why is Stanford so bad at track they get a top 1-2 recruiting class every single year

Yeah yeah Mr. hardcore Duck fan instead of bashing other programs that are successful try to work on being a happier person. Stanford has produced many, many Olympians in the last couple of decades. Also, there is no freaking way they get a top 1-2 recruiting class.

I agree with the original poster. Many top recruiting classes and very few points in track.

they call me flopro wrote:

and yet they never seem to make the top 10 in either outdoor or indoor track men or womens. Sure seems to me that Stanford makes it's recruits/commits slower once in College is it just terrible coaching or over training? thanks

Maybe some people who run are also smart enough to think about what happens with their life after university? Perhaps they want a career that isn't based around running, or are considering what will happen if they don't become a professional runner. I'd rather have a degree from Stanford on my resume than the University of Oregon.

maybe it's the school wrote:

they call me flopro wrote:

and yet they never seem to make the top 10 in either outdoor or indoor track men or womens. Sure seems to me that Stanford makes it's recruits/commits slower once in College is it just terrible coaching or over training? thanks

Maybe some people who run are also smart enough to think about what happens with their life after university? Perhaps they want a career that isn't based around running, or are considering what will happen if they don't become a professional runner. I'd rather have a degree from Stanford on my resume than the University of Oregon.

This.

maybe it's the school wrote:

I'd rather have a degree from Stanford on my resume than the University of Oregon.

That's dumb and irrelevant to the thread. What does thinking about life have to do with running performance? On a similar!y irrelevant note, considering how sub par Stanford does, why do they get so much attention (positive and negative) on this website? What about other equally subpar teams?

pretty sure the Stanford women placed 8th overall at NCAA Indoors... with only 6 women..........

100% Wrong wrote:

I agree with the original poster. Many top recruiting classes and very few points in track.

Nope - if you are going to make a claim back it up with some support.

Recruits to Stanford are wired to succeed in life, not to run fast around the oval. Track is just a tool to get into the school.

palyhighgrad wrote:

Recruits to Stanford are wired to succeed in life, not to run fast around the oval. Track is just a tool to get into the school.

This is the truth. Talented kids will work like crazy to get into Stanford. Once admitted running is no longer a priority.

As an alumn who has followed them closely... Very disappointed in what Milt is doing with the program. It has been extremely disheartening to watch. He is using the Stanford name to recruit top talent but has some bad assistant coaches and a terribly lazy, elitist, and individualistic philosophy. He doesn't want to develop talent but only recruit it. He has made it into too much of a biz with an almost nonexistent team atmosphere and chased off half the team.

Hate to say this, and I was hoping things would improve but he really doesn't represent Stanford well. He needs to go.

palyhighgrad wrote:

Recruits to Stanford are wired to succeed in life, not to run fast around the oval. Track is just a tool to get into the school.

Because you can't run fast and do well academically. *cough* Ben Saarel *cough*

CardFan wrote:

As an alumn who has followed them closely... Very disappointed in what Milt is doing with the program. It has been extremely disheartening to watch. He is using the Stanford name to recruit top talent but has some bad assistant coaches and a terribly lazy, elitist, and individualistic philosophy. He doesn't want to develop talent but only recruit it. He has made it into too much of a biz with an almost nonexistent team atmosphere and chased off half the team.

Hate to say this, and I was hoping things would improve but he really doesn't represent Stanford well. He needs to go.

Training is too dam simple for people to grasp. I know very little but could deliver championships with as much talent as they recruit.

you used to be called pac12fan wrote:

Yeah yeah Mr. hardcore Duck fan instead of bashing other programs that are successful try to work on being a happier person. Stanford has produced many, many Olympians in the last couple of decades. Also, there is no freaking way they get a top 1-2 recruiting class.

Winner

CardFan wrote:

As an alumn who has followed them closely... Very disappointed in what Milt is doing with the program. It has been extremely disheartening to watch. He is using the Stanford name to recruit top talent but has some bad assistant coaches and a terribly lazy, elitist, and individualistic philosophy. He doesn't want to develop talent but only recruit it. He has made it into too much of a biz with an almost nonexistent team atmosphere and chased off half the team.

Hate to say this, and I was hoping things would improve but he really doesn't represent Stanford well. He needs to go.

Can you elaborate?

Oregon:

Cheserek: 2 time Footlocker champion

Jenkins: transfer who had already run 7:46 for 3k

Stinson: 29 something 10k runner in high school

Elkaim: 8:46 3200

Geogehan: transfer who had already run a 3:58 mile

Franzmair: 1:46 800 runner Austrian

And many, many, many more...

Now add guys like Maton, Anderson, and Haney to a team that will be overrated every single year, will cherrypick the best runners from the country and still never dominate at XC, and will take HSers and transfers who are already amazing and hardly improve them at all, but take all the credit for having such a great track team.

I mean- can you name a single guy on the Portland XC team? They got ZERO attention during cross season, and they still smashed UO at NCAAs. They take decent runners and turn them into beasts. Same type of thing with BYU. Stanford may be bad, but UO is worse.

TAA wrote:

palyhighgrad wrote:

Recruits to Stanford are wired to succeed in life, not to run fast around the oval. Track is just a tool to get into the school.

Because you can't run fast and do well academically. *cough* Ben Saarel *cough*

Saarel attends Colorado. Colorado is not Stanford.

There's some truth in the belief that in many cases, the knowledge gained in an undergraduate education really doesn't vary that much between schools. I won't bother arguing with that.

However, Stanford's class consists of individuals who are generally either more hard-working, more intelligent, or have more financial resources than Colorado's. This simply means that performing well at Stanford relative to the rest of the student population is more difficult, since the quality of the average student is much higher.

The curves used for Ben Saarel's large lecture classes likely factor in a huge number of morons or burnouts who do not belong in college to begin with, considering the acceptance rate for the school is 88%. Contrast this with Stanford's which is closer to 5-6%. Yes, some idiots and burnouts will still get through and make it onto campus, but there will be far fewer of them than you could find at Colorado.

Track is much much more than just distance running. Sprints, relays, and field events score many more points. A good sprinter could score in more events than a good distance runner.

Alan

CardFan ... truth

runningart2004 wrote:

Track is much much more than just distance running. Sprints, relays, and field events score many more points. A good sprinter could score in more events than a good distance runner.

Alan

This is the correct answer. Distance runners don't win championships.