Why is Colorado so good?

the disparity in cross country is like no other sport in the NCAA. There are no cross country scholarships. Ask yourself why. I don't really know why, but there must be a reason.

They are track and field scholarships that are used in a totally separate season in a sport that is similar for one portion of the track and field population. That is a unique circumstance that can lead to disparity.

It would be like having a free throw championship in the fall using basketball scholarships and creating a "new sport."

Sure you could get plenty of guys who could shoot near 100% from the free throw line and win the free throw championship. Problem is they can't dribble, pass, jump, or play defenses. Your basketball team with basketball scholarships would suck, but you'd have a good free throw team.

Sounds ridiculous right? But cross country can and does do that given the way the sports are set up. So the Providences, Portlands, Oklahoma States, Boston Colleges of the world are playing a different game than the Texas, Ohio State, Nebraskas and Arizona States of the world of the college track and field world. (just as LSU and S. Carolina et al do in reverse by spending almost zero on distance runners. You'd never see a football team spend 90% of its scholarships on offensive line men.)

It is what it is. But there is disparity. I don't know if it is unfair, but it is unequal. It is choice and it is allowed.

Maybe the answer is to create cross country scholarships and eliminate the 3k, SC, 5k and 10k from track meets, and not allow any cross over of athletes.

I agree with you that the schools are making a choice as to where to place their bets. I even understand why, say a U. Portland, emphasizes cross country - as they don't have a track facility nor do they compete in a conference. What would be the point, really?

The difference, however, is that when it comes to cross country (and cross country alone), schools can place their resources in cross country and clean up. What other collegiate sport allows for this advantage? Probably close to 90% percent of the teams that CU competes against in cross country spend less than the Buffs on distance scholarships. If this was football or basketball or any other sport for this matter, coaches and fans would cry foul. Would CU be expected to play competively with UCLA in football if the Buffs had only 20 scholarships and UCLA had 88? No way.

When the NCAA meet is finished, you'll be able to draw a direct comparison with money spent on scholarships and top ten placing (for both the men and women). It won't be a true reflection on who the best coaches are - just the ones who have the good fortune of having lots of money to entice top talent.

This takes nothing away from the fact that Wetmore is an amazing coach and his athletes are dedicated, talented and hard working. This cannot be replaced. If all things were equal, he probably still wins.

The Buff's football team is sorry this year. Bigtime!

I can tell you not all of the scholarships are tied up in distance. In fact they spend quite a few scholarships (pretty much even) on other events Multis/sprinters/throwers

They vote on the NCAA Coach of the Year but it should probably go every year to the highest finishing team with the least amount of money in distance runners.

Cause Wetmore is the greatest coach in our sport? Look at their PR's from high school take out Moussa and these kids dont break 9:10. Wacker ran 9:20 in high school and he was running with lenny korir last week who is a 27:mid 10k guy, and national championship contender. He doesn't recruit kids to go to his school kids recruit themselves to go there... thats why you see these schools with guys who have amazing PR's from highschool go somewhere and suck. Cause the coach blows them the entire time, Wetmore gets kids who worked their tail off to get there and begged to be on the team, therefore no egos on the team no racing in practice working as a team just like in races how his best teams run in packs through the field. He doesn't suck off kids like everyone who goes to these schools and thinks they were the shit in highschool so they get what they want. He is a helluva coach but it is also the mentality he has and instills.

T&F Coach wrote:

One simple forumula: 115-130mpw year-in, year-out.

B.S. There's no way more than a few guys at CU are doing 115-130 miles a week. Especially "year-in, year-out."

Can we start talking about WORKOUTS? It's great that CU has hard working kids, etc etc, but what workouts do they do? Anyone want to comment? I'm sure it's substantially different than the RWTB days.

Although the delivery was slightly abrasive, the message is 100% spot on.

Just from hearing him speak, it seems as if they are tapering a bit more than they may have been in the past for big races. I heard him talking about cutting his guys down to 5 and 6 miles a day compared to the 10 or so leading up to a big race. I'm sure their volume during a normal training week is very similar to how it was in RWTB.

RWTB

Mon: On your own 8 to 10 Easy Miles w/ strides

Tues: Mile Repeats/Fartlek/Lactate Threshold

Wed: Moderate Tempo Run 13 to 15 Miles

Thur: 8 to 12 Easy Mileage and Strides

Fri: Neuromuscular 20-24X300/Time Trial/or travel before race

Sat: Race or 8 to 12 Easy miles

Sun: Mags Long 15 to 20 Miles

This is what a week might look like in RWTB. I honestly couldn't say whether it has changed much from that...seems to make sense.

Andersonz wrote:

What kind of training style does coach Mark Wetmore have his Colorado athletes do? Are they mielage based? Do they do much speed? Is it all about altitude? What is their secret to success?

Look at this PAC-12 video. Colorado's 2, 3, and 4th runners are realling hurting at the end. #2 almost fall, #3 and #4 do fall to the ground, actually they almost don't make it to the finish. Looking at this Colorado maybe in trouble with 1.2 more miles to run.

oldoldrunner wrote:

Look at this PAC-12 video. Colorado's 2, 3, and 4th runners are realling hurting at the end. #2 almost fall, #3 and #4 do fall to the ground, actually they almost don't make it to the finish. Looking at this Colorado maybe in trouble with 1.2 more miles to run.

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/240352-PAC-12-Cross-Country-Championships-2011/video/512321-Mens-Pac-12-XC-2011-Race-Highlights

Do you honestly think that they're stuggling b/c they're having trouble covering the distance?

News Flash, they're more than capable of covering 10,000m just fine. They were racing, hard for that matter, and had to do some serious work over the 2nd half of the race to catch Oregon and Stanford who went pretty hard from the gun. The step up to 10,000m will not be an issue, espcially not from a fitness perspective, as you make it out to be.

Voice of Reason wrote:

eggs 2.0 wrote:

... #2 The majority of the CU scholarship budget goes into distance runners. In no other sponsored collegiate sport does such an unfair disparity exist. ...

Why is this an "unfair disparity"? It is simply a choice of what they want to emphasize. The downside for these schools, as you noted, is the lack of balance on the track.

Is it "unfair" that other universities focus on providing scholarships to athletes can can run multiple track and/or field events at the expense of their distance programs? Not at all. That is just the way they choose to play the game. Some schools, like Arkansas, have been able to have great success at both. Not many can.

How many NCAA champions does CU have in track? Are they really suffering that much?

1. Talent

2 hard work

3. Wetmore

4. Lydiard training ESP long singles

5. Altitude

6. Great area to run in

7. Peak timing

Ralphie wrote:

1. Talent

2 hard work

3. Wetmore

4. Lydiard training ESP long singles

5. Altitude

6. Great area to run in

7. Peak timing

That is one of the most important things. They got 85-90 on singles, because he does not believe in doubles if you are running less than that amount of mileage.

Wetmore = God wrote:

Ralphie wrote:

1. Talent

2 hard work

3. Wetmore

4. Lydiard training ESP long singles

5. Altitude

6. Great area to run in

7. Peak timing

That is one of the most important things. They got 85-90 on singles, because he does not believe in doubles if you are running less than that amount of mileage.

Ummm, shouldn't Colorado natives dominate USA distance running? The way the Nandi tribe dominates Kenyan running.

Shouldn't kids born & raised at altitude dominate Footlocker?

Colorado has 6 girls team ranked in the top 32 in the US right now. New York and California have 7 combined. Yep Colorado has been sucking in XC.

Oh and the 5 years or so in a row that saw 4 CO boys make footlocker finals. You actually could make a strong argument that per capita, CO is dominating HS distance running.

God of Letsrun wrote:

StatingObvious wrote:

Read "Running with the Buffaloes". Wetmore's program is laid out pretty plainly there.

the program where every runner is injured in the end and one guy even loses his life

Really? Worst quip of the century.

They're good for many of the same reasons that Wisco and OK are good.

What seems to be different about CU and Wetmore is the synergy and the legacy.

Colorado is doing more or less the same workouts as everyone else, intervals, long runs and high milage, there's really no secrets there. They're also getting about the same amount of talent, roughly, depending on the year.

But I think it has a lot to do with the athletes being so proud to be there and believing in Wetmore and his program to the extent that they do. There's a lot of legacy there and it means a lot to run there.