Oregon women break collegiate record in 4 x 100 and 4 x 200 (42.34 and 1:28.78)

The new records are 42.34 and 1:28.78.

Here is an article on the feat.

http://www.oregonlive.com/trackandfield/index.ssf/2017/04/the_oregon_ducks_set_two_women.html#incart_river_index

and again looked fine doing it;

lost by 0.01 to pro team anchored by D Schippers who ran down Washington on the home stretch

When was the last time a school held both the 4x1/4x2 NCAA records running the samr team?

Oregon has become a sprint powerhouse the past few years. In the past, they've always seemed to be a distance school. Does anyone know why/how they made that transformation?

Replay of yesterday and Friday's events can be found below

Saturday

http://www.espn.com/watchespn/player/_/id/3044742/

Friday

http://www.espn.com/watchespn/player/_/id/3044743/

Only a powerhouse for women. Men's sprinters pale in comparison to the sec schools.

They have a lot of money put into their facilities which goes a long way to getting top level recruits. They also put a lot of money into sprint/jump/hurdle coaches who can develop athletes. You cannot win ncaa without a good chunk of your points in that area.

Schippers did not anchor that relay. She ran 2nd leg. Bartoletta, Schippers, Onoura, Henry

Sorry, thought you were referring to 4 x 100m.

I've never thought before about the fact that the 4x200 would be slower than the 4x100 times two.

I guess because many top athletes in top shape go slightly faster in the 200 than double their 100, the 4x200 should be faster than double the 4x100.

But of course, top athletes only match or beat their 100 time doubled in the 200 because of the acceleration penalty in the 100. In the 4x100, there is no acceleration penalty other than in the first leg, so the slight slowdown later in the 200m means that the 4x200 is clearly going to be slower than double the 4x100, or than an 8x100 would be.

Decathlete wrote:

I've never thought before about the fact that the 4x200 would be slower than the 4x100 times two.

Dumbest thing I've read all week.

joe rubix wrote:

Decathlete wrote:

I've never thought before about the fact that the 4x200 would be slower than the 4x100 times two.

Dumbest thing I've read all week.

Nope, your post had even less thought.

Decathlete wrote:

joe rubix wrote:

Dumbest thing I've read all week.

Nope, your post had even less thought.

Not surprised that you could could only muster up a "nuh uh, you are!" retort.

My post didn't need any "thought". Fucking of course the 4x200m is slower than the 4x100m times two.

Men's 100m AR is 9.69 (Tyson Gay)

Men's 200m AR is 19.32 (Michael Johnson)

So for the AR, it's not twice.

What a dumb article. They don't show any photos of the team in action, just a portrait of one of the 4 girls.

joe rubix wrote:

Decathlete wrote:

I've never thought before about the fact that the 4x200 would be slower than the 4x100 times two.

Dumbest thing I've read all week.

No they actually made a good point

D O Man wrote:

and again looked fine doing it;

lost by 0.01 to pro team anchored by D Schippers who ran down Washington on the home stretch

Where I rhe the self anointed sprints expert and all around D bag "coach D?" He should be mansplaining how Oregon coaches are frauds or alternatively all the Oregon sprinters are hurt or alternatively how they are all on drugs.

Come back little Sheba, no wait, maybe the pound has him and that would be good for the Boards

NOP Skeptic wrote:

joe rubix wrote:

Dumbest thing I've read all week.

No they actually made a good point

No it's basic common sense, like saying that one just realized the 800m record is slower than two x the 400m record.