thanks "lease," good points. I suppose I can definitely see that, though I never ran ncaa so I'm not as up on the ins and outs. thanks for a clear response.
thanks "lease," good points. I suppose I can definitely see that, though I never ran ncaa so I'm not as up on the ins and outs. thanks for a clear response.
let-her-run wrote:
Not sure if the women you have coached have had spoiled little brat upbringings or that you are a garbage coach. Read and think about what you wrote. If you believe that this is the case, change your freaking life.
I actually did reread what I wrote--particularly my point about understanding how some coaches might be reluctant to take a chance on having her on the squad. (As it happens, I've had a woman with a very distinct physical condition on my squad--and no problems, at least that I saw.)
I was very, very lucky--and I'm willing to admit that it was more likely luck than coaching--not to have had much of these personality issues on my teams. But I have had coaching colleagues--caring, knowledgeable women and men--whose women's teams have been very badly riven by, essentially, personality clashes and envy. I have not seen or heard of anything similar with any men's teams--it probably does happen, but apparently not nearly as frequently.
I note that the posters who have (apparently) actually coached college women for any substantial length of time seem to be seconding my remarks.
But in any case, I have indeed "changed my life" and left coaching, after starting the women's track and cross programs at three major universities. So you're spot on there! All best--
lease
I would not recruit her because her times are sub-par (phone me when she breaks 10:30, maybe even 1025). People will get bored of her story quickly. Dealing with this daily would not be a source of "inspiration." It would be a source of exhaustion. And be liable for her medically? hell no
I want to know how she does workouts like track repeats. Does she fall down after every rep? If so I would assume she would have to have a training schedule that didn't use a lot of repeats.
Appleboy wrote:
I would not recruit her because her times are sub-par (phone me when she breaks 10:30, maybe even 1025). People will get bored of her story quickly. Dealing with this daily would not be a source of "inspiration." It would be a source of exhaustion. And be liable for her medically? hell no
10:43 3200m for high school indoor track is sub-par? I think it was run at JDL too, which is a flat 200m track, probably worth 4-5 seconds conversion.
If not for the MS, almost every DI program in the country would recruit her.
Did you guys miss the part about 10:43 being the 21st fastest time in the country this year? Exactly one girl in my state ran faster than 10:43 indoors this year. She ran 10:38 and is going to Stanford on a full ride.
Sometimes in life you have to ignore potential consequences and just do the right thing. I hope she uses the cowardice of these D1 coaches for personal inspiration at NCAAs. And congrats to Lipscomb University!
The story and many of the responses on here remind that most NCAA I coaches and programs are run like a business. Athletes are a commodity. Team environments aren't important. The athletes are there to serve, and if they cannot serve, they are left behind. A few rise up and experience some level of success.
And it works to an extent. The top programs still attract top talent. Much of it disappears into the void. And yet, athletes still think that is where they need to go to succeed. It's a lie for most. And they don't realize how they will actually be treated by coaches and teammates.
What is the percentage of those athletes that actually improve at all, much less survive four years? How many top athletes go off and are never heard from again? What level of enjoyment and development do they actually get at most of the big programs?
Then a mid-major like Lipscomb, that nobody had probably heard about five years ago, builds a different type of program. They get better and better every year. They've had many athletes few have heard of improve dramatically. They seem to care as much about the athlete as a person and the experience as they do about success. And they are a rising NCAA I distance power that is actually seeing far more improvement than most programs in the nation. Doing it different than the others. Some are figuring this out. Like Kayla.
Others have been paying attention to what is happening at Lipscomb too.
Certainly the common LetsRun poster will rip on them for some reason on here. They will make stuff up, or say that a 10:43 3200m high school girl isn't worth being recruited. Crazy stuff. The arrogance and ignorance, or just jealousy is crazy. It's what happens here at LetsRun. But there is no denying what is going on there or how they are doing it.
Here is another article from today:
Distance2010 wrote:
Did you guys miss the part about 10:43 being the 21st fastest time in the country this year? Exactly one girl in my state ran faster than 10:43 indoors this year. She ran 10:38 and is going to Stanford on a full ride.
Sometimes in life you have to ignore potential consequences and just do the right thing. I hope she uses the cowardice of these D1 coaches for personal inspiration at NCAAs. And congrats to Lipscomb University!
out of the parts of the country that actually have indoor track, many run the 3k or 3200. 21st in the country in 2mile indoors isn't saying too much, especially with the med problems.
Distance2010 wrote:
Sometimes in life you have to ignore potential consequences and just do the right thing. I hope she uses the cowardice of these D1 coaches for personal inspiration at NCAAs. And congrats to Lipscomb University!
Having in athlete with MS invites many, many complications and is not something you can just "ignore." Your ignorance is endearing.
potential consequences wrote:
Distance2010 wrote:Sometimes in life you have to ignore potential consequences and just do the right thing. I hope she uses the cowardice of these D1 coaches for personal inspiration at NCAAs. And congrats to Lipscomb University!
Having in athlete with MS invites many, many complications and is not something you can just "ignore." Your ignorance is endearing.
So do you think she should quit running? Should nobody give her a chance?
Precious Roy wrote:
She is getting to go to a good school on a scholarship. So the point is a bit moot. But, I can understand that the top Div I programs would not want an athlete with a condition that no one has any experience with and no other athlete has competed with the same condition. It is easy to understand that a coach would pass over her to pick a lesser runner without MS. It would be a tremendous burden to have to be the one who has to learn how to coach an athlete with MS completely on the fly. Push to hard, and who knows what might happen.
When did Lipscomb become a good school?
lard of the dance wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:She is getting to go to a good school on a scholarship. So the point is a bit moot. But, I can understand that the top Div I programs would not want an athlete with a condition that no one has any experience with and no other athlete has competed with the same condition. It is easy to understand that a coach would pass over her to pick a lesser runner without MS. It would be a tremendous burden to have to be the one who has to learn how to coach an athlete with MS completely on the fly. Push to hard, and who knows what might happen.
When did Lipscomb become a good school?
It's not a good school, it's a great school.
Nothing odd about it, it only happens with the adrenalin rush from a race. She runs 50 miles per week practicing, and has no problem!
There were many colleges (including mine) who recruited her (and coach) hard in the beginning, but she wouldn't give us time of day. We aren't Stanford, but certainly far ahead of Lipiscomb on the competitive wheel.
story simply not true wrote:
There were many colleges (including mine) who recruited her (and coach) hard in the beginning, but she wouldn't give us time of day. We aren't Stanford, but certainly far ahead of Lipiscomb on the competitive wheel.
First, "far ahead of Lipscomb"? So, if Lipscomb had 4 or 5 sub-17 5000m girls last year, you have 10? If Lipscomb had 4 or 5 sub 11 steeplers last year, you have 8? If Lipscomb had 2 sub 2:10 800m runners last year, you had 4 or 5? I highly doubt it.
The only programs that could be considered far ahead of Lipscomb right now are Stanford, Oregon, Colorado, Florida State, and the like. So if you aren't at their level, you aren't far ahead of Lipscomb.
Second, if it was true that she wouldn't give you the time of day, despite your perception that your program is "better", maybe that tells you something about your environment or the way you recruit?
Lipscomb has historically been considered a "religious" school. The article mentioned she was deeply involved in the Methodist church......
might not be wejo. wrote:
that was my point, is that I'd do it CONSIDERING the huge investment. she'd need a cyclist with the team for every single run (with a phone, med kit, etc), she'd potentially be unable to even run for the team in 3 yrs, kids might take her down on purpose, etc. lots of variables, but I thought that the inspiration a team could draw from her would be more than worth 1/18 scholarships, even if it was tied up for all 4 years.
Huge investment? Sorry bud, you're living in a dream world. Somewhat cool story/inspirational to read, but that would wear off quickly. She has less time left on her feet than others, its natural that she want to make the most out of that. Doubt any college team would be very inspired by her, seems like a lot of hassle for little return opposite getting a faster runner.
These broad stereotypes that Letsrun seems to assume (having maybe seen 1 or 2 teams at most) is pretty damaging. I ran on a D1 team team that was generally mid-tier to good and the women got along very well and didn't hammer the easy days. Post-college, I train with other women who also ran for anywhere from mid-tier to good D1 schools and they all say the same. Training with these other women has never been a problem either, we all know when to go easy on the runs and when to work hard on the workouts.. and we all get along great. Assuming "all women's teams" are like this after you maybe see one case is pretty short-sighted, as I've seen just as many men's teams that run each other into the ground too.
M.C. Confusing wrote:
let-her-run wrote:Then the women runners you have coached are complete garbage. Not sure if the women you have coached have had spoiled little brat upbringings or that you are a garbage coach. Read and think about what you wrote. If you believe that this is the case, change your freaking life.
clearly you've never coached girls before. Girls teams can get toxic over the littlest most ridiculous teams sometimes.
clearly, you know nothing about the Lipscomb women's team or their coaches. Not much chance for anything toxic happening with that group & their coaches..
10:43 and 17:xx 5k time isn't worth it for most coaches.