What is Lananna thinking?

Yeah wrote:

I would say that most of Wetmore's athletes had more success with Wetmore than otherwise. The Torres have done all right, Goucher has been all over the board but ran most of his best races under Wetmore (let's see him beat Abdi or Meb now?). Ritzenhein has been better, but also all over the board. Kara Goucher, on the other hand HAS improved. But how can you compare how well they run in college, at a totally different physiological state, to how they run after? Men and women both reach their peak a few years after leaving college. Even if the coaching hasn't improved, it is very likely that the athletes will (especially when not over raced in the college system).

And a lot of those guys would stay with Wetmore afterwards, but he focuses on his team, not his pros.

If I recall, Goucher ran about 8:11 for 2-miles after switching to Salazar, narrowly missing the A.R. I highly doubt that Meb or Abdi would have been with him on that one. I'm still not sure that Meb would stick with Goucher. Goucher also beat Abdi at the U.S. cross country championships 12K last year. Which by the way was a sweep of Colorados finest Alumni, all of which are clearly running much better now than with Wetmore.

I don't think either Meb or Abdi would have touched Adam at his 6th place finish at the World Cross short race either.

Abdi had basically just started running in college and had a lot of room to improve, but he's still not clearly a better runner than Adam.

You forgot Culpepper, who may have made the biggest jump after leaving Wetmore. Could never win NCAA cross but wins multiple US Cross Championships against loads of former NCAA champions. Not to mention his success on the roads and his 10K times on the track.

If you had the Oregon team to coach, you may do an ok job with them. You also might burn them all out or peak them at the wrong time or have them trying to kill each other all the time. You seriously underestimate what Lanana's role is, and that makes you look pretty ignorant.

Captain Numbnuts wrote:

You seriously underestimate what Lanana's role is, and that makes you look pretty ignorant.

Sorry for not pitying a guy who has six runners on his varsity that all placed in the top 11 at Footlocker in HS. I'm sure his job is very, very hard.

And you still forgot to address the fact that people mature physiologically after college, and thus SHOULD perform better out of college. Who knows how good Goucher or Culpepper would be if they were coached by Wetmore after college as well. You can't compare what someone does when they're 20 to what someone does when they're 26-7. And if I remember correctly, Ritzenhein ran 27:38 under Wetmore and made the Olympic team. He has PRed by 3 seconds since then.

Smith has Wetmore beat as a track coach, and that is IT. Wetmore has accomplished more in 10 years than Smith ever did. More conference championships, more national championships, more individual national champions, more all-americans (66 under Wetmore). He has had distance success on the track as well, but Smith has him trumped in that department for the most part. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

Yeah wrote:

Captain Numbnuts wrote:

You seriously underestimate what Lanana's role is, and that makes you look pretty ignorant.

Sorry for not pitying a guy who has six runners on his varsity that all placed in the top 11 at Footlocker in HS. I'm sure his job is very, very hard.

And you still forgot to address the fact that people mature physiologically after college, and thus SHOULD perform better out of college. Who knows how good Goucher or Culpepper would be if they were coached by Wetmore after college as well. You can't compare what someone does when they're 20 to what someone does when they're 26-7. And if I remember correctly, Ritzenhein ran 27:38 under Wetmore and made the Olympic team. He has PRed by 3 seconds since then.

Ritz has pr'd by a little more than that in the marathon and has made that marathon team to the Olympics. But Ritz has been on that level since high school so you can pretty much leave him out of the scenario. Although theoretically all athletes should continue to improve after they finish college, it seems like some of the top Colorado runners made a big jump after they were done with him. If they felt he was so good for them, why don't they just stay with him.

Does he really say to the NCAA champions that he can't coach them anymore? He wants nothing to do with them? Is he that much of an A-hole? These guys get you NCAA championships, which helps you bring in the new recruits, and you slam the door on them as they walk out?

Dellinger could coach his post-colletiates. Lanana could, Jerry could. Is it really just too hard on the old coach, or is it more the athletes wanting to be done with him?

No, from what I understand Wetmore WILL coach them, but his focus is always on the team, and he is vocal about that and his professional athletes are aware of it. Thus, unless they want to workout with the CU team, they don't often stay.

And with that said I have to leave, because I have been posting way too much the last hour and need letsrun cooldown.

All I see is your lack of knowledge.

Yeah wrote:

Yeah and Martin Smith never won team titles on EITHER side.

See my point? Wetmore has all four. Smith has 2. I think Lananna has 3.

Smith has won numerous conference titles as a team in track and field including a couple at Oregon and this past year at Oklahoma. He is a more full dimensional coach as Wetmore's teams are just one dimentional (distance). Smith works a lot harder.

wrong wrote: Smith has won numerous conference titles as a team in track and field including a couple at Oregon and this past year at Oklahoma. He is a more full dimensional coach as Wetmore's teams are just one dimentional (distance). Smith works a lot harder.

maybe in the past, but he damn near erased distance at Oregon. I'm beginning to think he was a better delegator to assistant coaches than he is a coach.

wetmore once said that only high altitude teams can win from the back because they can't go out at fast because there bodies are use to running slower, so they have an easier time starting off slow and picking it up because their areobic fitness is better

Donnie Diznuck wrote:

If Wetmore is such an amazing coach, then why do his top athletes tend to shine after college? Yes they are good in college (because they were top recruits) but they get much better after. I\'d say he\'s a conservatively very good coach and very good recruiter.

This is your knock on Wetmore?!?! That he gets a lot out of his athletes without burning them out!?!?! That is the definition of a great coach - he makes them great without killing them so they continue to improve after college, which is what should happen since 22 year olds should not have reached their ultimate potential by then. Any coach who consistently sees his athletes bomb after college is doing something wrong. Umm, Lananna anyone? What happened to the Hausers, Stember, Jennings, Gifford, Riley, et al after college?

I haven't been seriously following the sport for that long. I know about what Lananna did at Stanford. I also know he had some success at Dartmouth but I was hoping somebody could post something about what he did at both Dartmouth and at CW Post.

Good point, B.G. Having athletes who develop well long-term is part of the mark of a great coach.

With regard to the original post, it's just silly to BELIEVE that you can't win NCAA's from the back. It's been done, and anything that has been done, obviously can be done.

However, it's not silly to SAY that you can't win NCAA's from the back; in the same way that good athletes are "24-hour athletes" who structure their whole lives around getting fast and beating people, good coaches are always looking for a way to get an edge that might help them beat teams. He's not trying to give your little sister pointers about how to coach a team to a national championship; he's trying to win meets.

Any top-flight high school runner is looking at a small group of collegiate programs, two of which are Oregon and Colorado. Both are pretty powerful and pretty diametrical brands; Oregon has built up around it the cult of Prefontaine and Nike, and Wetmore has RWTB. Frontrunning and coming from behind are a big part of those brands.

Lananna knows--and Wetmore knows--that you can win a meet in a million different ways, but by broadcasting that you can't win from behind, Lananna is trying to diminish the Wetmore/Colorado brand. The "At least, I don't think you can," serves to highlight the difference. If he can get more kids to believe that his way is better than Wetmore's way, he can pull in more big-time recruits.

Whenever you're looking at a coach's interview, don't take everything he says at face value; consider what he might be trying to accomplish.

jesus you guys. it's not impossible to win NCAA's from the back. it's much, much easier to win when you run from the front and control the race, which is exactly what Oregon did (and what Stanford and Arkansas used to do).

In addition to being a smart recruiter, Lananna is a great coach and great motivator. This is just the beginning of great things for the Oregon.

Don't you all think that it depends on the course? A bunch of bottlenecks would indicate an early breakout was important. If the course is a wide, good footing type race, then, like a track race you run to your physiologic potential and don't get caught up in the early fast pace and die. For each race, it seems requires different strategies. I can't believe it's all black and white.

Good job Oregon. It's good to see the Ducks run well although one has to realize that Oregon has unique advantages that many Division 1 schools don't. Such as having Phil Knight have a special( behind the scene interest).

With that, I would have to say Mark Wetmore does an amazing job on all levels. He may not be liked by all, but many would say that he has a unique ability to motivate. He has been in the game a long time and has been successful for many years. He will continue to produce talent and be successful.

The Ducks will continue to thrive with the rebirth of Mr. Knight focusing on his roots.

Someone who is deciding on a school needs to realize that each program has it's distinct advantage and philosophy. Some will do better at Oregon and some at Colorado.

It will be interesting watching not only CU and Oregon, but all the schools battle. CU will definately give the Ducks a run for the money. It will be fun to watch, kind of like the old days of WASU/ Ducks.

I know that he is trying to discredit Wetmore. That's why I think the quote is ridiculous to say when Wetmore has more championships than Lananna, wins with less talent, etc. Plus it's just a physiological thing--it's black and white, you can run faster one way than the other.

Smith's teams ran from the back as well. Running from behind can be a great strategy, but not when the entire field is neg splitting. An athlete has to be alert enough to plan for contingencies.

so lets take a second to consider what makes someone a good recruiter.

makes sense to me that being a good coach would help. im not sure how someone would even attempt to argue that vin is not a great coach, but merely a good recruiter. would i be wrong to say that you need to be a good coach to be a good recruiter? and in addition the better a coach you are the more desirable a coach you would be to an athlete?

Getting back on track....

If everyone went out and ran an even paced race then of course you could win by lagging off the first mile. The problem is that you have a few hundred guys running entirely too fast for their own good for the first mile or two. So if you run your even pace or neg split race you're 20 yards off the entire pack during the first mile and have a hundred people to weave through. Yes, even pace or neg split is the best way to run your best time, but it's not always the best way to race. If you know you're going to need to get out fast and hard then you train to do that: 6 mile tempo first one or two miles much harder than normal, then settle for 3-4 miles then burn the last mile.

Alan

njjj wrote:

wetmore once said that only high altitude teams can win from the back because they can't go out at fast because there bodies are use to running slower, so they have an easier time starting off slow and picking it up because their areobic fitness is better

That's exactly right. The strategy is adapted to altitude trained runners who cannot do speedwork at as fast a pace as their sea-level counterparts. Thus their muscles and physiological systems are trained a little bit differently.