collegiate programs in Canada that develop

Windsor U is pretty good atm, they may not be the TOP school in Canada (Top 3 @ CIS the past few years) but they don't push there runners too hard from the start. They don't normally let runners race in top races until they are 2-3 years into school.

Guelph tends to get the best runners but they don't improve too much during their time at school.

Guelph has a good recruiting program for a reason, because DST takes athletes and makes them faster. Everything is in long term. Most rookies wont even race Oua's or CIS until 4th or 5th year. Look at Anthony Romaniuw, 1:49 to 1:45 in two years.Queens is another school with a reputation for turning boys into men, Steve Boyd knows what he is talking about. Will get you fit for sure. THe group up there is not the same quality of talent as guelph currently but they are certainly on their way. If your a tri-guy try mac, VIc also does a decent job in cross country and recently had a few decent recruits too reload their 800 team.

Josh wrote:

Windsor U is pretty good atm, they may not be the TOP school in Canada (Top 3 @ CIS the past few years) but they don't push there runners too hard from the start. They don't normally let runners race in top races until they are 2-3 years into school.

Guelph tends to get the best runners but they don't improve too much during their time at school.

More interested in developing than recruiting. Who is getting a lot of athletes to improve during their time at school, and continuing to race when they move and get a job, cus they aren't burned out from racing too much.

U of Regina. Look at how much Kelly Wiebe improved there, from a 9:06 3km guy to one of the best in Canada. Lots of other examples too...

University of Calgary. Mike and Doug are really good coaches. They don't get the top recruits, but they are always near the top of CIS, especially the women.

And Trinity Western is another gooder.. A program on the rise.

Yikes, is it really that difficult to name a Canadian college or university that actually developed more then 1 or 2 runners and name those runners? If the CIS is developing Canadians better than the NCAA, surely there are droves of great runners coming out of these schools significantly improved from when they were frosh and still racing.

I know that at Windsor they've had Matt Walters and Melissa Bishop who really improved and are still racing, but certainly some good talents that went there and we haven't heard much from them 3-5 years later.

Why would they (NCAA) develop them better? Some programs (both south and north) suit given individuals, others don't. Romaniw didn't fare well at Dartmouth - he may have been a finalist at NCAA last spring (were he eligible) as Guelph has suited him. Seccafien has done well after her experience at Samford. There are stars in the NCAA (Levins, Sheila Reid,Van Buskirk, Theissen) who can step up to the National team right away, but others who get lost and barely develop or quit immediately upon graduation.

There are, seemingly anyway, different emphasis at different schools in the CIS. Guelph is primarily distance oriented, although Aubry and Romaniw have done well at 800m. The main thing is the opportunity to develop beyond the University season (which is very limited in competition and racing opportunities) - this is where DST seems ahead of most of the CIS (Ontario anyway). Others (Windsor in particular, which has tended towards middle-distance) go to some of the meets (when Windsor was NAIA even moreso) in the US in the summer. Some programs seem to rest up and get ready for XC in the fall. Victoria can get to meets in the western US (Washington to California in the spring) a little more easily than Ontario schools, and that is to their benefit. I do find it a bit ironic that there is a concerted attempt to keep athletes up here in the CIS, yet I see many of the schools going to NCAA-type meets throughout the year (XC and indoors) to find competition, to the point where domestic meets have suffered for lack of competition (beyond the championships anyway).

The National Track League (NTL) is bringing better competition domestically (this also helped Romaniw and others this year) so that people aren`t dependent entirely on going to Europe for meets (although that still seems to separate the truly serious from others), as long as getting a lane doesn`t get too difficult for Canadians, even though that does raise the bar.

For both NCAA and CIS, there are still too few continuing their development beyond University eligibility, and that is a problem - even with provincial and national carding in place (that offsets US scholarships to some extent). It means that you have to get to a pretty high level (Bishop)to make it worth your while to stay in the sport. Perhaps a bit tougher for the distance types (competing against so many developed young africans) and this is where better competition (Ahmed and Levins) in the NCAA allows jumping up to the next level an easier transition for the distance runners.

McMaster is a Tri-school (on the guys side certainly - is that the coaches influence or Shepley?) McDonald ran for her Track club (UTTC) in the summer, but few others did - how many even join Athletics Canada (through their provincial branch)to be a part of the sport outside of University competition? Too few IMO, and that may be part of the problem. At AO XC (not sure of other provinces) where are all the athletes who did NOT compete at OU's or CIS, why are they not getting the experience of racing that their more developed peers are getting (or even indoors as well) at championships, so this waters down domestic competition as well (it becomes a viscious circle). Yet we wonder why many quit or fail to develop. Basically if you aren't in the top 7, why bother? I see too many rookies, who may have had poor school or club programs, who simply don't get the opportunity to develop because they don't get to race enough to develop their racing abilities until 4th year, if they even last that long in the sport.

Romaniw raced a ton this summer, seemingly plateaued, then got in a few more races and broke through - that doesn't happen if you never race. Palamar came back from Tulsa, raced a bit and broke Sullivan`s Jr 1500m record - wouldn`t have happened if he didn`t race. I see kids with potential who rarely race, yet can`t figure out why they barely develop, and simply get bored of just training all the time - or don`t do enough of that as they don`t have the motivation (few races) to train properly all year anyway. Ironically some of our HS kids race too much(especially during the HS season)and so are fried come outdoors, and this is the case (understandably) with some NCAA programs. That is not generally the case in the CIS.

My big concern is also putting people on pedestals who really aren`t racing that fast - that 9.40`s can medal at CIS (or even high 4.20s) for women, is not something to be lauded, particularly as that is what our better Juniors are running. The risk is telling these runners that this is all good, when it isn`t - as the rude awakening comes that the jump to the National team level is way beyond their reach. That is the advantage of the NCAA (perhaps moreso for the women anyway) in that the depth is much greater and to succeed you have to run fast.

As far as long-term involvement in the sport and a higher percentage of their runners experiencing development throughout their collegiate careers, University of Toronto on the women's side is a good one to mention. Maybe Laval on the men's side.

Agreed, solid work done by U of T developing women, as well as a flurry of men not too long ago. Laval has had strong Mens teams and hopefully we start to see more continue beyond university.

Josh wrote:

Windsor U is pretty good atm, they may not be the TOP school in Canada (Top 3 @ CIS the past few years) but they don't push there runners too hard from the start. They don't normally let runners race in top races until they are 2-3 years into school.

Guelph tends to get the best runners but they don't improve too much during their time at school.

Putting teams in the top-3 pretty much every year deserves being considered a top school, especially when it's from the majority of those runners improving. Go Windsor!

But Windsor (I'm not trying to single them out here) doesn't really fulfill this part:

and continuing to race when they move and get a job, cus they aren't burned out from racing too much.

Not that they're burned out from racing too much...or maybe they are ... They just don't appear to continue in the sport, same as every other school in Canada and most int he US. There are hundreds or even thousands of graduating runners every year who don't bother continuing, almost like they think the CIS or NCAA championships are the pinnacle of the sport instead of just an age-group (U-23) competition. Most probably just "grow up" and no longer want to commit to training once they have a job and a family - and really, there is no point in training hard if you don't enjoy it. That's something universities are good at - taking the enjoyment out of the sport.

A big difference in CIS XC coaches vs 20-30 years ago is how they present the school championships as the pinnacle of XC, while ignoring provincial and national championships, except for a very select few athletes. Perhaps the top 1-7 runners can't handle 1-2 extra races the way previous generations could, but pretty obvious the #8 and on runners could benefit from some Championship experience.

How has no one mentioned Simon Fraser??

If your talking development, they have a proven track record... Middle distance program run by Brit Townsend is unreal.

Jessica Smith (1:59), Helen Crofts (2:01, NCAA Div 2 Champ), Ryan Brockerville? this is just three MODERN examples of the highest caliber athletes. If you look at the history, there has been 4 girls, yes 4 girls run 2:01 or faster in the 800m in 10 years there? That's ONE EVENT. Not to mention all the people who have come in OK and left as people who could have been top dog at a bunch of CIS schools. And they are NCAA, which is an interesting twist.

Windsor, Guelph, SFU, Western all have great track records. Don't forget about academics.. running is great, but your going to school for a degree... the majority of people won't be going to the Olympics.

Are you suggesting those with olympic potential don't have to worry about academics? Many have made this mistake.

Running is great and if it is important to you, then you deserve a coach who cares about your development, even if you're not olympic material. Some of the schools you mentioned have pretty questionable track record for development, at least in recent years. Kudos to SFU for taking a lot of people from 'OK' to great.

Simon Fraser with Brit McTrouble.

Great to see so many serious responses. Hope this will be a big year for canadian schools, showcasing what they've helped develop over the past 3-4 years.

RE SFU ... Yep, you nailed it - ONE EVENT - the Womens 800m. Apart from that, I wouldn't recommend SFU these days.

Canadian Stranger wrote:

How has no one mentioned Simon Fraser??

If your talking development, they have a proven track record... Middle distance program run by Brit Townsend is unreal.

Jessica Smith (1:59), Helen Crofts (2:01, NCAA Div 2 Champ), Ryan Brockerville? this is just three MODERN examples of the highest caliber athletes. If you look at the history, there has been 4 girls, yes 4 girls run 2:01 or faster in the 800m in 10 years there? That's ONE EVENT. Not to mention all the people who have come in OK and left as people who could have been top dog at a bunch of CIS schools. And they are NCAA, which is an interesting twist.

Windsor, Guelph, SFU, Western all have great track records. Don't forget about academics.. running is great, but your going to school for a degree... the majority of people won't be going to the Olympics.

Bump.