2013 Indoor Results


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: 2013 Indoor Results

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:49 am

Conor Dary wrote:Thanks 26 for the info. I heard something weird had happened on the relay. So Illinois like their basketball and football teams blew it again!


But not the women, who won behind such stars as Ashley Spencer (30pts 200/400/4x400) -- and neither the women nor the men were favored. In fact, the men were not even mentioned as being among the top contenders, so they should be complemented on competing very well. They were only ranked 56th before and 37th now, while Penn State, Nebraska, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were all ranked in the top 15 (MN now down a bit and Wisconsin moved (too) high to 4th.

"The 30th-year head coach expects his Badgers, Penn State and Minnesota to chase meet favorite Nebraska for the title."
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 2013 Indoor Results

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:19 pm

Today and tomorrow mark what are classified as Last Chance meets to qualify for the NCAA champs. This year they are taking the top 16 (no ties, going to second best marks, etc) marks except for the relays where 12 are taken. Going in to today, Texas was ranked #1 in the DMR and decided not to contest another race, I suppose that they felt safe. However, when the dust settled on the three DMR heats at the Notre Dame meet, Texas' 9:31.x was only good for 14th (or 15th). My local boys finished 0.2 seconds out, although ahead of Texas. Penn State's 9:26 was the best of the marks.

There might be some fast 800 and mile races tomorrow, making those with current (conditional) qualifying marks a little nervous, I am sure.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 2013 Indoor Results

Postby aaronk » Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:13 pm

At the Arkansas Last Chance.....

Leoman Mamoh ran 1:46.07 for a CL....and 7th on the A-T Collegiate indoor list!!
Second in that race was Tomas Squella, at 1:46.76, #2 on the 2013 Collegiate list.

In the women's PV, Sandi Morris vaulted 14-6 1/4 (4.43), tying for 10th on the A-T indoor collegiate list!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: 2013 Indoor Results

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:39 pm

Another gem in the link that has the indoor time trial -- Lazas was listed as running 1:24, which is a very good time for a multi athlete. He may not be able to do that as a seventh performance in two days but might still hit 2:29 and pick up a ton of points.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 2013 Indoor Results

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:38 pm

26mi235 wrote:In terms of rules, I would be inclined to say that using a strongly banked track makes most 200m and many 400m races ineligible for record purposes -- they are aided events that would not even be legal for road racing records (they exceed the allowable downhill limits).

Then why not change the way an indoor track is banked?

I've been saying this for at least 5 years now, and I will say it again: Move the axis of the banking from the inside of lane 1 to the inside of lane 4!

For example, if you have a typical 6-lane track where the highest point of banking is 1 meter off the ground (that would be the outside of lane 6), it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the further out you are from lane 1, the greater your advantage. And since the start of the 200 or 400 in lanes 5 and 6 are closest to the middle of the turn, the runner goes slightly up, before going way down, then way up and way down again, before crossing the finish. Of course a runner in lane 1 gets no help, even if the turns tilt, because the track does not rise or drop on every turn in lane 1.

Now, suppose we move the axis of a track's banking from the inside of lane 1 to the inside of lane 4. Lane 6 will rise as high as a half-meter from the middle of the turn, before leveling off at the back-straight, and lane 1 will drop a half-meter from the middle of the turn, before rising at the back-straight. A runner in lane 1 will start on a slight downhill, and go down, up, down and up; for lane 6, the runner will start on a an uphill that is barely noticeable, but the downhill run toward the back-straight and the homestretch is not nearly as obvious as it is on a banked track today.

Such a track as this will lessen the advantage to a runner in lane 5 or 6, while a runner in lane 1 or 2 gets the added advantage of a slight downhill start, thereby improving his acceleration at the start to neutralize the advantage of a runner in lane 5 or 6. Runners in lane 3 or 4 will barely notice an uphill or downhill bank, because the axis of that banking will be between those lanes.

Such a track would have to have its straightaways built almost 2 feet off the ground, to allow for the drop in lane 1 on the turns. I'm sure people will have questions about my proposal, but it has the advantage of never having been tried. Or has it?
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Dave, Google [Bot], Per Andersen and 9 guests