Running Lane is unfortunately putting an emphasis on XC times

Wayzata's 15:59.18 currently ranks them 93rd in the country, yet they will be in the Gold race.

brrrrrrr wrote:

All their team and race seeding is being done with XC times. This unfortunately will only drive the rush for kids to seek out flat races that start and end on tracks and are 100m short.

It’s as if speed ratings aren’t a thing.

While I agree with your sentiment, speed ratings aren't a thing to anyone outside of NY.

Yeah like last year's Jenna Hutchins broke 16 and a ton of guys like 15 or something broke 15.

Spiked For Life wrote:

brrrrrrr wrote:

All their team and race seeding is being done with XC times. This unfortunately will only drive the rush for kids to seek out flat races that start and end on tracks and are 100m short.

It’s as if speed ratings aren’t a thing.

While I agree with your sentiment, speed ratings aren't a thing to anyone outside of NY.

Meylan does a pretty amazing job of speed rating almost every good runner and team across the country at least once over at tullyrunners. Maybe it was once a NY thing, but I don't think that is the case currently. Using his numbers would work really well for the Gold races. Anyone could protest if they felt their best performance (e.g. almost every state meet was speed rated) wasn't adequately evaluated that way and they desperately need to be in the Gold race as the 29th fastest team.

I have no idea if the results would be materially different, but it would be nice if kids didn't have another reason to obsess over times.

brrrrrrr wrote:

All their team and race seeding is being done with XC times. This unfortunately will only drive the rush for kids to seek out flat races that start and end on tracks and are 100m short.

It’s as if speed ratings aren’t a thing.

Speed ratings are not a thing. Been in the sport for 30 years and I don’t know what that is. Tried to look at that website and it’s a mess and looks like it’s from the 1990s

speed ratings are easily the best way to seed teams. you can like them or not. understand them or not. they work.

brrrrrrr wrote:

All their team and race seeding is being done with XC times. This unfortunately will only drive the rush for kids to seek out flat races that start and end on tracks and are 100m short.

Probably not. If NXN is back in 2022, Running Lane will host JV nationals.

Wayzata and SCN were nowhere near top 50 on time but both made it in the championship race due to Wayzata winning NXR and SCN winning Griak. They did a great job with a 1 hour selection show where they announced the qualifiers and talked about the accomplishments of them. I hate when people start threads that are false and then people comment thinking the premise is true.

NXR will never recover because this course is superior to any that I have seen before.

I posted this in another thread but this is ridiculous. In California, you literally have 4:30 guys running 15:40s because of how much faster their courses are. XC in Cali is like running a 5k on the track. A NY 15:30 guy (which wouldn't get into the championship race) could realistically be a sub 9 3200 or sub 4:10 1600 guy, and would easily be 14:50s on the track. College coaches do not take XC times for recruiting, they only take track times and XC PLACEMENT. I think there shouldve been an emphasis on track times, and XC state championship placement, rather then just XC pr. I have never heard of a meet actually caring about XC pr. XC times are a useless metric.

There are 2200 runners competing. They did a thorough analysis to determine the 30 teams for the championship races and then placed the next 100 boys and girls in the championship races by verifiable time. Can you imagine reviewing the times of 2200 runners? Please list 5 runners who should be in the championship race that are not and then predict where they would place if they were in the race. I think you will find that the best runners are in the race but there are a few who could possibly place 100th instead of having a chance to win the silver race. How would it be worthwhile for a committee to expend countless hours just to move a few people who would not be a factor anyway? Care to predict the winning time of the silver race and predict what place that person would have been in the championship race? I predict that the winner of the silver race would have placed 100th in the gold race.

Dumb Standards..... wrote:

I posted this in another thread but this is ridiculous. In California, you literally have 4:30 guys running 15:40s because of how much faster their courses are. XC in Cali is like running a 5k on the track. A NY 15:30 guy (which wouldn't get into the championship race) could realistically be a sub 9 3200 or sub 4:10 1600 guy, and would easily be 14:50s on the track. College coaches do not take XC times for recruiting, they only take track times and XC PLACEMENT. I think there shouldve been an emphasis on track times, and XC state championship placement, rather then just XC pr. I have never heard of a meet actually caring about XC pr. XC times are a useless metric.

Why do we do this? We just can't stand the sport changing can we? Oh no the holy grail of looking at XC times!!! Pretending that college coaches don't look at times OK LOL. Pretending that you don't look at times. Someone wins in 16 minutes or 19 minutes is exactly the same right? There are easier and tougher courses in every State, even in CA! I mean I am old but I do understand that sports are allowed to change over the years.

You’re extrapolating his argument way too far. Of course there’s a difference between a 16 and 19 minute 5k guy.

What’s the difference between a guy who runs a 14:50 on a course where everyone PRs, then runs 15:40 all season, compared to a guy who didn’t run that course and has a 15:20 PR and gets top 3 at state?

So cross country times do matter. He said thy don't but they do matter to a point. A kid who runs 15.xx in 10 meets in a state as opposed to a kid who runs 16.xx in ten meets in another state but they both have a 4:25 PR 1600 are not exactly equal to a college coach who is recruiting both.

not a duck wrote:

You’re extrapolating his argument way too far. Of course there’s a difference between a 16 and 19 minute 5k guy.

What’s the difference between a guy who runs a 14:50 on a course where everyone PRs, then runs 15:40 all season, compared to a guy who didn’t run that course and has a 15:20 PR and gets top 3 at state?

Wait are you looking at times? Why? They don't matter.

Big Boy in the NCAA wrote:

So cross country times do matter. He said thy don't but they do matter to a point. A kid who runs 15.xx in 10 meets in a state as opposed to a kid who runs 16.xx in ten meets in another state but they both have a 4:25 PR 1600 are not exactly equal to a college coach who is recruiting both.

But he said that college coaches don't look at XC times right?

You are using an extreme example. It is obvious that a 16 flat guy is better then a 19 minute guy no matter what course they run. This also has nothing to do with sports changing over the years. There is a reason that college coaches dont take XC times, courses could be downhill, fast, or even short. The only thing about XC that matters is place, and this will never change.

A kid from the Northeast runs 15:40 in XC and 4:14 and 9:10 on the track

A kid from California runs 15:30 in XC and 4:25 and 9:30 on the track

Who is better at XC? If you answered the California kid you are dead wrong, The CA 15:30 kid would probably be 16 flat in the Northeast.

We all know how it works but get into semantics. Yes the point is valid that some kids never have the opportunity to run a fast course. Courses vary by about 1 minute. Of course coaches pay more attention to track times but they look at both if recruiting a distance runner. Cross country courses are longer and some kids are better at cross country than track. People like to claim that Tyler Day wasn't fast in high school with his 9:28. But look deeper and he ran 14:57 for XC.

I an waiting for the names of the kids who should be in the gold race here that are not due to their cross country times not matching their track times.

Big Boy in the NCAA wrote:

So cross country times do matter. He said thy don't but they do matter to a point. A kid who runs 15.xx in 10 meets in a state as opposed to a kid who runs 16.xx in ten meets in another state but they both have a 4:25 PR 1600 are not exactly equal to a college coach who is recruiting both.

Their 3200PRs will indicate which one is the stronger runner.

Someone in another thread talked about a sub 9 3200 guy that didnt get in. I do not follow high school running that much anymore but that kid should probably be in even if his XC pr is in the 15:20s. Also idk why you are so horny for XC times. They arent even IAAF legal. So techincally unless youve run a 5k on a track, you do not have a 5k pr.