4:05 wins Big 12 1500

your splits don't make sense for a 1500, do they

were they running a mile? or was the last 300m really that damn slow.

I think the Big 10 went in 3:57 or 8.

Are those the splits at 300, 700, and 1100? If so, that is the slowest first lap I've ever seen in a 1500 at that level.

IDK. I was hoping someone who watched it might pipe in.

Jhrssveabjj wrote:

Are those the splits at 300, 700, and 1100? If so, that is the slowest first lap I've ever seen in a 1500 at that level.

Yes, it was the first 300. Looked like they were out for a recovery run. Closed damn fast though.

big12alum wrote:

Jhrssveabjj wrote:

Are those the splits at 300, 700, and 1100? If so, that is the slowest first lap I've ever seen in a 1500 at that level.

Yes, it was the first 300. Looked like they were out for a recovery run. Closed damn fast though.

Is this a joke? I was at a girls' middle school race this weekend, and they ran the first 300m in 61 seconds.

Raysism wrote:

big12alum wrote:

Yes, it was the first 300. Looked like they were out for a recovery run. Closed damn fast though.

Is this a joke? I was at a girls' middle school race this weekend, and they ran the first 300m in 61 seconds.

Did they also close in 53/54?

Someone on here must have seen the race. According to their splits they ran the first 300 at 6:00 pace. That doesn't make any sense. Did they accidentally run a 1600 or something?

Looks like Fox Sports (or whoever they are sending it to) has the TV rights so you can DVR or watch it later. Here is the schedule.

http://www.big12sports.com/pdf9/3566007.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410

They went 83 their first lap

It was ridiculous

Splits are from the finish line. 65 first 300, 2:10 at 700..... Closed in a 53 last 400.

The Big 12 has no depth anymore. Usually 3-4 solid athletes per event but you don't have to be good to score anymore in most events.

There were sustained winds of 20mph and gusting from time to time. No one wanted to do the heavily lifting of leading the race. The 80-second first 400m was essentially the whole field daring someone to lead.

Last 1200m of the race were at 3:45 pace for a 1500m

As always in one of these races, the strategy makes sense for the top 4 or so but why don't #7 through #12 try to steal 5th place by going out at a normal pace and hoping for a 4 min lull in the wind?

jkd34 wrote:

As always in one of these races, the strategy makes sense for the top 4 or so but why don't #7 through #12 try to steal 5th place by going out at a normal pace and hoping for a 4 min lull in the wind?

These guys are milers. They all think of themselves as #1 (or at the least, as having a great kick). I doubt too many are shooting for 5th place.

That said, there's nothing wrong with a slow start to a race. not every run (especially at an important competition like a conference meet) has to be a PR.

Chad Noelle is the collegiate leader with his 3:38 win at Peyton Jordan so obviously the Big 12 isn't that weak.

jkd34 wrote:

As always in one of these races, the strategy makes sense for the top 4 or so but why don't #7 through #12 try to steal 5th place by going out at a normal pace and hoping for a 4 min lull in the wind?

This isn't necessarily true. I think there's a bigger chance of a major upset when the pace is really slow like this, especially when there are speed-based milers in the race. Examples include Christian Smith winning the 2007 NCAA Indoor Mile off a very slow first 800 and Sam Borchers winning the Big 10 mile in 4:23 a few years back. Neither one was one of the favorites and both probably would have finished back in the pack if the pace had been fast from the gun.