Again, you have yet to give any specific reason or any actual mistakes he's made. What has Mick Byrne himself done to "destroy" a program. I get it, they haven't had the results they used to, but still no one has given any examples or any critiques of his training/recruiting/philosophy at all. I'm not defending Mick, I'm just curious as to what people think makes him terrible as a program director.
Find me a faster Parlapiano time than that.
Fairly certain he ran 4:17 and improved to 3:42.x and he was 30th at FL Nats in 1998-season, 1999 Graduate
I found 4:20.88 9;22 4:24.x performances at PIAA meets 1998 and 99
I didn't say he ran faster than 4:17. I don't know what his HS times were and Mile Split doesn't have times that far back on him. Did he win with 4:20? He ran against small school division and didn't need to run 4:10. Back then he didn't go to big meets like they have nowadays.Trust me he was a stud and proved it by finishing 8th at Northeast regional and qualifying for footlocker.
You were the one who made the point that Nova gets 4:17 kids and turns them into sub 4 milers. You gave me one in 20 years in Mike Kerrigan and brought up two guys that were big recruits in Malone and Parlapiano. Trust me I am not knocking the program or coach but your statement is ridiculous. Nova's bread and butter is getting big time foreign talent not developing 4:17 American runners.
runwild7 wrote:
Again, you have yet to give any specific reason or any actual mistakes he's made. What has Mick Byrne himself done to "destroy" a program. I get it, they haven't had the results they used to, but still no one has given any examples or any critiques of his training/recruiting/philosophy at all. I'm not defending Mick, I'm just curious as to what people think makes him terrible as a program director.
Specific examples?
Just look at the team. They have three distance coaches to get those results. Why would you need three? They always have had two, with better results.
I mean examples of bad coaching aka not enough distance, too many track workouts, recruiting wrong guys, not enough discipline, racing in weak meets. I want examples of bad coaching, not just "he sucks, Wisconsin ain't what it used to be". Why?
runwild7 wrote:
I mean examples of bad coaching aka not enough distance, too many track workouts, recruiting wrong guys, not enough discipline, racing in weak meets. I want examples of bad coaching, not just "he sucks, Wisconsin ain't what it used to be". Why?
What is this idiotic post? Unless we are one of the kids on the team or a staff member, we wouldn't have verified insider information. You see, what sports supporters do is look at who is on the team and if they are getting their butts kicked. If we feel there is the talent, than we know SOEMTHING SUCKS WHEN THE TEAM SUCKS. And this program has tanked recently.
awkwards much wrote:
runwild7 wrote:I mean examples of bad coaching aka not enough distance, too many track workouts, recruiting wrong guys, not enough discipline, racing in weak meets. I want examples of bad coaching, not just "he sucks, Wisconsin ain't what it used to be". Why?
What is this idiotic post? Unless we are one of the kids on the team or a staff member, we wouldn't have verified insider information. You see, what sports supporters do is look at who is on the team and if they are getting their butts kicked. If we feel there is the talent, than we know SOEMTHING SUCKS WHEN THE TEAM SUCKS. And this program has tanked recently.
Not that idiotic of a post. Because I believe what he is saying is if you are calling for Mick's head on a running forum then at least provide a little evidence (anything at all) as to why he deserves to be axed. He has had one mediocre season and one horrible season, but before that he had 3 or 4 tremendous seasons. Let me show you how one could criticize Mick properly. From people I have talked to he generally writes a team orientated training plan. There is one workout with maybe 2 variations in pace, with little to know wiggle room for lesser talents or kids coming back from injury. Basically some of the workouts would be hang on to the top few runners pace for as long as you can, and the low end runners might only be able to handle half the volume of the top guys. Something of a "If you fall of the train get yourself back on it, because I'm not adjusting the path for one person" kind of philosophy. It would make sense then why Malachy has struggled to return, or why 9flat-9:10 guys disappear for full years at a time after having break out seasons. Can't confirm any of this as the people I knew may have been bias'd as well. I think that you give Mick this one last season to right the ship, if this team finishes top 10 then everyone chill out, 10-15 continue your complaining, bottom 10 or DNQ talk about looking for other coaches.
If Malachy is the best runner on the team at the time, the why would a training program suited for him explain his injuries? Otherwise I follow everything else you be sayin.
Benjamins wrote:
awkwards much wrote:What is this idiotic post? Unless we are one of the kids on the team or a staff member, we wouldn't have verified insider information. You see, what sports supporters do is look at who is on the team and if they are getting their butts kicked. If we feel there is the talent, than we know SOEMTHING SUCKS WHEN THE TEAM SUCKS. And this program has tanked recently.
Not that idiotic of a post. Because I believe what he is saying is if you are calling for Mick's head on a running forum then at least provide a little evidence (anything at all) as to why he deserves to be axed. He has had one mediocre season and one horrible season, but before that he had 3 or 4 tremendous seasons. Let me show you how one could criticize Mick properly. From people I have talked to he generally writes a team orientated training plan. There is one workout with maybe 2 variations in pace, with little to know wiggle room for lesser talents or kids coming back from injury. Basically some of the workouts would be hang on to the top few runners pace for as long as you can, and the low end runners might only be able to handle half the volume of the top guys. Something of a "If you fall of the train get yourself back on it, because I'm not adjusting the path for one person" kind of philosophy. It would make sense then why Malachy has struggled to return, or why 9flat-9:10 guys disappear for full years at a time after having break out seasons. Can't confirm any of this as the people I knew may have been bias'd as well. I think that you give Mick this one last season to right the ship, if this team finishes top 10 then everyone chill out, 10-15 continue your complaining, bottom 10 or DNQ talk about looking for other coaches.
Evidently the UW recruits are ok with this approach cause they have already landed 3 studs in this class.
While I agree with the characterization in this post I'd say things might actually be worse when you layer in the performance of the women's team. Injuries across one team in a year are bad luck. Injuries in men's and women's teams over multiple years make you scratch your head. Can you connect the dots between the training description above and the injuries? I don't know but it does make you wonder.
knower of lots of stuff wrote:
buckey buckey wrote:Unbelievably over-rated. Should've stayed at Iona with 12 scholarships for 12 foreigners and no real conference meet (just NCAA focus).
+1.
This year is make or break for him in my opinion. He has loads of talent on his team. If they miss Nats again, I'd bring Jerry back.
Ummmm, yeah. Because that's likely to happen.
Jimsonweed wrote:
If Malachy is the best runner on the team at the time, the why would a training program suited for him explain his injuries? Otherwise I follow everything else you be sayin.
Because every runner is bound to get hurt, so what I'm suggesting is maybe last fall he ran himself into a serious injury and then has had trouble getting back on the horse because of this training theme.
Mick and Jill have both destroyed the program. Have you noticed all the girls and guys that have quit in the past 2 years? The environment is unhealthily leading to eating disorders, depression, injury, and then finally quitting. They had to take boys off the xc roster because they did not have enough girls on the roster. Many scandals are being covered up by this program...
The women in the team will revolt soon and that staff will look drastically different in 2 years at the most. Everyone is knocking the men's program which obviously is a shell of itself, but the women are the true concern.
Coming from an insider...Mick is an awful coach. Have the best recruiting class a few years ago and now where is the team? Either transferred, quit or injured. So many complaints and Barry (the lovely AD) ignores all of it.
while my son never ran for mick, he was always congratulatory towards him at big tens and ncaa's, For that reason alone, I would say he's a good guy.
Benjamins wrote:
awkwards much wrote:What is this idiotic post? Unless we are one of the kids on the team or a staff member, we wouldn't have verified insider information. You see, what sports supporters do is look at who is on the team and if they are getting their butts kicked. If we feel there is the talent, than we know SOEMTHING SUCKS WHEN THE TEAM SUCKS. And this program has tanked recently.
Not that idiotic of a post. Because I believe what he is saying is if you are calling for Mick's head on a running forum then at least provide a little evidence (anything at all) as to why he deserves to be axed. He has had one mediocre season and one horrible season, but before that he had 3 or 4 tremendous seasons. Let me show you how one could criticize Mick properly. From people I have talked to he generally writes a team orientated training plan. There is one workout with maybe 2 variations in pace, with little to know wiggle room for lesser talents or kids coming back from injury. Basically some of the workouts would be hang on to the top few runners pace for as long as you can, and the low end runners might only be able to handle half the volume of the top guys. Something of a "If you fall of the train get yourself back on it, because I'm not adjusting the path for one person" kind of philosophy. It would make sense then why Malachy has struggled to return, or why 9flat-9:10 guys disappear for full years at a time after having break out seasons. Can't confirm any of this as the people I knew may have been bias'd as well. I think that you give Mick this one last season to right the ship, if this team finishes top 10 then everyone chill out, 10-15 continue your complaining, bottom 10 or DNQ talk about looking for other coaches.
Is this actually how he runs it? Because that is very stupid and unintelligent. It also makes no sense. He's getting paid big bucks to be lazy and not individualize the training? Coaches in D3 get paid on the poverty line and they individualize training. I find this hard to believe. If it's true Barry is a horrible person for ignoring complaints.
So the Badgers did run tough to take the title from Michigan St. in the last 1K of the race. Credit to Mick and the guys for winning when they only became a slight favorite because Michigan was running without their top guy.
On the other hand, the women's team was 6th in the conference. Pretty disconcerting to see top finishers ( one for Michigan and one for Northwestern) that are Wisconsin natives not running for Badgers. They did put everyone out on the course but clearly Disanza and Sorensen are not 100%.
Again credit to Mick for rallying the men's troops after last years disaster, but the women's program is not where it should be. With Penn State now good joining perennially good programs in Mich, Mich St, and Minn the Badger women have work to do to win a title.
Wisconsin ran without their number one last year and most people have turned their back on them and Mick. Now all of a sudden Michigan run without their number one and you give them a pass! Wisconsin ran great today and I'm proud to be an alum
Alum wrote:
Wisconsin ran without their number one last year and most people have turned their back on them and Mick. Now all of a sudden Michigan run without their number one and you give them a pass! Wisconsin ran great today and I'm proud to be an alum
You missed my point. My point was the men were not heavy favorites by any stretch but they pulled out a hard fought win and deserve props.
I'm not making any inference about Michigan except to say they were favorites until their #1 went down.