devo wrote:
Could someone please post the now-deleted quote that seems to be the center of this catfight?
I just wrote this same post on the other thread but thought I'd post it again here.
The quote that was deleted in my opinion really has nothing to do with the controversy that is brewing about what in my opinion is a very well written article.
The quote Craven had in there really had little to do with the overall gist of the article and pretty much nothing to do with anything that would upset the Wisco guys in my opinion. It might upset other coaches but not the Wisco guys.
It was something talking about how Schumacher, who apparently doesn't drink, didn't like to drink with other coaches. According to trackfocus.com, it was along the lines of Schumacher doesn't “need to waste my time with the rest of those delinquent coaches”.
I was reluctant to put out the quote that they clearly wanted deleted but but since it seems to be the dominant topic on two different messageboard threads, I wanted to get that out there as it's really beside the point but everyone is acting like it was the key point of the article.
Now that that's out there. I wanted to put out a few of my own observations (Disclaimer, Craven, once covered an NCAA meet for LetsRun.com (although I'm not sure I've ever met him)).
1) I thought the piece by Craven was very well written and raised some interesting topics for discussion. It's unfortunate that in today's society that nothing can be nuanced any more. If you say anything mildly critical, you are ripping someone.
Craven's piece to me does a great job of getting to the essence of Mick Byrne and the difference between Byrne and Schumacher. I used to run into Mick a great deal when he was at Iona. He also seemed to like us as one of the first interviews we ever did at LetsRun.com was with Iona back when they first broke onto the scene (if someone can find that interview on google, please email me the link as I can't find it).
Anyway, I remember talking to Byrne one year at IC4as outdoors when I first started at Cornell. I remember talking to him about how I was having trouble motivating one of my stars. The kid just didn't seem to have the fire that he once had and wasn't motivated to really go after it and train like an animal like he once did. As a result, I was trying to go by the guy's house on my own run each morning to get him out for morning runs but it wasn't really working.
He stopped me when I told him this and said, "Robert, let me give you some very important advice. You can't want it more than your athletes."
It was very hard for me to accept that at the time. I was young, idealistic and had notions of setting the world on fire with my runners like Lydiard did with his boys in the 1960s. I think I responded by telling him, "But this kid is the real deal."
Mick wasn't phased by my response at all. I think he repeated the initial statement and told me that he was serious. I couldn't make a kid want to train like an animal.
He also responding by telling me that a guy who was a no-name mid-d guy at IC4as was the most talented middle distance runner he had ever coached but he didn't have the fire.
Some may not see how this is related to Craven's piece but it is in my mind. First of all, Mick is older and has more perspective. Also Mick realizes there is only so much you can do as a coach and it's not the end of the world (at least his world) if an athlete doesn't maximize the gift as it's only running after all.
As a young coach who really wanted it, I can tell you that without a doubt the kids on the team can sense that and can sense your nerves. It's almost too important to you and your athletes can sense that.
Similarly, Craven's article makes it clear to me that the guys at Wisco could sense the nerves that Schumacher had each year at NCAAs.
Now that being said, I'm not sure that's always a bad thing. Some of the kids on the Cornell team early in my career said they like having me talk to them at a big meet because it was clear I was so nervous that it calmed them down in comparison.
2) My second point is there is nothing wrong with being 'uptight' like Schumacher is described in the article. His desire to be focused produced amazing results at Wisco (along with a few blown titles) and even greater success post-collegiately.
One of the hardest things about being a college coach is that you have to accept your guys aren't professionals, they aren't robots - they are college students - but there also is little doubt that they would be better runners if they were robots.
In the year 2011, can runners be truly elite and run 12:50 and 26:50 without being 100% focused and 100% all in on EVERYTHING - diet, nutrition, altitude, drinking (or lack thereof)? Many would argue no.
This isn't the 1970s where some lived a balanced live on the circuit. Maybe it's possible but many would argue that you'll lose out to a Rupp or Solinsky who are seemingly all in on nearly everything.
Schumacher wasn't content to have guys be 'average' and run 13:25 and struggle through a Wisconsin winter. He wanted the very best talent, the very best resources and he got that at Nike. I'm not sure if Mick would be happy in that type of environment.
Mick's style is apparently more relaxed and probably works better on race day in Terre Haute. But does it result in better absolute performance for the truly elite?
I could easily argue no but don't think that's really my point.
My point is both trains of thought work. One might be better suited for a college team, one might be better suited for the pros.
Nick Saban is better suited for college than the Pros - that doesn't mean one is better than the other. It's just a fact.
In college, it's often more about amassing superior talent and making sure they don't blow it (either on race day by choking or leading it to it by a lazy lifestyle or injury).
In the pros, it's hard to amass superior talent so it's more about being all in, doing everything totally right and peaking when it matters most.
3) I far too often think people jump to conclusions from a limited set of data points. If Wiso does or doesn't win on Monday, that shouldn't lead to people immediately judging one system as being better than the other.
Being relaxed at meets in my opinion is very important and I've had an NCAA qualifiers eat ice cream the day before NCAAs. That being said, I don't believe it's optimal for an athlete to do that (I used to forbid Weldon from eating Ice Cream before a big meet) but different things work for different people. My ice cream eater was a competitor, big picture guy. I never talked diet with him before so why would I change before NCAAs.
That being said, my first year at Cornell a bunch of seniors actually went trick or treating at the team hotel the night before conference. No joke. I thought it was the dumbest thing ever - didn't say anything though as I didn't want to make them uptight - and they ran terrible the next day.
Sometimes letting the boys be boys works, sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes chilling works. Sometimes being uptight works. It depends on the situation and team.
Different teams, different situations, different results. Let's don't judge too harshly off a limited set of data points.