What is more impressive: Qualifying for the Olympic Marathon Trials or D1 NCAA XC Nationals?

Naw you are WRONG wrote:

Chill BRAH! wrote:

You are getting caught in the details my man. Clearly you have never had a shot at either.

No, you are way OFF! This whole post must have been started by a guy who made the meet, but can't make the Olympic Trials.

lol NO. the post was started by a guy who couldn't make NCAAs bc of talent and who is trying to get the OTQ by being a try hard but again, doesn't have the talent.....

I agree with a lot of other posters who say NCAA DI XC Nats. The fact that you have to perform on a specific day to qualify and run for place rather than time make all of the difference. I would have killed to ran at NCs. If I had, it would have been as a part of a team, because qualifying as an individual out of the West in the late 90's was no joke!

I ended up qualifying for two OT Marathons, beating a good number of NCAA studs my first go round. But I'd trade my second trials qualifier for a XC Nats appearance if I could! That being said, if I had to pick just one, the Trials would be it. While I had no shot of qualifying (although they said the same about Trent Briney), to be in the same race with guys fighting to qualify for the Olympics is awesome.

All-Region equivalent wrote:

I'd say that being top 25 or for sure top 20 in regionals (9 regions, so top 180-225 in the country). Some of these people don't ever run at NCAA championships because they are not on a team, typically the cutoff for individual qualification is around 10th individually int he region.

Out of these 200 runners spanning four grade levels, 150 are probably Americans. Now say in the future we want to consider 8-12 years of a time span, that's 300-450 runners. Not everyone continues running after college though, so drop that to 250-350.

That's about how many people qualify for an olympic trials. So I'd say that being top 20 or 25 in regionals D1 cross country is like a 2:19:00 marathon performance.

Not true, but you are saying this because you were in that 20 to25 number.

You must be wrote:

All-Region equivalent wrote:

I'd say that being top 25 or for sure top 20 in regionals (9 regions, so top 180-225 in the country). Some of these people don't ever run at NCAA championships because they are not on a team, typically the cutoff for individual qualification is around 10th individually int he region.

Out of these 200 runners spanning four grade levels, 150 are probably Americans. Now say in the future we want to consider 8-12 years of a time span, that's 300-450 runners. Not everyone continues running after college though, so drop that to 250-350.

That's about how many people qualify for an olympic trials. So I'd say that being top 20 or 25 in regionals D1 cross country is like a 2:19:00 marathon performance.

Not true, but you are saying this because you were in that 20 to25 number.

I was something like 20th and then 14th at regionals and have already qualified for the 2020 olympic trials, so there's that.

And just about anyone that I can think of that was ahead of me at regionals is able to run under 2:19. Some right around 20 maybe can't, but most can... And some people that were not even close to top 25 at regionals have run under 2:19 but not nearly as many. So I'd say if you are top 25 at regionals it's a similar thing as getting OTQ.

Ummmmmm, here's the truth wrote:

You must be wrote:

Not true, but you are saying this because you were in that 20 to25 number.

I was something like 20th and then 14th at regionals and have already qualified for the 2020 olympic trials, so there's that.

And just about anyone that I can think of that was ahead of me at regionals is able to run under 2:19. Some right around 20 maybe can't, but most can... And some people that were not even close to top 25 at regionals have run under 2:19 but not nearly as many. So I'd say if you are top 25 at regionals it's a similar thing as getting OTQ.

PROVE IT or this whole thread is a bust

"I would have killed to ran at NCs."

wtf?!

grammar police.

Do you think that it's easier to run a sub-4:00 minute mile or a 2:19 marathon / 64 minute half marathon?

Because nationals was almost all sub-4 (or equivalent guys) in the 1500m.

I know more olympic trials guys than i do ncaa nationals guys. also, some who are 30+ years old are making the trials.

Well, take it from someone who attempted to do both......my college xc team made it to the NCAA meet and 5 years later I almost qualified for the OT marathon trials .....I feel it was easier to make the NCAA xc because I was part of a good team who trained together everyday whereas with the marathon training I was on my own and coaching myself......

I consider my run at regionals (to make NCAAs) to be one of the greatest races of my life...better than my 2:18:2x performance at the 2012 Trials for sure. There was a lot of pressure because its at the end of the season and we took our conference meet 2 weeks prior pretty seriously at well...stepping up to a 10km distance certainly helped me though. I'd bet a lot of guys that OTQ were all pretty solid college runners...many DI guys that maybe were on the fringe of making NCAAs (but at least sub 14:40, sub 30:30 types). Then a lot of DIII and DII All-Americans. I also know a lot of guys that were sub 14:20 in college for 5km and they never sniffed a sub 2:20 marathon (despite trying). A lot of the studs that get top 30 at NCAAs in XC (DI) end up quitting after college and don't run another competitive step. It's the guys that who were good (But not super good) that probably tend to gravitate to the marathon and road racing more after college. They might also not be "as talented" with a high V02max to be national class on the track at the 5km/10km...but through persistence and hard work (and maybe multiple tries) they can eventually run a sub 2:19:00....and the marathon might be their stronger event anyways. Plus you usually have at least a 2 year window. The caveat should be you qualified for NCAAs AND were in the top half of the field (i.e. 120th place or better). I'd say that is certainly harder to do than an OTQ.

356h wrote:

Well, take it from someone who attempted to do both......my college xc team made it to the NCAA meet and 5 years later I almost qualified for the OT marathon trials .....I feel it was easier to make the NCAA xc because I was part of a good team who trained together everyday whereas with the marathon training I was on my own and coaching myself......

NCAA’s was way harder to make due to the sheer talent of men at the D1 Level. Any guy who is at a minimum can ran 30:30/14:40 should have the talent to qualify for the trials. In the NCAA, those times don’t even crack the top 7 at national qualifying schools. My experience that shaped this opinion is below.

College Experience: Ran at a P5 Conference school that makes NCAA’s once every 4-5 years. Never finished top 25 in conference or region, never qualified for nationals in cross or track. Scored at conference in the 5k/10k twice. PR’s just under 30 and low 14’s.

Post-College Experience: Qualified for 2016 Trials 3 months after graduation in the half marathon. Qualified for 2020 trials last year by dipping slightly under 2:15. Work full time and train by myself.

DI for Sure wrote:

NCAA’s was way harder to make due to the sheer talent of men at the D1 Level. Any guy who is at a minimum can ran 30:30/14:40 should have the talent to qualify for the trials. In the NCAA, those times don’t even crack the top 7 at national qualifying schools. My experience that shaped this opinion is below.

College Experience: Ran at a P5 Conference school that makes NCAA’s once every 4-5 years. Never finished top 25 in conference or region, never qualified for nationals in cross or track. Scored at conference in the 5k/10k twice. PR’s just under 30 and low 14’s.

Post-College Experience: Qualified for 2016 Trials 3 months after graduation in the half marathon. Qualified for 2020 trials last year by dipping slightly under 2:15. Work full time and train by myself.

SOME guys at NCAAs are better than SOME guys at the Olympic Trials Marathon. The back of the pack guys at OTs are way better than the back of the pack at NCAAs (33 minute guys) and the front of the pack at OT (Rupp) would destroy the NCAA champs.

DI for Sure wrote:

NCAA’s was way harder to make due to the sheer talent of men at the D1 Level. Any guy who is at a minimum can ran 30:30/14:40 should have the talent to qualify for the trials. In the NCAA, those times don’t even crack the top 7 at national qualifying schools. My experience that shaped this opinion is below.

College Experience: Ran at a P5 Conference school that makes NCAA’s once every 4-5 years. Never finished top 25 in conference or region, never qualified for nationals in cross or track. Scored at conference in the 5k/10k twice. PR’s just under 30 and low 14’s.

Post-College Experience: Qualified for 2016 Trials 3 months after graduation in the half marathon. Qualified for 2020 trials last year by dipping slightly under 2:15. Work full time and train by myself.

I think it's fair to say that some guys are better suited to the marathon distance and you appear to be one. Sub 2:15 is significantly better than just under 30 or low 14's. I have a couple of college teammates that were sub 29 and either were never able to make the trials or are struggling to get the qualifier this time around.

From a mental standpoint training by yourself and working full time is very tough and a lot of guys just won't do it or can't keep motivated for more than a year.

Why doesn't the OP post the names of Runner A and Runner B so we can settle this debate with tfrrs.

DI for Sure wrote:

NCAA’s was way harder to make due to the sheer talent of men at the D1 Level. Any guy who is at a minimum can ran 30:30/14:40 should have the talent to qualify for the trials. In the NCAA, those times don’t even crack the top 7 at national qualifying schools. My experience that shaped this opinion is below.

College Experience: Ran at a P5 Conference school that makes NCAA’s once every 4-5 years. Never finished top 25 in conference or region, never qualified for nationals in cross or track. Scored at conference in the 5k/10k twice. PR’s just under 30 and low 14’s.

Post-College Experience: Qualified for 2016 Trials 3 months after graduation in the half marathon. Qualified for 2020 trials last year by dipping slightly under 2:15. Work full time and train by myself.

There are 34 minute guys scoring at the NCAA Meet and an even 35 minute guys, so this whole thread is a joke. The OT are the pros the NCAA are amateurs, please stop with this silliness.

rojo wrote:

Without hestitation, my gut says for men to qualify for NCAA D1 xc NCAAs out of a legit region as an individiual is harder to do than make it to the Olympic Trials.

And if you are talking about women, it's a laughable debate.

That being said, the IAAF scoring tables have 2:19 as equivalent to 29:30 in the 10,000 so it's fairly similar.

The last 3 guys I had at Cornell to qualify for NCAAs in xc had the following collegiate 10,000 pbs.

Zac Hine - 2909

Nate Edelman - 2910

Sage Canaday - 2947

After I stopped coaching at Cornell, they had a guy named Johnny Phillips make it in the marathon at 2:18. He never scored at the conference in track and was never top 50 in the conference in xc. That being said he did run like 1418/30:02.

They’re probably roughly equivalent performances in a vacuum but to say that running 2:18 is easier because Jonny didn’t qualify for NCAAs is a false comparison. There’s obviously some overlap in skill sets but there are plenty of people who are suited way more to 8k/10k XC than the marathon (not to mention the fact that most guys don’t run marathons at 22 years old and men can be developmentally very different at 22 and 26).

Think about it this way- there are plenty of stud 1500 runners that can’t run the 5000 for sh!t and there are plenty that are studs at both. As a result, you obviously can’t compare any given runner’s 15/5k pbs as equivalent performances.

Olympic Marathon Trials. The reason is that you have to do it all by yourself. You could be the 7th person on a XC team and the reason you got there is because your 1-5 runners scored so well.

From an 800 meter and occasional 1500 runner's perspective, the Olympic marathon is more impressive in more ways than one. For my own selfish reasons: The Olympics comes only once every four years, the event is longer, the training is longer, both take dedication but the marathon requires a more time and resources.

Also publicly, if you asked someone who didn't know anything, they would say the Olympic marathon because it's more recognizable.

The marathon is also one of the Olympics flagship events. When people think of runners they think of 100 meter runners and marathon runners. There is no Olympic event for the 10k Cross Country. There is a 10k but that is Track and Field and outside the discussion.

Even though both athletes in your example place midpack, one was striving for the highest goal in athletics by being part of the Olympic Trials. The other was part of a respectable, great event, and yes the marathoner probably couldn't place in the same spot in that 10k race. But the same works in reverse. As a runner, I can't even concede the example of "Oh this guy was so good at NCAAs he could have placed nth at Olympic Trials. " I had runners on my college team that did run the marathon in 2:17 AND ran XC. That was impressive. But you always have to prove it by doing it. That's all I am interested in anyways!

D1 XC Nationals is way harder. For the Olympic Trials, you can train for 10+ years after graduating college to progressively get there. But for XC nationals, you have only 4 years to get there. You have to be a really good runner coming out of high school and develop as much as you can in a short window of time.

Take this guy who ran 14:52 and 31:45 in college -

https://www.tfrrs.org/athletes/1678990/Hartford/Jonas_Hampton.html

high school PR of 9:49 in the 3200 so developed pretty well in college.

Got his time in the marathon down to 2:14:19 at Chicago -

https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/united-states/jonas-hampton-305273

I agree but... wrote:

The rest of the world wrote:

You must be on crack! Go to a local restaurant and tell them you qualified for the Olympic Trials and they'll think you're a freaking hero, but tell them you qualified for the NCAA Meet and they could care less. This is just reality.Tell your grandkids one day that you made it to the Olympic trials, and they'll be like wow, but tell him he made the NCAA meet and they will be like, ok. Actually, some dumb non-runners think the Olympic Trials is actually the Olympics. They'll look at you like you're crazy if you say the NCAA D1 Cross Country Meet.

The people in that local restaurant’s follow up question: “so, does that mean you have also qualified for and run in the Boston marathon?”

And their second follow-up question, “how far is the marathon that you did?”