Colorado produces just as many with 28% of the amount of people.
Colorado produces just as many with 28% of the amount of people.
luyfdydf wrote:
Many kids do burn out because of them starting to young but the smart coaches know how to get them more training, than a typical middle school program, and still allow them to grow over all 6 years. You can't tell me there is no advantage to having a good coach have them in the program an extra 2 years. Almost all my kids get better over the 4 years I coach them and it would be even easier to do that same over 6 years.
can tell you that and I will and I'll be right!
Why can't the varsity coach coach the middle school kid?
I did- it was my program, if I wanted an 8th grader to do a little more they did.
I brought up few up in 8th grade never a 7th grader (I once had 2x7th graders who would have helped the varsity.
Either way that's not why NY is better than most.
stateezee wrote:
Why don't they do better professionally? Obviously Huddle is incredible and Cain had her moment, but I'd think a state as big as New York would do better than Missouri where Quigley, Frerichs, and Sisson all graduated high school.
There's also Jen Rhines and a few others who excel as pro's.
Small point but Jen Rhines is from Liverpool which is a suburb of Syracuse so that makes it central NY.
I am from Brooklyn, so Yonkers north is upstate, and I am an Albany alumn, so anything west of a county that abuts the Hudson is Western New York. Essentially, NYS geography to city kids is like world geography to Americans: we focus on where we are and the rest is the sticks.
(but in all seriousness, point taken)
I think it comes down to one student or school setting an example for what is possible, and inspiring others to follow the lead. One does something, and more see it and say "Hey maybe I could do that too." At least it always seems that way to me. One emerges and then more and soon the state is a powerhouse.
In addition to the great runners out of NY and MO, Kansas has a great trio of late in Venters, Logue and Born.
Also, to people mentioning economic class, much of the state outside of NYC is economically depressed. Sure, there are a few affluent suburbs here and there, but in general, it's not an economically robust place.
Why do liberal states produce better runners?
Running requires GRIT, HARD WORK, and SELF SUFFICIENCY. Three things that conservatives hold above all else besides misinterpreting the bible and dog whistles.
You mean liberal states like Utah? They look like they are going to single handedly win the NCAAs on the men's side this year.
They start early and present a good activity for white upper-middle class that doesn't require endless practices and travel times. Just do your mileage. There may be a community tradition as well, as in Saratoga.
By the time they get to HS they know what the grind is and are mentally used to it.
They know it hurts, toe nails fall off, they are asked not to eat sweets (fruit). But they like the team, enjoy the recognition, like being fit. It works for them. It is also a individual sport which has team points.
This does not mean they will go on to college success. Many who get all-state status will not see anything similar in Div.1. There you need a good program and physical capabilities. Or your salad days in NY will be your best memories.
First of all, both Fayetteville Manlius and Saratoga have been mentioned. I imagine that there are huge numbers of all timers from there schools. I also like the thought of 7th and 8th grade, There was a reply that one can mature at your junior high. I don't think this is accurate. It is mush more likely to succeed under a program where you have the consistency of 6 years.
As a matter of fact, I sometimes wonder how many high school blue chip athletes would prosper further and faster by remaining with the same tutelage as high school. The body and brain love routine, especially when it has worked wonders.
Just my thoughts!
paulsthomas wrote:
First of all, both Fayetteville Manlius and Saratoga have been mentioned. I imagine that there are huge numbers of all timers from there schools. I also like the thought of 7th and 8th grade, There was a reply that one can mature at your junior high. I don't think this is accurate. It is mush more likely to succeed under a program where you have the consistency of 6 years.
As a matter of fact, I sometimes wonder how many high school blue chip athletes would prosper further and faster by remaining with the same tutelage as high school. The body and brain love routine, especially when it has worked wonders.
Just my thoughts!
Jesuit > Arkansas
runn wrote:
One reason could be that NY allows 7th and 8th graders to run for the HS, so they have two extra years to develop and by 9th or 10th grade they have a much higher fitness level than a runner who starts in the 9th grade.
No- you can develop a 7th or 8th grader on your modified/jr high team as well as you can on your varsity team and with the shorter race distance there is less chance of injury or burn out (which is very common).
It's the Socio-economic thing.
My modified/jr high team? What is that supposed to be? As a CA high school coach I am barred from even talking to the junior high kids.
I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet.
The reason is simple. New York State teams train ridiculously hard when compared to other states. This results in success at the high school level coupled with a lack of success at the Collegiate level. Would you rather peak in high school or college?
Sure there are some athletes who continue to develop but this is few and far between. We can debate whether or not this is a good thing. FM, Saratoga, etc. are great teams but if I'm a college coach I know I'm probably making a losing bet by recruiting athletes friend these teams.
So obvious wrote:
I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet.
The reason is simple. New York State teams train ridiculously hard when compared to other states. This results in success at the high school level coupled with a lack of success at the Collegiate level. Would you rather peak in high school or college?
Sure there are some athletes who continue to develop but this is few and far between. We can debate whether or not this is a good thing. FM, Saratoga, etc. are great teams but if I'm a college coach I know I'm probably making a losing bet by recruiting athletes friend these teams.
It's not necessarily a bad thing to run very well relative to your natural ability in high school. The vast majority of well above average high school runners won't run in college at all. It's not necessarily because they "peaked" in high school, but because they just don't have enough talent. I knew lots of kids like this in high school: competitive at the state level ( as in, all-state but not state champion) because they trained year round and were getting the most out of their abilities, not because they were super talented and destined to be college or pro stars. If they had trained less in high school they still wouldn't have been good enough to excel in college, but they also wouldn't have been competitive in high school. Is that somehow supposed to be better for them?
Actually, I have always thought the opposite. The top high school runners tend to have the natural ability. In college, the depth of competition suddenly expands because the less naturally talented put in the hard work and training and it finally pays off.
Aafb wrote:
Actually, I have always thought the opposite. The top high school runners tend to have the natural ability. In college, the depth of competition suddenly expands because the less naturally talented put in the hard work and training and it finally pays off.
A lot of good reasons above but:
There's not much else thats legal for young girls to do in New York, especially in poverty stricken hellholes like Newburgh and Saratoga Springs.
Running is a way up and out.
One word -- Trump.
That's the current answer to every question.
Don't believe me? Try it out: Ask a question -- any question. Then answer, "Trump." That will be THE answer.
ps. It also helps if you don't think too hard about this.
Sliding Scale wrote:
Only Texas and California have larger populations, so that is likely part of the reason. Both those states also produce some big time runners. A diverse pot of 20 million people is ideal for finding talent.
I don't think that New York is better than California (which is almost twice the size), but culture also plays a part. Running is nice upstate; and as far as urban running environments go, NYC is hard to beat. Large and well educated middle class as well.
Florida has a larger population than New York now.