I'm looking for some real responses instead of the ridiculous ones that are so typical of letsrun. So, what time would a division 1 runner on a relatively fast course need to run before you would consider them decent? Not necessarily outstanding, but decent.
22 minutes
Decent I would say low 26s. Lots of people have this incredible idea of D1 runners, but their are lots of slow guys that bring it down. So low 26's would be decent I'd say. Maybe a little under 26.
It seems that if you run under 25 min. for the 8k you should be considered pretty decent. Anything under 24:30 is good (you won't be anywhere near national class but you could beat lots of guys with that time).
This guy has it right.
decent is of course a subjective word and some has to do with what class you are.
for a freshman, 26 mid could be considered decent. that time is around decent or anyone.
the so-called good level starts under 25
New question: what is the SLOWEST you could do for an 8k and hope to stay on the team in a D1 program? 29:xx?
"Decent" in itself is a subjective term to begin with. Decent as in not DFL? My first college race years ago was on the bad side of 30 minutes, and I finished ahead of at least 10 people. I was down in the mid-28s by the conference meet and finished firmly near the bottom of the middle of the pack - 56 runners, I was 34th. And it was a DI league. All that said and coming from my vantage point, I'd peg "decent" as being anything faster than 27:30. Anyone who wants to be elitist and say that time sucks is full of it. Go to most league meets - and I go to at least one every year (been to the Big 10, C-USA, ACC, CAA, MAC) - and you'll see what I mean.
well, looking at last year's Big West conference results, there were tons of guys under 24:30. this was on a flat course with a lot of personal pride on the line. (Correct me if i'm wrong here), but i don't think any of them competed at Div I XC champs. (personally, i think CP SLO was robbed, but that's politics). most of those guys had run under 25 on other courses too, but on tough courses they were in the 26-27 min range.
to be on the top 7, i'd say 25:30-26:15 for an ordinary div I team. to be on the team (8+) i'd say under 27:30.
I ran for a big 12 school and had a bests of 25:39 and 31:58 and I would not consider myself a "decent" D1 runner. I would say I was "almost decent" or "very average" or "medium sub-par" or "okay", but not "decent". (yes, this post was pointless)
There hasn't been a decent XC course in the last 15 years. If time is any consideration in cross, then you are on the wrong course. They might as well have college races on the roads these days, I cannot believe the groomed grass tracks that meets are held on - puhhhthetic! Call me when sub 29 10K guys on the track can't break 27:00 for 8K in cross. This whole generation is nothing but a bunch of pu$$ies!
An old school curmudgeon! I love the Dana Carvey bitter old man impression!
In MY DAY we ran barefoot over lava to escape the dinosaurs and we LOVED IT!
you would've liked my home XC course. thick, thick grass. we had a sub 30 10k guy on our team, who had the course record that was barely under 27 minutes. every hill was atleast 1/4 mile long. it was a great coure to train on, racing was pain. unfortunately, the city is turning it into a water park now. bummer.
sub 25 or sub 5 minute pace on a 'reasonable' course is decent...of course the top guys will run 24 flat or even faster.
I went to college in the Northeast and had a pr of 26:42. Then moved to CA and ran a couple open races and ran 26:28 and 26:36. Thing is that I was in much better shape in college. I think I might have broken 26 if I was at my college fitness for those races. Woulda coulda shoulda...I know. My point though, what is an average course? What is a fast course? The courses I raced on in CA were on much easier surfaces (really short grass, hard packed dirt, and even some concrete as opposed to mud and long grass).
The other thing, how do we define decent? Is anyone who qualifies for nationals at least decent, or is it top 50 at nationals? How about top half of a D1 race? Or just top 7 at their school? When we say decent, everyone has a different picture in their mind. To go further, the range between good and bad d1 programs is absolutely huge. I raced against plenty of teams that I would have been the number 1 runner and against plenty of teams I would have been cut from. What someone considers decent is probably more about who they run with everyday and the level of competition they generally face more than any type of national standard.
I would say that unless a person is overly self-conscious and cares what people on this board have to say (this person obviously does...hence the post) he or she can consider him or herself to be at least decent if he or she is consistently improving and getting to the next level. At least in that case the person can't define his or her limits. Once a person gets content with their ability, they generally start to suck.