Those tables don't work because 90% of the sub 50 runners live in the US while 90% of the sub 14:40 guys do not.
Those tables don't work because 90% of the sub 50 runners live in the US while 90% of the sub 14:40 guys do not.
No. Just no. Crappy little colleges do not have club teams. Club teams exist at large schools where there are many runners not fast enough to make the real team. I am starting to think the OP is sour that he can't make the crappy team because the coach called him out on his fabricated time. The fastest 800 runner in the NCAA started on his club team and a sub 4 miler also started on his club team. P5 schools are faster than most realize.
This may not add much but some should find it interesting. These are the open 400 times of guys on the roster at Iowa, not a powerhouse. The team scored 5 points at nationals last year placing 40th. Note the 800 guys at 1:46-1:49 who probably can split 47 also. So that is 20 guys faster than the 49.8 guy all on one roster. I listed their event group from the roster so that you don't wonder how 49 second 400 guys on on the roster.
Lawrence 45.33
Frye 46.17
Hofacker 46.5
West 47.9 Multi
Lietz 48.11 Hurdler
Dow 48.17 Hurdler
Gillum 48.23 Hurdler
Clarke 48.5 Hurdler
Britt 48.61 Hurdler
Gaynes 48.89 Multi
Kembel 49.15 Hurdler
Roethler 49.33 Hurdler
Woodard 49.44 Short sprinter
Gudgel 49.57 Mid-d
Andrews 49.68 Mid-d
Bryson 49.23 HS Mid-d
Manternach 1:46 800
Teubel 1:48 800
Vandraska 1:48 800
Birkett 1:49 800
Predictor wrote:
I ran 49 as a sophomore and 48 as a junior and had a 35 on my ACT but Villanova did not recruit me. So unless you provide a name, your story is false.
Who knows? Maybe YOUR story is what’s actually false.
Also to add to the argument, if you watch the men’s DMR at NCAAs indoors (D1), typically you don’t see guys split faster than 46-47 (I know you guys are probably referring to outdoors but still, just an example). Sometimes it’s closer to 48 for some. And these are teams that are clearly elite at that level; many of which also run a 4x4 at that meet. So, the argument that a guy that isn’t under 47 won’t make a D1 team is ridiculous. I doubt the 400 leg on the winning or contending DMR teams for the last few years hasn’t even been under 47. And those probably aren’t guys running the 4x4 at those meets. In addition, a 49 second guy would probably at least make any D3 team, even if he’s not gonna be the top guy or top 4.
My story is false. I thought that was clear. Without verifiable facts, don't believe anyone on this site.
Reading comprehension wrote:
Why so much vitriol on this site? If you really believe that someone is not as smart as you, you call them stupid? What if someone has a learning disability? Do you insult people who have autism? How about MS?
Amen to this being the real question on nearly every thread. I have wondered this many times, and I am starting to come up with some ideas about hostility in general. They are probably half-witted, at best, so I will spare this fine forum the details. I do hope that people can be more mindful about not insulting everyone in their midst. The truth is, insults are not a good strategy for two reasons:
1. Why are you such an active participant in a conversations with such people, if you deem them to be so ... (insert synonym for stupid). It does not reflect well on you to actively seek out such conversations.
2. 'Smart people' usually don't resort to insults, because once you take that path, you have lost the argument. It is the resort of a desperate person who has lost. Of course, this is a broad generalization, but ad hominem attacks are de facto admissions of defeat. You may as well say whatever you have to say to yourself.
*in conversations
welll well does't smeel like fame ?
Predictor wrote:
My story is false. I thought that was clear. Without verifiable facts, don't believe anyone on this site.
Seems like you’re lacking verifiable logic in addition to verifiable facts.
This reminds me of this kid who transferred to my high school my senior year and claimed to have run a 4:07 mile the year before. His first race of the season was a 2:32 800...
I would enjoy it much more if we could have a civilized exchange of information, ideas, and opinions. The post of the 20 sub 50 guys that was posted is selling the team short. Teams will look much better at the end of the season than at the beginning. I expect that the number will swell to 25 and the top guys will drop to 45-46 instead of 45-48 as they are now.
Do I believe you caught a liar? Sure.
Are all 49.xx guys on Division I teams or even D II? No. I personally knew a guy who ran 48.xx and nobody would touch him. His grades were awful and he never would have made it through the Clearinghouse. He ran at a JUCO for a minute then disappeared.
Do people lie a lot about track results? Yep. Even when they are easily fact checked. A guy in my dorm in the mid-1990s claimed he was the Illinois State Champion in the 100 and 1600. How stupid is that?
True, a 49 is not a 46
But for a free walk-on a coach should look at it as though a 49 could become a 46 in 3 years.
P5 schools get 47 second guys for a 20% scholarship and 48 second guys to walk on. They are limited on roster spots so there is no value at all in a 49 second guy. Review the stats of the team listed in this thread. There are no 48 or 49 second 400 guys out of the 20. The guys who are running 48 or 49 are the hurdlers or 800 guys or multit guys.
You were able to ascertain a 600m, 300m, 200m and 100m result on him but not a 400m result on him, which is the subject of the thread?
Why not just provide his name? We could see which school the OP attends.
Star wrote:
You were able to ascertain a 600m, 300m, 200m and 100m result on him but not a 400m result on him, which is the subject of the thread?
More to the point, is 49.8 some time that is remotely unbelievable? That is like a 4:30 mile time. It is pretty good but not absurd. I want to say my senior class had 4 guys with that time. We were a good track team but we weren't exactly speed city.
stateroftheoblivious wrote:
True, a 49 is not a 46
But for a free walk-on a coach should look at it as though a 49 could become a 46 in 3 years.
49.8 is a 50. If the coach was allowed to have a a half dozen of these 50s guys on the team and was able to train them, 1 might turn into a contributor. But that is like recruiting a bunch of 4:30 milers and hoping one turns in to a 29 guy to contribute to your XC team. It happens but it is rare and given the constraints a lot of teams have on size, a coach can 't carry all those people.
Just the state of California had 100 kids run faster than that in an open 400. Pretty sure this kid is talking about a split which most sprinters do, which would probably bump the number to over 200 in one state.
Iowa isn't a powerhouse like Oregon or some of the SEC schools but they'v been very solid in sprints for the last two decades. The last three years their 4x400 team achieved All-American status. They're definitely above the P5 average in the sprints.