10 months not 10 weeks

Well, for William & Mary, we are very strong in distance but lacking a bit in jumps/hurdles/sprints. We didn't even win CAAs in track; I say play to your strength, if you are really good at sprints, track should be your season focus, if you're good at distance, peaking at cc time makes sense. Sure W&M has talented kids, but since Lane left our top guy finished 51st in the country, we're more of a depth team than a standout school.

not every person that qualifies for nc's in a distance event in a former f.l. finalist, i think his point is a

little more emphasis should be put on track performances when evaluating a coach. basically you're saying you guys play the numbers game in the fall... get a bunch of guys hammering and see if you can get to nats. while he/she is suggesting some individualized plans to develop talent across the whole year would be a better way to go and show

superior coaching.

Yeah, and the football team peaks for fall.

By some miracle, we still have 3 separate sports teams at most schools in which to be a distance runner. At least in theory, cross country is a separate sport. The fact that there?s crossover between scholarships and coaches is moot. If your school?s gonna fund a separate sport, it?s gotta perform in its own right.

Keep talking, and the AD?s will figure this out finally and cut out cross and indoor in their latest $ saving strategy.

Of course, a good cross country team doesn't come about because of 10 weeks work - anymore than a good track performance comes about because of 10 weeks work. It takes years of pretty heavy training to make anything significant happen in either season.

Still, one point I will concede, many athletes do better away from their coach than under the coach's direction. You can see some coaches screw up athletes by the week. For every week with the coach, the athlete's ability drops.