NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

[dylan58]

Does anyone have an explanation (or theory) as to why the winning time of the men's 100, which had the maximum 2.0 tailwind, was so slow(10.25, the slowest ever in the auto-time era, according to Track Newsletter)?

[blacklily]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

The damn schedule, where there was an additional qualifying round in every sprint event so marginal talents could go to NCs. Probably wiped them out.

[Guest]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

5{hedule, where there was an additional
>qualifying round in every sprint event so
>marginal talents could go to NCs. Probably wiped
>them out.

That excuse doesn't fly in this event--there were three rounds in the 100 last year, and Mardy Scales(1st-10.25), Michael Frater(3rd-10.36), Marc Burns(4th-10.39), and Samie Parker(5th-10.41) didn't run the 200 in Sacramento.

[Guest]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

Two top runners both false started out of the race. Combine that with the fact that the wind at Sac was swirling all the time (some heats would be negative wind, positive wind, and no wind, back to back to back) and the wind results did not seem to be in line with what it seemed like at trackside.

[gh]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

>The damn schedule, where there was an additional
>qualifying round in every sprint event so
>marginal talents could go to NCs. Probably wiped
>them out.>>

Feeble excuse if the U.S. is going to continue to produce world-class sprinters. In the WC/OG you have to run 4 races in two days, with often no more than a cuople of hours between the semis and finals. These guys didn't even have to run semis the same day as the final.

If you want a real culprit, look no farther than the weather. Was only about 65 degrees at race time, and by sprint times, that's pretty darned cold. Couple that with two false starts which left them standing around for about 5 minutes and long muscles were getting appreciably shorter. To say nothing of the fact that at that point these guys realized the starter wasn't to be messed with, so everybody was probably hanging back to the tune of quite a few 100ths.

[Guest]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

naw it was slow cause i wasnt in the race haha

[bubba]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

so Bennie what happened? give us the scoop. why weren't you in the race?

[Trinity]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

I think the two false starts and the temperature drop attributed to the slow times.

[Guest]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

i was crampin up in my warm up then when i did my first start after fixin my blocks i cause cramp in my hammy. there was nothin i can do. owell.

[Guest]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

Check out the blistering times in the 100m at the NCAA division II. The foreign athletes really make DII comparable with DI as far as the top 8.

[Guest]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

D2 100m:

1st-10.20, 2nd-10.21 (as juniors) not to shabby

[Guest]

Re: NCAA--Men's 100--Why so slow?

I think I posted to seed times in my last response. oops.
But still not to shabby, eh?