Terrier Classic at BU

ZINGGGG

NJ-

I would not be anonymous, I do not live in a hole, and I logged on this afternoon to say that I was wrong and sorry.

I called out Lowell because I knew the most about them.

So I apologize to the coaching staff and athletes at UML. Congrats on some great performances.

I would also say that the person that said if Caves breaks 48.00 it would be a great day was right on the money.

I think the larger point being made, that there has to be another way to do this, is still absolutely true. Perhaps folks could use the Purdy tables to compare times and let people be seeded for an event they have not yet run. For example, if a guy who had only run an 800 wanted to run the 1500, or 3k/5k, they could use the Purdy tables to seed him in the other event.

You are wrong again Caves just happened to run 47.52 and placed third at the Terrier last year.I would say that this year isn't as good never mind a great day.

There still exists a discrepancy at BU's meets, between where the majority of men are seeding themselves in the 3K/5K and the times they actually run. Please bear with me.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pn3BfdFZGPakxXT9yjR1zQw&gid=1

This lists the Seed times, results, and a summary by Team for the Men's 3K and 5K at the 2008 Terrier Invitational.

In the 3K, 24 guys improved and average of 5.5 seconds over their seed time, whereas 68 guys missed their seed time by an average of over 10 seconds. Also notable are are that of the 120 entries considered, 24 of them were DNF/DNS.

In the 5K, 22 guys improved an average of 7.6 seconds over their seed time, whereas 41 guys missed their seed time by an average of 27 seconds.

This phenomena is pretty consistent among BU's Terrier and Valentine meets. Here's the data for 2007

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pn3BfdFZGPamnjNcA8QCsDA

For 3Ks, overestimates of ability by the majority of the field averaged 12 and 11 seconds. For the 5Ks, overestimates of ability by the majority of the field averaged 20 and 26 seconds.

Whether anyone thinks this is important is the next issue. But here are the numbers. This meet is good enough that it should require proof of seed times.

Does it really matter as long as people end up in the correct sections. If you are asking BU to check all performances that is crazy. That would be impossible to do in the time frame provided after entries and before the meet.If you think the seed times are crazy at BU try the Penn Relays where you need to put sub 9 to have a chance to get in the steeple.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Mark Miller's run since he seemed to be getting a hard time for "only running a 4:10" last week. 8:07 for 3k was a really great run for him.

Is there any info on who ran in which section? That would help. I think that these results counter an earlier post, suggesting that everyone is lying on their seed time by about the same degree, and that it's just a uniform shift of the field. I don't see a uniform shift, and I can't tell whether or not heats are getting screwed up.

The problem that's being described is rooted in information management. Track and Field doesn't have a single database/ clearinghouse of times and performances that can be relied upon, so every time it comes around to making seeds, an art of lies is conjured.

It would be to everyone's advantage to support the creation of such a database, expediting the verification on the race director's part, and make heat assignments a snap. But who would be crazy enough to do that?

Otherwise, should things continue as they are done at BU, one should always expect to see some anarchy within the heats, and at least 2/3 of the field in the men's 3K of 5K run disappointingly, about 1 second per lap slower than their seeds.

The seeding times do not in anyway reflect (in the majority of cases) what an athlete is expected to run. It is a message from the coach or athlete as to where she or he thinks they belong in the sections. In years past when the fields were very competitive and teams came from all over the country, other factors were also considered when selecting athletes for each section. In other words, it was helpful that an athlete coming from Colorado or Stanford be in one of the top sections even if they did not have a fast enough time yet.

Another factor, less so now than in the past, is that not everyone runs on good tracks before coming to Boston. So coaches and unattached athletes "adjust" for the fast track at Boston U.

What we eventually did was figure that everyone was using pr times from outdoors with a few others bending the truth somewhat. Usually it would even out pretty well, particularly in the 3k and 5k where we could put large numbers on the track.

the main area of contention actually is with the shorter races, because everyone wants to be in the "fast" section and there are limited lanes available. Very often we ended up with the second section of a 400 or 800 being faster than the first section. Sometimes we tried dividing up the top two sections into equal groups.

So, the best approach, in my opinion (although I am no longer involved) is for management not to post the seed times to the general public. Those times should be considered as "suggestions" for the meet directors and for "internal use only" and the hope is that the meet directors will work it out so the best get to run against the best.

It was nice to see another sub 4 mile and that Flotrack covered the meet. Great job!

If any of you ever actually attend a Track Meet you will see very rarely is someone put in a section that is way too slow for them. The same was true this weekend at BU. You guys are wasting your time and energy on this topic. As I stated earlier the sections and seedings work themselves out.

Pete, great reply and thanks for clarifying the nature of these seed times. I agree that if these "messages" are largely subjective, as are any adjustments made to them, then they're probably not worth publishing at all. Hopefully, under the prevailing system, everyone (both the best and even the less than best) benefits, with great times achieved by all on the beautiful BU banked surface.

Kit, although you have to pay a small fee for the service, tilastopaja.com is a fairly reliable international database, catching even small meets in the US. Callum and I have used it in the past for weeding through bogus seed times. Surprisingly, the world lists at tilastopaja have already been updated for the Boston Indoor Games, but do not include the Terrier Meet (yet).

i noticed mark ran very well but we only rip people on letsrun. we don't give them credit for good running

Should have been doing that time years ago. He could have broken 8 for all I care, once a douch bag always a douch bag.

Great videos! First time seeing myself race. Greatly appreciated.

quite clear who the doucheE is, and it's not Miller.

AlpArslan wrote:

Paolo Natali ran 8:48 last weekend in the 3k at the GBTC Invite and he seeded himself around 8:15 for today.

I remember watching him get lapped in the fast heat about three years ago when he seeded himself at 8:08.

Paolo Natali apologizes, but he half broke his Achilles during the GBTC Invitational, which might explain the crappy performance (for the record, he could already run 8.48 more than 10 years ago). He did not have any way to get a diagnosis while in the States, so he just had to make a bet and try the Terrier Invitational before coming back to Europe, and now possibly going through surgery if things don't get better. Until the tendon started to hurt too much, i.e. around the 2k, he did not feel he was in the wrong heat really. He had already entered the Terrier Invitational some weeks before that episode, with his own PR which is 8.18.90, the same with which he had entered the Terrier three years ago, as far as he remembers, when he got lapped by Alan Webb, true, but in the end he ran 8.25 which after all was not that far from his seeding; and he was actually pleased with that time, considering that he had prepared it on a high school track covered in snow, into which he had to sneak, down in Washington DC where he had just moved at the time. For the record, he then ran 8.21 in Italy a few days after. Next year, he's going to ask his tendons to behave, and pray the weather gods, and ask the meet organizers to determine his seeding. He is clearly unable to make a correct guess.