OhYes wrote:
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.
ncaaathlete wrote:
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.
The one constant at Cal the last several decades of poor results has been Tony Sandoval. It's too bad because the rest of the staff seems to be very good at their jobs & will be successful whenever they get away from Sandoval. which makes me wonder if they got stuck at Cal because of Sandoval? think about it, none of his assistants have ever continued on to successful careers, they've all gotten out of coaching. The guy can't go on forever tho.
UCLA's staff are good people and good coaches, but as others have alluded to, no where to train and the new head coach has pulled all the money out of distance because he knows that's not going to be a winning formula there. The UC Davis coaches are getting some scholarship to work with for now, but it's not going to last. Their head coach will never invest enough to make cross country work there for similar reasons UCLA won't. And the other UC's? they are just never going to have the resources for the distances to make them worthwhile even with solid coaching. All that said, your daughter will not have a bad experience at any UC, it's just less likely she'll improve & be on a competitive team, but she would get a great education!
Stanford is great of course but isn't for everyone. If your kid goes there, they better be prepared for survival of the fittest pressure. But if a kid thrives in that environment, that's the place to go!
I say all this because I've had high school athletes I coach go to most of these schools. my best advice if you're looking for best women's coaches on the West Coast but also want balance in their lives (and not super intense schools)? Don't go to any school in California. That's what I tell my athletes if they want my honest opinion & can afford leaving the state. Hope that helps!