West Region no big deal?!?!?!

i question it for sure! I ran in the race and still pr'd by almost 2 minutes from last years regionals. Although I know that i'm in much much better shape and that I ran a great race, i'm pretty sure I didn't run 30:40 for 10k (my time was 30:22 so 85 more meters would put me at about that) in xc. especially since I was clicking off around 4:58-5 for the first 3 miles and I highly doubt i picked up the pace that much.

The course was about 500-600 meters short.I took 1:55 of my PR. No way I and everyone else ran that fast over a 10k.

The course was ~100 meters short... but it was nearly perfectly flat. Footing was extremely good, possibly as good as any track - the grass was perfectly trimmed so it was spring-y and wouldn't catch runners in it. Frankly, all of those guys are capable of running Regional time + 20sec for a track 10k right now - a lot can probably go faster. So, no, I don't think it was 500-600 meters short. It was an extremely fast XC course that is just slightly short.

I would guess 200+.

Look how many runners are under 32 minutes...

Doesn't really matter how flat that is.

No doubt it's a very fast course, but I agree that it's probably not much more than 100m off. The times are very comparable to what most of these athletes could run on the track right now. Rupp right around his track PR, Kinsella and Kiptoo's prs are 28:58 from 2 years ago so no doubt they can run AT LEAST 28:40 on the track right now. Mineau has a 28:48 pr (I think) and ran 29:06 at regionals. 10th place G. Heath and 5th place Derrick went 3/4 at pre-nats, Diego Mercado and Klotz ran ~29:30 at regionals and can surely go faster than that on a track (I believe both + other Mercado have PR's in the 29flat-29:20 range). 21st place E. Heath ran sub-14 last spring, 22nd place D. Shackleton placed extremely high at USA XC champs last winter, #26 Schmitt ran sub-29 last spring, 30th place Karlsson ran 29:28 last spring, 36th and 56th place Houck and Ahlbeck are ~9flat steeplers, etc etc etc.

I believe many people do not really realize just how strong the west region is. Yeah this was obviously the fastest regional course anyone ran this weekend by a nice chunk, but it's xc - who cares about times? But it would not surprise me if a majority of the top-30 guys (who run a healthy 10k in the spring) run faster than their regional times.

What is comes down to is how Stanford f*#@ed up! They should have done a better job making sure the course was a legit 10k. We can say it was 100meters short or 600meters short. The truth is the course was way off and the times really can't be counted.

This was my senior year( last XC race in college). Way to fu#@ things up Stanford!

yes i think i can run 30:40 in a track 10k considering my 5k pr is 1440 from last year, but quite honestly i don't think i could have run the time i did (30:22 on a 10k xc course thats only 85 meters short). There has to be something else going on like maybe they didn't take into account how easy you could cut all the tangents and perhaps it was a lot more than 85 meters short. I'd like to think i can run that fast for a 10k xc course but that would mean i'm already a sub 30 minute 10k guy and i highly doubt that. Yes the course was in perfect conditions, and its not very hilly, but it is also not a TRACK. i mean come on, who are we kidding. even if the course was pancake flat and on hard packed dirt its not the same as a track. I don't think Bekele can run 2618 on any 10k course unless its on a track or downhill. why is it hard to run a fast 5k or 10k on the roads when sometimes the road races are completely flat like a track? the west is legit, no doubt its the most legit region there is and thats why even though i ran well i didn't qualify for nats, but i highly doubt the west is as legit as those times indicate. if it is then there are going to be some CRAZY ridiculous times next track season and A LOT of guys going under the 14:11 5k standard.

Why not wait until after nationals, compare times between nationals and regionals by region, and use that to get an idea of how much faster it really was out west.

Stanford Sucks! wrote:

What is comes down to is how Stanford f*#@ed up! They should have done a better job making sure the course was a legit 10k. We can say it was 100meters short or 600meters short. The truth is the course was way off and the times really can't be counted.

This was my senior year( last XC race in college). Way to fu#@ things up Stanford!

Dude, why do you care so much about times in XC? XC isn't about times and setting pr's, it's about racing. No two courses are equal, so you can't really "count" times anyways. XC regionals are about place, not time.

you must not have run 30:22 because if you did then you run for UCLA and CONGRATULATIONS, since you haven't heard yet, you made it to NCAA's you better book your flight ASAP!