Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Collegiate Records Question

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Collegiate Records Question

    As we all know, the NCAA allows performances on a flat 200 track, or performed at altitude to be converted for qualifying to the NCAA Championships.

    For a collegiate record can those "converted" performances be used?

    So if a miler goes to the JDL Fasttrack flat 200 meter track, and breaks the collegiate record once the NCAA converts it, does it count?

    Or if a DMR breaks the collegiate record at altitude off of the converted mark is that acceptable for a collegiate record?

    I believe the answer is no, but I just wanted the opinion of the people on the boards.

    Thank you.

  • #2
    The answer is "No."

    Conversions should be used only for lists for the purpose of giving a reasonable order.

    Comment


    • #3
      Let me amend dj's response slightly. The correct answer should be "NO!"

      Comment


      • #4
        I didn't know that flat-track marks were converted to banked-track marks. Where can these conversion factors be found?

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't know if they post their conversion factor, but TFRSS does use it!!
          If you're a marks & records geek like me, then TFRSS is NOT the place to go!!
          I use it just as a back-up to marks I already have!

          BUT their continued acceptance of Ayesha Champagnie's "6.56" gives them an F grade IMO!

          Comment


          • #6
            You do understand, aaronk, that TFRRS has one major mission -- to act as the rankings vehicle that determines qualification to NCAA championship competition -- yes?

            Comment


            • #7
              and for that purpose, T&FN has no problems at all with a conversion process. It helps level the playing field for the have-nots (even if I think some of the conversions are kinda whack)

              Comment


              • #8
                The OP appears to be asking if converted marks can be used for records purposes not whether converted marks can be used as qualifiers for meets. Answer to the former is no. Yes to the latter depending on the meet aimed for.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sure they can, as in the flat rack record, the banked 200 meter track record, the 11 lap to the mile record etc etc. More records! That’s what we need. If swimming can have records for swimming on your back, your front, side etc, why can’t we have records for track types?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by highjumpfan View Post
                    Sure they can, as in the flat rack record, the banked 200 meter track record, the 11 lap to the mile record etc etc. More records! That’s what we need. If swimming can have records for swimming on your back, your front, side etc, why can’t we have records for track types?
                    I think it is a great idea as it means NZ may still have a bunch of WRs - for grass tracks; 800m, 880y, 1 mile etc etc

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
                      I think it is a great idea as it means NZ may still have a bunch of WRs - for grass tracks; 800m, 880y, 1 mile etc etc
                      I've no doubt Peter Snell still holds the WR for an OUTdoor 385 yard grass track!!
                      LOL

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        While the OP is clearly asking about using converted marks for record purposes, I think a couple of points are worth clarifying.

                        1. Neither of the factors referenced as being adjusted for by the NCAA qualifying process (banked/unbanked or altitude) would, on their own, disqualify a performance from record consideration as long as the track is not oversized and meets other normal equipment specifications. It is just the use of a converted mark that is not proper for record purposes.
                        2. Unlike the ratification process of the IAAF (for world records) and USATF (for USA National Records), collegiate records have no universally-accepted record ratification official. I believe the NCAA may only keep track of Championship Meet Records, but not Collegiate records. Collegiate records on this board refer to those maintained by Track & Field News, which is limited to Division I NCAA athletes. The organizer of TFRRS, the United States Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association maintains a list of what it calls “Official USTFCCCA Collegiate Records”, which also accepts marks from Division II, Division III and NAIA four year university students. As pointed out above, neither of the two record-keepers would consider a mark derived using the TFRRS conversion factor as appropriate for record consideration.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by aaronk View Post
                          I've no doubt Peter Snell still holds the WR for an OUTdoor 385 yard grass track!!
                          LOL
                          There wouldn't be too many 800m of the last 56 years who could beat that performance on a 385 yard grass track

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The conversions for an OT (usually about 300m) are the same as for a 200m banked track. I think the a 200m banked track is better for the sprinters and the OTs are better for the distance but they are both quite a bit better than 200 (and smaller) flat tracks. There is also an adjustment for altitude, and two teams qualified for the DMR at nationals because they ran a good DMR at a place with a big conversion. Before they did this about 10% of marks were made at 200bank and OT tracks, which about 90% of the qualifying marks were from these. Big meets are still at the top sites, but more qualifiers come from the flat tracks now.

                            Here is a link for the track conversions:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gh View Post
                              Let me amend dj's response slightly. The correct answer should be "NO!"
                              I don't know why the UNM people might ever have thought it could be a record, but it appears that they've now gotten the message.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X