Notre Dame DMR is questionable to me

looks like those Notre Dame teams should have qualified after all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How come none of the other races at Notre Dame are ridiculously fast?

look at the 800/mile/3k/5k results, those are all VERY reasonable.

why would it only influence the DMR so much?

I think for a lot of teams they go to ND with the goal of making nationals, and not necessarily doing well at nationals. Racing hard back to back weekends will effect anyone.

just look wrote:

I hope that we can learn from this experience and institute three changes:

1. Index the over sized tracks. (I suggest .15 for 200, .3 for 400, .6 for 800, 1.2 for mile, 2.2 for 3000, and 3.8 for 5k).

2. Require a rail on the inner lane.

3. Before the season starts, require accurate measurement of tracks.

If a facility can't or won't put down a rail or verify accurate measurement of its facility, it should not be allowed to be used for purposes of qualifying to the championships.

Not all facilities have the ability to add a railing. All that needs to be done is the NCAA rules need to be changed to match USATF. If a track is laid out and measured to have a railing, it MUST be run with a railing.

There are 5000 threads on here of DI athletes picking on smaller school athletes, but it seems like in this instance, DII, DIII, and NAIA all have better systems in place for qualifying on oversized tracks. Maybe I am missing something?

ND sucks :) wrote:

I would say a good 6-7 sec short.

wow, i can't believe someone actually thinks a certified track is that short.

top 10 teams in this years DMR averaged 9:34.66

top 10 teams in last years DMR averaged 9:35.67 (without 10ths 945 theyd averaged 9:35.58, neither are including Arkansas's 1008)

seems like it was a pretty normal year and that they got the right teams in

First off, the teams ran very well at Notre Dame. All I'm saying is that the missing rail was worth 2 seconds over the 4k and when you also factor in the benefit of the over size track you see that the teams were pretty much on the money at nationals.

As regards other events, the milers were only picking up .7 from the rail and another 1.2 from the oversized track. So, I'm claiming that the guys who ran 3:57 - 3:59 there were realy worth 3:59 - 4:01. For interest let's compare the times at ND and see how they progressed at the NCAA qualifying rounds:

1 Knoll, Shane 3:57.36# (4:05.05, nq)

2 Emanuel, Lee 3:57.91# (4:01.61, Q)

3 Switzer, Justin 3:58.86# (4:01.55, Q)

4 Boone, Jacob 3:59.07# (4:01.80, Q)

5 Davidson, Mark 3:59.97! (4:04.69, Q)

So, by and large, those guys did well at the meet, with 4 of the 5 making it to the finals. Admittedly, nobody has pb'd yet, but, then again, championships tend to be tactical.

All the guys who qualified off of 200 meter tracks made it into the finals. They put Centrowitz into the finals even though he finished eleventh --- the Oregon factor.

Yeah, they took in EIGHTEEN teams, reduced all the fields to 14, and you say they got the right teams in? They got the right teams in, but they kept a lot of more deserving athletes out of events across the board.

just look wrote:

Yeah, they took in EIGHTEEN teams, reduced all the fields to 14, and you say they got the right teams in? They got the right teams in, but they kept a lot of more deserving athletes out of events across the board.

Well said.

In a dmr, you have 40 curves to negotiate (meaning running a bit wide) on a 200 meter track but only 25 curves to negotiate on a 320. By pulling the rail down, not only did the runners have to negotiate 15 fewer turns, but they could also run much tighter around them. The sum total speed up was in the 5 or 6 second range.

A look at the results of the NCAA dmr supports this.

Look guys - SHUT UP ALREADY.

I'm sorry that you guys weren't there. The environment was very conducive to running a fast DMR. Everyone thought they could potentially go to nationals if they ran well. So everyone went after it and ran well. Every race was fast and it would've been fast with a rail or not. The times the next day prove that it wasn't about the railing. The 5k times were not fast at all - and that's even longer than a DMR. The 3k was slow and the mile was slow, too.

And the slow time at nationals doesn't prove anything either. Races are always different.

So for now, SHUT UP ABOUT THE DAMN LENGTH OF THE RACE. IT'S RIDICULOUS.

If you watched the DMR at nationals a lot of teams got tangled up on each other during the exchanges. This costs a lot of teams more than a few seconds. This was mostly due to the fact that there isn't very much time to come around the final turn and find your teammate on a 200 track. At ND there was plenty of time to find your teammate and if you watch the video none of the teams run into each other on the exchanges like at nats. They were two very different races.

I was there.

If you don't want to address the issue of slightly shortened track on over sized ovals and how that affects the selection of athletes to the championships, then go back sleep.

I think that it is a factor to be looked at, not so much for the now or what has happened, but for the future so that it doesn't happen again and again.

If you watch the old vid the guy posted a page back, the old rail was in the same spot as the cones were this year. Perhaps it was measured that way.

day man wrote:

wow, very eloquent. so, how exactly did they fake the race? some kind of Houdini trick?

Hey don't ask me I only run on real tracks and I don't run 10 seconds (20 in some case) below my PR. Ask the teams not me

so now the track is fake? like doesn't exist or is some kind of camera trick?

day man wrote:

so now the track is fake? like doesn't exist or is some kind of camera trick?

Usually i don't even respond to people who are slower than me. I will end the conversation with that.

just look...you are an effing idiot.

lee emanuel just won the mile at nationals and you just tried to use HIS PRELIMS TIME to say that Notre Dame is short.

HAHHAHAHAHAH

you are using times that were meant to be for a fast race(at ND its all about trying to qualify for nationals) and are comparing them to times that are run in strategic prelims. HAHAHAHHAHA STFU YOU ARE A JOKE

Should we say every track that Shane Knoll has ever run on is not legit because he ran 405 in a prelims?

GTFO NOOB

meh wrote:

Usually i don't even respond to people who are slower than me. I will end the conversation with that.

good one. just admit you are intellectually dominated in this discussion.

day man wrote:

good one. just admit you are intellectually dominated in this discussion.

Wow. How so?