Official 2018 NCAA D1 Regional Discussion - Talk about the big surprises, positive or negative here

Here is Day 2 results, by the way.

vivalarepublica wrote:

Here is Day 2 results, by the way.

Oops, Day 2 West results.

I was going to highlight this result. Rai Benjamin with 4th fastest in season 400m hurdles of all time. I think.

Lynna Irby also ran a 50.44 in the 400m. Looking forward to a battle with Kendall Ellis at the champs. Although I think Ellis will win easily.

Also surprised to see that McLaughlin is not doing the 200m. Maybe that was an indoor flirtation or the schedule does not allow a 400H/200m double. Probably the schedule, the 200m was right after the 400H.

Johnny daniels wrote:

People are more impressed with men who have been AA in XC and 800 because:

1) men’s XC is 10k, not 6k and

2) men’s 800 is shorter (time-wise)

The “range” between the two efforts is significantly greater for men, both because one race is 4k longer and because the men’s 800 is a more anaerobic event than the women’s

Plus men's events are far more competitive in terms of depth, both cross and track.

1. This is the only argument that even remotely makes the most marginal bit of sense, but the question was whether or not there had been AA in the 800 and XC, not whether or not 800m-10k range = 800m-6k range. The range required to make that status across 800m AND across 6k is still impressive and noteworthy. The reason that the original poster did not stop to consider female athletes is the same reason that everyone lost their minds about UMBC being the first 16-seed to knock off a no.1 seed in March Madness: women's achievements often go unnoticed, unreported, and quickly forgotten (which I realize is an unpopular stance to take among LR posters).

2. Top men's times in the 800 are faster than top women's times in the 800 because top men's times, across the board, are faster than top women's times. Your fastest 800m is not more anaerobic. It's just faster because it's a top men's time. Are you suggesting that if women could just race more anaerobically they would equal top men's times in the 800? Man, someone should let them know!

3. This is asinine and only a misogynistic basement dweller would suggest that men's events are any more competitive than women's. If you wanna get back to me with a thorough, data-driven, analysis of the depth of competition across multiple events in both men's and women's fields, provide the formulas you use, and demonstrate how you've arrived at this conclusion, let me know. But this kind of blanket generalization is symptomatic of the same kind of perviasive sexism in sports that continutes to place women's sports on a tier below men's sports.

Sabrina Southerland, Georgetown grad and now running as a grad student at Oregon, ran down UNLV superfrosh, Wilson-Perteete, in the 3rd heat of the 800m to set a new collegiate season best.

1 Sabrina SOUTHERLAND SR Oregon 2:00.72 Q 3 (1) PB

2 Avi' Tal WILSON-PERTEETE FR UNLV 2:01.14 Q 3 (2) PB

Woah, I am a big supporter of women's sports but I think you're way overreacting here. You seem to be taking the discussion very personally as some attack on women's sports when it doesn't have to be.

For 2, I'd agree that 1:48 and a 2:03 800m have a bit different aerobic-anaerobic components -- regardless of gender. So I would agree that at high level competition, women's 800m is a bit more aerobic than men's.

For 3, I've been following ncaa d1 xc for a long time and I actually do tend to agree that depth is higher on the men's side. That's not a value judgement on one being better than the other. I've looked historically at markers like difference in race pace between 10th place and 100th at D1 XC nats, and men's tends to be noticeably smaller.

Look at the steeple qualifiers for the regional meet for the two genders. Top men were right under 8:40 and slowest guy was 8:57. Roughly 20 sec difference. On the women’s side, Ally had the top time with 9:38 and the last time in was 10:32.... almost a full minute difference. Oh. There were a ton of sub 10:10 girls qualifying in too.

Women’s 5k. You have about 20 girls Sub 16:00 with it going as fast as 15:20, but you also got 16:20-High girls making it in. Conversely with men, you got a 13:21 as the top time and 14:05ish making it in. Big gap on both sides but larger on the women. That’s a marquee event too.

You see the same thing for the 800, 1500, and even worse for the 10k. Women seem to have a lot more depth in the sprints compared to the distance events but it’s hard to dispute that the disparity between top level athletes and those who barely qualify into regionals isn’t there. Only reason I see is just a lack of depth. It’s not being sexist, we just have to do a better job of promoting the sport or developing women besides the top athletes (who are very good).

Why is Holloway not in the 110H quarterfinals? Is he injured?

The gvyggyggy wrote:

Why is Holloway not in the 110H quarterfinals? Is he injured?

Look again, he qualified 2nd overall.

ASU's Maggie Ewen scratches on all 3 of her hammer throws, so she won't be able to go for the triple at the Championships. (She set the collegiate record in the event last month.)

So we had to have countless hours of competition to determine the field for Eugene. And the National Collegiate Record holder gets left out from her signature event. Where is the logic in that??? The NCAA finals SHOULD have the best that the collegiate has to offer. Yes, she didn't get the job done on this particular day. There should be some kind of "wild card" entry for situations like this. Its not like she hasn't performed to a high standard for the entire season. Finally, why are we subjecting our young stars to what should be a meaningless meet for them. Just another chance for them to get injured, which could impact their long term performances.

Bonus Jack wrote:

So we had to have countless hours of competition to determine the field for Eugene. And the National Collegiate Record holder gets left out from her signature event. Where is the logic in that??? The NCAA finals SHOULD have the best that the collegiate has to offer. Yes, she didn't get the job done on this particular day. There should be some kind of "wild card" entry for situations like this. Its not like she hasn't performed to a high standard for the entire season. Finally, why are we subjecting our young stars to what should be a meaningless meet for them. Just another chance for them to get injured, which could impact their long term performances.

The fact they don't have auto qualifiers for the top performers during the regular season is just stupid. Auto qualify a certain amount, fill out the rest of the field from the Regional meets. They've created a system that could punish the best performers.

I don't see what's so bad about making athletes compete to qualify. They'll have to do the same thing at the next level with USAs and Worlds/Olympics.

To add to this: What you seem to be missing is the fact that this is not two separate meets. The First Round of the NCAAs is happening now, at two different sites (no different than most NCAA sports) and they will advance to the finals in Eugene. She did not perform well AT the NCAA Championships (happening now).

comPETE wrote:

I don't see what's so bad about making athletes compete to qualify. They'll have to do the same thing at the next level with USAs and Worlds/Olympics.

Where can I wAtch ..?

Sareel out in the 1500 , kerr, prakel through easy ~3:42

hull looked like she miscounted laps in 1500 ran 63 third lap...

rainsberger out