what about the pace? wrote:
Isn't it better to just merge the places and not the times? One race could have been a lot more tactical than the other and offset the team scores by like 20 places per individual.
Which means it was slower, duh.
That's why the times are merged, by time and not place.
what about the pace? wrote:
Not exactly, because the pace is still "fast", just not as fast. The people in the middle are actually more affected by the pace than the people in the front because they are forced to run slightly slower than they would be, feeling the same, in a faster pace. If you have ever been in a real competitive race, you would know this.
So, when you get in a more competitive race, you run slower?
The object for me is to run as fast as possible.
The more competition, the faster the race.
If athletes run the exact same course on the exact same day for the exact same distance at times within an hour of each other, then it's usually accepted that comparing times between those 2 races is okay.
Especially when the races consist of reasonably equal fields.
what about the pace? wrote:
The farther towards the front of ther race you are, the less you are impacted. The farther back in the pack, where the pace was too fast for you anyways, the less you are impacted. Everyone in the middle of the race is impacted.
This happens on the track as well.
If you do not know what I mean, then you are either an idiot or you have never been in the thick of things at a real meet like the NCAA's.
I've been 'in the thick of things' four times in a real meet like the NCAAs and I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Running a cross country race isn't anything like a traffic jam on a freeway.
I don't see how being in the pack affects your ultimate placing. In fact, starting out in the pack is often the best strategy for XC running as you don't go out too hard.
It's pretty easy to compare - the races are run on the same day, on the same course in the same condition, and with very similar levels of competition for both races. The stakes are the same for every team. So combining the results is an interesting comparison. I don't know why you are so opposed to it, considering all of your arguments are based on imaginary science and pseudo-psychological mumbo jumbo.
15 seconds is not unnoticeable to the human body. That's ~3s/mile, which is completely noticeable. I don't know that you're really even thinking about what you're talking about, but my body certainly knows the difference between red-lining an 8k and not red-lining it. These guys were running as hard as they could for 5 miles, and if the pace wasn't ideal (have any proof of that?) then it didn't have much of an effect.
what about the pace? wrote:
A 15-second difference in pace spread out over 8000-meters is completely unnoticable to the human body. 15-seconds, for those people finishing between 40th to 100th can be the difference in 20 places. If you merge the results and one race was only 15-seconds slower than the other, you will have teams leap-frogging 6 or 7 teams from the other race because 20-places per person translates to 100 or more point swings each way (up to 200 points if you understand the math).
So...to answer your question....no. However, I do know EXACTLY what I am talking about. If you don't understand, go back to worrying about your hash run on Wednesday and your 4-hour marathon.
I thought that this guy was full of shit too. But then if you look at the women's races, it is clear the white got out slower than the blue even watching them on flotrack. Then if you start comparing places: 40th in blue is 10-seocnds faster than 40th in the white. 60th, 80th, 100th, 120th....all of them are 10-seconds faster in the blue than the white.
There seems to be some merit to it. Either every single woman in the blue is 50-meters better than their white race counterpart...or the race in the blue did get out faster and maintained a faster pace.
Men's difference was only around 4-seconds from blue to white with blue being faster as well.
There is no perfect way to combine results because they didn't run in the same race but time is the best way to compare at this juncture unless someone wants to create a really complex mathematical formula. Pre-Nats is a test to see where everyone is at but we will get our comparison in a few months at nationals.