McMillan advocates cutting on HS XC teams

When people say they ran 500 miles for the summer, how many weeks are you talking about? Some schools start their summer in late May, but we are still competing until mid June and we don't start our summer training until the last week of June and find it difficult to get in over 60 miles a week from our 1st week of training to get in 500 miles in 8 weeks. How many weeks does York run over the summer to get in the 1000m club?

dont take away opportunities wrote:

Cutting kids because they don't do "voluntary" running during the summer is RIDICULOUS. What I have always loved about running is that you aren't dependant on anybody else. If you want to work a lot harder, you know you will get an opportunity to compete. If you don't work hard, you may not reach your potential, but you still get to compete and THE BEST TIMES WIN.

As said before, especially at smaller schools, it is too much to ask that kids forego band camp, family vacations, theater groups, and all the other things that make up a high school experience just so they are in great shape at the beginning of the season.

Those kids may be the hardest workers DURING the season, but have other interests when NOT in season.

It isn't hard to squeeze in a 30 min run and 10 min shower 4x a week.

is he an idiot?

ct coach wrote:

When people say they ran 500 miles for the summer, how many weeks are you talking about? Some schools start their summer in late May, but we are still competing until mid June and we don't start our summer training until the last week of June and find it difficult to get in over 60 miles a week from our 1st week of training to get in 500 miles in 8 weeks. How many weeks does York run over the summer to get in the 1000m club?

I don't think greenliner's around any more, or he could give a more definitive answer; but I believe York's 1000 Mile Club is based on something like ten weeks, rather than the thirteen weeks of June-July-August.

Greenliner's kids also ran 1200+ miles during one or two of their summers at York.

I agree with Cfelski here. Yes, kids who actively spread a bad attitude should not be allowed on the team, but a talented kid who doesn't do work over the summer is not necessarily a 'cancer' to the team; he or she might just be lazy with running on an individual level.

Now, three things will happen with this lazy runner who "only runs half the season" in the words of earlier posters:

1. They will not run well and continue to be a lazy runner, but they may still enjoy the experience and possibly contribute to the competitiveness of a weaker team. They may be a poor runner but maybe they are doing other important things in their life.

2. They will realize how important summer is and make changes on their own (with the support of a (hopefully) good coach). This is the scenario Cfelski mentioned.

3. They will be sufficiently talented to be very competitive despite the lack of summer miles. I'm guessing that this is the type that freaks out McMillan and other coaches. I think though that this type of runner can be a great learning experience for others - the playing field is just not as 'level' as we are lead to believe. This runner will likely become a type 2 in college or drop out of the sport (but may do well in other endeavors).

I ran for a top midwestern high school xc team. In the past ten years, we've had several top-3 state finishes, 1 state team title, 1 individual title, probably a dozen or more all-state runners, been to NTN twice, etc. We had over 100 kids (boys and girls) on the team every year, way less than half of whom did the assigned summer training (5 miles every day and 10 once a week). It would have been a completely different experience (and not in a good way) if we'd cut our team to the 25 or 30 who actually did the summer training. That's what Bill Arris does at fayetteville manlius--he runs it like a college program. I understand why he does that, but it's narrow minded. As other posters have mentioned, even the fat, slow, rebellious kid who never runs until the season starts will benefit from a good program. Maybe he won't go on to become a college athlete or an all-state runner, heck maybe he won't ever break 20 minutes, but he'll understand discipline, teamwork, leadership, etc. Those sorts of things can't be measured with a stopwatch or a running log.

We had a kid who came into the program as a chubby freshman who probably hadn't ran more than a mile in his life. He ran 30 or 31 minutes for our first 5k race. But he started working hard, and slowly got better. The next year he'd already gotten close to 20 minutes, the next, he was nearly under 18. His senior year he broke 17:00 and ran 4:25 in the mile. Go figure. He'd probably still be a chubby kid who'd never ran a mile in his life if we had mandatory cuts.

there are plenty of kids who want to run xc and compete but are still a bit sketchy-in-the-head; they're young and dumb, and are not organized enough to train like they should.

but they slowly come around as time goes on. maybe it clicks when they're a senior or when they turn 19 or 20. then they become the best runner they can be. then--later--they coach running for years and years...

oh, i'm talking about myself!

glad i didn't get cut.

I didn't run in the summer except for going into senior year. I broke all my school records, won a state championship title, went to nationals, made multiple Division 1 honors in college, and now run semi-professionally. Mcmillan is an idiot.

ljklajsdf wrote:

I didn't run in the summer except for going into senior year. I broke all my school records, won a state championship title, went to nationals, made multiple Division 1 honors in college, and now run semi-professionally. Mcmillan is an idiot.

And you appear to be an asshat as well. Congrats.

Our #3 runner never ran during the off-season. He ran in the 17-18:00 range. The one time he did run with me during the winter before track you know what he did? Beat my school record in the 1600m. Our 4th and 5th guys ran during the off-season...but sporadically. We did make it to semi-state as a team (in Indiana you qualify from sectionals to regionals to semi-state to state)...but we had 3 guys from 16:00-17:30 and that carried us.

My freshman and sophomore year our #3 and #5 runners were converted 400m/300m IH guys. They ended up breaking school records in the 4x4 the next track season because XC was basically their base training.

As far as cutting goes.....in 4 years I can not recall a time when we had MORE than 7 guys or 5 girls on the team. In fact my senior year we couldn't even get 5 guys. Small school, 400 students, but still. During my freshman and sophomore year we didn't have a full girls team.

Cross-country is the sport NO ONE wants to join....on the flipside EVERYONE wants to run track.

Alan

I'm all for making cuts for people that didn't do the work. I was on the fence one summer if I wanted to run or play hockey. I did my running but also put on about 15lbs for hockey and was 165 heading into August

Coach told me I did no good as a 17:00min runner, I'd need to be the 3/4 in the low 16:00's and not 7/8/9 with a bunch of kids aiming to be the 3/4/ themselves I wasn't allowed to race

I played hockey, they won state, my team went to Nationals and I ran with them 3x/week to keep fit on easy days. After I blew through my shoulder the next year he took me back and helped me get some $ for college and dropped me 20lbs over 6 weeks to get in shape for Penn and the 4*8

A coach shouldn't try to get "the best" out of his runners, in terms of times or placement. He should be a guide as to how to become a better runner, which is a much slower, MUCH more enjoyable, process, and might not look at all the same as running your absolute possible best at the State Meet. You can force kids to run with whatever philosophy you have: scream at them, give them candy, have some retarded 1000 mile club, I don't know. But that will not work for a sustained period of time, because they will reach a level of commitment and intensity that can only be rewarding for its own sake, and not any of the petty incentives you might come up with.

One of those incentives to run includes cutting kids who don't. Too many coaches try to make this sport something it is not, so that they can have some ego-boosting success in that they win a state championship, or get a kid a state record, or what have you. There is so much more to this sport than times, places, varsity letters, or any of that other superfluous crap people create to make the culture more competitive. Impress the kids with the things that really make a difference in this sport: hard work, commitment, camaraderie, and the times and places will reflect it. If you jump straight to milage, or cutting, or anything else, you are a totally obnoxious high school brat that thinks they can "engineer" a good runner. Runners find themselves; you don't make anyone into anything, and trying will just make you into an git that shouldn't be let near children.

Practice Varsity and JV separately, at least a few days a week, and you don't need cuts. In my experience (girls high school team), they will practice down to the lowest common denominator if you run them all together. They'll want to run with their friends, rather than runners of their same caliber. If you establish the varsity core, it gives the JV runners something to shoot for, and the varsity runners incentive to keep working hard because they want to protect their spot on the team. If you have JV runners who don't care much and are negative during practice, at least they aren't around the Varsity group enough to cause problems.

Another reason to keep JV separate, especially early in the season, is they need less running and more cross training. Otherwise they all have shin splints and can't run in the last few races of the season. You have to ease them into those miles.

My goal has always been to inspire these girls to stay in shape. Maybe my job would be easier if I made cuts, but I sure feel a whole lot better when I get some kid into shape who might otherwise go home after school and do nothing.

Coming from a AAA High School in Virginia with over 3000 students, we are one of the largest schools in the state. Relative to how large we are, we do not get very many runners. We probably have about 45 Boys and 35 Girls running this year (JV and Varsity included).

I understand why cuts may be necessary. On an extremely large team it makes sense to cut down the size of the team for a few reasons in my mind. 1) It makes the team more manageable and it's easier to give individual coaching with less people. 2) It allows the team to become more tightly knit and get to know everyone. 3) If everyone knows there are cuts, people will rise to the occasion and train in the offseason/pre-season so they can make the cuts.

Were it up to me, there'd be two time trials to determine the team. One Time Trial during the first week of practice that is maybe a 2 mile course? This is just to see what there is to work with. Eliminate the kids who are just way too slow and could hold the team back, and those who aren't willing to work. A second Time Trial should be held the week before your first meet for two reasons. 1) To determine your squads for the race and 2) To cut anybody who has been slacking in practice, etc.

I'm not saying the cuts should be ridiculous. You could have very lenient cuts, like a 27 minute 5K minimum to make the team. I've seen Cross Country teams put a runner in a race who ran a 57 minute 5K. Honestly, that had to be demoralizing for the kid to be running on the course, on his own for over 20 minutes.

I also agree that running practices with multiple groups works well. You can have people of different strengths running with people of equal strength so one group isn't slowed by the rest of the pack.

Speaking from personal experience, it can be extremely aggravating to lose to somebody who is raw talent but has poor work ethic. I spent 5 weeks building base, running 50 mile weeks in preparation for the season only to lose to two kids who didn't run at all and are just talented. It's frustrating.

Well, I guess that's the end of my rant. In summary, I agree with the idea of cuts. They don't have to be super fast or strict, but there are certain types of runners who just don't belong in my mind and until they change their fitness, attitude or whatever the issue is, they shouldn't be allowed to run. There's my 2 cents.

I read the article and I didnt see where he advocated cutting someone for not doing summer workouts. I think the point was that if the kid isn't putting out effort at practice, but still wants to come to races and such, the coach is just wasting his time.

You should have cuts. If it's a no cut sport then there's no value. It's like giving a product away, you devalue what you have so bad that no body will ever pay for it.

EZ10Miler wrote:

I read the article and I didnt see where he advocated cutting someone for not doing summer workouts.

"There's nothing worse for a high school coach than to have talented runners show up for fall practice having done of the necessary summer training. If you have a talented team that can afford to lose these athletes, then it's best to cut them from the team."

ljklajsdf wrote:

I didn't run in the summer except for going into senior year. I broke all my school records, won a state championship title, went to nationals, made multiple Division 1 honors in college, and now run semi-professionally. Mcmillan is an idiot.

Wasn't his book THE handbook for the worst period of distance running in American history?

He then goes on to say (paraphrased) that many teams can't afford to do this, and give alternative strategies to bring these kids up to where they should be by the end of the season. Further, he addresses the inclusion of "participants" onto the team (those who are likely not as talented or driven, but who like to participate) -- and does not advocate completely closing to door to them.

To me, the article was more about what it takes to have a competitive team, and if that is what your school/team wants to be, the kids need to know that it takes work.

The article needs to be read in its entirety, and in context.

I measure the success of a high school coach by how many of his runners continue running for their lifetime, not in how many meets his runner win.