What would be fair indexing of over sized tracks?

just look wrote:

Although I am fully aware that many coaches and athletes who have access to oversized tracks may be opposed to indexing out of self interest, it seems to me that the time has come to correct the situation.

Using a banked 200 meter track as the standard, my sense of how to do this would be to calculate how many fewer curves a runner covers in a race and multiply that by a factor no smaller than .15 but not larger than .25.

For example, for the 800, on a 200 meter track a runner covers 8 curves, on a 320 meter track a runner covers 5 turns. So, if we use a factor of .15 per curve, you would add .45 to the 320 track time. 1:50.00 would equal 1:50.45. If you used .25 as a factor, 1:50.00 would equal 1:50.75.

Over a mile, 4:00.00 would be adjusted to 4:00.90 using .15 or to 4:01.50 using .25.

Or you could just say that those on the oversized track ran faster.

The easiest solution that I can think of as far as qualifying marks for meets is to simply say "all marks must be set on a track of length less than or equal to 200 meters."

D2 has standards like this. Brian Medigovich ran 13:50 at the Husky Classic (Washington) but had his mark adjusted to 13:53 on the national list.

LC wrote:

The easiest solution that I can think of as far as qualifying marks for meets is to simply say "all marks must be set on a track of length less than or equal to 200 meters."

I understand what you are saying, but that would cause hardship for a lot of athletes to get a shot at qualifying marks. I agree that 200 meters should be the standard distance and variations from that should not be favored, but if you HAD to index oversized tracks - rather than just forbid their use for qualifying purposes - what do you think would be fair?

LC wrote:

The easiest solution that I can think of as far as qualifying marks for meets is to simply say "all marks must be set on a track of length less than or equal to 200 meters."

This is a great solution. Far too many athletes have access to too many tracks and we should do what we can to restrict, discourage, and increase the price of participation in indoor track. Teams within driving distance of schools like Notre Dame or UW should have to fly and spend more money on plane tickets. Adding .5 to 4 seconds based on simple physics similar to the indexing done for altitude tracks would be an outrageously complex, unfair, silly solution that would benefit no one whatsoever and be totally impossible.

Automatic Qualifying Marks from D2 Handbook:

Comparing 200 banked tracks to oversized tracks:

200 - 21.55 vs. 21.45 (.1 per curve)

400 - 47.75 vs. 47.65 (.05 per curve)

800 - 1:52.30 vs. 1:52.20 (.025 per curve)

Mile - 4:09.20 vs. 4:08.80 (.08 per curve)

3K - distance not competed at D2

5k - 14:20 vs. 14.19.00 (.05 per curve)

Automatic Qualifying Marks from D3 Handbook:

Comparing 200 banked tracks to oversized tracks:

200 - distance not competed at D3

400 - 47.96 vs. 47.86 (.05 per curve)

800 - 1:52.20 vs. 1:51.90 (.1 per curve)

Mile - 4:10.00 vs. 4:08.80 (.2 per curve)

3K - no such event

5k - 14:26.40 vs. 14:24.50 (.095 per curve)

From my point of view, the D2 indexing entirely favors the oversized tracks. The D3 index seems to favor the oversized tracks in every event but the mile. I'm not sure how these adjustments were derived, but they seem inconsistent on the surface to me.

depending on event, banked 200 is about equal to 300-range unbanked. The former is faster for sprints, the latter for distance, but not by much either way.

The old standard is unbanked 200, but few qualifiers are set on those anymore.

Just look...u didnt make nationals...get over it

I would agree that the times from a banked 200 meter track and a 300 range track are not wildly disparate. We are talking on the order, I think, of a one or two tenths per lap adjustment. But for purposes on NCAA qualification, slim margins are what puts one athlete in and keeps another athlete out of the national championships, hence the relevancy and importance of getting it right.

Bo Diddley wrote:

This is a great solution. Far too many athletes have access to too many tracks and we should do what we can to restrict, discourage, and increase the price of participation in indoor track. Teams within driving distance of schools like Notre Dame or UW should have to fly and spend more money on plane tickets. Adding .5 to 4 seconds based on simple physics similar to the indexing done for altitude tracks would be an outrageously complex, unfair, silly solution that would benefit no one whatsoever and be totally impossible.

Yes, really I think that we should not worry about converting times at all. There are many factors that make one track faster than another. Some indoor tracks have crappy rubber surfaces while others have modern surfaces. Some are nearly donut shaped so that you're always running a curve while others are a more comfortable shape. Some tracks are banked and some aren't. Some banked tracks have a steeper bank than other banked tracks. The list goes on and on, but the point is that we don't try to convert times for all of these factors.

So, I don't really think that we should throw out times run on oversized tracks, but if we are going to try to control the situation that the OP brings up, I think that this is the way to do it.

I'm not sure about the point you make about teams having to fly to other places for meets. There are standard indoor tracks everywhere. There are two in my little town alone and probably 20 or more within a 4 hour drive. If this rule did take effect, meets would just be held at different locations.

I agree with you that tracks vary and that there is no way to equalize all tracks. But, in broad strokes, I think that flat 200 tracks run slower than banked 200 tracks and that they, in turn, run slower than oversized tracks.

With that said, the banked 200 track is the proper standard for division I, given that's what the championships are run on. Like you, though, I can't see any sense in taking away opportunities to run on the oversized tracks, as long as we try to balance out the small but obvious advantage they give.