Good Hope Invitational 2014
09/15/2014 12:49:56 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 34
I think the Varsity "5K" course was cut quite a bit short...
I think the Varsity "5K" course was cut quite a bit short...
09/15/2014 1:17:24 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 70
4625M
4625M
09/15/2014 3:49:08 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 34
I really hope these aren't put into the rankings since it's not a full 5K. @timloreman
I really hope these aren't put into the rankings since it's not a full 5K. @timloreman
09/15/2014 3:51:45 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 34
So, the winning time for the full distance would be 20:20 for the 5A-7A Girls.
So, the winning time for the full distance would be 20:20 for the 5A-7A Girls.
09/15/2014 8:46:37 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 96
Posting results but not adding performances due to course length.
Posting results but not adding performances due to course length.
09/15/2014 10:16:12 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
LOl well why don't you look at "Hay of a Run" hosted by Fairview and "Fairview Invitational" hosted by Fairview or "Battle of Blakeley" hosted by Spanish Fort or Scottsboro ect. There are several "short courses!" lol Tell me those weren't short. But yet those results are posted every year! lol So yes results should be posted just like all the others are. Yes it's true some courses are "short" or "long" or "fast" or whatever but all that matters is what happens at sectionals and state correct? That's where everything is settled and counts for real. So lets see some consistency here.
LOl well why don't you look at "Hay of a Run" hosted by Fairview and "Fairview Invitational" hosted by Fairview or "Battle of Blakeley" hosted by Spanish Fort or Scottsboro ect. There are several "short courses!" lol Tell me those weren't short. But yet those results are posted every year! lol So yes results should be posted just like all the others are. Yes it's true some courses are "short" or "long" or "fast" or whatever but all that matters is what happens at sectionals and state correct? That's where everything is settled and counts for real. So lets see some consistency here.
09/15/2014 11:10:12 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 412
I welcome not posting results for courses that are known to be short. Battle at Blakeley is no longer an issue. The Fairview courses remain. But if a course is known to be short, it should not be included.
I welcome not posting results for courses that are known to be short. Battle at Blakeley is no longer an issue. The Fairview courses remain. But if a course is known to be short, it should not be included.
09/16/2014 12:59:50 AM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
All Good Hope results have been posted in the past. So why not this one? The quality of runners may or may not have been as good as this year as in the past so maybe it went unnoticed? I don't know if the course has changed or not this year from last year or previous years? I do know the first mile or two at Good Hope this year is tough with lots of steep hills. I don't if that is maybe why the course is a maybe a bit short to compensate for the tough course? All I know is IF these results DON'T get posted for this race then all the other "short" 5K races from the past previous years should be removed also! Fair is fair! As mentioned above "Battle of Blakeley, Fairview Invitational, and Hay of a Run, and Scottsboro" are known short courses but yet ALL the "pr" times remain on individual records still. There still all posted here! There are other "pr" courses like "Dew it on Trails" and "Kadzzu" from Cold Springs that are "pr" courses also and others. The other short courses should be removed also if these results aren't posted. Just look at those race results and see for yourself. If one race doesn't get posted then all the other "short" courses shouldn't be posted either. Consistency! As mentioned before all that matters is State and sectionals anyway! That is all!
All Good Hope results have been posted in the past. So why not this one? The quality of runners may or may not have been as good as this year as in the past so maybe it went unnoticed? I don't know if the course has changed or not this year from last year or previous years? I do know the first mile or two at Good Hope this year is tough with lots of steep hills. I don't if that is maybe why the course is a maybe a bit short to compensate for the tough course? All I know is IF these results DON'T get posted for this race then all the other "short" 5K races from the past previous years should be removed also! Fair is fair! As mentioned above "Battle of Blakeley, Fairview Invitational, and Hay of a Run, and Scottsboro" are known short courses but yet ALL the "pr" times remain on individual records still. There still all posted here! There are other "pr" courses like "Dew it on Trails" and "Kadzzu" from Cold Springs that are "pr" courses also and others. The other short courses should be removed also if these results aren't posted. Just look at those race results and see for yourself. If one race doesn't get posted then all the other "short" courses shouldn't be posted either. Consistency! As mentioned before all that matters is State and sectionals anyway! That is all!
09/16/2014 8:05:22 AM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 412
It is very simple. If the decision is made to not permit results from short courses in the database, then coaches will not create or endorse short courses, teams will eventually quit going to them, and performances in the database, within the accepted limits of the sport, will be meaningful. The past is the past in this case. Blakeley has either been lengthened or will not be a venue any longer, to the best of my recollection. Scottsboro has been discussed and is not short, it might be fast, but it is not short. Good Hope, as mentioned this year is more than a quarter mile short. That is a clear outlier. So, I endorse making a decision that will ultimately, I hope, benefit the sport and bring more rigor to the times in the database. Next year, vote with your feet, literally, and don't go to a meet with a known short course and your performance will count.
It is very simple. If the decision is made to not permit results from short courses in the database, then coaches will not create or endorse short courses, teams will eventually quit going to them, and performances in the database, within the accepted limits of the sport, will be meaningful. The past is the past in this case. Blakeley has either been lengthened or will not be a venue any longer, to the best of my recollection. Scottsboro has been discussed and is not short, it might be fast, but it is not short. Good Hope, as mentioned this year is more than a quarter mile short. That is a clear outlier. So, I endorse making a decision that will ultimately, I hope, benefit the sport and bring more rigor to the times in the database. Next year, vote with your feet, literally, and don't go to a meet with a known short course and your performance will count.
09/16/2014 8:37:38 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 799
There were 2min PRs by everyone. If I put the times in, if affects the NATIONAL rankings....not just Alabama. So in a since it actually does matter beyond sectionals as far as the database is concerned. MileSplit is making an effort to keep the rankings as accurate as possible...and a 17:20 runner hitting sub 16min and jumping to the top 50 nationally is skewed data. Pretty sure I didnt add the Battle of Blakeley the year it was short. I remember the 200 emails I got about it.
There were 2min PRs by everyone.

If I put the times in, if affects the NATIONAL rankings....not just Alabama. So in a since it actually does matter beyond sectionals as far as the database is concerned. MileSplit is making an effort to keep the rankings as accurate as possible...and a 17:20 runner hitting sub 16min and jumping to the top 50 nationally is skewed data.

Pretty sure I didnt add the Battle of Blakeley the year it was short. I remember the 200 emails I got about it.
09/16/2014 9:41:06 AM
Coach
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
The course for this meet had to be rerouted due to some water pipe work that had been going on. The rerouting wound up cutting out .3 miles. The course is normally not short and will not be a problem in the future. We hope everyone enjoyed the course and the meet as much as we did.
The course for this meet had to be rerouted due to some water pipe work that had been going on. The rerouting wound up cutting out .3 miles. The course is normally not short and will not be a problem in the future. We hope everyone enjoyed the course and the meet as much as we did.
09/16/2014 10:43:28 AM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
So if the course is 300 to 375 meters short according to a couple people that equals 2 min prs with all the hills the first couple miles? I'm pretty sure that most boy runners could run 300 meters in less than 1:30 and most women would be pretty close also. Bottom line is I'm positive the times are about 1 to 1:30 shorter than what they would run at a certified full length course. If someone complains...why single out this particular course and not add the results for the athletes? Because other short courses were added last year "Fairview courses" in particular and in previous years and those results remain still. SO WHY WERE THEY POSTED THEN? Did they affect the NATIONAL RANKINGS last year also? So who has governing authority to decide which courses should and should not be added? How many meets ARE NOT added to the profile data base each year for cross country? It's frustrating to see some "short" courses that HAVE already been added to the data base and STILL remain and then to go and not add this one to be consistent with the others doesn't make any sense. If all races were added, or if all "short" races were NOT added, there wouldn't be a problem. But from what I see it's inconsistent! The 550 runners or so that ran at Good Hope Saturday worked very hard to be able to compete and have their results from Good Hope posted to their profile even if the results were a little faster than normal. I would say any intelligent person would be able to tell by looking at someone's profile which courses they ran may have been "short" compared to all other results they have on there. Just remember it's not the athletes fault their coaches signed up to go to this venue or it's not the athletes fault if the course was a little short for one reason or another. The athletes always look forward to seeing a completed race in their profile after their hard work they put in. There were NO individual awards given out either for anyone! Good hope got their entry fees though. So basically no times in the data base, no individual awards, nothing for the individual athletes to be rewarded and remembered with. It's just too bad for the athletes that's all.
So if the course is 300 to 375 meters short according to a couple people that equals 2 min prs with all the hills the first couple miles? I'm pretty sure that most boy runners could run 300 meters in less than 1:30 and most women would be pretty close also. Bottom line is I'm positive the times are about 1 to 1:30 shorter than what they would run at a certified full length course. If someone complains...why single out this particular course and not add the results for the athletes? Because other short courses were added last year "Fairview courses" in particular and in previous years and those results remain still. SO WHY WERE THEY POSTED THEN? Did they affect the NATIONAL RANKINGS last year also? So who has governing authority to decide which courses should and should not be added? How many meets ARE NOT added to the profile data base each year for cross country? It's frustrating to see some "short" courses that HAVE already been added to the data base and STILL remain and then to go and not add this one to be consistent with the others doesn't make any sense. If all races were added, or if all "short" races were NOT added, there wouldn't be a problem. But from what I see it's inconsistent! The 550 runners or so that ran at Good Hope Saturday worked very hard to be able to compete and have their results from Good Hope posted to their profile even if the results were a little faster than normal. I would say any intelligent person would be able to tell by looking at someone's profile which courses they ran may have been "short" compared to all other results they have on there. Just remember it's not the athletes fault their coaches signed up to go to this venue or it's not the athletes fault if the course was a little short for one reason or another. The athletes always look forward to seeing a completed race in their profile after their hard work they put in. There were NO individual awards given out either for anyone! Good hope got their entry fees though. So basically no times in the data base, no individual awards, nothing for the individual athletes to be rewarded and remembered with. It's just too bad for the athletes that's all.
09/16/2014 12:56:57 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 799
@Kobe8 If any intelligent person in our state can see that they are fast the assumption cannot be made that a person living in Idaho looking at national rankings and seeing these times can make the same conclusion. I cannot go wheel every course. However when the meet director posts that the course is short, I can guarantee the times wont make the database.
@Kobe8

If any intelligent person in our state can see that they are fast the assumption cannot be made that a person living in Idaho looking at national rankings and seeing these times can make the same conclusion.

I cannot go wheel every course. However when the meet director posts that the course is short, I can guarantee the times wont make the database.
09/16/2014 12:57:52 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 34
The course is actually near 500m short if not more.
The course is actually near 500m short if not more.
09/16/2014 8:57:10 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
Obviously the course was short but not 500 meters @JordanAdams. According to coachbell it was 375 meters short. One of our runners measured it 350 meters short. But there were many steep hills in the first half of the course also. I believe there wouldn't have been an issue if 2 runners didn't run a high 15 time. Adding 1:30 to everyone's time would be about right in my estimation and put everyone's time were they should be. That would put the VERY BEST runner at about 17:20 which is probably to slow anyway. But of course that would be too complicated wouldn't it? But my questions are still being avoided. And this is where I have a problem. Why have other "short" courses been entered in the past and not removed? "Fairview courses" in particular and in previous years and those results remain still as do other "short" courses. SO WHY WERE THEY POSTED THEN? Did they not affect the NATIONAL RANKINGS last year also or in previous years??? So who has governing authority to decide which courses should and should not be added? How many meets ARE NOT added to the profile data base each year for cross country for Alabama? As mentioned above if entries were ALWAYS consistent (either by not adding any pr courses at all or just adding them all anyways) it wouldn't be an issue. But unfortunately I guess certain meets are singled out while others are not and put into the system. No one wants too see flawed times entered but they would like to have something entered at least even if they had to add 1:30 to their time or whatever. Cross country courses and times always vary greatly anyways and all that matters IS Sectionals and MOST IMPORTANTLY STATE as mentioned above. Believe me these times won't set any National records if that's what your worried about. Not even close. lol So last but not least....if these times ARE NOT entered into the data base some way shape or form, would this meet still count as one of the minimum meets required to participate in Sectionals? I believe in order to run sectionals you need at least 3 meets for the season if I'm not mistaken. There may be some schools who need this meet as one of there 3 meets required for sectionals and may not be able to afford to go to many other meets. I'd like to know this at least. Thanks
Obviously the course was short but not 500 meters @JordanAdams. According to coachbell it was 375 meters short. One of our runners measured it 350 meters short. But there were many steep hills in the first half of the course also. I believe there wouldn't have been an issue if 2 runners didn't run a high 15 time. Adding 1:30 to everyone's time would be about right in my estimation and put everyone's time were they should be. That would put the VERY BEST runner at about 17:20 which is probably to slow anyway. But of course that would be too complicated wouldn't it?

But my questions are still being avoided. And this is where I have a problem. Why have other "short" courses been entered in the past and not removed? "Fairview courses" in particular and in previous years and those results remain still as do other "short" courses. SO WHY WERE THEY POSTED THEN? Did they not affect the NATIONAL RANKINGS last year also or in previous years??? So who has governing authority to decide which courses should and should not be added? How many meets ARE NOT added to the profile data base each year for cross country for Alabama? As mentioned above if entries were ALWAYS consistent (either by not adding any pr courses at all or just adding them all anyways) it wouldn't be an issue. But unfortunately I guess certain meets are singled out while others are not and put into the system.

No one wants too see flawed times entered but they would like to have something entered at least even if they had to add 1:30 to their time or whatever. Cross country courses and times always vary greatly anyways and all that matters IS Sectionals and MOST IMPORTANTLY STATE as mentioned above. Believe me these times won't set any National records if that's what your worried about. Not even close. lol

So last but not least....if these times ARE NOT entered into the data base some way shape or form, would this meet still count as one of the minimum meets required to participate in Sectionals? I believe in order to run sectionals you need at least 3 meets for the season if I'm not mistaken. There may be some schools who need this meet as one of there 3 meets required for sectionals and may not be able to afford to go to many other meets. I'd like to know this at least. Thanks
09/16/2014 11:15:15 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 799
@Kobe8 I am not adding 1:30 to each time because by "your estimation" it would be correct. Pretty sure the short battle if Blakely was the only other meet I left out.....ever. Nope. Database performances have no relation to appearances for section. No meets are singled out. It is 2014.....not 2013...not 2012. I am trying to keep the database a valid as possible. By whose authority? Mine. And I'm done kicking this dead horse.
@Kobe8
I am not adding 1:30 to each time because by "your estimation" it would be correct.

Pretty sure the short battle if Blakely was the only other meet I left out.....ever.

Nope. Database performances have no relation to appearances for section.

No meets are singled out.

It is 2014.....not 2013...not 2012. I am trying to keep the database a valid as possible. By whose authority? Mine.

And I'm done kicking this dead horse.
09/17/2014 9:18:39 AM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
Lots of points were made on this long thread. Great to see. Since Good Hope is ONLY the "second ever" xc meet to be left out with fast "pr" times apparently, now is better than ever to start NOT entering these type of meets for the future from now on in the data base. Must start at some point, so why not start enforcing these rules with these types of races using this one as an example or starting point. If your consistent with this by NOT entering any future meets that are "short" or by most people having great "prs" there wont be a problem at all and have my full support 100%!! I'm sure everyone would welcome this as long as ALL meets are treated this way, the same standards, and stay consistent on what IS and IS not being entered due to fast times. This would be tremendously welcomed to start doing this from now on for good! It would be great to always check the times before they are entered into the data base to make sure they are relevant. Fairview Invitational is this weekend I believe so we will see if that course is fast once again or if it has been changed or not. Nothing else to say really. Thanks for your time and effort and well see how it goes from now on. Have a wonderful day. Thank you!
Lots of points were made on this long thread. Great to see. Since Good Hope is ONLY the "second ever" xc meet to be left out with fast "pr" times apparently, now is better than ever to start NOT entering these type of meets for the future from now on in the data base. Must start at some point, so why not start enforcing these rules with these types of races using this one as an example or starting point. If your consistent with this by NOT entering any future meets that are "short" or by most people having great "prs" there wont be a problem at all and have my full support 100%!! I'm sure everyone would welcome this as long as ALL meets are treated this way, the same standards, and stay consistent on what IS and IS not being entered due to fast times. This would be tremendously welcomed to start doing this from now on for good! It would be great to always check the times before they are entered into the data base to make sure they are relevant. Fairview Invitational is this weekend I believe so we will see if that course is fast once again or if it has been changed or not. Nothing else to say really. Thanks for your time and effort and well see how it goes from now on. Have a wonderful day. Thank you!
09/17/2014 2:47:09 PM
User
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 57
I nominate you to go measure all courses and "certify" them for proper placement in the results.
I nominate you to go measure all courses and "certify" them for proper placement in the results.
09/17/2014 9:08:05 PM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 5
Adding 1:30 to everyone's time doesn't make sense. If the course is 375m short, it doesn't take someone running 5:10 pace the same amount of time it takes someone running 7:10 pace to cover the same distance. It is what it is and I am pretty sure it will be right when they host their next meet. Is this why you can't wear a GPS watch in a race because you would know the course is short?
Adding 1:30 to everyone's time doesn't make sense. If the course is 375m short, it doesn't take someone running 5:10 pace the same amount of time it takes someone running 7:10 pace to cover the same distance. It is what it is and I am pretty sure it will be right when they host their next meet. Is this why you can't wear a GPS watch in a race because you would know the course is short?
09/18/2014 7:53:51 AM
User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 309
Scottsboro course is NOT short...this course has been surveyed and measured time and time again- it is a permanant course, built specifically for a 5k race. I have no idea why you kobe8- would throw that one into your expert opinion- but you are out of line. The times at Scottsboro course are VERY comparable to the State course in Moulton, do your homework!
Scottsboro course is NOT short...this course has been surveyed and measured time and time again- it is a permanant course, built specifically for a 5k race. I have no idea why you kobe8- would throw that one into your expert opinion- but you are out of line. The times at Scottsboro course are VERY comparable to the State course in Moulton, do your homework!

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.