In looking through the starting lists for the mile, 3000, & 5000, for both the men & women, a disproportionate number of the qualifying times came from the Boston track. I don't have time to do it but it would be interesting to see what the percentages are.
There is a thread here that suggests that perhaps times run in super shoes should have a conversion factor or, at the very least, times run in super shoes should be denoted. I don't believe that should happen since everyone has access to the shoes. That said, should the Boston track have a conversion factor? Times run at altitude or on a flat track are converted. If a time on a slower track is converted to be faster, why shouldn't a faster time be converted to be slower? And aren't marks set on oversized tracks converted?
I am not suggesting that records set on the Boston track should be converted but for the purposes of qualifying to a championship meet should conversion at least not be considered? The instance of shoe times being converted is not analogous because everyone has access to them. All teams, though, don't have access to the Boston track. Sure, the argument could be made that anyone can enter a meet there but that is not necessarily true. Some budgets may not allow travel to Boston or whatever.
I'm not bitter or anything. I have no horse in the race. This is just something I thought about once I saw how many of the times were from the Boston track.
In looking through the starting lists for the mile, 3000, & 5000, for both the men & women, a disproportionate number of the qualifying times came from the Boston track. I don't have time to do it but it would be interesting to see what the percentages are.
There is a thread here that suggests that perhaps times run in super shoes should have a conversion factor or, at the very least, times run in super shoes should be denoted. I don't believe that should happen since everyone has access to the shoes. That said, should the Boston track have a conversion factor? Times run at altitude or on a flat track are converted. If a time on a slower track is converted to be faster, why shouldn't a faster time be converted to be slower? And aren't marks set on oversized tracks converted?
I am not suggesting that records set on the Boston track should be converted but for the purposes of qualifying to a championship meet should conversion at least not be considered? The instance of shoe times being converted is not analogous because everyone has access to them. All teams, though, don't have access to the Boston track. Sure, the argument could be made that anyone can enter a meet there but that is not necessarily true. Some budgets may not allow travel to Boston or whatever.
I'm not bitter or anything. I have no horse in the race. This is just something I thought about once I saw how many of the times were from the Boston track.
BU and UW are the places to go more so for 3000 and 5000 with probably 90% of the performances there - mostly BU and especially in 5000. The mile is more dispersed. But is it the track or the competition or the race setups (pacers) or all 3?
BU and UW are the places to go more so for 3000 and 5000 with probably 90% of the performances there - mostly BU and especially in 5000. The mile is more dispersed. But is it the track or the competition or the race setups (pacers) or all 3?
That is a good point. The high quality of the competition is definitely a factor. That track at Boston has been shown to be fast, though.
In terms of pacers, I really don't thing that they should be a thing at the collegiate level. I know that teams enter some runners with the intent purpose of them being "pacers," but there should be some way to discourage this. I am not sure how to do it but I would be in favor of limiting their use if at all possible. I don't even like pacers at the professional level but it is what it is.
Women: 800 - 8 (50%) at BU, 0 at WU mile - 5 (31%) at BU, 0 at WU 3k - 9 (56%) at BU, 4 (25%) at WU 5k - 12 (75%) at BU, 3 (19%) at WU
Hopefully I got all of the Washington meets...
Thanks
With the 5k, most of those times are from the same season opener meet in early December. The timing and set up of that meet has a lot to do with it. Get that one 5k out of the way in a fast paced early time trial, and then no one has to race the 5k again for the rest of the season unless they need to for qualifying, or for conference points.
Is anyone discussing why our biggest indoor collegiate competition is taking place in a convention center in Albuquerque, New Mexico will pullout bleachers and broadcast on a pay version of ESPN.
This is why our sport sucks and will not become mainstream.
With the 5k, most of those times are from the same season opener meet in early December. The timing and set up of that meet has a lot to do with it. Get that one 5k out of the way in a fast paced early time trial, and then no one has to race the 5k again for the rest of the season unless they need to for qualifying, or for conference points.
A good number of the women 3k qualifiers were also out of the December BU meet.
Is Cook healthy enough to do more than challenge Seymour for 10th? Will Olemomoi’s Oct--Feb body of work trump one crappy race? Having Chelangat close should steady her effort & pacing and I’ll take a KT/HO/MC trifecta all day--at sea level. Tonight, no tellin’ how altitude and Cook’s fitness will twist things.
Is Cook healthy enough to do more than challenge Seymour for 10th? Will Olemomoi’s Oct--Feb body of work trump one crappy race? Having Chelangat close should steady her effort & pacing and I’ll take a KT/HO/MC trifecta all day--at sea level. Tonight, no tellin’ how altitude and Cook’s fitness will twist things.
