The NCAA data is in - The super spike effect is real

rojo wrote:

I've crunched the numbers and compared the 2021 and 2019 NCAA times and the distance times are faster in 2021, while the sprint times are not, showing the super spike impact is real.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/05/the-ncaa-data-is-in-the-super-spike-effect-is-real-starting-in-the-1500/

(Sub required).

Rojo the chart is misleading a bigger factor than the shoes in why the times are faster is the NCAA restricting field sizes to top 32 before reversing it last week. in past years you would have top athletes jog regional marks whereas they had to put down competitive marks across the board this year

I wonder how much of that is due to the new spikes and how much is due to the fact that people got almost a year of training without having to worry about any competitions.

Whether or not the "super spikes" actually work, this argument has flaws. You fail to consider other reasons why times would be faster this year, and you only look at one other year for reference. The NCAA has more depth because of all the people who gained a redshirt year from covid, which could also contribute. Saying that because the 50th best person in the NCAA this year versus two years ago is faster in distance events. If you really want to prove that the shoes work, take a large sample of runners comparing their times to previous years and see if runners with the shoes improved more than those without them, and while you're at it, look up the phrase "statistically significant". This is lazy reporting, I'm not saying the shoes don't work, but with all the data that is available on runner's times year to year you could have looked at more than 50 per event.

You are vindicated again. You nailed this. You nailed the whole DK Metcalf deal. You deserve a black page. If you don’t get one now, what will it take?

This is not what one would call a rigorous statistical analysis. There are multiple ways one could do one (including the “improvement over time” method with a control group and a super-shoe group). You would also need to account for who was actually using the super-shoes at an absolute minimum.

Actually... I’m wondering if Rojo is just trolling us with that post.

Don't you get revenue from shoe companies advertising here? Conflict of interest.

Sprint42 wrote:

This is not what one would call a rigorous statistical analysis. There are multiple ways one could do one (including the “improvement over time” method with a control group and a super-shoe group). You would also need to account for who was actually using the super-shoes at an absolute minimum.

Actually... I’m wondering if Rojo is just trolling us with that post.

Or at the very least, maybe note that the women's 10k is 1.46% slower and the men's 10k is only .54% faster. Those events should show the greatest improvement. Instead, it looks an awful lot like noise.

To everyone arguing against the super shoe being the reason explain why 90% of runners, both pro and collegiate, are wearing them. Even despite being sponsored by other companies. It’s because they know they will be at an extreme disadvantage without them.

Nice try. If your theory was true, we'd also see sprint times being faster. They aren't.

(Now my only fear is this weekend we see a ton of big sprint times this weekend ;))

It amazes me that some people liker yourself won't accept this. You've got CEOs of shoe company's admitting it and telling their athletes -" you know what the other company's spikes are better. You can wear another company's brand in the biggest races of the year" and yet there are people like you making up excuses.

You at least raise an interesting argument philosophically but again, it's not true for the sprints.

My data certainly isn't perfect. I'm not saying it is. Do you literally want me to spend the time of writing the equivalent of a senior thesis before I publish anything? And I'm not saying it's scientifically rigorous but it certainly passes the smell test.

"Hey new spikes were invented for distance runners. Let's see if they are running faster. Yes they are. What about the sprints? No they aren't."

"But Rojo, you didn't interview the top 300 NCAA runners and figure out what shoes they are wearing this year verus last year and post it." Do you know how long that woult take?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Don't you get revenue from shoe companies advertising here? Conflict of interest.

God people are stupid. We've received money directly from two shoe companies - neither of whom has a super shoe. I'm literally promoting the technology of Nike.

rojo wrote:

"Hey new spikes were invented for distance runners. Let's see if they are running faster. Yes they are. What about the sprints? No they aren't."

Why aren't the women's 10k times faster?

Well there you go, promoting a shoe company.

Whether they pay you directly or not, surely you benefit from the hype.

Rojo, my high school statistics students could do a better job than what you did here. Pay me and I will write up the same article and see if there is actually a statistically significant difference. Got plenty of time.

just a regular guy in the neighborhood wrote:

I wonder how much of that is due to the new spikes and how much is due to the fact that people got almost a year of training without having to worry about any competitions.

100% this.

Just because you have a theory, does not mean a 1 year sample size proves it. You have to isolate all variables (or at least not have multiple variables at play).

113 wrote:

Or at the very least, maybe note that the women's 10k is 1.46% slower and the men's 10k is only .54% faster. Those events should show the greatest improvement. Instead, it looks an awful lot like noise.

I did note it. I can't help it that you didn't actually read the article.

So far we have a bunch of criticisms from people who haven't even read the article.

Probably has to do with the fact you need a subscription....

Anyway I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the spikes are supposed to make you faster. That is the whole point of spikes,flats, the new marathon shoes, etc.

The spikes are doing what they’re supposed to do.

The shoes may be a slight factor to why the times are a bit faster in 2021 than 2019 but the main factor is that athletes have risen to a new level. If you look at the athletes who are running insane times (Grijalva, Teare, Clinger, Suliman, Nuguse, Brown, Rodriguez) All these boys were from the high school class of 2017. That year records were being shattered in high school across the country. The 4 minute barrier was being broken every year at that point for high schoolers. These boys are filled with a insane amount of talent. The class of 2017 is now the core of the NCAA and because it was filled with talent it has risen the level of competition throughout the NCAA. Every other athlete must rise to the occasion to compete. The class of 2017 was insanely deep in distance events, what like 27 boys broke 9 at Arcadia that year? That has to be some sort of record. They have set a new standard. That was long before super spikes. They are mostly all upperclassman now in the NCAA depending on eligibility but this is why times are dropping. There is insane talent in the NCAA right now and the standard has been risen to a whole new elite level. The depth has been brought to the NCAA level.

I believe there have been far more limited opportunities for high end 10ks this year, no Stanford meets, no Mt Sac. If anything I think the data under represents the effect. 1.5% anecdotally seems about right to me.

This is FAR from a detailed analysis

1) You only compared one year to 2021 (was 2019 a slower than normal year? Faster than normal? - I don't know)

2) Are all the fastest times run with the "super spikes" (yes, no, some were some weren't)

3) Comparing ONLY the fastest times doesn't take into account that there may be an outlier. A better analysis would be comparing the top 10 or top 15 fastest times. Here again you woud need to look how many of those top runners in 2021 were wearing the super spikes.

You MAY be correct about the super spikes, but your analysis doesn't provide the evidence