University that SHOULD have successful XC programs

Word has it, he is spending the budget like a mad man, knowing full well he won't be there next year. Also heard he and his assistant coaches can't stand each other.

Missouri - lots of talent but dont pull through

What about USC in SoCal? The school is well known and in close proximity to a rather large recruiting base. They are also known for their sprinters. Maybe the area is not conducive to distance training, but hell, they don't even have a team. Always seemed weird to me.

The majority of Florida\\\'s \\\"blue-chip\\\" in-state talent has gone to UF the past few years. UF distance is completely home grown.

Runningguy88 wrote:

I am surprised that no one has said the University of Washington. With the quality of recruits in the state you think they could assemble a decent team.

This was the first school I thought of. Seems like everyone gets injured there.

I also think WSU should/could be doing better. They have a lot of history as a great running school and even have some pretty recent accomplishments (Lagat). Lagat, despite being a great team member, may have inadvertently derailed the program a bit by being as awesome as he was. Guys I know who were on the team then say that the coach was so into just coaching him that he paid no attention to the majority of the team and it started to disintegrate.

I am surprised no one has said Duke(men).

With a little effort I always thought this program would just take off...but I guess not.

coach Gereard stop posting!!

Good to see people arent mentioning Cal since they are kicking ass now. I still dont think Sandoval is the best coach but he did let the assistant coaches give some input this year which is why I think they did so well.

More power to the Cal team though, they have made a lot of improvement to not be named in this thread.

Based on history and tradition Western Kentucky (WKU) and East Tennessee State (ETSU) should be successful. Remember, Johnson City, TN was voted America's best running city sometime in the 1980's.

Of course these schools built their traditions on the sweat of hired guns/foreigners.

Aside from UVA and W&M, I'd say all VA schools should be better. Every year there are tons of D1 walk-on caliber guys, but it gets spread so thin that the second and third-tier D1 programs in the state can hardly compete with the D3 schools. If GMU got 2-3 out of the top 15 guys in the Northern region each year, they would be very very good.

the acc

unc,duke,wfu,even state should be better, look at who they get.

Hmm, I think there are a number of people who thought of CSU immediately when this question was posed. Given the enormous talent pool of male and female runners in Northern Colorado, as well as the entire mountain region, CSU should have been able to maintain a better program. I think Del Hessel had a "Dellinger" type complex, thinking that good athletes should just want to come there because Berryhill was there. There were guys that came because of him (Rob Vermillion, 1:49/3:41; Mike Nicks, 1:50/4:01 mile/8:35 steeple; Rob Watson, 8:38 steeple) but it seems like Hessel got lazy. Berryhill will most definitely turn that program around as long as his guys start buying into his coaching...like the women already have. The weather is perfect for year round training, and the mile high air is a perfect altitude for middle distance and long distance runners. Plus, they now have a coach who knows his shit and works harder in his coaching career than he did in the last years of his running career. Berryhill's been to the top, so those kids should follow his lead.

vermonter wrote:

UVM. they got a good amount of money, a ton on the womens side and you can't ask for a much better place to train and they are really horrible.

First of all the track/cross team has almost no money, I have no idea where you got the idea that there was a lot of money; i'd say there are about 5 scholarships for track and cross combined. This becomes a problem when you consider that UVM is one of the most expensive state schools in the country-$35,000 a year. secondly there was no track program for several years, not sure about you but not to many people want to run just cross, and the first class to be recruited are only juniors.

name wrote:

vermonter wrote:

UVM. they got a good amount of money, a ton on the womens side and you can't ask for a much better place to train and they are really horrible.

First of all the track/cross team has almost no money, I have no idea where you got the idea that there was a lot of money; i'd say there are about 5 scholarships for track and cross combined. This becomes a problem when you consider that UVM is one of the most expensive state schools in the country-$35,000 a year. secondly there was no track program for several years, not sure about you but not to many people want to run just cross, and the first class to be recruited are only juniors.

I went to UVM for a year. here is what is wrong. They have about 4 (as I remember) scholarships for the men. They have a couple good female runners. problems are there is zero discipline there. The head coach, Belfield treats it like a D3 or high school program, anyone can walk on. They spend money on shitty meets and take everyone there. If they used their resources wisely they could produce good results. The assisstant mens coach is very smart. They only have an indoor track, no outdoor, and burlington isn't great for training once winter comes, it is basically pavement. In the fall and summer UVM is wonderful for running but not the winter. There is no commmon goals among the team either.

name wrote:

vermonter wrote:

UVM. they got a good amount of money, a ton on the womens side and you can't ask for a much better place to train and they are really horrible.

First of all the track/cross team has almost no money, I have no idea where you got the idea that there was a lot of money; i'd say there are about 5 scholarships for track and cross combined. This becomes a problem when you consider that UVM is one of the most expensive state schools in the country-$35,000 a year. secondly there was no track program for several years, not sure about you but not to many people want to run just cross, and the first class to be recruited are only juniors.

I went to UVM for a year. here is what is wrong. They have about 4 (as I remember) scholarships for the men. They have a couple good female runners. problems are there is zero discipline there. The head coach, Belfield treats it like a D3 or high school program, anyone can walk on. They spend money on shitty meets and take everyone there. If they used their resources wisely they could produce good results. The assisstant mens coach is very smart. They only have an indoor track, no outdoor, and burlington isn't great for training once winter comes, it is basically pavement. In the fall and summer UVM is wonderful for running but not the winter. There is no commmon goals among the team either.

UCLA should have a better cross country team

and here is why...

-The Shackeltons are great but they can't do it alone. Who are the other megastars who were recruited by the glitter of Westwood? Barnes, Crabill, The Jesuit (California) Crowd and more talented Californians then the coaching staff knows what to do with. Every guy on that roster ran monstrous times coming out of high school, so what happens?

-UCLA has more money than GOD. I wish I was joking. Their trainers probably ride around on gators with 22" spinners. Each athlete gets a mountain of free crap. Who needs a seal skin coat with bear fur lining and badger hair trimming with a detachable alligator skin parka that has an embroidered Bruin eating a Trojan. It's Los Angeles for chrissakes! Its an effing desert and these kids wear all their sweats ALL DAY. You need a t-shirt and some short shorts.

-Ozzy Osbourne comes down from his estate everyday and sacrafices the fattest calf right in lane one on the backstretch. UCLA has Satan on their side and they still can't get out of the West! Satan! The Satan! Beer and unprotected sex Satan! I can do whatever I want because I've got horns and a sick goatee Satan cannot make UCLA a better cross country team.

-Back to having buttloads of cash. Everyday a UCLA runner can have his way with a groupie in the training room on one of the tables WHILE getting a calf massage. The UCLA staff realizes how important full support of its athletes is and if some runner has a foot fetish and cannot throw down in the last two miles unless it is satisfied than so be it. UCLA is still behind Oregon with all of this. Oregon guaruntees that a trainer will give you a massage while Phil Knight is at your every whim.

-Athlete tutoring schedule: Eat grapes on velvet pillows filled with baby duck feathers while a pale lackey reads you his class notes. Flatulate and have the team of lackeys decipher what you were "dictating" and fall asleep as they write your paper.

-Training: hop into the Hummer with trailer of delicious post run recovery food in tow. Sit in traffic. Arrive at Hollywood Hills run for an hour. Eat for two hours and stretch. Change sweats for the third time today and be done.

They've got it all, why shouldn't they be winning the West?

University of New Mexico.

It is situated in Albuquerque at altitude.

Loads of proffesional athletes train there and benefit.

I heard they got a new coach this year so maybe the team will improve over next few years.

I heard there old coach was an amateur.

Whoever said Indiana is dumb. Indiana actually made nationals last year without using many from their awesome 07' recruiting class. In the next couple years they will be a top team consistantly. trust me

UW? Really? I know this is a cross form, but three lady all americans in the mile at indoors this year has to look good for the program. Plus, looking at the recruiting class for next year, the girls team is going to be pretty good.