The US college athletic system: unique?

>>Very interesting system for repayment, seems very sensible.

I didn't mean to put any other country's system down, I just meant to say that because we get the best people to come here we do the most social science, physical and natural science, and medical research on a scale that wouldn't be possible without people coming here.

That's why it cracks me up when people complain about the numbers of indians and other asians that are grad students in the sciences - we'd be screwed without them.

That's ok. The good thing that repayment system we don't have to get tied down by college scholarships and hence can develop our athletics at our own pace, with our own coach, and works towards our own goals, not a college's. We compete through a club system. The only advantage of the HS and college system that it does encourage people to run, hence the many thousand of runners throughout HS and college in the country, although what happens after college is over is unfortunately another question again.

My feelings (admittedly from the outside) is that US distance running is falling behind teh African despite having an incredible collegiate system. The NCAAs is a great place to cut your teeth.

Not everything in US running is broken (2 Oly medals is not a bad return).

The club systems that are in use in Europe have some benefits in that there s more freedom but this comes with a number of disadvantages

1/Coaches are strictly amateur and are not accountable for results

2/Coaches only meet athletes 1-2 times a week (generally)

3/Athletes who go to college lose contact (to some extent) with their coaches

4/Facilities are poorer (funded by local authorites)

5/I dont think clubs generate the same comaraderie as colleges

I also think its unfair to say college coaches only think short term and have no interest in their athletes beyond their time there. Many athletes continue to be coached by their college coaches after they leave. Its impossible to be a good coach and not care about your athletes long term development.

wannabekila,

Why wasn't Tiffany McWilliams at the trials?

Track head you are an absolute legend.THIS IS THE BIG PROBLEM FOR U.S. ENDURANCE RUNNING.

trackhead wrote:

wannabekila,

Why wasn't Tiffany McWilliams at the trials?

Wasnt she injured. Was it becasue of over racing, in your opinion?

'Over racing' is not unique to the US collegiate system. It exists everywhere, in all systems. Consider a brit athlete competing for his club, his 2nd claim club and his college. Many kenyans race almost every w'end on the roads.

A good coach wouldnt allow over racing, its not in his interest to.

The opportunity that the US system gives athletes to focus on their running for 4 or 5 years should not be under estimated. It is a great set-up, the envy of the distance world. Its not without flaws, however.

>>My feelings (admittedly from the outside) is that US distance running is falling behind the African despite having an incredible collegiate system. The NCAAs is a great place to cut your teeth.

Not everything in US running is broken (2 Oly medals is not a bad return).

The club systems that are in use in Europe have some benefits in that there s more freedom but this comes with a number of disadvantages

1/Coaches are strictly amateur and are not accountable for results

2/Coaches only meet athletes 1-2 times a week (generally)

3/Athletes who go to college lose contact (to some extent) with their coaches

4/Facilities are poorer (funded by local authorites)

5/I dont think clubs generate the same comaraderie as colleges

I also think its unfair to say college coaches only think short term and have no interest in their athletes beyond their time there. Many athletes continue to be coached by their college coaches after they leave. Its impossible to be a good coach and not care about your athletes long term development.

In my humble opinion only I don't believe it is an unfair comment. Admittedly it's a bit of a generalisation and doesn't apply to all but most are only interested in their jobs and the results they get for they college through excessive training and thus are not necessarily good coaches. The athletes personal goals don't come into it. Otherwise the U.S. would be performing on a greater scale at international level given the numbers in HS and college. That is the final judgement if longer term development and performance is the criteria. College should only be the beginning of a senior athletic career.

Your make good initial points though in that it does provide great comaraderie as well as encourage and provide a facility for athletes to run as seen by the many thousand of runners in HS and college in the country. It's what happens after college that becomes important. If long-term development was an issue, great, the sport would really go somewhere with those numbers. The disadvantage is that it doesn't afford you the chance of developing with you're own coach throughout you're career. This may mean constant change in method, unsettling, especially if you're already doing well under a coach. There is potentially 3-4 changes of coaches in that time...youth, HS, college, post-college. You may also be unfortunate enough to get stuck with a college coach that is very average, trains you excessively etc...with no real way out (suppose you could change schools). On the other hand you may get lucky enough to get a good one but it's a lottery. Suppose the key is to do you're "homework" before you apply.

i dont think college running has been to the detriment of post-college running. There are specific examples but in general i dongt believe its true. Also as the US colleges are the only institutions that pay coaches of sub-elite athletes the standard of coaches should be higher than elsewhere (again, in general). It is true to say that some athletes may have been better off with their original coaches.

If you look at a country like Ireland - its last 3 olympic medalists have come through the US college system and all its currrent national records from 1500-Marathon (mens) and 800m->10k (womens) were set by ex-NCAA runners. No coincidence. Britain too has benefitted though probably less so.

Actually, the problem is that the sport of Cross Country exists at American Universities. Without Cross Country, distance Runners would have the same length of Season (six months) as all of the rest of their TRACK & FIELD Teammates. The reason why most of you are over raced is because your schools respective administration cares more about TRACK & FIELD results than they do Cross Country. Plus more than likely your Head TRACK & FIELD Coach doesn't really care if you are a CC All American but are too tired to be all conference in the 5k or 10K. I'm not saying it is right, all I'm saying is there are two sides to every story.

"The problem is that the sport of Cross Country exists at American Universities."

Such statements are an outrage. The fact that NCAA cross country exists has given many thousands of outstanding kids the opportunity to go to school for free. How is this a problem? What do you want? Dump cross country in college with the hopes that a few more medals might be earned in olympics?

McWilliams was borderline stress fracture in May, and instead of backing off for a few weeks and trying to rest and get healthy for the Trials, where she was a huge favorite, they ran conference and reigonals and all, and then -- BAM -- out with a stress fracture.

I guess SEC's are just that important to end a potential Olympic season

It is not an outrage. Because notwithstanding the Title IX implications (dumping Track while keeping cross for geneder equity purposes) all of the thousands of outstanding kids you are referring to would have received the same opportunities while being JUST 3K, 5K and 10K Track Guys. All I am saying is don't blame the universities that you HAVE to participate in all three seasons. I'm sure if you were to ask the majority of Track & Field coaches in this country, they would be very happy if their distance runners didn't participate in Croos Country and SAVED themselves for TRACK & FIELD. I can not tell you how many times as a field event guy I had to be told that we couldn't win a meet because "so and so" needs the week off because he's been over raced. You know what Zobel, I worked my ass of year round to throw things far for my TRACK & FIELD Team. I was asked every year by the football coaches at my University to play for them in the fall- Do you know what I told them, no thanks- I am a TRACK & FIELD athlete. You're not being exploited by your Universities by being overraced, you are ALLOWING your Universities to exploit you by participating in Three Sports. I chose to allow for such exploitation.

last sentence should read, "I chose to NOT allow for said exploitation."

the problem seems to be that we're set on a school year system and the rest of the world is not

run cross and indoors at the same time -- kids get to do what they want, no extra fuss

That we can agree on Trackhead. Unfortunately, there are far too many schools that need Men's CC to count seperatly from T & F for purposes of minimum sports and Gender Equity, for your very correct solution to ever have a chance to be implemented. Isn't it ironic that anytime somebody discusses whats "wrong with the University Athletic System in America" the answer always seems to be Title IX. Therefore, I will allow your sign to be posted in the weight/training room provided it says this:

BECAUSE OF TITLE IX LEGISLATION...

Some, including myself consider cross country to be the main sport for endurance athletes and track and field a season to endure. Who but a few like running or even watching 10K's on a track?

Of course, the Olympics don't have a medal for cross country, but I'm never going to win one of those, anyways.

About the only think I can see about title 9 is post title 9 there are more male XC programs now than before and more male runners in college now than before title 9. And of course there are female runners and XC teams in most colleges now.

Zobel-

I had more respect for the distance runners on my team regarding their level of skill and dedication to training than any other faction of the team. What I didn't respect was when they had an attitude like yours (I'm a CC Guy first, then a Track Athlete). If that is truly how you feel, and I certainly don't hold your opinion against you, then I would suggest that you not run Track. Any distance runner who shares your opinion and competes in Track is doing a tremendous dis-service to everybody else on the team. My opinon is your not a CC Guy- you're a distance runner. If you still have eligibility left I would encourage you to try my way of thinking, I'm sure you will set new PR's/PB's on the Track.

And there are far less Track Programs. Why does Track get the axe and not CC. Because all you need to have a CC team in College is One Coach, 7 Guys to Travel, a Van and some "Dead" music to make the drive seem shorter :-) That probably will run you, depending on how good your Coach is, about 100K per year.

trackhead, are you pretty much saying that we would be better off without indoor? Have an XC season with maybe 4-5 meets & then minimal racing until march. that wouldn't be so bad.