Can we stop advancing people on time?

[fatman]

I have long felt it makes no sense to advance people through rounds based on time. In a meet like NCAA, USATF, Oly Trials, the heats are going to be very even, everyone in the race will be close in talent to everyone else except for maybe one or two at the very front. Qualifying for the next round in these circumstances should be based only on place. Time in the heats is irrelevant. Using that to qualify people generally means taking the top places in the heat with the fastest early pace. There is no logic that will support the claim that these are the best runners.

Last night's NCAA 5k's for both men and women are classic examples. Ashley Higginson finished one place out of the money in the 1st heat (where they jogged the first half) and watched helplessly as the second heat opened up with a pace that had them a 40 seconds ahead before they reached the mile mark. Her chance of qualifying was done right there. Is there any doubt that she could have kept the pace in heat 2? In what way, therefore, does it make sense to reward places 7-10 in heat 2 just because they had someone willing to take it out early?

The men's race had even greater discrepancy in pacing with the result that the first ten finishers in the second heat finished with a faster time than the winner of the first.

In these situations, if you are in heat 2 and you see heat 1 is very slow, everyone in the race will understand that qualifying is much easier, that it is in everybody's interest to start with a fairly honest pace as this will insure maximum qualifiers from the second heat.

Most egregious example ever was the first round of the 5k at the 1988 Olympic Trials. Doug Padilla was running literally backward down the backstretch looking at the clock and yelling to the guys up front to slow down because they were way ahead of heat one and everyone would qualify. He jogged it in, easily making the next round.

Sprint races, though they don't have the pacing issues, are no better off. A change in wind between heats can make all the difference between advancing and not. Is that a reasonable basis on which to select potential finalists, the whim of the weather?

Please, let's just take the top x finishers in each heat and let that be that.

[AS]

The same thing happens regularly in the longer races (800m+) at every champs (from NCAA to WCs/OGs). What always stuns me is the unwillingness of the competitors in the earlier heats to push the pace. They know what's going to happen, so I have little sympathy for them...

[AS]

And to demonstrate this women's 1500m heats have a heat 1 where they push pace and get 3 out 4 of the "little qs"...

[unclezadok]

It's completely unacceptable in events affected by wind. It's like giving some batters in baseball 3 strikes and others 2. It has to go. There is no possible justification for it.

[richxx87]

the last q goes to the ND guy by 3 thousandths of a second! AND they were in different heats. That's gotta hurt the guy who misses the q like that....

10 Mark Davidson FR Tulsa 3:43.32q
11 Andrew Jesien JR Virginia 3:43.66q
12 Kurt Benninger SR Notre Dame 3:43.86q 3:43.856
13 Andrew Acosta SO Oregon 3:43.86 3:43.859
14 Kyle Miller JR Texas 3:43.88

[jney]

that's really rough for AJ.

[ponytayne]

Hey, AJ is a sub 3:40 guy as I understand it, plus he's got a monster kick. Add to this that he's been a savvy racer since HS and he just choked this one out or is sick. The guy should be in the final if he ran to his potential.

[skyin' brian]

As long as there are 1 or 2 "automatic" qualifying spots for the top finishers in the heat, I see no problem with this.

Actually, for events like the 1500, I think it makes heats worth watching...are the confident kickers going to go for a slow pace...is some dude going to go out fast and screw over the other heats with a blistering pace?

I mean, if you cannot go out and grab one of the "big Qs" you don't deserve to win anyway (it is nice sometimes to make the finals, but the point of the championship is to identify a winner.

I believe that there would be just as many complaints about seeding if all qualifying was done based on place in the heats.

[EPelle]

Re: Can we stop advancing people on time?

I have long felt it makes no sense to advance people through rounds based on time. In a meet like NCAA, USATF, Oly Trials, the heats are going to be very even, everyone in the race will be close in talent to everyone else except for maybe one or two at the very front. Qualifying for the next round in these circumstances should be based only on place. Time in the heats is irrelevant. Using that to qualify people generally means taking the top places in the heat with the fastest early pace. There is no logic that will support the claim that these are the best runners.

One of my favourite state meets was the 1986 CIF CA 1.600m qualifying and finals. The old system was five+five qualified out of the two heats. The first heat ran 4.11 to win, and 4.15 to qualify. The 12 runners in heat two knew they had the guns in the race, and "only" had to finish top-5 to get in. Seven boys ran 4.13 or faster in the prelim (!), but only five made the final. This is a time I wish the new rules were in place, making the first heat likely much more compact than the 4.15 it took to make the final; there are no other states a 4.13 miler stays home from a prelim and three 4.15 guys in the first heat gets through. In your system here of Q on place, things actually worked out quite well, nonetheless. The 10 guys who lined up and finished the following day ran very close to their qualifying times (if not faster in some cases).

Heats:

H1-1 Mark Mastalir            Jesuit                   SJ    4:11.40Q
H1-2 Raul Serratos            Moreno Valley            S     4:12.45Q
H1-3 Greg Scattini            Palma                    CC    4:15.47Q
H1-4 Jason Lienau             Clovis                   C     4:15.49Q
H1-5 Jorge Castro             Ramona                   SD    4:15.54Q
H1-6 Jonathon Smith           Miramonte                NC    4:15.55
H1-7 Chris Bray               Nevada Union             SJ    4:18.21
H1-8 Stuart Wiseman           El Cerrito               NC    4:19.25
H1-9 Ian Alsen                Granada Hills            LA    4:21.98
H1-10Chris Martin             Fallbrook                SD    4:24.08
H1-11Tommy Williams           Clovis West              C     4:27.55

H2-1 Richard Hirschman        Torrance                 S     4:12.12Q
H2-2 Adam McAboy              Miramonte                NC    4:12.13Q
H2-3 Mike McCracken           Loyola                   S     4:12.29Q
H2-4 Tony Perez               Manteca                  SJ    4:12.74Q
H2-5 Jim Zimmer               Simi Valley              S     4:12.75Q
H2-6 Jeff Rachel              Garces Memorial          C     4:12.92
H2-7 Russell Hill             Hill                     CC    4:13.49
H2-8 Tom Macken               Santa Rosa               NC    4:18.18
H2-9 Kevin Munoz              Lassen                   N     4:21.53
H2-10Tefere Gebre             Belmont                  LA    4:22.78
H2-11Pat Higuera              Mt Miguel                SD    4:25.49
H2-12Rod Heskett              Westmont                 CC    4:26.83

Final:

1    Mark Mastalir            Jesuit                   SJ    4:07.81
2    Richard Hirschman        Torrance                 S     4:11.60
3    Mike McCracken           Loyola                   S     4:11.68
4    Tony Perez               Manteca                  SJ    4:11.80
5    Adam McAboy              Miramonte                NC    4:12.69
6    Raul Serratos            Moreno Valley            S     4:12.75
7    Jorge Castro             Ramona                   SD    4:13.51
8    Greg Scattini            Palma                    CC    4:13.63
9    Jason Lienau             Clovis                   C     4:14.66
10   Jim Zimmer               Simi Valley              S     4:16.55

Source: Lynbrook

[26mi235]

It really creates problems if the longer races advance only based on placings within the heat. It gives the better runners NO incentive to run fast and you can get very slow races that are very boring to watch as a result. It also can be unfair to other heats run more normally because the super-slow heat had just a fast 400 or whatever.

[fatman]

It really creates problems if the longer races advance only based on placings within the heat. It gives the better runners NO incentive to run fast and you can get very slow races that are very boring to watch as a result. It also can be unfair to other heats run more normally because the super-slow heat had just a fast 400 or whatever.

Don't agree. If you have a weak finish, you will not sit back and let the pace go slow. If you have a strong finish, fine, but if the pace is really slow, you are allowing a lot of people in the race who you might otherwise drop with ease if the pace were merely honest (and are therefore taking a non-significant gamble that you will be one of the lucky ones in the mad dash to the finish). There is incentive to run fast.

And even if there were no incentive, at least you are competing against the guys in your own race, not against the guys in the other race, the one that you have no control over.

Also, since when do we care if the times in the heats are fats or slow? They are designed to select runners for the final, not to be hot races. Sometimes they are anyway (e.g., '84 men's Olympic 800 semis, both of them!!), but this isn't really what they are about.

People always bring up the issue of "justice," as in "If you can't finish in the top 5 you don't deserve it." Maybe. Certainly, Ashley Higginson and AJ Acosta wouldn't have this problem if they finished in the big Q places, no argument there. But if you want to use that logic, the other guys qualifying on time don't deserve it either . The question isn't whether Ashley Higginson deserves it more than the other Big Q finishers, it's whether she deserves it less than guys with little q marks simply because they were lucky enough to be in a heat with a fast early tempo. I say no.

[26mi235]

It really creates problems if the longer races advance only based on placings within the heat. It gives the better runners NO incentive to run fast and you can get very slow races that are very boring to watch as a result. It also can be unfair to other heats run more normally because the super-slow heat had just a fast 400 or whatever.

Don't agree. If you have a weak finish, you will not sit back and let the pace go slow. If you have a strong finish, fine, but if the pace is really slow, you are allowing a lot of people in the race who you might otherwise drop with ease if the pace were merely honest (and are therefore taking a non-significant gamble that you will be one of the lucky ones in the mad dash to the finish). There is incentive to run fast.

We have no evidence of what will happen if a longer race is place only, as they never run them that way. I do not think you are going to see races of 1500 and up with Qs only and even 800s as well. As soon as you do, you will see people scream bloody murder about the inequity of it; you already have a lot of screaming when you have only a few qs allowed.

I am NOT saying that the 100s or 200s (same for the hurdles) or even 400s should be run this way. However, if it is all Qs, then the qualifying process becomes very important, and possibly unfair (are wind-aided times included? is altitude taken into account? The southern/western schools have a big advantage making marks because there are more opportunities to make marks, especially if the guys that do not get many chances happen to have 3 great wind-aided times but no normal backups.

[fatman]

We have no evidence of what will happen if a longer race is place only, as they never run them that way. I do not think you are going to see races of 1500 and up with Qs only and even 800s as well. As soon as you do, you will see people scream bloody murder about the inequity of it; you already have a lot of screaming when you have only a few qs allowed.

This is not correct. It was standard practice to advance on place in distance races. Those 800 semis from the '84 Olympic that I mentioned in the previous post were top 4 places advance, no time qualifiers. Adding time qualifiers is the innovation, not the other way around.

I have run plenty of 1500s that advanced people strictly on place. When it didn't go my way, it never occurred to me to think it was somehow unfair because I had run faster than the guys in heat 2. I was supposed to beat the guys in my heat. I didn't. End of story. No complaints - except to myself for having run a poor race.

There are times when qualifying on time might make sense, notably when there is a wide range of ability in the field, and you can't be sure the seeding was fair. This, however, does not describe the NCAA, USATF, or Oly Trials meets.

[dj]

I'd prefer a big Q-only system of qualifying. But the problem then is the scratch of a high seed.

Here's the standard seeding into a pair of semi-final races, qualifying the first four to the final.

1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17
2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18

If #1 scratches, you've given #12 an advantage over #10. And if it's a turn race, the advantage is not just advancing, but also in lane draws.

The only solution is to do a re-seed as soon as the scratch is known, but that might be as late as 15 minutes or so before a race. Particularly for a meet on TV, that begins a problem with great ripple effects..

[fatman]

I'd prefer a big Q-only system of qualifying. But the problem then is the scratch of a high seed.

Here's the standard seeding into a pair of semi-final races, qualifying the first four to the final.

1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17
2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18

If #1 scratches, you've given #12 an advantage over #10. And if it's a turn race, the advantage is not just advancing, but also in lane draws.

The only solution is to do a re-seed as soon as the scratch is known, but that might be as late as 15 minutes or so before a race. Particularly for a meet on TV, that begins a problem with great ripple effects..

If the fields are pretty even from top to bottom, this won't be a big deal. In the big meets, with tough qualifying standards, the fields will be pretty even.

If not, well, no system is perfect. Not saying the place-only system is perfect, just arguing that it is the best option.