News Articles >>
CIS Indoor Track Conversion Ratios
Posted 8 years ago
The CIS Indoor Track rankings will use a different conversion factor in 2015. This was first implemented during the 2012-2013 season by the NCAA (Division I, II & III).
Banked 200m Tracks and Oversized Tracks (+260m) - research conclusion - there is NO statistical difference found between performances on a “Banked 200m Track” (BT) and that of an “Oversized Track” (OT). Therefore, the NCAA has standardized their conversions between flat 200m tracks vs BT/OT facilities.
How will this effect the 2015 CIS Indoor Season? We'll find out soon enough...
User Comments
-
User since:
Jul 26th, 2002
Posts: 2238Trackie said 8 years ago
You can view the 2015 CIS Indoor Track & Field Standards here: http://www.trackie.com/track-and-field/Articles/2015-cis-indoor-track-field-championship-qualifying-standards/12999/
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
Is there a 400m Indoor track taken into consideration when the NCAA says
Quote comment
NO statistical difference found between performances on a “Banked 200m Track” (BT) and that of an “Oversized Track” (OT).
Seems a bit unfair for anyone who can race in the Ottawa Dome. -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
Banked 200m Tracks and Oversized Tracks (+260m) - research conclusion - there is NO statistical difference found between performances on a “Banked 200m Track” (BT) and that of an “Oversized Track” (OT). Therefore, the NCAA has standardized their conversions between flat 200m tracks vs BT/OT facilities.
Quote comment
This doesnt seem fair to canadian tracks. theres no way that yorks banked track is going to run the same times as arkansas with the same competition -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354long slow said 8 years ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"This doesnt seem fair to canadian tracks. theres no way that yorks banked track is going to run the same times as arkansas with the same competition"
Especially not in a 3k, where you're likely running exclusively in the almost flat lane 1... Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
Go to a good american school and you dont have to worry about racing on a shitty track, bruh.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
who decides on choosing flat 200m tracks as "the norm"? What is the reasoning behind this decision? Just to be different than the NCAA?
Quote comment -
User since:
Mar 1st, 2003
Posts: 3391quicksilver said 8 years ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"who decides on choosing flat 200m tracks as "the norm"? What is the reasoning behind this decision? Just to be different than the NCAA?"
The same people who decide that running non IAAF standard distances (300, 600, 1000m, etc) is a good idea.
The problem isn't the NCAA's conclusion that banked and oversized are the same. When the NCAA thinks of banked, they think of Arkansas, The Armory, Penn State, true 200m banks. Banked tracks in Canada are lucky if they reach my knee at the top of the curve.
The NCAA also bases its standards on 200m banked, and then coverts away from those. In Canada we base on flat, and then convert.
The NCAA's conclusions apply to the NCAA, and properly banked tracks. But not to Canada. Quote comment -
User since:
Jan 1st, 2007
Posts: 113B-West said 8 years ago
I think non-IAAF distances are a fantastic idea. The same way the 60 sets up the 100 for the outdoor season, the 300 sets up the 400, 600 too 800, etc, etc. By making it systemic it makes it really easy to move from one peak to the next.
Quote comment
Converting down to flat tracks is based on what type of track is hosting the CIS championship. In this case Windsor is flat, so all times are converted to flat this year. If the Championship host track is banked, then times will converted to banked/over-sized.
It will take a year or two to decide if the conversion is too harsh or not.
At this point, I think it will be more about the competition on the track, rather then the track itself that will have the greatest influence on times. -
User since:
Jan 19th, 2015
Posts: 2jcharriere said 8 years ago
After reviewing the data, it seems to me that there is a glaring omission of very important factors in the formula for the track indexing. The report submitted by the NCAA states that since the relationship linear that it is very precise. Precise means the capacity to repeat something, but I don't feel that it is accurate in the way it reflects the tracks we have in Canada.
Quote comment
The average bank on US banked tracks is considerably greater than that of for example, the Winnipeg track. Lumping a track with less bank in with those that have a greater bank is poor application of science. Any trackie knows that performances are not repeatable on command and that performances can be as much attributed to the atmosphere and competition at a meet as to the surface it is run on. It is a very basic concept of physics that the amount of centripetal force generated on an incline is directly affected by the angle of the bank. In my opinion, it is there unreasonable to attempt to index all banked tracks by one standard.
I don't think we should be indexing tracks in the first place since we never accounted for differences in turning radii between inner and outer lanes, so I feel that we're over regulating the sport. It has made banked tracks go from desirable and something athletes would look forward to running on, to something undesirable since now they are penalized for their performances.
As a spectator sport, I think we've just shot ourselves in the foot. We can no longer get excited about a performance on a banked track unless we have a conversion chart and calculator on hand (not something the average spectator will do) because records are no longer run, but calculated and argued over.
Now if we MUST index tracks, we have oversimplified things. Every track must be indexed individually to reflect the centripetal force generated by the bank in the track, and the formula must also reflect how many meters were run on a bank (where any perceivable advantage is to be found). Any idea that running "down" the bank is a fallacy because gravity, being a conservative force, will require the athlete to put in work to climb the bank in order to get back that work energy on the way down.
Too many confluent variables? AGREED!
Lets keep this simple, run fast, turn left and have the final time be the time when we crossed the finish line.
NB. I have no reason to be biased, I was a pole vaulter and this does not affect me in the least. I was compelled to point out clear issues in the application of the NCAA index to Canadian tracks as well as omissions of basic principles of physics. -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Andrew Jones said 8 years ago
Good points here by jhcarriere. On a pure level, the whole notion of rankings is faulty, given the myriad of variable noted by jhcarriere. But, what would be a better way of qualifying athletes -- in terms of "short-listing" them by performance, meeting (absolute) CIS standards, etc.?
Quote comment
Many would suggest that head-to-head records of athletes (the NC2A BCS playoff football system is a well-known initiative to replace a formerly problematic rankings system with HTH competition as a qualifier) is a truer measure of ranking. But, given the size of Canada, this method of determination is surely impossible. -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
If we copy the NCAA's conversions, why not just take the next step and determine that banked and OS tracks are the norm like they do? eliminate this conversion for the ancient, slow facilities in this country.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Kevin said 8 years ago
I don't think that there's any question that same athlete running a 300 in lane 5 of a 400m track will run considerably faster than running a 300 in lane 2 of a 200m track. Since one way to qualify to CI's is to be in the top 12 in the rankings that means that universities that have the funds to travel to an oversize track have an inherent advantage to making it to CI's. Anyone that checked the rankings going into CI's and compared those rankings to the final standings at CI's can see that there are numerous occasions where a highly ranked athlete (with a time from an oversize track) doesn't even make the final. I think its these results that was the catalyst for track conversions. Are they perfect? Nope but they are step in the right direction to make sure that all athletes from all programs can make it to CI's, not just those that have access to banked and oversize tracks. Some of these "ancient and slow facilities" are the best that some programs can access. Plus, from my understanding, the NCAA has a LARGE amount of data to use when determining these conversions, they are anything but random.
Quote comment -
-
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
What schools don't have access to a banked or oversized track? Most if not all of the AUS schools were at McGill, most of the Western schools were in Winnipeg, people are flying or driving to facilities like Washington and Spire and so on and so on. If someone could provide us with a list of schools that aren't going to banked or oversized tracks I would like to see it. Also, the number of people that qualify for CIS from these meets that wouldn't otherwise qualify is minimal, I think that the travel, chasing of standards and just plain having a bad day or not peaking just right may have as much to do with bad performances at CIs as not being deserving of being there. I also think that, when all is said and done, the people who compete at CIS will be the people that should be there no matter what track they ran on with a couple of exceptions.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354klutch said 8 years ago
It's always seemed to that the indoor season could rely more heavily on conference meet performance for qualification.
Quote comment
In the OUA especially, your chances of being a non-auto conference qualifier (ie. 1-2 spot, not in top 12 nationally) are next to 0; I don't believe I've seen that happen in years (correct me if I'm wrong). As a result of this, most OUA athletes know that they must rely on a strong, time-based qualifier.
Due to the time-frame of the CIS indoor season, this means that at minimum, this time-based performance is about 3-4 weeks out from the actual championship. At the top end this doesn't matter because these athletes likely do not have to peak to obtain this standard. For athletes "on the bubble" however, there is an incentive to attempt to do the risky "double peak," which often turns into the single peak out of desperation to qualify. Quite often, these athletes seem to pull out an incredible mid-season performance(s), then crash and burn come CIS. This is an unfortunate strategy to force upon the league.
Ideally, I would see more place qualifiers at the conference level. This would ensure that the athletes headed to CIS are the ones that are on a trajectory to run fast there. It would also give a better opportunity to athletes/schools who do not as many resources to be competitive. -
User since:
Oct 27th, 2014
Posts: 36Merc said 8 years ago
I would love to see a semi and a final for events like the 1000/1500. It would allow more athletes to make CIS in those events, and would take away some peoples' ability to triple/double (which can be good or bad I guess) which would allow a few others to make events that those in the 1000/1500 can no longer double with.
Quote comment
It could add an interesting team dynamic too, as teams wouldn't be able to rely on a few individuals to get them lots of points. -
User since:
Apr 1st, 2007
Posts: 892Obvious said 8 years ago
Quoting: Merc
"I would love to see a semi and a final for events like the 1000/1500."
Interesting suggestion, for reasons you've listed.
However in addition to extra cost (someone has to pay for the extra athletes - who should it be?), there is also the question of where you want to increase the schedule to accommodate the extra events (schedule is at the end):
http://en.cis-sic.ca/information/members_info/pdfs/pdf_playing_regs/14-15/Track_regs.pdf
Where would you put the semis? Quote comment -
User since:
Jan 29th, 2015
Posts: 76BestestCoach said 8 years ago
Quoting: Obvious
"Interesting suggestion, for reasons you've listed.
However in addition to extra cost (someone has to pay for the extra athletes - who should it be?), there is also the question of where you want to increase the schedule to accommodate the extra events (schedule is at the end):
http://en.cis-sic.ca/information/members_info/pdfs/pdf_playing_regs/14-15/Track_regs.pdf
Where would you put the semis?"
For the cost how about the athletes pay?
For the schedule....have you to been to a CIS meet? There is more down time at those meets than a filler episode of Pokémon. A Thursday, Friday and Saturday meet with ONE heat for all 1000 and above races has more than enough track time to hold 5x the amount of races. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
Quoting: Anonymous
". Also, the number of people that qualify for CIS from these meets that wouldn't otherwise qualify is minimal, I think that the travel, chasing of standards and just plain having a bad day or not peaking just right may have as much to do with bad performances at CIs as not being deserving of being there."
I think there is something to be said about the location of each conference championship being at different types of facilities. For an athlete peaking around championships, they may have their first performance worthy of going to CI's at the conference championships (perhaps the environment is also a catalyst for top performances as well). That performance is getting taken away from that athlete if their championship was held on a banked track. A similar but marginally slower athlete could also peak at their conference championship, but in a different conference where their championship isn't being held on a bank, will get sent to CI's in place of the originally mentioned athlete because the conversion factors are WAY TOO INACCURATE to actually capture the potentially inexistent advantage given by the banked tracks in Canada. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354klutch said 8 years ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"I think there is something to be said about the location of each conference championship being at different types of facilities. For an athlete peaking around championships, they may have their first performance worthy of going to CI's at the conference championships (perhaps the environment is also a catalyst for top performances as well). That performance is getting taken away from that athlete if their championship was held on a banked track. A similar but marginally slower athlete could also peak at their conference championship, but in a different conference where their championship isn't being held on a bank, will get sent to CI's in place of the originally mentioned athlete because the conversion factors are WAY TOO INACCURATE to actually capture the potentially inexistent advantage given by the banked tracks in Canada."
I was referring to place qualifications, which nullifies the effect of the different facilities conference meets are held at. Currently, the AUS, RSEQ give an auto to each event champion (not always taken up), the OUA gives auto to 1-2 (can't recall if CanWest is 1 or 2). I would suggest that this number be increased, or that conference performances were somehow given a heavier weight.
Because place qualifiers are hard to come by for those who haven't hit standard already, what you're describing is the problem that currently exists. If I am on the bubble in the OUA this year, I'm in trouble because OUAs are at York, which is heavily penalized with the conversion factor. Thus I am less likely to be able to hit a time qualifier at what is my true "last chance." Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
Quoting: klutch
"I was referring to place qualifications, which nullifies the effect of the different facilities conference meets are held at. Currently, the AUS, RSEQ give an auto to each event champion (not always taken up), the OUA gives auto to 1-2 (can't recall if CanWest is 1 or 2). I would suggest that this number be increased, or that conference performances were somehow given a heavier weight.
Because place qualifiers are hard to come by for those who haven't hit standard already, what you're describing is the problem that currently exists. If I am on the bubble in the OUA this year, I'm in trouble because OUAs are at York, which is heavily penalized with the conversion factor. Thus I am less likely to be able to hit a time qualifier at what is my true "last chance.""
Note that the AUS is effectively penalized every year because they have to run on the piece of s**t 160m flat track in Moncton every year. Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354Anonymous said 8 years ago
I was in favour of conversion ratios, but this year, it seems a little too steep. I wish they would convert for oversize tracks only. Rest is fair game.
Quote comment -
Anonymous
Posts: 57354klutch said 8 years ago
Quoting: Anonymous
"Note that the AUS is effectively penalized every year because they have to run on the piece of s**t 160m flat track in Moncton every year."
I am aware of that. A POS track doesn't change the placings, only times. This is why (as I've repeated three times for you), having more place qualifiers at conference meets could be worth looking into. Quote comment
0