I actually think that the Stanfrod track is short

High-level tracks have to be certified and I am pretty sure that this one is.

You are using a flawed standard to assess the accuracy of the track measurement. The Stanford meet is THE meet for setting fast times so that people plan their season around racing fast there. Furthermore, the fields are very deep and separated by time groups so runners, even those not at the top, are almost always running with a group of people who have the objective of running fast, with winning and placing taking a back seat so that it is much easier to run at a place in the pack with not too much jostling, less wind resistance than essentially any other race they run, and more even pacing. Many races also have pacers who keep a good pace and take the brunt of the wind. Finally, Stanford usually has very good weather - mild, cooler as the evening goes on, no strong sun, usually fairly calm (2017 notwithstanding) - and that weather is predictable (e.g., you are not preparing for hot or cold weather and wasting training efforts trying to adapt or mental energy either).

These factors add up to a faster race for many athletes than they get elsewhere. Other situations where runners peak are for conference and NCAA championship races/USATF. In these types of races time is rarely an objective, the other runners are your opponents, not companions chasing a fast time, and you are not doubling etc.

Maybe there is a conspiracy. When I go to google map pedometer, a Stanford graduate production, you can click on the track to start measuring it but then anywhere else you click, it sets the next marks outside of the track. You literally cannot measure the track.

Technology capital of the world! I ran a 10k on campus a couple years ago that was 600m short.

zxvxzcv wrote:

Maybe there is a conspiracy. When I go to google map pedometer, a Stanford graduate production, you can click on the track to start measuring it but then anywhere else you click, it sets the next marks outside of the track. You literally cannot measure the track.

Here's what I got with Google Earth Pro just now:

LRC Commenter wrote:

I promise Im not trolling, I am convinced that there track is short. Think about it, how do you ever know that a track is the right distance? Some one puts some rubber out their and draws some white lines and tells you its 400. If people always run contsinstently faster on a track, it has to be short. I'd love for someone to explain why Im wrong.

Have you tried measuring it?

Great answer. Probably similar kinds of reasons why swimming records are always being broken.

Cardinal sin wrote:

a giant fan who moved around the track on a unicycle and blew all of the runners.

Yuck, there's an image I'll never unsee.....

lightsaber metrics wrote:

your mom goes to college wrote:

Notwithstanding the ridiculousness of your claim, have you ever heard of spellcheck?

I wouldn't say this is a ridiculous claim at all. Has anyone ever measured it? I'm not really into conspiracies, but if you connect the dots, Stanford has every incentive to have a short track. Think of all the revenue the college brings in from hosting these meets where people flock for fast times. They do it very unambiguously for their xc invite in the fall.

Revenue? They charge $10 per ticket and maybe 450-500 spectators show up. Even counting the $25 entry fees from athletes the total revenue is quite low for the three main meets they hold each season. Stanford University has over 100 billion dollars in endowments. The sports programs are well funded. Stanford doesn't need to bring in revenue from track and field. If you want proof track and field is a dying sport, go to one of the Stanford meets or any other meet with the exception of Hayward Field.

I can't find a Stanfrod track anywhere. I can't find a school called Stanfrod.

If you invite loads of top athletes to run fast times, they are gunna push each other and do it, then next year you have a reputation as a quality meet so everyone prepaid for it and get there in good shape again making times fast, as soon as a track has a reputation for being fast it's self fulfilling.

from your girlfriend wrote:

I hear you're not too good at measuring 6 inches

If that were true he would be saying the track is long.

Not sure if this guy was serious or trolling about bringing in revenue, but I definitely laughed. You're right, the amount of revenue from these meets is tiny. If you want to talk about revenue, I went to the Stanford-USC football game last fall at Stanford and paid $100 for a single ticket (face value, not scalped) and that was for a mediocre seat in the endzone. And, guess what, the XC invite that was mentioned is cancelled for this fall (which is a shame because it was the high school XC invite of the year in Northern California), and local speculation is that Milt isn't interested in it and will probably cancel it permanently. You don't do that if these are big money-makers.

This is all a bogus discussion.

People run fast at Stanford for 3 main reasons:

1) Sea level (not that big of a deal, but many do come from high enough elevations that it can make a difference).

2) Typically GREAT weather for runners...low humidity, not too hot, usually not windy.

3) Great competition goes to run at Stanford.

LRC Commenter wrote:

I think that the acrediting body is a good idea, but yeah, id be worried about coruption. Probably wouldn't take much to get someone to look the other way on a small little thing, but 3 or 4 meters is all it takes to really take some time off.

The track has been measured and is certified. First you hire this guy to do it right. Then you get certified before any record attempt. Solinsky 10k would not have held up if the track was short

zzzz wrote:

zxvxzcv wrote:

Maybe there is a conspiracy. When I go to google map pedometer, a Stanford graduate production, you can click on the track to start measuring it but then anywhere else you click, it sets the next marks outside of the track. You literally cannot measure the track.

Here's what I got with Google Earth Pro just now:

I love this thread.

If times at a track venue are fast every year, it more likely has to do with the track's bounciness and insulation from wind, or it might have to do with the time of year the meet is held (the time that most runners are in peak form), or it might be a network effect (fast times invite more runners hoping to run fast times).

LRC Commenter wrote:

your suppresing my dissent just because other people have raised the same concern? Uhh, hey star, you know who else supressed disent? Thats right, Hitler.

OK, that was pretty funny.

Heil

You're being way too short-sighted. The original poster, while grammatically faulty, actually makes some interesting points. Sure, Stanford is not rolling in the dough as a result of XC/track meets. But guess what they are rolling in? More high-level recruits who want to get a chance to blaze fast times at their home meets.

There is not a significant difference between Stanford and some of the other top distance programs in the country (think BYU, Colorado, Oregon). They'll have the academic pull over schools like NAU and Portland, but they need some extra advantage to sway kids away from the other schools I mentioned. Having a track that essentially guarantees a PR every time they run on it makes the school significantly more appealing than these other ones. And for those claiming the classic "competition breeds quality performance" argument, get your Betsy Devos-ian mindset out of this thread. It doesn't work for charter schools- why would we expect it to work for large PRIVATE institutions (like Stanford)? Too much conservatism on LetsRun. I'm not going to outline my beliefs on certain topics, but these messageboards would really benefit from hearing the other perspective sometimes.

Flagpole wrote:

This is all a bogus discussion.

People run fast at Stanford for 3 main reasons:

1) Sea level (not that big of a deal, but many do come from high enough elevations that it can make a difference).

2) Typically GREAT weather for runners...low humidity, not too hot, usually not windy.

3) Great competition goes to run at Stanford.

Agreed Flagpole.

Judging from the picture of the track at Stanford, an earlier poster and my recollection of the track... Man what a great place to race/train/hang-out. Perhaps the tack facility is part of the reason there are so many Stanford envy/haters on this board. I would have given my eye-teeth to run for Stanford University (I did have the opportunity to run at Stanford's track). Unfortunately, for me, I had plenty of teeth to give away but not enough brains to get in.