the iowa state regional last year was quite a bit shorter than 10k and no one mentioned a thing. I know kids from multiple schools broke records and almost all set PR's... I was surprised called them out for screwing up the course (the lead cart went the wrong direction on the one of the loops)
Anyone who has run the Auburn course in the (at least) last 20 some years knows that it is short. I believe it is somewhat short as marked and for some reason the pack cuts more off when they run. It does run shorter some year than others, so it does make it difficult to compare times. As long as everyone ran the same course that day who cares. Now, if someone brags about their PR and uses that time - that is something entirely different.
Came here to make sure this was shared with everyone. While I agree that racing XC is not about covering a precise distance but competing against the rest of the field, there are some lines drawn in the sand by the rules committee and this appears to be one of them. Championship races have to be greater than 8k. Now if there is are uncontrollable circumstances that at the "last minute" forces the course to be altered (significant flooding due to heavy rains for instance) there may be nothing that can be done to fulfill the obligations set forth in the rule book - but this doesn't sound like that is what happened...
UnsureSherlock wrote:
The 2017/2018 NCAA Track and Field and Cross Country Rules book reads exactly: Rule 1, Section 12, Cross Country, Course Lengths, Article 1, a, Men, 2nd sentence - "The distance for any championship race shall not be shorter than 8000m and not longer than 10,000m." The 2017/2018 NCAA Track and Field and Cross Country Rules book reads exactly: Rule 1, Section 12, Cross Country, Course Lengths, Article 1, a, Men, 2nd sentence - "The distance for any championship race shall not be shorter than 8000m and not longer than 10,000m."
So, "shall not be shorter" is emphatically indicative that if anything, it "must" be equal to 8000m or longer up to 10,000m. Maybe there was a change to this rule unbeknownst to some of us. Or is there a margin of error cited for measuring race distances in NCAA cross country? I am unaware of such.
To be "prudent" and in accordance with the NCAA rules, the course would better to be measured and layed out 'longer' than 8000m so as to 'avoid' breaking this rule. This exact measurement could then be properly announced and disseminated to all participants.
Also, it 'appears' that there may exist historical accounts of this course having been short several years before this. There has been ample time to correct the course 'if' this is the case. And 'if' it was known by some to be short, was this information disseminated to all participants? I am unaware if it was.
Also, it 'appears' that there may exist historical accounts of this course having been short several years before this. There has been ample time to correct the course 'if' this is the case. And 'if' it was known by some to be short, was this information disseminated to all participants properly? Heck, why not just measure it out as 7000m, then, if you are not going to adhere to the official rules? Oh, "it is just cross country", some folks say! Well, heck, then why not measure out to be 6,500m! The rule book addresses this type of insipid dialogue so as to make clear how far the course "must" be! "The distance for any championship race shall not be shorter than 8000m and not longer than 10,000m."
They did one shorter loop by accident last year at Iowa State which is 90 meters or maybe 12 seconds. That is negligible over 10k. 400 meters short for 8k is silly since it was layed out that way.
Articles like the one below are the reason this is such a debate. Texas A&M touts how their top male finisher is the second fastest ever at conference behind Henry Lelei, and they do the same for a couple of their women. Why are they comparing times from different meets rather than how high they placed compared to past finishes... What a joke...