Men of Oregon and Cross Country

sc runner wrote:

Doesn't xc have 12.6 scholarships separate from the track and field team? Maybe their new coach isn't as good as Lanana?

No, the 12.6 are for Indoor/Outdoor Track and Field and Cross Country.

Here's the deal. The coaching is important but way overrated in maintaining a cross country dominance. Oregon at 20th place is pathetic. Its an off year or just a bad day. IT happens.

Look at Stanford. They have a long tradition of blowing it from time to time with all the talent they have.

They have their work cut out to build a top 5 team. I wonder if all those alums can shut up about that or whatever got rid of Martin Smith other than not sucking up to the Oregon tradition and not using that more to his advantage and being more accomodating. Martin's last team at Oregon was a joke in cross country. I remember a 33:00 guy on the varstity his last year. But they were competitive in the PAC 10 and NCAA's in Track.

Maybe its the same thing going on right now. Or just a bad meet for the team and that happens.

Their recruits in the last 2-3 years aren't getting it done. They had their little run when they got rid of Smith (who knew from the get-go he couldn't beat Stanford in distance recruiting) and got the golden boy in there and the lemmings flocked.

The only program in the last 30 years that have always maintained year in and year out is Wisconsin. 13th to 17th place at NCAA Cross is a debacle for a team like Oregon, Arkansas, or Wisconsin. Different conferences different dynamics. And Wisconsin will never compete for NCAA track titles (although they did win an Indoor title relatively recently).

The pull of long time successfull traditional programs doesn't get it alone. If Oregon has one more year out of the top 10 in NCAA cross they will not recruit well for 3-5 years unless another Galen Rupp record phenom in Oregon comes along.

Before the season began it looked like Oregon might not even qualify for nationals. Dunbar had an off day, probably costed them 25 points, but honestly, it all comes down to Stinson being almost dead last. Stinson cost them a bajillion points. Oregon really didn't run that bad for the squad they had. It was mostly one really, really, really off day by one kid. Not sure it deserves a thread. Overall I think Oregon had a pretty damn good season for the roster they have.

Oregon has not always been dominant. They got that sick recruiting class in 2006 and then just kept adding and adding. But essentially they rode those boys through and won everything on those shoulders. Before that class (Wheating, Acosta, Klotz, Mercado's...) the ducks were normally not the best program in the state.

When you started with a Rupp/Kiptoo, and added that class plus Mcnarama and company, you are going to have some up years.

Now Oregon is very much back to where they were before Vin got there. Everyone that is astonished about Oregon doing bad this year must be young, super old, or have a bad memory. Because honestly, Oregon was a solid program that had a great few years. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an off year, but I honestly don't expect Oregon to be a top five school like I do with Colorado and Wisco...

Just my opinion.

One man placing near dead last only matters if they were trying to win.

Yeah Stinson would probably be expected to be in the top 30-40. If you have scorers in over 100 at a school that acts like they are a real power, that coach will have some trouble talking to the high school runners he's recruiting right now.

No question Oregon had to have been disappointed with their #20 finish this year. Yes, Stinson had a catastrophe of the race (went out too fast) and Dunbar could have finished a bit higher...beyond that, Oregon didn't have anyone who was expected to be top 50-75. Now the question is this: how does coach Johnson look at the results? He saw his women win the whole thing, why didn't the men do better? If is conclusion is that the men's coach is not getting the job done, does he make a change? Johnson is a sharp cookie, he gets bonuses based on championships, and he expects excellence. In my opinion, the men's XC coach gets only one more year to show marked improvement by the stable of distance guys who are in his program. There is a reason why Oregon has 19 national championships in Track and XC. No question in my mind, they will be back soon. One way or the other.

No it doesn't. Because if Stinson finished 40th Oregon places decent and this thread does not exist.

Brian Shrader transfers to NAU after two years of struggling at Oregon, finishes 15th at NCAAs. Gosh, fair or not, that looks real bad for Oregon's coaching.

Mac Fleet's runs his first race of the XC season at Nats with predictable results. Also reflects poorly on coaching staff.

#2 runner Stinson completely bombs, with lead runner Dunbar running a relatively disappointing race. Not sure coaches can be blamed for that, but jeez, doesn't really look that good as far as peaking your team.

Local boy Melancon, essentially a walk-on as far as I can tell (though he did run 8:30 3k in HS), has the best race on the team, finishing in 97th. So much for top flight recruits carrying the day for Oregon as they have heavily relied on in the past.

As someone said earlier I think one more year of this (after the disaster of 2011) and there might be a serious look at revamping the men's XC program.

You might be correct with this analysis. What is important however is that the alumni and the athletic department do not see it this way.

The bottom line is that in the world of Oregon Cross Country, realistic or not, this type of result is unacceptable. The last time there were results like this, even with a strong track team, the coach got fired. Martin's last couple cross country teams were both pretty weak, there was a 20th (or so) finish at nationals and a DNQ. Also, in the first year they had an AA athlete at NCAA's, along with a couple other AAs that bombed. In the last year, they had some of these athletes back, but a lack of depth did them in at the regional. Both of the track teams in these years however, were very strong.

The recent precedence for Oregon teams struggling in cross country and succeeding in track does not bode well for the current coach. No two situations are identical, but I do find the similarities interesting.

This is pretty accurate.

Vin and company got lucky with Wheating coming in. Lil Centro was good time / legacy-luck.

The biggest problem/roll of the dice is recruiting.

There are not enough scholarships -- and other schools with better academics have the advantage, for sure.

I posted some time back, that after this great rebuilding era (which had a lot of luck to go with the Lame Ducks engineering a rebirth of the program. Salazar bringing Rupp, Johnson (bringing Wheating) Centro Sr. bringing Jr. to the table etc., that the real test of Vin and company was going to be to do it again. Build it again.

Losing LV was a huge blow. Having a top star as a leader / attractor to the program is important.

After the halo effect of Bowerman and Pre, Dellinger couldn and wouldn't recruit and basically road the gravy train of permanent scholarship until forced to retire.

Post Bowerman, Oregon recruiting at distance has mostly not been great. What, 5 great years out of 40? Not a heck of a record.

So, the problem still remains for Oregon, how to recruit enough distance runners and enough track guys to honor the overall tradition at Oregon of throws and track guys.

Can Vin's replacement get it done?

Frankly, it isn't looking good.

Maybe they should just import 7 Kenyans and piss you all off ;-).