Colorado School of Mines @ D2 Nats

RMAC fan wrote:

the 5k runners won't be able to compete.

Also, see Gidabuday, Sydney and Ngandu, James

It cracks me up to see all of these cry babies whining about altitude conversions, especially about the Mines track, which is nothing to envy (and no, I did not go to Mines, but I ran there enough times to know it is not a fast track due to the tight turns). When I was in college we would relish the chance to run at low altitude because it meant a better chance to run a qualifier (yes, even for altitude born/trained runners it is easier to hit a mark at sea level than it is at altitude). Want proof? Compare the times run by Gidabuday and Konieczek at altitude and at sea level. Their converted marks are typically slower than their all out marks at sea level (oh yeah, and by the way, they destroyed everyone at nationals in their respective events). As far as the mile is concerned, it was an extremely tactical race. Tactical races and time trials can have completely different end results depending on a person's top end speed.

Predictor wrote:

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.

What evidence do you have to support your claim to cut them in half? Gidabuday 8:41.35 at Western, 8:28.82 at Mines, 7:59.81 at Husky. Konieczek 10:34.48 at Western, 10:01.70 at Mines, 9:22.52 at Husky. Tell me which is the fastest converted time? I'll help you out, it isn't Mines and it isn't Western.

Want some further proof on the lack of benefit from running on the mines track? Cross reference mile times from Mines against times run at sea level.

Thomas Staines CSU-P 1:55.91 @ mines vs. 1:47.82 @ nationals at 800 meters. 4:18.40 @ mines vs. 4:05.85 @ GVSU.

Idiots.

Read my entire statement. I don't disagree with the accuracy of the conversions. I don't support them in their entirety though because they attempt to put runners on a level field. I only support 1/2 because it gives a significant advantage to the runner who actually ran the time. We probably should adjust the outdoor time run at Drake because it is 40 degrees and windy every year. We should adjust the times run in Atlanta to take the humidity into account. We don't count the converted times as records but that is probably what some will advocate for in he future.

You sound more and more like a moron every time you post. It is windy everywhere, it rains everywhere. Indoors it is 68 degrees and no wind pretty much everywhere. What is your science behind 1/2? There is none. There is science behind the NCAA conversions and they tend to be conservative as the athletes typically outperform the conversion when given the chance to run a fast race at low altitude (if you don't believe me simply cross reference performance times from the Stanford meets for athletes from the mountain states). If they are not going to have adjustments or only a 1/2 adjustment, then nobody would run meets at altitude, which would destroy the sport financially for schools in the mountain region. Your premise is absurd sir.

D2 attendant wrote:

So Mines was ranked in the top 3 all year long, and was #1 for a good portion of the year, relying heavily on distance . Pretty much all of their runners qualified on their home track which gets an altitude conversion and a huge undersized track conversion.

Mines finished 11th and had several runners that had no business being in the meet. Apart from a decent showing in the 5k, their mile and 3k runners ran terribly.

Something about that track needs to be done, either ban the track or change the conversion. I feel bad for guys like Dustin Nading, who was the indoor mile champ who just missed out on qualifying in the 3k, because of some bullshit mines conversions and then are out the back at the national meet.

The person you are using as an example would have had to have surpassed about six runners, not 2 or 3 to qualify for the 3k. Your argument has little merit. The Mines athletic program as a whole receives little funding, so it is no surprise they travel so little (part of this is also due to the academic rigor of their institution). If you think the Mines track has such a huge advantage, then maybe you should ask your coach to schedule a race there (I hated running there and I live at altitude). Teams target fast tracks all the time (thus the popularity of meets like Husky, etc.). You might be surprised what you are getting yourself into, as it is no distance running paradise. It doesn't even get a mention in this thread:

But I guess you know better.

Okay guys... most of you are making examples of the national champions who rarely need to compete to their highest level to make nationals. They are the exception. There are always exceptions to the rule. We are talking about the rest of the guys.

joedirt wrote:

Predictor wrote:

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.

What evidence do you have to support your claim to cut them in half? Gidabuday 8:41.35 at Western, 8:28.82 at Mines, 7:59.81 at Husky. Konieczek 10:34.48 at Western, 10:01.70 at Mines, 9:22.52 at Husky. Tell me which is the fastest converted time? I'll help you out, it isn't Mines and it isn't Western.

My god, Joe, you're right! The conversions clearly aren't generous enough. Need 40-60s minimum for that 3k conversion.

I am arguing that the conversions are necessary and tend to err on the side of caution. You are arguing that the conversions are too generous and yet you give no evidence to the contrary. Again, if you think there is such a competitive advantage to be gained running there, then you should schedule to race there. Otherwise, shut up.

I've run at 5000 ft, and you are absolutely right. You can't give enough leeway to altitude performances. God I can't even imagine what 7000 ft must be like. Just let anyone who finishes a race that high up into nattys and let's end this conversation.

Yea sure take all the sea level kids to altitude. They should be able to race as well as adjusted altitude kids. Your arguement has just as much merit

It's a two way street. If one works, then the other works just as well. I have seen plenty of low altitude runners win their races at Air Force Academy. Of course according to your logic, they should be able to run the same time as they would at low altitude, that is why there should be no conversions.

Personal info here - these follow reasonably close to conversions.

2014

Altitude - 38:06 (just 3-4 weeks acclimation)

Sea level - 36:35

2015

Altitude - 37:55

Sea level - 36:50

2017

Altitude - 36:54

Sea level - 35:43

The team rankings are an absolute joke since only 8 score at nationals and its really just an individual meet. Mines was super deep this year, and the conversions for short track, flat track, and altitude used to be too little, and now they have swung to too much. The conversions at Western State and Adams are even more ridiculous. Mines track has extremely tight, flat turns making it challenging, just look at what Patrick Weaver and Thomas Staines ran on it in the 800!

Mines actually did very well at nationals considering that their distance runners had almost 0 experience. I'm not sure even one of them had made an All-American on the track minus their 800 runner Weaver. Their 3k guys were tired from the 5k, and their top miler was injured. That being said, Mines' has had some stellar runner in years past in the 800-5k, and it is disappointing that a team as deep as them cannot get someone at least in the hunt for a national title/top 4. And for Nading, if you can't manage a sub 8:10 3k on U Wash's track, then you shouldn't be in the 3k period!

I agree completely. Looking specifically at the 5k the only real talent there was Colligan who finished 5th in cross country and should have been competing for a title. The 5k was a strong event as it featured 3 of the top 6 from cross country, Sydney, and Chris May from GVSU. Then throw in the veteran Ried who qualified in every event from the mile up including the DMR there wasn't many spots for the other mines athletes to fill. I would say Colligan had a bad race and the other Mines athletes picked up the slack.

I'll chime in on a few things as a Mines alum and supporter:

-Yes the team underperformed. It was pretty depressing on the whole, but it wasn't limited to distance runners. We had "no heights" from athletes who could have scored in the Hep and the Pole Vault. Those points have nothing to do with training distance runners or conversions. Don't take this as an excuse, but its a factor in the team placing 11th that cant be ignored in this discussion even if it doesnt further the argument of the OP.

-In spite of the #1 ranking, the general feeling I got from other alumni was to hope for a trophy, not a title. If our number one ranking was composed of more 8-10 point scorers that would have felt different than banking on a relay and a lot of 1, 2, 3, point scorers. Seems there is much more room for error banking on putting a bunch of guys in the 5-8 spots in distance races than if you can count on guys like Gidabuday or Ngandu to land you 15-20 points each. I think the rankings overvalued Mines depth, and I would have said that before the meet as well.

-The bigger factor though was that most of the qualifying times were run in December not February and Mines runners moved down the performance list as the season went on. I was worried about that general trend before the meet and it seemed to play out as I had feared. Maybe some guys were a bit fitter after cross when they ran their qualifiers, and that also wouldnt be a reflection of the track or altitude conversions.

-As for altitude conversions, I think they reflect a good balance of sea level and altitude trained athletes. They're generous for altitude trained runners and conservative for sea level trained runners. I remember once being lapped in a 10k by a sea level runner at Kansas relays, only to lap him 3 weeks later in Gunnison. My conversion was far too generous, his was not nearly generous enough. Does this create an opportunity for altitude trained athletes? Absolutely, but Im not sure that justifies removing it entirely. That would put underfunded programs at altitude (Mines, Western, Metro, UCCS) at a major disadvantage. And if anyone really thinks they're unfair I'm sure coach Sparks would be happy to host anyone at one of the four or so meets the team hosts per year, then you can take advantage of them yourself. Denver is cheap to fly into and Golden has cheap hotels.

-Regarding the track conversion, I think the conversion should be based on the radius of the turns not the length of the track. And that goes to what others have said about racing in Steinhauer, those turns are really tight. In spite of being 193m when I raced, I felt the 170m track at Chadron had easier turns. Now with the fourth lane on the inside those turns are even worse.

Overall, it was a disappointing weekend for sure, but I'm thrilled at the direction this program is going. No one could have convinced me 15 years ago that this team would be ranked first in track, have crushed the RMAC meet and have an XC title to its name. I'm proud of the team and Matt and Chris have my full support.

I think this was the most accurate post thus far.

BouldeRunner wrote:

My conversion was far too generous, his was not nearly generous enough.

See the thing is, NCAAs is held at sea level. Advantage high-altitude guys.