A few months ago the NCAA proposed to drop the D1 Men's Championship distances 2000 meters to the 8k. Is this a good step in the right direction for collegiate cross country or is this a bad thing?
If you would be interest in talking to me or being a source in my piece about this let me know!
The 8k is more accessible for 800/1500 guys. I'd welcome the change. Also sets up for closer finishes and tighter racing.
Personally I prefer the 10K. It lets the true distance runners have at least one event. The middle distance guys can sneak into the 5K and if it becomes a 8k, races will be too bunched up and I like seeing true distance races.
Oh, you mean that proposal made by a Committee filled with reps from a bunch of dinky track schools without a single rep from any ranked XC schools that actually might have a valid opinion on the subject? If you are doing a legit story maybe start by interviewing some XC coaches at top 25 programs about what they think.
sportsjournalist11 wrote:
A few months ago the NCAA proposed to drop the D1 Men's Championship distances 2000 meters to the 8k. Is this a good step in the right direction for collegiate cross country or is this a bad thing?
If you would be interest in talking to me or being a source in my piece about this let me know!
Who are you and who are you writing for?
I don't really have a care of whether it's 10k or 8k, but I just want everyone to be running the same distance. D1-D2-D3 / Men-Women.
The women running 6k gives such a huge advantage to those teams with mid distance superstars and it ends up not being distanced enough from what T&F is.
If they drop the distance they need to cut back on the number of entries (teams and individuals) or else they'll be way too bunched up.
I don't think anyone will go on record without knowing who you are, but I think most distance coaches are happy with the race distances as they are. The men's NCAA depth is really strong, and the 10k distance allows for the field to spread out and get a feel for who the strongest and fittest athletes are. It does not bother me that 800m runners can not contribute and milers are usually at the back of their respective teams.
Fielding women's teams is tough, and injury rates are already higher. There is a much bigger difference between front and mid pack women's times than there is on the men's side and the depth of the NCAA and most programs is not nearly as strong for the women as it is the men. I think it best to keep things at 5 and 6k unless we want to see women running 35 min 8ks and 46 minute 10ks.
Personally, if there had to be standardization at championship meets I would probably opt to lengthen women's races as opposed to shortening the men.
I think the finish line would be even more chaotic. The time separation already isn't very much at the top end when you have 200 guys all finishing within a couple minutes, and 100 of them are finishing in about one minute.
You shorten the race you're going to have even more people piled in on top of each other. Look at how bunched these races are at 5k, you need that extra couple kilometers to further separate people.
The women have a lot less depth compared to the men, giving a wider time distribution, so it's not as much of a problem there.
Then don't run the 80, 190, or 770 until the championships, so why do we run 8K all season until the 10K finale?
FFF wrote:
Then don't run the 80, 190, or 770 until the championships, so why do we run 8K all season until the 10K finale?
I think it's so stupid that they run 8ks until championship races. If you're going to run the 10k just run the f******* 10k. Switching the distance just for championship races is beyond stupid.
8k. Both genders.
Run xc in Jan Feb.
5 scholarships for men 6 scholarships for women.
Xc can run outdoor. But not Indoor.
2 season athletes. Not 3 seasons.
Coaches get to coach the fall before competing instead of just manage the summer training.
Sliding Scale wrote:
I don't think anyone will go on record without knowing who you are, but I think most distance coaches are happy with the race distances as they are. The men's NCAA depth is really strong, and the 10k distance allows for the field to spread out and get a feel for who the strongest and fittest athletes are. It does not bother me that 800m runners can not contribute and milers are usually at the back of their respective teams.
Fielding women's teams is tough, and injury rates are already higher. There is a much bigger difference between front and mid pack women's times than there is on the men's side and the depth of the NCAA and most programs is not nearly as strong for the women as it is the men. I think it best to keep things at 5 and 6k unless we want to see women running 35 min 8ks and 46 minute 10ks.
Personally, if there had to be standardization at championship meets I would probably opt to lengthen women's races as opposed to shortening the men.
definitely agree-maybe I am a little biased since I was a 10 k guy back in the day, but that extra 2k really helps separate the field and the true distance guys can shine--there are enough mid-distance races in indoors and outdoors for the milers---consider that most races in indoors are 1500-3000m with the occasional 5000m; This is the one season that distance rules--plus it is good base-building for the miler types anyway....just my 2 cents!
Chaotic finish line wrote:
I think the finish line would be even more chaotic. The time separation already isn't very much at the top end when you have 200 guys all finishing within a couple minutes, and 100 of them are finishing in about one minute.
You shorten the race you're going to have even more people piled in on top of each other. Look at how bunched these races are at 5k, you need that extra couple kilometers to further separate people.
The women have a lot less depth compared to the men, giving a wider time distribution, so it's not as much of a problem there.
Exactly. It isn't broke, don't fix it
Typical Sportster wrote:
The 8k is more accessible for 800/1500 guys. I'd welcome the change. Also sets up for closer finishes and tighter racing.
Remember Miles Batty? We don't need to soften the sport.
My opinion is that it should be 8k for both males and females at NCAA Champs.
I was at the World Cross Champs where the distance for men and women was both 10k. Watching Dom Scott and Karissa Schweizer struggle on that course was a real eye opener and it isn't a surprise when most of their xc races were only 6k.
The problem I have with the NCAA is the difference in distances for males and females which is currently 10k and 6k. If you were looking at it from a purely developmental position dropping the males down to 8k and pushing the females up to 8k seems logical.
The way it is with running a regional 10k 8 days before the National 10k might also be why many big schools put so little emphasis on early season meets.
coahc wrote:
If you were looking at it from a purely developmental position dropping the males down to 8k and pushing the females up to 8k seems logical.
Why, from a "purely developmental position" should men and women run the same distance? I'm not buying that.
Increase the minimum race number to 8 or 10 per season, make dual meets count towards championship season. Reward competitive racing through a whole season, not just 3 races. If football players can play every Saturday, xc guys can race every Saturday.
More races, more 10ks.
The whole season teams run the 8k and there doesn't seem to be any problem with bunching.
Race more wrote:
Increase the minimum race number to 8 or 10 per season, make dual meets count towards championship season. Reward competitive racing through a whole season, not just 3 races. If football players can play every Saturday, xc guys can race every Saturday.
More races, more 10ks.
There are already enough injuries to go around buddy. Racing a 10k every week will leave athletes going home devasted