This way High School teachers wouldn't be the coaches, unless they were actually qualified coaches.
Kids would have a consistent coach from starting at 11-12 (no jr. hs coach) until at least the time they graduated, and longer if they didn't go far away for school or if they were coach from a distance by the same coach.
The coach would be able to plan real continual progression and focus on the long term more.
In New York a club system might work well, even better than a high school system, but not in small-town USA.
The strength of the high school system is that it gets so many people out for the sport. Also, high schools provide facilities, transportation, competitive schedules, and adult supervision at a time in the day (3-5) with a regularity few working adults could match.
yes.
new yorker wrote:
This way High School teachers wouldn't be the coaches, unless they were actually qualified coaches.
Kids would have a consistent coach from starting at 11-12 (no jr. hs coach) until at least the time they graduated, and longer if they didn't go far away for school or if they were coach from a distance by the same coach.
The coach would be able to plan real continual progression and focus on the long term more.
I don't think we would be stronger is club running was the only place to run. Do you think guys like Rupp and Wheating would have become what they are if they didn't have the opportunity to run in school? They would still be playing club intramural soccer.
Sports in public schools dramatically increase participation in the sport. Cast a wider net, more likely to catch a nice one.
Where we would benefit from a club system the most would be to have a strong post-collegiate system. I was a decent runner in college, but as I have found out since I graduated, I'm nowhere near ready to train alone. I simply can't put the right kind of work in by myself. Its not that I'm lazy, I just can't do it alone, I can't hit my splits on the track, I can't seem to nail down my tempos solo, its a disaster. If I had a local club/coach to train and race with, I would likely be in a much better spot.
I really don't know if the elite athletes would be better, but I'm willing to bet participation at the high school level would be way lower.
Definitely not. The US pretty much has the best under 23 development system for most sports. I would say all but soccer. This is due to the money that is pumped into the NCAA. Only because the big football clubs in Europe pump millions upon millions into their own youth programs, can they beat the NCAA as a development of young athletes. Like a few above me have said, by having high school sports, many more kids participate and those kids that play multiple sports will find what they are good at and continue into college.
25 years ago I would have said "yes", as we Brits were better than you. Right now, you are kicking our arses, so stick with what you've got.
Your system also provides a lot of employment and a career path for people who really want to coach professionally; most UK coaches are doing it solely for love and spending a lot of time away from family to do it.
I think you integrate the two. The high school runner can run for the team during XC and T&F and run for the club during the winter and summer. Many of the coaches in the SF Bay Area are volunteers or on a stipend. They don't need the money and are often semi or actually retired. So this lends itself to coaching for the school and then shifting seamlessly to the club in the off season.
Keep in mind the two work best together. As a result you should have your best coaches as the club coaches working with everyone from youth to masters. The most successful teams do exactly that. Improving the club teams in the US has resulted in improved performance.
A question was raised at my lunch group a few days ago...
"What events transpired that allowed, enabled, or demanded the United States education system to seize control of, or be burdened with, the development of sport?"
We all knew President Roosevelt wanted to stop football related deaths and insisted on the oversight and rules group now known as the NCAA (I was surprised to later learn the first Collegiate National Championship was in Track and Field). But why did the high schools follow for every sport?
la la land makes a valid argument that the schools do a wonderful job in providing facilities and equipment. However, it is unfortunate that many tracks are off-limits to the taxpaying members of the community that supports the schools. The lack of widespread demands by these same taxpayers to use the track for health and competitive purposes indicate there is no need for municipalities to fund recreational track and field complexes outside of the school realm.
But the question of this thread centers on distance running in the US and not the entire sport of Athletics which includes sprinting. It is interesting to note that during the acknowledged demise of successful American 5,000 through marathon competitors of the 1980’s and beyond the American sprinters, with the same non-club, school-based training systems and facilities in place, were highly successful on the world stage.
new yorker wrote:
This way High School teachers wouldn't be the coaches, unless they were actually qualified coaches.
Kids would have a consistent coach from starting at 11-12 (no jr. hs coach) until at least the time they graduated, and longer if they didn't go far away for school or if they were coach from a distance by the same coach.
The coach would be able to plan real continual progression and focus on the long term more.
I come from a country where we don´t have school sports. I coach in a fairly big club. The problem is that you can´t focus long term. I can´t tell a 12 year old kid that he won´t be very good for the next few years but if he follows my training he will be very good in his 20s. They have to have a fair amount of short term success, otherwise they´ll quit, so I have to do exactly what you accuse many HS coaches of doing: lots of intervals. Sound training principles doesn´t mean jack if you don´t have any runners.
fff wrote:
yes.
Scholarships and facilities make you successful. Michael Johnson on BBC said "we'd be horrible without the collegiate system." Even shitty colleges tend to have a better setup than most club athletes get in Britain.
So no, you'd be a lot worse.
D eli Smith wrote:
A question was raised at my lunch group a few days ago...
"What events transpired that allowed, enabled, or demanded the United States education system to seize control of, or be burdened with, the development of sport?"
Is it not obvious? If you were building an education system from scratch, you would sit down and ask yourself, what should our children be learning and doing in order to emerge as intelligent, productive, and socially well-adjusted adults?
Then you'd probably brainstorm a curriculum - math, science, philosophy, music, art, history, English, foreign languages, physical education, economics, etc. At the lower levels there is recess and even play time to aid in social development. It seems to me that sports teams are a natural progression from physical education and recess. The benefits of sport are well-known - it improves physical fitness, self-esteem, teamwork, work ethic, etc. One could make an argument that developing these traits is as important, or even moreso, than learning calculus or Spanish.
It is not the system that is the problem. It is the culture and lifestyle and food choices.
On the one hand, I don't think a club system would work in the U.S. unless it was resourced as well as the current high school and collegiate systems.
On the other hand, I think schools should get out of the business of sports. I am fine with having intramural competitions and physical education in schools. However, I think the focus in schools should be on education, not sports. So, no more massive stadiums, gyms, tracks, administrators, coaches, and lawyers making sure they are within the Title IX guidelines for every high school and college. Also, no more athletic scholarships, particularly for foreign runners. Why the heck should my tax dollars should go to educate a foreign student rather than a citizen of the U.S.? Take some the savings and focus it on actually educating students. What a concept.
Take the rest of the money and build community resourced athletic facilities. So rather than have multiple stadiums, tracks, etc. have just one or two. Let the coaches vie for jobs in a community centered program. Set and enforce standards of education, experience, performance, and morality. Also, I think getting on fewer teams would be much more competitive so you would have the talented and/or determined athletes on those community clubs.
Have competition among cities and communities which would foster local pride as well as press notice. I think you would end up with sufficiently resourced facilities, better coaches, better athletes and more community support.
Breeding is the only viable option
and it must be aggressive and excessive.
I think it's the college system that hurts. Back when there were a lot of Kenyans in the US college system they weren't dominant. Then, they went to the "homegrown" runners and their domination started.
I don't think most college coaches train for long term development. They train to maximize their talented runners for 4 years.
Plus, how many potentially great runners quit after HS because they didn't get a scholarship?
eurodonkey wrote:
25 years ago I would have said "yes", as we Brits were better than you. Right now, you are kicking our arses, so stick with what you've got.
Your system also provides a lot of employment and a career path for people who really want to coach professionally; most UK coaches are doing it solely for love and spending a lot of time away from family to do it.
I can second that!
The uk system is still better for non elite but good runners who have left college or for young athletes not going to college.
does this system keep the foreigners out,if so, I am for it!