I actually think that the Stanfrod track is short

I know of a HS track that was supposedly converted from 440 yds. to 400m a while back. I noticed the times were off and lo and behold somebody really lazy and wanting to save $ just slapped a new oval down on the old one and it was still really a yard track. Once they were told about it. It was corrected.

Status Knight wrote:

. . .

There is not a significant difference between Stanford and some of the other top distance programs in the country (think BYU, Colorado, Oregon). They'll have the academic pull over schools like NAU and Portland, but they need some extra advantage to sway kids away from the other schools I mentioned.

What are you talking about?

First, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between Stanford and the other schools you mentioned parenthetically with respect to academics, etc. Arguably no other school in the country, and certainly no other school on the west coast, has the combination of academic rigor, networking/job opportunities (especially when factoring location), and prestige that Stanford does. If you get in to Stanford, go there, unless you value running professionally or working in the industry over all other things, then go to Oregon (though this was probably more true for Stanford until Vin left). Runners who graduate with degrees from Stanford have opportunities that those who graduate from BYU, Colorado, and Oregon never will.

Second, I'd argue that Colorado and Oregon do not necessarily have any academic pull over Portland. Neither are UCLA or Cal or UVa or W&M or Michigan. It is true that both are big state schools so can be as challenging as you make them--Sareel and Klecker are both in majors that will be pretty demanding regardless of the school--but they can be pretty easy too. I'd say that is less the case at a smaller school like Portland.

Bottom line, Stanford doesn't need to host its invitationals to sway any rational-thinking recruit who is also thinking about Colorado or Oregon or BYU.

Good post. Weird that this kind of defense of Stanford has to happen here from time to time. Stanford is one of the best universities in the world. To compare it to Oregon or Colorado academically in any way is ridiculous.

LRC Commenter wrote:

I promise Im not trolling, I am convinced that there track is short. Think about it, how do you ever know that a track is the right distance? Some one puts some rubber out their and draws some white lines and tells you its 400. If people always run contsinstently faster on a track, it has to be short. I'd love for someone to explain why Im wrong.

I just carefully wheeled the Stanford track four times last night. And here are my results:

1. 10 inches short of 400 meters

2. 8 inches short of 400 meters

3. 6 inches short of 400 meters

4. 7 inches short of 400 meters

After wheeling the Stanford track four times, I would say that their track is about 8 inches short of 400 meters. In a 10,000 meter race, that might be 2 seconds.

I know this is a stupid question but then why don't they measure the tracks right next to the inside rail? That way everyone is assured of running at least 400 meters each lap.

I'm a professional mathematician and can assure you that Oregon's math department has better representation theorists than Stanford's does.

not sure if this has been mentioned but some D1 schools have olympic-grade mondo tracks that are fast as heck because of the material which is like what they used in Rio

whenever I do a time-trial on the local D1 track, I always PR, in fact everyone seems to, the material has a super-high energy return, doesn't look like anything fancy but 2-3 seconds per lap faster for me

I can't do 200 spm cadence on the road but on that track, every time

It doesnt take much for stanFRAUD to really boost there recruiting power. Track progarms dont get that much money, and all the revenues from the meet go straight to the track team. If they make 4500 dolars, that could be enough to pay off the guy who measures tracks and then hire a stripper for a recruit. And for those elitists saying that stanford gets people because their smarter, let's remember that nobody wants to be a nerd. Theirs nothing wrong with going to a respectable school like oregon

the weather in palo alto at night is special when there's no wind. ideal for distance racing.the next time i'm there with a measuring wheel i'll check out the distance for you.....

LRC Commenter wrote:

I promise Im not trolling, I am convinced that there track is short. Think about it, how do you ever know that a track is the right distance? Some one puts some rubber out their and draws some white lines and tells you its 400. If people always run contsinstently faster on a track, it has to be short. I'd love for someone to explain why Im wrong.

my GPS says it's 413 m.

Salieri wrote:

Whats a detriment to the sport is people like you who question its legitimacy. Dissent is not always the way to go

You probably believe that the media is nothing but fake news too, huh? We should just let USATF control the press about track. Heck, we should let the feds control the news. Before we know it, Americans will top Africans in distance running again - at least, as far as we all know, as we munch away at our rations and stare at propaganda.

In your dreams, you cry out "Let us suck the teet of our rulers! Hail Trump!"

Coaching staff's read letsrun. Every year you'll see a GA wheeling the track. If it was short, letsrun would be the first to know.

To settle it, I went and measured it as I live nearby. Careful measurement with an accurate wheel and several laps around the track at the exact distance from the rail required with averaging showed that the track is exactly 400m to the lap. What I also learned which might be what is causing confusion is that it is downhill the entire way.

Moss Man wrote:

... What I also learned which might be what is causing confusion is that it is downhill the entire way.

Huh? Downhill the entire way? You just destroyed whatever credibility you may have had.

I wasn't going to click on this thread, because despite his protestations to the contrary, the OP is obviously a troller, but it turned out to be a classic lets run thread, so I'm glad I did. It had everything that you expect in a Let's Run thread, with

1 a.number of misspellings and a few guys correcting misspellings.

2. Some obviously fake anecdotes offered as "proof" and then a lot of joke anecdotes spoofing the fake ones which were really funny.

3. Some really stupid comments, but also some really smart ones, and I learned something about track measurements reading the smart ones

4. attacks on Oregon's academic integrity.

5. references to Trump and Hitler

6. a few comments on "that's what's wrong with the sport."

Still there were a few things missing, and I think its important to add them:

7. The reason athletes run fast on Stanford is that they are doped to the gills. Nike fanbois will try to deny it, but Oregon runners, in particular, are on AlSal's secret sauce.

8. Although it makes me sick to my stomach to see it, lets just admit that its the transgender and intersex runners who run fast at Stanford. They've destroyed women's track. I'm thinking of entering in the women's race in the next Stanford meet--I bet my times wlll seem fast.

9. I don't know if Stanford's track is short or not, but a lot of the women who run at Payton Jordan are hot. I'd like to run fast in their shorts.

I hope I'm not missing anything else--but thanks to those who made this a great thread!

Say what, Bro? wrote:

Moss Man wrote:

... What I also learned which might be what is causing confusion is that it is downhill the entire way.

Huh? Downhill the entire way? You just destroyed whatever credibility you may have had.

He may be right. If the earth is flat, it would theoretically be possible for the track to be downhill the entire way. This would be impossible if the earth was round. This is good food for thought, and would explain all the fast times at Stanford.

Based on the times at the recent Payton Jordan Invitational, I'd say the track is long.

Writing there instead of their does not help your case.

You don't need to measure the entire track to determine if it's accurate.

The key are the hurdle marks (women's 100mh & 400mh).

Athletes would be crashing into the hurdles (especially the 100m) if they were off.

The 10th 100m hurdle should be 10.5 meters from the finish.

Then go back to the beginning of the relay zone for the last leg of the 4 x 100. You should find the hurdle mark for the 8th 400m h.

I'm sure many of you would say that athletes adjust their steps in the 400 but there are other 400m hurdle marks that line up as well.

The 2nd hurdle of the 400m hurdles line up with the fly zone of the first leg of the 4 x 100.

There are many other marks that all you need to do is a short 5-10 meter measurement to confirm the accuracy.