Why not 10K for NCAA ladies?

they should move up to 8k in my opinion-still gives the milers a chance to do well--it was 5k women's and 10k mens in Canada when I raced university, but I believe that they changed the women's to 8k a few years ago...it is a jump from 5k to 8k but then again there is another jump to 10k and that extra 2k would be a more of a handicap for the middle distance crowd--8k is a good compromise--if I was a woman racing X-C with more of an endurance background I would be kinda pissed at the present setup...

Some of you seem to dislike 6km because it's a non-standard distance. Ironically, you have no issue with nonsensical non-standard non-events like 1600 and 3200m. I have never participated in a race of either distance and am continually amazed that anyone would use a race effort on something non possible to set records in. Nor is it possible to compare one's performance to pros and record setters. If neither El G, D. Komen, G. Dibaba, nor even Mo has entered a race over either of these, you can rest assured you are wasting your time doing so!

Talk About Non-Standard wrote:

Some of you seem to dislike 6km because it's a non-standard distance.

No one is saying that.

This has been brought up many times at the coaches convention, and is always voted down. There is a higher injury rate on women's teams and adding to the race distance would exacerbate the problem. If the race distances are even, training volume would also have to be similar. If a women trains at the same mileage as a male, a ten-miler will require at least 10 additional minutes of running for the women. Over the course of a 4 week cycle, this would add up to a pretty significant amount, most likely resulting in more injuries. Also, 5K to 6K and 8K to 10K are comparable increases from a percentage prespective. The coaches have had the opportunity to change it but do not want to make a move.

otter wrote:

It's pretty clear that women can handle the increase of distance as well as the men from 5k to 8k and from 6k to 10k.

The distances are relics from a time when those who were deciding were ignorant.

It's not clear at all. The stragglers in a women's 10 km. that features not just the top runners but seven from every qualifying school are going to take forever to get in.

Secondly, you make a pretty big, probably incorrect assumption (ignorant people deciding not to bump up the race distance). I didn't mention it--someone else did--that a lot of these women don't have and can't handle the necessary training volume for a good 10 km. I can think of several examples from the (power conference, NCAA qualifying) women's team at the school where I competed on the men's side. The reality is that the training would sideline an awful lot of good women runners.

I really do respect the efforts of so many tough women runners, but real life is not GI Jane or the world of CGI. Also, as stated, the back end of the race would be just dragged out awful.

the 10k would be run at regionals and nats. At nats there would be no problem with stranglers. Regionals could add a few extra mins before starting the men's race or something. Usually the men race an hour after the women and its not like anyone would run slower than an hour for 10k.

good question wrote:

I'm sure there are a few ladies out there who think they are more likely to beat a 1500 specialist like Hull (Oregon) over 10K compared to 6K.

In general, I also think it should be 10K. Some might say it takes too long for the 5-7 runners to finish, but we can be patient. Plus, it would change how teams recruit XC ladies.

This begs an interesting question: Should sports be geared more towards the enjoyment of spectators, or the athletes?

Of course it should be 10k for both genders if it is for one, same as on the track.

However, it raises the question what distance best serves the development of American mid- and long-distance running.

6k creates an incentive for middle distance runners to do track. 10k (as a championship distance; it would be 8k until regionals) may decrease the # of mid-distance track runners getting the advantage of xc training because they or their coaches think the distance is too far. As for real long-distance types, it would be good if D1 brought in half marathon or marathon at some point in the year. That would help bring us up at least to Japan's level in depth and quality at those distances.

I spoke with Mike McGuire from Michigan about this years ago. While he knows that women are more than capable of running 10k XC, he likes the system the way ot is. His belief is that 800/1500 runners are much more likely to be competitive at 5/6k than they are at 8/10k. That's why you see a lot of the women he coaches on both their DMR and their top 7 in XC.

TAA wrote:

Do what World XC used to do. Have two championships. 4k short course & 12k long course

They should match NCAA to the World Championships and maybe we can do some better fostering of talent at the next level for that type/style of running.

I've talked to many about this over the years, and its seems pretty commonly agreed that an 8K race for ladies would probably not change the mix of athletes they are likely to recruit too much (% distance runners would stay about the same, put might give more weight to HS XC 5K times on particular courses). They thought switching to 8K would change the composition of workouts a bit, but it wouldn't be anything their top 7-10 runners couldn't handle (and would be designed so they could handle it). People seem to disagree for various reasons about whether it is a good or bad thing to make it less likely for 1500/800 specialists to finish top 10 - 20 at nationals.

However, 10K talk seems to garner a different reaction altogether - with bigger changes probably needed in recruiting and workouts/training/injuries, etc.

8K is the sweet spot.

troll under a bridge wrote:

theJeff wrote:

Make sports equal, if that is what women want.

10K XC

110m High Hurdles

Same size basketball

Same weight implements

Allow checking in hockey

...and so on...

I see your true colors shining through.

None of what you mentioned is relevant to the topic at hand.

If by "true colors" you mean "anti-female", you couldn't be more wrong.

If you mean "spotter of double standards", then I owe you my thanks.

And it is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the topic. Add 5-set tennis matches to the list, fyi.

MA Coach wrote:

This has been brought up many times at the coaches convention, and is always voted down. There is a higher injury rate on women's teams and adding to the race distance would exacerbate the problem. If the race distances are even, training volume would also have to be similar. If a women trains at the same mileage as a male, a ten-miler will require at least 10 additional minutes of running for the women. Over the course of a 4 week cycle, this would add up to a pretty significant amount, most likely resulting in more injuries. Also, 5K to 6K and 8K to 10K are comparable increases from a percentage prespective. The coaches have had the opportunity to change it but do not want to make a move.

If there is a higher injury rate for women's teams it may or may not be related directly to higher mileage... generalizations are nice but let's admit it's a guess at best.

Just like with guys... some are better at longer distances... some shorter... some can handle more mileage... some can't...

I ran with plenty of guys who couldn't handle 10k but crushed the 1500... it's okay to specialize. I also ran with plenty of guys who could handle both... it is what it is... most distance runners can't play basketball in college should we change the rules so that they can???

finally I honestly don't understand the concern with spectators... XC is not a revenue generating sport... never has been, never will be... people who spectate enjoy watching XC they'll hardly care if the race is 10 minutes longer...

Considering that 90% of them fall down a meter or two after they cross that 6K finish line I hardly think moving the distance up makes sense. Would there even by a single team with 5 finishers?

safety 1st. wrote:

Considering that 90% of them fall down a meter or two after they cross that 6K finish line I hardly think moving the distance up makes sense. Would there even by a single team with 5 finishers?

I'll just point out that, there are many races when almost all the guys fall down a meter or two after crossing a 1500m race - so your attempted post at either humor or condescension is too silly to warrant even a similarly snide response.

I repeat, 8K is the sweet spot.

paul72 wrote:

they should move up to 8k in my opinion-still gives the milers a chance to do well--it was 5k women's and 10k mens in Canada when I raced university, but I believe that they changed the women's to 8k a few years ago...it is a jump from 5k to 8k but then again there is another jump to 10k and that extra 2k would be a more of a handicap for the middle distance crowd--8k is a good compromise--if I was a woman racing X-C with more of an endurance background I would be kinda pissed at the present setup...

The Canadian university system (formerly CIS, now USPORT) moved up to 8km for the women's XC race last year at its championship meet. It didn't seem to hurt the numbers - there were slightly more athletes in the women's race than the men's. The champion team (Toronto) was mainly composed of 800-1500m specialists, so the extra distance didn't seem to hurt them.

Looking at a year-to-year comparison wouldn't be appropriate since the qualification system in Canada is more "self-elected." Schools choose if they want to pay for their whole team or certain individuals to travel/participate in the meet, meaning the location of the championship affects participation numbers. In 2017, the meet was hosted in Victoria, BC (all but 2 schools must fly there) whereas the previous year was in Guelph, ON (majority of schools can drive). Not sure on the numbers, but probably smaller fields in both races due to travel costs. This year the championships will be in Ontario again, so probably bigger fields.

I believe that this year the coaches' meeting will be deciding if we stay at 8k/10k or move towards equalization (8k/8k or 10k/10k). I am done competing, but I would have liked to race 8k or 10k XC as a university athlete - when I started it was 5k, then it got bumped to 6k part-way through my eligibility. During high school, I was definitely a distance-oriented athlete even though I didn't much mileage (40-50 mpw tops in grade 12, often much lower!). Some opponents of the move towards equalization seem to be concern trolling about the hazards of increased mileage that will be necessitated by 8k/10k XC, but forget that some people are really just better at those distances regardless of how they train (or that realistically, athletes training optimally for 5k or 10k run pretty similar mileage!).

as a mid distance guy i selfishly hope they just bring the men's down so its 8k/8k

TAA wrote:

Do what World XC used to do. Have two championships. 4k short course & 12k long course

Bastardized xc put another nail or two in the coffin for WXC.

my vote is 5k for men and women. I was a miler/800m guy naturally, but no matter how much mileage and how many tempo runs I did I could never manage to maintain pace the last mile in high school 5k. Then I got to college 8k/10k, I had finally figured out how to race a 5k without dying but then I struggled for 4 years trying to figure out how not to die the last 25% of an 8k. Got even worse during the 1-2 postseason 10ks.