Colorado School of Mines @ D2 Nats

Isn't their track a creative undersized 197 meters? I assume that gets it the same conversion as a 160 meter track.

This happens every year...... I heard the NCAA was going to adjust the alt conversions but I don’t know if that is true.

Not sure how the coaches or athletes feel good about ‘back dooring’ their way into NCAAs

D2 attendant wrote:

or change the conversion.

Bingo. I've been saying for years the conversions are far too generous.

Anyone complaining about the conversion for the Mines track needs to try running on it first. It is a piece of crap. Although the surface is decent, the corners are the tightest you will ever run on. Couple that with the altitude and the dry air and you have one of the worst venues around. It's much better to run at CU or Air Force. Other than the 60, there is no advantage to running on the Mines track as the turns are too tight. Their runners probably ran poorly at nationals is because of their training leading into the meet or the fact that unlike the rest of the D2 schools, their students actually have to go to class and work hard (Adams, Western, etc. are not exactly the Ivy leagues).

joedirt wrote:

Anyone complaining about the conversion for the Mines track needs to try running on it first. It is a piece of crap. Although the surface is decent, the corners are the tightest you will ever run on. Couple that with the altitude and the dry air and you have one of the worst venues around. It's much better to run at CU or Air Force. Other than the 60, there is no advantage to running on the Mines track as the turns are too tight. Their runners probably ran poorly at nationals is because of their training leading into the meet or the fact that unlike the rest of the D2 schools, their students actually have to go to class and work hard (Adams, Western, etc. are not exactly the Ivy leagues).

Nice dig at Western and Adams. Jealous much? Mines' academics doesn't seem to bother them much in the fall, where they regularly run very well at nationals. I have the utmost respect for Mines, tough academic and tough runners, but don't make excuses for a less than stellar meet.

+1

I like Mines as well, but if none of their runners competed well at nats, it points to flawed conversions more than anything else. They know how to race when it counts. It should be assumed they raced to their ability here.

Yes I’ve seen the mines track. The turns are awful. But why do the Mines runners run like poop every time they aren’t on their home track... find me one race where one of their guys didn’t under perform on a different track. (Look at Boulder, GVSU, nationals)

It's a 190 meter 4 lane track. Before it was resurfaced it was a 193m 3 lane track. Before that it was a 178m banked dirt track. There is nothing creative about its sizing, the track spans from wall to wall to wall to wall.

What you dont think guys who have Prs of 14:36/8:35/4:39; 14:46/8:41; 15:02/8:40 shouldnt be at the national meet? Seems fair to me ROFL

It’s really not an altitude thing. Everyone reacts differently to altitude. Some people get too big of a conversion while some probably don’t get enough of one. It’s a Mines thing about how they choke every national meet.

If you look at the results the Mines 5k guys actually had a good meet they went 5-7-8-9. Which doesn't seem that great but looking at the results from the last 5 years no one has had more than two all americans in a single 5k before. Mines was one spot away from having 4. The 3k wasn't a great showing but the two guys racing were also in the 5k so a fast 3k probably wasn't in their favor. As for the mile besides the freshman who came in ninth the other two guys both seemed to be hurt and just in the meet to try and take spots, one of them was in a boot the next day at the meet.

Well when Mines has 6 of the 19 spots... and 13 of the 19 spots are altitude guys, of course its likely 3 of them will be all american when people typically bomb at the national meet

D2 Attendant wrote:

It’s really not an altitude thing. Everyone reacts differently to altitude. Some people get too big of a conversion while some probably don’t get enough of one. It’s a Mines thing about how they choke every national meet.

All true except the last part.

The most fair thing is to do away with altitude conversions. You want to compete at NCAAs? Hit the times like everyone else. Certainly for D1 and D2. D3 and below might keep it due to limited travel budgets, but make the conversions less generous.

If it isn't the track as some of the school supporters here seem to defend, then were they just poorly coached headed into the national meet? It has to be one or the other.

In my opinion the short track conversion is too generous for the 5k. Less so for the 3k, less so for the mile, etc. I also think the altitude conversion is too generous for people living at altitude, especially those born and raised there. The conversions are accurate for a sea level runner coming up to altitude, and all are welcome to travel to altitude and try. Racing at altitude is a different ball game.

Removing altitude conversions entirely would put any altitude located school at a huge disadvantage. Most D2 budgets only allow for a few athletes to travel once for indoor. That would mean qualifying would be one and done. No second chances, no bad luck. Throw in the fact that many runners qualify for multiple events and it makes it even less plausible.

More so, I think it was a botched training thing for nationals this year. Didn't most of the 5k guys run their qualifiers in December (Mines and others)? Clearly something needed to be improved between December to March for those Mines milers and 3k guys.

no creativity wrote:

Removing altitude conversions entirely would put any altitude located school at a huge disadvantage. Most D2 budgets only allow for a few athletes to travel once for indoor. That would mean qualifying would be one and done. No second chances, no bad luck. Throw in the fact that many runners qualify for multiple events and it makes it even less plausible.

This^. Good post.

I don't disagree with the accuracy of the conversions but I still don't fully support them. I would like to see the NCAA cut them in half. I feel the same way about running in a windy outdoor meet. They don't get converted but I could support a slight adjustment for national qualifying.

The milers and 5k/3k guys are two different groups. Saying the mines guys did poorly in the 3k is tough because they had to also race the 5k the night before they ended up beating GVSU's Panning in the 3k who was 2nd in cross country this year. The mines guys didn't really underperform the 3k was stacked and combined with going against fresh guys or those who had only run the DMR the 5k runners won't be able to compete.

I think it’s because most of the Mines kids are born and raised in Colorado so they’re really comfortable at altitude but can’t handle the pace at sea level (this isn’t true for everyone, but a lot of altitude kids). A lot of Adams kids that are from sea level then go to Adams do really well. ( Sydney gidubuday, George Kelly, Flanagan sisters), same with the western sisters.

To say they didn’t under perform is a lie. They were 11th at the meet