Why is NCAA women's XC shorter in distance than the men?

Agreeed wrote:

lease wrote:

The number of women in the NCAA who could run 26:xx for a legit 8k could probably be counted on your fingers and toes.

The great majority of D1 NCAA women would be over 30 minutes.

That might be true at first, but like every distance event in the sport, times would come down and keep coming down. Every year it gets harder to qualify for Prelims in most/all distance races.

Women would adapt and get faster.

Are you a poe?

Yes, I'm sure that on average women would get faster between their first time running an 8k race and their, say, tenth time. Men do that too.

Last fall, at the NCAA's D1 Regional meets, all of the women who broke 20 minutes for a full 6k could be counted on one's fingers and toes--with a bunch of toes left over. What's 20min pace? Conveniently, it's 3:20/km or 80sec/400.

And if you maintained that 3:20 pace over 8k, what would your time be? 26:40

So yes, I was probably wrong: the number of women in the NCAA who could run 26:xx for a legit 8k could probably be counted just on one's fingers. I shouldn't have gotten the toes involved at all.

"Women would adapt"? Well, they've been running 6k for several years now, and so far hardly any of them have "adapted" to running 3:20 or faster for each of six kilometers--what makes you think they would suddenly "adapt" to doing it for a third-again the distance?

As for a 30min time for 8k, the math works out pretty conveniently there, too: 90sec/400 or 3:45/km. For 6km, that's 22:30. How many women beat that at Regionals? Just about half--of the *best* women on (mostly) the *best* teams in their regions, with a trip to Nationals at stake. Could half of those fields have continued running sub-90/400 to 8k? Of course not--maybe a quarter could break 30 for 8km. And, again, those were the NCAA's best female cross-country runners.

Both of my statements stand: the women who could run 26:xx could be counted on your fingers and (if need be) toes; and the GREAT MAJORITY of D1 female xc runners would be over 30min for 8k, which would just be a last-it-out slogfest for those athletes. The Sport doesn't need that, and neither do they.

[PS: Having been involved with the start of women's collegiate cross-country running, back in the early 1970s, I can tell you that there was some discussion about an appropriate race distance. The consensus was three miles or 5km--at a time when HS girls, to the extent they were running xc at all, were generally racing over two miles or so.

[When 5km became closer to a standard distance for HS girls, the NCAA moved up to 6km, which I thought was reasonable. I don't think another move up is called for, for quite a while.]

word from a spinster aunt wrote:

cliffordgeertz wrote:

Why is NCAA women's XC shorter in distance than the men?.

It's called the patriarchy and YOU are it's primary beneficiary.

Ohh god, not you again.

Please go back to tumblr where you and the rest of the SJWs can metaphorically jerk each other off in one giant echo chamber of nonsense & hate.

Would you make the same argument for reducing women's track distances? No? Then stop wasting your and everyone's time.

you're back from year 2012 wrote:

word from a spinster aunt wrote:

It's called the patriarchy and YOU are it's primary beneficiary.

Ohh god, not you again.

Please go back to tumblr where you and the rest of the SJWs can metaphorically jerk each other off in one giant echo chamber of nonsense & hate.

foo wrote:

There is no logical argument to explain this because for track and field the women run the same distances as the men (with the longest being 10000m).

Except for the 100/110mH and, out on the roads, the 50km race walk.

(just kidding, your point is right)

Why are the barriers/hurdles lower for women than they are for men?

Paul Kipsiele Koech is 5'7''/170cm. Shorter than some women steeplechasers!

I would like to see both male and female college teams run 8K. If you are hosting a meet, this makes the logistics 10x easier. Also, there is no good reason to have men and women run separate distances. So, a uniform distance is a no brainer.

I don't really see why the distance is increased from 8K for most of the season to 10K for the regionals and championships. I say make the regionals and champsionships 8K for both men and women.

Joe the Electrician wrote:

I would like to see both male and female college teams run 8K. If you are hosting a meet, this makes the logistics 10x easier. Also, there is no good reason to have men and women run separate distances. So, a uniform distance is a no brainer.

I don't really see why the distance is increased from 8K for most of the season to 10K for the regionals and championships. I say make the regionals and champsionships 8K for both men and women.

+1 !!!!

Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:

Why is the women's shot put lighter than the men's shot put?

Why do the girls often run 1500/3000 at meets while boys run 1600/3200?

Their uterus will fall out if they run too far.

They have juggs and hairy bushes.

When a 2k course, you can run either 8 or 10k just as easily.

A 2k course wrote:

When a 2k course, you can run either 8 or 10k just as easily.

Great insight, thanks.

I remember when they changed women from 5k to 6k and the NCAA said to do that for 2 reasons (1) to take it away form the 800 and 1500 runners and (2) to spread it out more so the finish is not so crowded to get them into the chute in proper order. Of course adding 1k is not changing who does well and with chips the crowded finish is not a problem. I still think 8k for women would be ideal.

Kikukuyuyu wrote:

foo wrote:

There is no logical argument to explain this because for track and field the women run the same distances as the men (with the longest being 10000m).

Except for the 100/110mH and, out on the roads, the 50km race walk.

(just kidding, your point is right)

Why are the barriers/hurdles lower for women than they are for men?

Paul Kipsiele Koech is 5'7''/170cm. Shorter than some women steeplechasers!

There are many more. As someone mentioned earlier, shot puts are different sizes. Are discuses different sizes? Hammers? Javelins?

Basketballs are different sizes as well between the two.

In cross-country skiing, are the endurance distances different between the two genders? In ski jumping, are the ramps the same? In volleyball, is the height of the net the same? Etc, etc...

Is prize $$ the same between two events where standards are different heights/sizes/weights/etc?

Race density. Look it up. This is 100% the reason.

you're back from year 2012 wrote:

word from a spinster aunt wrote:

It's called the patriarchy and YOU are it's primary beneficiary.

Ohh god, not you again.

Please go back to tumblr where you and the rest of the SJWs can metaphorically jerk each other off in one giant echo chamber of nonsense & hate.

Post of the Week!

6uh wrote:

Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:

Why is the women's shot put lighter than the men's shot put?

Why do the girls often run 1500/3000 at meets while boys run 1600/3200?

Where does that happen? I always saw that some states have 1500/3000 for both while others have 1600/3200 for both. Never seen one distance for guys and another for girls at high school track but since you have seen it before I was wondering where this is true?

Where??? wrote:

Where does that happen? I always saw that some states have 1500/3000 for both while others have 1600/3200 for both. Never seen one distance for guys and another for girls at high school track but since you have seen it before I was wondering where this is true?

This is (or at least was--I think it still is) true of New York.

You ever wait around for the last girl on a no-cut XC team to finish her 28 minute 5k? You'd be there over an hour if we let them run 10k.