UNC-Chapel Hill Cross Country

When you try to change the culture of a program and raise the expectations both on and off the track certain individuals don't make the cut. When you bring in runners that are committed and talented it is hard for those who were going through the motions to last very long. The roster was not very deep to begin with and Kyle Milks is the only one of consequence who is not on the roster anymore

Roster will be capped at 16 on both sides.

Thanks for the insight. Obviously a change in coaches was probably needed (definitely on the guys side). I'm just a little surprised that given their finishes last year 5th and 6th in the region (which isn't terrible) that more of the team wasn't retained.

They only had 7 guys on the roster last year and the "year in school" listed were incorrect for some. Two graduated and two decided they didn't want to run.

For the women, the previous coach had allowed a lot of people to walk on to the team, most of which were not talented enough to compete collegiately. It looks like they were given a year to see what they could do.

This kind of stuff happens all the time with coaching changes. People who don't want to work hard find their way off the team. Look at their roster now, they have some studs on there for sure.

No one likes change if they liked how things were going before hand...tough love or whatever it is...but college athletics is cut throat, especially at the top tier schools. It will be interesting to see who they sign for the next year on the men's side and what the roster limits will be in the future.

I'm sure they will do well on the recruiting trail this year. UNC sells itself and Watson seems to be a personable guy. Obviously over time results will matter. It will be interesting to see if not allowing walk-ons or low scholarship guys and girls more time to develop will hurt the team or his recruiting of in-state athletes.

Is there a responsibility for schools like UNC to allow more walk-ons from in-state schools just to keep the recruiting pipeline open from those programs? I don't think it really matters at a place like UNC but some of these high school coaches like to be able to get their athletes a shot at college running.

Heard they just signed FL finalist Blake Williams. Carolina is finally starting to keep some of the in-state talent at home...

Let me get this straight...UNC brought in a great recruiting class?

Hey Bud wrote:

I'm sure they will do well on the recruiting trail this year. UNC sells itself and Watson seems to be a personable guy. Obviously over time results will matter. It will be interesting to see if not allowing walk-ons or low scholarship guys and girls more time to develop will hurt the team or his recruiting of in-state athletes.

Is there a responsibility for schools like UNC to allow more walk-ons from in-state schools just to keep the recruiting pipeline open from those programs? I don't think it really matters at a place like UNC but some of these high school coaches like to be able to get their athletes a shot at college running.

What do you mean not allowing walk-ons or low scholarship athletes time to develop? He has been there for a year, under what basis are you making that claim?

As for a high school pipeline in NC, it's pretty clear if you are good enough to contribute at a major D-1 program, regardless of if your high school coach wants you to run there or not. Do high school coaches in California think that 10 minute two milers should automatically have a chance to run at Stanford? Why should it be any different at UNC?

The high school coaching and cross country environment in North Carolina is such that the studs come from different schools with no consistency, often from programs without good coaches or established teams. There is no pipeline to keep open with any program from what I have seen.

People forget how tough it is to manage a large roster, especially when you coach both sexes. I have a hard enough time doing this at the high school level, I can't imagine what it would be like at the D-1 level.

What happened to Milks?

The basis of my claim is a lifetime of watching teams have 3rd, 4th, and 5th year guys contribute to their success, many of whom were not contributors in their early years. Yes, high school success is a predictor of college success but you may be missing some late developing talent. One year of training may not be enough to evaluate the ability of the athlete. Coaches will argue that they can't turn around a situation in a year, why should the evaluation of the individual athlete be any different?

High school coaches may have some say where their athlete looks to go to school. If the coach knows the athlete will not be recruited or will be cut after one semester he may not advise the athlete to go to that school. A large state university, like UNC, will always get in-state students with marginal talent (9:25 to 9:40) that are interested in continuing to run. I'm not saying that coaches should take on these athletes (your point about keeping up with a big squad is very relevant with this discussion), but every once in a while, those athletes will develop into a contributor.

One example is Patterson Wilhelm, All-American at William and Mary last year in Cross. I think the guy finished third in the state in XC and the 1600 at EC Glass High School in Lynchburg, VA. 21st at Footlocker South. Don't have his p.r.'s off hand but that's the kind of kid you might miss. There are many such examples of kids that were not superstars in high school but developed nicely in college.

Hey Bud wrote:

One example is Patterson Wilhelm, All-American at William and Mary last year in Cross. I think the guy finished third in the state in XC and the 1600 at EC Glass High School in Lynchburg, VA. 21st at Footlocker South. Don't have his p.r.'s off hand but that's the kind of kid you might miss. There are many such examples of kids that were not superstars in high school but developed nicely in college.

That's why you talk to kids when you recruit who aren't superstars but you see some potential in when you watch them run. That's part of evaluating talent. I think you are assuming that this isn't happening at UNC without really knowing anything.

obvious answer to this one wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

One example is Patterson Wilhelm, All-American at William and Mary last year in Cross. I think the guy finished third in the state in XC and the 1600 at EC Glass High School in Lynchburg, VA. 21st at Footlocker South. Don't have his p.r.'s off hand but that's the kind of kid you might miss. There are many such examples of kids that were not superstars in high school but developed nicely in college.

That's why you talk to kids when you recruit who aren't superstars but you see some potential in when you watch them run. That's part of evaluating talent. I think you are assuming that this isn't happening at UNC without really knowing anything.

Couldn't agree more. Seems like from the outside that he blew the team up from last year. Maybe that was needed. Wasn't like the team was that bad last year.

Another example to my point.

Daniel Lincoln didn’t set foot on a track until his senior year of high school, so when it came time for college it was a good thing he had an academic scholarship. Also a good thing: the scholarship was to the University of Arkansas, which has one of the best track-and-field programs in the country. So Daniel asked legendary coach John McDonnell if he could join the team as a walk-on. Four NCAA titles later, the coach is undoubtedly glad he said yes.

I'm not arguing that he shouldn't impose a roster limit. My point is that he might be missing some guys that develop later. He had two guys that did not break 22:00 for 4 miles at their home meet. Maybe these guys will develop later for him or maybe they get run off after the first semester.

Unless Im missing something that London kid from Alamnce on the roster is clearly a walk on...nothing wrong with that.

check the roster wrote:

Unless Im missing something that London kid from Alamnce on the roster is clearly a walk on...nothing wrong with that.

Yes, I read that as well. At the end of his bio it talks about his sister and brother having run at UNC. His sister is listed as a volunteer assistant for the team.

UNC Chapel Hill women’s team finished 14th at nationals, return their 1-6 (most of them will be around for a while) and add Klingbeil (7th at Running Lane) and Shapiro (13th at Running Lane). They are on the rise.

You bumped a post from 2010 to bring us this wisdom??