Why different XC distance for women in NCAA

Both the men and the women run 2k LESS than the World Cross Country Championship distances (12k and 8k, respectively). The NCAA follows the IAAF's lead.

kinda but not really not smart wrote:

Both the men and the women run 2k LESS than the World Cross Country Championship distances (12k and 8k, respectively). The NCAA follows the IAAF's lead.

Then why do men and women they run all of the same distances on the track in the Olympics and WC, plus the marathon?

And don't use tradition as the reason. The IAAF has logically consistent and valid reasons for every rule and decision.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!

rin tin tin wrote:

kinda but not really not smart wrote:

Both the men and the women run 2k LESS than the World Cross Country Championship distances (12k and 8k, respectively). The NCAA follows the IAAF's lead.

Then why do men and women they run all of the same distances on the track in the Olympics and WC, plus the marathon?

And don't use tradition as the reason. The IAAF has logically consistent and valid reasons for every rule and decision.

In part to make the distances different from those on the track (5k/10k). Since the men's XC races are much older than the women (used to be 6k, 5k and 4k previously for the women) it is apparently taking a while for it to catch up to the men! I would prefer to see 10km for both, but comparisons to road/track times could be the result (look at HSer's using their 5kXC times for PR status).

Not all states run the same distances for hs boys and girls. I believe Kansas hs girls run 2 miles and boys run 5k.

Some states still have girls running 4km. Ridiculous.

What he (she?) said. Plus, the fields get too thin. In the track events, you have only 16-24 in the 10,000 whereas at XC there are 31 x 7 plus individuals and this 10 x times larger field gets to be an issue. See Derderian's thread, he has a bigger rep than the OP of this one.

can-can wrote:

rin tin tin wrote:

Then why do men and women they run all of the same distances on the track in the Olympics and WC, plus the marathon?

And don't use tradition as the reason. The IAAF has logically consistent and valid reasons for every rule and decision.

In part to make the distances different from those on the track (5k/10k). Since the men's XC races are much older than the women (used to be 6k, 5k and 4k previously for the women) it is apparently taking a while for it to catch up to the men! I would prefer to see 10km for both, but comparisons to road/track times could be the result (look at HSer's using their 5kXC times for PR status).

dfasback wrote:

Some states still have girls running 4km. Ridiculous.

When I was in high school they increased the distance from 1.8 miles to 2.0

for the boys; the girls did not even run.

XC is a participation sport in high school and pushing neophytes to race 5000m of XC is a stretch. Is Molly Seidel really going to be disadvantaged by racing only 4000m at state meets (Wisconsin is one of those states with 4000m for girls; for state, 4000m in the snow might be enough anyway)? It actually lets her run those at a pace, 3:20/km, that is what she will face at the front at NCAAs. She will take time to ramp up for college, since she runs pretty modest miles for someone that is that good.

I would really like to see the women moved up to at least 8k (10k would be fine too). I know a lot of other women who would like this as well, is there any way we can come up with a petition or bring something to the NCAA to try to do this?

Kansas- enough said.

I understand making it so they equate to about the same times (for example, have women run 7km, which would take ~ 23:20 for the top guns, similar to top guys 8km times). The whole 6km/10km or 5km/10km is ridiculous though. There is no reason women should be running half the distance that men do.

asfdasdfasfd wrote:

I understand making it so they equate to about the same times (for example, have women run 7km, which would take ~ 23:20 for the top guns, similar to top guys 8km times). The whole 6km/10km or 5km/10km is ridiculous though. There is no reason women should be running half the distance that men do.

There is NO reason.

Clearly, this is wrong, there are reasons. They just are not enough in your estimation. Yes, women can run longer, but it is not particularly clear that it makes for a better sport given all the considerations. Note that until NCAA-level, the differential is only 25% less. Given factors such as the size of the pool and the physiological differences (men have more testosterone, etc., and the steroids in general help in healing and thus running longer and harder and recovering from it) so the size of the pool becomes important. This makes for the big difference between track, where you are only taking 16 or so, and NCAAs where you are taking over 200.

The actual "listed" reason the NCAA moved to a 6k from 5k was that the 5k did not separate the field enough, essentially, too many people were finishing at the same time.

The IAAF logic was a backdrop for this argument, but it really played a limited role (if it was a major factor, the men would race 12k...), since nobody does a 2k loop course.

I don't see what it matters, is one distance better than the other? Turn that question around; why don't the guys run the same distance as the gals?