I thought it was "murse"?
I thought it was "murse"?
Accommodating the less interested does nothing to improve the sport. The girls that complain will complain about running any distance and should not even be running in the first place if they have that kind of attitude. There are some males that are not as interested in football as others, but are forced to play by their parents. Should a football game be reduced to only two of the four quarters to make them "suffer" less?
Because Texas women aren't effectual enough to take action. They are subservient to the man in Texas. Ha ha!
Sure but does the opposite, accommodating the self-interested, really hold any promise for improving the sport? Your words paint you as being out of touch. The football comparison is incorrect, nobody pushed to make the game longer which is what you've been proposing with regard to girls' xc. It would fit if people were wanting to go from 5k to 2 miles instead of vice versa.
What is the only thing you can do to punish a (real) runner?
Make them run less.
That's right, t-shirt slogans are the answer! Don't forget about this one: "we bust ours - to kick yours"!
I wasn't thinking of a t-shirt slogan. I was just backing up the football analogy.
It's a naive sentiment. The football "analogy" unfortunately still doesn't work. You are aware of the essential purpose of extra-curricular activites, aren't you?
Most Texas HS programs invest little time and energy into their distance programs. Why? Because, sprinting rules in Texas! Go to www.texastrack.com and look at the state leaders. Most of the individuals and relay teams on these lists would beat 90% of the sprinters at our DI programs.
Well at least until the TX HS football coaches get approval to have spring ball, like the colleges do, which watered down the college sprints to a large degree.
Texas football also rules! I have lived in quite a few states and Texas HS football makes these other states look like pee wee leagues.
You may be interested in knowing that I wrote all the schools in Texas (when I was coaching at UT Austin in the 1970s) asking if they were interested in girl's cross country. About 60+% said they would like to see it as a sport. So I passed that information on to the UIL (University Interscholastic League) and based on that survey, they added girls cross country the next year -- 1 mile. An Austin HS won the first State title mostly with sprinters (who obviously could make the mile distance). I remember at one meet that fall this HS team (the one that won state) jogged over the course to warm up and girls on one of the other teams said, "Can you imagine they jog an entire mile before racing a mile?" Not sure when they went to 2 miles, because I left Texas a few years later. On another point, one could argue that 4k for girls is more like 5k for boys as those two distances take about the same amount of time for their respective participants, and moving to 5k in college is not that bad after some years at 4k. On th eother hand, is 5k the proper distance? I did not agree with NCAA moving from 5k to 6k, because the reasons were weak -- (1) to spread the field out so the finish line is not so congested (a non factor with chips to use at the finish (2) to take the event away from the 800/1500 runners and give it to the distance runners - as if an extra k would accomplish that. Why not a true distance event -- 8k. As a DIII Coach I argued to either stay at 5k (and learn to run fast) or move to 8k Actually I argued for two races at nationals -- 4k and 8k for women (which would encourage more participants in the sport. In fact are own invitational became a 2-distance event, under rather strange rules (which I admit to originating) -- 1 race on a 2k course and each team can enter whomever they want, and don't have to declare what event anyone of their runners is competing in. In fact a runner could start out with full intention of running the 8k, but stop at the 4k distance and be scored in the 4k race, and visa versa. For a team to score they had to finish at least 3 in the 4k (top 3 scored) and at least 2 in the 8k (top 2 scored) and their places in their respective races determined the team score
Well, thanks for helping start girls' cross country in Texas.
As far as the "Can you imagine they jog an entire mile before racing a mile?" quote, I think that is typical of anyone who is new to distance running. When I first started out running some 5k fun runs when I was younger, I remember wondering why people were jogging before and after the race. I thought they were wasting energy.
If an argument is that having equal distances takes a longer amount of time for women, why does this matter? Is this for the convenience of the athletes or someone else? It would not be that drastic of a difference in times, especially comparing the high school 5k/2 mile races. There are plenty of boys that take a very long time to finish those 5ks.
A solution could be to keep the 2 mile for junior varsity races while increasing to 5k for varsity girls. This way, the girls who are serious will be able to compete at a higher level, better preparing them for college, and the basketball team can still jog their 2 miles.
Your answers are right here, txRUNNERgirl, of why coaches (mostly small school) won't budge on changing to 4K/5K (see links in first post):
rojo wrote:
I think this is a good thread. I'm thinking about writing na editorial on this.
Instead of saying 'equality' is making sure we have 50 men on the men's track team and 50 on the women's, why don't we have true equality instead of total ridiculousness.
I've always wondered in this day and age of Title ix why the women in college only run 5k or 6k. How about real cross country? Same thing with the women at worlds.
Maybe I should start another thread. Why do women run 6k in college?
Under similar thinking, I think having women's ice hockey without checking is inherently sexist just as is running 6k. It all stems from the mindset of women aren't strong enough to do real sports that used to exist in the day. At the olymics, women didn't use to run longer than 800 m.
Christine Brennan had a great column in USAToday about the subtle sexism in sports. One is distances. What she talked about was the names. Lady this and lady that. You don't hear about the "Male XXX". It's just the XXX.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2007-04-03-brennan-nicknames_N.htm?csp=34The term WNBA is along the same lines. Why don't they rename the NBA the MNBA?
-Rojo
I just got around to reading that article. The NBA and WNBA are two separate associations, so I suppose there is a need to differentiate the two and the NBA did come first. However, at high schools and colleges, both males and females are representing one school, one team. Adding "Lady" to the mascot is belittling. It is already obvious that we are women. There is no reason to add that adjective.
I liked this comment:
"It was interesting to read the rational in the "comments" section for small school coaches voting against longer runs for the girls cross country teams, with the 5A coaches for the idea. Most of the "small school" coaches seem to worry that the longer distance would cause multi-sport athletes to quit, or would be "too tough" for the girls to train for longer distances. If you subscribe to that argument, how is it that the 1A and 2A boys teams have no problem running the same 5K as the 5A boys. Many of these boys probably are multi-sport as well. "
The NBA owns the WNBA, they aren't "separate".
Well, my 10 year old daughter runs 5K in 18:45 on a road course USATF certified (Dallas Marathon 5K 4/1/2007), and an 18:43 in Ft. Worth in the Run To Joes 5K. This summer, she can only run a 3200m in her TAAF competition, and in the USATF competitions, is held down to even less. A soccer game lasts longer.
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
It is not a fact that females are less interested in sports.
Yes, it *is* a fact that females *as a group* are less interested in participating in competitive sports.
TRG, I know *you're* interested in competitive sport (your moniker is enough proof of that), but the fact--the *fact*--remains that, compared to males, a smaller percentage of females are interested.
I don't believe it's just societal, either. I would bet that part of the reason is hormonal/brain-related, possibly dealing with childbearing. Yes, I'm serious.
FYI I started the women's track and cross-country programs at three different American universities, organized major championships, etc. I am not against women's sport!--but I *am* realistic about it.
opinion wrote:
Well, my 10 year old daughter runs 5K in 18:45 on a road course USATF certified (Dallas Marathon 5K 4/1/2007), and an 18:43 in Ft. Worth in the Run To Joes 5K. This summer, she can only run a 3200m in her TAAF competition, and in the USATF competitions, is held down to even less. A soccer game lasts longer.
I thought the TAAF/USATF races were 3000m? Most were when I was running summer track in Fort Worth. Nonetheless, that was track. I can understand track being being limited to 3200/3000 at the longest because usually athletes compete in other races during the same day and there are the same races for both genders. Those are really good times for a 10-year-old, but just be careful with her growth, nutrition, etc. because I know someone who was just like that, but had some problems later. By high school, I think girls can handle 5ks for cross country.