I had 2 kids decline offers from Ivies due to cost. They are going to college for free instead of $320K each. Cost always has to be a factor.
I had 2 kids decline offers from Ivies due to cost. They are going to college for free instead of $320K each. Cost always has to be a factor.
ronald mexico clarke wrote:
runnER/DR wrote:
Why would a top men's recruit choose anywhere but NAU right now? Flagstaff is the epicenter of American distance running right now(at any level), and coach Smith is hands down the best men's coach. Of course, the school is total garbage, but where you go for undergrad doesn't matter anyway.
Please don't listen to this person about choosing a college if you are intelligent. Go to the best school you can get into academically, or choose the best running school from the TIER of schools you can get into; i.e. if you can get into the Ivies, go to the best running school amongst them.
Undergrad matters hugely, and only more so in an increasingly competitive, globalized economy. There is a reason rich people try to cheat their way into elite schools, and it ain't because of poverty talk like "you can get a good education anywhere." If the poster is an MD (guessing based on username) it is true undergrad matters less. Most people won't be MDs. Make life easier on yourself, not harder. Of course there are exceptions and people can go to mediocre undergrads and become successful. As you get older, you learn to not make choices based on exceptions to the rule.
I took recruiting trips to NAU and Oregon in the 1990s and chose neither.
I now live in a neighborhood where no house is less than 3 million, and the residents almost exclusively attended elite schools. No one here is telling their kids undergrad doesn't matter.
Of course if you are dumb and fast, go the NAUs of the world.
I just couldn't let this post go w/o making a comment...
My thought, please don't listen to Mr Clarke. The world is full of very successful (and rich) people who went to all kinds of schools... actually, some didn't even go to college (I know, it's shocking!).
Go whereever makes the most sense for you... based on what you deem is important.
Successful people come from all walks of life.
And since we are doing testimonials... I live in a neighborhood where no house is less than 3 million too and I didn't attend an ivy... in addition, someone from my family who doesn't run went to NAU and she is rich and successful too..
So do what ever you want..
rojo wrote:
Westlake Tavern Pizza wrote:
Sam Tanner, 3:34.72i. Not exactly asleep at the wheel.
Culpepper has improved, albiet slightly, to 3:41.29
Houser ran 4:06/8:57 in HS and has now run 7:58/13:43 as a FR
Nading was a 3:45 DII guy who went 3:59.2i once he transferred.
Proctor was a 8:55 HS small-school stud and became a XC AA and now has 13:46/28:31
Slenning has a 8:26 3000m HS best and now has run 8:43 S/C
So Powell has a guy run 334 and freshmen run 835 steeple and 13:43 and he sucks? Are you people dumb?
I just ran a dual meet between NAU and Washington using the descending order list at cloud training system. Washington wins 112 to 79.
And here's what will shock you. Distance wise 800 on up, it's Washington 24, NAU 21
How is that possible? It's because UW dominates both the 800 and steeple and 1500..
Your dual meet reasoning doesn't hold water as it has every athlete doubling/tripling at their current SB levels. The current season and current SB's also don't paint the larger picture. Consistency, depth and ability to deliver at championships (the issues, historically, with UW) are what counts.
Again, I'm a UW Fan:
NAU has been to NCAA XC 18 of the last 20 years, with four wins, two seconds and ELEVEN additional top tens.
WA has been to NCAA XC 10 of the last 20 years, with TWO top tens.
NAU had four finalists at 2019 and 2018 NCAA's between 800-10,000m
WA has zero in 2019 and two in 2018.
All that and I would not doubt that UW has averaged stronger recruits over the whole 20 year span. I think Powell is doing well and will continue to improve, but he's up against challenging expectations for what WA typically does with talent. Fast PR's and singular good seasons are great, but when you get dusted at NCAA's or don't even send athletes, that doesn't get you much.
tfrrs !?(" wrote:
I had 2 kids decline offers from Ivies due to cost. They are going to college for free instead of $320K each. Cost always has to be a factor.
Agreed! You must be rich if you would have to pay full fare. My neighbor is currently paying $320k to send his daughter to USC. Boggles the mind.
I too declined the Ivies due to cost, but not because of being rich. The mid-90s was before the Ivies started with the mega generous aid for the poors. I grew up with single mom, working class neighborhood, no college degrees on my street, and would have had $30k loans per year. $120k of possible debt seemed insane. I went to State U for free.
birdbearddos wrote:
Has anybody really improved under Powell? There were a whole lot of bombs from UW at Pac 12s. A lot of guys stagnating. Some (like Daschbach) fully off the radar. What’s up at Washington?
They have a 3:34 1500 runner on the team
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Oregon seems like pretty good choice, too...
If you are already a massive talent
Who is being coached by his HS coach back in NZ. It’s well known that he is sending Andy the workouts. Sam was sold on Washington because he was assured that Centro would be his training partner……
When was the last time he had an athlete medal at NCAAs?
When you lose that oregon recruiting suddenly the crack start to show...
youre trippin dawg....oregon is the place to be and you know that, for fact! haha dont be silly.
Sasuke wrote:
Bonkers wrote:
How is that Powell's fault? It's not like he over-raced or over-trained Ches in college. He held him back a ton and Ches only had 1 major injury in 4 years at Oregon.
Also, the bit about not having pro careers is just straight up false. Colby Alexander, Eric Jenkins, Parker Stinson, Trevor Dunbar, Sam Prakel and Luke Puskedra have all had solid careers at the pro level. You also had guys like Will Geoghegan and Gregorek who were there for 1 year and improved a ton
Ches was absolutely over trained and over raced in college. Some of the workouts that he did were insane.
All of the guys that you have mentioned that are pros have had very volatile careers. They have a had a few good performances here and there but of that list only Jenkins has made a world championship team. Mac Fleet was a two time NCAA 1500m champ under Powell and did nothing as a pro. Alexander, Jekins, Stinson have been all over the shop. Injured, not able to have consistent performances, etc. Dunbar and Pusekdra didn't last too long as pros either. A couple of flash performances but mostly mediocre.
I'll give you Prakel. He is still running well under Powell.
I don't really count Geoghegan or Gregorek because they only had one year.
Ok, first of all you're gonna have to point me to some actual evidence that Ches was overtrained/raced. My impression was that Powell kept the reigns on a lot in practice, and Ches often ran relaxed in none championship races.
I don't think the Mac Fleet and Ches post-college injuries are supporting your case at all. My counter would be look at what happened when they left Powell. Hypothetically, if Grant Fisher left BTC and joined Tinman and put up worse results would you blame Jerry? That doesn't make any sense.
Fine not to count the 2 Ivy transfers, but there's a reason they went to Oregon rather than go pro after their 4 years were up. They needed to develop more to get pro deals. We'll never know exactly what Powell's influence was, but bare minimum he didn't screw them up.
For the rest of the guys, I think all of them have had 5+ years as sponsored pros which is honestly really good. The list of guys who don't have "volatile" careers and make teams consistently is a lot smaller than you think. We all agree that Mark Wetmore is a great coach right? Well how many guys from his back-to-back title teams in 13/14 ran pro? Morgan Pearson is doing Triathalons and Connor Winter is running for Tinman and (no offense) won't come anywhere near making a team. That's basically it.
I feel like I'm missing something...
- 3 guys under 1:50
- 7 guys under 3:45
- 6 guys under 14
- 3 guys under 29
Doesn't sound too shabby to me
Sasuke wrote:
Bonkers wrote:
How is that Powell's fault? It's not like he over-raced or over-trained Ches in college. He held him back a ton and Ches only had 1 major injury in 4 years at Oregon.
Also, the bit about not having pro careers is just straight up false. Colby Alexander, Eric Jenkins, Parker Stinson, Trevor Dunbar, Sam Prakel and Luke Puskedra have all had solid careers at the pro level. You also had guys like Will Geoghegan and Gregorek who were there for 1 year and improved a ton
Ches was absolutely over trained and over raced in college. Some of the workouts that he did were insane.
All of the guys that you have mentioned that are pros have had very volatile careers. They have a had a few good performances here and there but of that list only Jenkins has made a world championship team. Mac Fleet was a two time NCAA 1500m champ under Powell and did nothing as a pro. Alexander, Jekins, Stinson have been all over the shop. Injured, not able to have consistent performances, etc. Dunbar and Pusekdra didn't last too long as pros either. A couple of flash performances but mostly mediocre.
I'll give you Prakel. He is still running well under Powell.
I don't really count Geoghegan or Gregorek because they only had one year.
This argument always makes me laugh. So these guys were all really good when Powell coached them. Then they left him for other coaches and none of them were as successful and somehow that means Powell is a bad coach. Just take a sec to reconsider your logic.
Go to the best school you can and drop out. It worked for a guy named Bill Gates.
Westlake Tavern Pizza wrote:
All that and I would not doubt that UW has averaged stronger recruits over the whole 20 year span. I think Powell is doing well and will continue to improve, but he's up against challenging expectations for what WA typically does with talent. Fast PR's and singular good seasons are great, but when you get dusted at NCAA's or don't even send athletes, that doesn't get you much.
He's up against challenging expectations but again those expectations are coming from cynics on this board.
Washington scored points in every distance event in the Pac-12 championships. They had 3 pretty strong contenders in the steeple, the 10K, the 5K, 800, and 1500. I'd say it's a pretty stacked bench.
15_50 wrote:
ronald mexico clarke wrote:
Please don't listen to this person about choosing a college if you are intelligent. Go to the best school you can get into academically, or choose the best running school from the TIER of schools you can get into; i.e. if you can get into the Ivies, go to the best running school amongst them.
Undergrad matters hugely, and only more so in an increasingly competitive, globalized economy. There is a reason rich people try to cheat their way into elite schools, and it ain't because of poverty talk like "you can get a good education anywhere." If the poster is an MD (guessing based on username) it is true undergrad matters less. Most people won't be MDs. Make life easier on yourself, not harder. Of course there are exceptions and people can go to mediocre undergrads and become successful. As you get older, you learn to not make choices based on exceptions to the rule.
I took recruiting trips to NAU and Oregon in the 1990s and chose neither.
I now live in a neighborhood where no house is less than 3 million, and the residents almost exclusively attended elite schools. No one here is telling their kids undergrad doesn't matter.
Of course if you are dumb and fast, go the NAUs of the world.
I just couldn't let this post go w/o making a comment...
My thought, please don't listen to Mr Clarke. The world is full of very successful (and rich) people who went to all kinds of schools... actually, some didn't even go to college (I know, it's shocking!).
Go whereever makes the most sense for you... based on what you deem is important.
Successful people come from all walks of life.
And since we are doing testimonials... I live in a neighborhood where no house is less than 3 million too and I didn't attend an ivy... in addition, someone from my family who doesn't run went to NAU and she is rich and successful too..
So do what ever you want..
The problem with this type of response is that everyone thinks they will be the exception, not the rule. Sure there are successful people from all walks of life. Yes people who went to NAU become rich and successful. Yes Bill Gates dropped out of college - but he was Bill Gates. The vast majority of people who drop out of college do not become Bill Gates, or someone similar. If you want the best odds at becoming successful (assuming you value it in terms of financial stability as these posts are), go to the best school you can get into, and, if it's an Ivy or Stanford, go there. Same for choosing a NESCAC DIII compared to running mid-level D1. It is a lot easier to get a good job or get into a good graduate program from an Ivy or Amherst, then from a lesser school. Not impossible by any stretch, but the odds are better for you coming from the better school - you can get a 3.3 or 3.5 at the Ivy where you may need a 3.8 or 4.0 at the lesser school. So to get where you want, you need to do better than you would have at the Ivy. And while everyone going into college thinks "I'll just get all As" or whatever, the reality is there are only so many As to go around and, in almost all cases, there will always be someone smarter than you. Far more people graduate with a 3.4 than a 3.9, regardless of the school they go to. You give yourself more margin for error by going to the best school you can get into, whether it is an Ivy compared to Washington or Virginia, or Washington or Virginia compared to NAU or Oregon.
Here's my cold take:
They CRUSHED January and February, that team looked like a top 8 NCAA xc team and had some fantastic track times. They kept racing through the end of March and this spring without pulling it back a bit.
They will be fine going forward but a lot of their guys are burned out. These are college kids who have been laser focused since New Years day.
rojo wrote:
Your joking right? I love how every 3 years the fanboys fall in love with whatever coach is getting the best recruits. And at the same time, everyone else is viewed as total garbarge.
A few years ago, Powell was God. Now it's Smith.
Same thing at the pro level. Alberto was god, then evil...
Good post, but Alberto was always evil.
lunk wrote:
Did I miss something? DK Metcalf (10.3 guy) coached distance at Washington?
Yeah, DK is a real multifaceted dude.
spokane xc wrote:
15_50 wrote:
I just couldn't let this post go w/o making a comment...
My thought, please don't listen to Mr Clarke. The world is full of very successful (and rich) people who went to all kinds of schools... actually, some didn't even go to college (I know, it's shocking!).
Go whereever makes the most sense for you... based on what you deem is important.
Successful people come from all walks of life.
And since we are doing testimonials... I live in a neighborhood where no house is less than 3 million too and I didn't attend an ivy... in addition, someone from my family who doesn't run went to NAU and she is rich and successful too..
So do what ever you want..
The problem with this type of response is that everyone thinks they will be the exception, not the rule. Sure there are successful people from all walks of life. Yes people who went to NAU become rich and successful. Yes Bill Gates dropped out of college - but he was Bill Gates. The vast majority of people who drop out of college do not become Bill Gates, or someone similar. If you want the best odds at becoming successful (assuming you value it in terms of financial stability as these posts are), go to the best school you can get into, and, if it's an Ivy or Stanford, go there. Same for choosing a NESCAC DIII compared to running mid-level D1. It is a lot easier to get a good job or get into a good graduate program from an Ivy or Amherst, then from a lesser school. Not impossible by any stretch, but the odds are better for you coming from the better school - you can get a 3.3 or 3.5 at the Ivy where you may need a 3.8 or 4.0 at the lesser school. So to get where you want, you need to do better than you would have at the Ivy. And while everyone going into college thinks "I'll just get all As" or whatever, the reality is there are only so many As to go around and, in almost all cases, there will always be someone smarter than you. Far more people graduate with a 3.4 than a 3.9, regardless of the school they go to. You give yourself more margin for error by going to the best school you can get into, whether it is an Ivy compared to Washington or Virginia, or Washington or Virginia compared to NAU or Oregon.
The problem with this response is that it assumes that the college one goes to absolutely determines your level success in life. It doesn't. The cream generally rises to the top.
Look, it's nothing against Ivys or Stanford, they are great schools, no question ...and they can certainly help you achieve your goals... but if someone wants to go to a 'lesser' school it doesn't mean they won't be successful in life. That was my point and it stands.
(Btw, the vast majority of people who go to Ivy League schools don't become Bill Gates either. )
Ok7272 wrote:
Westlake Tavern Pizza wrote:
All that and I would not doubt that UW has averaged stronger recruits over the whole 20 year span. I think Powell is doing well and will continue to improve, but he's up against challenging expectations for what WA typically does with talent. Fast PR's and singular good seasons are great, but when you get dusted at NCAA's or don't even send athletes, that doesn't get you much.
He's up against challenging expectations but again those expectations are coming from cynics on this board.
Washington scored points in every distance event in the Pac-12 championships. They had 3 pretty strong contenders in the steeple, the 10K, the 5K, 800, and 1500. I'd say it's a pretty stacked bench.
For sure, but the expectations also come from Powell's prior success at Oregon and the larger context of other successful NCAA programs. For the talent UW takes in, the Pac-12 showings and 3x sub-1:50, 7x sub-3:45, 6x sub-14 and 3x sub-29 would be what's hoped for an arguably expected. But in their own conference they're flanked by UO with 7x sub-1:50 and 9x sub-3:45 and Stanford with 10x sub-14 and 3x sub-29.
Other programs producing that level and breadth of results are seeing that translate into real results at a national level. As I've said before: the real question is can those efforts be repeated when it counts and year-after-year. Other programs have made that happen, UW has yet to but I think and hope that they will. I think Powell is a great coach and things will come together. They have the makings of a crushing team next season and the season after.