What HS Coach Has Burned Out the Most Runners?

me

Baine TM wrote:

Has to be Pat Tyson.

What percentage of sub-9:30, sub 4:20 Mead guys ever did anything? For that matter, how many Mead guys ever did anything after HS? The answer: not many. Make as many individual citations as you want, but look at them as a percentage of who could have been considered "good" while in HS.

But wasn't Tyson Pre's roommate? I know has nothing to do with anything, but seems in every article, conversation, press book(yes look at the UK press guide) his rooming with Pre is mentioned very high up there as one of his greatest accomplishments.

I will bet Tyson has had more runners compete in college and beyond than all but maybe ten other coaches in the country. At any given time over the last 15 years, Tyson has probably had 5-10 guys still competing. That is a rarity.

All of you chiming in with a coach that has "burned out" athletes please list ten coaches that have more college and post collegiate athletes competing at a higher level than the coach you list. If not STFU!

Urgh wrote:

I will bet Tyson has had more runners compete in college and beyond than all but maybe ten other coaches in the country. At any given time over the last 15 years, Tyson has probably had 5-10 guys still competing. That is a rarity.

All of you chiming in with a coach that has "burned out" athletes please list ten coaches that have more college and post collegiate athletes competing at a higher level than the coach you list. If not STFU!

I bet Kranick has had more success with talented runners either burning out or quitting all together before even reaching the college level.

Without a doubt the Kranicks. Unfortunately none of their HS standouts have been able to achieve the same level of success in college.

What a great question: Which high school coach has burned out the most runners?

My votes will go to the coaches who busted their asses to get a million kids onto their teams, and then had the *courage* to train those kids so that they would have a chance to draw the educational lesson that we always say is the essence of school running: Hard work pays off. HS kids (except a few very unusual ones) don't think--don't *want* to think--about their running "careers"; they want to be part of a winner (and maybe get laid, but that's a different thread).

HS coaches are doing a tremendous job if they can get kids (most of whom can't think ahead three weeks to a term paper's due date) to look ahead a whole season--or maybe (gasp) even a whole year, or sometimes all the way to senior year. This is education! And the coaches who get their kids to win are the ones who are actualizing all those ed psych courses that we took in college: supplying clearcut, positive feedback through tangible success.

Do all the kids who've had that educational experience generalize it to other areas of their (later) lives? No way. Do some? YES. Do most of the national-level HS kids go on to be national-level in college? Only a few. Do many of them continue in the sport, even if at a lower level? YES.

Do *any* kids who didn't run at all in HS, or who were babysat--but not really trained--go on to be national-level in college? Essentially NONE, because almost none of them will run competitively in college at all. And not very many will run even recreationally.

If you don't get a kid out for your team; or if a kid shows up, and you don't train him/her to a competitive level; well, then you're guaranteed never to burn that kid out. You also will have failed as an educator.

Thank you, Coaches Newton and Mead and Green and Kranick, for having given thousands of kids a priceless *educational* experience that some, at least, will keep with them the rest of their lives. Thank you for daring to succeed, knowing that to dare greatly is potentially to fail greatly--and daring anyway. Thank you for doing your *job* as high school coaches and EDUCATORS.

Anti-Burn out wrote:

I bet Kranick has had more success with talented runners either burning out or quitting all together before even reaching the college level.

If I do the research on all the athletes Saratoga currently has running in college PLUS all the athletes who attended Saratoga and in turn decided to coach at the high school level, will you find ten schools that have produced more? If not, will you STFU?

What HS Coach Has Burned Out the Most Runners? The ones with the most athletes. People like to demean york because of 100 mile weeks and this and that. but it must not be too bad if he gets 140 boys on the team every year. they don't win national championships in college. York does not have special kids. They have the same kids every other city has but have build a tradition. NO school consistantly puts out top 10 college runners. Here is some food for thought. Look up how many York runners have won individual cross country titles. They rarly have the best cross country runner in IL. How could they put out toip college prospects. That coach gets the most out of his runners. Most of them don't get better because they are topped out. What is wrong with that? so he has a kid who can run a 9:15 2 mile who would run a 9:50 if he were not there getting "burnt out." If he did that 9:50 training he would then top out in college at the 9:15 level anyway or maybe get a little faster. now that is just hypothetical just like it is hypothetical to say that they get burt out.

Part of the problem is they go to college and do not train like they did in high school. I guess Arkansas, Stanford, Wisconsin, Colorado all burn out their runners too since they consistantly have runners under 3:45 in 1500 and 14:00 in the 5k and then burnout and can't reach a higher level.

Here is a more interesting question. What high schools have produced the most quality college runners? What high school burns out the least amount of atheletes? These two questions have nothing in common. The answers will be different. No high School puts out atop talent consistinantly because for the most part they are on a level playing field of talent. Maybe not numbers but the small school that has 5 guys on the team will roll out as many good potential athletes per 100 as a place like Mead or York.

I believe that Jim White did not have a very good college career because he got into the drug scene. I don't think you can blame his failure on Joe.

I don't think that's true. Jim showed up last year at the annual Labor Day reunion meet, and certainly was doing just fine. I believe he was injured in college.

I think the greatest measure of Newton's work can be seen at those Labor Day reunions- when over 100 former runners, from over 40 years of coaching, show up year after year different ones each year)- only to have Newton talk about each and everyone one of them- how they ran, what kind of times they had, how much they improved and what they are doing now. And then they all run a race.

So those guys- still running. Who cares what kind of times?

nj runner wrote:

wetmore while at bernards high?

I like Mark but his HS coaching definately burnt out a few people. He had numerous state champions, men and women, individual and team, and numerous Penn Relay Champions. His results were AMAZING!!! When you factor in the size of Bernards HS, Wetmore's HS coaching results may be the best ever... BUT do you know how many collegiate all-americans came from Bernards?

answer: 1

Do you know who it is?

He is a favorite of letsrun, or hated by letsrun, think, think... YEP! you got it! RYAN GROTE. He is the only one and I dont think Wetmore even coached him the whole time he was at Bernards.

All that said, I think Mark is a GREAT coach, maybe the best. Why is he the best? Because I think he learns from his mistakes... and that includes the overtraining mistakes from the HS days.

For starters, here's Saratoga's 2002 State Championship Team:

Nicole Blood, Melissa Trauscht, Ali Rowe, Meghan O'Conor,

Jamie Sweeney, Kirsten Hornbach, Amanda Meyer, Ruby Solomon.

Where are they now?

In somewhat agreeing with "Present" and yourself - the problem then becomes is it the coach or the structure. The way I see it, in the educational environment, which is what schools are supposed to be about, participation is as important as success, in fact it can be itself construed as success - to which "Present" refers. In this way the coaches, who do tend to attract a lot of athletes to their "successful" programs, acheive their mandate, especially about "team" designations as opposed to individual development necessarily.

The difficulty is that this is also the breeding ground for elite athletes as well. The club system in the US is generally poorly developed because the emphasis is SO much on the school's priority over the development of athletes. The kenyan development model is superior to that in the US, and it in and of itself is rather a poor one really, fraught with many of its own structural problems. The idea that elite kids are supposed to develop within a four-year HS plan - too often that has little regard for long-term development - and then to move on to often an entirely different and unrelated four-year College plan, again often with little regard for long-term development, it is a wonder that many develop at all. In fact it can be argued that athletes develop inspite of this so-called system , certainly not because of it. That is not the fault of these HS coaches - they exist (and there are exceptions of course) to serve the needs of the community, and that need ignores the development of talent, by structure, not intent. Swimming as a sport is dominated by the club scene, and the results (in general) show that part of the mandate of club development is long-term elite planning - which is being eroded the more that the school system takes priority over the development of its athletes. While this doesn't always happen, of course, the structure is certainly there in the club system. This structure of planning for excellence doesn't exist in the school system for our sport. Having said that, there are some excellent coaches who choose to at least attempt to develop individuals even with the limitations imposed on them, but they are in the minority. The University system is the same - it breeds mediocrity by its very structure and mandate. Again there are many excellent coaches who manage to take athletes beyond the level of their mandate, and they should be recognized and applauded - but that's really not their job. As much as so many people are against the destruction (supposedly) of private or club-based coaching/development, it also why athletes are too often forced to look for a Hanson's type situation after college (and they and other groups like them do a terrific job, with the limited support and resources at their disposal) because no structure exists otherwise. Look at the whole Alan Webb situation - it was almost deemed shocking when he didn't go to university to run (or rather left early) as if his career and livlihood were in jeopardy. In Europe (which has it's own structural problems by the way) athletes don't make choices of going to college or being an athlete, one can do both - even if it takes longer. That is the sacrifice necessary to becoming the best, in other words being an elite. Americans are spoiled by the wealth of the popular sports - which too are entrenched in the school development system (Football and basketball). Since neither of these sports are really all that developed elsewhere in the world, who is to say that the school system really does a good job in preparing athletes to be elite in these sports either.

The point being that elite development is something that needs to be structurally planned, not something left to fate or coincidence. There are many talented athletes in the US, and the school system serves the sprint side to great effect it seems - but it doesn't for the distance side. This comes down to individual people taking on support roles outside of their mandate to allow this to continue - look at the College coaches who continue to train athletes even after their eligibility is up. It would be easy to blame the USATF (many even personalizing it to Masback), but this organization doesn't really have the support of the many people in the sport - which is why they have so few resources - because the schools don't get involved in this organization at the grassroots level. As long as this structural dissonance exits, the plight of development within the sport in this country (US) will continue to be problematic.

I don't think there are many HS runners who are burned out by the physical demands of a HS training program. The most successful coaches tend to be motivators and team builders who create an atmosphere that promotes dedication at a relatively early age. So it is not really surprising that kids from these programs are a little ahead of the curve and achieve higher goals at an earlier age than their competitors. The only question is will this ever be reflected at the collegiate or elite level?

Sandy Spence, Mcgill Olympic?

[quote]maybe wrote:

I think many kids do lousy in college because there are so many bad college coaches. Some of the people you are talking about, Tyson, Newton, etc are just way better motivators than most of the college coaches. I coached at college for a while and was amazed at how lousy so many of them were. They've been at their school forever and just don't care or don't want to build anymore. There are a lot of great high school coaches and when their athletes get to college, they are not burned out, they are just unmotivated by the new coach who is into miles and times but nothing else. They are from teams that were exciting to be on and now their they are surrounded by kids that don't care. I don't think "burn out", I think they picked a lousy program.

Coach, I think you nailed it with your assessment of sub par college programs as compared to the national caliber and team-oriented great h.s. programs. Kids have to be especially choosy when they make that switch to college if they wish to continue running, otherwise they're lost without the strength of the pack. I saw a great example of a superb college program some years back from the coach and team of North Central College in Naperville, IL. He had a great team concept going there. Also, Wetmore's Colorado teams (I read the impressive book of course). Those two examples of college teams would compare to the Yorks and the Woodlands in the high school ranks.

do the osche twins & mcelroy still run for toga?

Urgh wrote:

Anti-Burn out wrote:

I bet Kranick has had more success with talented runners either burning out or quitting all together before even reaching the college level.

If I do the research on all the athletes Saratoga currently has running in college PLUS all the athletes who attended Saratoga and in turn decided to coach at the high school level, will you find ten schools that have produced more? If not, will you STFU?

i remember reading an article/interview on erin davis's college coach (penn state) basically indicating that when she inherited davis, she no longer had the drive or the passion to compete or train, and her motivation was down. why is this and why so prominent at saratoga? hs coaches will claim it's not their fault. so whose is it? to me, this is just another typical saratoga grad.

Ed Mather was the coach at Bernard's