Celtic Clash

Can we all just agree that the course is 2.9? To a runner, kids are dropping a full minute plus off their season and career bests. Once those times hit Milesplit, it'll look lIke the Olentangy Orange boys are ready to tangle with Newbury Park.

(Just one of many examples... the Olentangy boys who ran 16:30ish to go 1-2 in the open race had PRs of 17:52 and 18:17).

What would Ackley have run, 14:40? 14:30? Riley Hough from Michigan would probably break 14 there, to be honest.

Milesplit rankings, virtual meets, fast times obsession (however false or fabricated)... in full effect here. Unfortunately, at least in Central OH, it's killing meets with challenging courses (Zane Trace, Lancaster, etc.) and tempting race directors to ensure kids PR on their course to keep registrations high. Thus... we end up with courses that are short too.

Sigh.
 

Supertramp

Active member
I would never send a team there.
It’s bad for the kids, and bad for the sport.

It’s bad for the kids, because what do you tell a kid who runs 15:30 here and then doesn’t break 16:00 ever again? It’l be a serious swing from thinking too highly of themselves today, to thinking too little of themselves next week.

And then it cheapens times for the whole state. Sure, CC times will always be a little relative. But they should be a general gauge. No way those top 5 teams will ever come close to beating St. Xavier. Some of them won’t even be at the state meet! I’m sure this meet breaks school record boards as well.

With all due respect, Dublin Jerome needs to fix this meet. It makes times meaningless, and it makes a mockery of our sport.
 
Last edited:

NWO XCTF

Member
I would never send a team there.
It’s bad for the kids, and bad for the sport.

It’s bad for the kids, because what do you tell a kid who has runs 15:30 here and then doesn’t break 16:00 ever again? It’l be a serious swing from thinking too highly of themselves today, to thinking too little of themselves next week.

And then it cheapens times for the whole state. Sure, CC times will always be a little relative. But they should be a general gauge. No way those top 5 teams will ever come close to beating St. Xavier. Some of them won’t even be at the state meet! I’m sure this meet breaks school record boards as well.

With all due respect, Dublin Jerome needs to fix this meet. It makes times meaningless, and it makes a mockery of our sport.
School record boards?? Just saw this...
SmartSelect_20210926-213425_Twitter.jpg
 

Rohbino

Well-known member
Jerome really is trying to legitimize the course as being 5,000 meters. Even the map on the meet website shows the distance after the 2nd mile as being "1.107 miles." Not 1.1 miles but 1.107 miles - an exact distance. :rolleyes: Quite honestly, I'm surprised that it didn't just state that the last portion is 3.106856 miles.

This is a joke and the obsession with times is ridiculous. When are coaches going to learn that the sport is about place and not time? Sometime I would like to see an invitational where there are no times. Everyone just runs for place. It would be cool to see but because so many coaches, athletes, and parents are obsessed with times, I doubt that the event would be well-attended.
 

Supertramp

Active member
Jerome really is trying to legitimize the course as being 5,000 meters. Even the map on the meet website shows the distance after the 2nd mile as being "1.107 miles." Not 1.1 miles but 1.107 miles - an exact distance. :rolleyes: Quite honestly, I'm surprised that it didn't just state that the last portion is 3.106856 miles.

This is a joke and the obsession with times is ridiculous. When are coaches going to learn that the sport is about place and not time? Sometime I would like to see an invitational where there are no times. Everyone just runs for place. It would be cool to see but because so many coaches, athletes, and parents are obsessed with times, I doubt that the event would be well-attended.
Maybe when coaches (and kids) realize which teams did not and would never attend this meet. I'll leave it at that.

I think a meet without times would be much more popular than you think it would. I've heard many coaches wish CC meets had no times before. HS kids need to realize that college coaches are not looking at your CC times. They are looking at where you place at Regionals and State.
 

runs4funs

Active member
It starts at the top... DI college coaches are telling kids "We have to see a 15:45".
Maybe this is me being naive but I would think any legitimate D1 program would look at track times very closely and take XC times with a pretty large grain of salt. If we all can figure out that you can't compare XC times across different courses hopefully a D1 coach can as well.
 

Supertramp

Active member
Maybe this is me being naive but I would think any legitimate D1 program would look at track times very closely and take XC times with a pretty large grain of salt. If we all can figure out that you can't compare XC times across different courses hopefully a D1 coach can as well.
Good college coaches are just looking at CC regional and state place, track regional and state place, and track times.
 

VFL

Member
I guess that this course is a bit different than a course like the Mason course which I see has hay bales, 2 creek jumps, and hills! I'll take the grit, strength, and determination needed out of a course like that than a PR fest.
 

Supertramp

Active member
I have always wanted to have a meet that the time would start when the winner crosses the line 0.00 then each runner time is how far back from winner you are. Team scores would be all placing and no times are really needed. Maybe a new Finishtiming XC Meet for 2022!!!!!
Please, please do this. Great idea, especially early in the year.
 

Altor

Well-known member
And just to be clear, there is no requirement in the NFHS rules to time any race. As long as the race is scored according to Rule 8, if FT or anybody else wanted to publish times in this manner, I don't believe the OHSAA would have boo to say about it.
 

EuclidandViren

Well-known member
I have always wanted to have a meet that the time would start when the winner crosses the line 0.00 then each runner time is how far back from winner you are. Team scores would be all placing and no times are really needed. Maybe a new Finishtiming XC Meet for 2022!!!!!
Having NO times would finishtiming out of business. Bad business model. Father time always wins.
 

EuclidandViren

Well-known member
Head to head matchups is the only way to judge xc.

Good programs are never be based upon a course time. Programs should be based upon core values of training and racing and not times. The end result should not be the clock. The average grandma and grandpa always ask-- what was your time and did you win.
 

Finishtiming

Active member
Having NO times would finishtiming out of business. Bad business model. Father time always wins.
Not really as you still have to put them in order. Also you know that nobody else will do this because then their course would not show as fast and people wouldn’t come.
 

yj_runfan

Well-known member
Can’t believe all the hand wringing over fast courses. Your kids can’t handle the soul crushing experience of running a fast time on a fast or short course? Give me a break. Cincinnati kids ran the Elder invitational for decades without anyone’s life being destroyed.
 
I heard through an anonymous source that this was a hot topic here, so I thought I would check in. I have no comment about the course distance, but I will say it was a super great day for running that day. As a complete HS outsider these days looking in, the times do look pretty fast.

A couple of other random comments. Having had two kids go through the college recruiting process, one of whom received a ton of interest from just about every college in existence, I can say with a pretty fair level of certainty, that college coaches don't really care about high school cross country times. Placement in state meets and other such big meets yes, but none of them cared about cross country times. It was all about track times. The other thing is that even though we all know cross country courses differ in length and difficulty, even the most knowledgeable athletes and parents are interested in the times. That's just how the sport is. The stated distance and the time are the top two things that matter. Beyond that, it's only things that can negatively affect the times that are mentioned. It was hot or humid or the grass was long or it rained the day before the course was soft, that hill was bigger than it looked, etc. Mention that the course was "fast" or "short", and people put their heads in the sand. It's easy to understand why. Breakout performances do happen on the track, so, maybe, just maybe, hopeful athletes and parents think, this has happened here today too. Then, it's off to milesplit to find an athlete who ran slower than their PR that day, and when they do, their Confirmation Bias is complete! :)
 
School record boards?? Just saw this...
View attachment 21679
Number 1. I personally know 4 coaches who have wheel measured the course in the last 2 days in 3.07-3.10.

Number 2. Don’t use my tweets to make a point unless you have actually measured the course yourself.

The course is as accurate as any other. Last year everyone thought my course was inaccurate when we measured it ten times and had a cool day. (Central Ohio CC Invite). This year it was hot and not a word.

if everyone on here bitching and complaining has not personally measured the course then you have no idea what you are talking about and should shut up,
 
Can we all just agree that the course is 2.9? To a runner, kids are dropping a full minute plus off their season and career bests. Once those times hit Milesplit, it'll look lIke the Olentangy Orange boys are ready to tangle with Newbury Park.

(Just one of many examples... the Olentangy boys who ran 16:30ish to go 1-2 in the open race had PRs of 17:52 and 18:17).

What would Ackley have run, 14:40? 14:30? Riley Hough from Michigan would probably break 14 there, to be honest.

Milesplit rankings, virtual meets, fast times obsession (however false or fabricated)... in full effect here. Unfortunately, at least in Central OH, it's killing meets with challenging courses (Zane Trace, Lancaster, etc.) and tempting race directors to ensure kids PR on their course to keep registrations high. Thus... we end up with courses that are short too.

Sigh.
Can we all just agree that the course is 2.9? To a runner, kids are dropping a full minute plus off their season and career bests. Once those times hit Milesplit, it'll look lIke the Olentangy Orange boys are ready to tangle with Newbury Park.

(Just one of many examples... the Olentangy boys who ran 16:30ish to go 1-2 in the open race had PRs of 17:52 and 18:17).

What would Ackley have run, 14:40? 14:30? Riley Hough from Michigan would probably break 14 there, to be honest.

Milesplit rankings, virtual meets, fast times obsession (however false or fabricated)... in full effect here. Unfortunately, at least in Central OH, it's killing meets with challenging courses (Zane Trace, Lancaster, etc.) and tempting race directors to ensure kids PR on their course to keep registrations high. Thus... we end up with courses that are short too.

Go measure it.
 
Can we all just agree that the course is 2.9? To a runner, kids are dropping a full minute plus off their season and career bests. Once those times hit Milesplit, it'll look lIke the Olentangy Orange boys are ready to tangle with Newbury Park.

(Just one of many examples... the Olentangy boys who ran 16:30ish to go 1-2 in the open race had PRs of 17:52 and 18:17).

What would Ackley have run, 14:40? 14:30? Riley Hough from Michigan would probably break 14 there, to be honest.

Milesplit rankings, virtual meets, fast times obsession (however false or fabricated)... in full effect here. Unfortunately, at least in Central OH, it's killing meets with challenging courses (Zane Trace, Lancaster, etc.) and tempting race directors to ensure kids PR on their course to keep registrations high. Thus... we end up with courses that are short too.

Sigh.
Have you measured it? If you you are so concerned that you are going to insult Dublin Jerome maybe you should go measure it first. 4 coaches I know have measured it between 3.07 and 3.10. It was the first cool day for a lot of teams, it was at night and on a track flat course.
 

Supertramp

Active member
Number 1. I personally know 4 coaches who have wheel measured the course in the last 2 days in 3.07-3.10.

Number 2. Don’t use my tweets to make a point unless you have actually measured the course yourself.

The course is as accurate as any other. Last year everyone thought my course was inaccurate when we measured it ten times and had a cool day. (Central Ohio CC Invite). This year it was hot and not a word.

if everyone on here bitching and complaining has not personally measured the course then you have no idea what you are talking about and should shut up,
If 4 coaches measured it and got 3.07-3.1 then it is not as accurate as any other.

It is short.
 

Supertramp

Active member
If you take the average of the 4 measurements it’s within the margin of error and we are talking about 10 seconds or less.
Margin of error? It’s either short or it’s not.

If anything you make the course long. That’s how you get a course certified.

And regardless of how short it is, the massive PBs across the board are a statistical anomaly and need to be explained somehow. There’s a reason everyone runs faster there than anywhere else. And it’s not just the weather, this isn’t the only meet with good weather.

The coaches at Dub. Jerome are good people with a great program. But I don’t believe everyone just happened to run that fast. Maybe the course is a net downhill? Maybe it’s the surface? Maybe it’s the rhythm of turns? Maybe it’s the perfect design for running fast?

Regardless, you have to admit that this meet/course is a massive outlier compared to the rest of the season. It was this way last year as well.
 
There is an acceptable margin of error with course measurement because 20 people could measure a course with a wheel and get 20 different measurements. The meet is an outlier for sure. It was 50 degrees and the atmosphere was electric running at night. However the course would have to be 2.8 to match up with what you are saying. If 4 people I trust are measuring it that close then a worst it’s 10 seconds short. There is barely a hill on there so there is no net elevation loss.
 
There is an acceptable margin of error with course measurement because 20 people could measure a course with a wheel and get 20 different measurements. The meet is an outlier for sure. It was 50 degrees and the atmosphere was electric running at night. However the course would have to be 2.8 to match up with what you are saying. If 4 people I trust are measuring it that close then a worst it’s 10 seconds short. There is barely a hill on there so there is no net elevation loss.
It was 50 degrees and electric at Lancaster too. Yet, no one ran 45 seconds faster than their previous PR, much less entire teams.
 
Love Lancaster…great course, great people, well run and a true test of Cross Country. However, the course is very difficult so the times aren’t particularly fast.
 
.
Top