlete’s top fitness, then it WAS NOT an objective, in the first place, to run an all-out time trial.
Because possibly, unlike the ignorant, the coach suspected an all-out time trial was not the best option with over 20 athletes on the track, some of them being c-level pros, and that finding someone to pace this through 3600m in absolutely 10:45 was going to be difficult.
And to the ignorant that downvoted this, OBVIOUSLY, if the pace is set to several seconds below an athlete’s top fitness, then it WAS NOT an objective, in the first place, to run an all-out time trial.
Because possibly, unlike the ignorant, the coach suspected an all-out time trial was not the best option with over 20 athletes on the track, some of them being c-level pros, and that finding someone to pace this through 3600m in absolutely 10:45 was going to be difficult.
There appears to be only problems with this meet. Too expensive, too many entries, poor pacers, too many per heat, wrong target time, coach changing goals...yet it never fails to have the deepest and fastest fields of the indoor season at 3k and 5k, producing the most ncaa qualifiers, PB's, and records.
Just following the trend, we will see the same again.
I signed up for the BU mini meet on Dec 16, and for that meet they require you to enter the meet name and date you ran your seed time, along with any comments you want to make. It even rejected my entry when I submitted my PR date in the wrong format. From the website it appears it is the same registration process for this weekend's meet. It would be interesting if along with the heat sheets, BU published all that additional entry information for each entrant. Just for the purpose of transparency, fairness, and to address any concerned coaches/athletes why the seeds got ordered as such, that information should be public. Why are only the seed times listed, and not the included comments/support?
I don't have a problem with the entry fee. It's nice to give an opportunity for a non-elite runner to run on the track, if their college/team wants to pay for it. Presumably every entry believes the $107 is worth it. The higher price in theory should result in a smaller field. Maybe make the price $200/entrant next year? BU's indoor track isn't a public service. If they just want to time trial on the that particular track and don't like the price tag, just enter your athletes in the mini meet on Dec 16 for $25 each.
I would echo the LRC podcast discussion on this. The pacing is just underwhelming after a 14:40 (road) woman let Valby go, and she held on for a big-margin win at NCAA Cross. To have her jogging a 15:15 is just kinda unsatisfying. Even Rodenfels should be targeting a sub-15 based on her strong recent racing. I get that they're trying to qualify for the NCAA meet and that's the main goal, but 15:15 would get you double-lapped if the top 5 women in the World jumped in this race. If you're in strong shape (like Valby, Rodenfels or Markezich) I hope that when the pacer drops they hammer.
I would echo the LRC podcast discussion on this. The pacing is just underwhelming after a 14:40 (road) woman let Valby go, and she held on for a big-margin win at NCAA Cross. To have her jogging a 15:15 is just kinda unsatisfying. Even Rodenfels should be targeting a sub-15 based on her strong recent racing. I get that they're trying to qualify for the NCAA meet and that's the main goal, but 15:15 would get you double-lapped if the top 5 women in the World jumped in this race. If you're in strong shape (like Valby, Rodenfels or Markezich) I hope that when the pacer drops they hammer.
Markezich is in the 3000, no? 8:48 pace with a finish = 8:43-45 maybe
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.
