Disprove FM Girls Worsen in College

One of the posts had a link to all ny prep girls currently running in college. I checked it out.

It is almost inexplicable that a bunch of national champions would be so bad in college, since they are coached by many good coaches. It's a decent sample, but not enough to be conclusive, however.

Still,I wonder if HS girls can arrive at college as damaged goods from too many hard miles and too few rest days and/ or calories. I am leery of people glibly claiming their are no adverse effects. How do they know? How can they be confident?

The coach is one of the glib ones as far as I'm concerned. Certainly the methods work in the short term, but it is hard to definitively say the methods are not destructive either.

Do we ask these same questions of college coaches? Why do some top level college coaches never have successful pro runners?

Because our job is to coach college only. Same as HS coaches are to coach HS.

If I coach a collegiate girl to the top level of the college ranks and she runs sub 15:40 on the track. She will be offered a pro contract. If I got every ounce of talent out of her and she never runs faster did I fail?

The same is true of a HS coach.

You are a good coach with a good approach. I agree with your philosophy of a metered approach for HS athletes, so they will not get burned out and can continue to improve as their bodies mature. I also don't think your approach will preclude any of your athletes from reaching their highest potential, on the contrary, your approach makes it more likely and for it to happen at an appropriate time.

Having lived in Saratoga, my opinion is they ran the kids way too hard. A lot of this has to do with a coach's ego. Anyone can try to coach HS kids like they are college aged, and you may even get very good results. That doesn't mean that overall that was the best approach for most runners to ultimately reach their peak potential (which should basically never happen in high school).

If athletes from a given program seem to stagnate in college, I don't think it speaks well of the program. Likewise, if athletes from a given program improve more, it doesn't mean they had bad coaching. If I was coaching HS I would basically limit the miles to 40 mph, maybe 50 for Jrs and Srs. When I was in high school we ran about 20 mph (which was too little), but many of us stuck with running and ran well collegiately.

Thanks, that's what I was getting at. It may be because I come from a small school- we rarely have the depth to deal with injuries. Seriously, one injured girl and the team is hurt. As a result, I tend to under train.

Are they running slower or not improving? For example how do they compare to Jordan Hassay? Someone who improved 5secs in the 1500m and ~10 in 3000 over the course of her college career.DId training in HS limit these athletes peak (always possible) or just allow them to get their at an earlier age (also possible). People like to fawn over the Kenyans running 10 miles per day growing up but when an american does something similiar we talk about burning out and early peaking. Winning girls XC is easy in theory. You get 20 girls out there running 50mpw and you will destroy the competition who might be running 30 as your girl runs 19 mins off the higher mileage and the other girl runs a 21 min 5k. The reality of getting people to run that much and more is that hard part. See York for the boys example where you kids train them hard, and you end up with enough 9:20 guys to win anything.

HeiressStank wrote:

One of the posts had a link to all ny prep girls currently running in college. I checked it out.

It is almost inexplicable that a bunch of national champions would be so bad in college, since they are coached by many good coaches. It's a decent sample, but not enough to be conclusive, however.

Still,I wonder if HS girls can arrive at college as damaged goods from too many hard miles and too few rest days and/ or calories. I am leery of people glibly claiming their are no adverse effects. How do they know? How can they be confident?

The coach is one of the glib ones as far as I'm concerned. Certainly the methods work in the short term, but it is hard to definitively say the methods are not destructive either.

I'd maintain that the FM girls are doing pretty much what --should have been-- expected of them. They aren't that good and would be depth runners on a top-20 Div.1 program.

Nothing wrong with that but don't tell me they're burned out.

If you really look at FM runners, very few have best performances their senior year xc. If you take ratings for most of them their best tend to be sophomore or junior year. That is when they are more dominant runners. THey are already running slower senior year, which would lead one to believe that it is something happening in hs that is causing less improvement in college. Fanning, chapman, sischo, rutledge, martin, pearl, luber, kathryn buchan all ran better prior to senior year. Carter ran about the same and molly malone ran her best season. That is most of the big names of FM in the past.

For a lot of high school runners, running in high school is a path to a college education, college education is path to a better life. For those who want to do well in studies and run at a high level something usually gives and understandably it is the running. The level of competition to just make the traveling team is stressful let alone to score points for your team. Many intelligent runners get a handle on this and shift their priorities.

^ The above is missing the point completely. This isn't about educational priorities. It's about why FM grads --with it's uber success as a program-- do just ok (at best) in college.

It isn't because they are more career oriented than other top student/athletes. It's because they find they can't break 18:00/5000meters CC. Can't do that and you don't belong in a competitive div.1 program taking up a 'ship.

Force22 wrote:

^ The above is missing the point completely. This isn't about educational priorities. It's about why FM grads --with it's uber success as a program-- do just ok (at best) in college.

It isn't because they are more career oriented than other top student/athletes. It's because they find they can't break 18:00/5000meters CC. Can't do that and you don't belong in a competitive div.1 program taking up a 'ship.

This is the point, but the reason is that the FM program has trained them to run at 95% of their potential. There is little room for much future improvement. Other high school programs might bring a talented girl to run at 65% of potential leaving much room for improvement in college.

The girls of FM are not genetically more endowed with running ability, they run fastest in the nation because of the best training. Put these girls in the same college training with the other likely more genetically gifted girls and of course they won't don't stand out.

No one really thinks that by chance for the past 7 years FM wins because it always has the most genetically gifted runners in the nation, right?

Peaking as a sophmore or junior is pretty standard for a lot of girls HS programs. Go down the list of footlocker finalists through the years and you see people the freshman and sophomores that never make it back.

2000 wrote:

If you really look at FM runners, very few have best performances their senior year xc. If you take ratings for most of them their best tend to be sophomore or junior year. That is when they are more dominant runners. THey are already running slower senior year, which would lead one to believe that it is something happening in hs that is causing less improvement in college. Fanning, chapman, sischo, rutledge, martin, pearl, luber, kathryn buchan all ran better prior to senior year. Carter ran about the same and molly malone ran her best season. That is most of the big names of FM in the past.

I lost track of this thread this week and I'm disappointed that I did. It has become a good one, although it is hardly fair to only point at Fayetteville Manlius. There are top schools all over the country whose athletes do not do as well at the college level as they looked like they might out of high school (boys and girls). I coach in California and the top athletes from a number of top programs out here seem to fizzle after high school. I think the answers are never simple or singular and lots of good points were made on page 2 of this thread and they all have merit.

A high school athlete with a good coach could be a lot closer to top end already. Although there are great college coaches out there, there are also bad ones. As much as over training is a problem headed into college, so is under training.

For the record, I don't believe that over training or under training is simply a function of mileage. It's possible to consistently over train athletes who run 40 mpw and possible to under train athletes who run 75 mpw. It depends what else is going on in that program. Are they doing 25 miles at tempo pace or faster? Are they running 15 miles at race pace or faster? Are they counting warm-ups and cool downs as mileage? Are they running singles or doubles? Are they in the weight room? Are they doing drills? Are they adding in other forms of aerobic training like swimming or biking? What is the culture at the school regarding academics (are they losing sleep to their studies)? Without that information, it's really hard to generalize over training or under training, even if we think we know it when we see it.

In general, I would say that athletes who are exposed to a variety of these modalities (some volume, some speed, some strength, some biomechanical work, and some flexibility work) have a better chance to reach their potential later on than someone who was trained with heavy emphasis on one thing. At the same time, I would argue that for short term results, one could ignore some of these things. The body doesn't respond equally to all stimuli. Some systems respond quickly and some take time. In order to develop the slower responding systems, a coach might have to sacrifice something that responds faster (sacrificing part of a short term performance in order to improve a future performance).

I do not believe that anyone's goal should be to seek the maximum possible improvement in college, but I can see where the goal would be to make sure that post high school performances are better. For example a runner who went from running 4:30 to 4:10 improved more than a runner who went from 4:05 to 4:01, but I'd rather be the 4:05 high school guy (he's better at both levels). But I also don't think a coach is wrong who is willing to sacrifice a little now if it means a higher top end later. If the a coach knew that the high school runner would have a chance to run 3:58 if it meant running 4:10 instead of 4:05 in high school. Then again, running 4:05 in high school is pretty cool and nothing is guaranteed later, so the coach has to choose.

I think that to say that training for now and training for later are exactly the same though, is just a disingenuous statement. In any given season we point at key performances and build training around those performances. If the performances we point at happen years down the line instead of months down the line, it stands to reason that the training design is going to be a little bit different.

At the end of the day, I don't really know what they do at FM and will not praise or indict them based on their development of athletes toward their college years. It could be, as some suggest, that they are trained so well that the athletes' college coaches just have a hard time taking them to another level. I also believe that their track record is no worse than many many other schools. The difference is that they are so good, they stay in the spotlight, which is meant as high praise for what they do in the short term.

Although their streak ended this morning, congratulations to them on a runner up finish on the girls' side and 4th place finish on the boys' side.

Ozzie wrote:

But I also don't think a coach is wrong who is willing to sacrifice a little now if it means a higher top end later.

As previously mentioned, it is a significant assumption to say that a "top end" will occur "later". For one thing, a lot happens in your first semester/year that could change an athlete's perspective and goals. In your scenario, that "4:05" miler who was ranked, say, 5th in the country, has palpable considerations of post-collegiate/international running/sub-4 and might stick to the goal. The "4:10-4:15" miler could potentially be more likely to lose interest. Just something to think about, obviously I'm making some assumptions as well.

The point being: the 4:05-potential miler who's coach takes "the long term view" and runs 4:15+ in high school might miss a scholarship opportunity at a top program where he would have continued his progress. HS coaches are taking on significant assumptions when they train their athletes this way... Instead: train them for maximal performance at that moment that their body can handle.

It's bizarre to me that runners like Christie Rutledge and Jillian Fanning, who manage to place top five at NXN nationals, don't even make their college teams. Have we even seen Fanning yet? And Rutledge isn't looking all that healthy at Dartmouth

http://www.dartmouthsports.com/PhotoAlbum.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=11600&SPID=4698&SPSID=48765&BIO_PLAYER_ID=823132&KEY=

It's incredible to watch F/M runners every year but I do wonder what the cost of that success is. Of course, you can also make the argument that without Bill Aris, most of these FM girls would be middle of the road runners at best. So isn't it better to at least see success SOMEwhere?

Point taken.

I addressed some of your point in my first response back on page 1 when I said, "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." As I read it now, I did not make this statement as clear as I would have liked, but what I meant was that even if running faster in high school was detrimental to physiological potential, it could also help to avoid certain obstacles and gain opportunities that would help to actualize more of that potential.

Either way, we make assumptions, and we make choices. Athletes also make their own assumptions and make their own choices. Where it sucks to admit that the doors opened for my athletes may not be as wide as they could have been, I feel pretty good in that I have given them the most possible ammunition that I could have to be able to overcome their obstacles. Many would disagree with that stance. I'm okay with that. I'm sure Bill Aris is okay with the idea that people disagree with the way he's coached his team.

Also, I hope this doesn't sound defensive. I think you make a good point. I like having this discussion with people because it really makes me think about the training I am giving my athletes and what that training is designed to accomplish...and how to make it better.

Do a high percentage of FM's girls go on to college with athletic scholarships? I think that it is obvious that they are coming out of an excellent program that is well managed and their coach is probably a great motivator too.Their runners believe in the program, tradition and consistent winning. Great coaches not only know the nuts and bolts of training, they also connect well with their athletes. The kids are the winner's in programs like FM.

If is true that many of their girls do not have the same or similar success in college then the problem whatever it may be is at the college level.

Here's a former FM runner who has excelled in college: http://www.albany.edu/news/34827.php.

I would argue getting into Dartmouth is a much bigger success than pretty much anything you can do with NCAA running.To your second point. Take any high school in america with the same number of students and tell me another one that has more runners on scholarship. From what I can see the FM run 20-30% more than most other athletes. Again take any powerhouse program and compare their results with FM when the runners hit college. You end up with a crappy success rate. When you see a 18:00 FM girl running next to another 18:00min girl in HS, you have to realize the other girl has probably done 1/3 less training. When that other girl bumps her training up by 1/3, the FM is finished. See York for the men's example

rundonkey wrote:

It's bizarre to me that runners like Christie Rutledge and Jillian Fanning, who manage to place top five at NXN nationals, don't even make their college teams. Have we even seen Fanning yet? And Rutledge isn't looking all that healthy at Dartmouth

http://www.dartmouthsports.com/PhotoAlbum.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=11600&SPID=4698&SPSID=48765&BIO_PLAYER_ID=823132&KEY=

It's incredible to watch F/M runners every year but I do wonder what the cost of that success is. Of course, you can also make the argument that without Bill Aris, most of these FM girls would be middle of the road runners at best. So isn't it better to at least see success SOMEwhere?

Didn’t Matt Deyo from FM have a good college career?

Yes I know I’m not talking about the girls here