Stanford Distance Propaganda (Aragon???)

The allure of the Stanford reputation is just too strong. And all the Olympians they have produced.

In other news, good luck to Ella Donaghu at Stanford! Her parents have brought her up slowly so that she has lots of room to improve! We will be hearing a lot from her soon!

Stanford has a draw factor that trumps any problems they seem to have on the coaching end.

Of the current crop of phenoms, junior Kate Murphy is my pick for the long haul. The type of killer instinct she showed against Murielle Hall last weekend is the type that can't be coached, it's innate. Plus she swings a mean snow shovel:

http://www.milesplit.com/articles/147481/nations-fastest-sophomore-kate-murphy-doesnt-let-snow-slow-her-down

Always a lot of Stanford hate on this board and there's no reason to say that Milt has proven himself "mediocre". He revived the Rosa twins, and McGorty and Fisher among others are doing great; I don't follow the women as closely but Tonn and Cuffe (though some injury issues) did well/have done well and Vanessa Fraser was a dime-a-dozen in California 10:31 3200 meter runner who ran 15:51 in the 5000 as a sophomore. I don't have any inside knowledge on Cranny and agree that her career so far has been decent but mildly disappointing. It's not like this is all that unusual: even in Cranny's cohort you have Alexa E. running great, Cain and Baxter have fallen off a cliff, and Cranny is in between. Coaching is probably only a small factor. And there's still lots of time in Cranny's Stanford career to get things sorted out.

Why Stanford wrote:

Why are all of these elite high school girls going to Stanford?

Miltenberg has proven that he is a mediocre female and male coach. Elise Cranny pulled out the win this week, but is a far cry from the girl who beat Efraimson at the World Junior Championships. Don't point out one person or give the excuse of tough academics (plenty of schools are challenging).

Stanford has a who's who in high school middle distance running. I would love to see someone do a progression of improvement for Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Oklahoma State, Mississippi State, Georgetown, Virginia, Colorado, and all others that are worthy of analysis.

She might be the greatest of all time.

I'm sorry, can we just go back to where you included Mississippi State in that list? Yes there's McBride, and a few girls, but including them in a list of schools like Oregon, Stanford, GTown? Come on man...

1) let's be honest, the coaching strategy at stanford is to get a very large recruiting class of very fast runners, then train the heck out of them. This works since they have so many runners, they only need maybe one third of them anyway, so it is ok to have the other two thirds fall apart. Great strategy when you have virtually unlimited "academic" and "need based" scholarships to give to your highly ranked academic school. Terrible strategy for the kids who fall apart, but the coaches aren't paid to develop every recruit's talent to the maximum, only to have the best team possible.

2) 10:31 isn't exactly a dime a dozen...

3) generally it is considered standard to extend your high school two mile pace to the 5000m in college, 10:31 to 15:51 is only slightly better than that.

4) again, look at how the group overall does, not just the few who get through the fire.

5) we will never know what potential talents were lost due to the burnout of their program. Do some individuals make it through and go on to great success? Of course, but the majority do not have long careers. And certainly some of those 8:50 to 9 flat kids who quit running sophomore year at stanford probably would have gone on to stardom at a program more interested in developing individual runners rather than throwing them all to the wolves and seeing who comes out. At the end of the day, that is just their team culture. Even within the team, it is very impersonal compared to other DI programs.

there's little to no $ in running, so smart kids are going to go to a school that sets them up after school

aragon's dad and sisters went to notre dame, which is a great school, but stanford's higher ranked and has awesome weather, which montana and indiana cannot match.

her decision makes sense. i wish her luck at stanford.

1) let's be honest, you sound mad.

2) "the fire" is everywhere in every top level program... and in life. "The group," at Stanford is progressing very well. Distance (women and men), throws (women), multi's , and now even sprints.

3) Lot's happens with young adults while at university - not just with athletes. Athletes quit, students quit. Some athletes arrive to their respective sport programs injured, or based on their HS training/racing regime, are on the verge of injury their Freshman year,

4) Your focus seems to be on girls/women's performance which history has shown to be unpredictable at all university sport programs and in professional sports. High level sport is tough, much can happen.

5) "Throwing them all to the wolves and seeing who comes out" has been said of many programs. Stanford doesn't have a "wolves" environment. Stanford coaches place a high degree of importance on injury prevention. Training programs are designed around the individual. The environment at Stanford is very supportive. Don't believe me? Go to a meet at Stanford and observing the team chemistry for yourself.

6) "Even within the team, it is very impersonal compared to other DI programs." Do you have personal, current, information that justifies your statement? Please share if you do. I know and have met several Stanford track athletes (women and men) and your statement/s couldn't be further from the truth. A very happy, supportive team environment is in place at Stanford and credit is due to the athletes, the athletes' mentality, and their coaches.

7) As the number implies... Anyone of the 4 percent who applied and got into Stanford is very lucky indeed.

Stop bashing what you don't really know.

Stanford could have the worst coach on the planet and I'd still go there without thinking about it. Stanford is one of the best universities in the world.

Bruh your "employed at Stanford" is showing.

Stanford every years gets a top 2 recruiting class on the Men's and Women's side yet never sniffs a top 10 finish at NCAA indoor or outdoors. I almost feel bad for that team you would think they would be lock to win NCAA every single year with all that talent. Stanford even seems to make it's runners slower in college yet still pulls top 2 recruiting classes every single year. Though some do get injured often and other just quit the sport altogether. Stanford ruins more good runners then maybe any other school in the Country combined. You give Oregon or Colorado those recruiting classes of Stanford on the distance side and they would completely dominate NCAA's every single year. It's called coaching something both Oregon and Colorado have and Stanford well doesn't at least not good coaching.

To band is on the field Stanford does have the worst coach on the planet it's not even close.

I'm not. What is there for me to be mad about?

What fire are you referring to? I said that 10:31 for high school girls isn't a dime a dozen. Who said anything about fire?

Definitely agree. You have to admit Stanford has a much higher percentage of burnout. But definitely every school has a fair number of athletes not make it through the program.

Where was I focused on girls/women's performance? My only reference to women/girls was the specific example used by the post I was replying to.

I never said Stanford was the only program that took this approach. I also never said it was the wrong approach for them to take, given their obvious recruiting asset of the Stanford name. Maybe it is the right approach, maybe it isn't. I said that if I was an individual runner, it would not be the approach I would want from my school. There is a difference. The coach isn't hired/paid to do what is best for the individual athlete, he is hired to do what is best for the program as a whole. They are trying to do that. Some coaches at other schools try to do what is best for their athletes as well, some do not.

I doubt you know many athletes at Stanford or you wouldn't take this attitude. I had four high school teammates/friends run there and since then I have had athletes that I coach go there after they graduate hs. It is not an "unhappy" environment, but it is impersonal. It has the feel of a production line of athletes. That isn't necessarily a negative, I would consider it neutral. I also go to all of their home track invites, so I do see how the coaches and athletes interact.

Who said anything negative about the 4% who get into Stanford? Who said anything about people getting into Stanford or not at all, in fact?

Why Stanford wrote:

Why are all of these elite high school girls going to Stanford?

Miltenberg has proven that he is a mediocre female and male coach. Elise Cranny pulled out the win this week, but is a far cry from the girl who beat Efraimson at the World Junior Championships. Don't point out one person or give the excuse of tough academics (plenty of schools are challenging).

Stanford has a who's who in high school middle distance running. I would love to see someone do a progression of improvement for Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Oklahoma State, Mississippi State, Georgetown, Virginia, Colorado, and all others that are worthy of analysis.

She might be the greatest of all time.

There is definitely some truth to your statement, but it didn't start with Milt. For decades Stanford has gotten it's share of blue chip athletes who haven't panned out. I will also say that about 25% of female phenoms don't progress as expected no matter where they go. Looking at the data from the last 10 years, you see that there are more middle distance females who never won a H.S. national championship, who won an NCAA title than who won a H.S national championship. To the best of knowledge, Rowbury, Huddle, Agostino, Uhl, Barringer, Hall, Goucher, Coburn, Frerichs, O’Connor, Houlihan, Conley Willard, Martinez, Moser, Infeld and Bizzarri never won a H.S. national title. In fact, I think Molly Sideal is fist FLNC winner to win an NCAA XC title. ...It's not entirely Stanford's fault. In terms of recruiting, just about any kid who can meet Stanford's academic requirements and visit's the campus...its pretty much a rap. - With all of that said, Stanford does indeed have a 'relatively' poor record with blue chis H.S. athletes which is worthy of discussion. However, I don't see coach Miltenberg as the problem unless you want to also include Floreal and go as far back as Brooks Johnson.

Why Stanford wrote:

Why are all of these elite high school girls going to Stanford?

Miltenberg has proven that he is a mediocre female and male coach. Elise Cranny pulled out the win this week, but is a far cry from the girl who beat Efraimson at the World Junior Championships. Don't point out one person or give the excuse of tough academics (plenty of schools are challenging).

Stanford has a who's who in high school middle distance running. I would love to see someone do a progression of improvement for Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Oklahoma State, Mississippi State, Georgetown, Virginia, Colorado, and all others that are worthy of analysis.

She might be the greatest of all time.

Is this a serious question? The answer is easy.

When the kid is highly intelligent and super fast, he's almost always going to go Stanford unless his parents don't have money. Why? Because it's a great school and he can go for free. The other option is Ivies but they are expensive (unless the parents are poor).

No offense, but you are going to college to get educated. Few people would choose Miss State over Stanford if the cost is equal. In terms of coaching, Milternberg won an NCAA title at Gtown. He's certainly capable and the horse makes the jockey.

It amazes me that people think coaching makes or ruins these runners. So Milt has ruined Cranny and Salazar ruined Cain, but Salaar made Rupp? No. The horse makes the jockey.

Another thing to consider.

1) Think abou tthe type of athlete that goes to Stanford. I always say an 8:55 2 miler that goes to Stanford or an Ivy probabaly isn't as talented as a guy who ran *;55 and goes to a state school. Not always. But probably. The kid is a high achiever. Had a 3.75 GPA or higher. He works hard in school and likely trained harder - again on average- to run that 855 than the kid who has a 2.8 GPA and was a slacker in both academics and track work ethic in HS.

2) Academics are indeed harder.

3) I think being at Stanford is a big distraction. You've got some genius in your dorm curing cancer. Sports seem trivial to that. It's hard to stay committed.

The athletes seem to like Coach Milt, but I have to ask why are there so many major injuries to their very best runners? They have gotten some good results the last couple of years, but would have done better if they weren't missing key runners due to injuries. If I was a college coach, I wouldn't run these young athletes 3 seasons in a row, counting indoor track. They don't get a break once Cross Country starts. Who really cares about Indoor Track? I never did when I ran. It's not that important compared to outdoor track in the Spring. I warned high school runners to be careful in college because some coaches will get you hurt, and if you want to run after college you have to be smart about your training and racing. Winning is not the only thing, not if you love to run.

Just looking at girls. He has done a great job with Olivia Baker. Molly McNamara is running really well now and I never say that happening. Cuffe had some injury problems this year but had an amazing career. Claudia Saunders has been an NCAA runner up as was Elise Cranny as a freshman and 2 DMRs (with this years 3rd). Rebecca Mehra has seen huge improvements. Before Stanford he did an incredible job at Georgetown including an individual NCAA champ (Emily Infeld who went on to win World Bronze) and an NCAA championship team in XC. Every school has recruits that don't pan out and you can't immediately blame the coach. You could make a much longer list of athletes that went to Oregon and Colorado and did nothing of note than the list of ones who became stars.

Looking at credentials Milt is probably a top 5 women's coach that is active and Stanford is by far the best school.

The only reason a blue chip recruit should pick Oregon over Stanford is if they aren't smart enough to realize a Stanford degree is worth SIGNIFICANTLY more than an Oregon degree, or a degree from any other track powerhouse.

Why is this even a question? Even Gabe Jennings and Ryan Hall were smart enough to pick Stanford.

I agree with everything you said and I will add that most years Stanford is chasing xc, indoor and outdoor conf and national titles so you don't get a break.

Congrats to Stanford for getting 6th on the Men's side and 3rd on the Women's side at Pac 12's that better then they normally do. Also congrats to Oregon on winning it's 10th straight Pac 10/12 on the Men's side and 8th straight Oregon Women's Pac 10-12 Championship.