astro wrote:
Come on. There are serious red flags about this course. In fact so serious that someone with intimate knowledge about the course's design felt compelled to address them. In doing so he fully admitted that the course was designed to be as fast as possible and had design features that likely make the course a statistical outlier. When I pointed out that the first and third miles are downhill I was accused of misstating this until I quoted and highlighted the actual testimony. By my calculation about 1400 meters of the final 1600 meters of the course are downhill. That is why the splits seem so off with the runners seemingly able to match their fast first mile times during the third mile.
As to the alleged deepness of the field, sure. :).
A course that is flat is faster than a course that is not. You can bring up the “downhill” first and last miles but that means the second mile is going to add more time than you gain on the first/last two combined.
Even if the course is pancake flat, HS kids typically have their second mile as their slowest because of their fast first half mile and their push at the end.
The course is legit. Insanely fast but legit. If you take away the massive wind at XC Town, Sydney runs 16:15-16:20 on a course with thick grass and a little slop. Why can’t Hutchins run sub 16:00 on a fast course with perfect weather?
It’s unfortunate they all won’t race each other in 1.5 weeks.