Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67
  1. Collapse Details
    Re: GaREAT new Indoor Track
    #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,823
    As I recall one of the more famous WRs in history was run on a 500-meter track.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Re: GaREAT new Indoor Track
    #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,514
    Quote Originally Posted by unclezadok
    As I recall one of the more famous WRs in history was run on a 500-meter track.
    Well, one of the requirements is that no turn have a radius greater than 50(?)m, which might rule out some 500m configurations just by itself. I think 400 (plus 440?) is required for outdoors.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Re: GaREAT new Indoor Track
    #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by 26mi235
    Quote Originally Posted by unclezadok
    As I recall one of the more famous WRs in history was run on a 500-meter track.
    Well, one of the requirements is that no turn have a radius greater than 50(?)m, which might rule out some 500m configurations just by itself. I think 400 (plus 440?) is required for outdoors.
    It is. The famous record was a long time ago.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Re: GaREAT new Indoor Track
    #64
    I truly struggle to criticize a man who took tens of millions of his own money, and built a 300 meter track in Northeast Ohio so that young athletes would have a place to train when its freezing out. Anyone who has walked into the building has certainly been impressed. My first time going in was - wow! Could he have done the same thing with a 200 meter track? Yes, but he chose not to so that was his perogative in building the building. There will be thousands of kids over the next decade that might be turned on to track & field because they have the ability to compete during the winter season. But as a record-keeper I do wish it was 200 meters.

    The 200 meter versus 300 meter debate should have some finality soon. Currently, the NCAA has a formula-based altitude adjustment for different tracks. The altitude adjustments were based on Dr. Adams work from the 1980's, which has been updated several times. There has been enough data that we can reasonably assume the altitude adjustments to be the best possible outcome currently available. Some think they are too generous, while some think they are not generous enough.

    The 200 meter flat, 200 meter banked, 300 meter oversized issue is the next one to be addressed by the NCAA. Three years ago I did the research that led to the NCAA adjusting the 200 meter flat qualifying performances at DI. It was based on two years of actual data from Direct Athletics, and was just the first small step in the process. At that time I only had about 50,000 performances to draw from while now it is much more advanced. All one had to do was look that 65% of all tracks in the NCAA were flat 200 meters, yet only about 4% of all NCAA qualifying performances came from flat 200 facilities. Didn't take the proverbial "rocket scientist" to figure out generally speaking if you went to a flat 200 track your chances of making it to the big dance was minimal.

    Now, there is a small group of eminent statistical wizards (really great people) who also happen to be coaches that is analyzing hundreds of thousands of pieces of data to finally come to closure on the question - is a 200 banked track actually slower/faster than a 300 meter oversized over different distances! Certainly, the back and forth debate is fun (in some respects) of whether 200 banked or 300 oversized is different. But that has always been one of the NCAA's (and the coaches within it) biggest negatives - making decisions that are not data-driven. Once this research project is finished we will have a formula-based qualifying criteria for both altitude and track size. How much farther should be go? Pole Vault Power brings up an interesting question - should there be a special circumstance for a university that is both altitude and oversized. Guess we will have to tackle that some place down the road.

    It is the goal of this research to attempt to normalize performances so the truly deserving athletes have a chance to participate in the NCAA Championships.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Re: GaREAT new Indoor Track
    #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    915
    GaREAT is a beautiful facility. Amazing.

    As far as the conversion problem, I know it's been a HUGE issue in DIII, especially for Midwestern schools who do not have access to many meets at the Armory/Reggie Lewis. Many, many Northeast schools have gotten fat on poorly converted times and then gotten their butts handed to them by schools from the WIAC. I don't know what the conversion is these days, but looking at the performance lists, I still don't think it's enough.

    The conversion itself can be very tricky though. For example, I was a 6'5" 400m runner in my more impetuous days of youth; I much preferred the 300m because of the wider turns. For me, there was very little advantage to the banked tracks because they still had the same problems as flat ones. For other runners, the advantage on the bank is huge. So how do you make an equal adjustment for everyone? I don't think it's really possible.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Re: GaREAT new Indoor Track
    #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogery- chwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales
    Posts
    12,076
    Uh-oh...


    Just as Spire Institute gains traction as a top-flight destination for big-name athletic events, the sprawling athletic complex just off Interstate 90 in Harpersfield Township has run into significant cash flow issues.

    Six mechanic's liens against Spire were on file in the Ashtabula County Recorder's Office as of last Tuesday, Feb. 28. The liens range from $71,161 owed to Air Control Products Inc. of Broadview Heights to an $8.57 million lien filed by Hughes-Roller Building Co. of Ashtabula.

    Apparently the liens are in relation to the aquatics center, not the T&F complex.


    Read more

    http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/ ... /303059991


    You can work around the subscription requirement by googling "spire lien", and click the story link there
    There are no strings on me
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogery- chwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales
    Posts
    12,076
    Investment firm has purchased Spire

    https://www.crainscleveland.com/spor...Vla5J85Rp2VXWw
    There are no strings on me
    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
  •