Hardloper wrote:
Joe Norm wrote:
It's not really about consistency, it's just dumb. Going up to 10k after running 8k's all year is like playing all season on a 100 yard football field, then when you get to the Super Bowl, the field is 150 yards... Also, the fact that teams make it into 10k nationals with an at large bid that's based on "points" gotten against teams in 8k races is pretty dumb as well.
The reason you don't run 10ks all year is because it's too much to race week after week. It's still a fine championship distance. Furthermore, only the fittest athletes run nationals. The JV guys who aren't ready to race 10k aren't racing regionals or nationals.
I raced college XC only 1985 and 1986, D2 level. I have been told by my coaches that most college XC meets slightly before I started racing and back into the 1970's were at 6 miles, some were 10k. I do have course maps in my file cabinet that show our on-campus 6 mile courses, so I know our Invy was that distance at least circa 1978-1983. And we raced a lot more back then too. Not sure about D1 teams, did guys race more often back then? I ran 12 meets my junior year and 10 my senior year. Same length of season, but we ran a couple dual meets and had a race on the schedule every weekend. Last fall, the team I coached ran 7 meets, which is typical.
8k or 10k, to me as a coach, I don't see a huge difference racing one vs the other at Regionals/Nationals. Yeah, I'd prefer 10k (for both genders!!!!). My opinion is that the 10k produces a better race at this level. But I also think harder courses produce a better race. That's just my preference. But honestly, 8k or 10k, minor difference at best. The training to optimize at 10k vs at 8k, a little different but it's not like a an athlete is trying to be good at both the 3000 and the half marathon.
Seems like this proposal seeks to fix something that isn't broken.