Digits: Better With Age

Is the NCAA getting faster?

It's a question without a definite answer.

How many individuals do we need to evaluate for our analysis to be statistically valid? Is it fair to say that just because one big meet was more tactical in year A that the top runners in that group were actually slower than those in year B? What about injuries? What about guys who ran faster last year but haven't run as fast in the following year?

There are so many different variables to discuss, but they can't all be calculated. Finding out whether or not the NCAA is getting faster is difficult to pin down and can often be argued in a subjective manner. That said, The Stride Report took a look at some of these numbers and tried to pull away some meaning. The results were rather interesting...

Methodology

We first went to TFRRS to collect all of our data. As much as we would have liked to collect data on 100 names for each year and each event, the way TFRRS exports data into Excel is inefficient and would have taken a painstakingly long time to correct for 100+ names. Nonetheless, TSR decided to collect the top 16 times for each distance event from years 2010 to 2017 (8 completed seasons). We decided to use the top 16 times for the simple reason that the top 16 individuals in each open event are guaranteed to qualify for Indoor NCAA's should they choose to run that race. Obviously, not everyone will choose to run the event that they are the top 16 in. Still, it's a simplistic way and a good measure to figure out what an individual needs to accomplish in order to lock-in his spot to Nationals. We then took the average of those top 16 times for each year and for each distance. Essentially, this is just a bunch of averages, but the results do reveal a good bit...

800

Top 16 OVERALL AVG Time (8 years)- 1:47.45

#16 AVG Time- 1:48.21

For the past few years that I've been covering the sport, I have raved about how fast the 800 fields have been. Not only have they been fast, but the number of individuals that have been able to crack the 1:48 and 1:47 barriers has been unreal. Of course, despite my praises for those in the half-mile, there was never any data to back up my blind claims. Now, there is...

Below, you can see how the average time among the top 16 800 runners have been consistently getting faster since 2014. The massive drop we saw in 2015 has not only sustained, but it has actually improved. In 2014, the average top 16 time was just a smudge under 1:48. Now it's in the 1:46's and trending towards greater improvements.

Despite this significant improvement, we have to acknowledge that the rate at which these times are improving is starting to plateau. How much faster can these times really get after all? If the 800 is going to get any faster, it's most likely not going to come from a handful of individuals. Instead, the depth of the NCAA will need to step up. Here is an interesting stat to look at...

Number of NCAA 800 Runners Under 1:47

2017: 9

2016: 7

2015: 6

2014: 1

2013: 4

2012: 2

2011: 0

2010: 4

The number of individuals dipping into that elite 1:46 mark is now over half of the eligible NCAA qualifying field. The best of the best aren't necessarily that much better now than they were then (although that's a different debate). The fact of the matter is that more runners are simply entering that top-tier threshold and making each millisecond that much more important.

MILE

Top 16 OVERALL AVG Time (8 years)- 3:57.26

#16 AVG Time- 3:58.60

Much like the 800, the Mile has seen some excellent progression over the past few years. Over the past 8 years, the average top 16 mile time has dropped from 3:58 mid to 3:57 low. For some, that may not seem like a huge change, but if you compare the spots in each season with the averages from 2010 and 2017, you'll see that the ~1.5 second gap can have a significant impact on your NCAA position.

In 2017, Cole Rockhold was 6th in the nation with a time of 3:57.19. At 15th in the nation was Thomas Joyce who had a time of 3:58.47. In 2016, that gap was far more pronounced when Clayton Murphy was ranked 7th in the nation (3:57.11) while Robert Denault was 23rd in the nation (3:58.48). Yet, in 2010, the fastest time in the nation was 3:57.62. A time of 3:58.48 would have earned you roughly around 8th place. The average mile of the top 16 runners since 2011 has literally been faster than the top ranked runner in 2010.

3000

Top 16 OVERALL AVG Time (8 years)- 7:51.06

#16 AVG Time- 7:53.83

When you first look at the graph below, it's hard not to think that the progression in this event has plateaued...and you would be right. The average time among the top 16 in the 3000 meters has stayed relatively constant since 2013 with the average time moving anywhere from 7:51 low to 7:49 high. Still, when you consider where this event was during 2010 and 2011, the times we are seeing now are still considerable improvements.

In 2010, the 7th best 3000 meter runner in the nation ran 7:54.57 while the 16th best runner in the nation ran 7:57.42. From 2011 to 2017, any individual that ran a time of 7:54.40 or slower would not have earned a guaranteed qualifying spot to NCAA's. Essentially, over half of the guaranteed spots from 2010 would not have secured their spot to NCAA's in any other year.

Still, a year like that is an outlier, just like the monster year of performances that we had in 2012 where 7 individuals broke the 7:50 barrier. Since then, only 2015 has matched that total of individuals that have broken 7:50 in one season. Despite these glaring outliers, the overall progression that we have seen in the 3k is still very solid. The trend-line suggests that 2018 is a year where we could see a top 16 average of 7:49.31.

5000

Top 16 OVERALL AVG Time (8 years)- 13:42.42

#16 AVG Time- 13:48.25

In the three events prior to this one, we have seen some excellent development and progression. The 800 is the fastest it's ever been (by far), the depth in the mile is becoming increasingly more deep, and the 3000 (although sporadic) is still trending towards even faster times thanks to a mix between better low-sticks and more reliable depth. However, the 5000 meters shows us something that the our other results did not...regression.

Just like the 3000, the 5000 meters has been relatively slow in 2010 and 2011. However, both events rapidly became faster in 2012 by producing times that even most professional athletes would struggle to hit. I'll admit, it's tough to follow up the legendary 2012 season and we probably won't see a season like that for quite some time now. That said, the 2013 season was a strong year for many athletes as the top 16 average still dipped under 13:40. However, things simply haven't been able to match seasons like 2012 or 2013. The past four years have yielded a "happy medium" between the unimpressive performances we saw in 2010/2011 and the mind-blowing results we got in 2012/2013.

It's difficult to really get a statistical understanding on the 5k. The length of the race allows the 5000 meters to become extremely variable while also having a greater chance of tactics coming into play.

In 2018, what can we expect to see from this event? More of the same 13:41 to 13:43 averages? Or an outlier that deviates away from the trend-line? Whether it deviates up or down is still to be decided...

#digits #indoortrack #gzatlin #ncaa #analysis