NCAA Indoor Conversions

So how close were the most recent D3 indexing standards to this study? Everyone near Boston/NYC was complaining that the banked tracks conversions were excessive (i.e., too much time added).

How valid and reliable are these statistics? Full disclosure: I didn't read through the study and am not really knowledgeable on this matter other than to say in years past it was my understanding that the conversations were more "guesswork" than anything else.

BUMP

Curious about Division III wrote:

So how close were the most recent D3 indexing standards to this study? Everyone near Boston/NYC was complaining that the banked tracks conversions were excessive (i.e., too much time added).

How valid and reliable are these statistics? Full disclosure: I didn't read through the study and am not really knowledgeable on this matter other than to say in years past it was my understanding that the conversations were more "guesswork" than anything else.

Tufts runner here. Pretty unreliable. The NCAA basically compared results from non-competitive flat track championship races, which are always tactical, to banked track qualifying attempts which are of course all about running the fastest possible time. They also didn't account for races run later in the season, which would be faster and in the Northeast are more often run on banked tracks.

I don't want to come off as biased just because I got slammed by the conversion last year, but it just seems like the NCAA is regressing towards a flat track standard because the Midwest is incapable of investing in banked tracks. Division 1 NCAA's is always held on a banked track because it's the best track available; just because the Midwest cannot be bothered to build a banked track it is making the Northeast suffer.

If they re-evaluate the standard every year, maybe the conversion factors will become more legit; but for now, seems pretty unfair to the Northeast.

No, I think that they took conference champs out, but am not certain. Go read Super Fan's blog; tempest in a teapot. It is likely better than the current set up. Since only 2.5% come from Flat 200s, which have a majority of comps, it seems likely to understate the differential. Again, new data will tell us if the short distances are too nice to 200Banked and distances to 200+ (e.g, 300s), which I think will happen, and then they can make slight alterations

Real bitter aren't we? I hope you understand that indoor track isn't as popular in the rest of the country as it is in the northeast. At the high school and collegiate level, in the south, midwest, or west, the indoor season is not as a big deal as it is in the northeast. With this in mind and budgets always under pressure, it's not economically feasible to build facilities that are dedicated primarily for track & field in most cases (for public or private universities). Why build a much more expensive banked track when you host 2-3 meets/year (at most)? Whether it's a public schools or private school, the same rules apply. Presidents and AD's around the country (besides your region) don't understand why a track program would need banked tracks that would be better served as multi-purpose facilities. You're argument about D1 nats on a banked track doesn't account for the fact that still a majority of D1 programs have 200m tracks of their own...including many big budget universities such as Wisconsin. (though I heard they have a proposal to build a new a banked facility on the drawing board)

I do agree with you that the new penalties for running on banked/oversized tracks seem excessive. I've ran on oversized and banked tracks before, and from my experience of those meets I couldn't tell if the performances were better because of the facilities or because the quality of the fields was much better. Put those same fields on a 200m track, and I'm guessing their wouldn't be that much of a difference as the adjustments indicate.

You can bitch about the process, but you should recognize you have some huge advantages in qualifying for nationals despite the track conversion. You have a number of meets that compete against D1 programs during the championship/last couple weeks of the season, so you have every opportunity get in a race that will get the fastest time out of you. And to take one more shot...did you make outdoor nats? (i'm sure either way you'll say you did). If you couldn't make outdoors, than maybe the conversion isn't the problem. The best programs (at any level) use the outdoor season to determine the success of their season anyways.

To sum up, I believe the conversions are a bit unfair, but this tufts kids is also a little whiny brat that doesn't realize how good he's got it up there.

Why do we need conversions at all? You run the distance in X time you get in, if slower than X you don't. As far as regional unfairness, I feel like no matter the division or location, your coach will be able to get you to a bigger/banked track if you really want, if you're the kind of guy who's good enough to have a shot at nats.

Especially given how the different divisions have been unable to agree on what the "real" conversion rates are.

zamboomba wrote:

Why do we need conversions at all? You run the distance in X time you get in, if slower than X you don't.

If you are asking this question then you really do not get it. Do you think that a 100m race with a 5.0 mps wind should be counted as a world record or should be used to determine qualifying.

Take a 200m banked track, where the conversions are biggest. On a track such as Arkansas' Lane 6 runs downhill to such an extent that I think that it would not qualify as a legitimate road course, because the gradient exceeds the maximum allowable for a road course.

The other differences are a little more subtle but the differentials are also smaller. Maybe you ought to go take a little physics (mechanics might help) before you come and complain about things that you do not understand.