More lies AngryTaxPayer.
More lies AngryTaxPayer.
AngryTaxPayer wrote:
Should I pull up mens regional results over the last three years or so, or just leave that unsaid? They won't even race an 8k till the weekend of pre-nats (I'm sure the PSU field will be loaded that weekend) - are they peaking for nationals?
Tech is a large state school and thus even with zero scholarships they should be able to beat Liberty, or non-scholarship programs such as Duke and JMU. In fact, VMI will probably beat them this year (no knock on VMI they've got a decent young program). I'm not trying to be an ass... ok yes I am, but college athletics is about results. On the men's side, VT hasn't been getting them in the last 3 or 4 years. That's a fact.
I've become intriged at the prospect of a team actually running 20-30 miles and claiming success. I decided to do a little digging. Actually, AngryTaxpayer is accurate. The Virginia Tech men's team never finished out of the top 9 at NCAA Regionals from 1980 through 1991. Typically, they finished 3rd-7th place with 1987 being their highest placing (4th at NCAA Championships). Since 1991 under Thomas they have finished
2001- 9th
2002- 13th
2003- 15th
2004- 14th
at NCAA Regionals. Based on the tradition of the program they are clearly not getting it done.
Especially when you consider the ease of recruiting to a high profile school that's on TV every weekend, the Atlantic Coast Conference, and the fact they have more scholarships than ever before.
I wnet to VT on a recruiting visit and did't get a chance to speak with a person from the team unless one of the coaches was present. The coaches took us everywhere. I got an e-mail from one of the athletes a couple days latter telling me to go elsewhere. The coaches did not want the recruits to speak with the team. I chose a different school and every day I'm thankful.
Good thing you didn't a**hole. Are you a boo hoo! You'll be crying a regions chump.
That's kind of funny.I do the opposite with recruits.Don't misunderstand me,I meet with them and their parents but they spend 90% of their visit with the team.I also like to take the time to let them review our training schedules and they can also read any of the current athletes running journals.If they have a problem with how much or little we run I tell them not to join us in the fall.
Now 20-30 miles a week give me a break.Yea maybe some physiological freak like Joan Nesbit(I honestly say that with admiration) can be a warrior off that training but for the rest of us sorry %#!%! that will not work.
Isn't it weird that when someone lists their times and the method of training, if they are low mileage or concentrating on quality work they get called names and told they could have run much faster. If their training has the emphasis on mileage they get applauded. There are different routes to the top, but you don't see the quality mileage guys slagging off the high mileage guys. Maybe some of these people could run a lot faster if they focused on quality. I've run both and the higher mileage route was an easier option, in my opinion.
I could care less about how much running they are doing. Blacksburg and Virginia Tech is a nice open town. They have a festival called Steppin Out each August that people of all orientations put on. The town venders love it and really welcome the people. It's a great town for liberal minds.
What the perpose of not leting you talk to the runners?
So what kind of coach has college a team doing 30 miles per week. The runners should have asked those questions in the recruiting. If I'm being shaddowed by a coach on a visit that would tell me somethings amuck.
fighting gobbler wrote:
Good thing you didn't a**hole. Are you a boo hoo! You'll be crying a regions chump.
See you at the ACC meet first. Look up at 4 miles and you'll see me way up there in front of your team. In the 10K at regions you will be to far back to notice.
Why if va tech is doing such low mileage, dont the runners transfer??
Apparently they did not want me to talk to the team out of fear what they would say about the program.
looking wrote:
What the perpose of not leting you talk to the runners?
Big name school that's easy to get in. If you have a pulse they will take you. They can't get in anywhere else. Plus they cancel classes for football games. Party! Amazing they were taken into the ACC.
They likely chose the school not the program.
why????? wrote:
Why if va tech is doing such low mileage, dont the runners transfer??
For the life of it. Post and example of their week of training.
I'm not talking about just VA Tech anymore, but let's suppose you were a freshman and college, made a decent number of friends, did pretty well in class, and generally had an attachment to the school you went to. The only thing you didn't like was the running program, which meant a lot to you so you decide to transfer. Now you have to research other schools, apply, contact coaches and make sure they want you, get your release from your coach, think about the fact that you probably won't get all your credits to transfer, and you'll have to leave all the new friends you made behind. Then let's say you're not on scholarship and you can't afford to go out of state. So now you're limited to at most a half-dozen other schools - some of which don't have good running programs either. My point is, transfering isn't easy, for whatever reason you chose to do it, and no matter what school you're leaving. You only get four years of college it's hard to do your first year twice.
By the way, to the gentleman who suggested I was telling lies - what part was untrue?
Coming out's more like it. ba dum dump.
OK, it must look something like this.
M-3 miles (4:50 pace)
T-8x200m (at 21-22.5 seconds)
W-3 miles (4:10 pace)
T-3 miles (4:25 pace)
F-Rest
S-RACE 6 miles------(5:35 pace)
S-8 miles (4:58 pace)
total 27 miles
I was never very effiecient or able to handle high mileage in University. Maybe I was weak and needed better physio to balance both sides of my body. This is hindsight speaking ofcourse.
Average Jan - June track season = 30 - 40 miles a week
times:
1:48 800m
3:42 1500m
8:12 3000m
14:32 5000m (ONLY did 2)
Obviousely what I am saying is that you can get by with low mileage but the longer races will definately suffer because of it. Sometimes running 30-40 seems ridiculous but other times I realize that it was truly my only injury free season.
The big thing is to make sure u tell people to step up their miles but do it slowly. I find many D1 programs (I was part of a team that was top 20 at ncaa d1 xc) have a problem when a person comes ignorantly into the program (or they didnt have a good hs coach). A lot of coaches want the team to run together a lot. So guys bump up to 60-70 miles the first year and usually get hurt either right away or like 6 - 12 months later. Make sure your coach sits these kids down and expresses the importance of mileage while also being aware of the fact it could take until their 2nd or 3rd year to handle it and stay healthy.
All that aside... the word I think a lot of hardcore lydiard/high mileage believers need to learn is "individualize". Some people just aren't 70 + a week athletes. This usually occurs with 800m/milers. Although they may run a 4:05 in the mile, they may not be able to run 70+ miles a week because they aren't efficient enough to. If you want them to run that much and they are currently at 30-40. Let them build slow.
ie:
1st year: from 30-40 to 50
2nd year: from 50 to 60's
3rd year: 60 to 70
4th/5th year: stay at 70 and add strength work or be very careful when jumping into the 80+
Dont rip on these people who are underdeveloped because a lot of high mileage college runners (like i said before) may have had good high school coaches and came in running 60 to 70's before.
I always feel that since we have such a competitive NCAA system it sometimes pushes kids to hard to soon. If they get a serious injury, etc all it does is stump or stop development.