What does it mean to be overlooked? They always perform to their preseason ranking. They aren't overlooked and they have everything going for them that woukd allow them to be a top notch distance program. A better coach in the same situation would have the team in contention.
Hagridore wrote:
Yes wrote:
Easy answer....Yes, the Rams and Coach Siemers are absolutely overlooked.
They are overlooked because they have not really had a breakthrough podium finish in XC or track at the national level. CSU is on the cusp though...
That seems to imply that you expect them to actually produce a podium finish currently. I don't feel like the talent or depth are there, but maybe they'll get there (like FSU taking 2nd in 2010).
I would argue that 9th two years in a row, after a spotty nationals history is a breakthrough for a regional school. No offense to CSU in saying that, but that's the reality.
Predictor wrote:
What does it mean to be overlooked? They always perform to their preseason ranking. They aren't overlooked and they have everything going for them that woukd allow them to be a top notch distance program. A better coach in the same situation would have the team in contention.
I can’t comment on Siemers because I don’t know much more about him than what’s in his bio. However, I’ve never heard of a single one of the good HS kids from around here mention looking at them and I gotta think he’s not getting waves of NXN and Foot Locker qualifiers every year. Looks to me like he must be doing at least a competent job to have them running like they are with good but not consistent top-shelf talent.
Overlooked in the sense that their quality and depth is better than even most people who follow the sport pretty well, including the good local HS kids I mentioned, realize.
I follow the sport pretty darn close, and I was surprised when I saw that Rockhold ran 13:35 this year. I looked closer and saw they had two more sub-14:00 guys this year and four guys go sub-30:00.
I get that’s not Oregon or NAU-type numbers but that’s also better than most P5 conference schools. Their school records for guys are 3:37/8:38/13:35/28:11. Those are solid for anyplace other than the powerhouses. The women aren’t quite as strong at 4:21/10:00/16:12/33:47 but from the look of their incoming women’s class, they seem to be wanting to change that.
Agree with the poster who said they haven’t gotten their due because they haven’t made a podium in XC but you could drop them in almost any P5 conference meet and I’d bet they’d finish in the top half more times than not. Being just down the road and overshadowed by one of the top programs in the country (CU) probably contributes to their lack of attention, too.
Siemersfan wrote:
Their distance coach (Art Siemers) is probably the best in the NCAA. His track record of taking mediocre talent and turning out AAs (while the kids get real degrees you can actually get a job with) speaks for itself.
Let's not be ridiculous. Yes Art Siemers is a great coach but he is not the best in the NCAA. He does have a great history of taking mediocre hs runners and turning them into All-Americans. He did this very well in DII at Colorado Mines. And lets be clear, we are talking about the men's side only.
CSU is not overlooked anymore. Recruits are choosing it because it is at altitude, fun town, solid team, solid school, solid coach. CSU had an embarrassing team before they hired Art Siemers, as Berryhill clearly was not doing his job.
former rmacr wrote:
Let's not be ridiculous. Yes Art Siemers is a great coach but he is not the best in the NCAA. He does have a great history of taking mediocre hs runners and turning them into All-Americans. He did this very well in DII at Colorado Mines. And lets be clear, we are talking about the men's side only.
CSU is not overlooked anymore. Recruits are choosing it because it is at altitude, fun town, solid team, solid school, solid coach. CSU had an embarrassing team before they hired Art Siemers, as Berryhill clearly was not doing his job.
Do you think their incoming women’s class represents a move to try to bring the women’s team up more in par with the men’s? Three sub-5:00 girls and a 10:28/16:28 girl looks like their best class by far on the women’s side.
Or is there another reason besides recruiting that the women haven’t done as well?
Have followed the program for many years and have seen ups and downs. They have typically been underfunded and seen as a pesky side show by macho major sports. And for decades the athletic administration has often been run by good old boys who were athletes there. Through that they have had some good coaches especially Jerry Quiller and probably Del Hessel both going back a long ways. And they have had some average to sub par coaches too. Good runners have come up through the program but generally not powerhouse teams. The women were solid under Hessel in the early 2000s and of course Brian Berryhill was an NCAA star. They seemingly had a breakout year in Berryhill’s first season as coach when they finished pretty high at NCAA Xc. But despite some good recruiting classes they fell off soon after that. I knew an athlete on the team and seems like they overtrained their runners and just spit them out if they didn’t perform right away.
Seimers stepped in what 5 or 6 years ago and has done a very good job with the men’s team and the women are improving. Bedard is old school but has done real well at producing national and world class athletes in the field events. Maybe by now the athletic dept has also stepped up and wants to put together a more well rounded program for other sports.
Nope! That would be U of Wyoming!
Mtn man wrote:
Nope! That would be U of Wyoming!
I’m sure issues are similar at Wyo. But the men did pretty well last year in XC.
CV Threshold wrote:
former rmacr wrote:
Let's not be ridiculous. Yes Art Siemers is a great coach but he is not the best in the NCAA. He does have a great history of taking mediocre hs runners and turning them into All-Americans. He did this very well in DII at Colorado Mines. And lets be clear, we are talking about the men's side only.
CSU is not overlooked anymore. Recruits are choosing it because it is at altitude, fun town, solid team, solid school, solid coach. CSU had an embarrassing team before they hired Art Siemers, as Berryhill clearly was not doing his job.
Do you think their incoming women’s class represents a move to try to bring the women’s team up more in par with the men’s? Three sub-5:00 girls and a 10:28/16:28 girl looks like their best class by far on the women’s side.
Or is there another reason besides recruiting that the women haven’t done as well?
Why do you keep bragging about 3 sub 5 women? Is that supposed to be impressive? You need to be able to run around 4:40 just to make regionals.
pay attention wrote:
Why do you keep bragging about 3 sub 5 women? Is that supposed to be impressive? You need to be able to run around 4:40 just to make regionals.
Yes because high school girls need to qualify for regionals immediately upon graduation. By your standard, only Parks, Starliper and Hart (the only sub-4:40 HS girls this season) are worth getting excited about. Idiot.
Three 4:5X girls and a 10:28/16:28 girl is a very solid incoming recruiting class for almost any program in the country with the exception of 8-10 schools, tops.
CV Threshold wrote:
pay attention wrote:
Why do you keep bragging about 3 sub 5 women? Is that supposed to be impressive? You need to be able to run around 4:40 just to make regionals.
Yes because high school girls need to qualify for regionals immediately upon graduation. By your standard, only Parks, Starliper and Hart (the only sub-4:40 HS girls this season) are worth getting excited about. Idiot.
Three 4:5X girls and a 10:28/16:28 girl is a very solid incoming recruiting class for almost any program in the country with the exception of 8-10 schools, tops.
This shows how little you know about coaching/recruiting. According to milesplit, 286 girls in the country broke 5 in the 1600 last year. 101 of them were seniors.
I don't know if their recruiting class would put them top 75. Most schools haven't released their incoming class yet, but I'd wager even every ivy league school brought in significantly better classes.
CV Threshold wrote:
Yes because high school girls need to qualify for regionals immediately upon graduation. By your standard, only Parks, Starliper and Hart (the only sub-4:40 HS girls this season) are worth getting excited about. Idiot.
Three 4:5X girls and a 10:28/16:28 girl is a very solid incoming recruiting class for almost any program in the country with the exception of 8-10 schools, tops.
This shows how little you know about coaching/recruiting. According to milesplit, 286 girls in the country broke 5 in the 1600 last year. 101 of them were seniors.
I don't know if their recruiting class would put them top 75. Most schools haven't released their incoming class yet, but I'd wager even every ivy league school brought in significantly better classes.[/quote]
And this shows how poor your reading comprehension is. That was in response to the comment about needing to run 4:40 to qualify for regionals. The three I listed are the only three HS girls under 4:40 for 1600 this year per MileSplit. Nice try on your pivot to how many ran sub-5:00. Even at that, only 101 did it. They’d be 4 or 5 star football recruits.
Of course there are foreigners and such, but 3 of the top 100 mile times seems a pretty
good class.
Football wise, I would rate them as 3 stars though.
Here is the nominal star system for football:
5 stars: Day one starting potential as a true Freshman and will be an immediate impact player in college.
Probably only the 3 listed sub 4:40 miles are worth 5 stars for that event.
4 stars: Prospect has the potential to start as a true freshman and make an impact.
3 stars: Prospect will contribute to a program and will probably earn a starting job eventually but still needs some development in at least one aspect of game to be effective at the college level.
Sub 5 mile is probably worth 3 stars i.e. needs development, but can probably become top 7 in cross on a
national level team.
.
Colorado State should be better than they are. They are fully funded and have all of the advantages of a Colorado or BYU but will never be on their level.
CV Threshold wrote:
CV Threshold wrote:
Yes because high school girls need to qualify for regionals immediately upon graduation. By your standard, only Parks, Starliper and Hart (the only sub-4:40 HS girls this season) are worth getting excited about. Idiot.
Three 4:5X girls and a 10:28/16:28 girl is a very solid incoming recruiting class for almost any program in the country with the exception of 8-10 schools, tops.
This shows how little you know about coaching/recruiting. According to milesplit, 286 girls in the country broke 5 in the 1600 last year. 101 of them were seniors.
I don't know if their recruiting class would put them top 75. Most schools haven't released their incoming class yet, but I'd wager even every ivy league school brought in significantly better classes.
And this shows how poor your reading comprehension is. That was in response to the comment about needing to run 4:40 to qualify for regionals. The three I listed are the only three HS girls under 4:40 for 1600 this year per MileSplit. Nice try on your pivot to how many ran sub-5:00. Even at that, only 101 did it. They’d be 4 or 5 star football recruits.[/quote]
Ok it's pretty obvious now that CV Threshold is Art Siemers. Very pathetic.
You are literally the only one impressed by this recruiting class.
Color the State wrote:
Colorado State should be better than they are. They are fully funded and have all of the advantages of a Colorado or BYU but will never be on their level.
They actually have advantages. They are cheaper, have lower admissions standards are it's and in a nice location. Boulder is kind of crappy.
Colorado St. is actually under-performing.
While I certainly admire the programs at CU and BYU, there are differences between them AND between CSU.
I don't know much about the women's side of these programs as compared to the men - so I'll only comment on the men.
First, Colorado State is a BETTER Track & Field program than CU. Assuming they are both fully funded CU has chosen to emphasize distance more so than a well-rounded track & field program; and CSU appears to be going the route of a well-rounded program. So it is no surprise that CU is better in distance and CSU is better in Track & Field.
Second, while CUs distance certainly is historically stronger, CSUs distance program is not to be taken lightly. I believe CSU finished in the top 10 at XC that past two years. With probably over 300 Division I program, being in the top 10% (31 teams) means that on that year, you had a really good team - and the fact that CSU has finished in the top 10 of the 31 teams, is a testament they are legit.
Third, neither CU or CSU can easily be compared to BYU. In fact, not many, if any at all, can. BYU has built-in advantages (and no, I'm not implying the missionary-age thing) with recruiting and a super low cost of tuition/fees. Just about every HS student that is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wants to go to BYU - especially so if they are looking to compete collegiatly in athletics.
With BYUs recruiting advantage coupled with how inexpensive it is to go there (I think around 5-6K A YEAR for tuition/fees!!) it is INCREDIBLY easy to hoard kids on the roster and develop them. Some have suggested that for their men their 8-14 runners could beat most schools' top 7. This is to be expected and not surprising at all given their advantages. BYU SHOULD be thinking podium EVERY YEAR, and if they don't, they have underachieved.
Where perhaps they fall short as a program is in track & field on a national level. Like XC they hoard athletes in all event areas so they can clean up in conference-type meets, but they don't consistently have the higher quality track & field athletes in non-distance event areas who can score on the national stage. This could be more a function that HS kids who are members of the Church participate in - distance running vs. any number of other events.
So, comparing BYU to CU, CSU or nearly any other school, is very difficult. No other school I can think of has the recruiting and tuition/fee advantages that BYU does, particularly for distance runners.
It was, but not anymore. Those in the know knew that coming out of CSM Siemers would do everything that Berryhill couldn't at CSU, simply given time at that program. Letsrun won't recognize CSU until they're on the podium at NC's, always late with the call. CSU doesn't need Letsrun to legitimize them.
Be Polite wrote:
With BYUs recruiting advantage coupled with how inexpensive it is to go there (I think around 5-6K A YEAR for tuition/fees!!) it is INCREDIBLY easy to hoard kids on the roster and develop them. Some have suggested that for their men their 8-14 runners could beat most schools' top 7. This is to be expected and not surprising at all given their advantages. BYU SHOULD be thinking podium EVERY YEAR, and if they don't, they have underachieved.
So BYU's ability to easily recruit runners of the school owned faith, coupled with the inexpensive education which entices talented runners to enroll in lieu of a scholarship at a program elsewhere. Gives them a perennial Podium level signing class.
There's probably some truth to that, but these so called elite level depth filled signing classes fall short when it comes to pundits/news sites weighing in on the recruiting rankings. The only time I've seen them ranked in the top 10 was when they signed Clinger, Johns, and Parker from American Fork. Otherwise their recruiting classes have flew largely under the radar.
Speaking to recruiting advantages I remember reading or hearing a podcast where BYU was not one of Linkletter's top choices, he wanted to join some other flagship programs, however some of these schools wouldn't guarantee him a spot on the roster. BYU offered him a roster spot and a small scholarship, i'm sure the fact that they were a good program with an Olympian head coach swayed him as opposed to going for a bigger scholarship at a smaller program.
In 2015 the top "same-faith" recruit based was a runner out of Idaho and he committed to Boise State. Arguably the best "same-faith" distance recruit aside from Clinger in the last 10 years with 2 top 6 footlocker finishes and BYU didn't get him.
Back in 2008 when I was enrolled in college in the state of Utah. I believe my tuition costs were on par with the tuition costs of BYU. Since that time BYU's has gone up 45%. The public University I attended has gone up 70%. Right now it's about $400 dollars more a semester not a crazy difference, so the cost of enrolling at some of the other major distance programs in the state isn't all that more cost prohibitive.
The Faith and cost of the school alone doesn't guarantee recruiting success. Utah's a great location with a culture that lends itself well to distance running. Combine that with seeing Eyestone have success with under the radar recruits at the national level. That's a huge factor. Success breeds Success.
BYU does not have a recruiting advantage at all. A small percentage of high school students are interested due to their religion, but the vast majority of high school athletes would never even consider BYU.
Remember when that kid got kicked off the BYU basketball team and out of school because he had sex? Who the hell wants to go to a school like that?