Running Lane is unfortunately putting an emphasis on XC times

You would be surprised at how many good cross country runners run 400-800-1600 in track and never run a 3200.

Dumb Standards..... wrote:

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.

Are we pretending that every course in CA is the same? Are we pretending that all courses in the Northeast are the same? There are several in the South that have already run a meet on the RunningLane course that's not fair right? Everyone has the opportunity to go to RunningLane and run on the same fast course. I am traveling with my team from CA to be there and yes we got in the gold race.

There are plenty of places to great fast course in every state, some do it and some don't. There would be no argument here if "times didn't matter" because they do and they matter a lot. To pretend otherwise you just have your head in the sand.

Mate I never said times dont matter, I said XC times dont. No one is going to be impressed by some 15:30 5k that a kid ran on a short downhill course, A 15:30 9:30 CA guy is NOT better at XC then a 15:50 9:10 northeast kid. And times do matter A LOT. Thats all our sport is really about in the end. They just only matter on the track or on a certified IAAF road course.

It is false that teams need to run fast times. They chose teams based on accomplishments, not times. Wayzata was not in the top 30 when they had the average team time listed. The teams are now listed in order of how they ranked them, not by time. So the title is absolutely false and you are adding to it.

Dumb Standards..... wrote:

Mate I never said times dont matter, I said XC times dont. No one is going to be impressed by some 15:30 5k that a kid ran on a short downhill course, A 15:30 9:30 CA guy is NOT better at XC then a 15:50 9:10 northeast kid. And times do matter A LOT. Thats all our sport is really about in the end. They just only matter on the track or on a certified IAAF road course.

Sorry XC times do matter. There would be no discussion about them if they didn't. I know it's turned into a CA bashing thread because we all just run road courses here. By the way no one is really impressed by a 15:30 time either way.

Whats the XC 5k world record? I seem to have forgotten. Oh right, there isnt one. I am also not bashing California, they have great runners, I am bashing XC time emphasis. If the PR you are most proud of in your life is an XC time, then you are SLOW!

They don’t tho. I never broke 16 and am running cross at a p5 school because my coach understands that I didn’t have the opportunity to get in fast races. He also understood and agreed with me that there was no point to solo every race and try to get a fast time.

I ended up running 1:56 and 4:14 that track season. I’m sure he’s gonna take me over a kid that’s running 15:30-40 and runs 4:25 on the track.

It’s that simple. XC times don’t tell the whole story at all. They really don’t indicate anything and are no where near as reliable as track times

You are a perfect example. A 4:14 mile is about as competitive as a 14:40 5k on the track.

not a duck wrote:

They don’t tho. I never broke 16 and am running cross at a p5 school because my coach understands that I didn’t have the opportunity to get in fast races. He also understood and agreed with me that there was no point to solo every race and try to get a fast time.

I ended up running 1:56 and 4:14 that track season. I’m sure he’s gonna take me over a kid that’s running 15:30-40 and runs 4:25 on the track.

It’s that simple. XC times don’t tell the whole story at all. They really don’t indicate anything and are no where near as reliable as track times

OK and if you ran 14:40 XC time in HS they wouldn't look at it?

They would see how he placed. If he ran 14:40 and came in like 50th in a high school XC race then the course is cleary short or downhill. They would be more excited over his 4:14 mile and 1:56 800 that cant be faked like an XC time. IDK why you like XC times so much, I would bet my life that the 4:14 mile kid above that runs 16 flat would destroy a 15:30 california kid in an XC race.

The real tragedy here is the conversions they are using for altitude. 45 seconds for 5k ran in Denver? Seriously?

Why are they using Tinman's calculator when the NCAA one would have been much more sensible (in the range of 25-30s at 5200 ft.)

I live, train, and coach in CO and know that most of these conversions do no accurately reflect the abilities of most of these runners.

Dumb Standards..... wrote:

Whats the XC 5k world record? I seem to have forgotten. Oh right, there isnt one. I am also not bashing California, they have great runners, I am bashing XC time emphasis. If the PR you are most proud of in your life is an XC time, then you are SLOW!

I get so sick of people saying XC times don't matter. They obviously do. If the course is well measured and legit, times do matter. Ritz ran a 14:10 XC 5k once. The fastest time ever recorded in a high school race up to this point. If someone runs a sub 14 on a respected course that is accurate, you can't tell me that does not matter. I don't care if the course is fast. If some boy ran 13:59 anywhere, it would matter a whole lot to any fan of the sport.

Sounds like someones most proud PR is from XC............ I still disagree. If you have not run a 5k on the track or USATF/IAAF ceritified road course you do not have a PR for that distance. And to be frank, I truly beleive that unless its a distance longer the 10,000 meters then the time should be run on the track for it to count as a PR or record.

If they didn't time the NCAA XC meet, would NAU still be the team champion?

Times don't matter in XC.

coachy wrote:

not a duck wrote:

They don’t tho. I never broke 16 and am running cross at a p5 school because my coach understands that I didn’t have the opportunity to get in fast races. He also understood and agreed with me that there was no point to solo every race and try to get a fast time.

I ended up running 1:56 and 4:14 that track season. I’m sure he’s gonna take me over a kid that’s running 15:30-40 and runs 4:25 on the track.

It’s that simple. XC times don’t tell the whole story at all. They really don’t indicate anything and are no where near as reliable as track times

OK and if you ran 14:40 XC time in HS they wouldn't look at it?

But I didn’t. That’s the point.

Big Boy in the NCAA wrote:

You would be surprised at how many good cross country runners run 400-800-1600 in track and never run a 3200.

If he's running the 400, it seems unlikely he's going to be a good XC runner. Anyway those distances would tell the story. If for example, if he's 50/4:20, he's not going to be useful in college XC. If it's 56/4:20, his best distance in HS would have been the 3200.

Imagine if to qualify for NCAA XC nationals you had to submit an 8k PR. Do you realize how many all americans probably wouldnt get in because they did not race a fast course? Or how many slow uselss undeserving runners would get in because they raced a short XC 8k course.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Big Boy in the NCAA wrote:

You would be surprised at how many good cross country runners run 400-800-1600 in track and never run a 3200.

If he's running the 400, it seems unlikely he's going to be a good XC runner. Anyway those distances would tell the story. If for example, if he's 50/4:20, he's not going to be useful in college XC. If it's 56/4:20, his best distance in HS would have been the 3200.

Coaching, level of competition, etc. could be the issue there for both of your examples and a good college coach could do wonders with both and most want the kid that shows more natural foot speed.

A lot of talking and not a lot of listening here. So I suppose my .02 won't matter but...

The RXC guys really did their best to get the right teams and individuals into the right races. What was the best team left out of the gold race (Dowling Catholic maybe?) and realistically, how high could they have placed? If not in the top 10, then I think the system worked.

I do think the initial messaging was concerning - they did say time would be the primary determinant, although it turned out not to be. It was doubly concerning as the majority of MS coverage focuses on time. Some states have excellent editors that incorporate the context of speed ratings, and that's awesome. Other states just have these generic "ranking" reports run that simply take fastest times. You often end up with scenarios where the state's top team is "ranked" 14th in the state because they didn't go to the short course downhill road race.

Speed ratings should be more widely used. They're not perfect, but they're a helluvalot more accurate prediction tools than 5k PRs.

The pressure for coaches to schedule fast races is real. It can often get in the way of doing what is best for the team.

I found it peculiar how RXC's "no need to qualify" was billed as a positive. I have always thought the NXR regional qualifying system was quite fair - not perfect, but fair.

Yes, as another coach from altitude, I can say that the altitude conversions were a bit too generous. But probably better than not having conversions at all. Our kids had not traveled to sea level until 11 days ago, and had we been on the gold/silver bubble, the pressure to lay down times on what turned out to be a somewhat slow (and somewhat long) sea level course would have been uncomfortable.

The 4:14 kid was trying to say that his 5k PR was nowhere close to in line with a 14:40. Had a college coach been placing emphasis on 5k PR instead of mile PR he could have been adversley affected.