Lost all respect for BAIRU and SOLINSKY

What'd they say? From my cell, I didn't see any postings.

Balloonheadpatrol wrote:

Here is the article that is currently posted. Apparently there was a Jerry quote in there that was removed but no one has produced it yet.

http://www.flotrack.org/article/9106-Wisconsin-Cross-Country-A-Study-In-Pressure

Ever think that Craven might have not realized that the quote, whatever it was, was offensive? Could have avoided this debacle, I hope Simon's words are the quote of the day tomorrow, then watch him back pedal.

The quote that was deleted in my opinion really has nothing to do with the controversy that is brewing about what in my opinion is a very well written article.

The quote Craven had in there really had little to do with the overall gist of the article and pretty much nothing to do with anything that would upset the Wisco guys in my opinion. It might upset other coaches but not the Wisco guys.

It was something talking about how Schumacher, who apparently doesn't drink, didn't like to drink with other coaches. According to trackfocus.com, it was along the lines of Schumacher doesn't “need to waste my time with the rest of those delinquent coaches”.

I was reluctant to put out the quote that they clearly wanted deleted but but since it seems to be the dominant topic on two different messageboard threads, I wanted to get that out there as it's really beside the point but everyone is acting like it was the key point of the article.

Now that that's out there. I wanted to put out a few of my own observations (Disclaimer, Craven, once covered an NCAA meet for LetsRun.com (although I'm not sure I've ever met him)).

1) I thought the piece by Craven was very well written and raised some interesting topics for discussion. It's unfortunate that in today's society that nothing can be nuanced any more. If you say anything mildly critical, you are ripping someone.

Craven's piece to me does a great job of getting to the essence of Mick Byrne and the difference between Byrne and Schumacher. I used to run into Mick a great deal when he was at Iona. He also seemed to like us as one of the first interviews we ever did at LetsRun.com was with Iona back when they first broke onto the scene (if someone can find that interview on google, please email me the link as I can't find it).

Anyway, I remember talking to Byrne one year at IC4as outdoors when I first started at Cornell. I remember talking to him about how I was having trouble motivating one of my stars. The kid just didn't seem to have the fire that he once had and wasn't motivated to really go after it and train like an animal like he once did. As a result, I was trying to go by the guy's house on my own run each morning to get him out for morning runs but it wasn't really working.

He stopped me when I told him this and said, "Robert, let me give you some very important advice. You can't want it more than your athletes."

It was very hard for me to accept that at the time. I was young, idealistic and had notions of setting the world on fire with my runners like Lydiard did with his boys in the 1960s. I think I responded by telling him, "But this kid is the real deal."

Mick wasn't phased by my response at all. I think he repeated the initial statement and told me that he was serious. I couldn't make a kid want to train like an animal.

He also responding by telling me that a guy who was a no-name mid-d guy at IC4as was the most talented middle distance runner he had ever coached but he didn't have the fire.

Some may not see how this is related to Craven's piece but it is in my mind. First of all, Mick is older and has more perspective. Also Mick realizes there is only so much you can do as a coach and it's not the end of the world (at least his world) if an athlete doesn't maximize the gift as it's only running after all.

As a young coach who really wanted it, I can tell you that without a doubt the kids on the team can sense that and can sense your nerves. It's almost too important to you and your athletes can sense that.

Similarly, Craven's article makes it clear to me that the guys at Wisco could sense the nerves that Schumacher had each year at NCAAs.

Now that being said, I'm not sure that's always a bad thing. Some of the kids on the Cornell team early in my career said they like having me talk to them at a big meet because it was clear I was so nervous that it calmed them down in comparison.

2) My second point is there is nothing wrong with being 'uptight' like Schumacher is described in the article. His desire to be focused produced amazing results at Wisco (along with a few blown titles) and even greater success post-collegiately.

One of the hardest things about being a college coach is that you have to accept your guys aren't professionals, they aren't robots - they are college students - but there also is little doubt that they would be better runners if they were robots.

In the year 2011, can runners be truly elite and run 12:50 and 26:50 without being 100% focused and 100% all in on EVERYTHING - diet, nutrition, altitude, drinking (or lack thereof)? Many would argue no.

This isn't the 1970s where some lived a balanced live on the circuit. Maybe it's possible but many would argue that you'll lose out to a Rupp or Solinsky who are seemingly all in on nearly everything.

Schumacher wasn't content to have guys be 'average' and run 13:25 and struggle through a Wisconsin winter. He wanted the very best talent, the very best resources and he got that at Nike. I'm not sure if Mick would be happy in that type of environment.

Mick's style is apparently more relaxed and probably works better on race day in Terre Haute. But does it result in better absolute performance for the truly elite?

I could easily argue no but don't think that's really my point.

My point is both trains of thought work. One might be better suited for a college team, one might be better suited for the pros.

Nick Saban is better suited for college than the Pros - that doesn't mean one is better than the other. It's just a fact.

In college, it's often more about amassing superior talent and making sure they don't blow it (either on race day by choking or leading it to it by a lazy lifestyle or injury).

In the pros, it's hard to amass superior talent so it's more about being all in, doing everything totally right and peaking when it matters most.

3) I far too often think people jump to conclusions from a limited set of data points. If Wiso does or doesn't win on Monday, that shouldn't lead to people immediately judging one system as being better than the other.

Being relaxed at meets in my opinion is very important and I've had an NCAA qualifiers eat ice cream the day before NCAAs. That being said, I don't believe it's optimal for an athlete to do that (I used to forbid Weldon from eating Ice Cream before a big meet) but different things work for different people. My ice cream eater was a competitor, big picture guy. I never talked diet with him before so why would I change before NCAAs.

That being said, my first year at Cornell a bunch of seniors actually went trick or treating at the team hotel the night before conference. No joke. I thought it was the dumbest thing ever - didn't say anything though as I didn't want to make them uptight - and they ran terrible the next day.

Sometimes letting the boys be boys works, sometimes it doesn't.

Sometimes chilling works. Sometimes being uptight works. It depends on the situation and team.

Different teams, different situations, different results. Let's don't judge too harshly off a limited set of data points.

bump

at the end of the day, Bairu is still canadian. That must blow.

i would love to see who would win a race between Jerry's 2005/2006 group or Mick's current group.

My vote goes to the latter

Just taking 1 item you mentioned: I agree it is RIDICULOUS that any opinion not quite mainstream, is often subject to relentless scrutiny & criticism on that person. Completely contrary to much of what this country's built on.

Utrey wrote:

Well that certainly was a thread killer.

Hey, I thought it was pretty interesting.

(There's always a first time for everything)

I have to agree with the OP. One little thing was said about their coach and they go berserk. I read the original article with the "evil" quote in it and it didn't make me think anything better or worse about Jerry. I happen to know other coaches who think they know what's best and don't like to mingle with other coaches as well. Also, I read it as Jerry kind of said it jokingly. And who cares if he didn't, there are so many cocky people out there; this doesn't make him sound that cocky anyways. Also, if he thinks he's the best, who the hell cares. It won't change how he coaches.

And, Ryan Craven, no need to apologize. What you said was fine. People are too sensitive about this.

Cravens piece is exactly the journalism people need. All too often track writers are too nice. They don't flame people in public. The flaming happens from the annonimity of ones computer. All other big sports have critical journalists. While Simon and Chris can disagree they should not take it as personal as they did. Craven is entitled to an opinion which he freely expressed.

Relax guys, Bairu and Solinsky are in a heavy training phase and are just going through some roid rage.

No-one should care about Bairu. Bairu is a step below Solinsky, who is a step below Rupp as of late. Rupp BARELY matters on the international scene, so Bairu is completely unimportant. Maybe I'll pay attention to him when he breaks 27.

rojo wrote:1) I thought the piece by Craven was very well written and raised some interesting topics for discussion.

As a non-american I can confirm that, out of your cultural context, the article came a cross as a bit weak on the "stating my hypothesis" side. But it was interesting to read and I did NOT understand the controversity that let me clicking the link to the article.

I read the article. Then I reflected coaches that I experienced. Was interesting to see it from that perspective.

Bang on, rojo. Craven writes a great piece from an athlete's perspective. Every coach has their styles, strengths, and weaknesses. Coaching is an art, requiring balance between passion and perspective. Solinsky is doing himself no favors with the facebook bashing. He of all people should have perspective on wanting it too badly, given his senior NCAA XC finish. Every runner knows how he must have felt, and no one would question his desire. Unfortunately, you might question his maturity or judgement with his statements about Rupp (US champs), his DNF (and reaction) after being bumped in golden league 5000, and now this. This should be one of those "teachable moments". (Ahem, Jerry?)

The Solinsky and Bairu responses are making this more of a controversy than it was. Maybe the portland crew has other beef with Craven and this piece was a representation of a larger chasm between two badger groups, but the actual content of the article was nothing to be upset about.

College XC team culture is the most ignored part of running on LRC, and it is extremely important. Many successful programs have sub optimal training philosophies but succeed on great team cultures and large numbers of athletes.

Thanks for your response, Rojo, some great insight.

So Fine Like A Cheesehead wrote:

Cravens piece is exactly the journalism people need. All too often track writers are too nice. They don't flame people in public. The flaming happens from the annonimity of ones computer. All other big sports have critical journalists. While Simon and Chris can disagree they should not take it as personal as they did. Craven is entitled to an opinion which he freely expressed.

I agree with this as a track JOURNALIST, but if Craven is supposedly an Assistant Coach at Wisconsin, then it is horribly unprofessional to throw one of Wisconsin's own legendary coaches (a guy who also was a great athlete at Wisconsin in his day) under the bus like that. Jerry has done nothing harmful to the University of Wisconsin. I never like the argument that a team "lost" a title... another team won it. No one is handed a trophy at this level, trophies are only earned.

Craven should have decided whether he wants to be a coach or a journalist. By reading the article, he has chosen to be the latter. A coach represents the school, the program, and his athletes. Craven should know better. A more experienced coach would be fired for writing such an editorial piece blasting a great former coach of their own program. Mick should reprimand him and demand that he rescind the article, at the very least.

Chill out man. It was hardly "blasting". Everyone is so touchy these days.

I think it was the same laid back relaxed atmosphere that lost craven a state championship....a schumacher coached athlete would never let up and celebrate like that.

http://cougarrunning.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/steve20finley3.jpg

He was an assistant coach only for the 2010 season. He lives and works in Austin. He has been providing updates on the team for flotrack all season.

I didn't look at letsrun yesterday till last night, and was surprised to see there is finally some action prior to the XC meeting coming up Monday. Goodie goodie!

I don't know Ryan Craven, don't know anything about him, and didn't have any prior impressions about him at all. This being said, he wrote a very good article about the comparisons between the two coaches, that I feel was right on the mark. Good for you, Ryan Craven. Really I felt the piece was obvious, even to me who has never had any contact with either coach or their programs. It is strange to me that anyone would get upset about such a milktoast and obviously truthful article.

I don't know anything about Schumaker either, but do have some very strong impressions of him, that I have formed solely on my own, again without having any connections to him or his programs.

First of all, Schumaker lives in a box. He doesn't give any interviews. I've never seen the guy anywhere and don't know what he looks like, not that it matters. But it does show that he is very secretive, don't like sharing, doesn't know people knowing what he's doing, what his program is doing, and therefore very tight-lipped, stressed out, insecure, probably paranoid, and controlling, some of this being obvious and some being my impressions, you pick which is which. Summing up this all leads me to think something is wrong with him, and something is wrong with the program that comes from him. I don't even know the guy, and yet I don't trust him. And for all of those reasons, I don't like the guy either.

The way that Solinsky, and especially Bairu have responded, again reaffirms my own personal impressions of Schumaker and his program, that have nothing to do with Ryan Craven's article. What is really ironic is that the Schu group aren't even involved with the NCAA anymore, and yet they are creating this uproar before the NCAA cross country meet.