Change my mind
Change my mind
Distance focused teams score better across Cross Country, Indoor, and Outdoor Track.
Toughchew wrote:
Change my mind
Not when they don't score.
Toughchew wrote:
Change my mind
Scoring hasn't changed.
If said distance runners score points it works. If not, it doesn't work. Rule of thumb....don't be DFL, DFL-1 and DFL-2 in the distance races.
Then why do power speed teams dominate in today’s world? And nobody said Anything about Xc. Distance based teams will lose out in track. And I don’t blame the evens but leadership.
Toughchew wrote:
Change my mind
Water is wet. I don’t know anyone who will disagree with that.
Distance running is one of the most volatile sports there is. It doesn’t matter how good of a runner you are, it’s impossible to predict the places of the runners in the 5k final save for Morgan and Grant being near the top. Why bank on events that have so much room for error/ unforeseen events? Makes it good for the spectator, but terrible from a point scoring perspective
Generally sprint based teams are better at scoring points. You have the 100, 200, 400, the 4X100 and 4X400, 110 hurdles and 400 hurdles, plus the LJ where a fair amount of speed is needed.
Sprint is Where it's at. wrote:
Generally sprint based teams are better at scoring points. You have the 100, 200, 400, the 4X100 and 4X400, 110 hurdles and 400 hurdles, plus the LJ where a fair amount of speed is needed.
There’s as many distance races as well but here’s the kicker... a dominate distance Athlete is only good for 1 event... maybe two but they will still opt to only compete in 1 as distance finals are more taxing as you will see event a dominate athletes bonk. Look at the guy who won the 10k where was he in the 5k.
Second a distance athlete can’t help you on a relay. Also they can’t transfer into other disciplines like a sprinter can also do jumps. Mid distance athletes can run 4x4 but it’s not often they will be on an NCAA scoring 4x4 and if they are they have to be an exceptional leg.
Lastly, distance running is more developmental, so you have to train 10 athletes to get 1-2 to excel so unless you have 30 of them to train then it’s not gonna happen. You can recruit 3-5 sprinters and get them all to a national level if they all can stay healthy, law of averages works in favor of the sprinter, who can run multiple events at one championships.
So to invest in Mostly distance is a head coaches worse mistake and just shows they don’t want to compete for a team title, just want to look good as a distance group or do well in just XC.
Is there really that much of a choice available? The best sprinters aren't going to go to BYU or Wisconsin and distance runners aren't going to run for Texas A&M or USC.
I consider T&F to be an individual sport and don't care at all about who wins the team title at the NCAA's.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Is there really that much of a choice available? The best sprinters aren't going to go to BYU or Wisconsin and distance runners aren't going to run for Texas A&M or USC.
I consider T&F to be an individual sport and don't care at all about who wins the team title at the NCAA's.
Why not invest in field points then? That seems to do well
Toughchew wrote:
Change my mind
Going to agree with you. If I was a coach at a school who is trying to win track and field in today’s climate against the current teams I would probably go the Georgia route actually. I would go super heavy into field and then supplement it with probably hurdlers. Did you see the 100m semis!? Stupid how good it is. I mean Grant Holloway makes tough too. But a good hurdler out of HS has a better chance of transitioning into a long/triple jumper. They can probably run a good 4x400. Might be fast enough for the 4x100. Hurdles are more of a speciality event and less glamorous. Just go super big in the speciality events. Javelin, hammer, high jump, triple jump, hurdles. Then maybe try to find a stud flat sprinter or two. Maybe a good mid-d guy. Maybe a European/Kenyan ringer in the distances.
That could work really well. It’s useless to go all sprints and fight it with established powers. It’s useless going all distance with how volatile the results can be. Go heavy where less people go heavy in.
Cross-Coutnry has its own championship and is all distance runners. That’s where they get to shine. They get their time in the spotlight.
Expanding wrote:
Sprint is Where it's at. wrote:
Generally sprint based teams are better at scoring points. You have the 100, 200, 400, the 4X100 and 4X400, 110 hurdles and 400 hurdles, plus the LJ where a fair amount of speed is needed.
There’s as many distance races as well but here’s the kicker... a dominate distance Athlete is only good for 1 event... maybe two but they will still opt to only compete in 1 as distance finals are more taxing as you will see event a dominate athletes bonk. Look at the guy who won the 10k where was he in the 5k.
Exactly! It's much harder to double or triple in the distance events then it is to double or triple in the sprint events. Many sprinters can easily do the 100, 200, 4X100, and LJ at a conference meet or other big meet. Distance runners not so well.
If you have a good cross country team you should have around 14 qualifiers spread out across 1500(possibly 1500/800 double, 3ksc, 5k, 10k
Anyone want to count up each event group qualifier and scorer for the top teams.
Has a distance focused team ever won NCAAs? Even winning teams like Oregon were getting big contributions in the sprints and field events so they certainly weren’t “distance only”.
For the Men's teams I'll take Texas Tech. You can have both BYU AND NAU.
Stanford, Utep, Arkansas
MindChanger wrote:
If you have a good cross country team you should have around 14 qualifiers spread out across 1500(possibly 1500/800 double, 3ksc, 5k, 10k
14 NCAA qualifiers in MD and LD events in the same year?! You have to be joking, when has that ever happened? Hardly a model you can expect to reliably build.
Wut TF wrote:
MindChanger wrote:
If you have a good cross country team you should have around 14 qualifiers spread out across 1500(possibly 1500/800 double, 3ksc, 5k, 10k
14 NCAA qualifiers in MD and LD events in the same year?! You have to be joking, when has that ever happened? Hardly a model you can expect to reliably build.
If you’re good enough you should have someone in every event. Get higher standards if you think that’s impossible.
Iween wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Is there really that much of a choice available? The best sprinters aren't going to go to BYU or Wisconsin and distance runners aren't going to run for Texas A&M or USC.
I consider T&F to be an individual sport and don't care at all about who wins the team title at the NCAA's.
Why not invest in field points then? That seems to do well
Wouldn't field guys usually be specialists and they won't run XC.