An Interesting Proposal To Save The Fall XC Season: Implement Interval Starts

FLupda wrote:

A better idea would be to have each team run together on the course at staggered intervals. They all train together anyways. It would be a great team sport.

I actually like this idea better. Strategy comes into play. Do you have each person run their own race? Or do you run as a pack to try and pull the slowest along?

No!

Kvothe wrote:

Seyta wrote:

Cross Country is so unpopular that it's combined as a sport with track (despite all sprinters and field athletes having nothing to do with cross country), it's virtually non-existent professionally, and most countries don't even bother with World XC.

Obviously the heart and soul is garbage.

At a high school level, it's sustained only because there are no cuts, most kids need to add some sort of extracurricular to their college applications, and girls want to stay skinny.

Cross country is only "unpopular" as a spectator sport, but if it were on prime time tv people would watch it and it would become popular.

The athletes competing in xc love the sport. Football would be unpopular too if you could only find it on big ten network at 2 pm or behind paywalls.

This is funny. And not true. The simplest explanation often is the correct one. Neither of those sports' popularity is due to their current coverage.

There are many courses where this will not work. Most courses do multiple loops and have portions where runners go different directions.

Slow is okay wrote:

There are many courses where this will not work. Most courses do multiple loops and have portions where runners go different directions.

Then you'd need to reconfigure the course.

Better to move XC to Winter 2021 with all races in Phoenix. Tuscon, L.A., San Diego, Bay Area, SLO. All year PRO sports and winter NCAA sports are coming anyways due to technology and students being able to make money from sports. So we may as well start getting used to racing in all four seasons.

Would totally ruin the sport. Besides the fairness of it being easier to cue off your competitors so If I'm chasing someone at my level rather than being chased that's a huge advantage. If someone at my level starts 5 sec ahead of me I just have to catch them and then it falls on them to drop me if they want to beat me, whereas if I just hang on I win.

It would destroy the viewer's experience. The great thing about running is when someone crosses the line you know who won. The viewer could never keep up in real-time as runners come in at a spread and you wouldn't know who started when. As soon the as the first runner crosses the line you should be able to know who won. There would be no head to head as the top runners could start minutes apart.

It's a stupid concept because the runners are going to naturally pack up as the race progresses anyways.

Slow is okay wrote:

There are many courses where this will not work. Most courses do multiple loops and have portions where runners go different directions.

I was thinking about this a couple weeks ago when I first heard the idea of a time trial start for XC. It is an issue that would need to be solved, but I think it's solvable. Probably requires a few more Course Monitors, and they would definitely need to be trained a lot better than I see at a lot of meets so they're not just standing around on the course, they're actually doing something to help keep racers on course.

The reason I think it's solvable is I XC Ski raced in high school and college, and we also had course with multiple loops and split points that sent racers in different directions at different parts of the race. I was racing back in the 1980s, all of the ski meets I did were interval start (except the relays) - we didn't have any mass start races like they sometimes do in high school and college today. I never went the wrong way in any of those races and neither did any of my teammates. Then I coached college for 11 years and in that entire time we didn't have anyone go the wrong way and get DQ'd in the entire field in any of the races my team raced at.

Then I got thinking, well, what about the races the XC team I coach now went to last fall? Anything confusing on the courses?

--1st meet of the season was 2.5k out with no way to get off course, then an "upper loop" that was a little over 2k that you did twice, then left turn out of that loop and 1k to the finish line, again with no way to get off course. Nobody's taking any wrong turns on that course.

--2nd meet was 1k around an open field keeping the turn flags on your left shoulder, followed by a 3.5k loop that you did twice. No way to go wrong on that course.

--3rd meet was a 2k inner woods loop following by a different 3k outer woods loop done twice. The last 400m of both loops was the same. No way to go wrong on that course although there were a bunch of side trails on the 3k loop that you'd have to block off.

'--4th meet was a 2k loop that the racers did 4 times. The start ran 100m to get to the loop, and the finish was 50m off the right side of the loop. No way to go wrong.

--5th meet was a 2.67k loop that the racers did 3 times. The start and first 400m were to the left of the loop (inside) because it was wider there, and then you merged into the regular loop. No way to go wrong, although the men's and women's course did have one section that was different (men added on a 50m bump and women cut off a section on the first loop out to get the right total distances).

--6th meet might have been a little tricky. Belmont Plateau, Philly. It was 1.5k around a field, no way to go wrong. But then in the woods it was a figure 8 with a cross-over, then you went back and did the 1.5k field again. Then you did the lower part of the figure 8, and then the 1.5k field again to finish. Easy to get right in a mass start, but I could see this being tricky on an interval start format.

Having seen a lot of courses over the years, designed more than a few (and a few XC Ski race courses too), I would say most XC courses I've seen wouldn't be an issue with a time trial start. Some would, guessing maybe 10-20%.

One thing that would make is easier for course management, and would make it easier for meet personnel to help racers stay on course, is if racers started in bib order. Doing that, Course Monitors and the finish line should see somewhat of a steady flow of bib numbers, 1 first 2 second, etc etc. Of course you'll get some switching around as faster runners catch slower runners. But if a CM or the finish line is seeing bibs #1-20 mostly, and bib #50 comes along, that's a red flag. Let's say 1 starter every 10 seconds, unless #50 is clearly much faster than every else who has come along, it's a red flag to question if #50 really made up 5:00+ on the 1-20 bibs or if #50 missed a 1.5k+/- part of the course. It would be a good idea to have a couple of people at strategic parts of the course writing down bib numbers (or chip mats there) that can be checked afterwards if there is a question about a racer not doing the full course.

I don't like the idea of this kind of a fundamental change to the sport of XC, but if that's what we need to do to have a season this fall then I want to try it.

Very dumb arguments. You catching up to your 30 second man doesn't guarantee victory. The guy behind you could do the same to you. The whole field isn't going to pack up because there are people starting as others are finishing.

The viewer experience is fine in bicycle individual start time trials and individual start ski races because people have start lists and can calculate the time differentials. They do this all the time.

Head-to-head races are great. Individual start races are different and also great in their own way. Cycling and cross country skiing made a place for both individual start and mass start races. Why not running? In cross country ski racing, individual start races were the main event for much of its history, and many skiers still consider the individual starts the "real" ski racing.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Would totally ruin the sport. Besides the fairness of it being easier to cue off your competitors so If I'm chasing someone at my level rather than being chased that's a huge advantage. If someone at my level starts 5 sec ahead of me I just have to catch them and then it falls on them to drop me if they want to beat me, whereas if I just hang on I win...

Totally agree with you. But devil's advocate, if you chose this strategy and just caught up to the runner who started in front of you and cruised with them to beat them, why wouldn't the guys who started behind you just do the same thing and beat you both? And wouldn't you be worried about somebody who started say 1:15 ahead of you (i.e. out of sight) who's not as fast as you normally, but who races hard the whole way instead of catching the starter 5 seconds in front of them and just holding pace?

Most of the interval start ski racing I did was "2 every 15 seconds" in high school and "1 every 30 seconds" in college. It worked fine, although I fully recognize that shortening up that interval to 5 seconds may have been a game changer. I can tell you I never raced to catch up to the guy in front of me and then just cruise along with him - when I caught those guys I wanted to blow right through them and go catch somebody else. The leagues I raced in always seeded each school's slowest guy first, etc etc, on to their fastest skiers last. Racing a lot of 15k's in college, I was always looking at the start sheet and setting a goal about who I wanted to catch not just in my seed group but the seed group in front of me too.

Springfield Nuclear Power Plant wrote:

Head-to-head races are great. Individual start races are different and also great in their own way. Cycling and cross country skiing made a place for both individual start and mass start races. Why not running? In cross country ski racing, individual start races were the main event for much of its history, and many skiers still consider the individual starts the "real" ski racing.

Some of the 30k and 50k interval start Nordic races BITD were incredible "thrill of victory" racing! I still watch stuff on youtube from I think 1980 Lake Placid Olympics when it was incredibly close for a bunch of racers the last 500m and those guys are just going all out because they heard splits and know how close it is. And then some of the Olympic and World Cup 50k's over the years when racers are totally balls to the wall 48k in chasing a time somebody posted or trying to put time on somebody who started behind them that they're getting splits off, gives me goose bumps!

Ideally you would start slowest seed time to fastest. The reason for going to this format for a season is to maximize spreading people out though. So you would probably reverse it. Obviously randomizing seed groups would be good, but not essential. Sequential bibs and timing mats would make it easier to watch. Usually you can tell how a ski race is going just by watching. In reality you should know the winner for sure with in 5 minutes of the first person finishing. If people can figure out team scores in real-time this isn’t really that much different.

Anytime there is some sort of change people will really resist it. Most people just don’t like change as a rule. It would be better than canceling the season. I think once everyone has had a chance to race this format a couple times and figured out new strategies they will be fine with it.

Coach V N M wrote:

Better to move XC to Winter 2021 with all races in Phoenix. Tuscon, L.A., San Diego, Bay Area, SLO. All year PRO sports and winter NCAA sports are coming anyways due to technology and students being able to make money from sports. So we may as well start getting used to racing in all four seasons.

Why not move XC to winter (Jan. to March season - nationals held about March 8-10) and bring it into alignment with the international calendar? It doesn't have to be in warm weather climates either. Part of the tradition of cross country is racing in slop, mud, and cold conditions and it is used in Europe as a means of getting fit for the upcoming outdoor track season.

Leave indoor track to the speed merchants - sprinters and middle distance athletes. XC always favors the longer distance types and the strongest athletes should win cross races. Enough with golf course races and manicured surfaces!

Seyta wrote:

Gentleman Savage wrote:

That's against the entire heart and soul of cross country. Not interesting, but then you didn't run xc in college.

Cross Country is so unpopular that it's combined as a sport with track (despite all sprinters and field athletes having nothing to do with cross country), it's virtually non-existent professionally, and most countries don't even bother with World XC.

Obviously the heart and soul is garbage.

At a high school level, it's sustained only because there are no cuts, most kids need to add some sort of extracurricular to their college applications, and girls want to stay skinny.

Sorry for your horrible treatment by a coach that led you to quit the sport before you could achieve anything in it.

I think a flighted start would fun. All the #1's, then all the #2's, etc. A lot strategy would be involved too based on coaches trying to minimize point values by exploiting different matchups (i.e. maybe flips #3 and #5 runners in order to lead to a lower combined score).

Doubt we will see any big invites this fall. Let the kids train and race a schedule of small local meets.

I think it'd be kind of fun to have meets where all the #1s go off together, then all the #2s, then #3s, etc.

yes thats a basic relay start with all 1's going then 2's and so on.... But just add times up and fastest time wins.. No real strategy point wise where you put your runners as their times would just be put together with everyone from every race.

Dingler wrote:

FLupda wrote:

A better idea would be to have each team run together on the course at staggered intervals. They all train together anyways. It would be a great team sport.

I actually like this idea better. Strategy comes into play. Do you have each person run their own race? Or do you run as a pack to try and pull the slowest along?

Yeah this would work well. You could even have like 3 mins between teams so there would be no passing.

And interesting question is how do you score it? Cumulative time? Or do you mash all the runners together at the end and do traditional scoring. It would be a bit unfair in that later teams would know the results. I suppose you could split teams up (4 guys go in 1 heat and another 3/4 in the second) which would make for some interesting choice as to when you run your fast guys and how to split people up.