Collegiate Coaches

Been coaching successfully on the high school level for 30+ years. I find there aren't too many college guys who you could accurately call a coach. They are trainers. They essentially pound the kids into the ground and whoever is standing is their team. Their egos cannot allow them to think they are doing anything wrong. It's the athletes who are soft and can't handle their brilliant workouts.

I'd like to ask you how hard you train your athletes? It's pretty obvious a lot of hs kids who are "good" don't pan out because of the ridiculous amount times they race in hs. Also, you are correct. There are about 10-12 coaches in collegiate running who actually develop runners.

Here's the thing :

If you're a D1 college coach, a 9:20 guy isn't worth jack to your team-especially if you're in a power 5 conference, even if you're at the bottom of that conference. D1 coaches are expected to get results. You need guys who can score, so you need to try to turn those 9:20 guys into the equivalent of 8:4X guys. That's hard to do, and most guys will never get there no matter how well they're coached. So the coach pushes those low-tier guys hard in the hopes that a few of them will survive and end up as scorers.

A D1 coach can't afford to really take the time to develop every also-ran who comes through. With a real blue chipper, sure, that's more likely.

This, along with other factors already mentioned (drinking, school, sleep), is why a lot of "pretty good" high schoolers don't pan out in college.

There’s another issue. Self confidence.

There was a study done one time on the success of graduates at various schools compared to their inbound qualifications. This is business and other success, not running. The Harvards of the world got flooded with top talent. The penn states of the world had a mix. Etc.

The top graduates at all schools did exceptionally well. The top at Harvard were super duper stars. The thing was, the average graduate at Harvard did well, but no where near the success of his similarly “inbound qualified” peer at penn state who turned into a star.

While there’s an argument other life skills that were unmeasured prior to entry became apparent after...the other implication is being surrounded by stars (big fish in a big pond) is intimidating and can wreck confidence. You also get less attention and nurturing. Somewhat paradoxically, you have a higher expected value if you are a super star of going to a penn state instead of Harvard. You’ll likely end up a star at penn stare. You may end up a super duper star at Harvard or “just an average Harvard grad.”

I suspect there’s something similar to high school track stars. Many go to big time programs and a select few become stars. The rest don’t feel special or invincible and become very average for a d1 runner.

You are making a good case for most high school runners skipping the college program and running for themselves or a club.

Former D1 Scrub wrote:

If you're a D1 college coach, a 9:20 guy isn't worth jack to your team-especially if you're in a power 5 conference, even if you're at the bottom of that conference. D1 coaches are expected to get results. You need guys who can score, so you need to try to turn those 9:20 guys into the equivalent of 8:4X guys. That's hard to do, and most guys will never get there no matter how well they're coached.

I'd say Rob Conner has done very well with 9:20 HS runners at University of Portland.

I don't think you can put all of this on the coaches. In some cases, the guys with the really fast times have maxed out in HS by running a lot of miles. They don't get better because they can't get better. Some of it is on the motivation of the athletes themselves (as mentioned in numerous posts above (Parties, Beer, Girls, etc.). There are coaches who have a 1 size fits all plan and that is on them. Distance runners take time to develop, unless you bring them in from Kenya or some other distance mecca. Sprinters are pretty much ready to go when they leave high school and take less development and are much easier to project.

Sadly this is very true. I ran for good coaches in high school and in college (DI Power 5) where for the most part my coaches actually cared about the well being of students and tried to develop talent without running kids to the ground. High school coach had strong background in exercise physiology and college coach was USATF Level III. Now I am coaching myself at a DIII school and previously coached at another DIII and an NAIA school and it is shocking to me how many bad head college coaches are out there. I have a degree in exercise physiology and have completed USATF Level 2 certifications in two different event areas and have run for winning teams, so I feel like I have a pretty good background to know what good coaches should be doing and have had some success developing athletes without injuring them. I have learned from working at smaller schools, that the best people who are knowledgeable and care about students often do not get ahead. Small schools, particularly DIII ones, have a tendency to inbreed and only hire their own alums or people with a connection to the conference or school. You have to play politics to get ahead at most schools because the people in charge are threatened by other's success and want people that are easy to control that can maintain status quo. They say they care about students having a good experience, but that's not really true first and foremost. They want decent teams where students are generally happy and don't complain and hire coaches who can recruit numbers and fill beds. Many DI schools just want coaches who can win conference titles or get kids to nationals and care about little else. Many coaches aren't qualified to develop talent, but can recruit well so they just buy talent that makes them look good enough to keep coasting by without ever actually developing kids.

I have worked for 6 different head coaches and only one was close to being qualified to be a head coach and none of them have above a USATF Level 1 certificate and only half of them had a background in exercise science and had an idea how to write workouts. Of the three that actually were qualified to be writing workouts, one was super lazy and self-centered and basically was just there to get a paycheck doing the minimal amount of work possible and only cared about recruiting some kids good enough to make him look good to boost his ego and earn him free trips to nationals w/ an individual. He has fired three assistants that actually cared about kids and worked hard because he felt threatened that they were getting better results than him and working harder than him (he actually admitted to these reasons for firing them.) Same coach had three other assistants quit on him and currently can't fill all the GA positions he has open b/c no one wants to work for him. The second one was terrible at communicating and was extremely unprofessional and inappropriate all the time and did not care about the school or accomplishing anything as a team. He also didn't believe in strength training or taking days completely off so several kids got injured. The third one is actually a pretty good coach who develops talent, but he has very little racing experience and only understands the aerobic system and little about the other systems that play a role in training, so our team does poorly on hilly courses or certain race conditions that vary from the exact even split strategy he teaches them and trains them for because they don't learn how to adjust race strategy based on the situation nor are they physically equipped to handle any races where they have to get out fast or climb hills. Of the 6 head coaches this guy is the only one I've worked for that didn't have really high injury rates due to poor training design. The school I'm at now just hired a new head coach who got the job b/c he was friends w/ our AD and had experience as an athlete and coach in our conference. He literally has no background in exercise science or training theory other than what he has seen done, no coaching certificates, has little recruiting experience, and was previously a part-time assistant coach coaching the technical side of some fields events at a mediocre school before being named our head coach here. So yes, I agree w/ OP how it is highly frustrating to see so many completely unqualified college coaches out there.

Not sure what jokers you people surround yourself with (if you even know collegiate coaches at all) but in my circles coaches are very educated and have proven their ability to develop athletes. While I primarily coach field athletes my network spans all event areas. I could rattle off 30 coaches in two minutes whose teams TFRRS pages show nothing but progress with not just the studs, but the "duds" as well. It is unfortunate that in distance running, any yahoo thinks he can go the job but when it comes to coaching movement and not energy systems, it's obvious who can do the job and who can't.

Anyone out there reading this that currently coaches or wants to coach at a high level in your respective division, set the example. Join our professional organizations. Attend certification courses to learn and network. Break open those old textbooks (or buy them for the first time). Most importantly, when you run into someone that is coaching for the right reasons and is trying to grow themselves SAY HELLO! We don't have to put up with lazy and incompetent people tarnishing the profession.

Sure... if you don't even want to TRY to compete against the top dogs, that's a fine choice. There's nothing wrong with giving it a shot, even if becoming a bigshot is relatively unlikely. It can be a rewarding and educational experience regardless. On the other hand, some people do prefer to be a big fish in a small pond, and that's fine.

9:40/4:25 in High School

14:31 in College on the track

I ran on a college team where is was typically the 5/6/7 man, as a junior, and I made a team that got an at large bid to the NCAA meet XC.

I was very average for a mid 2000s high school grad. I went to a program that attracted high level scholarship guys and also decent walk-ons like myself. Those walk-ons ranged from 9:25ish to 9:40ish.

Some of our scholarship guys (I believe one ran under 9:10 in HS) went on to be pretty good. We had two NCAA track all Americans in my class, that began their careers as higher level recruits.

Of the seven walk ons that began on my team in my class none of them panned out, other than me. One had run 9:25, and he did not make it to sophmore year. Did the coach care; not really. 4 or 5 of the big HS talents worked out over the span of two or three years, and enough lower level HS talents developed to round out a top 20 team.

The burn out/drop out rate on our men's team was very near 50%, but our coach did develop guys who stuck with it and showed talent. Given my HS times I think I had a pretty good career. I've seen better progressions, but I feel my improvement was above average.

Not everyone will be a NCAA Champion. Look less at coaches and more at the drive, desire, and talent level of athletes. I ran a lot my first two years of college (12 miles became a default easy run by my sophomore year), of my own accord, in a desperate attempt to be varsity. That burns some people, and turns some people into pretty good athletes.

Awesome. Call the coaches out, who suck. But if you're going to do it, sign your real name. Let's hear it!

While there are definitely some bad coaches out there, there are way more variables at play when a kid transitions to college running.

First, high school training plays a massive role. Some try to go from low mileage to high mileage too quickly. If you are a lower mileage guy in high school(which is not a bad thing, it is actually a benefit because it only adds to your potential ability when getting more training) you must take your time transitioning to collegiate level mileage. This also goes the other way though. Many athletes run high mileage for years before entering college and end up burning out early on(American Fork has been notorious for burnt out athletes, but recently have had better luck transitioning athletes to college... part of the reason is because coach Eyestone at BYU is getting really familiar with Am Fork guys cause he's coached so many of them. Also many of the Utah runners go on a 2 year mission after high school and don't run at all, which actually lets them come back and get a fresh new start. I actually think this helps a lot of guys, the only hard thing is actually getting fit, which is a slow process for most).

Another reason a lot of runners' end up not doing well in college is because they start living a crappy lifestyle when they move out. Not sleeping, not eating, no parents to enforce rules... it adds up for those athletes' that are not disciplined enough to take care of themselves properly.

A third reason which I don't see people talking about but that is definitely a variable is that some guys truly don't have what it takes to run at the next level. There are a myriad of reasons for this but some aren't motivated, some aren't willing to train, some realize they're not cut out for collegiate running. These aren't bad things and actually the sooner an athlete realizes that collegiate running isn't for them, the sooner he/she can move on to something they want to be doing with themselves.

I'm not saying there aren't coaches out there that don't know what they're doing or don't individualize training enough to accommodate for guys who are new because there are definitely coaches who do that. I am simply stating that there are lots of other reasons why athletes don't perform on a collegiate level. It really is just survival of the fittest. As athletes move up the ladder, not everyone will be able to hang. Same goes with the college to pro transition.

Threadbare wrote:

Been coaching successfully on the high school level for 30+ years. I find there aren't too many college guys who you could accurately call a coach. They are trainers. They essentially pound the kids into the ground and whoever is standing is their team. Their egos cannot allow them to think they are doing anything wrong. It's the athletes who are soft and can't handle their brilliant workouts.

Id debate your qualification to judge the entire DI coaching network from your position. You may have seen many coaches in your day (some of which are no longer coaching) but you haven't seen as many as I have. I've been DI for as long as you've been a HS coach, I've traveled the country and worked side by side in the trenches listening to coaches coach, I've spoken to athletes who have transferred, I've argued over NCAA legislation with almost every coach and can tell you that there are many more great coaches than bad apples.

Here's the thing- there are TONS of variables as to whether a kid is going to pan out at this level: were they maxed out in HS by a college style training program? Were they a maxed out 7/10 kid beating up on undertrained 9/10's? How about the spoiled brats who think they are the greatest thing on earth because they are their teams #1 runner then when they join a mid major expecting to be an instant success, challenge the top runners and then lose all confidence when they realize they are going to have to start over building to the top. I find more kids don't have the drive to keep up the intensity if they have been battling 4yrs prior to college.

I spend more time counseling these kids, getting their heads on straight so they can even show up with a chance to have a good workout, than anything.

You think life gets easier when kids move out of the nest? You actually think running in college is less complicated than high school? Are you actually trying to say we are dealing apples to apples here? Come on, get real.

Just for fun- what high school do you currently coach? And how many of your high school kids have made the NCAA final?