What HS Coach Has Burned Out the Most Runners?

maybe they just had runners hit their potential and that these runners still improved but since they had already maximezed their talents they werent really good as they seemed.

What i mean in numbers:

Pat tyson/woodlands with Kid X vs. a "non-burn out coach"

hs: 'PT' 9:00 and 4:10 vs "non" 9:20 and 4:20

college: 'PT' 14:10 and 3:45 "non" 14:10 and 3:45

I am saying that these kids may be running the same times they would have anyway in college but they seem like they aren't doing as well because they ran faster in high school.

personally I would have liked option A with pat tyson or the woodlans coach.

Anybody know what happened to Karen Delete? I think she was part of the 4 by 1 mile naional record relay team a few years back. She's the one with a limp that never had any visible family members around, especially when it came to tallying up the travel expense bill.

Bob Timmons: no, not Ryun in high school or college; but all of the high school blue chippers he got at KU that couldn't handle "Jim Ryun workouts".

I would opine that the coach that burns out the most athletes is also one that secures the most scholarship money for athletes.

This should be a real benchmark - how much $ has one person's coaching been able to secure.

If the athelte performs well in university, does it REALLY matter relative to the benefit of getting a university tuition paid in full?

I think you're changing the topic. The OP didn't ask who had the most athletes run well in college, rather, who burned the most out. If any high school were to be ranked based on how their alums ran in college, I would think it would be a high school that consistently churned out sub 9:30 / 4:25 kids. That part isn't a shock. Getting back to the original question: take all those kids who ran those times and see how most of them did when they got to college. Very few continued to excel, most didn't improve. If the question truly is "who burned the most kids out, I'm surprised someone from Washington would throw up so much argument to my guess. That is of course you're one of the many Mead boys that peaked in high school (through no fault of your own) and are getting slightly defensive. Look, I'm not going to keep arguing this because this simply isn't important to me, I just wanted to state my opinion. But for every one of these guys you list as evidence that Pat Tyson didn't burn runners out, someone could give you twenty examples of exactly how he did burn kids out.

As for your question about my own coaching, I have placed a few kids in college and have a few more making commitments this year. More than likely kids you've never heard of, probably because I'm not a very good coach. But the kids that are running have continued to improve tremendously (again, maybe that says something about my own coaching).

I think most is being quite generous and challenge you to make citations on most of Tyson's athletes that went on to college. Even if it were true it would still only be considered less than "typical improvement" from high school to college.

Yes, in fact you can compare them. If a #10 nationally ranked 3200 runner in HS doesn't burn out, they would be expected to be one of the top collegiate runners within a few years in college. Going from being a 9:10 3200 guy and being one of the top runners in the country to running an 8:30 3k or 14:40 5k and never being heard of again means you've improved, yes, but you haven't exactly kept with the curve.

Urgh,

Why is it so difficult for you to just answer the original question? Where are your stats on the list of Saratoga's promising young runners from the past? You have provided information that Saratoga currently has 7 athletes competing at Div 1 schools, but still have not indicated if any are seniors. Many don't make it that far, like as in the one you mentioned that competed for only 2 years.

Also, you can't compare a #10 national ranking in the 3,200 in high school to a ranking for NCAA D1. It doesn't equivalate.

Yes, in fact you can compare them. If a #10 nationally ranked 3200 runner in HS doesn't burn out, they would be expected to be one of the top collegiate runners within a few years in college. Going from being a 9:10 3200 guy and being one of the top runners in the country to running an 8:30 3k or 14:40 5k and never being heard of again means you've improved, yes, but you haven't exactly kept with the curve.[/quote]

Dude, come on. This is an insane statement. What is the scale of improvement you're using for this curve? You understand that a 9:10 runner is not an 8:50 runner right? I think you are forgetting a couple important outside factors.

A) NCAA D1 is loaded with foreign atheletes at the top level. In any given year at the NCAA championships in track or cross country the top end of the fields could be comprised of 25-50% athletes from other countries. Those athletes were not in the high school system to push back the US high school rankings.

B) Only a handful of high school programs are highly sophisticated in training. What that means is there are loads of 9:00 - 9:10 capable runners who will not achieve those times in high school because they don't know how to. When they get to a decent college they start achieving there potential, which may be higher than the guys who were ranked ahead of them. Dave Bazzi from University Washington and Nick Rogers from Eastern Wash.U./U of Oregon are two perfect examples of that scenario.

It makes perfect logical sense that a great deal of competitive college runners were not ranked highly in high school but finally achieved potential in college. As for the Mead, York, Jesuit, Kingwood etc. runners who may not be on the top anymore, that in no way means that they are not improving. It just means that the playing field is much bigger and much more competitive than high school.

Truth be told, if you are a high school coach and your kids go college and unleash, you probably are not much of a coach. If you're kids earn run well enough to earn sholarships and continue to progress then you are a damn good high school coach. As for Tyson, having us run 40-60 miles per week with, light off day runs and a sunday long run of 45-60 minutes relaxed, I really don't see a recipe for burnout physically or mentally. Most of the guys turned out to be a part of something, not to make a career out of it. They loved it and moved on with their lives.

I remember reading an article on a former Tyson runner who got into the navy seals, he was a JV runner deep in the team. He cited Pat Tyson as the reason he was tough enough to get in. That is the importance of a high school coach. Get your top guys into colleges, give the rest and experience to remember. There are only a few coaches out there that can do that.

I highly doubt that there are many runners from the top high school teams who are bitter at their high school coaches for coaching them to such a high level. What I don't doubt is that there are a great deal of rival coaches and athletes who are bitter at those programs.

Flint-Kearsley High School in Flint, Mi during the 60's, 70's and 80's.

"I'm not here to train college runners...I'm here to train High School athletes."

~Larry Wiltse and Don Marsh~

30 guys under 9:15 during those decades and only 1 made it to college (Craig Dickinson, Tennessee).

He might have not burned out the most BUT 1/30 is pretty bad...

What is with these threads. Every year, we have the exact same argument, with the exact same names named. And the fact is, there is just no data to support any statement, because no one tracks runners from high school into college. Over the years I've posted a lot of information on York runners, enough to put to rest any thought that Newton burns people out, but it won't matter, because the Newton bashers really don't care what the reality is, they just want to bash him for whatever it is they think he does. Without actually really knowing him. Same for Tyson and for others. There is a reason that these programs are successful year after year, and that has not changed. ANd some kids go on and continue to run, and some don't, and that has not changed either.

As for Flint, that's an economically deprived city and has been for decades. It should not be surprising that few graduates from Flint go on to college.

I get your argument, but none of the people you named were blue chip runners. I guess Charlie could be considered an exception. Tito ran all four years in college all big X stepple chase, and is very successful on the central indiana roads right now.

I just don't think there have been two many STANDOUTS just above average kids. I would be interested to see how many of those guys ran four years in college. Burned out runners would be those who don't complete all four years.

I'm more familiar with the track side of things, and if you want to talk burn out. Talk Women and Coach Milan

Do you know anything about Sam Shaw's college experience?

in the know... wrote:

Bob Timmons: no, not Ryun in high school or college; but all of the high school blue chippers he got at KU that couldn't handle "Jim Ryun workouts".

I completely agree. Timmons swimming methods simply didn't work, and that includes Ryun (Yes, Ryun ran amazing times, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't overtrained). Timmons way overtrained his runners. I once heard a story where he would drop his runners off in the country outside of Lawrence and make them find their way back, which ended up being close to 26 miles. It became painfully obvious that this wasn't working; too bad he never figured it out while he was coaching.

Do you know anything about Sam Shaw's college experience?

Can't say that I do. And don't get me started on Milan!

TOM HEATH!!!!!!!!

Someone explain exactly what "Burned Out" means. In 35 years of running this is the biggest bunch of BS I have heard.

Some kids go to college and running with their friends is no longer as important.

Some kids miss the structure of a high school team; they go to college and their on their own. No one to tell them to go to bed, what to eat, when to run, and so on.

Some kids get into partying. Heck, their on their own for the first time and can't handle it.

There is no physical burn out. Runners from certain programs are lucky enough to have a High School coach to maximize their abilities.

What is worse is a talented runner from a poor program who is a potential 9:10 two miler who only runs 9:50 because of poor coaching and never gets a chance to run in college. That is the real problem.

You're right, Burnout is bogus in every field of life. Priorities and situations change that alter an individuals goals. However, some schools have runners that get recruited and put on scholarship that don't finish. When colleges see trends like this they stop recruiting from the schools. I've heard "rumors" of many schools not recruiting from ceertain coaches cause there runners don't run out their elegibility.

"burnedout" means you never were good as a runner, you never were good as a coach and you want to bring others down with you. This means that - like runner21 and baine - you state that great high school teams "burn out" their runners because their kids go on with their lives after high school - like 90+% of all high school athletes do - instead of clinging to a sport that no one really cares about and the ones that do - like runner21 and baine -seem to hope for you to fail. Burn out means you have grown up and gone on with your life. The fact is that there is no difference a 6:00 miler and a 4:20 miler not running in college. The discipline the programs being berated on this thread instills crosses over to the rest of a person's life. I guarantee runners from those programs are more prepared for success in life than from programs where no one has ever been pushed to succeed. I still wait for someone to come up with a list of several high schools that outperforms these other schools as far as collegiate success but they won't because they can't.

You work everyone so ridiculously hard that there HAVE to be a handful of athletes who have amazing accomplishments...what doesn't get talked about are those that had the talent, but should not have been doing the survival of the fittest technique as a major component of their training in HIGH SCHOOL.

Complete agreement. I am a Carmel High School grad from the late 70's(female) who ran on the boys' teams in Jr. High, because they didn't have girls Cross Country back then. By the time I got to High School, I just ran AAU stuff because my parents forbid me to run for Koeppen. Those guys ran very high, twice-a-day mileage, even for today's standards, they dominated IN HS, but were spent by college. One guy, Bill Shuey, did ok at Purdue, but nothing compared to HS. By the way, Koeppen eventually got fired from CHS for something scandalous...

Hi-

This is Diane Bussa. I never ran for Koeppen - my parents forbid it. (see earlier thread by me). One of the reasons I had a long career and am still running is because of this decision not to get pummelled by Koeppen. I will never forget one comment he made to my father, when I was a Senior at Carmel High School. I was running the state meet in the mile, and had mono at the time, but didn't know it, and finished far back. He told my dad, 'Her running career is over. She doesn't have it upstairs to compete anymore." I went on to be an All American in College, and run professionally for 10 years. He got fired recently for some kind of scandal.