I'm talking theoretical, like D1 programs in general. I'm not talking Stanford. 5:10 milers don't even dream of running for Stanford.
I'm talking theoretical, like D1 programs in general. I'm not talking Stanford. 5:10 milers don't even dream of running for Stanford.
DKCCC wrote:
I'm talking theoretical, like D1 programs in general. I'm not talking Stanford. 5:10 milers don't even dream of running for Stanford.
Tell that to the 5:10 milers on the Stanford team
I chose the wrong phrase. I meant they don't dream of being recruited, sorry.
Any 5:10 milers at Stanford, if there are any that slow, were once 4:40-4:50 girls who burned out. Which is the point.
nordicmama wrote:
Any 5:10 milers at Stanford, if there are any that slow, were once 4:40-4:50 girls who burned out. Which is the point.
That's just not true. And it's not just Stanford. Many top schools have slower runners than you think. No matter how many times you try to force your "the system is ruining and burning out girls" idea it isn't going to come true. Give it up.
jdjdj wrote:
nordicmama wrote:Any 5:10 milers at Stanford, if there are any that slow, were once 4:40-4:50 girls who burned out. Which is the point.
That's just not true. And it's not just Stanford. Many top schools have slower runners than you think. No matter how many times you try to force your "the system is ruining and burning out girls" idea it isn't going to come true. Give it up.
Well, Stanford is a bad example. Currently on their track team, the slowest high school PR is 5:01 (Trujillo) and only one other was slower than 4:55 (Murray, with at 4:37 1500).
Stanford's like most elite colleges: the athletes are just the tip of an eating disorder iceberg.
To me, it doesn't look like Stanford has an eating disorder problem (on the women's side, i don't pay attention to men). None of those girls, to me, show the external physical signs. It's probably more of an over-stressed and under-rested problem if there's any.
Was on the Stanford XC website yesterday and did not see her name on the roster. Any update?
I hope it is her decision and not forced by an injury.
Hatton is just one of many of a long line of Women Stanford runners who were either busts or underachieved at Stanford. They seem to make thier runners worse and not better at Stanford seems kind of odd they recruit so well but have terrible teams year in and year out on the Men's and Women's side.
long line of Women Stanford runners
They haven't got one of the real talents of this class --yet-- but the Cardinal have had a quality depth '14 with about? five legit dis/md propects.
So this rep doesn't affect the anything the school sells itself and nothing else really matters.
I know that this post is some months old, but since there seems to be a lot of stanford bashing on the boards: you do realize that there have been a number of coaching changes, esp for the women, in recent years? My point is that you can't rationally generalize about the Stanford program when, say, Chris Miltenberg just took over as coach last year. Different coach, different training, different recruits, etc. Unless there's something to the notion that was posted earlier that the demanding academic environment (or the types of academically-driven runners who typically enroll there) makes for a uniquely difficult experience for running, these bashing comments are misinformed at best and intentionally negative recruiting by fans/coaches of other schools at worst. If anything, this seems like a great time to go to Stanford since Miltenberg seems to be showing some nice early results (Jim Rosa, Aisling Cuffe, etc)
pac12fan wrote:
Hatton is just one of many of a long line of Women Stanford runners who were either busts or underachieved at Stanford. They seem to make thier runners worse and not better at Stanford seems kind of odd they recruit so well but have terrible teams year in and year out on the Men's and Women's side.
In thinking through this question, and specific to Ms. Hatton, it might be as "simple" as an ambitious student athlete who, hadn't had alot of experience in high school running in a team environment who decided that her academic and athletic ambitions are best served outside of a team.
Being a successful student athlete at a top academic school requires a major which affords opportunities for "independent study" (re: humanities) vs. one with alot of lab work.
To the Stanford discussion-- agreed, coach has been there two years, with him coming in August of his first year so its hard to make generalizations about his handling of the program.
Bump.
Does anyone know if she is still update?