I heard recently that DI was thinking of making regionals and nationals 8k instead of 10k. I don't know how reliable this information is, but I was wondering if anybody else has heard anything about this?
I heard recently that DI was thinking of making regionals and nationals 8k instead of 10k. I don't know how reliable this information is, but I was wondering if anybody else has heard anything about this?
It is coming up for discussion - which is quite a bit different from enacting. Personally, I think that it's a good idea. I also think that the 5k for the women was better. Neither is such a big deal, but it helps the milers on the men's side and the 800 meter runners on the women's side keep their hands in the game.
I would expect the entrenced powers to be agin' it - as the longer the race, the more solidified the ten-scholarships or-more-for-xc can pack the 10k to more advantage over a 8k, when pesky middle distance guys get more dangerous.
They should move the women to 8km at least for regionals and nationals.
Men's 10k is fine.
Longer isn't necessarily better. When you start losing the milers and 800 meter runners because the distance is too much for them, then the smaller programs get knocked out of the mix. The shorter races tend to keep more people's hands in the game - the races are closer and more dynamic - I vote 8k for men, 5k for women.
men should be 12km and women should be 8km. a 4km course would prove interesting, especially if you couldn't double for team points, that would really show depth.
It would also be most wonderful if the NCAA and its member institutions would grant each team 10 scholarships exclusively for XC.
This (decreasing race distance from 10km to 8km) is a step in the wrong direction...
You guys need to suck it up... So that it could help out the milers and half milers? Geez, gimme a break. How does this help NCAA athletes who are perhaps preparing for a world cross country team (12k)later in the season?
I bet that if the distance was changed to 8km, you would find the average track times at the track nationals of the same season to be weaker than in previous years. Coaches would use a lighter fall training load in anticipation of a shorter championship race distance, thus decreasing the aerobic development of their distance runners. If we want the NCAA system to create Olympians, then this is not the right move... But if you want slower track times, less Olympic/worlds appearances, by all means, change it to 8km.
Leave it at 10k... If anything consider moving it up to 12.
so the milers and half milers can keep their hand in the game??!! good god people!! this is cross country for god's sakes. if milers and half milers want to keep their hands in the game they can go and run 80-100+ miles a week like the rest of us. i cannot believe what i've read on this thread.
I agree with the above cross. CC should be long enough so pure milers cannot be in it at the end. I like the idea of men doing 12k and women doing 8k. This would help separate those truly prepared for a cross race from those waiting for spring.
If woman want gender equity then it should be across the board if possible. In cross-country that is possible. Have both the men and women run the same distance....be it 8k or 10k. The women run the 5 and 10 in track...what's the difference? I am 100% behind woman's athletics but what the NCAA has done to the men's programs in the name of gender equity is truly a crime. While I'm on the topic....let's have all basketball players use the same ball.....let's get rid of the "woman's tee in golf". Make all track and field events the same....so what if the woman can't throw the 16 pound shot put as far. That's my two cents anyway.
i'm with ye, brotha.
Ever read the Vonnegut story "Harrison Bergeron"? Soon everything will be brought down to the lowest common denominator to make things undeniably fair.
"We can't compete! We don't have enough scholarships!"
Why don't we just make cross 800m so we can get the sprinters in there as well?
This is just another example of what I like to call the Wimpification of Cross Country.
Look back at issues of Track & Field News from the '70's and '80's. Most conferences ran 6M/10K! Many, many invitationals, including Stanford, were 10K's. Now I challenge you to find a cross invite besides Chili Pepper (and occasionally Pre-Nats) that is 10K.
Make districts 8K? How f*@#ing lame! Cross is fine. 10K forever!
Some voices of reasons! Distance should go to the international distance if it changes. The distance going up does not exclude anyone-it makes them train for a longer event. Big deal-it is college!
It is quite funny to hear certain 'groups' of runners make a stand. Simply asking about a change in distance that doesn't benefit the poster and they get irate. It comes across to those of us who are not currently participating like a sour grapes, "We are slow and untalented enough without shortening it and making it less aerobic". I don't have an opinion worth hearing, but I have always wondered why distances in track are usually considered 800 to 10,000, but when selecting a X-C distance, one extreme (10,000) was chosen for men.
Why not 9K? Or 13.7K?
Have the World X-C champs and international races always been 12k for men? Didn't they used to be 10k? It seems like 10k would be a much more logical distance, whey did they set it so long?