In case nobody else thinks to add, Queen's is a very solid academic school in a nice smller city with a relatively new coach who's got a long coaching resume prior to joining the school (and is an alum, and top calibre masters runner).
In case nobody else thinks to add, Queen's is a very solid academic school in a nice smller city with a relatively new coach who's got a long coaching resume prior to joining the school (and is an alum, and top calibre masters runner).
Except all the Queens runners hate their new coach...
Tough love hurts...
At Queens the current crop will move on and the next group will love their coach.
How come the runners at Queens dont like there coach?
kings wrote:
How come the runners at Queens dont like there coach?
His posts on message boards come off as confrontational and rub some people the wrong way (seems to be on purpose). Probably a lot of them came in with preconceived notions of what he's like because of that and didn't bother forming their own opinions based on his actual coaching abilities. He also came in partway through most of their university careers and replaced their previous coaches, which is never easy.
His style of coaching isn't for everyone, either, but I would wager it's mostly a personality thing. The results, however, both his own and those of the club athletes he coaches, speak for themselves. Most of the current crop of Queen's guys would probably improve a lot with two or three years under his program. From what I understand he does a Daniels-based approach with higher mileage (with the high school guys he's had for a while doing 75-80+ miles/week and senior level athletes probably more), weekly tempo runs, etc. Queen's athletes seem to prefer 30-40 miles/week all out and then go for some McDonald's, always a recipe for success.
He's tough but you have to respect his past performances, it's just that the coach from last year was a lot more chill and around more often. And yeah McDonald's is part of the training program at Queen's-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AikvMgKY1CU
(Queen's is also way better academically then Windsor/Western/Guelph)
Real CanRunner wrote:
Go to Mac or Western... chances are if you're posting here your not going to make the guelph or windsor team, might as well go somewhere you will actually compete...
DO NOT go to Western. The coach is stuck in the past with the way he coaches. He has his athletes do all out 200's in September, instead of proper strength work. Its the only school the local high school coaches say to avoid because of the backwards training. Sure, they got 3rd at CIS this year, but the coach wanted to kick Armstrong, their top runner, off the team because he couldn't make every single practice due to legit academic conflicts. The rest of the team had to beg him not to enforce his 30 year old rule of no practices missed. This was the first year in a long time where they actually peaked at the right time instead of the first week in October. Mac is a good up and coming team, Western is demolished for 2011 XC.
Big NOOB wrote:
(Queen's is also way better academically then Windsor/Western/Guelph)
Than Western? Not so.
Guelph? Debatable?
Windsor? Fine.
Queen's is way better at leaning on the reputations of various people's dads who went there in the 1960s and 70s, might be what you mean to say.
bump
I have to agree. Queens is a great school but academically not better than UWO or Guelph (depending on the program in that case). UWO gets more funding and offers a wider range of programs. I hear so often a B at Queens is like an A everywhere else, but I only hear it from Queen's students. Admissions into the grad programs I am familiar with, and the hiring my industry does, in no way values a Queens degree better.
Looking from the outside.....
SFU and UBC do offer scholarships.....(although don't know the funding)....
...as far as programs DST is IMHO the best coach in canada...DST simply has a factory of guys and girls from any event.........Windsor has a great history of mid distance guys...Victoria also has some good mid dist guys
I have some specifics on the UBC/SFU programs, but not on the others.....if u r a female 800m runner go to SFU (notice how i specify events and gender).....UBC has a nice talented grp of young guys they are currently rebuilding their program around....
.....as far as Queens and Steve if the athletes have issues with him I would assume it's more their issues and not Steves ..... setting high expectations and also knowing how to get one their are keys. I don't know what was done there previously, but I do understand that some athletes may not want to do what they need to do and instead do what they want. Some times those are in tune with the coach...some times they are not. At one time i probably would have virulently disagree with Steve as a young athlete....., but if i could go back in time i would listen closely to Steve......(it ain't HS anymore)....
'gazoo' is wrong, western is on the rise once again. there is a NEW distance coach at western, who is constructing ALL the workouts now and he had great success this year in taking both men and women's team to above expectations at CIS--men 3rd, women 7th. i dont know where you heard of the 200s in september, but that is not true. from what i observed this year, they did more tempo-related/base building runs in september and they peaked very well. they are also only going to get better, as I hear Armstrong is probably going to return and Real Deal has not ruled out another year so they ultimately may only lose Huff...but he could be replaced by a cetain sub1430 5k runner I hear (plus a possibly solid recruiting class). western also always has a great track program on top of that, although I will say the G-spot and Windsor have better cross programs the bottom line is that Western (UWO) is solid all-around (including academically).
O RLY wrote:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/11/10/our-20th-annual-university-rankings/
With due respect, if you rely on the Macleans' rankings to pick a school that is a problem. There are many different institutions that rank schools, but of them, Macleans is not exactly the gold standard.
And how do you slot Guelph in? It is in a different category so not sure what the link shows.
But if you want to believe Queens is great go ahead - just ignore the schools ahead of it. Ignore also the fact that it is in K-Town with limited access to practitioners and professionals.
Of course you don't rely solely on Macleans rankings- otherwise you would just choose the other schools ahead of it. Other factors to consider are a relatively small town environment, particularly compared to montreal and toronto, and a FAR nicer campus (aesthetically and location wise)than Western, Guelph, or Windsor.
But for Canadian universities please feel free to post some other sources that put western/guelph/windsor ahead of Queen's in terms of overall score. There's not much of a point in posting individual faculty scores unless you're interested in a more focussed approach as all schools have their specialties (eg Western has an excellent, prestigious business school, guelph has a good ag-tech program, Queen's engineering)
O RLY wrote:
Of course you don't rely solely on Macleans rankings- otherwise you would just choose the other schools ahead of it. Other factors to consider are a relatively small town environment, particularly compared to montreal and toronto, and a FAR nicer campus (aesthetically and location wise)than Western, Guelph, or Windsor.
But for Canadian universities please feel free to post some other sources that put western/guelph/windsor ahead of Queen's in terms of overall score. There's not much of a point in posting individual faculty scores unless you're interested in a more focussed approach as all schools have their specialties (eg Western has an excellent, prestigious business school, guelph has a good ag-tech program, Queen's engineering)
I didn't go to either. I have a feeling you went to Queens. I think it is funny that you think the Queens' campus is FAR nicer than UWO - that is just a subjective determination.
To end my input I simply say I have seen no example in my professional life where a Queens' grad was doing better in life due to the fact that he or she went to Queens.
Canadian schools are all about the same. There are some outliers here and there (UoT law for example), but really, one can go to any of these schools and have the exact same future.
That is why I have to laugh whenever some Queens grad gets all excited about how much better Queens is than other schools.