Mile officially replaces 1500 at NCAAs??

It's a lot easier to compare yourself to the rest of the world when you race the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD. All levels should race the 1500. Save the mile for some invites but everything should be 1500.

Why not add the football 40 yard sprint??? Everyone knows that is the true test of speed and would generate way more interest than the mile.

When the American runners go overseas, they can run the 1500.

When the top international runners come here to run Pre, we make them run the mile.

They also run the mile in London and Oslo.

When the American runners are racing against the rest of the world, they usually are running the 1500.

So they do get to compare themselves on an even keel.

Running the mile in US meets doesn't prevent this 1500m comparison from happening, since they still run their best overseas.

Dreams becoming Reality wrote:

It's a lot easier to compare yourself to the rest of the world when you race the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD. All levels should race the 1500. Save the mile for some invites but everything should be 1500.

No, it's not a lot easier.

Comparing mile times to 1500 times is very easy.

Dreams becoming Reality wrote:

Why not add the football 40 yard sprint??? Everyone knows that is the true test of speed and would generate way more interest than the mile.

Because the 40 yard sprint was never an event.

I vote for the 1600. Mile and 1500 are both dumb, although the 1500 is better than the mile. I hate that extra 9 meters.

Will the mile only be ran at NCAA events like the prelims and finals or will it be a whole sweep of all 1500m events changed to the mile? One or the other makes a huge difference (if it's only in NCAA, all the other meets will most likely run 1500s and convert?)

This thread is disappointing.

I can't fathom why "lining up with the rest of the world" as a COLLEGIATE organization matters.....at all. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? The purpose here is marketability. Talk to any local sports writer, like the guy above, and ask where he/she stands on this issue. Guarantee that you get 9/10 going for the mile, at least.

Those saying we're taking our eye off the real issue here are going about the problem backward. We must FIRST create the most marketable product possible THEN push our product. What's the point in selling a difficult-to-understand product? You're just going to waste your time and money. Have none of your worked in the real world before?? This is insane!

It's quite obvious reading this thread that none of you understand marketing and why our sport still dwells in the dark, damp cellar of sport. What would you suggest would be the "correct" step in promoting our sport, if not this?

I've got to say it - the whole metric compulsion is/was a failure.

Ain't nobody saying, "That will be a 13.22 meter field goal attempt."

The football field is 100 yards long, not 100 meters and, guess what?, that sport is doing just fine.

The 7' high jump went the way of what? - the 2.1336m?

Now, I will say that as a practical matter, metrics work just fine for 100, 200, 400, 800, 110HH, 400IH, 5K, and 10K. We have come to adjust our thinking for those events and it would be foolhardy to move away from them. But, I do hope both metric and imperial marks for field events become the standard.

By the way, how many kilometers per liter does your car get?

Brought Back The Mile wrote:

What did you run in the 1500m in Middle School PE class? Oh wait - you ran the MILE.

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

And your point is...?

Middle school PE dominates NCAA thinking FTW!

It does bring more interest. As track athletes, we were excited when they announced they were bringing the mile indoors and every year there is a great deal of talk about how many sub 4 guys have qualified and how many don't qualify.

knowerr wrote:

This thread is disappointing.

I can't fathom why "lining up with the rest of the world" as a COLLEGIATE organization matters.....at all. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? The purpose here is marketability.

Your focus on the marketability of the sport has clouded your judgement about what's really important: the athletes. Sure, the training is the same for both the 1500m and the mile. However, you have to remember that some collegiate athletes have dreams of making an Olympic team, and mile times cannot be used for Olympic qualifying times. Athletes can still race some 1500s during the season, but their opporunties for fast 1500s will be limited.

The NCAA system's big advantage for American athletes has been that the NCAA championships does a great job preparing athlete's for championship racing on the international level. Athletes like Matt Centrowitz, Leo Manzano, Nick Symmonds, Emily Infeld, and more prove this. The tactics for the 1500m are different than the mile. Starting on a straightaway is very different than starting on a turn, and greatly affects positioning. By taking away the athletes' chances to perfect their 1500m tactics, we are decreasing the medal potential for current collegiate athletes.

So screw marketability, it's the athletes that matter.

So claims Coach on Twitter wrote:

Jake Stewart from University of Illinois tweeted this. Haven't seen any other mention of it. Don't know why he would lie, though.

For my money, disappointing decision if true. The mile is totally irrelevant outside of the U.S.

This is ludicrous. Why change to the mile - a distance nobody races? Even HSers don't run the mile - they run the 1600 or 1500. What was wrong with the 1500 - that's the international standard?

Speaking personally, I don't like starting races from waterfalls on a bend. Much nicer to have the straight to sort out position.

I think the change gives an advantage to the people dropping down to 1500's when competing overseas. Generally speaking, I think it is easier to move from 1609 meters to 1500 rather than the other way around. The differences are marginal, but I think it could translate to another good race or two before your peak is over.

Among general college races, it will be interesting to see if it results in races being faster overall. If you win an honest paced 1500 in 3:42 compared to a sit and kick 3:51, there is not a whole lot of difference to the casual observer. But an honest paced 3:59 sounds a lot better than a sit and kick 4:08 mile. Whether or not that little motivation actually makes a difference in the way people run remains to be seen.

Thanks for ignoring the women with all your 4 minute mile stuff. I haven't heard a word yet how this i supposed to help women's track, where there is no tradition in the mile to speak of.

I think it's better to switch this to a Nautical Mile. At 6028 feet - it will bring in the people who like boats and the naval branch of the military. Then we can have track meets with aspiring cadets filling the stands, cheering excitedly for the "Naut-Milers." I can feel the buzz now.

What about the athletes? wrote:

Your focus on the marketability of the sport has clouded your judgement about what's really important: the athletes.

....

So screw marketability, it's the athletes that matter.

So, by changing some things around so that more people will pay attention (ADs, ESPN, etc) and could lead to greater funding, opportunities, and eventually professional salaries isn't helping the athletes? What else would this change be directed towards??

I think it is silly to change the mile and not change back to the 3 mile and 6 mile. 2 miles indoor as well.

I don't know if ANYONE has ever seen a 1,600m time and not converted it to a mile. So that is out of the question.

It is nice to start on the straight in the 1500.

I was a miler and my parents, family and friends (most who spend most of the time telling me that track isn't a sport) all brag about my mile time. My 1500 and 800 are equal performances but nobody would understand if they talked about that.

Lastly, do we know if this will happen in D2 and D3 as well?

J.R. wrote:

Brought Back The Mile wrote:

What did you run in the 1500m in Middle School PE class? Oh wait - you ran the MILE.

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

And your point is...?

Middle school PE dominates NCAA thinking FTW!

The fact that J.R. is against this decision is more evidence that it is the correct decision.

Feminiceties wrote:

Thanks for ignoring the women with all your 4 minute mile stuff. I haven't heard a word yet how this i supposed to help women's track, where there is no tradition in the mile to speak of.

It hasn't been said, but I think even if it is unspoken, people know it would be HUGE if a woman was threatening 4 minutes in the mile. Bigger than any number of college men breaking 4, that is for sure. Put Dibaba in a men's race, and she would probably be under 4:05 - close enough for the media to get excited.

But also, do people get all that excited about women going under 4 in the 1500? Those who are knowledgeable do, but that won't change when it changes to breaking 4:20 in the mile. And the women who have a shot at going under 4 in the 1500 will get plenty of those chances in Europe.