Deemphasizing Cross Country in HS

just the facts wrote:

PwacTwac wrote:

So I love your approach and lived it myself but am not really sure that it means "college" potential.

My observations are that far fewer athletes who run higher mileage in HS succeed in college. Where do you go from 70-80 mpw once in college?.

You can go lots of places - as a consistent base like that is very helpful in college. Remember its not just mileage but intensity that can increase.

Your observations are most likely wrong and biased for several reasons.

1) The big reason is that kids in HS doing that mileage are fairly rare - and are obviously serious about the sport and also likely successful at the HS level. That means more of them run in college and also are likely go to more competeitive programs. That also means more of them will not succeed - since the attrition rate in college is high for all runners, high mileage or not. Since they were successful in HS, you are also more likely to hear about their "lack" of success.

2) Kids who do lower mileage are by far the majority, so statistically so even if a far lower percentage of them succeed in college, there will still be more successes (numerically speaking, not percentage wise) then high mileage runners. And the reverse is true of point number 1, you will likley hear about the kid who was successful in this group ( a pleasent surprise) and the kid you never heard about, and is not successful, well, you still never hear about.

Remember on average only 10% of HS runners even run in college (% based on participation stats in HS XC and for all divisions of college comp). "Success" is also measured differently for a state champ who has developed from youth track vs. the guy who joined JR year and is only starting to realize their potential.

Likely, the kid who runs high mileage in HS has reached more of their potential then the kid who has not but they are also more likely to actually get on a team in college (walk ons are not nearly as accepted as they used to be) and they are also more likely to be able to handle the increase in distance (race wise and training wise).

Considering that the coach made his name on that one athlete makes the career track of that athlete very relevant. It would be different if he was cranking out team and individual state champions. I'm not familiar with the record of the school over the years, but I remember at the time this article came out, neither the boy's nor girls' teams were anything exceptional.

sisyphus wrote:

D.B. Cooper wrote:

It should be pointed out that this girl had a serious ED and basically fell apart upon entry into college. A very poor model for long-term success.

You're forgetting I grew up in the area in question - already mentioned in this thread. You, on the other hand, have obviously read an article or two on the situation and think you know something. The fact that the athlete ran through high school was a testament to the program. To equate personal issues with a school program when it concerns one athlete is ludicrous.

I agree with some of what others have said and disagree with some. I responded to this thread because someone asked for input from someone who has actually done this with HS athletes. I feel it has been best for "my situation", the atletes I coach or I would change it.

I think everyone is hinting toward their displeasure with the college system and their lack of developing athletes. Some have even mentioned that if HS athletes are not milked with mileage that they won't get a chance collegiately. Whether colleges feel a pressure to 'achieve immediately or be fired' or that it is far easier to just recruit the best times available, very few seem to be interested in finding out the background of athletes and developing them accordingly. Those that go this extra step seem to achieve and their athletes seem to get more from the experience in all respects.

D.B. Cooper wrote:

Considering that the coach made his name on that one athlete makes the career track of that athlete very relevant. It would be different if he was cranking out team and individual state champions. I'm not familiar with the record of the school over the years, but I remember at the time this article came out, neither the boy's nor girls' teams were anything exceptional.

To quote one of my favorite shows, "You should have a degree in being wrong... all the time." T.O. had teams setting records at Mt. Sac and Woodward in the 80s and still hitting great team times in the 90s. People outside of Cali may only remember the 9:48 but locals remember a whole bunch more. Especially the 77 minute team times years apart.

From what you said in your first post, your plan is a good way not to get to state. At least two of the coaches posting about hitting good mileage while tempering the hard quality actually get to state meets and do quite well there. Three and half years at a program and over 100 kids and you should have at least 15 kids competing in college right now and at least be in the running for state championships. Long term approach is great but kids like to succeed. And they like to go to state. You really lost me after "didn't want to take the last slot at state." I've never had a team take the last slot at state but I've been a part of a couple teams that narrowly missed going and I guarantee every kid would have been happy to go and get last rather than stay home.

Unless T.O. changed classifications, they have only run 77 min. once, in 2008, by which time Farrell had retired- correct me if I'm "wrong again...every time" LOL. Their girl's teams don't show up anywhere in the top 10 lists.http://events.mtsac.edu/ccinvite/toptenteams.htm

sisyphus wrote:

D.B. Cooper wrote:

Considering that the coach made his name on that one athlete makes the career track of that athlete very relevant. It would be different if he was cranking out team and individual state champions. I'm not familiar with the record of the school over the years, but I remember at the time this article came out, neither the boy's nor girls' teams were anything exceptional.

To quote one of my favorite shows, "You should have a degree in being wrong... all the time." T.O. had teams setting records at Mt. Sac and Woodward in the 80s and still hitting great team times in the 90s. People outside of Cali may only remember the 9:48 but locals remember a whole bunch more. Especially the 77 minute team times years apart.

D.B. Cooper wrote:

Unless T.O. changed classifications, they have only run 77 min. once, in 2008, by which time Farrell had retired- correct me if I'm "wrong again...every time" LOL.

Their girl's teams don't show up anywhere in the top 10 lists.

http://events.mtsac.edu/ccinvite/toptenteams.htm

Of course you're wrong; that's your specialty. I'll tell you what, I'll bet you. How about a grand says I prove a faster time on the slower course. Or how about a grand for every time they 1) Ran 77 and change on Mt. Sac or Woodward 2) Won state. Post your name and verify with the Brojos your identity. You might just have to rob another bank and ... hopefully, jump out of another airplane to pay your debt by the time this is done.

You are barking up the wrong tree if trying to start a "my program is better than yours" and "you should already have........" You have spent a lot of time posting the great virtues of you and your program and are even having terse words with someone because they don't recognize your brilliance. I am not about that at all. What you do may work great for your situation - Congrats. The kids I coach are very successful and more importantly, very happy. I hope I preparing them for the future and hope it pays off because I care about them tremendously. There are many ways to skin a cat and I shared "my" situation in a direct answer to a question. This program may have accomplished everything you say it should, but it is about the kids in the program, not me or "the program" so I do not feel a need to share further. Good luck to you and all.

So you will part with this treasured info in the context of a bet? You have some personal issues that need addressing, and I don't conduct psychotherapy without collecting my fee in advance.

You could also have wagered me "a grand" for every cross or track season that Mortensen successfully completed for the Bruins, but that would be "wrong" as it would re-focus the commentary to my original point, as well as putting you in a deep hole of indebtitude.

I do like the "...jump out of another airplane" LOL

sisyphus, you make a lot of good points, would even say you have a pretty good handle on the coaching thing. But, you are an arrogant jerk, you love to tell people how right you are and how wrong they are. That is a lousy way to go through life. maybe that's why you got fired from your coaching gig in the Northeast.

If you are so right and so good, take your coaching talents to the next level and show us all the way.

So one guy attacks a program without having any education on the program's history but basing an entire judgement off of one runner. Moreover, he has no idea what that coach did for that runner to help a pre existing situation.

Another coach says it's not worth going to state "to take up the last slot." Funny, I find both of these attitudes pretty unhealthy and detrimental to the sport as well as the kids. I don't know if I'm arrogant but I'm confident enough to call out attitudes like these. I think it's a shame these attitudes are tolerated at all. "You guys suck too much to go to state so we won't even bother." That's just sad.

I read through these forums without ever posting and learn a ton and email many of the coaches who post their email to get more information from them. You will never find a critical post I make until someone starts off with an "I'm better than the rest" attitude. I don't think I'm better than the rest. But I do believe I'm better than a guy who thinks it's not worth going to state if you might last.

As to "who are we trying to impress"; I don't know. Who are "we?"

Context means a lot. I had a team of very weak freshmen/sophomore girls whose top junior high time was 6:09. At the end of the season they had the talent to finish in the last few places at state, "if" they got there. I chose to forgo the mega-milage and more-so the speed, tapering, and peaking with a long-term approach. We missed going anyway by less than 10 points. They have been in the top 10 since and likely top 5 this season. Three of the top five will sign letters-of-intent for 50% or more scholarships in this, their senior year and three others recruited at sub DI levels. The verbal offers are already there. I sincerely believe that is partly due to refraining from peaking, speed, & mega-milage to finsh the last few spots at state. I see this approach as thinking of each season as the ultimate goal rather than a long-term approach and I don't agree with it. I am very comfortable that these individuals and their families are very happy with the way it was approached. I guess I could have treated each season as the end in itself so I could pound my chest and go on a message board proclaiming: "We made it state again. What a wonderful coach and program." The thread asked for experiences from those who deemphasized cross-country in high school. I gave an example.

just the facts,

So you live in an area where getting a 6:09 incoming frosh doesn't mean much?

You're successful and you care about kids; that's great. What bothered me about your post was your insinuation that coaches who taper somehow don't care about individuals. You can say that you have an approach and you get certain results with it without talking about how "gutsy" you are to care about kids because you're so old and wise. I didn't think the thread needed you to talk about how morally superior you were because of your training philosophy. I disagree with that. My high school coach drilled us with hard speed frequently. He cared immensely for us as individuals and had the best long term success with athletes I've ever seen. When someone takes the attitude you did, I honestly think it's fair of me to call them (you) on it. I would never have said word one about your post if you hadn't talked about how you could have beaten all these teams that beat you but you cared too much for the kids to do it. I too have some experience behind me and know that if they are competitors, success keeps them coming back for more... even if they have to work for it.

I know nothing about you or your coaching abilities.

Your posts to people make you come across as someone who would not be very pleasant to spend time around.

I wish you well.

Hey guys, this was a really good thread, let's see if we can bring back the discussion which dealt with training ... that would be great.

So, how many of you, as over eager young coaches, destoyed your kids peak by having them run just too fast in a workout late in the season. I really screwed up early in my career, and learned a painful lesson that the kids paid for. My feeling is ... the absolute fastest a kid should run any distance during cross country is mile race pace ... any other ideas?

I think that you should take a broader picture of what success means as a coach. For me it is generating and maintaining enthusiasm for running throughout the entire team. If this means allowing the 800m kid who is doing the sport for conditioning to do more drills, weights, and speed work, I would encourage that in pursuit of his/her's long-term goals as well as shorter-term enjoyment. It is forming a connection with the kid personally, and then linking that to the sport that is crucial. Regardless of the technique you use, if you are able to keep the kids fresh, eager and enthused, you will have champions. This can happen with any range of mileage/intensity; it is the art as much (or more than) the science.

Some Coach wrote:

Hey guys, this was a really good thread, let's see if we can bring back the discussion which dealt with training ... that would be great.

So, how many of you, as over eager young coaches, destoyed your kids peak by having them run just too fast in a workout late in the season. I really screwed up early in my career, and learned a painful lesson that the kids paid for. My feeling is ... the absolute fastest a kid should run any distance during cross country is mile race pace ... any other ideas?

Just the facts, you would have a TON of success with that program if you let your juniors and seniors run more. I'm not talking mega-miles, but more along the lines of 50-60 junior year and 60-70 senior year. You'd be setting your kids up well to safely run high mileage in college, too. Anecdotal evidence: the most injury-prone people on my team were all low-mileage in hs (they're still pretty low). Meanwhile, myself and others who ran in the 60's/wk are now comfortably in the 90-100 range and seeing good progression.

Some people run low mileage because that's all they can handle. They need a differnet type of stimulus to develop.

I ran 35 mpw in HS, was up to 100+ as a senior in college with huge development, the fact that I didn't run much mileage in HS did not hurt my ability to make the jump in college.

Most HS coaches who have their kids run big miles are more interested in winning than development, no matter what they say. Gotta feed that big ego.

Of course, problems also arise when coaches limit their athletes. 30 mpw doesn't do it for me. 30 mpw doesnt get my 16:06 to 15:30. Thats why I do 45 mpw in season and did 50-60 during the summer. Its just not enough to limit mileage.

A steady increase of say 40mpw to 60 mpw the next year is fine. Or at least going up by 10 each year.

The intesity is what kills me. Retarded amounts of repeats with tons of recovery. It doesn't help me in a 5k and just puts too much stress on my legs.

Sure you might be ok on 40 mpw, but good luck getting a scholarship anywhere unless you are an 800 runner doing that mileage.