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

arkansas has had a huge impact on the distance scene in the SEC. teams that used to be good in distance would put money into distance because they felt they had a chance to get legitimate points each year. but now, its seen as too risky to get distance runners (unless theyre FL finalist types) because arkansas will get the points anyhow. the coaches in the SEC are not concerned with developing distance runners, but with winning their conference meet. and myself running for a school in the SEC that has a non-distance head coach, i know firsthand how little these guys know about distance running and how they dont want to know about it either, but points are the key. we have less than 1 scholarship in distance running right now, but were holding our own with teams with half their scholarships in distance. and the FL guys arent gonna want to stay in the south when theres not an established program (exception: nc state, arkansas) and head coaches cant understand this many times. its a cycle that wont be broken until distance coaches get the head coaching jobs across the SEC, and thats not likely to happen widespread, so people might as well go outside of the south and find a "distance-friendly" school, i know i wish i had! then again, track is a different world...look at distance times and youll see the top 10 times of the SEC in distance are VERY comparable to ANY conference in the country, so its more in cross country that the SEC is lagging.

sec athlete, Great insight! I totally understand what you are saying. I ran in the SEC many years ago when XC was solid, but track, while tough, was not the dominant powerhouse it is now. It's good to see a young guy have his eyes wide open instead of the 'my conference is better no matter what' mentality. It is also easy to see why SEC coaches do things the way they do. Sprinters & jumpers are plentiful with little to no additional coaching necessary in many cases. Plus these guys are good for several events per meet while distance guys just can't be overworked, and even if good, you have Ark. to deal with. Good luck with your career.

back to the statements regarding money to distance, one big thing to remember is that many of the top schools in the nation in xc have very bad track programs, many of the sec schools use track money for track as opposed to distance/xc, with all of the money that schools like wisconsin and villanova put into track, it is very difficult to win national titles and certain conference titles relying on distance to provide you with points, there are of course exceptions to this with ark being a large one, but for the most part-the best "track" schools in the nation are not distance powerhouses, schools who take 12.6 scholarships and put that money into distance should be able to destroy a program that puts the money into various track events, using all of the track money for xc is like when miami used track scholarships to recruit additional football players, i am not saying that there is anything wrong with using money for xc, but just that schools who do this are at a very large advantage to more "track type" schools

adam tribble

Dawg,

You make alot of the same points I made earlier on in this discussion. The SEC is not as strong as the Big 10, Pac 10, Big East, Big 12 when it comes to CC (top to bottom of the conference), but the SEC dominates in Track and Field. This also includes the distance events, where an SEC athlete won the 800m, 3K steeple, and 5000m at the NCAA last year. The SEC does not focus on distance only. Again, a school that puts 12.6 or 18 into distance runners should be able to comfortably beat a team that has 1 or 2 in distance runners. No one is criticizing N.C. State, or Michigan, or Providence for not placing high at the NCAA meets in Track and Field. The top H.S. distance runners would rather choose a school where they can win a CC national title as a member of the team rather than go to a school that gives them a better chance to win one as a member of the track team. How many of your great coaches, when placed in the situation a number of the SEC distance coaches are faced with would get the same type of results. Development can only get you so far. Talent gets you on the trophy stand at the NCAA meet. Give the coaches at Fl or Auburn, or AL, or Georgia, or Tenn all 12.6 and 18 and my guess is that they would be top 10 every year at the NCAA CC meet. We are going to beat this dead horse forever, but the issue will never change. CC is almost over. Get ready for Track and Field and watch the SEC dominate

I'd like to bring up a different point. I think the depth in most conferences in general is being diluted by the superpowers. Programs like Stanford (especially ... duh), Colo, Wisc and Arkansas (plus a few others) are getting a higher percentage of top recruits than before. I think the superpowers of the big conferences are stronger and the rest of the teams are weaker. Any time a major conference is won with a score like 25 points, it's obviously not good for the rest of the conference. That didn't used to happen at Big Tens, Pac 10s, Big 12s or SEC.

The most balanced decent conferences, right now, seem to be the Big East and Big Sky. The third-place team from each of those conferences (Georgetown and Weber State?), for example, will very likely beat the No. 3s from the other conferences.

What do some of you think of this theory?

your theory makes sense. arkansas hasnt lost a conference meet since joining the SEC in cross country. when was stanford's last PAC-10 loss, or wisco's last BIG-10 loss? youre right that the balance is tipping, and thats partly due to the coaches building dynastys and people want to run at those particular schools where they have proven themselves over and over and over again. a team like alabama could eventually beat an arkansas, but ONLY with foreign help. the teams at the top are at the top b/c of coaching AND b/c their devotion to distance running as priority #1, aka 12.6 scholarships to distance. their track teams suck, but distance runners dont care about that as much as they care about getting top 10 as a team in cross or running a 14:10 or 13:40 or whatever...distance runners want to run fast, and whoever they think they will run fastest for, thats where theyre usually gonna go. sprinters/jumpers can do their thing pretty much anywhere, you cant teach a 10.0 (although techniques, etc can be) but you can coach someone from a 9:30 3200 in HS to a 13:50 5K in college. bottom line: wherever the money is is where you will find the best distance teams, esp. when the program is already established.

Everyone uses the arguement that you should be able to turn a 9:30 H.S. 3200m runner into a 13:50 College 5K runner so therefore there is no need for scholarships because the 9:30 guy will come for free. You may get one of these every 6 or 7 years, but this is not automatic even if you are a good coach and the kid is willing to work his butt off. Take a look at your guys in College who are running sub 14:00 for 5K or a comparable time in another distance event and the fact is that most of them ran in the low 9 min range in H.S. If you can coach a 9:30 H.S. 3200m runner to 14:20-14:30 you and he have done a great job. Being a great runner is not as simple as worker harder than anyone else. If it were that easy then everyone would be great. GENETICS has a great deal to do with it as well. There is an old saying, that you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. Those with talent already have a head start on those who are far less talented. A 9:00 3200m should be able to run low 14 min range if they have a solid career. Someone made the statement that SEC coaches should take 5 9:30 guys and make them All-Americans and then the head coach will give them $$$. Only 8 athletes per event make ALL-American in track. Look at the people over the past few years and see what their PRs were out of H.S. Bet they were alot faster than 9:30. Too many people on this message board live in a fantasy world that they could do a better job or that they could run a faster time. My recommendation is that you get into coaching and test out all your wisdom.

More backup for the Kenyan contingency theory on the SEC men's side.

--------------------------------

Track team inks a pair

From Staff Reports

Track and field head coach Wayne Norton announced the signing of two student-athletes Thursday. Kristin Heffelfinger of Marietta and Simon Ngata of Kiambu, Kenya, each signed letters of intent to study and compete at the University next year.

Heffelfinger, currently a senior at Walton High School, recently won the Georgia AAAAA state cross country title in her first season of competitive running. Heffelfinger bested the next runner by 27 seconds and led Walton to the team title as well.

Ngata (pronounced gah-tuh), currently a sophomore at Butler County Community College in El Dorado, Kan., is a two-time NJCAA Division I cross country national champion with a career best of 24:11 over eight kilometers.

insider,

you are indeed correct in saying it is a very small percentage of 9:30 guys that turn into 13:50 guys, but there ARE certain coaches and programs that have a tradition of turning them out, and i mean more than 1 every 6-7 years. yes, genetics has a great deal to do with it, but not everything. i was a 9:40 guy in HS and i have only run 14:46 thus far. but the colorado's and arkansas' and wisconsin's seem to have a guy that goes from about my HS time to all-american every other year or so. especially colorado and wisco. yes, they also have your sandforts and torres that were sub 9 guys and FL champs, but in the mix are the guys that were 4:30 guys and all of a sudden are AA at cross and 13:50's to 14:00's in track. those programs get more recognition and visibility in the first place probably because the fact that the torres/lockharts/spikers of the world attend and thats thier strength, but there are guys like colin steele/adam wallace/sean smith/mike friedburg, etc that are in the mix that were nowhere near the sub 9 guys in HS. and thats what runners see and want to be a part of.

so UGA is getting another kenyan? hmmm....

word on the street is that montana state is trying to get the kenyan hookup as well.

SEC athlete, Do you think some of the top programs develop more of these athletes because they do not feel pressure for them to achieve immediately. While the big dogs are out hunting, many of these guys, without pressure, are logging miles and quality in preparation for their turn in a few years. Less established programs feel a need to 'do something NOW', and may push this group too quickly retarding their long-term development. Just a theory to consider. What do you think?

i think that is a plausible theory, but there are many things to consider. for one, these guys can stay hidden for a little while behind the proverbial radar screen that others (such as lockhart, hall, sage...) just cant do b/c of their HS success. i think one of the main reasons for their rapid improvement is the fact they see what the best do each and every day and can see why that person is the best, and hence can model their own training directly after a much stronger runners methods. yes, the best have loads of talent, but they ALL work their asses off, and the 9:30 type guys see this and start to work their tails off too. this added to a coach that can guide them correctly will often provide that once mediocre runner a great foundation from which they can one season explode onto the scene and be mentioned in the same breath as the once big dogs, now near equals. there is definitly less pressure, but once one race is busted out, that same pressure gets focused upon the once mediocre runner, albeit still probably slightly less pressure. i think a lot of it has to do w/ exposure to training regimens geared towards mileage and a system that rewards hard work and does not punish it. by this i mean, for example, a coach has two guys to choose from to take to a meet, he could take the guy thats done 60-70 mpw all season, or a guy thats done 100-110 mpw all summer and season, i know many coaches that take the "hot-hand", but the best coaches, if each runner is fairly equal, take the runner that worked their tails off to show that they reward hard work and want others to follow the example. guys with talent can run 70 mpw and be great runners, but if they did more then they can be the best. mediocre runners can run 70 mpw and never be heard from, EVER, but if they get placed in the correct system where mileage and hard work are expounded by the coach, that runner has the potential to excel to the next level and show maybe a new kind of talent, the talent of handling lots of miles and racing at the same time, all while improving year in and year out and becoming someone people know of. (ex: mcardle, lincoln, wallace, etc etc)

Most of the time the better HS athletes are training fairly close to optimally.

It is more likely you'll find a 9:30 guy who's been undertrained and with a boost in training he joins the elite or passes them.