I was curious what team this was, so a couple minutes of USTFCCCA rankings brought me to the Savannah College of Arts and Design (SCAD)- Atlanta Women's team.
Either way, This is a great example of how a motivated and motivating coach can raise the bar and outcomes for a team.
i was a D3 starter on soccer and on the track team, and my general impression would be you are missing the boat by tossing out "individual success." fair or unfair, the game is to either have a big name and previous history of success i can point to -- the NYU thing -- or even some limited degree of "current success." you then can recruit the next year saying "we got a kid to nationals." maybe that gets you 2 more that level. "we got 3 kids to nationals." success begets success.
success also avoids attrition. if you sell success then don't deliver it, you get attrition. people become normal students. people leave to chase the success you promised. a new coach has a short window to deliver.
my college soccer coach was a good recruiter but a jerk. the core of our team was as good as any D3 we played. the problem was the attrition. every year it was like some fraction of the core and basically back to scratch. as such we stayed mediocre as a unit and didn't accumulate quality and achieve success.
track to me is an even more rough version of this. fast people know they are fast and in demand. soccer there is some subjective grey area where kids can under- or over-estimate their value. everyone knows that guy with x time is the jackpot. but is he running in college, and can you get him instead of the next. and can you keep him around and accumulate similar folks. if you're a jerk or the team sucks, who knows.
last, i think some d3 track coaches are "rolling out the ball" and simply unaware of what is competitive fodder at the level. i thought my coach championed very few of his athletes who also played basketball for him, who had near-nationals level quality. i thought he overlooked several of us who should have been more competitive in conference. i thought it was because he was a basketball coach from D1 playing settings who was dismissive of most of his team's talent relative to D3. you need a coach who understands what a good time or distance is in D3. and who broadly nurtures his athletes. i only later realized based on HS times and looking on the internet how conference meets went that i should have been competing for conference. but we were doing confidence destroying D1 meets and the coach didn't seem to grasp who his point scorers would be and the value of broader encouragement. now D1 you need elite guys to do much of anything. that's different
last last, it was also my general impression my school did a poor job of promoting the team within the athletic department and fully harvesting all potential contributors. they didn't really ask soccer to come out, i was just eager and knew through the XC friend grapevine when practice was starting. make friends with the other coaches, scout the other teams. there should be plenty of runners and jumpers in basketball, and not just the guy who jumped 24' in HS. there should be plenty of runners in soccer. there should be strong throwers or fast runners on football. some teams i don't think are even fully tapping their XC for TF. there may be fast people not playing varsity sports. are you even gathering the best team of your college or just gathering low hanging fruit. i mean though i had run junior high track well, i was going to play HS soccer. the PE coach noticed me and my friend's presidential fitness test times in PE. we were referred to the track coach and invited to the track period in the fall. we both ran all 4 years, and i was above average and ran D3, and my buddy won conference and went to regionals, ended up D1 potential if he'd pursued it. that's scouting your own students beyond those who readily show up to practice. one danger of "rolling out the ball" for obvious elites is thinking it's beneath you to do such barrel-scrapeing. but if you are team minded you realize every point helps.
WOW, next time use Grammarly and go back and review what you have written and eliminate extra words! That was hard to read...
Many of you are selling short the importance of actually coaching the athletes that are on the team.
Why has Cal been such a punching bag on these boards?.....It's not because they don't get quality recruits.
On the flipside, here in California, we've got Chico State who was a mediocre D2 team when I was running in the 90's but got immediately better with the arrival of Gary Towne in the late 90s. Fast forward to this season and their 8th man ran 14:18 for 5k TT on the track. (They run a time trial for all of their athletes who don't get chosen for the regional team.) I know this because he's a local kid that didn't even break 4:20 in high school until the very end of his senior year
Not a coach but was an athlete for a high school team. Get one really talented and dedicated runner. Runner wins a lot and genuinely enjoys the sport. Other teammates and students realize how fun winning is. Coach maintains good relationship with athletes (listen to feedback, let them race what they want, encourage lifestyle changes, help with college recruiting etc). Success breeds success. Took about 3-4 years to turn our team into no guys breaking 5 in the mile to qualifying multiple relays for NBN.
It can be in any college division. Not talking about individuals, just team qualifiers.
If you took a team that had never been to nationals to nationals, how did you do it? How did you shift the mindsets and trajectory of the program? Was it the kid's mentality more than anything? What was the difference between a team getting 10th in the region to getting top 5?
Many of you are selling short the importance of actually coaching the athletes that are on the team.
Why has Cal been such a punching bag on these boards?.....It's not because they don't get quality recruits.
On the flipside, here in California, we've got Chico State who was a mediocre D2 team when I was running in the 90's but got immediately better with the arrival of Gary Towne in the late 90s. Fast forward to this season and their 8th man ran 14:18 for 5k TT on the track. (They run a time trial for all of their athletes who don't get chosen for the regional team.) I know this because he's a local kid that didn't even break 4:20 in high school until the very end of his senior year
I've noticed teams like Chico and Grand Valley State are benefitted by being able to roster 40 athletes. They work their tail off and get large recruiting classes every year to replace those who don't pan out. Is that what you mean by developing?
look, i believe in recruiting. probably first and foremost. every year reboot it and try and bench last year's stars with the new recruits. i just think the response of some coaches to recruiting well is stick their feet up on the desk or hyper-focus on the best few on the team. to me the corollary of spending time on your 5th-7th XC runners is spreading your investment trying to get the small points out of your TF team.
the response of some will be, wait, we were talking about making nationals. but IMO the recipe to recruiting a winner is a resume of success in conference and beginning to get individuals to nationals who you probably knew were going to be good anyway. the latter is primarily recruiting. the former, though, unless you destroy the conference recruiting, is often chipping away with a point in javelin and 2 points in long jump and such, atop the ones going someplace. invest in everyone. cause to me this great recruit you want isn't coming to the 8th best team in conference. to me you may have to do some of the hard work, real coaching, to make an ok team good, to then sell it to the next year's bunch.
Agreed. Good coaching goes beyond just having a strong plan, the athletes need to buy into the system. If they don't, it can become toxic.
if you want a system team recruit system athletes. i played on a two-time state champ select soccer team. we wanted to play a certain way. we wanted a type. in our case, athletic, creative, willing to play tough defense. to me you made the mistake if you bring in someone unwilling to play the defense. you can blame the athlete but IMO that's a recruiting error. if you want a personality type or someone to respond to a very defined system, recruit that. don't blame the pushback. that's you didn't ask the right questions or scout the right way. at least at D1. at D3, you may not have the same choice.
personally i don't mind a reasonable team ethos but i think the best coaches aren't jerks saying you adapt to me. you have created the right ethos if you are tough but the athlete doesn't take it personally or feel you're obnoxious, and inculcates the values you want. like my select team was so drilled in expectations and such it becomes almost self-monitoring. you hold self accountable. teammate holds you accountable. and we produced multiple college coaches, low level pros, endless college players.
i think the best coaches can adapt to their athletes and tailor to them. it's not 50 training plans but it's not 1 plan either.
Not running-related, but the 1996-1997 University of Wisconsin Stevens-Point baseball team went from virtually non-existent to the D3 College World Series that year, knocking off powerhouse UW-Oshkosh at Regionals. We got a new coaching staff in the fall of '96- Coach Pritchard and Coach Foster basically challenged us with "Why not?" Pitchers were actually coached to pitch with purpose (Foster was a reliever for the Reds in the early-90's). Pritchard hammered on cutting out mental mistakes and demanded overall accountability. And the atmosphere was polar opposite of UWO- we weren't machines. Overall, things were loose, but the game was on between the lines. That season caused a monumental shift in WIAC baseball, and it was great.
1. Recruit runners that will fit the team, program culture and school. This means the coach must know what kind of athlete will thrive in his training.
2. Training: lots of strides & drills for pure speed, but very few "fast" intervals. Intervals are mostly 5k pace, short recovery, high volume.
3. When athletes achieve, it makes #1 easier.
4. Create a positive culture. This is big and difficult. Success for the team is success for the individual and vice versa. Get athletes to the start line healthy and fresh and let them know excellence is expected. Confidence builds from this.
Many of you are selling short the importance of actually coaching the athletes that are on the team.
Why has Cal been such a punching bag on these boards?.....It's not because they don't get quality recruits.
On the flipside, here in California, we've got Chico State who was a mediocre D2 team when I was running in the 90's but got immediately better with the arrival of Gary Towne in the late 90s. Fast forward to this season and their 8th man ran 14:18 for 5k TT on the track. (They run a time trial for all of their athletes who don't get chosen for the regional team.) I know this because he's a local kid that didn't even break 4:20 in high school until the very end of his senior year
I've noticed teams like Chico and Grand Valley State are benefitted by being able to roster 40 athletes. They work their tail off and get large recruiting classes every year to replace those who don't pan out. Is that what you mean by developing?
Chico State shows 25 men and 23 women on their distance roster
Oklahoma State shows 38 men and 38 women on their distance roster
I've noticed teams like Chico and Grand Valley State are benefitted by being able to roster 40 athletes. They work their tail off and get large recruiting classes every year to replace those who don't pan out. Is that what you mean by developing?
Chico State shows 25 men and 23 women on their distance roster
Oklahoma State shows 38 men and 38 women on their distance roster
Chico State has no Kenyans.
Yes, my point is that 25 is a lot for most schools. Not sure about anything Ok State does but perhaps it's something similar. This wasn't a D2 vs D1 thing. I was just examining the philosophy of schools who are able to have 20+ athletes on their rosters.
Chico State shows 25 men and 23 women on their distance roster
Oklahoma State shows 38 men and 38 women on their distance roster
Chico State has no Kenyans.
Yes, my point is that 25 is a lot for most schools. Not sure about anything Ok State does but perhaps it's something similar. This wasn't a D2 vs D1 thing. I was just examining the philosophy of schools who are able to have 20+ athletes on their rosters.
That's fair, it is surprising how many schools have 40 plus athletes on a xc roster. Talk about throwing eggs at a wall. Gotta imagine most will never see a post season races. 25 is definitely a helpful number compared to others but still probably results in a high number of athletes competing in the post season at points. Let the older guys perform while the younger athletes have time to develop.
If no level matters, Lindsey Anderson. She started up a program at College of Southern Idaho on the NAIA level. Within 2 seasons, they won a National Championship w/ only local runners. That’s kind of impressive….
If no level matters, Lindsey Anderson. She started up a program at College of Southern Idaho on the NAIA level. Within 2 seasons, they won a National Championship w/ only local runners. That’s kind of impressive….
Again, I'm not asking for a list of schools who did it. I'm ask HOW schools did it. Sure it's impressive, it's all impressive.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.