What HS Coach Has Burned Out the Most Runners?

This thread pops up with depressing regularity. I don't think it can be answered, because the reason kids run in high school and decide to run in college are different. I know that York pops up a lot on discussions like this, but I've tracked York runners for years, and know that many continue to run and do well in college- but on letsrun, doing well is often defined in Sage-like terms rather than in just continuing to run and contribute terms. For example, Jim Akita, now head coach at Elmhurst College, is a 2.24 marathoner, but was never a top 7 runner at York. Dave Montgomery is running well currently for Grinnell; he is not setting the world on fire, but in his frosh year he has already joined the list of top xc runners in the school's history- and my son is on that list as well. Adam Roach ran well at Iowa, Tim Hobbs at Illinois. Mike Moratta, Adam Palumbo, Dave Walters, Mike Lucchesi, all continued to run and contribute, and they are just a few. Each year York kids end up running, but maybe not an all-American level, so I don't see this as burn out. In fact, when you look at local hs and college coaches in IL and IA, many are former York runners.

So I don't think they get burned out. I think they continue in the sport while they ready themselves for the next step in their lives. The lucky ones still run, or coach when the finish college.

First of all, Old Gold, no one is talking smack. One of the biggest downsides of posting comments on the letsrun message board is that so many people are looking for a fight. Apparently, you are one of those people.

Second, I checked out the Bobby McGee web site. Granted, I was not familiar with Bobby McGee or his coaching background. But that lack of familiarity - no matter what McGee may or may not advocate - doesn't change my mind about training high school kids at 100 mpw.

In a similar example, I know of a personal coach in my area who has a web site on which he props the use of heart rate monitors. Many of this coach's athletes have had success, but that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on the HRM bandwagon just because of that. (As an aside, the HRM is a fine tool for dictating recovery effort, but I lose my confidence in the device beyond that.)

I still say that 40-45 mpw including a long run and two quality sessions is plenty for a high school kid training to race distances of 1600 to 5K.

Yet another smart a$$ looking for trouble. I'll never understand why posters on this forum can't simply participate in civil debates. (And before anyone challenges my comments about Bobby McGee's food for thought being ptomaine poisoning, that was an attempt at humor that clearly lost its tone in writing. My apologies.)

Lighten up, Bagger. I'm not saying high-school-age runners should maintain a 40-45 mpw regimen for the rest of their competitive lives; but there is the matter of wise progression.

And while I understand your perception that juniors in other countries are successful by virtue of not being "pampered," that is really an apples-to-oranges argument. Assuming you're referring primarily to African runners, they experience a totally different upbringing and environment. It is well chronicled that many of those kids use running as a form of transportation - out of actual necessity. Life simply isn't that way in the U.S. and, as it pertains to young runners, the training must be conducted in a different manner.

although i agree with most of your post, cheri goddard had a fine career at villanova and in open running.

Peeps, I agree. That is why I place my general philosophy somewhere in the middle: Enough weekly mileage (including a long run) to build strength for 1600 - 5K distances, and just a couple quality workouts to progress in terms of race fitness.

york ftw wrote:

Has anyone from York in Illinois done really well in college?

Donald Sage (Stanford - 10 time All-American)

Marius Bakken (Indiana - 3:38, 13:06, 28:26)

Bakken is a bad example. He was already a great runner when he showed up at York & he was only there one year right?

Looks like most contributors to this thread are automatically assuming that lack of college success equals burnout.

Perhaps they take kids with above average, but not great talent and get them to achieve to the best of their ability in HS. Just because that kid has less room for improvement in college doesn't mean he/she is burnt out.

There are powerhouse HS football programs that don't necessarily graduate 10 Div 1 prospects a year. Do these coaches burn their kids out just because they coach up a bunch of skinny white kids to take on the rest of the state?

I don't get it.

Macker, your point is well-taken.

I started this thread thinking specifically of the situation I'm familiar with. The Carmel program I referenced simply has a long track record (no pun intended) of very intense high mileage training, and the majority of runners who've attempted to run in college have actually regressed in terms of performance.

I realize there could be many factors involved that are not related to actual burnout. But in watching these runners at the end of their HS careers and into their college careers (over the course of about 20 years), my perception has almost always been that these kids ran out of steam.

I would think that a proper training program for a HS runner would almost be a base of sorts, upon which they could build more volume and intensity as they mature physically and mentally.

tom heath

I would think that the following development pattern would be optimal for everyone involved:

Grades 9-12 (cross only): gradual buildup of mileage/intensity, in order to build a large base and fitness.

Grade 12 (Dec.-graduation): reduce mileage/workload substantially (up to 50%), keep the athlete fresh and don't overrace, get some key performances off the base fitness. Emphasis on sharpness and saying healthy. Take 3 weeks completely off after June races.

This pattern would allow the runner to enter into the summer before college with relatively fresh legs, ready for another rebuilding cycle to an even higher level in college. I suspect that many kids from these programs go into their college freshman year already tired and ready for a break, only to be asked to come up to an even higher stress level in terms of training/study/life, etc..

Anyone on this thread from NH? A great man and fabulous high school girls' coach at Manchester Central - Joe O'Neal - phenomonal high school coach but his runners all burn out after high school. Again, a great person, but up there in the same league as the Kranicks.

you are wrong wrote:

although i agree with most of your post, cheri goddard had a fine career at villanova and in open running.

why is it that the only toga athlete name that anyone can ever come up with is cheri goddard? if you consider every talented runner that has gone through that program, the ratio of success vs. burn out is mind boggling. cheri is an exception and perhaps she made it because she didn't join the program until 9th grade and the training evironment was most likely reasonable enough to tolerate back in those days. (the early kranick years)

York, Donald Sage, Marius Bakken. There was a NCAA XC national champion back in the 70's. The way I look at it is a great HS coach will get the most out of his runners and it will leave less room for improvement in college because the runner had great training in HS. Most of the runners who come out of nowhere in college had crappy HS training. They scraped by on talent and blossomed under proper coaching in college.

Terry Kozma

That was Jim White, that runner.

At the time Marius joined York no one knew exactly how good he was. He simply listed that he loved to run on his exchange applciation and was therefore placed at York. But it is a fact he was there just the one year. Still did the amazing- 8.57 3200 in 45 degrees and rain, two firsts (16, 32)and a second (800) at state meet. Jim White tried the same thing but heat did him in.

wetmore while at bernards high?

I think many kids do lousy in college because there are so many bad college coaches. Some of the people you are talking about, Tyson, Newton, etc are just way better motivators than most of the college coaches. I coached at college for a while and was amazed at how lousy so many of them were. They've been at their school forever and just don't care or don't want to build anymore. There are a lot of great high school coaches and when their athletes get to college, they are not burned out, they are just unmotivated by the new coach who is into miles and times but nothing else. They are from teams that were exciting to be on and now their they are surrounded by kids that don't care. I don't think "burn out", I think they picked a lousy program.

And yes, the Kranicks may be an exception to that rule with all their dopey rules, like they are not allowed to talk to other teams, the girls can't stay in the same hotel as the boys, etc, etc. they seem to forget that these are kids who are trying to have fun.

[quote]greenliner wrote:

I've tracked York runners for years, and know that many continue to run and do well in college- but on letsrun, doing well is often defined in Sage-like terms rather than in just continuing to run and contribute terms.

I agree....sometimes we 'expect' the 4:13 miler or 9:05- 2 miler in high school at York or Mead, or wherever, to be a big star in college too, running 4 minutes or less for the mile and 13:40 or better for 5k and making all american in X-C.

It is probably true the these high school standouts, thru the hard work of their programs, will have less of an improvement margin in college than the ill-trained kid who improves in a big leap; (ie, 4:25 mile to 4:05 in college).

However, like you noted; if these top notch high school runners stick it out in college and maybe run 4:07 miles and 14:05 5ks and are solid varsity X-C guys, than they still have succeeded in my eyes, while others wonder "what ever happened to high school standout 'so and so', he's not on the national scene anymore?"

But, It is true that alot of them get frustrated after a year or 2 of NOT being the Big Kahuna anymore or not placing at Nationals and quit, unfortunately, instead of continuing and being a solid, if not spectacular college runner. Whether the burn out factor from tough high school training is also in the mix is a debatable point; but another thing that is in the mix is this: they have freedom, away at college. They party, date, have fun and say 'goodbye' to the spartan life that had been leading since 9th grade. The shackles are off and they go wild. I've seen it.

Baine TM wrote:

Has to be Pat Tyson.

What percentage of sub-9:30, sub 4:20 Mead guys ever did anything? For that matter, how many Mead guys ever did anything after HS? The answer: not many. Make as many individual citations as you want, but look at them as a percentage of who could have been considered "good" while in HS.

You have to put things into perspective here. High school is high school, guys are generally competing at the highest level against guys from their home states. Occasionally some national caliber meets and much less so in the 80's and 90's.

Someone recently posted that Tyson coached 12 or 13 runners to run from 8:50 - 9:10. I'm pretty sure Tyson had most of them go Division 1 on scholarships and at the minimum score in there conference championships in track. Some of them had quite a bit of success. Greg James was never better than 4th man on Mead's cross country squad, but he placed top 60 at NCAA cross one year, scoring for Oregon who got 3rd place. Rob Aubrey never made foot locker nationals as Mead's 2-3 guy, but he helped lead Oregon his last couple years and had a top 50 finish at Nationals. Micah Davis had a lot of success in the steeple chase in college, a conference champ (twice?) and and NCAA competitor (twice?). Matt Davis place 5th at NCAA cross one year, despite being injured most of his college career. Matt & Micah's older brother Nathan Davis qualified for NCAA's in the steeple while at WSU, but wasn't allowed to compete because their football team had commited NCAA violations and the track team suffered for it. Chris Lewis ran sub 4 as a freshman at Wisconsin and competed at the indoor NCAA's. Evan Garber scored on Iona's great cross country team last fall. Granted some of the Mead guys didn't produce as much, but really, how many programs have had this much success after college? They certainly can't be the worst, if they are among the best.

Now I'm a Washingtonian and have followed these guys more than you, but if you assumed that fell off completely because you never saw their names at the top 3 of the NCAA championships you have a poor perspective. Most of them were not at that level in high school, when you add top young foreign athletes into American high schools you will get a more accurate picture of the NCAA.