60M as a state qualifier for 55M
01/25/2018 12:47:55 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 90
Can athletes use there times in the 60M as a qualifier for NCSHAA indoor state's? For example If a athlete representing their school runs a fast time in the 60M, but hasn't ran a qualifying time in the 55M, gets hurt, can that athlete use their 60M time(that converts to a qualifying time in the 55M) as a state qualifier? Since we can convert up 55M times to 60M. Can you also convert down to qualify for states?
Can athletes use there times in the 60M as a qualifier for NCSHAA indoor state's? For example If a athlete representing their school runs a fast time in the 60M, but hasn't ran a qualifying time in the 55M, gets hurt, can that athlete use their 60M time(that converts to a qualifying time in the 55M) as a state qualifier? Since we can convert up 55M times to 60M. Can you also convert down to qualify for states?
01/25/2018 1:18:52 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 213
What does it even mean to say we can convert 55m up to 60m? There is no official reason this needs to be done - there is no 60m at state. Anyway, the answer is no. Conversions are allowed for 1600 from the mile, but I'm not sure they should be (because I think only official results should be used for qualifying). The mile time ought to be taken at face value, and if it is fast enough, it would count. My guess is the reason for allowing the conversion is that the Milesplit database doesn't have any way of putting mile times in with 1600s without converting them. So when they decided to allow times from mile races, the conversion came along for the ride. By this logic, I would be fine with allowing a 60-meter time if it was fast enough to meet the 55-meter standard. This will happen approximately never (but Christian Coleman did run 6.37 this weekend.)
What does it even mean to say we can convert 55m up to 60m? There is no official reason this needs to be done - there is no 60m at state.

Conversions are allowed for 1600 from the mile, but I'm not sure they should be (because I think only official results should be used for qualifying). The mile time ought to be taken at face value, and if it is fast enough, it would count. My guess is the reason for allowing the conversion is that the Milesplit database doesn't have any way of putting mile times in with 1600s without converting them. So when they decided to allow times from mile races, the conversion came along for the ride.

By this logic, I would be fine with allowing a 60-meter time if it was fast enough to meet the 55-meter standard. This will happen approximately never (but Christian Coleman did run 6.37 this weekend.)
01/25/2018 2:42:54 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 90
@RocketRunning well Milesplit provides us with the option when you go into rankings and when you look at the 55M or 60M it gives us the ability to enable conversion? It states "Conversion to 60M is available. Enable conversion?" This Tools is there primarily for those athletes that qualify for New Balance Nationals. It's been available on this site for a decade. I'm assuming that you knew that. So why can't we use that same converter in reverse for a state qualifiers. We do it for Nationals to get placement in the 60M..IJS This actually happen to a unattached athlete coming off a injury, didn't have a qualifying 55M time with their high school because it. First meet after they healed up ran the 60M qualified for New balance nationals as a unattached athlete and pulled their quad. Smh
@RocketRunning well Milesplit provides us with the option when you go into rankings and when you look at the 55M or 60M it gives us the ability to enable conversion? It states "Conversion to 60M is available. Enable conversion?" This Tools is there primarily for those athletes that qualify for New Balance Nationals. It's been available on this site for a decade. I'm assuming that you knew that. So why can't we use that same converter in reverse for a state qualifiers. We do it for Nationals to get placement in the 60M..IJS

This actually happen to a unattached athlete coming off a injury, didn't have a qualifying 55M time with their high school because it. First meet after they healed up ran the 60M qualified for New balance nationals as a unattached athlete and pulled their quad. Smh
01/25/2018 3:19:43 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 213
Oh, I know there's a conversion. There are conversions for everything. You can convert a 5k time and find out what you might run in the marathon if you want to. But none of that has anything to do with state qualifying - you don't need converted times for events that don't exist at state, and you can't convert your time from other events to get into state in an event that does exist. I brought up the mile as the weird example where a conversion is used for qualifying, but I think probably only by accident, and as a distance person I don't think it should exist. You should only be able to enter state with real times. I think people should be able to use mile TIMES to qualify, if they are fast enough. A mile is 9.4 meters longer than a 1600 - there is zero doubt that if you run the mile in under the 1600 qualifying time, you have run a 1600 meter qualifier. Same principle applies in using a 60 meter time (not conversion) in the 55, but the difference in distance is so great no one is ever going to make that. I would never be ok with converting a 1500 to get a 1600 time for the purposes of qualifying. Totally fine with that for seeding at an invitational, but not for a qualifying mark. Now, if the state/coaches' association wants to come up with alternate qualifying marks for other events, that's totally legit, and at that point you don't need a conversion. I have seen this in the other direction for college meets, to account for the fact that some smaller facilities can't run a 60.
Oh, I know there's a conversion. There are conversions for everything. You can convert a 5k time and find out what you might run in the marathon if you want to. But none of that has anything to do with state qualifying - you don't need converted times for events that don't exist at state, and you can't convert your time from other events to get into state in an event that does exist.

I brought up the mile as the weird example where a conversion is used for qualifying, but I think probably only by accident, and as a distance person I don't think it should exist. You should only be able to enter state with real times.
I think people should be able to use mile TIMES to qualify, if they are fast enough. A mile is 9.4 meters longer than a 1600 - there is zero doubt that if you run the mile in under the 1600 qualifying time, you have run a 1600 meter qualifier. Same principle applies in using a 60 meter time (not conversion) in the 55, but the difference in distance is so great no one is ever going to make that. I would never be ok with converting a 1500 to get a 1600 time for the purposes of qualifying. Totally fine with that for seeding at an invitational, but not for a qualifying mark.
Now, if the state/coaches' association wants to come up with alternate qualifying marks for other events, that's totally legit, and at that point you don't need a conversion. I have seen this in the other direction for college meets, to account for the fact that some smaller facilities can't run a 60.
01/26/2018 2:30:39 PM
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2419
@omegaafterdark While I understand the question, there is too much difference between a 55 and a 60 to make conversion reasonable for state meet entry. The difference is almost 10% of the total time of the race, whereas the difference between 1600 and mile is less than 1%. Also, pacing in the mile is more event over the course of the race; in the 60, which 55 are you converting to? The first 55 of a 60 is very different than the last 55 of a 60, but the first 1600 of a 1609 is very similar to the last 1600 of a 1609. (It sounds weird to think of it that way, but that's why some conversions are acceptable and others are not.) RocketRunning is right about state meet entries being specific. We show MANY things in our database that may not be acceptable for entry into certain meets - hand times, conversions, windy marks. For meet entries, though, the event has to meet the specific conditions - exact distance, plus any other restrictions the meet director places. NOW, if we had an FAT camera set up at the 55 mark to record those times, that would be a whole different discussion. They do that at NBN Indoors.
@omegaafterdark While I understand the question, there is too much difference between a 55 and a 60 to make conversion reasonable for state meet entry. The difference is almost 10% of the total time of the race, whereas the difference between 1600 and mile is less than 1%. Also, pacing in the mile is more event over the course of the race; in the 60, which 55 are you converting to? The first 55 of a 60 is very different than the last 55 of a 60, but the first 1600 of a 1609 is very similar to the last 1600 of a 1609. (It sounds weird to think of it that way, but that's why some conversions are acceptable and others are not.)

RocketRunning is right about state meet entries being specific. We show MANY things in our database that may not be acceptable for entry into certain meets - hand times, conversions, windy marks. For meet entries, though, the event has to meet the specific conditions - exact distance, plus any other restrictions the meet director places.

NOW, if we had an FAT camera set up at the 55 mark to record those times, that would be a whole different discussion. They do that at NBN Indoors.
02/02/2018 10:02:29 AM
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2419
@RocketRunning One counterpoint to this argument: in NCAA competition, athletes ARE allowed to convert 55 to 60 for entry into championships. I find that interesting, with an almost 10% difference in distance, but it is allowed.
@RocketRunning One counterpoint to this argument: in NCAA competition, athletes ARE allowed to convert 55 to 60 for entry into championships. I find that interesting, with an almost 10% difference in distance, but it is allowed.
02/02/2018 12:58:10 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 213
@CoachGeorgeRJR Yeah - that's a weird one. I don't think the 55m gets run much any more in college, because there are so many new, high-quality facilities now. But it used to be pretty common for meets to be in smaller facilities that couldn't run a 60m - such as the old 160m track setup in the Greensboro Coliseum. Common enough that they felt like they needed to accommodate that in qualifying. If they are using it for NCAA qualifying, it has to be a conversion, rather than simply setting a time that is considered equivalent. The NCAA uses descending-order lists for qualifying, so a mark has to have a time that can slot it into the 60-meter list. It wouldn't work to say "This is the time in the 55 that gets you in" because there is no such time for the 60 either. I don't know why they still have that conversion, unless it's just inertia. There are very few significant meets that are run on tracks that aren't set up to contest the 60-meters races.
@CoachGeorgeRJR Yeah - that's a weird one. I don't think the 55m gets run much any more in college, because there are so many new, high-quality facilities now. But it used to be pretty common for meets to be in smaller facilities that couldn't run a 60m - such as the old 160m track setup in the Greensboro Coliseum. Common enough that they felt like they needed to accommodate that in qualifying.
If they are using it for NCAA qualifying, it has to be a conversion, rather than simply setting a time that is considered equivalent. The NCAA uses descending-order lists for qualifying, so a mark has to have a time that can slot it into the 60-meter list. It wouldn't work to say "This is the time in the 55 that gets you in" because there is no such time for the 60 either.
I don't know why they still have that conversion, unless it's just inertia. There are very few significant meets that are run on tracks that aren't set up to contest the 60-meters races.
02/20/2018 12:06:04 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 185
I would be in favor of allowing 60 meter times to count toward 55 meter qualifying because (1) 55 meters is en route to 60 meters. Since the real difference in distance is 16'5" (using the USATF calculator) and (2) because an athlete is truly in the full speed segment of their sprint race there is no slow down factor to account for. (This is based on research going all the way back to the 1980's and based on some of the latest research from coaches like Vince Anderson, Loren Seagraves and others). Sources such as Track and Field News have this information. Going the other way, converting from 55 up to 60 meters is a little more tricky. For my purposes, I use .50 to +/- to get estimates;BUT, for qualifying purposes that would not be accurate enough. For instance, if I have a kid that goes 7.25 FAT for 60 meters, I can guestimate that he came through 55 at around 6.75 or so. However, I have seen a converter in Track and Field News years ago based on research so that would be the first source we could go to for that type of info; if we wanted to be as accurate as possible. But, they would have to be FAT only; no hand timing. Just my opinion.
I would be in favor of allowing 60 meter times to count toward 55 meter qualifying because (1) 55 meters is en route to 60 meters. Since the real difference in distance is 16'5" (using the USATF calculator) and (2) because an athlete is truly in the full speed segment of their sprint race there is no slow down factor to account for. (This is based on research going all the way back to the 1980's and based on some of the latest research from coaches like Vince Anderson, Loren Seagraves and others). Sources such as Track and Field News have this information. Going the other way, converting from 55 up to 60 meters is a little more tricky. For my purposes, I use .50 to +/- to get estimates;BUT, for qualifying purposes that would not be accurate enough. For instance, if I have a kid that goes 7.25 FAT for 60 meters, I can guestimate that he came through 55 at around 6.75 or so. However, I have seen a converter in Track and Field News years ago based on research so that would be the first source we could go to for that type of info; if we wanted to be as accurate as possible. But, they would have to be FAT only; no hand timing. Just my opinion.