How To Solve Cross Country's Gender Equality Problem (According to flotrack)

NO

Americans already run too many races!

waltertompatton wrote:

NO

Americans already run too many races!

False

Training 6 months to run 3 or 4 races is not what american sports should be about.

Bigballer wrote:

They already both run the 10k outdoors, so I don't see why women wouldn't be able to handle the 10k in the fall.... The real issue with NCAA XC is the having to run two (essentially all out) 10ks two weekends in a row. Would just make more sense to keep everything 8k, especially considering that's the distance that run in the regular season. On that note, the physiological toll of running a 10k varies on the region due to weather. If you look at this years NCAA results you'll notice that for the most part teams from the NE region underperformed at nationals, arguably their performance was hurt by the fact that their race was held in freezing temperatures, in contrast to the modest temperatures of the west regional.... not necessarily something that should change, but rather just food for thought.

The best team is not the fastest over 10k but those that can handle two 10ks in two weeks. Why is that bad?

No, it's not, as everyone involved in the sport continues to point out.

Couple problems with this. First, it's circular reasoning. You have to assume that the nature of the sport is 8k or 10k for it to be "changing the nature of the sport" to have women run 6k. I happen to think the "nature of the sport" is an endurance footrace over uneven terrain with team scoring. Neither the 6k nor the 10k are inherently more authentic. Second, the need for middle distance runners and younger athletes to be competitive isn't a result of poor recruiting. It's a result of far less depth in women's athletics. We can debate the reasons for it and whether it will always be the case, but it absolutely is the case now. If recruiting were the issue, then it would be an issue for particular programs, not for literally every program. But in fact, if you look at historic NCAA championship results, which obviously covers the best teams in the country, you'll see that the time spreads for women are comparable or larger than the time spreads for men, despite the women running only 6k.

You have it in reverse. The other sports pay all athletes based on their ability without regard to gender which is what the law requires. Even those sports probably somewhat overpay women because an equivalent male would earn nothing if they were of the same ability as the women who are playing in the WNBA for example. Running pays significantly more to women than it does to an equivalent male. A woman running 14:40 for 5k gets a nice payout while a man would get nothing. If a male and female work on a production line, they must both produce the same amount. if they are both in sale, they must sell the same amount to earn the same amount. Think about allowing males in sales to earn the same as women if women sold significantly more than men.

First off, it absolutely is base in sexism. Same reason girls ran 4k in hs, same reason they couldn't run more than 800m at the olympics until mid century, and the same reason they didn't have collegiate women's xc for decades. A fear they couldn't do it an then a fear that they might beat the boys (change the difference so then you can't compare the times of the lead girls to your guys). There is no practical reason to race different distances otherwise.

Second, the need for middle distance runners and younger athletes to be competitive isn't a result of poor recruiting. It's a result of far less depth in women's athletics.

*sigh* one of the primary arguments for keeping the 6k is that middle d kids wont run it if its longer and thus some teams which rely on mid d girls wont be competitive. This is a garbage point. If you NEED these kids but they wont run cause its too long at 8k then 1.) you arn't recruiting the right types of kids for what your program needs rn and 2.) then you simply don't deserve to have a good xc team that year. Plain and simple. It'd be awesome if we could just adjust different aspects of a sport so that it better fit our own teams but thats not how sports work.

It is possible to make middle d runners good xc runners without shortening the distance. I could name 20 or more AA rn who are mid d specialists. If you can't make a team of 5 girls who can run 5 miles or more effectively then tough. Its on you to recruit athletes who can and train athletes to be able to.

Havana ah la la wrote:

Here's the solution, men and women race 10k together against each other. Now that's equal opportunity for ya.

Great and when your wife/partner gets pregnant you get to carry a watermelon for 9 months. #equality

Have both run the 8k. Men only run longer because men decided that years ago. That's not a good reason to keep the system intact.

I am telling you, if the women's regional meets were 10k there would be a lot of women turning in 42+ minute runs. Without 7 or 8 scholarships put into distance running (not possible for a well rounded mid major program). Between injuries and depth most mid majors will struggle to field 5+ competitive distance runners. There are not enough sub 11:45 high school girls to go around (and even that is not very good). Call me sexist if you want; but the depth is not there.

I think "800 dude" summed it up well. There must be some ideal XC race distance that isn't too long or too short. That ideal distance is not the same for men and women.

Two fair options:

1) Make both distances the same

2) Run race distances that are fairly equal in terms of time i.e.

FightFor15 wrote:

Havana ah la la wrote:

Here's the solution, men and women race 10k together against each other. Now that's equal opportunity for ya.

Great and when your wife/partner gets pregnant you get to carry a watermelon for 9 months. #equality

Have both run the 8k. Men only run longer because men decided that years ago. That's not a good reason to keep the system intact.

You inadvertently proved Havana ah la la's point by giving an example of innate sex differences.

This^^^

Not to mention changing the distances between hurdles and the height of steeple barriers.

Change it all, or change none of it. Then, after you've changed them all, sit in a corner and wonder why there aren't many women who want to run collegiate cross country any longer.

women shouldn't run the same distance as men but they could make it more time oriented. 29 mins for winner = 29 minutes for winner. or close to it

Having it be the same distance is dumb. If that's the same distance then the they should use the same weight in shot put, disc and same hurdle size

how come people aren't upset those aren't equal? Because men and women's bodies are different. Get over it people we aren't the same. One isn't better than the other, they just are different