If a track meet director says that they aren't posting seed times (the day before the meet) but just a rank order because the times themselves are "speculative," what does that mean?
If a track meet director says that they aren't posting seed times (the day before the meet) but just a rank order because the times themselves are "speculative," what does that mean?
Often odd distances like 1000,600 2000 are not often contested so times for the 800 1500 3000 might be used to guesstimate the times to use for seeding. Seeding determinations made in camera might not follow a repeatable or formulaic pattern. Like in the 600 Kim 61.5 and Carol 61.3 have these 400m marks this year but Kim ran a lot of good 800s last year while Carol was more of a 200/400 runner. The seeding committee might seed Kim ahead of Carol but not have actual this season data to point to for justification.
It means that the meet allows speculative times rather than requiring a result from a recent meet.
I've noticed recently that even meets that don't allow speculative times still won't post the seed times on the heat sheets.
its one or both of two reasons:
1. they want to alter seeds in some way that would make them not true to the entered times (i.e. if they believe someone is over seeded based on what they've actually run they move them down the list).
2. They don't want coaches calling and complaining about how runners from other teams are over-seeded (eg. "my runner is clearly faster than this other runner how can you let them be seeded in front).
They know 90% of the coaches lie.
bigmeats wrote:
its one or both of two reasons:
2. They don't want coaches calling and complaining about how runners from other teams are over-seeded (eg. "my runner is clearly faster than this other runner how can you let them be seeded in front).
This is the answer. If you knew how hard it is to put on a meet you'd wonder why any meet director bothered. Everyone thinks they should be in the fast heat.
What about submitting slower than actual seed times in very large meets so the athlete or relay can win their section or at least be up front?
At Penn Relays, every 4 x 400 that wins their section gets a huge wheel and second and third place get medals.
If there are 20 runners in a section of the mile, why be stuck in the back with your actual best time if other coaches submit slower times than they have run.
One solution: only allow actual times that are in milesplit data base.
I'm sure it is a challenge to organize a meet...on the other hand, it's insulting to be told the meet will only seed using verifiable times, put in a verifiable time for your athlete, and then have half of the heat in front of you seeded based on their coaches putting in times the athlete has never run (not even on a converted basis). That system rewards liars.
I'm sure it is a challenge to organize a meet...on the other hand, it's insulting to be told the meet will only seed using verifiable times, put in a verifiable time for your athlete, and then have half of the heat in front of them seeded based on their coaches putting in a time the athlete has never run (not even on a converted basis). That system rewards liars.
Chief Hubbard wrote:
If a track meet director says that they aren't posting seed times (the day before the meet) but just a rank order because the times themselves are "speculative," what does that mean?
That seems like a really stupid policy because with the advent of internet nowadays and milesplit, runnerspace, etc., it is virtually impossible to run an "organized" race, at least in some sense of the word "organized" without the results ending up on the internet and the results can therefore be verified; thus, these times are not "speculative." (That's a big word for this meet director given that he is probably a moron.)