13:25 is a maxed out achievement for a HS runner. It’s significanty faster than 5000m run by Lindgren, Ritz, Rupp and the Youngs. I know that 4:20 isn’t that fast but he ran three of them back to back.It’s ridiculous to think he could be faster than all the greats while not giving his best.
What’s in it for the coach, anyway? If he holds them back in HS, and they improve at BYU, does he receive a bonus? Does this phenomenon occur for other colleges?
Training seriously in HS isn’t that big of an injury risk and is not likely to result in someone reaching a lifetime peak. Improvement in college will come from continued physical maturation.
He's not holding back his training is just super similar to what the guys at BYU do. So for the athletes that go there it’s basically just a continuation of their HS training which helps with improving at the next level. I agree that HS training does not usually affect your peak later on and when most athletes don't improve in college its either do to outside factors(getting a job, focusing on school etc) or major changes in training(low to high volume etc).
Guys on scholarships do not need to get a part-time job. College coaches do not hand out scholarships like candy and expect a return from their investment. I’ve heard about runners being told, “You’re on a scholarship, now perform!”. Athletes know about the academic demands of college before committing to a school, and are expected to manage their time without detracting from their running. Track and XC actually require less of a time commitment than most of the other sports.
It seems like most of the replies make the leap that the "best" coach is one that has some measure of success in the championship/performance arena. If a coach took a low performing school and made it into a winning team (or multi-year winning team for some of the examples), is that the "best" coach?
I say not necessarily. I humbly suggest that the "best" coach is the one that produces the "best" athletes. Or in other words, the kids turn into successful adults. And my measure of success wouldn't be performances, it would be adaptability, self sufficiency, team work, and positive contributors to society. I don't know how you can ever find that version of "best" coach, but I think we should look beyond times for something like this.
It seems like most of the replies make the leap that the "best" coach is one that has some measure of success in the championship/performance arena. If a coach took a low performing school and made it into a winning team (or multi-year winning team for some of the examples), is that the "best" coach?
I say not necessarily. I humbly suggest that the "best" coach is the one that produces the "best" athletes. Or in other words, the kids turn into successful adults. And my measure of success wouldn't be performances, it would be adaptability, self sufficiency, team work, and positive contributors to society. I don't know how you can ever find that version of "best" coach, but I think we should look beyond times for something like this.
Again, the coach is not the parent and how could he have such a profound impact on the lives of his athletes? If he has a big roster, he would have only a few minutes of one on one time with each kid. Would he give the team a Tony Robbins style seminar once a week? Would the kids not make fun him?
Let’s be real, there’s no actual way to choose a best coach. It’s just these made up dumb debates we get into as sports fans. Coaches, keep loving on the kids you get to work with, understand it’s just a sport and should be used as a vehicle for intentional positive character development (this is what some if not most coaches neglect, intentional moments to help kids grow as people). Stop trying to put certain coaches on pedestals, their egos don’t need any more boosting.
in response to “kids making fun of a coach” who is trying to actually build culture and talk about things that actually matter, those kids should probably spend less time on social media and realize true meaningful relationships aren’t going to happen on their screens. Letting kids be too cool for that kind of intentionality is normal though, that’s why most kids today are so into the hype of the sport and don’t actually love the grind.
Let’s be real, there’s no actual way to choose a best coach. It’s just these made up dumb debates we get into as sports fans. Coaches, keep loving on the kids you get to work with, understand it’s just a sport and should be used as a vehicle for intentional positive character development (this is what some if not most coaches neglect, intentional moments to help kids grow as people). Stop trying to put certain coaches on pedestals, their egos don’t need any more boosting.
in response to “kids making fun of a coach” who is trying to actually build culture and talk about things that actually matter, those kids should probably spend less time on social media and realize true meaningful relationships aren’t going to happen on their screens. Letting kids be too cool for that kind of intentionality is normal though, that’s why most kids today are so into the hype of the sport and don’t actually love the grind.
I'd give the enrollment critics something to think about - enrollment isn't the only thing to consider. Target demographic matters. Producing a winner at Houston Elsik or Dallas Skyline (both with more than 4k students) would be very hard. Some schools with enrollments of 1500 are solely comprised of affluent kids who come from running families.
To answer the original question, I can offer some small school coaches in Texas who win year after year. Mike Barnett (now retired) was a consistent state champion coach at Luling. It's a small school in a relatively poor rural community. They were always ready to roll.
Paul Darden of Sundown coached at a class A school in rural west Texas and consistently won.
Ray Baca coaches at Canyon. It's a well to do, but small, community south of Amarillo. They contend for the 4A title each year. He has had many d1 girls.
For reference, Texas has 6 classifications going on 7.
I'd give the enrollment critics something to think about - enrollment isn't the only thing to consider. Target demographic matters. Producing a winner at Houston Elsik or Dallas Skyline (both with more than 4k students) would be very hard. Some schools with enrollments of 1500 are solely comprised of affluent kids who come from running families.
To answer the original question, I can offer some small school coaches in Texas who win year after year. Mike Barnett (now retired) was a consistent state champion coach at Luling. It's a small school in a relatively poor rural community. They were always ready to roll.
Paul Darden of Sundown coached at a class A school in rural west Texas and consistently won.
Ray Baca coaches at Canyon. It's a well to do, but small, community south of Amarillo. They contend for the 4A title each year. He has had many d1 girls.
For reference, Texas has 6 classifications going on 7.
I agree....that is part of my criticism of the Timos and Soles of the world.....they both coach at very highly populate AFFLUENT areas that also have a family culture of health and wellbeing!
School Size Demographics Household Income Altitude Culture
No need to hate on Doug. He knows how to find a good job.
Doug, if I'm not mistaken, started out coaching out in the desert (maybe Yucaipa, or Yucca Valley, it's been a long time and I don't remember). If I remember correctly, he had good but not national powerhouse teams out there.
The above factors are all important. It's hard to say which is the most important. I've got a personal anecdote, if y'all will indulge.
I've coached at the same small, rural, lower SES school (same league as Riverbank) since 1998. Started the CC team in 1999 and coached frosh football for one year prior to that. During that time, a much larger school in a nearby town had a coach that was loved by her kids, but didn't really apply the best training.
Our schools are pretty equal on: Sporting Culture (high), SES of students (mid to low, however there are some very wealthy individuals as well). Racial make up of student body (pretty evenly spllit between white and hispanic). Altitude (100 ft above sea level). The one main difference between our schools has been school size. At one point, this school was one of the largest in CA, with over 4k students. It dropped to the mid 2000s when our town opened a second HS.
For most of my coaching career, my teams have been equal to, or slightly better than this other school, despite the fact that my school's population has fluctuated from the mid 600s to the low 800s. 2 years ago, this other school got a new coach, and now their program is significantly better than mine. They actually qualified for their first ever CA D1 state meet last year.
So, in that instance, it's super obvious the difference a coach can make for a team's competitiveness. However, to consistently produce nationally ranked teams, you need 3-4 of those factors listed above to be working in your favor.
That's why I thought the OP's question was pretty interesting. I mean, it's pretty unanswerable but I figured it would give a chance for people to shout out the coaches in their area who get it done, despite limited resources.
Let’s be real, there’s no actual way to choose a best coach. It’s just these made up dumb debates we get into as sports fans. Coaches, keep loving on the kids you get to work with, understand it’s just a sport and should be used as a vehicle for intentional positive character development (this is what some if not most coaches neglect, intentional moments to help kids grow as people). Stop trying to put certain coaches on pedestals, their egos don’t need any more boosting.
in response to “kids making fun of a coach” who is trying to actually build culture and talk about things that actually matter, those kids should probably spend less time on social media and realize true meaningful relationships aren’t going to happen on their screens. Letting kids be too cool for that kind of intentionality is normal though, that’s why most kids today are so into the hype of the sport and don’t actually love the grind.
Running is very addictive and for many it’s not just a sport. It’s not just a sport for all those kids breaking 9:00 at Arcadia. At my HS, there were athletes in other sports that were very serious and had big dreams. HS sports aren’t just about participation and group hugs.
I don’t know why you guys keep insisting that coaches are more important than parents when it comes to raising a child. Do all coaches have a physiology degree? If a kid does not go out for a sport and subsequently doesn’t have a coach, is he doomed to a life of failure? If you’re a parent, are you going delegate responsibility for your child’s future to a coach?
HS sports aren’t just about participation and group hugs.
I don’t know why you guys keep insisting that coaches are more important than parents when it comes to raising a child. Do all coaches have a physiology degree? If a kid does not go out for a sport and subsequently doesn’t have a coach, is he doomed to a life of failure? If you’re a parent, are you going delegate responsibility for your child’s future to a coach?
Nobody said coaches are more important than parents.
Very few coaches have physiology degrees (but, did you mean psychology as indicated by the context?)
Of course kids can be successful in life if they don't do a sport or if they don't have a great coach
I've never encountered a parent who wanted to delegate the responsibility of raising their child to me.
That being said a positive team culture is paramount. Kids will work a lot harder for a coach that they know respects them and values them as people. Kids will buy into your summer program when they know that it's the team norm. Kids will decide to put cross and track above other pursuits when they know that their teammates value success as much as they do. At a clinic, we got to hear the head of player development for the Philedelphia Eagles. He said team culture is of utmost importance. I'll paraphrase
Bad Culture and Bad Talent = team that's always bad
Bad Culture and Good Talent = May have success occasionally, but will always be waiting for "that player" you need to fill a hole
Good Culture and Bad Talent = Your team will be competitive even when you have a down talent year
Good Cuture and Good Talent = Championship.
I've had enough kids contact me 10-20 years after graduation and thank me for my support as a coach (or simply as a classroom teacher or dependable adult role model), that I'm sure that I've made a diffference in the lives of kids.
I actually came into coaching with a physiology degree, but it was a focus on team culture is what allowed my teams to go from sporadically good to contending for league titles and a trip to the state meet every year.
An Oklahoma man who was involved in a fight with a policy adviser to President Barack Obama apparently misrepresented himself earlier this month in several phone interviews and an email exchange wit...
