Dude, get a clue, the cream rises to the top, a good runner will run well no matter who coaches them, private coaches love to promote themselves and their magic, it is all BS.
Running for a great program cannot be beat, ask the York kids or CBA, or FM. Those programs get it done without some clown private coach taking all the credit.
Private coaches are nothing but leaches.
to answer the title question, i sure hope not. not because i disapprove of clubs as a concept (i think municipal all-ages type clubs like they have in some parts of europe are cool), but because clubs as an accessory to the current prevailing american system just reward the helicopter ironman tattoo parents who think their kid is gonna be the one to nag that 5% tuition scholarship.
like it or not, there IS something valuable about being part of something larger than yourself, even if it's just a high school meet. i ran 4x8, 1600, 3200 at a lot of meets my senior year to score maximum points for the team. could i have had a better 3200 meter PR that season if i skipped some of the other meets that season? probably...but the feeling of going out there and scoring for the team was special.
it seems like some other posters think that there are a bunch of diamonds-in-the-rough out there that a club system will somehow expose. how exactly do you see this happening? like it or not the US is still the land of ball sports glory. for all we know the kid with the genetics to be the next 3:55 boy lives in a trailer park in a town in Arkansas where the XC team has 4 guys who are nerds. that kid will be a mediocre tight end for his HS football team, which he chose to participate in because it's fun and his friends do it. it is what it is.
RichardRider wrote:
coach wrote:
PE teacher coach, You're only ever going to hear about the ones who make it to the state meet. And if/when the bar is set higher we're still only going to have few make it to the state meet.
Let the top go through clubs, HS sports is for the masses anyway. We coach our 3 minute 800 meter HS girls just as passionately as we coach our 2:15 800 meter girls.
Thank you Coach. This is Truth. After 30+ years, 16 titles and 5 runnerups i can say there are a lot of coaches that have never won but are great role models and are passionate about their sport. Sure there are some communities that struggle in whatever, get a good coa h and raise the program, they leave and it goes back down again. Ebb and flow of the tides. If everyone was great, there would still be a bottom. Getting kids to participate is most important, not churning out championships. That comes with organization, some talent, a lot of hard work and shared passion, tradition, ownership by the kids given and earned by the adults etc... Sustainable programs have figured this out.
Take a look at the iowa state track meet this weekend being live streamed on the iowa high school athletic association website. A free state that has a full stadium, no masks and a vaccination station for all that want it.
Look at the level of participation!!!! Having 7 or 8 relays on the schedule has only increased participation. Having a co-ed championship at Drake Stadium has RAISED THE BAR for all classes and genders. 30k+ in attendance over 3 days is a nice push for the kids too. Mike Jay does a great job announcing as well.
I am glad you pointed out that there are many good coaches who never produce a state champ. A good coach should not be measured by titles alone. There are measurements such as the number of kids who improve, the number of kids who come back, the number of kids who continue to run in life as well.
I am glad high school track and XC have not gone the way of soccer and swimming where the clubs are the focus. For one thing, I think it breads early specialization and also sets up a "have and have not" system where less affluent kids are left out. Track and XC are relatively cheap sports.
pinesol II wrote:
No, not gonna see high school kids skipping HS track, possible exceptions in some major metro areas.
Where would a club find a facility?
Coaches rule their facilities like personal fiefdoms, and if it's not the coach, then the facility manager hates the idea of anything out of the ordinary that creates scary scary liability (even when you come with appropriate insurance).
Swimming is different as facility managers are keenly motivated to keep their expensive and hungry asset (the pool) in service as many hours as they can.
Soccer and lacrosse, just need a field. Not that expensive to bring in lines, flags, goals if you need to
May not be expensive to line the field, but I think you are neglecting the cost of the field. For someone who owns a complex though you can rent the fields to a lot of sports. A track can be used for...track.
coahc wrote:
in the club wrote:
Is this going to start being a trend for the top kids? With private coaching becoming more popular and traveling across the US for meets, I could see many top kids just skipping high school track and cross country. I heard an interview with one of the Newbury Park runners they are going to Music City instead of running their State meet.
I have been private coaching in Australia for the past 13 years. I currently make 20k per year on top of my teaching salary and see athletes 4x per week. It is the best way forward and have had athletes represent Australia and earn scholarships to the US. From 10 year olds to 50'ish. It is a great opportunity for those that dream big.
As I understand the Aussie system interscholastic sports are not really a thing so it is really not the same.
I had a private coach even way back in 1986. Our school had an indoor team but offered no coaching. Read an article about a guy who was a sub 4 miler and saw the name of his coach. Looked him up in the white pages and cold called him to ask if he would coach me. I was 17 at the time. 2 Virginia state titles and a scholarship was the result. My high school coaches weren't very good at coaching but were amazing as people.
Coaching now in Australia you either produce or your athletes leave you. Simple. The training groups in my city are unreal. It is still about relationships but having athletes succeed is very important.
Tony the Tigerr wrote:
With the masses, no.
With the top kids, or kids whos parents want them to succeed, yes.
$1500-$2500 / year for a top private coach is well worth the trade off for parents trying to get the kids into good colleges. They are happy to pay and honestly the cost is nothing compared to club soccer, golf lessons, tennis lesson, private tutors for school or ACT/SAT prep, aau basketball, aau baseball, aau volleyball, you name its. Every single sport has gone this way, except for track / xc. The time is finally here. Private coaches are getting results. You can't deny that.
It is a good thing.
More and more open / unattached / club races will pop up, like the ones at VA Beach this past indoor season.
More and more kids will want to succeed and will leave their crappy high school coaches who only care about "regional points" and over race them in the 1600 for 14 straight weeks and throw them into every relay possible to carry their crap teams.
How many Power 5 Basketball commits play for their school? Very, very few. They are on AAU teams, they play prep/travel ball. Every swimmer, tennis, golfer, volleyball, baseball, basketball player is this way. The only sport I can think of that hasn't done this already is football.
I would like to see some backup for your statement that power 5 basketball commits do not play for their school. My impression is they play for their school AND AAU. (Which raises the issue of overtraining and burnout.)
I think for most of the sports you listed kids still play for their even the top kids. They add on the club stuff. There is a high school in Louisville where many of the kids swim for the school at meets but train with the local swim club. The high school coach seems fine with the arrangement (since the school has won 32 straight state championships).
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/preps/kentucky/2019/12/19/st-xavier-swimming-going-32nd-straight-kentucky-state-title/4265952002/The local swim kids I know swim for their school in much this way as well .
Football does not lend itself to year round play. Also, I think right now the cost of fielding a club football team would be high (and liability maybe). Since the US has not had a robust club system since the end of WWII (and maybe not really much of one before then), the affiliation is to one's school. So the high school booster club uses that. Not sure a local for profit club or non-profit could generate the revenue to pay a high school football coach in Georgia $100k+.
in the club wrote:
ClubRunnah wrote:
That would be very small thinking on the coaches part, to put HIS interests above his runners that would benefit more from a meet with a higher level of competition. Cudos to him for being the bigger man and letting those kids do what they need to do.
Isn’t it a high school team and isn’t he the coach of the the team? I always thought the goal of the high school team was to win their games or meets. If you’re a personal coach, I get it, but if you coach a team, for the high school, I would think that would be your priority. There are probably 100 kids on a high school team that would all love to be a part of a championship team. Putting THE SCHOOL’S interest above a handful of kid’s interests may be what his job is. That was the initial premise of the thread. Will this be a trend?
Pushing back on the goal to be winning. I would have as the goal 1) keeping kids in the sport 2) seeing that each kid improves. If winning is your only goal then shuck the kids who cannot contribute points and make sure you enter the best kids in as many events as allowed. Don't worry if they never run again after high school or if they get injured or develop eating disorders.
I just cannot tolerate the win at all cost mentality as that often has the coach making bad decisions or short-term decisions. The win at all costs mentality may lead to cutting corners or running injured athletes or (mostly at the higher levels) doping although I am sure there is some banned substance use in high school sports.
I even cringe at the notion of putting the school's interests above the kids interests. That sort of thing can lead to teachers taking and fixing standardized tests for kids because higher test scores are in the school's interest.
Finally wrote:
High School Coach = team is first responsibility
Club or Personal Coach = individual performance is first responsibility
Some personal coaches might also have as their best interest themselves. I will do abusive practices for short-term gains that make me look good to get more clients.
Possibly. I think kids are still going to want to experience the team aspect of high school xc/track and they should. As someone who had private coaching during the offseasons (summer and winter), I remember the times spent training mostly by myself as pretty boring, lonely and empty. I think that's why a lot of the top, top runners will just move and transfer to a high school with a better coach, instead of just paying someone to email them workouts or hold a watch. Having workout partners is also better for training too.
NotPC wrote:
Man
Sounds like a bunch of butt hurt HS coaches on here.
If you are good HS coach, you won't lose your kids to the private coaches, but if you are parent and your kid has some talent and the XC is a guy that ran a 5k 5 years ago and only thinks Jack Daniels is a type of TN Whisky, then heck yeah.. get that private coach.
Oh and let's drop the "for the team!" BS.. running is an individual sport, the performance of one person isn't dependent upon another teammate*. The team aspect of running is contrived at best. When we're running we are all trying to beat everyone out there, including the guys that happen to wear the same uni.
*obvious exception of a relay.
One level you are correct. Most schools have one kid who wins a state title (or doubles) and the rest of it does not matter or affect them. Yet, I see on my kids' track team a lot of team camaraderie and team spirit. I see it in swimming as well. I really liked being part of a team while at the same time my results being about the work I put in and not reliant on someone passing me the ball.
I think college teams that win the NCAAs are pretty stoked about winning it and cheer on one another. I see this in golf and tennis as well. In fact often I have seen the best player on the team be the most gracious to the others on the team.
Luv2Run wrote:
[quote]Tony the Tigerr wrote:
There is a high school in Louisville where many of the kids swim for the school at meets but train with the local swim club. The high school coach seems fine with the arrangement (since the school has won 32 straight state championships).
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/preps/kentucky/2019/12/19/st-xavier-swimming-going-32nd-straight-kentucky-state-title/4265952002/The local swim kids I know swim for their school in much this way as well .
Football does not lend itself to year round play. Also, I think right now the cost of fielding a club football team would be high (and liability maybe). Since the US has not had a robust club system since the end of WWII (and maybe not really much of one before then), the affiliation is to one's school. So the high school booster club uses that. Not sure a local for profit club or non-profit could generate the revenue to pay a high school football coach in Georgia $100k+.
This how almost all HS swimming works. HSs don't have pools and the season is short-ish. Why would a HS rent a pool for 2-3 months to train a bunch of kids that already have a coach and a pool? Actually, I've seen what happens, you get a lot of kids literally new to swimming trying to be on a swim team. Its not pretty. That's why its not the norm.
As for football, they don't *play* all year but too many coaches now discourage or prevent those kids from participating in T&F by having so many offseason activities.
I agree about the coaching salary and such. Football is not going club.
The weird one for me is girls softball. That has tilted to club (at least here) and it makes no sense. There is no future or careers or money in softball (right?). What is the attraction of ditching your school team to play games hours away every week in front of no people for a result that nobody will know or care about? And the coaches spending years with these gals teaching them skills that have no real world applicability and which won't be used beyond HS or maybe college for some?
My guess is a factor is cliquishness where girls want to play with girls they always played with even if they attend different schools.
You can make arguments for sports being club based (some even good) but winning a league or county or state title has to be more meaningful than beating the Ogdenville Maulers after an 8 hr drive.
800 critic wrote:
I agree about the coaching salary and such. Football is not going club.
The weird one for me is girls softball. That has tilted to club (at least here) and it makes no sense. There is no future or careers or money in softball (right?). What is the attraction of ditching your school team to play games hours away every week in front of no people for a result that nobody will know or care about? .
The reason is the same as T&F. Girls softball is often a coaching job that is filled by someone with little to no experience with the sport, so the parents that do care about their kid's performance, seek a better situation.
There's a lot of scholarship money for women's softball. Due to Title IX colleges are flush with cash, so the opportunities are there for women that want to play past HS. Often the club scene is where the colleges are looking any way. They assume that anyone that's any good isn't playing for their HS team. (See AAU basketball as an example.)
huskier wrote:
Dude, get a clue, the cream rises to the top, a good runner will run well no matter who coaches them....
Complete and utter BS.
I ran for a guy that was very nice, great dude but he was clueless about running. Our daily practice was to run 3-4 miles a day, then go to a meet on Tue, and then a few Sat meets. That was it. i was always back in the pack.
My family moved and I was coached by a guy who's teams had one state titles. I qualified for the state meet, won a few invitationals, and went on to run in college.
Had we not moved, I would have have just been an also ran in every meet and I would have finished HS and joined the army. Having a coach that knew what he was doing changed my life.
colder and wiser wrote:
in the club wrote:
Is this going to start being a trend for the top kids? With private coaching becoming more popular and traveling across the US for meets, I could see many top kids just skipping high school track and cross country.
No, this is not going to become a trend.
The top kids want to face the top competition, and the top competition is far more likely to come out of the millions of kids who pick up running at school in 7th-10th grade than among the few who do club sports from an early age.
Besides, running as an individual will never be as motivating for most students as running with their team. HS kids like to do things with friends.
We've had club sports and private coaches running parallel to HS sports for decades, and there doesn't seem to be any reason the balance would change anytime soon. And right now, the vast majority of top HS talent run for their school teams.
+1
ditch the coach wrote:
No meaningless dual meets, no mid-D and sprints if you talents lie in something longer. It's great. Do it..
Do high school teams even run dual meets anymore? I mean, we have gone to six team meets, but most are larger than that. When we do go to a meet that would be considered meaningless, it is not so because we use it as a speed day to work on racing faster in the shorter events. T&F is a great way to develop speed and racing skills for XC.