Malmo/Hodgie, ever thought of a college coaching...

My bad then. I've taught HS for 15 years here, coached track and XC some, and certainly thought that was a UIL rule. So any old fellow could coach if he was willing and the school board hired him, even if he had nothing to do with the school?

One thing that would have to be changed very quickly or you'd be out of coaching and your team on probation: an independently wealthy businessman (hevy machinery), Elliot used to use his own money when taking the team places.

Guest,

What exactly is your point? Malmo said he would only do it for the love of it, not the money? Also, Jumbo was a class act, the kind of guy who would coach until race day, then sit back and watch them go; as opposed to these clowns that think you can goad someone around the oval if you yell loud enough.

Trust me, Nova's teams are funded adequately enough these days that no one is going to have to pull cash out of their pockets to support the team, their travel, or their next pair of spikes.

I think what guest meant was that the NCAA with all of there bizarre rules might consider an altruistic coach such as Jumbo a "booster", therefore, somehow "illegally" supporting the team.

Of course if Bill Bowerman were alive today, pissing on an athlete's leg in a locker-room shower would result in suspension, assault charges, sexual harassment lawsuits and two weeks of unwarranted fodder for national talk shows.

Neither Bowerman nor Elliot ever had a level I, II, or III coaching certificate.

Malmo,

Your advice/coaching, that is readily available online (http://www.kemibe.com/training.htm) is top notch!!!

It has taken this jogger to new-found heights.

I just wish I came upon your wisdom at an earlier age!

DK said: "I just wish I came upon your wisdom at an earlier age!"

Me too!

malmo wrote:

I think what guest meant was that the NCAA with all of there bizarre rules might consider an altruistic coach such as Jumbo a "booster", therefore, somehow "illegally" supporting the team.

Of course if Bill Bowerman were alive today, pissing on an athlete's leg in a locker-room shower would result in suspension, assault charges, sexual harassment lawsuits and two weeks of unwarranted fodder for national talk shows.

Neither Bowerman nor Elliot ever had a level I, II, or III coaching certificate.

What I meant was this: according to no less than the Marty Liquori book "On The Run: In Search of the Perfect Race" (1979 or so), Elliot used to use his own money to upgrade Villanova's travel expenses. Liquori states that while other teams were staying at cheap hotels, the Wildcats were staying--thanks to Elliot's money--in much better places, (Ramada Inns, etc.). Liquori states this was a mental motivation on Elliot's part, to make the Villanova runners feel that they were something special before they went to the line. As Liquori puts it, "--we were chicken salad and everyone else was chicken shit--"

Liquori BRAGS about what a grat motivator this was, and what a "genius" Elliot was for doing it.

So private money equals advantage. Mental advantage at the race, and certainly recruiting advantage when Joe High School senior hears about how well he will be taken care of at Villanova.

Now I'm no sure what the rules were back then. Which is why I never said anything about Elliot cheating. What I did say was that it is different nowadays, a little more egalitarian, at least in attempt. The rich don't get richer, at least as easy.

And you people have a problem with this?

As far as Elliot's great coaching, anyone with half a brain knows the D1 game is hugely reliant on recruiting. How many times on this board have people claimed Lannana, for example, isn't a good coach but his teams do well because Stanford gets the recruiting numbers? Back in Elliot's time it was NO different. So be a millionaire busninessman, throw in your own money, get the nation's studs (two nations, if you count Ireland--every Irish runner's dream then was to get a scholarship at Villanova), and your team will almost certainly do well, unless you're a total moron who screws them up--which Elliot definitely WASN'T.

But then how does anyone judge the Villanova program fairly and accurately when an unfair ditribution of money is involved? Personally, I believe Elliot WAS a good coach. But in all fairness, I can't say he was great because of the strong component of recruiting and how we objectively don't know how much of that success was due to his money getting the stud bodies in the first place.

In that sense, these new rules and standards designed to TRY and even the playing fields the old farts on this board living in the past LOVE to trash are great for coaches like Elliot because they remove the peripheral crap and let the coaching greatness truly shine through without blemish.

And if anyone out there believes throwing money at a program doesn't blemish accomplihments, you are in a huge state of denial.

And as far as Bowerman, etc., not having coaching certificates, well, old boys, times change, hopefully for the better. For every Bowerman now shut out (and a true Bowerman would be out there earning his certificate!), probably one hundred Marc Davis type pretenders looking for a quick job without the responsibility of formal qualifications are also kept out.

By the way, Malmo, weren't you the one who ranting about the Exercie Phys "Geeks", the professionals used to some degree by every top runner in the world? Someone should tell you it's the year 2002.

One time I was having a conversation with the head of the exercise science department at a school i used to coach at. He told me that he felt that every succesful coach was an exercise scientist to some extent whether they studied it or not. My concern has been that too many coaches come into the sport with "anecdotal" knowledge of how to coach. They simply do what they did whether or not it's appropriate for their athletes. I have been to Level I school and have done some Level III work. Want to know something. I didn't learn anything in any of that work that I didn't already know. Sure, those schools tend to put it into readily digestible form. Too many coaches want the Reader's Digest version. They go to clinics/schools to get work outs and drills. One thing I liked about both Joe Vigil and Boo Schexnayder is that they tell you to get a grasp of the schemes. They also tell you that the best coaches are the ones who can adjust what they know to their athletes and not the athletes to what they know. I would agree with what you hinted at with regard to recruiting being such an integral part of a coaches perceived success. But, it's not always the "manager" of the most successful team that is the best coach. I think it's the person who gets the most out of each athlete regardless of what level they come in at. I'd say that too many coaches are too willing to show off those certificates (which are just too easy to come by) and try to substitute that for learning about things the old fashioned way. What people like Bowerman and Elliot had going for them was not money or budget, or even just recruiting. No, it was much more than that. They could make people believe that what they were doing was special and meant something. If you really want to talk about coaching certifications that truly mean something, go to some of the European certification programs in which you put in YEARS of coursework and actual hands on experience with an athlete. All you have to do to get Level I and II certificates is be able to regurgitate what they spoon feed you in the format that they require. That might help your coaching, but you have to know how to handle people and you just don't learn that in a 2-7 day "seminar." Jumbo Elliot, Bill Bowerman, and Bill Dellinger could still go out there and win championships because they understood the sport and they understood people. Just like John McDonnell does now. There are tons of coaches who recruits studs and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with them. They couldn't get them to peak at the right time if their lives depended on it. There are wayyyyy too many coaches that could write dissertations on exercise physiology who could inspire an alcoholic to take a drink. I'd rather run for somebody like Malmo's high school coach who knows how to turn your crank than some milk toast fuddy duddy who had no enthusiasm or spark for life or competing. It doesn't have to be one or the other, but too often it is. Go do a survey of what you consider to be the top college coaches and see how many of them have any USATF certificates whatsoever-you'd be surprised at the results.

I'm not aware of the full Elliott circumstances, but it would seem that if the school wasn't paying a coach's salary, that would be a lot of discretionary funding they could put into travel expenses. Did Liquori say Elliott essentially wrote out personal checks, so to speak, for the hotels, etc., or that he had more school money to use?

I'm not challenging you, I'm just interested in how that could work.

Guest, it IS 2002 and still nothing about EP geeks have changed. You've got it ass backwards. It's the EPs that use the top runners - not the other way around. Unless you are talking about doping....

Pssssst...a clue: There's nothing new about athletic training.

All of us old farts know it's 2002. We can tell because everyone is slower now.

For the record, you don't win the DMR at the Penn Relays every year from 1966 to 1981 based on recruiting. And your assistant (Tuppeny) doesn't take his new team from worst to first and then win IC4A's based on recruiting either.

"I'd only want to do it Jumbo Elliot style - that is, for the love of it, not for the money."

Is it about paying rent or "for the love of it"?

Obviously, I have an affinity for the runners back in the day. Malmo is right? effective training has not changed. And as HRE succinctly put it, collectively, the runners of 20 years ago, produced better results than the ones today (and much better than the results produced in the mid-90s). I like the attitude, the work ethic, and the ?for the love of it? perspective that I believe the runners back then had to a greater degree (collectively) than today?s guys. And, I believe this is primarily why they did better.

However, as well as they ran? call me crazy, but I believe it is possible that we can run better. If (and this is a HUGE if) we could better our work-ethic, etc. to be comparable, then I do think that the knowledge that EPs (that basically reinforces, and maybe makes slight tweaks to what has already PROVED to be successful) bring to the table to aid in training even more (if ever slightly) effectively can be beneficial. Sure EP guys are geeks!! But in many disciplines, being a ?geek? isn?t such a bad thing.

Guest,

That was about the goddamn dumbest thing I have read since my endless posts regarding pizza crusts and one hour.

Your ignorance amazes me. Does the name Dick Buerkle mean anything to you? Probably not, so do a google search. You'll see pedestrian high school times followed by....... do your research and you'll see.

And to say that athletes went to Nova bc they were offered an opportunity to stay in a Ramada (you call that nice?) as opposed to the hotels the other schools were staying in, takes the cake for asinine posts. You're right, a kid who has a chance to be an Olympian is going to make his decision on the basis of where he is staying on road meets, even if the coach isn't the best of the kid's options.

You are a fool, and you have no concept of elite track & field, and without question, certainly no concept of what Jumbo Elliot and Nova are about. Take your simplistic view of the world and tune into the Telletubbies. You may learn something.

You wouldn't happen to run or coach at GW would you?