Serious Question. Why Don't they run the 10k in DIII? Does the NCAA think these college men are too soft to handle the distance?
Serious Question. Why Don't they run the 10k in DIII? Does the NCAA think these college men are too soft to handle the distance?
SantasLilHelper wrote:
Serious Question. Why Don't they run the 10k in DIII? Does the NCAA think these college men are too soft to handle the distance?
Why don't they run the marathon in D1 like they do in the NIAA? Does the NCAA think those college men are too soft to handle the distance?
Bump this thread.
Hardloper wrote:
SantasLilHelper wrote:Serious Question. Why Don't they run the 10k in DIII? Does the NCAA think these college men are too soft to handle the distance?
Why don't they run the marathon in D1 like they do in the NIAA? Does the NCAA think those college men are too soft to handle the distance?
Why don't they run the 100-miler at the Olympic Marathon level?
This is a legitimate question. I ran d3 and I also wonder why they don't run the 10k at regionals and nationals.
Why don't the women run the same distance as the men at any collegiate level?
How often are top milers All-American at DI nationals? Years back, DIII coaches voted to stay at 8k to provide more team depth at nationals. Milers are much better over 8k than 10k.
Because DIII sucks.
As a former DIII runner and miler I am selfishly very glad that it is 8k and not 10k.
That being said I think 8k is better for xc and think DII and DI should do it. For one it doesn't make much sense to race one distance for the regular season then switch to another in the playoffs. This would be like baseball teams playing seven innings all season then switching to nine in the playoffs.
Secondly 8k is almost right between the two track distance events: the 5k and the 10k, this way it doesn't give any particular advantage to 5k specialists or 10k specialists.
because they think D3 runners aren't fit enough to complete a 10k under 35mins, even the top guys.
women? wrote:
Why don't the women run the same distance as the men at any collegiate level?
The good ol' boys club doesn't consider women to be as important as the men.
By that logic wrote:
Hardloper wrote:Why don't they run the marathon in D1 like they do in the NIAA? Does the NCAA think those college men are too soft to handle the distance?
Why don't they run the 100-miler at the Olympic Marathon level?
How stupid are you? 100-miler at the Marathon level? What validity or sense does that even make? This is a legitimate question, go do something productive with your life such as trying to raise your IQ you moron. Get off this site.
women? wrote:
Why don't the women run the same distance as the men at any collegiate level?
Ooh! Ooh! Me! Pick me! I think I know this one!
Back in the day (early 1970s), when some of us were getting women's cross-country started at the collegiate level, there were people (I remember Ed Winrow was one) who thought that men and women should run the same distance. Cooler heads prevailed: it was tough enough just getting an adequate number of women to come out for three-mile races, let alone five- or six-milers.
[And the longer distances, in most cases, would *not* have been races--just survival runs--for most of the females then. Opportunities for learning-from-competition would have been fewer.]
After several years, when the three-mile (and later 5km) distances became "standard" for women's cross, there was a certain inertia factor. Collegiate women have been running 10,000m on the track for 30 years now, and you'd think there'd be some push to equalize women's and men's xc distances--but I haven't seen a groundswell of opinion in favor of lengthening the women's races. (There was a surprising amount of resistance to the move to just 6km!)
Part of it, I think, still relates to the competing/surviving question: whether it's true or not, a lot of coaches think 8km/10km xc contests for women would be more runs than races. Also, let's be honest: a lot of coaches just don't want to wait around for another 35 or 40 minutes (or more), for their slower female runners to finish.
Finally, let's be even more honest: cross-country running is a sport that helps a lot of colleges stay compliant with Title IX. It's easier to get thirty women on your squad (to help offset, to a small degree, your football numbers) if they're mostly going to be racing 5km, which is what most encountered in high school. Your women's team can be swelled by milers, 800 women, even some 400 types, if the races are only going to be 5km; move the races to five miles, and a significant percentage of women would opt out. And that would never do!
Women can't handle the distance. Even if they can, they will have developmental issues down the road. Their bodies just are not built for long distance running. Many issues will occur if they bump up the distance.
You think babies can handle 10k?
Because 2 more kilometers will kill those DIII'ers!
Serious Answer wrote:
How often are top milers All-American at DI nationals? Years back, DIII coaches voted to stay at 8k to provide more team depth at nationals. Milers are much better over 8k than 10k.
Thank you. I didn't know this.
Who cares about the milers? This is xc, not track. Suck it up.
The World XC Champs and US Champs are 12k. Heck even the Master's Runners compete at the 10k distance at the US Club XC Champs next month.
I think college guys can handle it regardless of the size of school if 40+ year old men can do it.
Suck it man, this isn't track. wrote:
Who cares about the milers? This is xc, not track. Suck it up.
The World XC Champs and US Champs are 12k. Heck even the Master's Runners compete at the 10k distance at the US Club XC Champs next month.
I think college guys can handle it regardless of the size of school if 40+ year old men can do it.
agreed
Obviously their vaginas would fall out in a 10K. Can't believe no one else has mentioned this.