What is more impressive: Qualifying for the Olympic Marathon Trials or D1 NCAA XC Nationals?

The achievements are comparable. The more talented runner is more likely to qualify for XCountry Nationals but the more persistent runner can get into the Marathon Trials. Most runners who qualify for X Country Nationals probably do not continue competing for very long post collegiately and if you graduate in an Olympic year, for example, it is 4 more years and that is longer than most will persist.

OTQis harder.

You most likely are training g post college and either working st the same time, or not working and not making money to achieve this goal. Not to mention training with a post college club/coach or on your own. College runners have more resources and a better team atmosphere.

A lot of college runners don’t have to worry about anything g but running and school.

As someone who has run in the OT Marathon I would say qualifying for NCAA D1 XC Nationals is much more impressive.

NCAA qualifying is more impressive. Pretty much anyone who qualifies for NCAA can get the OTQ with a few tweaks to their training. I know many fellas who got the OTQ who never qualified to NCAA.

Hay Sucks wrote:

NCAA qualifying is more impressive. Pretty much anyone who qualifies for NCAA can get the OTQ with a few tweaks to their training. I know many fellas who got the OTQ who never qualified to NCAA.

Tulane made it to the NCAA'S in the late 1990s, and they made if off of a few fast guys and a few nobodys. This happens often. Let's say an individual qualifies because his team qualified? They might have some horses up front, then maybe a straggler on the back end, and maybe a few of them, so basically you can have a couple of fast Kenyans and few average guys, then a nobody or two. There was a local guy in New Orleans who ran 16 minute 5K's in the early 2000's, and brags like he made the NCAA meet and he is all that, but he can't even sniff the Olympic Trials. He was just part of that team, there's no way in hell he would make it as an individual.

Hay Sucks wrote:

NCAA qualifying is more impressive. Pretty much anyone who qualifies for NCAA can get the OTQ with a few tweaks to their training. I know many fellas who got the OTQ who never qualified to NCAA.

You must be on crack! Go to a local restaurant and tell them you qualified for the Olympic Trials and they'll think you're a freaking hero, but tell them you qualified for the NCAA Meet and they could care less. This is just reality.Tell your grandkids one day that you made it to the Olympic trials, and they'll be like wow, but tell him he made the NCAA meet and they will be like, ok. Actually, some dumb non-runners think the Olympic Trials is actually the Olympics. They'll look at you like you're crazy if you say the NCAA D1 Cross Country Meet.

The rest of the world wrote:

Hay Sucks wrote:

NCAA qualifying is more impressive. Pretty much anyone who qualifies for NCAA can get the OTQ with a few tweaks to their training. I know many fellas who got the OTQ who never qualified to NCAA.

You must be on crack! Go to a local restaurant and tell them you qualified for the Olympic Trials and they'll think you're a freaking hero, but tell them you qualified for the NCAA Meet and they could care less. This is just reality.Tell your grandkids one day that you made it to the Olympic trials, and they'll be like wow, but tell him he made the NCAA meet and they will be like, ok. Actually, some dumb non-runners think the Olympic Trials is actually the Olympics. They'll look at you like you're crazy if you say the NCAA D1 Cross Country Meet.

The people in that local restaurant’s follow up question: “so, does that mean you have also qualified for and run in the Boston marathon?”

It didn't take long to figure out that every year there are lots of 31 and 32 minute runners in NCAAs. OT marathon qualifiers are easily at least that good.

stupid question wrote:

It didn't take long to figure out that every year there are lots of 31 and 32 minute runners in NCAAs. OT marathon qualifiers are easily at least that good.

Even 33 minutes and a few 34 minute guys.

stupid question wrote:

It didn't take long to figure out that every year there are lots of 31 and 32 minute runners in NCAAs. OT marathon qualifiers are easily at least that good.

I guess you missed the clause in the Original Post that stated that Runner A (NCAA Qualifier) had a "respectable finish, somewhere in the middle of the pack"...

So the comparison is trying to weed out those NCAA qualifiers who got in solely based on the merit of a steller top 2-3 guys on their team. The comparison is a legitimate NCAA Qualifier vs. a legitimate OT Qualifier.

Both are impressive. Both are hard. I think qualifying for the NCAA Championships is way harder, given that there is a limited window in which you can do it (your 4-5 years of collegiate eligibility), and you have to earn it strictly through beating the best of the best.

The trials standard (although only available once every 4 years), can be shot for at any point in your life. You can struggle with injuries for years, spend years rebuilding, and then even more years training towards it. If you lose a year during college from injury, your chances at an NCAA Championship Race just vastly diminished.

To make it to the NCAA Championships, you have to win, or at least place highly at a series of races. You can't crap the bed and have a bad day when your moment comes. You can't just point to a good race that you had in your past and say "let me in, I can do this again, I promise". You have to be a stud, and you have to be a consistent stud.

To make the trials, there is a set standard. Everyone knows the standard. You can pick and choose where and when you go after that standard. It doesn't matter how many people beat you to that standard, and it doesn't matter how much further under the standard one person is from another. All you have to do is hit that number, and you're in. If you're having a bad day, or if conditions are bad, you can stop and take another shot at it at a different race. It's much simpler to train and plan for.

The rest of the world wrote:

Hay Sucks wrote:

NCAA qualifying is more impressive. Pretty much anyone who qualifies for NCAA can get the OTQ with a few tweaks to their training. I know many fellas who got the OTQ who never qualified to NCAA.

You must be on crack! Go to a local restaurant and tell them you qualified for the Olympic Trials and they'll think you're a freaking hero, but tell them you qualified for the NCAA Meet and they could care less. This is just reality.Tell your grandkids one day that you made it to the Olympic trials, and they'll be like wow, but tell him he made the NCAA meet and they will be like, ok. Actually, some dumb non-runners think the Olympic Trials is actually the Olympics. They'll look at you like you're crazy if you say the NCAA D1 Cross Country Meet.

Then the question should be important to who. I guess a common person off the street it would be the OTQ but those in the know it would be runner A in the original scenario in my opinion.

Way back in 2007 I did both within a 6-month span. Granted the Trials Qualifier was a much easier 2:22:00 back then. Obviously 2:19:00 is quite a bit harder. I'd still say making NCAAs as an individual is probably harder from a "pure talent" perspective. It was one of my goals for my entire college career and I barely did it with one of my very best races ever. You are really limited with "executing on the day" (at Regionals) so there is more pressure. That being said if you make it to NCAAs as a 5th or 7th guy on a team and finish way back in the triple digits...yeah maybe that's not worth a sub 2:19:00. I think I beat Oregon's 5th guy that year and I was still over 20 sec back and about 30 places away from being All-American. I think because the marathon is a longer distance than 10km you can "out train people and persevere" more in the marathon. You don't necessarily need sub 30:00 min 10km speed/talent to sneak under 2:19:00....but you basically do need to be at that level to be an individual NCAA qualifier. Of course it also depends on the year, your region, and the relative competition. For the record I was 8th at NCAA Northeast Regionals and then 83rd at NCAAs that year. Pretty much every guy in the top 50 is a total stud at NCAAs. You look back on their hs careers and pretty much every guy was a sub 9:20 and/or sub 4:20 type in hs.

I feel like these NCAA guys think they are a lot better than they are.

I didn't miss that at all. A 2:19 is an OT qualifier but barely, and is equivalent to a 30-flat 10K (and that's IF the 30 minute guys does enough mileage which most college runners don't). That would put this minimal OT qualifier as a solid finisher at NCAAs. Guys who are actually competitive at the Olympic trials (and I say that loosely, like 2:12 guys) would smoke all the but the very best NCAA runners.

I agree, and that's why I really like this question (I'm the OP, but this was brought up during a long run discussion I was having this weekend with some friends - two of the friends recently hit OTQ standards at Grandmas)...

Obviously times at each races matter (NCAA guy running 31 vs. a 2:13 OTQ -> award goes to the OTQ, no question), but if the times are equaled out, say: 2:18 Marathon and 30-low XC), I think answers will vary greatly based on who's being asked.

I've found that most of the fringe trials qualifiers (those 2:18-2:19 guys) tend to be the average college XC guys who dreamed of making nationals, grinded their buts off for 4 years, but just didn't have the talent. When they graduated and took to the roads, they adapted well and found a love for 100 mile weeks, and then naturally cut down to sub-2:20 marathons. Ask these guys the question, and they'll tell you without hesitation that an NCAA Nationals qualifier is head and shoulders above what they accomplished, because no matter how hard they pushed, they couldn't get to that next level to reach nationals.

I also think a lot of NCAA Nationals qualifiers (the really good ones) tend to stick to the shorter long distance stuff (5Ks - 10Ks) post-graduation. They join an elite club and compete in the high profile shorter road races for a few years, and then give up the dream before turning to the marathon. I think most NCAA Champs guys could easily hit the marathon trials standard if they went right for it, but they try to stick it out at the shorter stuff to see how far they can take it there.

But I do agree that almost any member of the general population will be far more impressed with an OTQ accomplishment.

I put pickles in my panties and pretend I am the mighty mongoose.

It depends on how you qualify for NCAA XC, as an individual or on a team. Getting there as an at large individual is pretty difficult and you have to be well under 30 minute 10K ability for men, and some regions more like 28:40 or something, which is a whole lot better than 2:18. Not sure about women's 6K but then again 2:44 isn't 2:19 either. But if you're 6th 7th on a marginal team, sure you could be a 32-34 minute 10K runner and make it to NCAAs, which would be like a 2:30 marathoner getting in at OTs because he has teammates running 2:12-2:15.

More impressive to whom?

The answer will likely be different for a serious runner who follows the sport closely and Joe Six Pack who doesn't even know how far a marathon is.

The average guy hears olympics and it sounds better. I think individual NCAA qualifier is harder.

S. Canaday wrote:

Way back in 2007 I did both within a 6-month span.

Flex of the day (FOTD)