SEC-More photos and quotes from men and women coaches and athletes

This is not a cut, so relax, I am looking for other opinions from those who may follow the situation a little closer than me. Has the SEC become a weak conference in X-C, especially on the women's side? Of course, Arkansas and Alabama men are tough, but the rest of the conference? Will any of the women's teams or individuals make it to nationals? What has happened to some of the once proud programs? I am not looking for an argument. If anyone with some insight can clue me in, I would appreciate it.

Looking at SECs and ACCs, I think the argument could be made that college distance running in the South in general is behind, especially in major conferneces (but that isn't big news -- look how weak the South regional is).

But is the SEC any weaker than it has been in the past 12 years? I doubt it. Tennessee has rarely made a national impact aside from a few individuals (Cosey, Williams, Barnes, Morgan, etc.), and UGA, LSU, Ole Miss, and Florida have never been very good. Alabama has been up and down, and Auburn hasn't been worth a damn since the 1980s.

There just isn't a program in the deep south that is consistently taking 4:20/9:30 kids and consistently developing them into decent athletes, period -- if there was, they would be dominating the regional year-in, year-out. Small school Belmont has probably come the closest to developing good high school athletes this way, and before that Coach Rinker at Brevard.

Not sure what the factors are: perhaps it is pressure on SEC schools to only keep athletes with immediate scoring potential, or perhaps it is that so many southern states (especially Alabama, Miss., La., and S.C.) don't have a deep pool of good high school runners in the first place. Either way, the SEC is definitely pretty weak compared to other major conferences right now.

ATL's Finest, Thanks for the insight. You brought up some great points. The SEC used to do a decent job of grabbing midwest hs talent, but that has diminished as well, especially on the women's side. Do you agree?

I'm not as familiar on the women's side, but I haven't seen much that impresses me there either. In terms of bringing in midwest talent, I think the increased strength of the programs in the Midwest and in the the Great Lakes region makes that more of a stretch nowadays.

But again, I think the big factor is that head track coaches are really focusing on athletes who can score immediately at SECs instead of on development -- I guess that is the problem with having so many powerhouse track programs in the SEC. Why "waste" scholarships on developing distance runners from your home state when you can tap into the south's unreal sprint/jump talent and get SEC scorers as freshmen? And if the athlete can play football in the fall, all the better!

I know the approach for years at one major SEC program has been to bring in as many talented in-state distance runners as possible (using the cache of being the state's largest and most prestigious school.... no scholarships), and then run them into the ground. The strong -- typically one or maybe two good runners out of a recruiting class of 6-8 -- become decent runners and the others fall by the wayside. For years you could find more distance running talent in the bars on a Friday night than you could find on the school's cross teams.

Atl Finest,

The SEC may be a bit weaker in CC, but what is the story in Track and Field. The SEC dominates every other conference at the NCAA meet. Ark, Tenn, FL, AU, AL, LSU, Miss St, South Carolina, Georgia, and even Ole Miss are ranked in the top 15 and at times the top 10. That is 10 schools in the top 15 most years. Seems to me that the SEC is a Track conf and that most of the schools have head coaches who are not distance oriented so there is not as much scholarship $$$ in the distance events at say N.C. State, Stanford, Notre Dame, Michigan, Providence, William and Mary, etc. Kids today go where they get $$$$ most of the time. I know that coaches choose to put their money into certain areas, but if all schools put exactly the same amount of $$$ into CC (which will never happen) you would see this trend change to some degree. A school that puts 9 scholarships into distance should have a major advantage over a school that puts 1 or 2. Where are the super power CC schools come track season. They are scoring 5 or 6 points at the NCAA meet, with the exception of Stanford.

Insider:

That was one of my biggest points: that being a track powerhouse conference in a geographic region full of nationally ranked high school sprinters and jumpers (and mediocre distance runners) makes it very hard for distance running development to be a priority at SEC programs. I should have spelled it out more clearly, I guess. No one can dog the SEC for its track performances.

But what I think most coaches are missing is that the first major or mid-major program in the deep south to make a commitment (in terms of scholarships, funding, AND coaching) to DEVELOPING distance runners will reap some serious rewards in XC and in track because the region is so weak. For instance, this is supposed to be an off-year for N.C. State, and they scored 17 points at ACCs.

I think the talent is making it to SEC campuses, but is not being developed at many SEC schools for a variety of factors.

BB

You reinforced my thinking. Such a track power, you'd think there would be at least some carryover in terms of striving for excellence in XC. Some of the programs were solid such as Tennessee, Florida, & Kentucky (especially women), not now three are terrible. Will the women even send a single representative to nationals? I saw results of the SEC and top 10 finishers were barely breaking 6:00 pace. That's not even a good high school state meet is it? Do you think that many of the men's programs have given up on trying to approach Arkansas and just try to load up on the track and give Ark. those distance points which they were getting the majority of anyway? I'm trying to figure this decline out, so keep the anlysis coming. Thanks in advance.

Good hypothesis on Arkansas. Initially one would assume that it would raise the level of competition, but due to the nature of scholarships and the "integration" of track and XC, it appears that head track coaches have given up on what were once valuable points at SECs, especially on the men's side.

I.E. if Arkansas can triple their 4-5 distance studs and take home 75% of all distance points each year at conference, why should programs try to invest in distance running? So suddenly track scholarships in the SEC don't go to distance runners unless they are national caliber when they come out of H.S. Wonder if NC State has the same effect on the ACC. Georgia is the same way on the weight side.

Things someone with more time than me could look into:

--How have other programs done since Arkansas joined in the early 1990s? Have non-Arkansas distance running times improved in track? Have non-Ark. XC natls places improved?

--How many FL South finalists have "stayed home" in the south or gone outside the region for college?

--How many FL finalists from other regions have come south?

You may have saw results but were you actually in the damn race. how can you base cc country times on anything if you werent there and you werent running the damn course.

you cant even begin to judge the womans results because you dont even know!!

What are you talking about? Please read the posts above before you reply with your gibberish. I don't think anyone has specifically referenced times from this year's meet, just an overall decline in the depth of the SEC in the past 10 years.

Atl Finest,

I think that rather than duck Ark and concede the points to them it is quite simply the fact that most of the head coaches are not distance coaches. Ark gives away points in other areas such as the sprints and throws, while going heavy in the jumps and distance events. Pat Henry (LSU), Ralph Spry (Auburn), Curtis Frye (S.C.), Bill Webb (Tenn), Joe Walker (Ole Miss), Wayne Norton (Georgia), Sandy Fowler (Bama), Mike Holloway (FL) are not distance coaches and choose to divide scholarships differently. Harvey Glance has given scholarships to Joe Walker Jr at Alabama and he has gone out and gotten three Kenyans. The SEC is toughest in events from 800m down. Kentucky has choosen to get mid distance runners. Auburn has been strong in the 800m up until last year and had Fred Sharpe last year (4th at Indoor NC), and Tenn and Florida had a handful of studs there as well. S.C., Miss State have been affected by Title IX and S.C. just recruits 800m and down, with Otukile doing a fabulous job representing the SEC. These mid distance runners can go 1-4 at the NCs, but most of these guys are not CC oriented. There are some great distance coaches in the SEC, with Jeff Pigg (new), George Watts, J.J. Clark, Mark Elliott, Don Weber, Chris Fox (new), Dan Watters (fairly new) who are great recruiters and can develop talent and coach talent, but if you can't offer scholarships then you can't get the FL finalist. The old saying that money talks and B.S. walks is never more true.

The other side of this debate is that if the distance oriented schools choose to put all their money into distance runners, why are they not getting more of their athletes to NCs in track and why are they not finishing in the top 20 each and every year. Are they putting all their emphasis on CC and their runners cannot sustain that intensity throughout the year? You can debate issues like this for years to come. Without looking at specific scholarship figures you can only speculate, but it is safe to speculate that the top 15-20 teams in the NCAA CC rankings have the majority of their money in long distance runners (which is their right) and the SEC schools minus a few have the majority of their money in non distance events. Just some food for thought. Until distance coaches get jobs as head coaches in the SEC the trend will continue. Walk-ons for the most part cannot run with the top talent in Div I CC, with the rare exception being a Dan Lincoln (not a walk-on anymore) for example.

Insider:

Good points. Let me digest all this and respond later. Hopefully some other SEC athletes will jump in the debate. Would love to get their perspective.

One thought is that the Alabama example reinforces my point about a lack of development: Walker went and got Kenyans (instant points) instead of FL finalists or southern state champions (eventual points and seriously credibility with top runners and HS coaches in the region).

Another is that I still think a lot of these schools get in serious walk-on talent but don't develop it correctly.

BB

As an "ancient" pseudo-SEC athlete (i.e., I ran for Vanderbilt before they dissolved the men's track program in the 80's), I had a few thoughts. First, Arkansas hasn't been in the SEC all that long - I don't find that a valid argument for a dearth in distance running that predates their addition to the conference.

Second, the "few studs" folks are referring to in recent years are not in keeping with what Auburn, Tennessee, and sometimes Florida had 10 or more years ago. But they aren't doing it now. Now, as I remember Auburn's heyday, their studs came from all over the country - New York, Chicago, the south, out west. Ditto Tennessee.

Culturally, I recall that in the South, high school track was something to keep the football players out of trouble in the spring. The distance runners were viewed as "how nice that them skinny boys got a hobby."

Hey alright, another Vandy runner! I am a current Vandy cross country runner, and without a track team it makes it somewhat easier for us to focus on something none of the SEC schools has, which is distance running. Now, we're not even that good right now, but we're slowly building a program to be proud of here. All of this without a track team and without scholarships. I think that to be a good cross country team in the South it requires a coach who is less involved in his track team than most of these coaches are. They are primarily worried about recruiting sprinters and field specialists to put themselves quickly on par with the other schools in the South. As a result, this invariably hurts their distance programs. Take a look at Arkansas: a school that consistently has a great track team without any really awesome sprinters. Developing distance running takes more time than sprinting (partially because sprinting is so dependent on genetics, whereas distance is more on actual hard work). Not much is going to happen in the near future to change this, it seems. It's looking like the only two schools in the SEC whose primary concern is distance running (within their track/cross programs, of course) are Arkansas and Vandy. I am most definately not saying that we are on the same ability level as Arkansas, but we're working hard on getting better.

Sorry, that second sentence should read "nobody in the SEC except for Arkansas has"

Idealist,

I understand your point, but the whole theme of the discussion is that the Auburn's, Tenn's, and FL's have shifted their focus to the track and to sprints and field events. Where did Auburn finish in Track at the NCAA level when they had better distance teams? Under Spry they have been a top 10 team almost every year, with a 3rd and 4th place showings in successive years. Tenn won some recent titles with Gatlin, Scott, and field events (throw in Jebreh Harris and Marc Sylvester). There are more than just a few studs in the SEC from 800m - 10K. It took 1:49 to make the SEC final last year. That time would win most conferences. The SEC won the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, steeple, 5K, plus 4 x 100m and 4 x 400m at the NCAA meet last year. The SEC is dominant across the board, however, its schools do not have the depth they had back in the days of Huntsman, Webb (FL), and Musca (Auburn), but these coaches had scholarships to put in distance runners. You have good coaches, who can recruit and coach, but without scholarships you cannot be a force year in and year out. When has a team of walk-ons or low end scholarship athletes made it NCAAs. More than likely never. It is alot like professional sports in that the big payroll teams win the majority of the titles and every once in awhile a team like Anaheim sneaks in for a win.

Something for you to read if you are so big on xc times. Here are the times for Auburn and kentucky in the last 5k they ran. Compare them to the winner of the big ten. Auburn- 17:05,17:12,17:43,17:43,17:53-- Kentucky-17:07, 17:11,17:43,17:52,18:01, the course was measured after the race and it was a full 5k, now for the so called power conference winner BIG TEN- michigan 17:47,17:49,18:09,18:12,18:15, so if you think that the times in a xc race are so important, then kentucky and auburn would have won the big ten. If you look at Ark. they are ranked 9th and they could only put 2 runners in the top 10, so the race couldnt have been so bad.

You can't compare different courses equally. Big 10 is WAY better than the SEC on the women's side... now AND historically.

I did not want this to become an 'our conference is better' post, I just wondered what happened to the quality of the SEC. Obviously the course you quote was quite short as the athletes you mentioned never approached anywhere near those times on another course. I have seen those teams and there is not much to crow about, especially compared to the old SEC UT, UF, AU, and others. This is fact to anyone who has seen the SEC in the past and present, not opinion. XC is not about times, but the quality is WAY down, particularly women, and I was wondering why. A few have given some great insight, thanks!!