Should women run 10K like the men in NCAA Cross Country?

6k for women and 8k for men are just over 20 minutes. 5k for men is too short.

?? wrote:

coach wrote:

A 35 minute run is different than a 29 minute run. Do we need to see tens, maybe a hundred runners jogging the last part of the race? Keep it 6k for the women. Everyone can train for it and the distance specialty schools will still do well at this short distance. If you want to kill our dying sport increase the distance

So both to 6k then?

I don't think anyone is arguing that. Keep the races the same.

?? wrote:That last argument makes no sense at all, as stated in the article, yes it takes women a few minutes longer to run a 10k, but that in no way means they are not capable of handling the distance (or a heck of a lot farther), it has nothing to do with physically being able to lift a certain weight of implement or jump high enough to clear a barrier, as mentioned, do they cut the boston marathon short because it takes women another 15-20 minutes to finish? No.

I obviously didn't express myself clearly. As I said, if I were in charge I would have men and women both run 6k or 8k in order to allow more 800/1500 track runners to compete in cross country. It would also be easier to manage races using the same course layout for men and women.

However, I don't think it's a big deal that the men and women run different distances in cross country. Just because the distances or implements are different in an event doesn't make one inferior to the other. No one would ever say that running the 1500m is inferior to running the 5000m because the distance is shorter. They are just different but equally valid race distances. The 100H is not inferior to the 110H, just different. If, given the preferences of women runners or the kinds of women runners who are available, the 6k makes the most sense in cross country, that doesn't mean that the 6k distance is "inferior" to the 10k distance run by the men, just different. Women are obviously capable of running 10k but if that's not the distance women want to run in cross country, there's no reason to change it to 10k just because men run 10k.

woman here...` wrote:

As a woman who ran D1 cross country/track, I have to say that I would like to see the women move up to 8k at the very least. How does one go about making this change? Would we make a petition / try to do some sort of appeal to the NCAA cross country committee?

It's simple.

Someone needs to file a Title IX complaint. It'll happen almost overnight (at least in NCAA terms).

That's exactly what's happened in those states that were holding out moving girls up to 5K like the boys in high school. They often made the move as fast as the very next season. I'm shocked this hasn't been done at the collegiate level yet, except a lot of college coaches like 6K because they're 800 runners can still do pretty well at it.

Zat0pek wrote:

woman here...` wrote:

As a woman who ran D1 cross country/track, I have to say that I would like to see the women move up to 8k at the very least. How does one go about making this change? Would we make a petition / try to do some sort of appeal to the NCAA cross country committee?

It's simple.

Someone needs to file a Title IX complaint. It'll happen almost overnight (at least in NCAA terms).

That's exactly what's happened in those states that were holding out moving girls up to 5K like the boys in high school. They often made the move as fast as the very next season. I'm shocked this hasn't been done at the collegiate level yet, except a lot of college coaches like 6K because they're 800 runners can still do pretty well at it.

YES. This.

Surprised this hasn't happen already given USATF and IAAF moving toward equal distances in the past 2 years.

It's NCAA Division I athletics. Of course it's hard. The hard is what makes it great.

One thing making distances equal would do is make meet management so much easier since you'd only need one course.

BTW, Dave Wottle was 12th at the NCAA XC the fall before he tied the 800m world record and won Olympic gold. I suspect the two are related.

uh..sexistmuch wrote:

I don't think she would care if it was 6k and 6k. Equality is the point here. And when you say the "ideal distance for women", your attitude is what perpetuates this false notion. Sure, women can't lift or bench or throw as much as men, but when it comes to distance running, women can run as far as men and as mentioned in the piece, "And beyond this, the female body performs better and burns fuel more efficiently than its male counterpart the farther it is tested.". Do some research on Pam Reed then tell me that the ideal distance for women should be shorter than men. You are beyond incorrect.

Honey, if the female body performed better at those distances they wouldn't be slower, would they.

jsquire wrote:

It's NCAA Division I athletics. Of course it's hard. The hard is what makes it great.

One thing making distances equal would do is make meet management so much easier since you'd only need one course.

BTW, Dave Wottle was 12th at the NCAA XC the fall before he tied the 800m world record and won Olympic gold. I suspect the two are related.

That's a really good point. Cross country isn't meant to coddle. And that strength work can pay off big time in the spring.

Although I agree with her that the distances should be the same, I do find it completely hypocritical on her part to be arguing for selective equality only when it benefits her. If she really is that serious about "equality", then why didn't she also mention the INEQUALITY between men's and women's programs in terms of number of scholarships and, in the extreme case, the elimination of men's programs but not the sister women's programs?

You can't bang the inequality drum unless you want equality across the board and she very clearly does not.

Is there anything worse than watching a weak conference XC meet? Too many of these exist. As much as I enjoy watching a flotrack workout Wednesday where a group of 15 students run a tempo or mile repeats I'm afraid there are too many schools that can barely get students to show up for cross.

one mo mile wrote:

uh..sexistmuch wrote:

I don't think she would care if it was 6k and 6k. Equality is the point here. And when you say the "ideal distance for women", your attitude is what perpetuates this false notion. Sure, women can't lift or bench or throw as much as men, but when it comes to distance running, women can run as far as men and as mentioned in the piece, "And beyond this, the female body performs better and burns fuel more efficiently than its male counterpart the farther it is tested.". Do some research on Pam Reed then tell me that the ideal distance for women should be shorter than men. You are beyond incorrect.

Honey, if the female body performed better at those distances they wouldn't be slower, would they.

Wow, you're really going with that? You, sir are the problem.

just-a-girl wrote:

one mo mile wrote:

Honey, if the female body performed better at those distances they wouldn't be slower, would they.

Wow, you're really going with that? You, sir are the problem.

Yeah I'm really going with that. Yeah I am the problem for rabid feminists - because I speak basic truths.

Zat0pek wrote:

woman here...` wrote:

As a woman who ran D1 cross country/track, I have to say that I would like to see the women move up to 8k at the very least. How does one go about making this change? Would we make a petition / try to do some sort of appeal to the NCAA cross country committee?

It's simple.

Someone needs to file a Title IX complaint. It'll happen almost overnight (at least in NCAA terms).

That's exactly what's happened in those states that were holding out moving girls up to 5K like the boys in high school. They often made the move as fast as the very next season. I'm shocked this hasn't been done at the collegiate level yet, except a lot of college coaches like 6K because they're 800 runners can still do pretty well at it.

Here's a link to a story about how Title IX got Wisconsin to move to 5K for girls.

I couldn't immediately find links, but it's also what moved Iowa and Kansas to 5K. There may not be links because a lot of times all it takes is a call or letter from the Office of Civil Rights to the state HS activities agency to "suggest" that they might save themselves a lot of time, money, trouble and bad PR if they moved their girls to the same distance as the boys. LONG overdue at NCAA in my opinion. And yes, I think you'd often get different national champions at 10K than you would at 6K.

one mo mile wrote:

just-a-girl wrote:

Wow, you're really going with that? You, sir are the problem.

Yeah I'm really going with that. Yeah I am the problem for rabid feminists - because I speak basic truths.

Honey, you wouldn't know a rabid feminist if it bit you in the a$$. A woman asking to be given the opportunity to run the same distance as a man does not need you with your "basic truths" telling her that she is not capable of it.

just-a-girl wrote:

Honey, you wouldn't know a rabid feminist if it bit you in the a$$. A woman asking to be given the opportunity to run the same distance as a man does not need you with your "basic truths" telling her that she is not capable of it.

You're welcome to race against the men if you want to run their races. Why do you need a separate race?

6k = 10k wrote:

As I said, if I were in charge I would have men and women both run 6k or 8k in order to allow more 800/1500 track runners to compete in cross country.

Then why not make XC races 800m or 1500m?

Why not include steeple barriers to allow more steeple chasers to compete?

Why not add in some pole vault and shot put along the way so Ashton Eaton can dominate cross country?

quote]one mo mile wrote:

just-a-girl wrote:

Honey, you wouldn't know a rabid feminist if it bit you in the a$$. A woman asking to be given the opportunity to run the same distance as a man does not need you with your "basic truths" telling her that she is not capable of it.

You're welcome to race against the men if you want to run their races. Why do you need a separate race?[/quote]

She never said race against the men. She said race the same distance. running out of arguments much?[

meninist wrote:

one mo mile wrote:

You're welcome to race against the men if you want to run their races. Why do you need a separate race?

She never said race against the men. She said race the same distance. running out of arguments much?

But why don't you (not "she" - you're the same person) want to run against the men? Seriously, why not? You're equally capable of racing the distance right?

Title 69 wrote:Although I agree with her that the distances should be the same, I do find it completely hypocritical on her part to be arguing for selective equality only when it benefits her. If she really is that serious about "equality", then why didn't she also mention the INEQUALITY between men's and women's programs in terms of number of scholarships and, in the extreme case, the elimination of men's programs but not the sister women's programs?

You can't bang the inequality drum unless you want equality across the board and she very clearly does not.

Title IX requires equality between the sexes, not among different sports. It does not require equality between track athletes and football players.

Men's programs get cut or eliminated to preserve athletic opportunities for male football players because most universities value football a lot more than track. The much greater popularity of football for men over track for men is not the fault of female track athletes. Your real complaint should be with male football players taking up all of the men's slots, not with women athletes.