Talking to a coaching friend of mine, he said his biggest recruiting busts were kids that were the best on high school as soon as they walked in the doors. When they got to college and were no longer the best, they couldn't mentally handle it. This was especially with the girls.
Like all generalizations, this one may have some basis in anecdotal facts, but there is no compelling logic to it, since everyone' personality is unique and at the high school level there are huge variations in coaching quality and talent.
The transition is a concern, but I don't think it makes sense to pass on recruiting an athlete just because they're used to being the best. Any athlete can struggle with the transition. The kid who was second best on his HS team might not be able to handle suddenly being a mid-packer, either.
Anyway, a runner would have to be an incredible stud to be the best on their team "as soon as they walked in the door." Even the 1:52 800m guy I ran with in high school wasn't the hands down best on the team from day one of his sophomore year. If you have a chance to recruit a kid that good, you'd be insane to pass just because the transition might be tough.
See how the athlete did when they finally got into real competition. I see a lot of athletes and their coaches avoid any real competition by not racing their weaker distances and not pursuing the bigger post season meets. I also see athletes who are local heroes wilt when they get to bigger meets like state and are put in a position where they cannot win. These are the red flags. If a runner can run well when placing tenth in state or a major regional or national competition, you won't have a problem.
I would argue the opposite. Take two kids who have the same PRs, but one was the best on their team and the other was fifth or so. The second runner probably came from a stronger program, and has been developed closer to their long-term capabilities. The first runner may not have had a very good coach, and could have a lot more upside.
Recruit Philosophy wrote:
Talking to a coaching friend of mine, he said his biggest recruiting busts were kids that were the best on high school as soon as they walked in the doors. When they got to college and were no longer the best, they couldn't mentally handle it. This was especially with the girls.
This is beyond stupid. Go recruit the worst kids so they'll be used to being terrible.
Why is anyone dignifying this line of thinking?
......?.... wrote:
Recruit Philosophy wrote:Talking to a coaching friend of mine, he said his biggest recruiting busts were kids that were the best on high school as soon as they walked in the doors. When they got to college and were no longer the best, they couldn't mentally handle it. This was especially with the girls.
This is beyond stupid. Go recruit the worst kids so they'll be used to being terrible.
Why is anyone dignifying this line of thinking?
Because you don't understand the point that was being made. If you are recruiting say two girls who are 5 minute milers, my friend said he would make the priority the girl who started out lower on the totem pole at her school and had to work her way to being the best on the team.
Recruit Philosophy wrote:
......?.... wrote:This is beyond stupid. Go recruit the worst kids so they'll be used to being terrible.
Why is anyone dignifying this line of thinking?
Because you don't understand the point that was being made. If you are recruiting say two girls who are 5 minute milers, my friend said he would make the priority the girl who started out lower on the totem pole at her school and had to work her way to being the best on the team.
That is not what you wrote. He/you suggested a blanket policy of not recruiting kids who had been consistently dominant. There are a million obvious drawbacks to this and not a single substantive advantage.
It was not presented as an either/or situation. So either he's a moron or you are incapable of presenting a coherent argument. I think both. Debate.
I think you should pick the fastest people.
That's just my opinion.
Recruit Philosophy wrote:
......?.... wrote:This is beyond stupid. Go recruit the worst kids so they'll be used to being terrible.
Why is anyone dignifying this line of thinking?
Because you don't understand the point that was being made. If you are recruiting say two girls who are 5 minute milers, my friend said he would make the priority the girl who started out lower on the totem pole at her school and had to work her way to being the best on the team.
That is not what you wrote. He/you suggested a blanket policy of not recruiting kids who had been consistently dominant. There are a million obvious drawbacks to this and not a single substantive advantage.
It was not presented as an either/or situation. So either he's a moron or you are incapable of presenting a coherent argument. I think both. Debate.
......?.... wrote:
Recruit Philosophy wrote:Because you don't understand the point that was being made. If you are recruiting say two girls who are 5 minute milers, my friend said he would make the priority the girl who started out lower on the totem pole at her school and had to work her way to being the best on the team.
That is not what you wrote. He/you suggested a blanket policy of not recruiting kids who had been consistently dominant. There are a million obvious drawbacks to this and not a single substantive advantage.
It was not presented as an either/or situation. So either he's a moron or you are incapable of presenting a coherent argument. I think both. Debate.
I thought it was clear what OP was trying to say. A runner who is #1 on his team day 1 of his freshman year may not transition well to college when they are all of a sudden surrounded by other faster runners. They don't understand what hard work is and mentally can't handle no longer being the center of attention. I've seen it many times, although not enough to believe you should avoid these runners.
So between Emily Sisson and Diane Robison, your friend will choose Robison?
Sure, Sisson could not handle not being #1 any more, right?
As a former college coach, I can attest to the basic principle of going after kids who weren't the top dogs, but there's more to it than just trying to predict potential flameouts. Some of the factors we considered when recruiting ...
1. What schools are we competing against? Sometimes you go after the lesser known athletes just to have a better shot of actually signing them.
2. Where do the athlete's ambitions lie? We tended to avoid the kids that just excelled in HS for the college scholarship per their psyche analysis. We wanted the kids that got pissed off when they lost even if they had set a P.B. in the process, and were willing to work their way through college while competing if that's what it took.
3. Gotta have the physique for developing further. Kids with the better running form tended to get more recruiting attention. A 4:20 miler who also ran a 50 second 400 would get the nod over the 4:10 miler who could only manage a 55 second 400.
4. Finally, we avoided the prima donnas. The 1:55 half miler who was willing to run any distance in college was worth tons more than the 1:50 half miler who balked at the idea of including the 1500 in his collegiate goals.
Recruit Philosophy wrote:
Talking to a coaching friend of mine, he said his biggest recruiting busts were kids that were the best on high school as soon as they walked in the doors. When they got to college and were no longer the best, they couldn't mentally handle it. This was especially with the girls.
In the real world the best high school kids handle college just fine. Competitors crave competition, and the more competition the better for them.
Running on Empathy wrote:
As a former college coach, I can attest to the basic principle of going after kids who weren't the top dogs, but there's more to it than just trying to predict potential flameouts. Some of the factors we considered when recruiting ...
1. What schools are we competing against? Sometimes you go after the lesser known athletes just to have a better shot of actually signing them.
2. Where do the athlete's ambitions lie? We tended to avoid the kids that just excelled in HS for the college scholarship per their psyche analysis. We wanted the kids that got pissed off when they lost even if they had set a P.B. in the process, and were willing to work their way through college while competing if that's what it took.
3. Gotta have the physique for developing further. Kids with the better running form tended to get more recruiting attention. A 4:20 miler who also ran a 50 second 400 would get the nod over the 4:10 miler who could only manage a 55 second 400.
4. Finally, we avoided the prima donnas. The 1:55 half miler who was willing to run any distance in college was worth tons more than the 1:50 half miler who balked at the idea of including the 1500 in his collegiate goals.
I kind of understand your sentiment here, especially with regards to the 4:20 guy with good 400 speed. That said, give me the 1:50 guy all day every day. I'd rather teach him to be mentally tough than pray my 1:55 guy can drop 6-7 seconds.
I'm pretty certain Diane was a Missouris state champ so that's a terrible example.
Just Another LRC idiot wrote:
So between Emily Sisson and Diane Robison, your friend will choose Robison?
Sure, Sisson could not handle not being #1 any more, right?
I coached HS and college. You base your recruiting on the person and their times. Yes, the bust happens and sometimes you don't see it coming. Some kids are big fish in a small pond and then they arrive in college and see that there are 5 maybe 6 runners with faster times than them, and one or two runners from their in-coming class that are just as fast as them.
The ones that stick it out, get faster if they stay healthy. The others either suddenly discover girls and beer, or can't handle the practices and course-load combined or they just miss mommy.
I always used to say to myself if I got three out of every five coming in, I will have reached my goal. Some years, I got four out of five, one year, only one out of six remained after cross country. It can feel like a crap shoot.
Bigger programs have bigger numbers and they really don't feel it when one or two leave.
What I have found recently is that the ones that quit have told me they regret it..now.
Too late.
I have to say I am not a fan of recruiting under this type of philosophy. Can I turn the question around? What are we doing as coaches to help their transition? Is there a proactive plan that is consistently followed which supports the student, not just in a 2 day in service type thing before their freshman year, but throughout their first year or so? Should we really be in the business of having these students commit to our program without an equal commitment to them? I have a hard time with these "humpy dumpty" approaches where one recruits a large number and see who isn't broken at the end of the season. I don't think it is hard to think throu a plan that will ensure a greater rate of success, it is the least we can do for our athletes. Does this guarantee anything...no. But at the end of the day I can rest as a coach knowing that I did everything I could to support the success of an athlete.
VAcoach wrote:
I have to say I am not a fan of recruiting under this type of philosophy. Can I turn the question around? What are we doing as coaches to help their transition? Is there a proactive plan that is consistently followed which supports the student, not just in a 2 day in service type thing before their freshman year, but throughout their first year or so? Should we really be in the business of having these students commit to our program without an equal commitment to them? I have a hard time with these "humpy dumpty" approaches where one recruits a large number and see who isn't broken at the end of the season. I don't think it is hard to think throu a plan that will ensure a greater rate of success, it is the least we can do for our athletes. Does this guarantee anything...no. But at the end of the day I can rest as a coach knowing that I did everything I could to support the success of an athlete.
I'd send my kid to this guy.
My dad's coach was always drawn to the runners that demonstrated potential, not necessarily payoff. For example, he recruited a kid who had not done anything noteworthy in high school. He maybe went to state once, but wasn't a top finisher. He didn't light up the track, or smash records.
But what raised this coach's eyebrows was when he saw the kid was racing across distances from 200 meters to 800 meters. He saw versatility and that combination of speed and stamina that makes for middle distance stars.
He recruited that kid when no one else gave him a second look, and subsequently turned him into a sub 4:00 miler in college.