Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt Murphy
    Quote Originally Posted by guru
    Quote Originally Posted by gh
    Tell that to all the people who can't run on such a facility and find they can't quality for the nationals.

    A multi-million dollar indoor track & field palace built with private dollars. Leave to the editor of T&FN to look for the cloud around a silver lining..
    gh speaks for a lot of people, including me, who care about these things.

    I think it's great that a new track was built, but why not make it 200-meters?
    Because they do not give a d*** about people that cannot do conversions to find out how good marks are and who are too slow to use the data correctly. 300m makes a much better facility; that is to be compromised for WHAT, exactly. And the rules currently allow downhill running in the 200 that is such a problem that they just cut the event out of some of the championships (WIC).

    I think that the design the Wisconsin wants to use on its new track is to have a 200m banked (bankable, might also allow switching with flat) oval inside with a larger oval outside with a maximum length of about 300m. Of course, this is scheduled for k years into the future where k is a number larger than the immediate planning horizon and has almost cerrtainly been made larger by the financial turmoil of the last 18 months.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    on walkabout....
    Posts
    2,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt Murphy
    I think it's great that a new track was built, but why not make it 200-meters?
    A friend of mine is highly involved there. The layout is designed to simulate the 400m turns w/ shorter straights. The do have 150m straights, but just offset from the oval. The times here will be fast because of the turns & this place was also designed to be good for training, especially to transition to the outdoor season.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by 26mi235
    Quote Originally Posted by gh
    Tell that to all the people who can't run on such a facility and find they can't quality for the nationals.
    Rather than get rid of great tracks use adjust qualifying marks like they do for altitude. Four categories: 1) unbanked 200m; 2) banked 200m; 3) unbanked oversized tracks; and 4) 10 or more laps per mile (might need banked and unbanked variants here.
    FWIW, this is exactly what DIII does. The 200m flat is considered the baseline track, with oversized, banked, and undersized conversions of -0.6s/400m, -0.5s/400m, and +0.30s/400m respectively.

    This sometimes gets hairy due to the reputation of some metropolitan-area schools feasting on access to oversized and banked tracks (Armony, Reggie Lewis, etc.) and then having trouble running on the 200m flat tracks at NCAA.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Back on my 3-month hiatus!
    Posts
    21,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt Murphy
    think it's great that a new track was built, but why not make it 200-meters?
    For the sake of stat-keepers and descending order list keepers? I think not.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    20,445
    Quote Originally Posted by nbonaddio
    FWIW, this is exactly what DIII does. The 200m flat is considered the baseline track, with oversized, banked, and undersized conversions of -0.6s/400m, -0.5s/400m, and +0.30s/400m respectively.
    I wonder why DIII and DI do it differently. If these schools are educational institutions, something like this should be science-based and the same formula should be valid for all divisions.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    8,392
    The track-size related issues in the NCAA qualifying could be solved in one fell swoop by implementing regional competition indoors instead of outdoors.

    As a coach, I would never want my school to waste money on a 200m track if a 300m one is an option.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by tandfman
    Quote Originally Posted by nbonaddio
    FWIW, this is exactly what DIII does. The 200m flat is considered the baseline track, with oversized, banked, and undersized conversions of -0.6s/400m, -0.5s/400m, and +0.30s/400m respectively.
    I wonder why DIII and DI do it differently. If these schools are educational institutions, something like this should be science-based and the same formula should be valid for all divisions.
    Without knowing for sure, it stands to reason that DIII did this because a majority of the athletes run on the 200m flat tracks, since the locations where DIII is most prevalent are also areas where there is little to no access to larger or banked facilities. Without the conversion, the NCAA meet would be top-heavy with urban institutions who have access to these tracks and better competition. A talented athlete will be able to run a 3:50 1500m no matter where he is; however it is surely easier on a wider, longer track against an athlete from Georgetown than it would be on a tight track versus the 4:25 kid from Illinois Wesleyan.

    Comparably speaking, the average D1 athlete runs many more meets on banked/oversized tracks, therefore it makes sense that a banked/oversized track is their baseline, whereas the 200m flat track is the baseline for DIII. All that said, there is some question as to how the conversions are quantified and how legitimate they are, but that is a different discussion.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by gm
    The track-size related issues in the NCAA qualifying could be solved in one fell swoop by implementing regional competition indoors instead of outdoors.

    As a coach, I would never want my school to waste money on a 200m track if a 300m one is an option.
    As a 6'5" quarter-miler, I agree wholeheartedly. Make those turns as wide as possible!
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    62,053
    Quote Originally Posted by guru
    Quote Originally Posted by gh
    Tell that to all the people who can't run on such a facility and find they can't quality for the nationals.

    A multi-million dollar indoor track & field palace built with private dollars. Leave to the editor of T&FN to look for the cloud around a silver lining.

    So you would prefer the facility not be built at all, and all the kids in northeast ohio who benefit from such a wealth of outstanding venues spend their winters in their school hallways?

    We would KILL for a facility like that in southwest Ohio. I hope the folks in Greater Cleveland know how very lucky they are.
    I got an idea: if you want to continue to play in this sandbox, but back on the ad hominen tone, please.

    For the record, I'm all for wonderful training sites; it's when that concept clashes with actual competition that I get bothered.

    You'll excuse me if I remain completely unapologetic for promoting a stance that follows the rules of the sport.

    I can't support competition on a track that's too big any more than I can voting for using 15-pound shots. It's a pretty simple concept: you accept all the rules, not just pick and choose which attract your fancy.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    3,424
    Quote Originally Posted by gh
    I can't support competition on a track that's too big any more than I can voting for using 15-pound shots. It's a pretty simple concept: you accept all the rules, not just pick and choose which attract your fancy.
    Just like laws, rules that are not enforced cease to have any meaning. Within the context of the NCAA oversized tracks are no longer against the rules. Is your beef with the track makers or the NCAA? For the record this is way low on the whether I care list. It only matters in the since that it would be nice if a decent percentage of the people who deserve to compete at NCAA indoor actually get to compete.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •