2013 NCAA D1 Qualifying Criteria

I believe they did this same thing last year in division III. If you are looking for how it well affect the meet, you could probably look at the past few years of dIII results to get a decent idea.

Without an automatic standard, how "safe" do you have to be to NOT go contest the event in the last chance weekend?

This could have significant immediate and future consequence to planning and racing seasons. I think there will be have to be greater participation in last chance meets, and I am not sure that is a good thing.

Without an automatic standard, there will likely be a more even distribution of numbers of athletes throughout each event. In recent years, large numbers of AUTO DMRs were draining the number of individual slots left when filling the meet. This I think is a good thing.

I feel the track conversions will FAVOR 200m flat tracks this year. Are there any "last chance meets" on flat 200 tracks? The deadline for certifying last chance meets was Dec. 1.

Banked 200s will not be the venue of choice for distance races, I think (from comments I have read).

Another issue that they need to control for is the lane that the athlete races from in the 200, for example. In a banked oval the outside lane is the most 'downhill' and some tracks are more downhill than others. If they were comparing Lane 6 marks on some tracks with Lane 3 marks, they conversion factors will be flawed.

26mi235 wrote:

Another issue that they need to control for is the lane that the athlete races from in the 200, for example. In a banked oval the outside lane is the most 'downhill' and some tracks are more downhill than others. If they were comparing Lane 6 marks on some tracks with Lane 3 marks, they conversion factors will be flawed.

Just a question. In order to get that "downhill" advantage, didn't the runner also have to have an uphill disadvantage? Why don't these cancel each other out?

I'm OUT!!!

Physics Dummy wrote:

Just a question. In order to get that "downhill" advantage, didn't the runner also have to have an uphill disadvantage? Why don't these cancel each other out?

I'm OUT!!!

In the outer lanes, the runner in a 200 starts on the curve, which if banked is higher than the finish line.

.............................. wrote:

I feel the track conversions will FAVOR 200m flat tracks this year. Are there any "last chance meets" on flat 200 tracks? The deadline for certifying last chance meets was Dec. 1.

The conversions from a 200 flat track are way better than prior years. One of the reasons that there were few serious qualifying attempts on a 200 flat track is that the standards were so unfairly skewed in favor of the banked/oversize tracks.

Below is the 2012 200 flat track standard, the 2012 oversize standard, the 2013 flat to oversize conversion using the 2012 standard and then the 2013 oversize to flat conversion using the 2012 standard. The 2012 standards mean nothing in and of themselves for 2013, but the comparison shows what the standards would have been if the indexing system was used.

Last year a flat 800 time of 1:48.20 converted to 1:47.30. This year that 1:48.20 converts to 1:46.67 and this year it is a 1:48.83 that converts to an oversize 1:47.30, etc.

800 1:48.20 1:47.30 1:46.67 1:48.83

Mile 3:59.70 3:57.90 3:56.68 4:00.95

3000 7:55.00 7:52.30 7:49.54 7:57.78

5000 13:48.40 13:44.60 13:39.62 13:53.42

DMR 9:34.00 9:31.00 9:26.31 9:38.77

Bottom line is that some coaches may try to get something done on the flat tracks with a smaller field and better control of the rabbits.

I know that Wisconsin has a last chance meet on a 200 flat track and they even qualified a guy (Reed Connor) in the 3000 before the 3000 standard got crazy. Craig Miller hit the Mile standard several years ago there as well, but it was a meet earlier in the season.

No one will generally try to qualify on those tracks that are poorly rated. The tracks that are barely over 200m have the same conversions as Washington and Notre Dame and the new Ohio facility.

Also, the banked indoor distances are thrown under the bus of the over-sized tracks because of those many aforementioned barely-over 200m (and if they really did classify a 220 yard track as over-sized they really do not have to treat the data correctly.