Some teams in the ivy league come to mind on some years, depends on the year and who the coach is (they are seeming to change so frequently as of recent). Especially being able to give no athletic scholarship, some great runners come out of there.
Most MAAC schools outside of Iona I'd say should get an honorable mention here. Iona has an endowment that allows for substantially better recruits to come through than the others. No disrespect to their coaches, who still have to develop/maintain them. Any of those middle level schools in that conference; Rider, Siena, Marist, Canisius, have had some pretty incredible individuals who were not high profile runners in high school. You could have a field day comparing their milesplits pre and post college.
Can not to do better than Eric Blake at Central Connecticut State University. Himself a well respected international runner, he's worked wonders with the program.
Are people just downvoting because they don't like the school? Isn't the point of this thread to ID coaches at non-power programs who are good at developing runners?
I've raced with Blake/met him on the New England running scene & he seems like a good dude. Not the best runner on the planet but works hard & has made mountain teams for the US. Central Connecticut is not a powerhouse & his track record is good there. I don't get the point of this thread if what I'm quoting just has a bunch of down votes for no reason.
Most MAAC schools outside of Iona I'd say should get an honorable mention here. Iona has an endowment that allows for substantially better recruits to come through than the others. No disrespect to their coaches, who still have to develop/maintain them. Any of those middle level schools in that conference; Rider, Siena, Marist, Canisius, have had some pretty incredible individuals who were not high profile runners in high school. You could have a field day comparing their milesplits pre and post college.
What endowment would that be? A scholarship is a scholarship.
Stony Brook U in NY gets very little funding and is always one of the top in their region. They are coached by Andy Ronan, a Ray Treacy disciple. Ronan gets as much out of his runners' talent as anyone in the country. The dude who said Stony Brook is a meat grinder doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm a HS coach in NY and know many of the kids who went there and they were very well coached. This year they did get get a top 20 NXN boy names Gilstrap. They've been drawing more and more deserved attention because of their resukts in XC and track.
Stony Brook U in NY gets very little funding and is always one of the top in their region. They are coached by Andy Ronan, a Ray Treacy disciple. Ronan gets as much out of his runners' talent as anyone in the country. The dude who said Stony Brook is a meat grinder doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm a HS coach in NY and know many of the kids who went there and they were very well coached. This year they did get get a top 20 NXN boy names Gilstrap. They've been drawing more and more deserved attention because of their resukts in XC and track.
Andy is a great coach but fun fact Annette Acuff the last 10 years has more NCAA qualifiers. Binghamton has to be in this discussion if we are talking poorly funded!
Coach Connor's Portland Pilots-three podium finishes in last 10 years (2014; 2017; 2018).
Why are people listing programs that have the maximum amount of scholarships (or close to the maximum)????
That is NOT what the thread was created to discuss.
Yes those may be non-power 5 schools that are doing well but they have more scholarships into distance than MOST power 5 schools - do you really think Florida, LSU, and even Oregon are putting all their scholarship money into cross country? Hell no. 20% or less goes to distance.
1.) The question was "small schools." Portland has around/under 4,000 students and is in a D1AAA conference - below P5/G5/FCS. I don't understand how they don't fit the bill as "small." 2.) Yes, Portland puts all of the scholarships into distance, but they don't have the max 12 full scholarships or whatever it is. It's around 6-7 last I heard. 3.) Portland also does not have a national brand and vastly less financial resources for the athletic department and xc/track program than many "big" schools. Hell, the "track team" doesn't even have an outdoor track to train on. Running nerds might know the program's success, but I bet the vast majority of HS runners nation-wide haven't even heard of the school.
Do you realize how hard it is to crack the Top 25? Much less multiple times. While many of the programs listed (Portland, NAU, Air Force, Tulsa, Iona, Furman, Montana State, Butler, Eastern Kentucky, Gonzaga, Boise State plus many more who do amazing jobs and don't get recognition) do put a large chunk of scholarships into Cross Country & distance events for TRACK & FIELD, it does not devalue how successful they are. It may not be your desired method of success and each individual can judge along those lines if desired but it devalues the work those schools do.
100% agree that most P5s probably put a similar amount of scholarship into distance with the various levers they can pull (Alston money, academic aid, Cost of Attendance, etc.) and most would be shocked how well some P5s can manipulate scholarship and essentially double their amount of athletic aid available.
It is baffling to me how some want every school to field a full squad and play by the same standards, when the scholarship playing field is insanely uneven, likely even more so for the above mentioned elite small distance programs. It is tough to see really good coaches get all of their success belittled by most who have no comprehension of how hard it is to be successful at the highest level of D1, much less when at a smaller school.
Do you realize how hard it is to crack the Top 25? Much less multiple times. While many of the programs listed (Portland, NAU, Air Force, Tulsa, Iona, Furman, Montana State, Butler, Eastern Kentucky, Gonzaga, Boise State plus many more who do amazing jobs and don't get recognition) do put a large chunk of scholarships into Cross Country & distance events for TRACK & FIELD, it does not devalue how successful they are. It may not be your desired method of success and each individual can judge along those lines if desired but it devalues the work those schools do.
100% agree that most P5s probably put a similar amount of scholarship into distance with the various levers they can pull (Alston money, academic aid, Cost of Attendance, etc.) and most would be shocked how well some P5s can manipulate scholarship and essentially double their amount of athletic aid available.
It is baffling to me how some want every school to field a full squad and play by the same standards, when the scholarship playing field is insanely uneven, likely even more so for the above mentioned elite small distance programs. It is tough to see really good coaches get all of their success belittled by most who have no comprehension of how hard it is to be successful at the highest level of D1, much less when at a smaller school.
No need to trash the schools or the coaches from 'all distance schools'...many are fine coaches and programs following the rules as they are set up.
That said, like others have said there is no reason that the XC scholarship structure should be set up the way it is. There should be a specific amount of allowed XC athletic scholarships for all schools as a starting point.
Whatever other advantages that exist or don't exist are another matter but everyone should have the same starting point.
It shouldn't be like, well, it's already not fair so let's make it more unfair (which is what we have with the mess that the combo track/XC scholarship structure has created).
Do you realize how hard it is to crack the Top 25? Much less multiple times. While many of the programs listed (Portland, NAU, Air Force, Tulsa, Iona, Furman, Montana State, Butler, Eastern Kentucky, Gonzaga, Boise State plus many more who do amazing jobs and don't get recognition) do put a large chunk of scholarships into Cross Country & distance events for TRACK & FIELD, it does not devalue how successful they are. It may not be your desired method of success and each individual can judge along those lines if desired but it devalues the work those schools do.
100% agree that most P5s probably put a similar amount of scholarship into distance with the various levers they can pull (Alston money, academic aid, Cost of Attendance, etc.) and most would be shocked how well some P5s can manipulate scholarship and essentially double their amount of athletic aid available.
It is baffling to me how some want every school to field a full squad and play by the same standards, when the scholarship playing field is insanely uneven, likely even more so for the above mentioned elite small distance programs. It is tough to see really good coaches get all of their success belittled by most who have no comprehension of how hard it is to be successful at the highest level of D1, much less when at a smaller school.
No need to trash the schools or the coaches from 'all distance schools'...many are fine coaches and programs following the rules as they are set up.
That said, like others have said there is no reason that the XC scholarship structure should be set up the way it is. There should be a specific amount of allowed XC athletic scholarships for all schools as a starting point.
Whatever other advantages that exist or don't exist are another matter but everyone should have the same starting point.
It shouldn't be like, well, it's already not fair so let's make it more unfair (which is what we have with the mess that the combo track/XC scholarship structure has created).
I completely disagree. With Alston, COA and other levels the P5 schools can utilize, the only way smaller schools can keep up is placing more scholarship in certain areas. I don't see any fuss when sprint schools put almost all of their money into Sprints, yet distance schools routinely get criticized. If you limit what schools can put into XC, it is just directly trying to limit what these smaller schools can do in XC. If you want a somewhat fair starting point, this isn't even remotely close.
Its the same to the athlete. But the school provides scholarships set aside by their board of trustees. Alumni provide endowments. Iona has a higher endowment specifically for XC than the other MAAC schools. Advantage in funding.
No need to trash the schools or the coaches from 'all distance schools'...many are fine coaches and programs following the rules as they are set up.
That said, like others have said there is no reason that the XC scholarship structure should be set up the way it is. There should be a specific amount of allowed XC athletic scholarships for all schools as a starting point.
Whatever other advantages that exist or don't exist are another matter but everyone should have the same starting point.
It shouldn't be like, well, it's already not fair so let's make it more unfair (which is what we have with the mess that the combo track/XC scholarship structure has created).
I completely disagree. With Alston, COA and other levels the P5 schools can utilize, the only way smaller schools can keep up is placing more scholarship in certain areas. I don't see any fuss when sprint schools put almost all of their money into Sprints, yet distance schools routinely get criticized. If you limit what schools can put into XC, it is just directly trying to limit what these smaller schools can do in XC. If you want a somewhat fair starting point, this isn't even remotely close.
You are free to disagree. I disagree with you.
I don't think either track or distance should be able to manipulate things. XC should have designated scholarships as should track.... just like every other official NCAA sport.
It's a dumb set up and 'small schools' (which are not all small) should not be allowed some advantage because other inherent disadvantages exist.
I do want a fair starting point and yes, having a set number of scholarships is the proper starting point. Schools like NAU will be fine... they are at altitude ... they have a good program, good culture and a good coach.. they should not be allowed more scholarships because P5s have other advantages. that's just not a reason.
I completely disagree. With Alston, COA and other levels the P5 schools can utilize, the only way smaller schools can keep up is placing more scholarship in certain areas. I don't see any fuss when sprint schools put almost all of their money into Sprints, yet distance schools routinely get criticized. If you limit what schools can put into XC, it is just directly trying to limit what these smaller schools can do in XC. If you want a somewhat fair starting point, this isn't even remotely close.
You are free to disagree. I disagree with you.
I don't think either track or distance should be able to manipulate things. XC should have designated scholarships as should track.... just like every other official NCAA sport.
It's a dumb set up and 'small schools' (which are not all small) should not be allowed some advantage because other inherent disadvantages exist.
I do want a fair starting point and yes, having a set number of scholarships is the proper starting point. Schools like NAU will be fine... they are at altitude ... they have a good program, good culture and a good coach.. they should not be allowed more scholarships because P5s have other advantages. that's just not a reason.
I honestly think this would be fair if there were stricter guidelines on outside aid and how it could be applied. When P5 schools can stretch their scholarship to almost double the "legal" amount, I just don't see how this restriction would do anything other than allow P5 schools to dominate XC AND T&F. I would actually argue NAU would NOT be the same program if they had to follow these guidelines.
I genuinely wish there was a way to level the playing field and have everyone play by the same rules but it feels like you advocating for one subset to play with one set of rules and others to play by another.
Like every other sport .... everyone should start with the exact same number.
The P5s have the same inherent advantages in every other sport and you don't see them giving "small schools' extra scholarships so that they can compete better.
It's never going to be level but you have to start at the same place just like every other sport.
The XC/track scholarship set up is dumb. (On another note, you don't have to worry... it's not going to change. Too many folks, on both sides of the coin, want to keep their advantage )
Stony Brook U in NY gets very little funding and is always one of the top in their region. They are coached by Andy Ronan, a Ray Treacy disciple. Ronan gets as much out of his runners' talent as anyone in the country. The dude who said Stony Brook is a meat grinder doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm a HS coach in NY and know many of the kids who went there and they were very well coached. This year they did get get a top 20 NXN boy names Gilstrap. They've been drawing more and more deserved attention because of their resukts in XC and track.
I have a friend that went there and I’m desperately waiting for him to transfer. He’s told me about 10 diff guys that have all flamed out. Week after week a new guy quit or transferred. Truly a tough scene. The big justification was “oh look at the sub 4 guy or the fast 10k” guy but you also look at the graveyard of talent there and you get the full picture.
Stony Brook U in NY gets very little funding and is always one of the top in their region. They are coached by Andy Ronan, a Ray Treacy disciple. Ronan gets as much out of his runners' talent as anyone in the country. The dude who said Stony Brook is a meat grinder doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm a HS coach in NY and know many of the kids who went there and they were very well coached. This year they did get get a top 20 NXN boy names Gilstrap. They've been drawing more and more deserved attention because of their resukts in XC and track.
I have a friend that went there and I’m desperately waiting for him to transfer. He’s told me about 10 diff guys that have all flamed out. Week after week a new guy quit or transferred. Truly a tough scene. The big justification was “oh look at the sub 4 guy or the fast 10k” guy but you also look at the graveyard of talent there and you get the full picture.
Also they don’t lift weights
Stony Brook is a known meat grinder program in NY really have been taking the name from UB lately as biggest burn-out SUNY
Why are people listing programs that have the maximum amount of scholarships (or close to the maximum)????
That is NOT what the thread was created to discuss.
Yes those may be non-power 5 schools that are doing well but they have more scholarships into distance than MOST power 5 schools - do you really think Florida, LSU, and even Oregon are putting all their scholarship money into cross country? Hell no. 20% or less goes to distance.
1.) The question was "small schools." Portland has around/under 4,000 students and is in a D1AAA conference - below P5/G5/FCS. I don't understand how they don't fit the bill as "small." 2.) Yes, Portland puts all of the scholarships into distance, but they don't have the max 12 full scholarships or whatever it is. It's around 6-7 last I heard. 3.) Portland also does not have a national brand and vastly less financial resources for the athletic department and xc/track program than many "big" schools. Hell, the "track team" doesn't even have an outdoor track to train on. Running nerds might know the program's success, but I bet the vast majority of HS runners nation-wide haven't even heard of the school.
Portland has more than 7 scholarships. They have 5 international athletes, likely on full rides.
Evert Silva ran 8:53 in high school before superspikes prior to attending Portland. Justin Hazel ran 8:54 before superspikes. Caleb Webb 8:47 before superspikes. Strangio ran 8:47 and 4:08.
And that's just looking at a few years of milesplit commitment announcements.
The original poster said: "Looking for the coaches that get DII & DIII runners, but know how to develop."