Disprove FM Girls Worsen in College

You are correct but let me rephrase. FM kids are trained to reach 95% of their potential. Most other HS runners might be trained to reach 60% or 65% of their potential. Which group is going to show the greatest growth in college?You always see the most growth when working with the less trained athlete. Its can be no other way.

Actual Logician wrote:

Well, my weight lifting analogy is the exact same structure as your argument with the subject changed. It's a great way to evaluate an argument actually.

You don't train your athletes to be their best while they're with you. That screws them. If you're only goal is to make sure they improve after leaving you , your job is pretty easy. Just give them pizza every day and don't let them run. They'll suck but they'll sure improve when they get to someone who will actually coach them.

"What is your rate in improvement for runners once they get to the collegiate level?" Are you just like Saratoga when it comes to females?"

What's that supposed to mean? Didn't all the saratoga 2004 FL qualifiers go on to be all-americans in ncaa cross?

Let's face it, there are an awful lot of $hi((y high school coaches out there and an almost equal number of $hi((y college coaches. If there is a fault to the FM program, it is that the kids are very respected and they are very passionate about what they do, and yet they go to schools where they are not given the same respect by their new coaches and other kids on the team are not nearly as passionate. You don't think this messes with their heads?

The Footlocker alumni may not have won but a scroll through the pages is a who's who of running. There are flops like in anything else.

But why is it that people think you can't do well in high school and college? I'm confused.

It is hard going from a good program with a coach who's over involved to college where you aren't babied as much.

You are a good coach with a good approach. I agree with your philosophy of a metered approach for HS athletes, so they will not get burned out and can continue to improve as their bodies mature. I also don't think your approach will preclude any of your athletes from reaching their highest potential, on the contrary, your approach makes it more likely and for it to happen at an appropriate time.

Having lived in Saratoga, my opinion is they ran the kids way too hard. A lot of this has to do with a coach's ego. Anyone can try to coach HS kids like they are college aged, and you may even get very good results. That doesn't mean that overall that was the best approach for most runners to ultimately reach their peak potential (which should basically never happen in high school).

If athletes from a given program seem to stagnate in college, I don't think it speaks well of the program. Likewise, if athletes from a given program improve more, it doesn't mean they had bad coaching. If I was coaching HS I would basically limit the miles to 40 mph, maybe 50 for Jrs and Srs. When I was in high school we ran about 20 mph (which was too little), but many of us stuck with running and ran well collegiately.

40mpw is not 1 second. It is 30+seconds over 5k compared to the kid who runs 60-70mpw. You have a kid for 3 years. That is a lot of time to build mileage slowly. Heck this lack of training probably holds the kid back more than doing properly training earlier.

People who talk about powerhouse schools athletes not doing more afterwards make the mistake of assuming they should do better. Those 9:00 2 milers coming out of those schools might be 9:30 guys in most schools. Instead they have good coaching and a team environment so they can run faster earlier. In college, the other kids get those advantages and it comes down to talent.

There are a lot of 4:30 milers that don't train in HS (i.e. those

Actual Logician wrote:

Well, my weight lifting analogy is the exact same structure as your argument with the subject changed. It's a great way to evaluate an argument actually.

You don't train your athletes to be their best while they're with you. That screws them. If you're only goal is to make sure they improve after leaving you , your job is pretty easy. Just give them pizza every day and don't let them run. They'll suck but they'll sure improve when they get to someone who will actually coach them.

It's really hard not to believe that if runn was telling us that he's a great coach because he pushes his high school kids to great performances and that they almost never ran faster in college than they did in high school that you'd be agreeing he's a great coach. Maybe you would, but you just don't come off that way.

Well, it's hard for me to believe that people believe it's possible to run "too well" in high school. Please cite any exercise physiology principles that back this up. Somehow I made it through a master's in exercise phys without coming across any such precept.

Let's sum up how this has gone... Like Santa Clause, the yearly troll has slid down the letsrun chimney to bash the best high school coach in the country. The theory is that since his kids don't improve AFTER LEAVING HIM he must be doing something wrong. (Brilliant logic there.) I counter that it might be the issue with college coaching since that is the place they are not improving. I also state that if the only requisite to being a good high school coach is your athletes suck so much that they can't help but improve in college, you've got a backwards way of thinking.

As Ray said, the biggest mistake, if you can call it that, by FM is not putting their girls in the hands of coaches who are capable of taking the kids to the next level.

About your baseless assumption based on how I "come off," I have always been consistent in defending high school coaches whose kids run well throughout their high school career. ( I don't like coaches who thrive off a stream of frosh/soph runners due to burn out of the upperclassmen.)

High school, college, or beyond, this is why you guys are so easy to beat. You glorify mediocrity and vilify success. I'll have two more in DI schools next year, of the ones that went this year so far four of six are improving.of the two not improving, one is at a school where I bet she ends up a lot better. The other went to a good school without a great coach. She might never pb again. I don't take credit for the ones doing well nor blame for the ones not doing well. My job was to get them there still hungry. I did that. Aris does that. Runn does not do that.

Whoops the last part of the message got cut off. But the summary is how many 4:30 milers are their in high school like Sell and Pat Porter? Guys that pretty much didn't train but still ran ok times but who if they would have trained would have been world class. It is easy to say they can develop later but the reality is that most drop out. Their HS coaches failed them.

asfadsf wrote:

40mpw is not 1 second. It is 30+seconds over 5k compared to the kid who runs 60-70mpw. You have a kid for 3 years. That is a lot of time to build mileage slowly. Heck this lack of training probably holds the kid back more than doing properly training earlier.

People who talk about powerhouse schools athletes not doing more afterwards make the mistake of assuming they should do better. Those 9:00 2 milers coming out of those schools might be 9:30 guys in most schools. Instead they have good coaching and a team environment so they can run faster earlier. In college, the other kids get those advantages and it comes down to talent.

There are a lot of 4:30 milers that don't train in HS (i.e. those

well said.

I've done the college tour thing with a kid who was recruited - mainly by D2 schools. In speaking with a dozen or so coaches, I was surprised at how lacking in basic distance training wisdom so many coaches were..

I doubt more than 1% of college coaches are as adept as Aris, so it stands to reason many of his athletes would struggle with relatively inferior coaching in college

the interesting question to me is how a hs distance program can encourage the total development of a teenager.

Let's say runnerkid A is growing up in Manlius and goes to FM. A similarly talented runnerkid goes to the next hs over.

FM kid gets in the Aris program, trains very hard and sees what an elite place looks like. He runs a 4:20 mile.

NotFMkid in the next valley runs fine - does his 40 mpw and is a solid runner. Maybe a 4:40 miler.

The question is how much value there is to the development of a teenager to see excellence and be a part of it. Even if fmkid never runs another step after graduation. There has to be a value in being a part of excellence and striving.

I've really never been part of a world class organization. Few of us have. I suspect the FM program helps their kids succeed beyond running by showing them what excellence is.

HeiressStank wrote:

Go ahead and try!

No, thanks, have no bone to pick on the subject. But, could it just be they were totally satisfied with their high school gig, and went to college to concentrate on getting an education and/or spouse?

Personally I feel I can coach a kid from Saratoga or FM as well as a kid who was never coached well at all. I have had kids come to me who ran their best times as freshman in high school, get worse and then get better, which rarely happens. My approach makes it so that I can coach a kid from a high mileage background or low because I pay attention to each kid and their needs. Too many times I thin college take the approach of "next please" rather than trying to figure out how a kid can fit into their program.

Frankly I look at it this way. As a coach your first responsibility is to do no harm, then to make your kids better. Some would argue and say it is about winning. It is but first don't do things you know will hurt them and 2nd make them better. Sorry, but if a kid isn't getting better in college and they are doing everything the coach asks AND they are not being retards socially then it is the coaches fault. If the kids are going to be accountable then coaches do too.

You could also ask if they liked their free education or if they would have been happier to take a $200,000 loan.

The Schnide wrote:

Who is FM? I thought that was radio frequencies.

But girls in college is difficult to predict. The only safe bet is foot locker which is why those kids are so heavily recruited... And why that meet will never die.

How many FM athletes would make it as an individual at Footlocker? The ones who do my guess do well in college.

Here we go again. Quite a few kids run both NXN and FL. It's only the west region kids who can't. The results make it clear that any kid who finishes top 40 (or maybe its top 30) at NXN is comparable to a FL finalist. FM often puts a lot of girls in the top 40.

Running FL is not a 'safe bet' for college success. And not running FL reveals almost nothing about college prospects.

One flaw with your argument here is that the girls DO go to excellent schools. Villanova, Providence, etc. You going to try and tell me Gina and Ray are bad coaches?

and one girl is at dartmouth - coogan has a pretty good reputation too

You are all barking up the wrong tree. In high school, much more than college, the desire to do the best you can for your team and your school far exceed running well at the college level.

The FM girls are the best HS team in xc ever. It should not be held against them if they do not do the same thing in college. They have not grown up with their teammates, gone to movies, on dates, to church and the gym with them for years. This has a lot to due with developing at winning tradition.

The coach has a lot to do with that, but the girls are the ones that develop the team camaraderie that stays with them though the year, in the halls, at lunch, at practice, at team dinners, and not wanting to let anyone dent the reputation that previous teams have done for their school.

This does not happen on the college level. Besides in college it is time to get ready for what happens in the years to come. Age creates different outlooks.