Is Cayla Hatton update?

A couple observations/comments:

Why is it assumed that running for a big D-1 program is an "opportunity"? Many (including Lydiard) will tell you that for the elite runner, it is absolutely detrimental to their long-term career.

Further, why is it also assumed that big D-1 programs create "stars"? They do not. This is an individual sport and the people who make it, do so individually. Consider the negative effects of too many competitions, pressure to compete in three seasons, too much travel, too little individualized coaching. The D-1 coach is motivated and compensated by and for team results. While this makes great sense for football, it makes almost no sense for distance running from the athlete's perspective (assuming optimal running is his/her goal).

Lastly, why is it assumed that all of these top runners are on scholarship? If you believe that, you do not understand the system.

If those girls wanted to make it into a top college program, then they should have been more focused and trained better in highschool. It's no one's fault but their own that some unhealthy but fast girl got picked over them. Their own fault. Stop the blaming.

Long-term career?!? Son, "long-term" is about six years split between HS and college for these girls. We aren't talking about the Mary Cain's of the world who will have fifteen year careers. I am talking about the 11:10 3200m girls who turn into 10:30 girls. You know how much each of those seconds are worth? About $2k per second. At 11:20 you get nothing, at 10:30 you get ~$100k. And I understand the system, I game it as best as I can for my athletes.

Well, crazysystem, if you have girls like Hatton, Chapus and Weissenbach who attended the most elite prep schools in the country, it is likely their parents are very wealthy and therefore ineligible for financial aid. So, they'd be full pay at Stanford, unless they received an athletic scholarship. Even given the fact that Stanford is a great school lots of people want to attend, why would you pay $55,000 to go there when Div. 1 schools all over the country would give you a full ride? I guarantee they're getting money--maybe not a full ride, but a nice chunk and at least enough to cost less than Cal for in-staters. Poorer stars might be on all regular financial aid, which would be unaffected if they quit the team. It would be the ones in the middle who'd be hurt most if they burned out quickly--the ones just over the income limit to get aid, but who are not truly wealthy.

Anyway, that's a different topic. I admit I don't know what the solution is. But if you have a girl who's been flying all over the country to run in elite meets for the last two years of high school, and you know she's been training hard and running high mileage (70+), I'm thinking she's a risk to burn out quickly. Or if you have a kid who breaks the high school national record in middle school but spends most of her high school career injured and never comes close to running that time again, then I'd say she's a risk too. And if Mommy or Daddy is a nut job and it coaching her, that's another red flag. Yet coaches take these girls, and the folks back home just shake their heads because they, without being expects, can see the writing on the wall.

EPC, I couldn't agree with you more (my post was not in response to yours). The athletes you write about should get all they can out of the system, because it is, de facto, made for them.

However, for runners aiming for higher goals -- for whom running is more than a meal ticket for college -- the NCAA D-1 program is probably not the optimal route.

*is coaching, not it.

For the third time, ppd--my kid made it, so I have no interest in making excuses for strangers. But that still doesn't mean the system is a good one.

nordicmama wrote:

*is coaching, not it.

For the third time, ppd--my kid made it, so I have no interest in making excuses for strangers. But that still doesn't mean the system is a good one.

Complaining about the system is making excuses for strangers. Plenty of runners do just fine without all of the injuries and issues.

Evil Private Coach wrote:

Long-term career?!? Son, "long-term" is about six years split between HS and college for these girls. We aren't talking about the Mary Cain's of the world who will have fifteen year careers. I am talking about the 11:10 3200m girls who turn into 10:30 girls. You know how much each of those seconds are worth? About $2k per second. At 11:20 you get nothing, at 10:30 you get ~$100k. And I understand the system, I game it as best as I can for my athletes.

Are you talking about scholarship money over 4 years?

The major issue with high school girls' elite racing is not that the scholarships are going to the "wrong" runners. To me, it's hard to watch runners who were better-than-average turn into superstars running rock-star times for a season or two because they have lost 15-20 lbs. Trying to keep your daughter healthy and competing at a high level, its tough to take.

I can't believe the college coaches who still recruit this type after seeing so many crash and burn. And I can't believe the parents and coaches who seem to turn a blind eye to this and not think of the girl's best interest.

I don't put Cayla Hatton into this category. I don't know much about her but I have seen pictures and she looks healthy.

Well, losing weight is not necessarily bad, unless it's too much, too fast, or lost via a disorder. You are correct that some top programs take girls who already have obvious eating disorders (though at times disguised with odd labels or medical descriptions), and then there are allegedly programs which tend to contribute to girls developing disorders. (When our runner was in the recruiting process, we were steered away from 2 programs in particular by older coaches in the track world.) Disordered runners are at risk of developing one stress fracture after another in college, not to mention heart and blood pressure issues. So they take a roster spot, but manage to run 1 or 2 seasons out of 12 between injuries, weakness, and yes, hospitalizations.

Pointing out the flaws in an imperfect system does not mean I think people should get a pass for not figuring out a way to work within it. In life, you have to deal with the cards handed to you. Still, it would be better for all if the system were tweaked in favor of greater health for developing young bodies.

nordicmama wrote:

Pointing out the flaws in an imperfect system does not mean I think people should get a pass for not figuring out a way to work within it. In life, you have to deal with the cards handed to you. Still, it would be better for all if the system were tweaked in favor of greater health for developing young bodies.

There is no system that you speak of. The fastest runners win the race. The fastest runners get recruited. If you're unhealthy it's your own doing. It's not the system's fault. The system does not need to be tweaked.

Ok, it's not the system's fault, since the system is not a person. It's a college coach's fault if he knowingly recruits a girl with an eating disorder, because he will be rewarding her addictive behavior and contributing to her ill health, since she will keep running mile after mile under his direction in order to lose even more weight. Also, college coaches who knowingly take a high school girl who is over-trained and at an obvious risk of burn-out/quitting after a season or two, over a well-trained girl who runs a little slower but has the potential to drop to the same time in a year or two and then go on to run 2 more years for him after that, are to blame for a system which encourages girls to burn out young and leave the sport entirely.

You are just determined for someone to take the blame besides the runner herself.

If the coach picks a slightly faster but unhealthy girl over you, that is your fault. You should have put in better training and been faster. It's no one else's fault.

The coach is trying to have a winning team. His job is not to wipe your butt. Take care of your own health. Or at least let the parents deal with it. This is not the coaches fault.

No one is encouraging young girls to burn out. They are only encouraged to run fast and win. You can do that with or without burning out. It's a choice. There is no system.

ppd wrote:

There is no system that you speak of. The fastest runners win the race. The fastest runners get recruited. If you're unhealthy it's your own doing. It's not the system's fault. The system does not need to be tweaked.

College coaches are paid to try to figure out if that 'top runner' has much upside or if there are a lot of liabilities lurking. Because some coaches fail to do due diligence does not mean that everything is flawed.

And the notion that these athletes should be paying back money that is 'on spec' is so utterly ridiculous as to put the author of the topic in to the 'please ignore that guy (and it is almost always a guy). I usually assume that the writers is trying to stir the pot than that they really think that is an appropriate 'remedy'. Look, a lot more money is put in to IPOs that do not pan out. Is every scholarship kid that does not graduate from the school that they start with supposed to return all that money? Get a life, and some critical thinking to boot.

yoder-begley fan wrote:

eh, "medical issue" is often a veiled attempt at hiding the fact that one has an eating disorder.

Redundant much?

26mi235 wrote:

And the notion that these athletes should be paying back money that is 'on spec' is so utterly ridiculous as to put the author of the topic in to the 'please ignore that guy (and it is almost always a guy). I usually assume that the writers is trying to stir the pot than that they really think that is an appropriate 'remedy'.

You are taking the Refund Rule too literally. Everyone agrees that there is a destructive pattern here but there is no consensus to who is to blame. My absurd proposal wouldn't assign any blame. It just introduces a penalty. All you have to do is finish and you get to keep it all. That is all I ask. In fact Ashley Brosovan did run a few races this year so she gets to keep her Footlocker title!

Refund Ruler wrote:

You are taking the Refund Rule too literally. Everyone agrees that there is a destructive pattern here but there is no consensus to who is to blame. My absurd proposal wouldn't assign any blame. It just introduces a penalty. All you have to do is finish and you get to keep it all. That is all I ask. In fact Ashley Brosovan did run a few races this year so she gets to keep her Footlocker title!

Why should she lose anything that she did in high school based on what she did in college? High school running is completely independent of college running. It exists on its own. You don't have to go to college just because you ran footlocker.

ppd wrote:

Refund Ruler wrote:

You are taking the Refund Rule too literally. Everyone agrees that there is a destructive pattern here but there is no consensus to who is to blame. My absurd proposal wouldn't assign any blame. It just introduces a penalty. All you have to do is finish and you get to keep it all. That is all I ask. In fact Ashley Brosovan did run a few races this year so she gets to keep her Footlocker title!

Why should she lose anything that she did in high school based on what she did in college? High school running is completely independent of college running. It exists on its own. You don't have to go to college just because you ran footlocker.

In my system this would be a penalty. You can't argue against it. It's just the rule.