Did the majority of the field go out too fast at NCAAs? Or am I being naive?

I agree with you totally! Leaders were at 2:04 at 800m!!!

Could you imagine seeing that on the Track at the NCAA level?? Often times it's slower than that in the 1500!

Overall poor coaching that continues year after year.

The first kilometer of that course is flat with a significant downhill portion. Extremely fast. As I recall, the second kilometer is mostly flat as well.

The first kilometer at Terre Haute is so easy that it is difficult not too get out way ahead of pace and stays pretty flat until just after 2500m. But you still make a great point.

Frank Shorter told us to!!!!

The Norwegian girl definitely went out too fast, thats for sure!

runnerman66 wrote:

The Norwegian girl definitely went out too fast, thats for sure!

As did over 200 other women that day.

The Pace Maker wrote:

Next year I would like to see somebody run patient, go out in 3 minutes per K, even if it means running well behind the pack, and then move up, move up, move up, running even or negative splits, and then finish in the top 30.

Some reasonably good teams that didn't make the meet probably wonder if they could beat a team or two (if they were there, that is - a little detail they didn't take care of!) by packing together and moving up. In theory, teams that are somewhere around 50th or even 70th in the country could have 5 guys run together at 3:10 per k (give or take a little for terrain changes) and try to kick it in some to get the whole squad in the 31:30s. This would have been good enough for about 150 team points per man in this race. That's 750 total, which would beat 2 teams, meaning a B to B+ team could avoid getting last if they just ran smart. They wouldn't face too much of a logjam that far back and could pass the bottom portion of the field fairly smoothly. Of course, it would only have to be one or two additional teams that got into the meet or there would be a huge bunch trying the 3:10 pace strategy and it might be hard to pass.

So that's probably the fantasy of some teams out there - "We could have beaten so-and-so if we were there and ran a perfect race." But it's a lot harder to do that than it seems like it would be. What usually happens is the guys go out in 4:55 at the mile instead of the 5:05 they wanted. Since it's not way too fast - in fact, it might even be slower than they normally start - they think they're fine, but because they can't all run sub-31:00 on this course, they're already starting to drift into the uncomfortable zone a little sooner than they'd like. So they get themselves a little in the hole and they're 10 seconds behind the last guy in the main field. They imagine they're going to maintain and move up, but darned if the splits don't just keep getting slower and nobody except the occasional major blowup guy comes back to them. About 6k in, they realize they're hurting and won't be picking it up and are scratching their heads wondering how that strategy could have failed to bring back a lot of the guys who weren't going to break 31:00 yet idiotically went out in 4:40 or under at the mile.

They may think that it would have been even better if they had started with a 5:15 mile, got into a strong 5:05 type of rhythm in the middle and really slammed it down in the last 10 minutes. And they'd probably be right if it was just a time trial. But it's a race. Who's going to go out in 5:15 and be 30 seconds behind everybody? If they did that, they'd completely lose focus that it was a race. And make no mistake about it - it's a lot harder to do a team time trial on uneven footing and terrain changes than it is on the road or track. Sure, Wisconsin's been doing it all season, but they were the best team anyway and were always in the thick of the field, never out of it - let alone 15-30 seconds behind it.

So it is possible to run even splits as a team and move up through the field. Colorado does it all the time. OSU did it this time. But it's very difficult to pull it off if you're not at least in contact with the race the whole time. That goes for individuals as well.

Nice post, pace maker. This reminds of Moneyball - how the As thought past the conventional wisdom of baseball at the risk of looking stupid.

Since humans are such social animals, it is very difficult to go on your own. But yes, I think many teams should buy bloody gps watches for everyone and say ok - hit 5:15 or whatever pace for 8k and then go race. It's got to work - we see it in the marathon all the time - people pacing themselves flying up through the pack in the last miles.

if

one team, just one team does it they may think they are really weird and

they won't change. And if two teams, two teams do it, in harmony,

they may think they're both lame and they won't change either.

And three teams do it, three, can you imagine, three teams running off the back with Garmins humming. They may think it's an

organization. And can you, can you imagine 20 teams a year,I said

20 teams running off the back with Garmins humming. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

No watches are allowed at NCAAs, let alone Garmins.

But I think you are right that it just takes one smart coach to implement this type of change.

Maybe a top team wouldn't want to do this, but if you are a team that barely qualifies for nationals, I think it is good coaching advice to tell your pack to hang back and not get caught up in the crazy start.

A team that might otherwise finish near the bottom of the field might be able to move up to the top 20 using this strategy.

Garmin or not, the course is an important variable.

i know i'm pulling a murder-suicide on this one, but to me, going out fast is just normal racing

most races that don't feature world class guys running for money and world-class marks go out ''too fast''

i've actually made my living, if you will, in road races by going out a touch fast if the field is good and letting the 15-flat, 25-flat guys pull me along to a pr.

Have you considered that they did run an even effort race? Go out slow just because the first 2k are easier than the rest of the course doesn't strike me as a brilliant strategy.

Why don't we look at at their splits at 5k?

Most guys still went out too fast. The last 2k was esp slow.

That's a sign that people went out too fast.

Pretty much every single cross country race has people go out fast. Not many runners have the discipline to keep a consistent pace for 8k or 10k.

I agree that virtually all runners go out too fast but just going by time can be misleading. Even in a longer race, a runner can go a little too fast the first 45-1:00 and not have any ill effects. (the same reason an 800 should be positive split) After that, the course has a significant downhill past the grandstand that will influence the 2k split. A better projection would be the 5k split.

If you look at what Okie St did, they had 200 points at 2k but were really only 3 or 4 seconds back of the leaders which isn't a significant amount. From the 8k split, they didn't gain any points on wisco which shows that they didn't pace themselves any better or worse than wisco did. Fernandez and Lowe ran negative, Farrell ran even, but Kipchirchir and Stublaski ran pretty positive splits. If they had been able to match their first 5k, it would have been virtually even with Wisco.

If you look at Wisco, they had 2 negative splits, 1 barely positive and 2 a little positive. Between the two, there really was little difference in how they paced themselves.

Out of the top 10 Oklahoma was the team that paced the best followed by Colorado.

Despite the fact that they are slowing down the second half, everyone stays in relatively the same position (with the exception of the guys who clearly bomb big time). The guys who DO go out slower are NOT passing that many people.

Watch the video again, and there is a pack of Florida guys going out slow at the back of the pack. Guess who finished at the back? The pack of Florida guys.

At the college level there is a big emphasis, possibly a misplaced emphasis, and being "in it" and up front. The mentality is, if you're not in it from the beginning, then you'll lose your chance. Thus the fight from the start.

I recall at Big Tens being afraid of getting tripped up by the pack and deciding to run out front during the first two miles even though I knew the best I could finish was probably 10th-20th. Positive splitting was a sacrifice I was willing to make in order to have a clear path in front of me, and lesser chance of tripping over people. Jumping over fallen runners is not worth it.

sorry, typo corrected, and forgive my grammar:

...possibly a misplaced emphasis, ON being "in it" and up front.

I will be the first guy to run an even pace race next year.