Marcus Siepen wrote:
robert678 wrote:
Dani is a 1500m runner, which makes me wonder something. How many times has a 1500m runner won NCAA Divison 1 XC Championships for men or women? I have a hard time thinking of anyone.
Joe Falcon
Bob Kennedy.
Marcus Siepen wrote:
robert678 wrote:
Dani is a 1500m runner, which makes me wonder something. How many times has a 1500m runner won NCAA Divison 1 XC Championships for men or women? I have a hard time thinking of anyone.
Joe Falcon
Bob Kennedy.
GoldenMiles wrote:
hardset nipples wrote:
8K for women. Maybe for men, too. It's also ridiculous to race 8K all season then add on 2K for championships.
I like that idea. Why the hell is the championship longer than the regular season? What other sport is like that? What is their reasoning?
The NFL just announced that the Superbowl will be played on a 120 yard field. Touchdowns will be scored by Lambeau Leaping into the stands.
Yes, the change in race distance is nuts.
In the most important meet of the season, the men are racing a distance they haven't raced all season. What sense does that make?
Should the 5000 become the 6000 at the end of outdoor track season? Should the 10,000 become the 11,000?
Other than maybe the first weekend of competition in September, distances should be uniform throughout the season. It's only logical. Common sense.
Oh wait. It's the NCAA.
To the dingheads who are suggesting a variety of distance options in the championship meets, there is no I in cross country.
Cross country is a team sport. For anyone who even half understands and appreciates running, the NCAA cross country championship season is one of the best team competitions in college athletics. It's not about a bunch of individuals picking their best distance. That's what indoor and outdoor track are for. You can't have a slew of teams and/or individuals racing all different distances in the post season. The whole point is to get to one NCAA team champion and one individual champion.
Here are a few points I'd like to highlight for those that have taken a thread about Dani Jones winning to tons of points that are very much irrelevant.
Point #1 : Dani Jones is likely not your typical 1500 m specialist
- Colorado is known for strength based training with a focus on versatility. In fact, their runners are either labeled as sprinters or distance on their roster. Mid D = Distance on the team
- As a general rule and historically at Colorado, athletes who could run longer distances well specialize in shorter distances (that they can run well obviously) to avoid burn out and because you can always move up later. Ex: Simpson was a 3k steepler / 1500 and definitely could run a special 5k, Goucher was a 3k/5k runner while she later was primarily 10k and marathon
- Jones trains with Simpson and Simpson has been talking about how she's special for some time. Simpson is known to train more like a 1500/5k blend
Point #2 : Dani Jones did not win the race because it was overly tactical. We cannot predict if Jones would or would not be a factor in a longer race
- The winning race time was approximately average. Considering conditions, this is not tactical
- Jones won comfortably and one could argue would have had more in the tank if needed
- Arguably, with Colorado's focus on distance running, if the race were longer she may have been developed / trained differently
Point #3 : Arguing that the women should run longer and that the race distance should bump up the end of the season just b/c that's what men do doesn't necessarily make sense
- As someone else pointed out, cross country is where all distance runners (1500 up to 10k) face off head to head. 10k favors the top end of that spectrum. Why does that make sense??
- If there isn't to be a short course and a long course (like the pros have), then something around 6-8k makes sense to me
- Also in college, almost every runner 1500 -10k runs cross country, unlike the pros where there are plenty of other options like base training or fall road racing in the fall
- Why the HELL does moving up in distance right at the season make any sense at all? Not saying it's a terrible idea, but it's not exactly intuitive.
Let's just all appreciate that Dani Jones had a great race and may be a special athlete like Simpson, Coburn, and Goucher - time will tell.
I was onsite for the races. I enjoyed both races.
I think the NCAA should change to 8k for both genders. They could allow races shorter than 8k prior to OCT 1 but not after.
CoachB wrote:
GoldenMiles wrote:
I like that idea. Why the hell is the championship longer than the regular season? What other sport is like that? What is their reasoning?
The NFL just announced that the Superbowl will be played on a 120 yard field. Touchdowns will be scored by Lambeau Leaping into the stands.
Lol. Good point.
It should be 8k for both men and women. Racing 8k all season and then 10k at the end makes no sense. They spend the season training for the 10k while racing an 8k. Plus, the championship race is just a giant pack for the first half of the race and doesn't make for great racing or viewing.
Meanwhile, the 6k on the women's side often turns into a sprint in the last straightaway where the 1500m runners have an outsized advantage in what is supposed to be a distance race. Also, it gives the women's team a chance to have a more balance program, as the mid D runners are more competitive in XC while on the men's side, they basically have to be a distance only school to compete for the championship.
8k is still accessible for the mid D runners while also giving the 5k/10k guys a chance to shine. In my experience, the 8k and 10k feel like very different races, that extra mile really requires more aerobic ability and a different race plan.
They race 8k all season and 10k at the end because 10ks all season would be too taxing on the body. 8k all season is do-able.
robert678 wrote:
They race 8k all season and 10k at the end because 10ks all season would be too taxing on the body. 8k all season is do-able.
Yes, I understand that, but having the most taxing distance run twice about a week apart also makes no sense.
72% of thread - gender race distance dispute even though there are 10 threads about this a year
21% of thread - about Jones being a 1500 runner even though she has a 3k NCAA title was 5k PAC 12 Champion (after the 1500), and is a 2x PAC 12 XC Champion (a 6k)....... it's called range people.
7% of thread - see title
julsome wrote:
Here are a few points I'd like to highlight for those that have taken a thread about Dani Jones winning to tons of points that are very much irrelevant.
Point #1 : Dani Jones is likely not your typical 1500 m specialist
- Colorado is known for strength based training with a focus on versatility. In fact, their runners are either labeled as sprinters or distance on their roster. Mid D = Distance on the team
- As a general rule and historically at Colorado, athletes who could run longer distances well specialize in shorter distances (that they can run well obviously) to avoid burn out and because you can always move up later. Ex: Simpson was a 3k steepler / 1500 and definitely could run a special 5k, Goucher was a 3k/5k runner while she later was primarily 10k and marathon
- Jones trains with Simpson and Simpson has been talking about how she's special for some time. Simpson is known to train more like a 1500/5k blend
Point #2 : Dani Jones did not win the race because it was overly tactical. We cannot predict if Jones would or would not be a factor in a longer race
- The winning race time was approximately average. Considering conditions, this is not tactical
- Jones won comfortably and one could argue would have had more in the tank if needed
- Arguably, with Colorado's focus on distance running, if the race were longer she may have been developed / trained differently
Point #3 : Arguing that the women should run longer and that the race distance should bump up the end of the season just b/c that's what men do doesn't necessarily make sense
- As someone else pointed out, cross country is where all distance runners (1500 up to 10k) face off head to head. 10k favors the top end of that spectrum. Why does that make sense??
- If there isn't to be a short course and a long course (like the pros have), then something around 6-8k makes sense to me
- Also in college, almost every runner 1500 -10k runs cross country, unlike the pros where there are plenty of other options like base training or fall road racing in the fall
- Why the HELL does moving up in distance right at the season make any sense at all? Not saying it's a terrible idea, but it's not exactly intuitive.
Let's just all appreciate that Dani Jones had a great race and may be a special athlete like Simpson, Coburn, and Goucher - time will tell.
Great post. This race really opened my eyes to Dani’s great talent. I agree she won the race fairly comfortably.
I’m beginning to be swayed by people’s arguments on here that maybe longer isn’t better for XC, and it certainly makes ZERO sense that they increase the distance at the end of the season. What the hell is up with that?
defect wrote:
Marcus Siepen wrote:
Joe Falcon
Bob Kennedy.
Tim Hacker 3:34.66
You guys know that Edward Cheserek is primarily a miler right?
robert678 wrote:
Dani is a 1500m runner, which makes me wonder something. How many times has a 1500m runner won NCAA Divison 1 XC Championships for men or women? I have a hard time thinking of anyone.
Ches won the indoor mile. That kinda counts.
robert678 wrote:
Dani is a 1500m runner, which makes me wonder something. How many times has a 1500m runner won NCAA Divison 1 XC Championships for men or women? I have a hard time thinking of anyone.
# of 1500m/mile titles Jones has - 0
# of 3k titles Jones has - 1
# of XC titles Jones has - 1
# of NCAA titles I have - 0
Summary: 1) She is a 3k runner with a good balance of strength and speed 2) I'm slow
Crazy wrote:
Yes, the change in race distance is nuts.
In the most important meet of the season, the men are racing a distance they haven't raced all season. What sense does that make?
Should the 5000 become the 6000 at the end of outdoor track season? Should the 10,000 become the 11,000?
Other than maybe the first weekend of competition in September, distances should be uniform throughout the season. It's only logical. Common sense.
Oh wait. It's the NCAA.
Winner right here.
Sorry you are so offended by someone with some fast twitch muscles winning cross country nationals. Yes, she ran down Kelati. No, the race distance does not need to be changed. The men's race was 4 miles for the first 26 years, The women's race was 5k for the first 20 years and was bumped up to 6k in 2001. There is a scientific basis for the shorter distance. Female athletes have about a 50% higher incidence of stress fractures than their male counter parts (this is not sexist, it is a statistical reality). If you increase the distance, you will likely see a rise in the number of over use injuries in the general collegiate running population. When evaluating these things, they have to look at the whole picture, not just the individuals.
Truth be told most of the women who win NCAA cross also have a 3k title or two on the track. A few were either champions in the mile (Nilsson twice) or runners up (Kipyego). You only have to go back a couple years on the men's side to find someone who did both (Cheserek).
Leave the determination of the distance to the educated collegiate coaches and sports medicine professionals who make the rules in the first place. I'm guessing slow twitch guys like you would like to see everyone running ultras as 6k and 10k races are soft.
Even more crazy wrote:
To the dingheads who are suggesting a variety of distance options in the championship meets, there is no I in cross country.
Cross country is a team sport. For anyone who even half understands and appreciates running, the NCAA cross country championship season is one of the best team competitions in college athletics. It's not about a bunch of individuals picking their best distance. That's what indoor and outdoor track are for. You can't have a slew of teams and/or individuals racing all different distances in the post season. The whole point is to get to one NCAA team champion and one individual champion.
Dude, get a grip. XC is most definitely the epitome of an individual sport!! You are very insecure, and like to think you were part of a team! No, you were not. You trained with some people, then ran a race, where a TEAM does not win. An INDIVIDUAL wins. Sure there is window-dressing, team awards, etc. Don't believe it, That's nonsense. If you are the worst on the "team", and you have a stud who wins...guess what? you won jack schit!!!
You are the type of arsewhole you thinks running takes skill too, I bet???
Whocarestho wrote:
GoldenMiles wrote:
Leave.
Awe sorry I hurt your feelings. If I wanted to watch a bunch of people run 16:40 for 5k I’d go to my local high school cross country meet. I’m here to watch actual impressive athletes compete
this is kinda fair. Why watch WNBA when I can go to my high school basketball games? (And I don't even go to those). Why watch women's workout wednesdays when they are doing workouts I could complete?
Only reason watching the olympics is exciting is because the athletes are freaks of nature - and are capable of far more than myself.
Yes, I do watch the women's olympics - because I can't go under 15 for the 5k. But I don't really watch women's high school or college xc, because I would be fairly competitive in those races.