Mile officially replaces 1500 at NCAAs??

runthecountry wrote:

It hasn't been said, but I think even if it is unspoken, people know it would be HUGE if a woman was threatening 4 minutes in the mile. Bigger than any number of college men breaking 4, that is for sure. Put Dibaba in a men's race, and she would probably be under 4:05 - close enough for the media to get excited.

You need to see this thread ...

toro wrote:

... so the straightaway vs. curved start has no impact on tactics.

Total BS

crete wrote:

runthecountry wrote:

It hasn't been said, but I think even if it is unspoken, people know it would be HUGE if a woman was threatening 4 minutes in the mile. Bigger than any number of college men breaking 4, that is for sure. Put Dibaba in a men's race, and she would probably be under 4:05 - close enough for the media to get excited.

You need to see this thread ...

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6914460

Haha, look a little more closely and you'll see I've posted in that thread multiple times!

The IAAF began accepting mile times for world championship qualifying last year.

It's reasonable to imagine that the IOC will begin doing the same at some point in the near future.

The USA had more success on the international level when the mile was run in the NCAA instead of the 1500.

Think Glen Cunningham, Wes Santee, Jim Ryun, Marty Liquori.

I've yet to come across a convincing argument that running the mile instead of the 1500 harms the athletes.

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

The fact that J.R. is against this decision is more evidence that it is the correct decision.

+1

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

I've yet to come across a convincing argument that running the mile instead of the 1500 harms the athletes.

Yeah, but equivalently, how does it help them?

crete wrote:

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

I've yet to come across a convincing argument that running the mile instead of the 1500 harms the athletes.

Yeah, but equivalently, how does it help them?

It's a benefit for the majority of fans whilst also not harming the athletes.

Most would agree that an action which is a benefit that doesn't cause harm is good.

This one's for you: http://bringbackthemile.com/news/detail/the_mile_do_the_right_thing_more_opportunities_for_women_needed_good_for_th

This seems like a no-brainer for me. It failed my last year when I was in college and drove me nuts at the time.

It's not going to suddenly make track more popular but it's not going to hurt. The "Runner A" breaks-4 for first time is always covered. I had a kid at Cornell - Jimmy Wyner - who broke 3:42 but never 4. With the mile outdoors, also there will be less incentive for guys to burn out indoors trying to break 4:00.

The only negative is the fact that you cant put up a time on the Olympic Trials descending order list in the mile. You either run the 'A' 3:54.00 or you don't go. But that's really a USATF problem. I don't know why USATF just doesn't use a 1.08 conversion.

Feminiceties wrote:

Thanks for ignoring the women with all your 4 minute mile stuff. I haven't heard a word yet how this i supposed to help women's track, where there is no tradition in the mile to speak of.

What about the 5 minute mile? May not be something elite women are thinking about but would probably be a good goal for a lot of female college runners. Conversely, many men will lose the chase to break 4 in the 1500.

This is great news. All my dinosaur friend will be happy... US welcome to the 19th century...

I was in 9th grade when, in US we started racing 1600/3200. We tore up 440yd. tracks, put in 400m tracks. Meets, for a few years were on both 400 & 440 tracks, but we called them 400m. I thought, "Bring back the mile," was in reference to high school, not NCAA?

I think this is an unfortunate decision as it will hurt the top men and women in the NCAA in their chances to run qualifying standards. Might seem like a minor thing, but not to me. We already run the mile indoors. I actually think it's good that distances indoors are generally a bit different (60m, 1000m, mile, 3000m, etc) as it gives people a chance to train for and compete at a different distance that they're either better at or that will help keep their body and mind fresh from not focusing on the same precise distance for 6+ months. Anybody saying, "But nobody knows what a 1500m time is" needs to just give people the converted time. If you ran 3:50 for 1500m, just say you ran 4:07 for the mile. Nobody but runners will care, and real runners will understand what a 3:50 1500m means, so there's really no argument here.

Disappointing decision.

But you just showed the issue. 3:50 doesn't translate to 4:07. Not even you, a very serious runner knows that. The 1500 is as much a relic of the ancient track past as the mile. This is one step in revitalizing the sport.

I just don't buy the argument that if we suddenly have people race a mile instead of 1500m that droves of fans will start showing up at stadiums to watch. Let's face it - it won't make the sport any more palatable to the masses.

It's not going to suddenly make people show up, but the sport is known for two races: the mile; the 100 meter dash. Everyone on the street knows who Usain Bolt is, and almost anyone would have known who Roger Bannister was. When the mile turned to the 1500, people stopped caring about distance runners. Sprinters didn't lose all their popularity. This is a good decision. It won't change things over night, but it's an important first step.

Guppy wrote:

I think this is an unfortunate decision as it will hurt the top men and women in the NCAA in their chances to run qualifying standards. Might seem like a minor thing, but not to me. We already run the mile indoors.

Disappointing decision.

The IAAF began accepting mile times for world championship qualifying last year.

It's reasonable to imagine that the IOC will begin doing the same at some point in the near future.

crete wrote:

I just don't buy the argument that if we suddenly have people race a mile instead of 1500m that droves of fans will start showing up at stadiums to watch. Let's face it - it won't make the sport any more palatable to the masses.

Crete, please cite your reference here: "Droves of fans"

Nobody is saying this. Why the vote went the way it did is because it's SOMETHING in the right direction. Nothing else useful is being proposed. Even if a few extra newspaper articles are written about hometown high school studs because of this then it gives their audiences something to read about track and field that otherwise wouldn't have happened! Not to mention, the AD's out there who are otherwise clueless might actually grasp what is going on!!

Baby steps, people.

Come on now wrote:

It's not going to suddenly make people show up, but the sport is known for two races: the mile; the 100 meter dash. Everyone on the street knows who Usain Bolt is, and almost anyone would have known who Roger Bannister was. When the mile turned to the 1500, people stopped caring about distance runners. Sprinters didn't lose all their popularity. This is a good decision. It won't change things over night, but it's an important first step.

But these outsider fans are only tuning in for the big international competitions - they tune in to watch the Olympic men's 100m dash final and possibly the 1500m final.

How is making the NCAA final a mile instead of 1500m going to help the sport? None of these people is tuning in to watch the NCAA finals. Heck, I'm a big fan of the sport and I don't always see the NCAAs. I just don't see how this will help the sport globally. I just don't think the NCAAs are that big a deal to the lay person.