Does anyone know what percentage of head D1 coaches would come from a throws background. It would seem to me that since throws only come into play outdoors (few events indoors) that the role of the throws coach would be somewhat diminished. Would it not make more sense to have the head coach as a distance guy as he can affect all three seasons.
And we have a winner !!!!
There are quite a few head coaches with a throw background at the Division I level.
However, your best Head Coach Candidate would be a Coach capable of coaching the Multi-Events, or a Coach focusing on Sprints/Jumps. Distance coaches (myself included) are a dime a dozen. It is very difficult to find a candidate with Level III-IV Certification in the Sprints, Jumps, and Throws (the more TECHNICAL EVENTS). Distance running is not a "technical" event, thus you can get away with a Volunteer/Asst. Coach who is passionate and/or had success as a runner in the past (knows what it takes).
A Scott Razko, Brad Hudson, Greg McMillan, would have a hard time landing a big-time Division I Head Coach position of Track & Field.
Sprint/Jump backgrounds are essential because you are putting an athlete's performance in the coach's hands, events that rely heavily on technique and execution in order to avoid serious injury.
The problem with a lot of distance coaches - not all - is that they downplay or ignore other events. Some distance coaches who serve as head coaches of track and field never support hurdles, jumps, vaults, throws, and sprints. All they are concerned with are the few distance races.
To me, that is very unfair to the sport that they are supposed to be leading. They are actually undermining support for all the events of track and field.
You may also see the reverse in situations: a sprint coach who will not support the distance runners, who will let the cross country team whither on the vince and who has no interest in events other than his/her own speciality.
These types should be event coaches, not head coaches. A head coach needs to look out for all the disciplines, and pull the team together.
I agree with what you say but then i guess i would ask the question why would you have a volunteer/assistant coach in charge of XC/Long Distance. if we take the entire year as 100% then cross country - 33%, indoor 33%, outdoor 33%. The distance coach will be in charge of all of cross - approx 40% of indoor and approx 30% of outdoor - this works out at over 50% of the events competed in. does it not make more sense then to have a distance coach in charge.
To the second poster, please forgive me, but I dont get the joke!!!!
I didn't conclude my own thought.
The coach's area of expertise is not the critical factor. A great head coach could come as a distance coach, a jumps coach, a sprints coach, a throws coach, or a multi-events coach. But there is another dimension that a great head coach brings beyond event speciality. In fact, you could have a great event coach who would be a terrible head coach. I've known some firsthand. You also could find a mediocre event coach who is a sensational head coach. A head coach needs to be able to motivate the staff, rally the athletes, influence the administration, connect with the alumni, and raise the performance level, the morale, the visibility, and the support of the whole program.
jonyel wrote:
I agree with what you say but then i guess i would ask the question why would you have a volunteer/assistant coach in charge of XC/Long Distance. if we take the entire year as 100% then cross country - 33%, indoor 33%, outdoor 33%. The distance coach will be in charge of all of cross - approx 40% of indoor and approx 30% of outdoor - this works out at over 50% of the events competed in. does it not make more sense then to have a distance coach in charge.
are these estimates for track accurate? i think there are about 21 events in outdoor track, 17 indoor.
100 (60 indoor), 200, 400, 800, 1500 (mile indoor), 5k, 10k (not indoor), 110/100H (60H), 400H (not indoor), steeple (3k indoor)
long jump, triple jump, high jump, pole vault decathlon/heptathlon (pentathlon/heptathlon indoor)
hammer (weight throw indoor), shot, discus (not indoor), javelin (not indoor)
4x1 (not indoors), 4x4, dmr (indoor)
so outdoors, if you count the 800, 1500, steeple, 5k and 10k as distance events (800 could go either way of course), you're looking at 5 out of 21. indoors, 800, mile, 3k, 5k and dmr (again, dmr is at best 3/4 distance runners, arguably 1/2), so 5/17. so a little less than 25% and a little less than 30%, respectively.
even so, you're right that if you equally weight cross country and track, the distance coach will have the greatest responsibility over the year. i guess my point in listing all of the events is to show that outdoors, where i think most casual fans of track pay the most attention, distance running isn't primary. a good sprint/jumps coach can coach athletes in the long/triple jump, 100, 200 and 4x100, and quite possibly the 400 and 4x4 as well. so that's 7 events vs. 5 for the distance coach. or a throws coach could coach multi-event athletes and the pole vault, giving him 7 events.
you also have to consider the ability of athletes to double/triple/quadruple in some of these events compared to distance runners who will often run only one event. that can affect which type of coach will bring in the most points at conference/national championships.
bottom line, your argument is a good one if you include cross country. but cross country is only 1/3 of the year and it is even more of a niche sport than track has become. it doesn't seem illogical to me that an AD would hire a low-priced ex-distance runner to be head coach of cross country and assistant coach of track and then hire a sprint/jumps or a throws/multi-event coach to be director.
UCLA's Art Venegas.
Sorry for mistakes in percentages were not meant to be exact.
I agree with what you say but back in circa 2000 did Stanford not win NC's outdoors on the back of distance runners. Likewise with Arkansas a lot of years. I know they have amazing jumpers etc but did Cragg/Lincoln winning 20 points each not have a lot to do with their success.
I know this is a bad example because wisconsin distance coach is not director of track and field but with the team wisc. have assembled now could they not finish very high at nats on the basis of dist runners. ie bairu 5-10 pts 10k, eagon/ford etc few points 10k, solinsky 5-10 pts chase, 5 - 10 pts 5k, withrow few pts in the 5k.
If they have a really good national championship just from Bairu and Solinsky they could amass 25-30 points.
I know you could say the same for strong sprint programs but it seems to me that you see nc's being won by a strong dist prog than a strong sprint prog. (last few years notwithstanding)
With the exception of "perspective", I think the big picture is overlooked or misunderstood by many here.
The role of the head coach should not be to exert control over as large a percentage of the team as possible. The primary and most important role of a head coach is to accurately gauge what event area(s) the school is most likely to excel in and then allocate resources (scholarship money, coaching salary money, travel destinations, etc.) that will allow the school to have the best program possible.
Take a look at programs like Wisconsin or Tennessee. In each case, the director of the program specializes in an event area which is not necessarily the focal point of the team (distance for Wisco, sprints for Tenn). While each head coach (Nuttycombe and Webb) have had succesful athletes in their events, the traditional strengths of the schools have been preserved. When John McDonnell started to have a bit more competition in getting the top distance kids and when Dick Booth's jumps machine slowed down, Arkansas wisely began expanding their sprint corp.
It's a game of adaptation, not ego feeding.