The riciculous thing is qualifying for distance races based solely on time! You could win every meet you enter and still not qualify for nationals (in theory).
That said, if you are a contender for a D3 national title, you shouldn't have any trouble qualifying for the meet
Another thing to consider is that academically speaking, D3 schools in the Northeast are VASTLY superior to D3 schools in the Midwest. Graduates of schools like Williams and Tufts go on to make and donate more money than some guy from UW-Oshkosh. This contributes to larger budgets. However, the budget factor is irrelevant because most Northeast schools are within 3 hours of a banked track, so budget isn't really a factor. But that discussion really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
The conversions are BS. People run fast times at BU/Armory because these hosts some of the most competitive meets kids trying to qualify for D3s can run.
Until i see the "scientific studies" that controlled for factors like competition, there is no way I will believe a banked track is worth 9 seconds for a 5k. As pointed out earlier, these "studies" were done by midwestern coaches, who in addition to being biased, probably went to midwestern schools and lack intelligence.
Medford Maniacs wrote:
Until i see the "scientific studies" that controlled for factors like competition, there is no way I will believe a banked track is worth 9 seconds for a 5k. As pointed out earlier, these "studies" were done by midwestern coaches, who in addition to being biased, probably went to midwestern schools and lack intelligence.
I like how you support your rational based on seeing scientific evidence and critical reasoning, then following up with conjecture on a link between midwest schools and low intelligence. A technique often used by D3 midwestern graduates like myself.
Midwesterner wrote:
I like how you support your rational based on seeing scientific evidence and critical reasoning, then following up with conjecture on a link between midwest schools and low intelligence. A technique often used by D3 midwestern graduates like myself.
Care to respond with any specifics? Do you believe a 14:30 at BU Terrier would be a 14:39 on a flat track with equivalent competition?
If we were to apply the model used in Division 1- to which I haven't heard next to any complaints about- then we would implement a system that converted all flat track times to that of oversized or banked 200s- of which the conversions use almost THE EXACT SAME rate as the one currently in D3. For example- a 14:35 200 banked becomes a 14:44 with the current conversion. If we were to apply the D1 conversions, then the 14:35 200 banked would stay and a 14:44 on a flat 200 track would convert down to 14:35- it is almost literally the exact same thing
Idiots wrote:
If we were to apply the model used in Division 1- to which I haven't heard next to any complaints about- then we would implement a system that converted all flat track times to that of oversized or banked 200s- of which the conversions use almost THE EXACT SAME rate as the one currently in D3. For example- a 14:35 200 banked becomes a 14:44 with the current conversion. If we were to apply the D1 conversions, then the 14:35 200 banked would stay and a 14:44 on a flat 200 track would convert down to 14:35- it is almost literally the exact same thing
No one is complaining about D2 and D1 because they all run on banked or oversized tracks. In D3, the midwesterners don't run on banked tracks but all the big meets for northeasteners are on banked tracks.
That doesn't matter though a 9 second differential is stupid whether or not the D1 schools are complaining.
the trashman wrote:
Care to respond with any specifics? Do you believe a 14:30 at BU Terrier would be a 14:39 on a flat track with equivalent competition?
Hmmm, I think you've missed the point. The conversion, whether or not I agree with how it's done, is not the source of the intended humor. But when you have to explain a joke, it usually means it was over the persons head, or it was told poorly....or a combination of both I suppose.
That take you long to type?
Thelatder wrote:
That take you long to type?
That depends, are we using the updated conversion standards or the old ones?
when you have to explain a joke, it usually means it was over the persons head, or it was told poorly....
Do people really think this is a mid-west conspiracy to penalize east-coast D3 schools who compete at big D1 meets? That seems pretty crazy that the NCAA would just go along with that. What would there agenda be? The D3 T&f committee only has 3 of 8 reps from Mid-West regions.
The system is certainly flawed, but I don't see any evidence to suggest the old conversions where any better than these. Pretty much every argument against the new standards is "do you think it's really XXX seconds slower to run XXX". That doesn't seem to scientific either.
Since D3 Nationals is always on a flat 200m track, and I'm unaware of any D3 Schools that have a banked/ oversized track, then the benefit of the doubt should go to running a flat 200m.
I think this is a great opportunity for D3 schools to host great meets AT D3 SCHOOLS! There are plenty of D3 schools with quality 200m flat tracks, and every year plenty of east coast athletes still qualify for NCAA's on flat tracks.
Last weekend, three ran sub 14:30 and six under 14:53 @ Haverford. In the past, these athletes might have hauled up to BU, or the Armory. Instead, there's an outstanding 5km on a D3 campus. Less travel and home fans, how is that bad for our sport?
UW-Whitewater had eight under 14:54 and a 14:24 last weekend. Again, it can be done. A whole group of NE D3's are setting up a big DMR @ Tufts this weekend. No additional travel, home fans and great competition.
This is a change from the past, but there is no doubt that more meets like Tufts can take place. There are more nice 200m tracks being built at D3 schools and hopefully this opportunity can be embraced to bring outstanding D3 athletes to outstanding D3 facilities.
A potato has to do what a potato has to do
Medford Maniacs wrote:
Until i see the "scientific studies" that controlled for factors like competition, there is no way I will believe a banked track is worth 9 seconds for a 5k. As pointed out earlier, these "studies" were done by midwestern coaches, who in addition to being biased, probably went to midwestern schools and lack intelligence.
The study was done using statistical models with several checkpoints for error. Your use of quotation marks around scientific studies is representative of the fact that you have no idea what consistutes a scientific study, and pretty quickly invalidates your opinion.
Further, I doubt you get equally enraged when you start your car or turn on the tv. Both have been brought to you by the miracle of science that you've never seen, known about, or questioned. It doesn't mean you flip out every time you want to watch your Honey Boo Boo stories.
pogo wrote:
The study was done using statistical models with several checkpoints for error. Your use of quotation marks around scientific studies is representative of the fact that you have no idea what consistutes a scientific study, and pretty quickly invalidates your opinion.
Further, I doubt you get equally enraged when you start your car or turn on the tv. Both have been brought to you by the miracle of science that you've never seen, known about, or questioned. It doesn't mean you flip out every time you want to watch your Honey Boo Boo stories.
Two completely different things. If there was a study using statistical models that you claim, lets see it. If the numbers back up the conversion, I'll admit I was wrong. However, no one has seen these studies, and 9 seconds for a 5k doesn't pass the "smell test".
@jsquire: nice point
The "old" conversions had a number of things wrong with them on face.
The "new" conversions can't with 100% accuracy predict what runner A would run on the same day in the same shape in the same race circumstance from a flat to a banked/oversized track. too many variables, in my mind. And people who are running on both flat and banked tracks are doing so in non-sterile environments. Most people aren't running at their peak shape against top competition on flat tracks.
I think the new conversions clearly, CURRENTLY, benefit flat 200 tracks. But by doing so, it will shift people back to running on 200 tracks. Then the data will become more legitimate OVER TIME.
And as all resourceful coaches do, they will learn where to gain an advantage. If it is found that the flat track has an advantage, I promise you will see last chance meets being held on flat tracks next year. People will go where they have the best chance to qualify.
As soon as Oregon and Stanford and LSU send their best squads to flat tracks to take advantage of the current bias, then the data itself will change and so to will the conversions.
Nothing is perfect, but this is better than before, especially in that the method itself will lead to a more accurate conversion over time.
The study was done using statistical models with several checkpoints for error. Your use of quotation marks around scientific studies is representative of the fact that you have no idea what consistutes a scientific study, and pretty quickly invalidates your opinion. [/quote]
Lol several checkpoints for error. How does a single conversion apply to multiple tracks? Is every track the same? For that matter is every race or meet the same? I'd love to see how all these sources of potential error were accounted for. The people who came up with these models must have taken years to make them perfect and obtain these magical "fit-all" numbers.
Something fun to do now is to subtract the conversion from times on flat tracks as if they had run on banked ones. The top 6 5k times right now would be 14:20 or better if only they were on banked tracks lol. Amazing.
FINALLY
this has been such a freaking joke over the years, bullshit times coming out of the armory/bu/etc and then kids getting their asses handed to them by the WIAC schools
the gravy train is over
.............................. wrote:
@jsquire: nice point
The "old" conversions had a number of things wrong with them on face.
The "new" conversions can't with 100% accuracy predict what runner A would run on the same day in the same shape in the same race circumstance from a flat to a banked/oversized track. too many variables, in my mind. And people who are running on both flat and banked tracks are doing so in non-sterile environments. Most people aren't running at their peak shape against top competition on flat tracks.
I think the new conversions clearly, CURRENTLY, benefit flat 200 tracks. But by doing so, it will shift people back to running on 200 tracks. Then the data will become more legitimate OVER TIME.
And as all resourceful coaches do, they will learn where to gain an advantage. If it is found that the flat track has an advantage, I promise you will see last chance meets being held on flat tracks next year. People will go where they have the best chance to qualify.
As soon as Oregon and Stanford and LSU send their best squads to flat tracks to take advantage of the current bias, then the data itself will change and so to will the conversions.
Nothing is perfect, but this is better than before, especially in that the method itself will lead to a more accurate conversion over time.
So basically the east coast is being thrown under the bus for a few years while everyone collectively decides whether to be penalized for going to competitive meets on banked tracks or take a chance at running on a flat track with no guarantee of solid fields...
And this is all assuming that an entire region of schools will quickly join forces to host quality, D3-only meets on flat tracks, and that this will somehow make any sort of time controversy disappear...
Maybe we should find a conversion for California schools who get to train in 70 degree weather all winter while Wisconsin schools have to train in sub-arctic conditions. This is clearly not fair. Maybe if the Wisconsin schools had better budgets, they could move to California. Idea - influence all D3 programs to move to the midwest for the winter by placing intentionally unfair conversions on times run in any situation that might deliver a slight advantage. An additional penalty could be administered to any program that refuses to admit that the midwest is disadvantaged, tougher and therefore better at running. Then everyone (read: a handful of midwest schools) can be happy and no one will ever dispute any national qualifying time ever again. If you want some even more convoluted, overly-complex and inefffetive solutions, I'm sure we could figure something out.
the trashman wrote:
So basically the east coast is being thrown under the bus for a few years while everyone collectively decides whether to be penalized for going to competitive meets on banked tracks or take a chance at running on a flat track with no guarantee of solid fields...
And this is all assuming that an entire region of schools will quickly join forces to host quality, D3-only meets on flat tracks, and that this will somehow make any sort of time controversy disappear...
Maybe we should find a conversion for California schools who get to train in 70 degree weather all winter while Wisconsin schools have to train in sub-arctic conditions. This is clearly not fair. Maybe if the Wisconsin schools had better budgets, they could move to California. Idea - influence all D3 programs to move to the midwest for the winter by placing intentionally unfair conversions on times run in any situation that might deliver a slight advantage. An additional penalty could be administered to any program that refuses to admit that the midwest is disadvantaged, tougher and therefore better at running. Then everyone (read: a handful of midwest schools) can be happy and no one will ever dispute any national qualifying time ever again. If you want some even more convoluted, overly-complex and inefffetive solutions, I'm sure we could figure something out.
10/10
Wrong.
There are no indoor tracks in the state of Georgia. UNC chapel hill is a 200 flat. And Louisville does not host indoor track meets.The banked track used at Louisville is for the Mason Dixon Games which is a high school only meet. Get your facts straight.