Best Women's Coaches on the West Coast??

Eeeddd wrote:

No longer on website. What gives?

Looks like she is still on the website:

Did she really resign?

She really did resign. It seems Coach Li is a huge issue. That guy is a piece of work but he can coach the hell out of an african!

She doesn't appear on the roster or the coaches roster, as far as I can see with current links....

http://www.arizonawildcats.com/sports/c-xctrack/mtt/ariz-c-xctrack-mtt.html

http://www.arizonawildcats.com/sports/c-xctrack/spec-rel/coaches.html

wild one wrote:

She really did resign. It seems Coach Li is a huge issue. That guy is a piece of work but he can coach the hell out of an african!

I think she is a great coach and loved seeing her at meets in her shorts.

It is true. She is off the roster on the website.

nordicmama wrote:

PattiSue Plumer is new to Stanford this fall. Rumor has it she's very well-liked by the team and believes in bringing along the freshmen slowly and carefully. It's too soon to tell how successful she'll be, but Cuffe had a nice xc season.

Yes, PattiSue Plumer is a very reasonable woman, well-liked, and has had a low number of injuries with the Stanford team this year compared to years prior with Jason Dunn. Obviously, the academics of Stanford can't be beat and PattiSue is very understanding of life goals outside of running (she has a law degree and a daughter at Yale). Seems like most of the current Stanford team are pre-med and a lot of alums are raking in the big $ with finance. Also, 10k runner Kate Niehaus just became a Rhodes scholar. Look at the big picture--would your daughter be happy at xxx school if she were not running?

Team atmosphere matters probably more than coaching though. Like people said, pay attention to work ethic, eating disorders/weight, and academics. Don't be afraid to ask awkward questions like rate of amenorrhea, how often people quit the team, etc.

you must be kidding

I was the kind of parent who asked lots of probing questions during my kid's unofficial visits. Even so, I can't imagine asking a coach, especially a male coach, about the team's rate of amenorrhea. Do teams even keep statistics on that unless they participated in some medical school study, like Stanford did years ago? And actually, from what I recall of that study, most girls who suffered from amenorrhea entered the program that way. The same held true with any eating disorders. So I'm not sure that data of this nature would truly tell what you'd want to know about the coach's concern for the girls' health.

Also, the level of academics can cut both ways. Obviously, it's important to get a good education and most parents would place that as a priority above a good athletic experience. All the same, a prospective athlete needs to keep in mind that the more rigorous the academics, the greater likelihood of stress on the body due to sleep deprivation from all the academic work demands, and thus the greater the risk of injury, sickness, and general burnout. I can't prove this, of course, but I think it's true.

bump

I would like to get updated info as my daughter is being heavily recruited and would like to stay around the west coast.

PAC-12 schools? Daughter better be an absolute stud to get a small amount of scholarship

Stanford (duh)

Oregon (duh)

Oregon State (Louie was instant impact)

Washington (duh)

WCC schools? Private schools....so most likely academic money for her. Some are funded well but a lot resort to academic scholarships

Portland (recently improved on women's side)

LMU (good at developing talent over the years)

Mountain West? Really good at distance running over the years. San Jose has a limited budge. Boise has a big budget but tough standards

Boise St (great team culture and development of both top individuals and developmental kids)

San Jose St (individual development is good)

Big West? Mid-major conference. That means a lot of attention on development instead of "buying" teams. If she is a good runner but not an amazing runner, she can get some serious scholarship here.

Cal Poly (probably best area to run at on the list with a good coach and a good history)

UCSB (new coach, but they have history of developing very good individuals and solid teams. Really scenic running area and school)

Cal State Fullerton (new coaching staff last couple years. Program has done a complete 180. Ton of trails around north Orange County/Mt. Sac area to run at. Girls team is young and developing well)

If Boise is close enough to the west coast, then you must consider Corey Ihmels. He's shown that he can help big-time talents (Ostrander) as well as ladies that has lesser HS accomplishments (but still full of promise like Fuller, Venters, OBrien). He is recruiting very well and seems to have a good knack for motivation. They were 6th at NCAA XC the past two years, and I suspect they will be regularly in the top 10 (if not podium) for quite awhile.

Thoughts on UCLA and NAU women's programs?

I want to know too wrote:

Thoughts on UCLA and NAU women's programs?

They are both good... yet the two schools are completely different and a student athlete should have a solid idea what they want in a school first... there are plenty of good running programs... the school should be the biggest consideration.

UC Berkley has a little nickname in the distance community.... "the black hole"

I'm a current D1 runner on the West Coast and went through this whole process, scouting out each coach, so here we go.

10:40 for a sophomore is good, but if she wants to look at the big dogs, sub 10:20 and 4:50 are what it will take. With her current marks she'll still have many open doors, though.

Stay away from the UC's. None of them are worth your, or her, time if she wants to be successful in the long term. Cal is great at recruiting, gets lots of kids to go on visits there, but won't produce a successful runner in the end. I looked into it and personally did not feel like the program was designed with the kids best interests in mind. UCLA is a dream school in terms of weather, location, academics, but also won't do her any favors with running. Coaching has changed a lot, lots of girls with bone injuries, and not enough soft surface to run on around campus. None of the other UC's have well-established programs and I wouldn't bother considering them at all. Don't bother with Cal Poly. It's a fine program, but I don't think it's the place to go-- coaches don't seem all that careful with what they have athletes do (racing on injuries, big jumps in mileage....)

Stanford coaches are great, team is a bunch of really great kids, and obviously Palo Alto is a wonderful place to live, especially considering the weather. They really know what they're doing there, but your daughter will need to continue improving to be considered.

Washington is on the up with the Powells coming in. Already a well-established program, it's going to be a true hub now with these coaches. Cold and rainy, but that's very doable. Will also take significant improvement to get money to run there.

Oregon will always be great, but I don't think it'll be the same now. Helen clearly knows how to develop athletes as she had lots of success with her women at USF. To me, she felt too involved with all aspects of the athletes lives. Also had the girls do pretty significant volume and didn't feel very flexible. Always worth looking into, but wasn't the coaching fit for me.

Mark Wetmore is a genius and Boulder is a great place. Need to be able to handle significant volume and be a tough kid though. But if that's all true, she could flourish there. NAU is similar, but a notch "slower" on the women's side, but Mike Smith is a great person and coach and would really look out for her. Awesome group of girls, easier academically too.

Portland has had some good success on the Women's side.. athletes that can handle high volume do well there. Solof is a very nice guy.

Basically: tier one schools, in my opinion, with best coaches: Colorado, Washington, Stanford.

Tier two: NAU, Portland, maybe Utah.

Great info, and probably very helpful to the OP.

Finally, an insightful and accurate post about this topic. My kid is in the Pac12, and this is the best analysis of the current state of affairs for women's distance on the west coast I've ever seen on LR. That said, it's sad that there are not more options for high-level running in California. Great schools abound, but very few great programs to choose from. UC Berkeley is a nightmare for distance, and the other UCs are surprisingly weak. Maybe something good is happening at UC Davis with their new coaches, but too soon to show any real evidence.

This is certainly an interesting and articulate post filled with many opinions.

From this post, one can can conclude that there are only 3 to 6 schools in the west worth looking at (seems odd). One can also conclude that there is not one UC school available for any student athlete who wants to have "long term" success.... yes, not one. Additionally you can conclude that bone injuries occur at UCLA because there "are not enough soft surfaces" to run on... and you can conclude this even though there is zero proof that running on 'hard surfaces" causes injuries. The post also concludes that you shouldn't "bother" with Cal Poly SLO because somehow he/she knows the coaches aren't 'careful'.

There are several other interesting conclusions in the post that this "ncaa athlete" determined during his/her 5 official visits which need not be mentioned due to time constraints. It is interesting, though, that all of this extensive information can be determined by a high school senior simply going through the recruiting process ... it's also interesting to note that this person can determine if someone is a good/bad coach or a program is good/bad never having been coached by that coach or never having been in that program. Very strong opinions for sure but not all entirely good opinions. Ultimately there appears to be some kind of an agenda in the post... not quite sure what that might be.

In any case, the truth is there are many good coaches and programs out there for your daughter to select from. She should go where the best fit is for her academically and athletically. Btw, most of the programs which are "good" are good because of the ability to recruit talent. That doesn't mean a coach isn't good because he/she gets talented athletes it just means it's easier to be successful with a boat load of talented runners than it is without that boat load.

I hope I'm not alone in stating the FACT about Quintana at Oregon State being the best women's coach on the west coast. He has finally made this program what it should be.