Disprove FM Girls Worsen in College

The flatlining of many of them at the collegiate level is well documented and I don't think anyone here is going to be able to disprove it entirely (maybe find a few cases). You know what I think would be more interesting? Getting in touch with some of those girls that didn't have great careers and asking them what they think of the program now in hindsight - of the coaches, the overall culture, are girls on the team doomed to a mediocre fate in college, etc.

So what you're saying is: Aris is a better coach than most college coaches since he coaches the FM girls better than the coaches his athletes go to.

Bill Aris talked about that in his interview with rojo here(scroll to the section Collegiate Success?): http://www.letsrun.com/2010/tracktalk041303.php

Actual Logician wrote:

So what you're saying is: Aris is a better coach than most college coaches since he coaches the FM girls better than the coaches his athletes go to.

+1

I coach at a D1 college and when I have someone that doesn't improve as much as the other guys I just chalk it up to him having a better coach in HS than the others. It's pretty simple really.

I think if you put forth the claim (FM Girls worsen in college) then you're suppose to put forth your supporting arguments as well.

TNunes is an absolute Logician wrote:

Actual Logician wrote:

So what you're saying is: Aris is a better coach than most college coaches since he coaches the FM girls better than the coaches his athletes go to.

+1

I coach at a D1 college and when I have someone that doesn't improve as much as the other guys I just chalk it up to him having a better coach in HS than the others. It's pretty simple really.

Oh, but it's not. As anyone who has read The Sports Gene knows, people can improve at vastly different rates, for no reason other than genetics (which of course encompasses a huge number of variables itself). Obviously coaching is another major factor in how much one improves but if you ignore the genetic component, you're making yourself stupider.

Live not on eviL wrote:

TNunes is an absolute Logician wrote:

+1

I coach at a D1 college and when I have someone that doesn't improve as much as the other guys I just chalk it up to him having a better coach in HS than the others. It's pretty simple really.

Oh, but it's not. As anyone who has read The Sports Gene knows, people can improve at vastly different rates, for no reason other than genetics (which of course encompasses a huge number of variables itself). Obviously coaching is another major factor in how much one improves but if you ignore the genetic component, you're making yourself stupider.

I'm not ignoring a genetic component. I don't have the resources to study everyone's DNA on my team. I can look at their HS training programs though. Any variables I can use I use.

He got defensive but didn't really address the question.

I looked up some of FM's best girls over the past decade and most got slower in college.

So the high school coach got 99% out of them while he had them. Is that a bad thing? A lot of runners do not improve in college. Unless you have the genetics for greatness, it's not that unusual to not continue to improve after 4 or 5 years of training at a high level.

HeiressStank wrote:

Go ahead and try!

Maybe for the girls, but it's not impossible for them to do well if they stay with it. Some of the guys have done well, Alex Hatz has done well at Wisconsin.

Doesn't their coach also have a Nike sponsored post-collegiate team or something? Have any of them run for it after college and done well?

I coach at a D1 college and when I have someone that doesn't improve as much as the other guys I just chalk it up to him having a better coach in HS than the others. It's pretty simple really.

I have a question for a D1 coach:

I've noticed that a lot of recruits (esp girls) don't pan out.

I have coached some runners who went to D3 or even lower level D1 schools and got very good.

I tend to under train and I admit that my athletes may not reach their potential in HS BUT they continue to run and improve for years (boys and girls) after.

I realize there are just too many good runners out there for D1 coaches to do the research needed to find these runners.

I guess I'm wondering if D1 coaches realize this happens.

How many potentially great runners never get the chance?

I have one girl, now, who never beat a group of about 5 runners from our area.

Those 6 (including my girl) are now in college, three of them at major D1 powerhouses, my girl is faster than all of them and NONE of colleges the others go to were after my girl.

I'm just curious and it makes me think that our system leaves a lot of potentially great runners behind.

So you totally screwed your athlete because you are a poor coach. If I start weightlifting tomorrow I will have a greater improvement curve than anyone who has been lifting regularly. That doesn't mean everyone should wait until they' re over 30 to start lifting though. One of my athletes was very good in high school. She went to college and ran well but really didn't improve after her freshman year. She kept running with a new coach and made major improvements as a post collegiate/professional runner. College coaches are responsible for athetes' petforming in college.

TNunes is an absolute logician wrote:

Live not on eviL wrote:

Oh, but it's not. As anyone who has read The Sports Gene knows, people can improve at vastly different rates, for no reason other than genetics (which of course encompasses a huge number of variables itself). Obviously coaching is another major factor in how much one improves but if you ignore the genetic component, you're making yourself stupider.

I'm not ignoring a genetic component. I don't have the resources to study everyone's DNA on my team. I can look at their HS training programs though. Any variables I can use I use.

Are you retracting your first comment then? Because it strongly implies that high school coaching is the only variable: "I just chalk it up to him having a better coach in HS than others. It's pretty simple really."

So you totally screwed your athlete because you are a poor coach. If I start weightlifting tomorrow I will have a greater improvement curve than anyone who has been lifting regularly. That doesn't mean everyone should wait until they' re over 30 to start lifting though.

One of my athletes was very good in high school. She went to college and ran well but really didn't improve after her freshman year. She kept running with a new coach and made major improvements as a post collegiate/professional runner. College coaches are responsible for athetes' petforming in college.

How am I hurting my athletes? I said they continue to run and improve. They just don't end up at the typical top D1 schools.

They might run 40 mpw in HS, I know of kids who've run a lot more.

I'm kind of surprised at your reaction and would like an intelligent answer.

I do not over train them. I try to build a love for running and leave room for improvement- which as happened to most of them and many are still running as adults.

I think continuous improvement is important.

Your answer makes it look like you think peaking in HS is good.

So where have I hurt them and how am I a bad coach?

Your weight lifting analogy is as stupid as the rest of your answer.

Your poor training results in them not excelling in his which cost them the has success and college scholarship money. Running 4:12 in his is better than being a 4:03 guy in college. Neither one has a professional future in the sport

Well, my weight lifting analogy is the exact same structure as your argument with the subject changed. It's a great way to evaluate an argument actually.

You don't train your athletes to be their best while they're with you. That screws them. If you're only goal is to make sure they improve after leaving you , your job is pretty easy. Just give them pizza every day and don't let them run. They'll suck but they'll sure improve when they get to someone who will actually coach them.

The argument you guys are having is one of coaching philosophy and the two of you will not agree. You believe that running 4:12 in hs is better than running 4:03 in college, but my guess is that Runn does not. If the goal is to get the runner as good as they can be right now, you will train that runner one way. If the goal is to get them to be as good as possible, assuming continued training, at some point in their life, then you probably train that athlete a little bit differently.

If it is possible to make an athlete 1 second better over some distance in 2 months, that does not necessarily translate to the athlete being 1 second better at the end of his or her career. Likewise, it might change lifetime potential in a negative way.

If the coach's philosophy is to maximize the potential for each athlete for each season, he or she will end up training the athlete differently than a coach that tries to maximize the athlete at the end of a 4 year period, and that coach would train the athlete differently than a coach whose goal is to maximize the athlete over a lifetime of training. It is a question of deadlines. When do you want the athlete to be at their best?

Based on the arguments you two presented, I would think that fddd@ would be okay with training an athlete to be 1 second faster at the end of high school, even if it meant that 10 years from now, that athlete might run 1 second slower than if he or she was trained differently. I don't mean the athlete won't PR, but that he or she would PR by 1 second less). runn would not be okay with this tradeoff. For example, fddd@ would prefer 4:12 in hs and 4:04 in college, where runn would prefer 4:13 in hs and 4:03 in college. Is it a huge difference in overall performance either way? No, but it is a huge difference in philosophy. Both ways of thinking are fine as long as you realize that there is a difference and that the way of achieving those two things are different.

Although I have no idea about what runn does with his athletes, training so that a runner has room to improve in college does not necessarily mean withholding training in hs. It just means a little bit different training, that is designed to pay off later. I don't know if fddd@ is a coach at all, but training for the end of hs is not necessarily shortchanging the athlete for college and beyond, because running the faster time now may provide the opportunities later that will help to overcome any possible loss.

"Your poor training results in them not excelling in his which cost them the has success and college scholarship money. Running 4:12 in his is better than being a 4:03 guy in college. Neither one has a professional future in the sport"

[quote]runn wrote:

Your poor training results in them not excelling in his which cost them the has success and college scholarship money. Running 4:12 in his is better than being a 4:03 guy in college. Neither one has a professional future in the sport

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5511543#ixzz2mGDClgEQ

Who said they didn't get money? All I said was that they weren't going to the top D1 schools.

A lot of my kids get money.

I'm still confused by your argument and I think you are even dumber than I originally thought.

Who is FM? I thought that was radio frequencies.

But girls in college is difficult to predict. The only safe bet is foot locker which is why those kids are so heavily recruited... And why that meet will never die.

How many FM athletes would make it as an individual at Footlocker? The ones who do my guess do well in college.