Distance focused teams no longer work in Track and Field Championships

adsfasdfas wrote:

when was the last time someone won NCAA with throws? Imagine getting 60 points from the hammer, shot, discus and javelin. Would really mess up the TV broadcast:)

Winning track is about getting 2 big studs to get you 35+ points and then trying to find a way to scrounge up another 15. A lot of distance studs can't double (10k/5k is doable. Things with the 1500/Steeple are much harder). Most of the sprints are pretty doable.

I think in 2007 or 08 Arizona State won the title with mainly the field events. I think Hastings won the 10k and the rest of the points came from the field.

" no longer work"

That implies that distance focused teams used to work in track and field championships.

When was that and why?

Wisconsin finished four at indoor this year. I believe their only points were in distance and multi-events. I believe that was the same formula they used in their 2007 championship as well, although they may have also had a hurdler then.

Oregon won three straight indoor championships in 2014, 2015, and 2016 with a distance heavy squad.

Those are all relatively recent.

I would agree that distance heavy is a harder path, but it can certainly be done.

And sprint focused teams don’t work at cross country championships. Training environment is a big deal and the Colorado’s and BYUs aren’t going to have elite sprinters.

John McDonnell would disagree. Also got those MID D guys to run well in fall.

Toughchew wrote:

Change my mind

This is implying that teams like NAU, BYU, and Colorado are recruiting with the goal to win/podium at NCAA indoors/outdoors. That's simply not the case for those schools. Although BYU had a shot to get onto the podium with all their qualifiers this year, that was never that realistic. Obviously, they want to have great individual performances from their athletes on the track but the team focus remains in cross. These schools seek to perform well at the conference level as a track program, but NCAA's is just a bonus.

You could still do it, but you'd need a few heavy hitters like Oregon had a few years back with Ches, Jenkins, Fleet, etc. and that's hard to do these days with how deep the NCAA is.

Teams like Arkansas and UTEP had good runs with primarily distance runners a while back.

What does it take to win NCAAs? 60 points? You can get there by dominating 3 events. I'm pretty sure that 2000 Stanford team would do well in any era. But it's hard to be that dominant. Didn't 3 of them go on to make the Olympics later that summer?

Wait...is somebody actually keeping track of team scores in Track & Field? That's hilarious.

Distance teams have never worked in Track and Field Championships. Even when Oregon had Rupp and Centro they won their national titles because of the sprinters, multis, and field events.

Find me a team that won a national title with ONLY distance athletes scoring to change my mind.

On the other hand, I can find you a few dozen teams who won national titles with ZERO distance runners.

There is a whole sport dedicated distance running called Cross Country. I think that alone makes up for the fact that it’s an easier path to win NCAA Track with a sprint focused team.

Plus, the real key is to have a handful of top finishes In multiple events. If you have 2 people finish 1/2 in two events, that’s 36 points, which by themselves is typically good enough for a top 5-6 team finish. Through them in a top relay team and you’re contending for a National Championship. Another way to look at it - in 2012, Cam Levins won the 5/10 double and those 20 points he earned alone propelled Southern Utah to 11th place!! SUU was almost a “Top 10 Team” with one dude!

steeplebeast wrote:

adsfasdfas wrote:

when was the last time someone won NCAA with throws? Imagine getting 60 points from the hammer, shot, discus and javelin. Would really mess up the TV broadcast:)

Winning track is about getting 2 big studs to get you 35+ points and then trying to find a way to scrounge up another 15. A lot of distance studs can't double (10k/5k is doable. Things with the 1500/Steeple are much harder). Most of the sprints are pretty doable.

I think in 2007 or 08 Arizona State won the title with mainly the field events. I think Hastings won the 10k and the rest of the points came from the field.

Don't follow the woman that closer but it looks like she was 4th, a hurdler was 6,4x4 was like 8th and the had a hept,PV and a couple of shot putters, and some discus and HT to rack up the other 50 or so points. That is some pretty bad TV:) I am guessing the field events aren't a very viable way of going since you need a lot more good event coaches.

I

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Distance teams have never worked in Track and Field Championships. Even when Oregon had Rupp and Centro they won their national titles because of the sprinters, multis, and field events.

Find me a team that won a national title with ONLY distance athletes scoring to change my mind.

On the other hand, I can find you a few dozen teams who won national titles with ZERO distance runners.

If you aren't specifying NCAA D1

Eye roll... NAIA racewalk, marathon, 4x8?

UTEP won plenty of NCAA Indoor and Outdoor Track titles on the strength of their distance runners (and not all were over-the Africans). As the late, great Coach Ted Banks said, "with distance guys, I feel like I get more 'bang for my buck.'" (His Cross Country guys ran every track distance from 800 up).

John McDonnell had a simple, points focused formula. Get great, tough milers who could run anything from 800 to 10K and could double at both conference and NCAA. Notice I said double - points. He also had Dick Booth coaching the horizontal jumpers (who have speed and can sprint). Again, doubling or even tripling. Yes they had other good sprinters, high jumpers and vaulters, but this was the bread and butter.

Its amazing to me how many of his milers were top 10 in XC year in and year out.

Its all about the points.

Ya when was that? 1930? Buck doesn’t go as far know a days

Stanford won in 2000 with 72 points over Arkansas (59). Stanford scored 64 points in the 800, 1500, 5k, and 10k. They picked up the other 8 in the PV. I think they only had 5 points in the 800 so they would have tied for first with the 15, 5, and 10 alone.

Wonder if it might at least give distance a chance at being a more significant or at least equal contributor for some championship teams if they moved the schedule back so both genders raced all 4 days so there could be more chance of quality double performances. In that case, the mid distance/ distance schedule could be something like:

Day 1 - 1500M prelims, steeple prelims, 10000M finals

Day 2 - 800 prelims

Day 3 - 1500M finals, Steeple finals

Day 4 - 800M finals, 5000M finals

That would at least give some runners a better chance to try and maybe score more points by doubling in a few more cases

* The 10K-5K doublers would have one more day break between races;

* 1500M-800M doublers would only have race per day and

* Steeplers or 1500M runners who also want to try the 5K would at least have one day between finals.