Could Tinman build an NCAA dynasty?

Yes sir everybody wrote:

stateezee wrote:

I asked for at least 25 runners that could beat Bor/Blankenship in a 10k xc race. Something the hater, er....poster, implied they could easily provide.

Here is a better way to consider it. There is no way Ben would’ve been all-American even at the NCAA meet this year. That meet is way more competitive than club xc. And pretty sure Ben would agree with that.

“There is no way Ben would’ve been all-American even at the NCAA meet this year.”

Demonstrably false.

nobody has been able to name more than 2 people tinman is coaching who have had success - just drew and reed

because everyone else is not doing well under tinman. he is a hack,

YMMV wrote:

hi tinman wrote:

13:45 is equal to 1:02:56 in the half. Reed is clearly stronger on the longer end, as he can't ran 3:58 in the mile which is also the same VDOT.

Reed's college coach got him from 13:48 from 14:24 you fool. Tinman got Reed to 13:45, a 3 second improvement.

tinman is doing alright, but to say he'd be the best coach in the NCAA is incredibly dumb.

So at least a 50-second improvement by equivalence, under poor conditions? Quit acting like any 13:48 NCAA guy can do this. It's a hell of debut.

.

conditions in houston were essentially perfect and the course is one of the fastest in the country. According to your IAAF tables, it's equal to a 13:32 which is still unimpressive.

no results wrote:

nobody has been able to name more than 2 people tinman is coaching who have had success - just drew and reed

because everyone else is not doing well under tinman. he is a hack,

Sam Parsons improved a ton in the last year—something like 13:46 to 13:29, and 8th at USAs—3:44ish to 3:38.

Brogan Austin, from whatever to 2:12–and then a 9 second PR in the 3k 6 weeks later.

Joey Berriatua just PRed from 8:19 to 7:59 in his first race of the indoor season. Technically Jeff Thies PRed too.

There’s almost no one Tinman has coached who hasn’t made a startling improvement. But that’s very different from an NCAA dynasty. I don’t think he could do that, because I don’t think he could recruit well enough.

Sam Parsons improved a ton in the last year—something like 13:46 to 13:29, and 8th at USAs—3:44ish to 3:38.

Brogan Austin, from whatever to 2:12–and then a 9 second PR in the 3k 6 weeks later.

Joey Berriatua just PRed from 8:19 to 7:59 in his first race of the indoor season. Technically Jeff Thies PRed too.

There’s almost no one Tinman has coached who hasn’t made a startling improvement. But that’s very different from an NCAA dynasty. I don’t think he could do that, because I don’t think he could recruit well enough.

Yep. Don't get these people here trolling that Tinman's only getting people a few seconds improvement. (Well, yes I do get it — they are trolls or simply unaware, after all.) If those saying this had frequented Tinman's runzone forum, they would know about the multitude of grass-roots runners who finally managed to make significant improvements under him after having banged their heads on the wall for years following traditional "conventional wisdom" coaching advice.

The thing is, he has had little chance to coach sub-elites/elites to this point. Drew Hunter was the first real plum that dropped into his lap who had any name recognition. And that was only after having coached Drew's mom, a master's athlete, to significant improvements, after her progress had been stalled out for some time. Now that a tipping point of sub-elites have gotten the message and begun gravitating toward him, the results he gets with runners at all levels are just beginning to be heard about on a wider scale.

With things going the way they are and the momentum that's developing, why would Schwartz want to be a college coach now, anyway? For financial security, sure, but the tide seems to be turning for him, that that may no longer be so much of an issue, and he won't have all the crap that goes along with being a college coach to deal with.

He's getting enough awareness now, I would think more high-level athletes will be starting to flock to him, so that he's going to have the problem of needing to turn people away eventually. You have to wonder if a sponsorship for Tinman Elite might be coming down the pike in the future.

Here is an update for post-college coaches.

Smaller contracts are being eliminated.

Smaller group deals are being eliminated.

You either coach many studs (someone with a real chance to make an Olympic/World Championship team), have several smoking hot athletes, or you're best friends with one of the shoe company elite managers.

Tinman has Drew Hunter who has maybe a 20% chance of making this year's World Championship team (being gracious though I know someone will tell me he had the 2nd or 3rd fastest 1500 time last year to which I would reply that is was an off year and nobody can say Drew is speedy like 10 other guys as Championship 1500's normally go).

YMMV wrote:

Stick to your day job.

Actually Jack Daniels VDOT for 13:45 lines up with 1:02

Shows how much you know.

Under Daniels a 1:02:06 is worth 13:32, 13:29 under IAAF tables.

That is what I know. What you don't seem to know is just how big a jump that represents, especially under less-than-ideal conditions. He is at least 30 seconds faster in good conditions.

Also, that 13:45 comes from 14:24 three years ago.[/quote]

13:45 is equal to 1:02:56 in the half. Reed is clearly stronger on the longer end, as he can't ran 3:58 in the mile which is also the same VDOT.

Reed's college coach got him from 13:48 from 14:24 you fool. Tinman got Reed to 13:45, a 3 second improvement.

tinman is doing alright, but to say he'd be the best coach in the NCAA is incredibly dumb.[/quote]

So at least a 50-second improvement by equivalence, under poor conditions? Quit acting like any 13:48 NCAA guy can do this. It's a hell of debut.[/quote]

.

conditions in houston were essentially perfect and the course is one of the fastest in the country. According to your IAAF tables, it's equal to a 13:32 which is still unimpressive.[/quote]

Clearly you are just a troll, but for those who actually care about understanding the topic, here are quotes from those who actually ran (and won) the race:

Kosgei:

"By the 20-K mark she had an insurmountable 43-second lead, and was now racing the clock. She said later that she was fit enough to run in the 64's, but it was simply too cold to run at top speed.

"I was hoping to run 64, but due to coldness (I didn't)," she lamented.

Check

Mate

Korir:

"It was a very tough race," he said, wearing the traditional winner's cowboy hat in the post-race press conference. "The weather was terrible, windy and cold."

stop lying here wrote:

YMMV wrote:

So at least a 50-second improvement by equivalence, under poor conditions? Quit acting like any 13:48 NCAA guy can do this. It's a hell of debut.

.

conditions in houston were essentially perfect and the course is one of the fastest in the country. According to your IAAF tables, it's equal to a 13:32 which is still unimpressive.

Clearly you are just a troll, but for those who actually care about understanding the topic, here are quotes from those who actually ran (and won) the race:

Kosgei:

"By the 20-K mark she had an insurmountable 43-second lead, and was now racing the clock. She said later that she was fit enough to run in the 64's, but it was simply too cold to run at top speed.

"I was hoping to run 64, but due to coldness (I didn't)," she lamented.

Korir:

"It was a very tough race," he said, wearing the traditional winner's cowboy hat in the post-race press conference. "The weather was terrible, windy and cold."

Check

Mate

Does Tinman currently coach any women (aside from Drew Hunter's mom)? When will Tinman Elite move on from being frat bros and welcome a women's contingent?

It´s not strange that tinman has had success with non-elites. They are generally aerobically underdeveloped and has lacked structured training. Bring a structured program that emphasize aerobic development and they will improve. That doesn´t necessarily mean that it´s the optimal training for elites. We just have to wait and see.

gahagand wrote:

Uhhhh Syracuse and Villanova aren't known for other sports? That's more than a little questionable. And Penn State not known for distance running? They've been in the DMR at NCAAs every year since like, forever. He could probably do it though, as long as he had a good assistant to handle recruiting and paperwork.

Syracuse and Villanova are known for men’s basketball. None of their other programs have much national success (assume Syracuse’s lax team does well?). Nova’s women’s team in particular is exponentially more successful than any of the other women’s teams. Both Syracuse and Nova also have very iconic men’s basketball coaches. Take them away, and they’ll fall off right away (look what happened at UConn as soon as Jim Calhoun’s recruits were gone). It’s all about the coach at the smaller schools, and I think Tinman could do it if he was willing to go out on that limb.

It seems like people are getting too worked up (or are mercilessly trolling) on both sides. Here are some facts:

1. NCAA dynasties are both hard to quantify and really hard to do. NAU counts as one; Oklahoma State does too I think, Arkansas also. That's about it. That notably leaves off Stanford and Colorado from recent history, even under legendary coaches. Having a dynasty takes a whole lot of luck.

2. The recent NCAA dynasties preach aerobic development. NAU's training was "leaked" and it included...a whole lot of sub-tempo, tempo, and 10k-based work, with limited VO2 work. Dave Smith said in an interview one time that if someone lived in a cabin and ran however far and fast they felt like for a few months, they'd be two weeks away from any PR. I don't know much about McDonnell's training, but I remember reading about 10 mile tempos that they'd do frequently. Given the context of the 90s, that sounds like aerobic development to me.

3. Tinman preaches aerobic development. Layered intensity aside, his bread and butter workouts are continuous tempo runs, LT intervals, or CV intervals, with various dressing and icing.

4. Tinman has proven to be a (highly) successful coach. What he's done with Hunter could be chalked up to Hunter's talent. What he's done with Hunter, Parsons, Fischer, Austin, and what he's in the process of doing with Thies, Winter, Berriatua, Gusman, Mueller, Medina, and possibly others is undeniably impressive.

5. There is no evidence that Tinman can't coach elite runners. No one would say Hunter is a pretty runner with tons of speed, yet he ran 3:35 as a 20 year old. 3:35 isn't 3:28, but no one is making the argument that 2018 Hunter was a 3:30 guy trapped in Tinman's training. In any event, athletes who have run 3:35, 13:29, 62:06, 2:12--those are elite runners. They're not world class, but they're elite, and no one intellectually honest should say they're not.

6. Tinman has a tendency to self-aggrandizement that undercuts his support and can be counterproductive. Tinman may well be right about his system and training theories, but the way he promotes it can turn people off. He's alluded to it as a Midwest way of speaking. I buy that. The problem is that many people live on the coasts.

7. Much of Tinman Elite's recruiting and promotion appears to be the product of Sam Parsons and Drew Hunter, not Tinman himself. A lot of what turns people off is probably Parsons marketing the group. That means Tinman himself is not at fault for that form of polarization, but also not to be credited with the recruiting that the group does.

So--Tinman is a successful coach going about his training in much the same way as other coaches who are lucky enough to have dynasties, and other successful coaches who are not as lucky. Having a dynasty is a product of a sound system, great recruiting and team-building, and a lot of luck. Tinman has the sound system, and no one should deny that. I'm not sure anyone can reasonably ascribe great recruiting and team-building to Tinman. Hunter fell into his lap, and the rest of the group assembled around Hunter (and Morgan Pearson), and then Hunter and Parsons. I'm sure Tinman was involved, but he probably wasn't the sole factor. As for the luck, just as no one should deny that Tinman has a sound system, no one should deny that one can't just assume that Tinman will have a lot of luck.

Could Tinman build an NCAA dynasty? Sure, maybe. Would he? Probably not.

+1

Everyone on this thread needs to chill

Training is the dark with the aid of marginal gains promises much power.

All praise marginal gains!

"Fastest person coached" is one of the worst criteria for a judging a coach that I can think of. By your logic, Coach A getting an athlete from a 3:46 1500 to a 3:36 would somehow be an inferior achievement to Coach B working with a 3:32 guy and him backsliding to 3:34-3:35.

Tinman took an assortment of NCAA XC qualifiers and has won Club Nats with them multiple times. To pretend that isn't an impressive coaching feat is lunacy.

Tinman seems to be a mostly male coach, most of his athletes are male and even Loudon Valley has had more of their success on the men's side. Possibly most of Tinman's studies that backup his training were done with male participants which limits the way he coaches and the effectiveness of his coaching of female athletes.

He might be a decent coach at the college level, among many very good ones.

He's no John McDonnell. He is no Joe Vigil. He is no Al Carius.

NAU might be the only potential dynasty and since more than one coach contributed to it I would say it is as much about the other stuff (altitude, easy academics, ...) than the coach. Those coaches are very good but I think many others would also succeed there given the current state of running.

Wisconsin, Oregon, Colorado - none are dynasties and over the years have had very good coaches (Schumacher, Vin, Wetmore). Fact of the matter is Tinman is no better than these coaches and they couldn't pull it off. He couldn't either.

Probably could be a coach that can get teams to NCAA XC and some consistent NCAA track qualifiers - if and only if he has the people skills to recruit and communicate effectively with college athletes.

He's said it himself, he can't get an interview anywhere. So he's probably stopped trying. I can think of any number of good D2 and even D1 programs at altitude that would improve with his guidance. If coaching multiple high school studs doesn't garner notice of college admin, what he's doing now isn't likely to, either. Here's a little secret: building an NCAA powerhouse or dynasty is incredibly draining and doesn't seem significantly satisfying. How happy to guys like Wetmore, Saban, Krzyzewski, Swinney, Roy Williams, Bill Self, Byrne, and so many others really seem? Schwartz seems like a driven, passionate, intelligent person but I don't know that he's also willing to sacrifice well being and the rest to deal with college stuff.

Chance the Gardner

If you know who that is you’ll understand.

If you think it’s Chance the Rapper then you are 30 years too young to understand.