Oregon, Colorado, California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona are the states I usually see with the top running programs. Why isn't there as much of an emphasis on running on the East Coast?
Oregon, Colorado, California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona are the states I usually see with the top running programs. Why isn't there as much of an emphasis on running on the East Coast?
There is. You're just cherry picking.You don't bother to define a top running program or even if you're talking about high school, college, or open running. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, all have several "top" high school running programs. The NCAA men's cross country champion is from the east. What are you talking about?
There are good high school and collegiate programs in many regions, including the northeast and east coast. At the high school level, I'm pretty sure CBA is in New Jersey. I'm sure there are other good hs teams from the east, but I don't really follow hs.
Collegiately, NCAA xc champion Syracuse is in New York. Some of the ivies up in New England and the mid-atlantic are pretty solid. Farther south, Virginia and Virginia Tech are also solid. Florida state is pretty good, too.
Incidentally, none of the states you listed are in the Midwest.
good running programs tend to develop near good training environments. If there is weather and trails/parks suitable to running, good teams are usually at schools in the area. U Colorado is great while Miami in Florida sucks. Boulder: lots of trails, dirt roads, good weather at least half the year. Miami: no trails, crap places to run, bad weather 3/4 of the year or more
Well.. wrote:
Collegiately, NCAA xc champion Syracuse is in New York. Some of the ivies up in New England and the mid-atlantic are pretty solid. Farther south, Virginia and Virginia Tech are also solid. Florida state is pretty good, too.
Incidentally, none of the states you listed are in the Midwest.
The assumption is wrong. Add up the championships for the past 40 years and the south dominates. Heck Arkansas alone has more wins over the past 40 years than west and midwest schools.
One word: weather.
I guess you kicked Arkansas to the curb as well as oh, Villanova (ok in the past, but still storied greatness).
Isaac Steinberg wrote:
Oregon, Colorado, California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona are the states I usually see with the top running programs. Why isn't there as much of an emphasis on running on the East Coast?
Well for starters, none of those states are considered the Midwest. Secondly, the weather here in the Midwest and on the East Coast is vastly different than on the West Coast. 6-7 months out of the year we get temps 45 degrees or chillier and we also get snow. So, there's part of the reason why there's so much talent on the West Coast.
However, there are many good schools and runners that come from the Midwest and East Coast who go to schools on the West Coast. Why, I am not quite sure. Everyone has their own reasons. However, there are good schools up here.
Isaac Steinberg wrote:
Oregon, Colorado, California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona are the states I usually see with the top running programs. Why isn't there as much of an emphasis on running on the East Coast?
Not sure I would consider Texas as West, but you fail to mention the good schools that are not in the west. Arkansas (South or Midwest), Syracuse (Northeast), Iona (Northeast), Georgetown (Northeast), etc.
The top 10 men's teams were Syracuse, Colorado, Stanford, Oregon, Iona, Arkansas, Louisville, Washington, Michigan, and Georgetown. 4 of the top 10 do not fit your pattern.
Now women's New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Providence, NC State/Michigan, OK State, Notre Dame/Arkansas, Washington, Boise State, Syracuse. 6 of these teams don' fit your pattern as well.
kvothe wrote:
good running programs tend to develop near good training environments. If there is weather and trails/parks suitable to running, good teams are usually at schools in the area. U Colorado is great while Miami in Florida sucks. Boulder: lots of trails, dirt roads, good weather at least half the year. Miami: no trails, crap places to run, bad weather 3/4 of the year or more
There are good training environments everywhere just as there are bad ones everywhere. And you have programs like Iona and Syracuse which are not in locations that anyone regards as running paradises.
Genetics
Welcome2MiCasa wrote:
Well for starters, none of those states are considered the Midwest. Secondly, the weather here in the Midwest and on the East Coast is vastly different than on the West Coast. 6-7 months out of the year we get temps 45 degrees or chillier and we also get snow. So, there's part of the reason why there's so much talent on the West Coast.
However, there are many good schools and runners that come from the Midwest and East Coast who go to schools on the West Coast. Why, I am not quite sure. Everyone has their own reasons. However, there are good schools up here.[/quote]
My child, going to top D1 school in Midwest, grew up in the Midwest and runs outside through the winter like most runners here. My child runs outside regardless of the temperature and only runs indoors on treadmill if it is too icy. I run in shorts outside as long as it is above 35. Staying warn is no problem after the say the first half mile. At 35 I do not need to worry about slipping on ice. I would prefer to run in 40 to 45 degree weather rather than much above 60. We do get days with highs in the teens and those days are not easy to deal with. A few high school girls left the state and mentioned they were looking forward to warmer weather. One went to a California college on scholarship several year ago and apparently has never competed for the team. Another girl went to Arizona but returned to a Midwest college in less than a year. The weather probably had little to do with how it worked out for them. I would estimate that at least 75% of the top high school distance runners in my state go on to run for a Midwest college team rather than go to another region.[quote]