Can we all agree RunningLane was a joke now?

OhioBuff wrote:

Does this indicate that Brosnan did a good job coaching these kids, or a bad job? Are we looking at all the facts to come to our conclusion, or did we make an assumption and work backward to prove it?

Nobody ever wants to mention it, but it could be that the environment at NPHS, training under Brosnan, and running with other studs every day was simply more conducive to running fast than any situation these kids might find after high school.

Not every runner will improve in college- only something like 25% of all footlocker qualifiers ever qualify for an NCAA championship race. For every sub-four high school miler who goes on to qualify for the USATF championships, there's another that, unfortunately, fades into obscurity.

Fine then you can say Brosnan is GOOD at having his athletes peak in high school. Some people may think of that as a positive, but most will see that as a negative.

I think Brosnan has created a type of cult where you can only thrive within it, not outside of it (unless you are a Nico-like talent). Is the coach's goal to make athletes dependent, or independent? I would say the latter, Brosnan apparently the former.

Top high school athletes in the college recruiting process look for coaches whose athletes continued to improve in college AND after college. We should value the same trait in high school coaches.

this thread is idiotic.

Not sure how this became an NP issue

However, top RL guys have indeed not really done well in the past month

3200m times:

Hough (RL 5th) 14:10. - 9:17

Martin (RL 11th 14:24 - 9:01

Marek (RL 38th) 14:43 - 9:00

Appleford (RL 42nd) 14:44 - 9:00

Martinez (RL 56th) 14:52 - 9:13

Side note: Sherry, who was 3rd at Eastbay, 6s behind Hough, did however run 8:47 this weekend.

So yes, none of these performances are spectacular.

But a 9:03 for two miles is worth 14:30 on the track. So Marek, Appleford and Martinez’s performance make a little bit of sense. It does however seem that RL was running faster than last year.

jijiji wrote:

Not sure how this became an NP issue

However, top RL guys have indeed not really done well in the past month

3200m times:

Hough (RL 5th) 14:10. - 9:17

Martin (RL 11th 14:24 - 9:01

Marek (RL 38th) 14:43 - 9:00

Appleford (RL 42nd) 14:44 - 9:00

Martinez (RL 56th) 14:52 - 9:13

Side note: Sherry, who was 3rd at Eastbay, 6s behind Hough, did however run 8:47 this weekend.

So yes, none of these performances are spectacular.

But a 9:03 for two miles is worth 14:30 on the track. So Marek, Appleford and Martinez’s performance make a little bit of sense. It does however seem that RL was running faster than last year.

Because everything becomes a NP issue.

That was the point of this thread. The early season results don’t line up with the spectacular times run in AL.

A lot of time is spent on this board bashing successful high school coaches, usually with the same indictment that they cannot develop their student-athletes for continued improvement in college, and that they don't care to do this either. However, we spend very little time, if any, trying to identify coaches who are really successful at developing their student-athletes to improve in college. There is a reason for that - because if you did identify these unicorn coaches, you would be pointing to a small subset of their athletes, while the vast majority either a) never went on to compete in college, b) made few if any improvement in college, or c) ultimately regressed in college.

Transition to college as a student-athlete is complex, and there are so many uncontrollable variables that even successful coaches cannot control. Marc Bloom was on a podcast with Mario Fraioli and discussed this very topic in reference to Fayetteville-Manlius. There are so many changes these student-athletes go through, and often that affects the level of interest and dedication they have toward the sport. There are many things coaches cannot control once that athlete departs for college.

One harsh reality is that too many high school athletes are training and competing at the high school level simply to earn the scholarship and be able to say that they are still a student-athlete. They view their scholarship as a reward for their high school accomplishments, not an investment on their potential collegiate performances. They love the adulation and respect they get by being able to say they are a student-athlete, because let's be honest, how many people look at their times and realize just how mediocre they are running compared to what they once did. One of my best high school athletes fit into well into these categories. And there was very little to be done to dissuade them or their parents from this mindset. So inevitably, they went to a D1 program, probably didn't fit with that coaches' philosophy or the events he was gifted at coaching, and was finished by the end of the first semester. Great human being, accomplishing alot with their life right now, just running is more of a recreational pursuit at this point.

Other student-athletes were often toward the front of the pack, winning many of their races, and only faced stiff competition once or twice a season. Then they go to college and with the depth of talent, they find themselves consistently in the midpack their freshman year, and if they run in championship races maybe even toward the back. They're running a lot more, running faster, maybe spending even more time on the sport than ever, and from an outcome standpoint, aren't experiencing the same success, and they realize - wow, I loved the sport only because I was good at it. Once I became mediocre, I didn't love it as much, and not willing to put the time and effort into it. But I do like the free money, and the gear, so I'll stick around for the next three years, but just enough not to get cut.

As a high school coach - how do you program that out of them? Good luck getting that across two dozen students each and every year. No coach is going to cut a kid because they aren't running purists. Heck no. You can preach and live out a love of competition and the sport, try to build independence for them, talk about what collegiate running is like and the expectations, but sometimes kids are going to be kids.

And finally, some college coaches just suck. They can't create a team culture. They're in a program that isn't fully funded, they don't get much in scholarship money for their event group, so eventually they just kind of mail it in. Some got their jobs because they were a decent runner in college in a good program, worked as a GA or a volunteer with a big time coach for a few years holding a clipboard, and with the right recommendation, boom ... good job. I can't blame them, but hey it happens. Others are good coaches, they know they have to have numbers as well as talent, so they convince some athletes to walk on, maybe get books, to run for their program even though they might have been suited running at a lower division, or smaller school. In those cases, kids are going to regress. And guess what, some student-athletes will choose to run for those coaches because it's their dream school - maybe because of academics, maybe because of the campus, maybe the greek system, and maybe because their high school sweetheart is going there. Again, kids make irrational decisions because these kids will be kids.

I guess the big thing right now is that Newbury Park has got people fired up about high school cross country and track and field. Sean is doing something at Newbury Park - part coaching, part talent, part promotion, and good for him. I do know he is unrelenting in finding ways to put his student-athletes in the best position to be successful. He is a no nonsense guy, and has a vision for what needs to happen for them to run fast and enjoy their experience. If they enjoy that ... isn't that the point. Now, if they come back years later and are upset at him because they didn't improve in college as a runner, then we can openly re-evaluate what is going on there. But if the student-athletes go on to college, and maybe high school running is their high point, and they're okay with that ... so what. In reality, most of the kids will remain they same, their trajectory will slowly flatten off, and some of the athletes who break big in college will do so for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with their high school or college coaches.

I would like to hear from college coaches on what they think that High School coaches should be doing to ready kids for college distance running.

coachy wrote:

I would like to hear from college coaches on what they think that High School coaches should be doing to ready kids for college distance running.

It is a LRC meme that high school kids are best served to be under trained. So they can continue to improve by large amounts. The reality is that you are just taking longer to get to the same level. In many cases that means the runner won’t even run in college and reach that level at all, because they weren’t good enough soon enough.

The incorrect assumption is that kids who stagnant in college would magically have a longer improvement curve if the just did less in high school. Instead of just reaching the same level over a longer timeframe.

There is enough data to support that the top American women were undertrained in HS.

Houlihan

Schweizer

Coburn

Frerichs

Purrier

Quigley

coachy wrote:

I would like to hear from college coaches on what they think that High School coaches should be doing to ready kids for college distance running.

I'm not a college coach, but I am good friends with a high school coach who sent a top-shelf HS athlete to a very good college program a handful of years ago. The college coach asked to see the HS training, and commented along the lines of, "Great, this was really aerobic." The athlete in question went on to win at least one NCAA title on the track.

Based on what I know about my friend's HS program and the college coach's reaction, here is what I think college coaches (the smart ones) want:

1. Decent mileage - nothing crazy, but if the athlete arrives on campus capable of handling a decent weekly long run (80-90 min?) and recovery/easy days that don't have to be super short and slow, that is a good thing.

2. "Enough" racing - kids should know how to push through discomfort (be able to race tough) and execute an efficient race plan (pace themselves, close well, etc). This takes practice. But you don't need the kid to be racing 1-2 times per week, 3 seasons a year to accomplish this.

3. "Aerobic" workouts - fartleks where the offs are still at a decent pace, progression runs, tempo runs and repeats, interval sessions at 8-10k pace.

4. Speed - develop good foot speed, mechanics and running economy, which means running fast sometimes (every 1-2 weeks). This does not mean the workouts need to be lactate baths where the athletes are bent over and puking at the end (those are generally anaerobic capacity workouts more than speed workouts).

begone now wrote:

There is enough data to support that the top American women were undertrained in HS.

Houlihan

Schweizer

Coburn

Frerichs

Purrier

Quigley

Ok so how about the men?

Joshua Cheptegei

Selemon Barega

Jacob Kiplimo

Jakob Ingerbritsen

Elias Kipchoge

All phenomenal junior athletes.

tape of steel wrote:

coachy wrote:

I would like to hear from college coaches on what they think that High School coaches should be doing to ready kids for college distance running.

It is a LRC meme that high school kids are best served to be under trained. So they can continue to improve by large amounts. The reality is that you are just taking longer to get to the same level. In many cases that means the runner won’t even run in college and reach that level at all, because they weren’t good enough soon enough.

The incorrect assumption is that kids who stagnant in college would magically have a longer improvement curve if the just did less in high school. Instead of just reaching the same level over a longer timeframe.

I think one of the problems with college coaching is that coaches don't actually train athletes. Their focus is more on the recruiting side. HS athletes, no matter how much training they have done, are not fully developed and need to be coached in college. I get it that coaches are busy and colleges force them to put all the eggs into the recruiting basket but that's not the HS coaches' fault.

Also there are a lot of bad coaches in college and some programs don't fit every athlete.

I dont think any of them were undertrained. This is the bedtime story we came up with to ignore professional doping.

Those aren't Americans.

hi school senior wrote:

ASU for the W wrote:

Here's a quick list of NP graduates during Brosnan's tenure that were top varsity contributors. Let me know how they're all doing. I'm sure I've missed someone, but still not a trend that indicates success after leaving NP.

Ethan Duffy

Nathaniel Garner

Kyndall Long

Ethan Ronk

Nico Young

Jace Aschbrenner

Thomas McDonnell

Christian Simone

Nicholas Goldstein

Nico is a generational talent and would make any coach look like a genius. Aschbrenner started out solid, but not spectacular, especially for a 8:43 3200 caliber kid. Goldstein just ran a 4:19 mile and the rest have not run or are not running anymore. I'm sure there's excuses for all of them, but only Nico has lived up to billing.

EXACTLY

This is a bad take. MOST KIDS don't run in college, despite their talent/achievements in HS.

coachcommentsnicely wrote:

hi school senior wrote:

EXACTLY

This is a bad take. MOST KIDS don't run in college, despite their talent/achievements in HS.

Bingo. The NP coach started coaching when Nico was a freshman thats 6 years ago. His athletes in that Nico class are the ones he developed fully to go on to college. They have a bunch running well at all levels

These threads are just butt hurt coaches that will never get the job done

What a thread of idiots and teenage kid bashing nobodies.

4:05 in January! And you arent happy.

When this team has 3 drop under 4 minutes by June, redefining the sub-4 mile, then "mark it danny", you guys are far slobs who "get off" picking on the accomplishments of teenage children.

Unreal.

My prediction is at least three HS boys will go sub 4 but seven would be incredible. Which seven are you thinking?

runnint wrote:

What a thread of idiots and teenage kid bashing nobodies.

4:05 in January! And you arent happy.

When this team has 3 drop under 4 minutes by June, redefining the sub-4 mile, then "mark it danny", you guys are far slobs who "get off" picking on the accomplishments of teenage children.

Unreal.

Ok, if I understand the thread correctly. RL ran fast this year or was a bit shorter than last year (or both) because NP kids are over trained.

Did I understand correctly?

The idiocy in this thread is amazing. Brosnan has done a great job developing these kids so they can get scholarships and go to good colleges while having a great time doing so. Watch the L&L videos and see how much fun they have. Of course many of them won't improve alot in college or even drop running because they are developing into adults and college offers alot more than running. Most realize they have to prepare for living as an adult with job, family etc. and running becomes less important. It is the rare ones who can go pro.