Gun Slingers: Dave Smith vs Martin Smith

I know that D Smith is smart as F so that doesn't hurt at all.

Univ of Oklahoma
NATIONAL
2010 XC - 5th
2010 Outdoor - 27th
2010 Indoor - 14th
Average = 15th

CONFERENCE
2010 XC - 3rd
2010 Outdoor - 2nd
2010 Indoor - 1st
Average = 2nd


Oklahoma St
NATIONAL
2010 XC - 1
2010 Outdoor - 33rd
2010 Indoor - 60th
Average = 31st

CONFERENCE
2010 XC - 1st
2010 Outdoor - 9th
2010 Indoor - 11th
Average = 7th


Advantage.... University of Oklahoma

You are forgetting the Oklahoma State finished 17th on the womens side nationally this season while Oklahoma finished....well...they didnt actually finish!

No way that Martin would trade 27th and 14th in track for 1st in XC. NO WAY

Does anyone actually care about indoor track?

in summary:
Oklahoma State
focuses on cross country: gets best result possible
doesn't focus on track: doesn't do well

Oklahoma:
focuses on cross country: does well
focuses on track: does mediocre

so, when it comes down to it, OSU does an amazing job on things they focus on. OU does a mediocre to good job on things they focus on.

OU probably spends 2-3 scholarships on distance runners
OSU spends all of theirs on distance runners.

How is taking 12.6 scholarships and beating people with less considered great??

The only reason OSU wins is they out spend everyone else.

IF the OU football team had 10 scholarships and OSU had 80 it would be ridiculous, and everyone would be talking about it. It is that way in XC. IF Martin put 12 scholarships in distance it would be a different result.

---

FAT Nuts wrote:

OU probably spends 2-3 scholarships on distance runners
OSU spends all of theirs on distance runners.

How is taking 12.6 scholarships and beating people with less considered great??

The only reason OSU wins is they out spend everyone else.

IF the OU football team had 10 scholarships and OSU had 80 it would be ridiculous, and everyone would be talking about it. It is that way in XC. IF Martin put 12 scholarships in distance it would be a different result.

---

---

Truthiness II wrote:

You are forgetting the Oklahoma State finished 17th on the womens side nationally this season while Oklahoma finished....well...they didnt actually finish!

---

Dave Smith recruits better and spends more money on distance guys and doesn't have to field a Track team, just a cross country team\distance team. If you flip flopped their positions, not that Martin would want that, the results would be the same. The fact they call OK State's team a track team is a joke, don't believe me take a look http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-track/mtt/okst-m-track-mtt.html

So Dave drops all his scholarships on distance guys and Martin has to field an entire Track team. You tell me who's a better coach?

Dave Smith is the better coach.

They're both good coaches - they just have different priorities. It is definitely tougher to "succeed" having a broad progam (M.Smith), than a limited one (D.Smith), given the limitation on men's scholarships, but this should not devalue the contributions and success of either program.

That either one of these schools is so good is pretty amazing. Oklahoma is not a great place to recruit to. Let's see, Boulder with the mountains or Stillwater with, what? a mulch cross country course that has barriers to jump? Oklahoma is just not a place to want to go. So to be able to recruit so well to either one is impressive and then to coach to such great success, I tip my hat to both of those coaches. Not to mention OU was one of the worst D1 distance schools in the country just a few years ago.

Are you all out of your minds? Last time I checked if you want to talk about women's programs Martin has coached, I believe you need to bring up the fact that his Virginia women broke an NCAA record for the lowest score at nationals. It was some time ago, and Martin doesn't coach the women anymore. If he did, they would school OSU's european foreign legion on the women's side.

---

FAT Nuts wrote:

OU probably spends 2-3 scholarships on distance runners
OSU spends all of theirs on distance runners.

How is taking 12.6 scholarships and beating people with less considered great??

The only reason OSU wins is they out spend everyone else.

IF the OU football team had 10 scholarships and OSU had 80 it would be ridiculous, and everyone would be talking about it. It is that way in XC. IF Martin put 12 scholarships in distance it would be a different result.

---

Here is some constructive criticism:

Clay Mayes, stop posting threads like these on Letsrun.

I don't care about the OU/OSU pissing match, but I think there is a real issue here.

Given the way XC and track overlap for middle and distance runners and the way scholarships are limited, it does mean that being good at XC might cut against being good at sprints and field events or vice versa.

I wonder if this is a good argument for counting scholarships separately for XC and track, so that schools should be allowed 3 or 4 scholarships for XC and 8-10 for track (which would probably go to sprints and field events). I suppose given the way everything besides football and basketball is getting cut, this wouldn't be popular with athletic departments because of the extra cost, but it would seem more fair.

By the way, Martin is not coacher the pole vaulters and shot putters. They hire other coaches for that. Give this a few years to play out. Martin has rebuilt OU in a relatively short period of time.

---

FAT Nuts wrote:

OU probably spends 2-3 scholarships on distance runners
OSU spends all of theirs on distance runners.

How is taking 12.6 scholarships and beating people with less considered great??

The only reason OSU wins is they out spend everyone else.

IF the OU football team had 10 scholarships and OSU had 80 it would be ridiculous, and everyone would be talking about it. It is that way in XC. IF Martin put 12 scholarships in distance it would be a different result.

---