Are the top high school XC programs in Colorado recruiting?

Actually, some cost less, others more. I have no problem with people making a buck, and I am a big fan of the club system. Living in and around Boulder isn't cheap. My only criticism would be that some of them tend to push kids too hard, too young in order to win youth events. Having grade school and middle school kids run adult level mileage is a bit excessive and can cause long term damage. When kids are still growing, making sure they are growing correctly should trump making them as fast as possible for an ultimately meaningless youth meet. Most of the focus should be on having fun, stacking injury free season on top of injury free season and learning how to lead a healthy lifestyle.

You sure? You were gung ho back a few comments ago when you attempted to stoke outrage with your $2K a season post.

Everything ok? Can we all go back to something constructive???

I'd argue the clubs are doing a better job for kids than those kids' parents would be doing as coaches (in general, I don't have details on every club coach and parent). That better job includes controlling their training volume, actively working to lessen/prevent injuries, creating better athletes out of young runners, and helping kids navigate puberty as it affects their running, etc.

I definitely agree with you re: keeping kids healthy, prepping them for later, and incorporating plenty of fun.

One thing that bugs me, though. There's a sentiment out there amongst some high school coaches re: significantly undertraining kids so that they can be successful in college. They justify that because they hear college coaches saying they want their recruits to be lower-mileage high school kids. The sad truth is that a high percentage of those kids won't see the success in high school that would even get them noticed by high school coaches. Many of them won't have enough positive experiences in high school to motivate their continued running in college and beyond.

Of course, a big part of the training volume discussion revolves around what people think is "high mileage" for middle and high school runners.

I look at results. I don't pay some private coach. (BTW- I can WELL afford to send my kids to college)

But the reality is Clubs are not good for the sport. Specializing is not good. Runners who are all around athletes and better than skinny kids who get injured a lot and burn out. Furthermore it help rich white kids steal varsity spots from others.

Buzzer Beet Ear wrote:

Is this what you're looking for?

https://bouldercountyunited.com/pricing/

Soccer might be less expensive when you account for the fact that they are including competition costs.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make, that the issue everyone is having with Niwot (and Valor) is a symptom of a larger disease. I don't fault these clubs and coaches, I certainly don't fault parents for doing what they think is best for their kids. But the uneven playing field exists none-the-less, we see it all over these days, like the crazy blowouts like the California football team that just had to apologize for beating an opponent 106 to 0. I've seen high school girls basketball games like that in Colorado by the way, it's really not much different than Niwot winning the 4A girls state cross country title with 20 points. But let's be clear, while at the top end the quality of runners in high school has improved, there are fewer kids participating across the board, and that's not good for the sport. This is happening across all sports too, by the way. What happens when high school cross country is reduced to maybe a couple of dozen clubs across the state? Will anyone else even care anymore? Alan Versaw has been writing about the decreased participation in cross country this year on Colorado MileSplit:

https://co.milesplit.com/articles/304779/one-more-thing-colorados-regionals-told-us

While Covid and other factors have definitely had an effect, this is a trend that started long before Covid. I don't care for the political nature of this article, but I do think the statistics listed are accurate, and the point is even before Covid participation in high school sports has been declining:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/meritocracy-killing-high-school-sports/597121/

So my point, if I have one, is this problem is way more complex than stopping a few transfers, and may not be fixable. Kids aren't stupid, they know when they are hopelessly outmatched, so why play at all?

In the spirit of discussion, here are some suggestions I have that are actionable changes CHSAA could make to help level the playing field again:

CHSAA needs to get rid of rules like this:

"2300.2 No coach or school representative may directly or by implication direct a student to participate in

competition outside of the competitive season as a condition to participating or otherwise influencing

a student's opportunity to participate in any school sport." Outside (club) competition is dominating high school teams, the barn doors are open and the cows have been gone for decades CHSAA. This rule is so out of touch with reality it boggles the mind. Has it ever been enforced?

Allow high school teams to compete in post season competitions out of state, representing their school and wearing their school uniform. Why should I have to form a club around my high school team to go to NXN or take a relay team to the Adidas track nationals? This just encourages these club teams to recruit kids from other schools for the post season.

Eliminate the Sunday contact rule. I would love to take my high school track team to the indoor USATF meets in Colorado Springs, but they are all on Sundays. Some of these clubs, in my opinion, dance around the spirit of this rule by having some coaches that don't coach high school taking kids to Sunday competitions while the high school coach is really running the club. Sundays are practically national club sports day every week these days, it's time for CHSAA to acknowledge that this rule is hurting more kids than it is helping.

Re-balance classifications yearly instead of every two years, by sport. Niwot XC and Track should have been moved up to 5A years ago. Club volleyball has a neat mechanism for teams to move up and down every week until they settle into a level that suites their ability, I would love to see something like that adapted to all high school sports. The concept of league->regional->state championships is outdated, random teams grouped together by proximity and school size just results in more blowout games.

Private schools should have to play up a classification, right from the get go, not after they dominate a lower classification for 2-3 years. I'm open to the idea of putting private schools in their own classification but I think moving them up is fine. It particularly saddens me to see private schools along the front range dominating the smaller classifications against rural schools, move 'em up! I'm not sure about Charter schools, but they may also need to be looked at (e.g. Classical Academy in XC/Track).

joed|rtay wrote:

My only criticism would be that some of them tend to push kids too hard, too young in order to win youth events. Having grade school and middle school kids run adult level mileage is a bit excessive and can cause long term damage.

I would venture to say that, yes, some clubs may make it a priority to gain a state/regional/national/intergalactic presence by pimping "lets train for Nationals!!!" to the parents of 8 year olds. That's not a very healthy message.

I would add that it isn't just adult mileage that's harmful, hammering away at acidosis tolerance type of "speedwork" is pretty horrible as well. Not much bang for the physiological buck pre-puberty and lots of potential negative outcomes, both physiological and psychological.

I know USATF-bashing is en vogue, but their Level 2 Youth certification clearly lays out a strong argument for how kids should be "trained" at younger ages.

First, you compare keeping kids in their own school district to slavery and now communism! Well done. If you want to convince me of the benefits of 'choice of school', enough with the hyperbole. I'm not so stubborn that I can't see the personal benefit of 'choice of school' for many families and kids. I'm just not convinced yet that it mostly just benefits the haves, leaving the have nots further behind. I don't see that as a good thing, but I'm open to a different perspective.

I never said anything, or implied, that we should get rid of the club system. However, if you're advocating a free market system for youth sports, then we should get rid of HS sports and go the club route only. Is that what you're advocating? If not, you may need to re-think applying capitalism to youth athletics. Despite it's flaws, public education for all is one of the great success stories in the US, giving every single kid an opportunity for a free education AND the opportunity to participate in athletics, music, drama, etc.

I am curious as to why clubs are needed for most HS runners? A kid runs HS XC in the fall, they can still work with their coach through NXR, and even NXN, correct? (Or FL, RunningLane, etc.) Assuming this coach is also the distance coach in the spring, where is the need for a club coach? I would assume the coach would write the winter and summer training plans as well. If the track coach is different, I would think this coach would take over the training after the XC post-season meets are completed. Seriously, what am missing?

rocky mtns... wrote:

[quote]joed|rtay wrote:

I am curious as to why clubs are needed for most HS runners? A kid runs HS XC in the fall, they can still work with their coach through NXR, and even NXN, correct? (Or FL, RunningLane, etc.) Assuming this coach is also the distance coach in the spring, where is the need for a club coach? I would assume the coach would write the winter and summer training plans as well. If the track coach is different, I would think this coach would take over the training after the XC post-season meets are completed. Seriously, what am missing?

Pretty massive difference in performance between that model and one where the kids work year round with the coach.

Also, if the HS coach just writes a plan and ghosts for a few months, the kid will join another club. That clubs coach may have a drastically different philosophy than the HS coach. Having two voices in your head telling you to do two different things usually doesn't work well for anyone.

justacoach wrote:

Pretty massive difference in performance between that model and one where the kids work year round with the coach.

Also, if the HS coach just writes a plan and ghosts for a few months, the kid will join another club. That clubs coach may have a drastically different philosophy than the HS coach. Having two voices in your head telling you to do two different things usually doesn't work well for anyone.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I was assuming that HS coaches were still working directly with those kids during the winter and summer, maybe not 5-6 days/week, but with regular, consistent contact. Continuity throughout the year and their high school career.

I totally agree that having too many voices is rarely good for an athlete, that's why I'm trying to understand the club need at the HS level.

We learned the hard way.

Kids in our community are affluent. We used to employ that model. While our in season #s were about 60-70 kids, we'd have an off-season crew of maybe 25 to 30 year round runners.

Then a few kids started to go to another local club. From there, two things started to happen. One: without these kids, who usually were our most dedicated runners, our off-season group began to crumble as numbers declined. Two: not all, but some of the kids that spent time with the club team became.....harder to coach.

And our team kinda sucked through this period. Yes, the results sucked, but the team chemistry was horrendous.

Our program has evolved since that low point. We asked why kids were going elsewhere and looked at our program to see what we could change. Then, we formed our own club. its about 50 strong...so most any kid in our program that doesn't do another sport now runs year round. We had to (and still have to) compete with the local club to retain "our kids", but that competition has made our team better in most every way.

The club coach is needed when the school's coach is an unqualified idiot (which is more common than you think) or is simply beyond their capability [the coach might also act as the football coach and might do fine with sprinters and throwers, but may not have an idea or the desire to coach distance (my brother-in-law's HS coach was this way)]. A lot of high school coaches are simply teachers looking for supplemental income and may not have a clue about track. It's not like people are lining up for high school coaching positions that don't pay great. Just because the high school you went to actually had a decent coach doesn't mean everyone has that luxury.

So Niwot is not only cheating, but now they need to apologize? FFS.

Niwot's girls winning State with 20 points is not at all similar to a football team winning 106-0. Impressive, yes. And winning for the 4th year in a row, that's consistent dominance. Don't expect it to change, either*.

But in the football example, the losing team (one of two total teams) didn't score at all. All 20 XC teams finished 5 runners and scored. The sports are nothing alike.

Also, is Cheyenne Mountain scoring 26 points almost as embarrassing? 6 points seems like almost to me. Niwot's girls had two non-team scorers in front of their top 5, while Cheyenne Mountain only had one. Even closer. Niwot's boys likely felt bad to lose 26-63, but have no reason to feel embarrassed as they know how tough Cheyenne Mountain is.

Niwot and Cheyenne Mountain have more than a low score in common. Both teams have a strong club population on their teams. Both teams have REAL Training coaches on their staffs. And both have big teams with numbers that don't seem to have suffered like some other programs over the last 2 seasons. I know, they must be recruiting, right?

Successful high school programs do not need to recruit. They need to develop (not squander) the athletes that are attracted to their programs. I think recruiting is often confused with marketing. For a high school XC program, marketing is:

- The uniforms you wear.

- The meets in which you compete.

- The travel you do to compete out of state.

- How you treat other athletes, parents, and coaches**.

- How you perform.

- How your carry yourselves.

*CHSAA does not move teams up or down based on performance. Teams are sometimes moved up or down classifications based on rebalancing every two years. Teams may ask to "play up" or choose to move down a classification. Valor chose to move up to 5A. Perhaps they felt pressure as they quickly became a power in certain sports.

**If anyone was unfortunate enough to be at this year's Stutler Twilight meet, they might have witnessed a highly respected, top-notch coach threaten a Niwot coach and unload a profanity-laden rant in front of athletes and coaches. The coach was clearly frustrated, but their behavior was unacceptable, embarrassing for all involved, and strong evidence for their program's struggles. That's the opposite of marketing one's program.

"*CHSAA does not move teams up or down based on performance. Teams are sometimes moved up or down classifications based on rebalancing every two years. Teams may ask to "play up" or choose to move down a classification. Valor chose to move up to 5A. Perhaps they felt pressure as they quickly became a power in certain sports."

This is simply not correct, here is the exact wording from CHSAA's bylaws:

"1500.21 Classification of schools shall be based upon the CDE Student Membership Counts to

address competitive and classification balance. The CHSAA Staff may also consider

other factors to justify placing programs up or placing down (reclassifying). Factors

including but not limited to:

● Socio economics of the school’s population (Free and Reduced Lunch Rate)

● Demographics of the school’s population (includes approved 5th Year Transition

Programs Only)

● Participant safety concerns

● Competitive non-success and success

● Competitive history and balance

● Geography

● School’s enrollment trend

● School’s participation rate in CHSAA sponsored activities (CHSAA Participation

Survey)

● Entry or selection process of the school

● Prior year out-of-building student percentage on rosters"

Pay close attention to bullets 4 and 5, they are specific to performance. I will add, some of these, like bullets 1 and 2, are relatively new and are attempts by CHSAA to deal with some of the very issues that have been raised in this thread, will it help level the playing field some? We will see I guess.

I was certainly not implying that Niwot should apologize, I was simply using the football game as an example, both are symptoms of the same disease. Football is unique in that mismatches like that tend to also result in more injuries. But a blowout is a blowout in sports, when you can finish your entire cross country team at state ahead of virtually the entire field, that is a blow out, and yes I'd say Cheyenne Mountain's win also qualifies. In my case I don't blame these programs or coaches as much as I blame the powers that be for holding on to a bygone era.

I'm really torn on this, I've been around high school kids for decades now, it saddens me to see kids running mileage 52 weeks a year (or even 50 or 40). The research is absolutely clear, kids are healthier and happier when they play multiple sports and participate in a variety of activities. But coaches like me that believe this are stuck between a rock and a hard place, you can't run a competitive program like that these days, you loose kids to other schools, clubs or other sports (that have clubs).

I would love to continue a constructive conversation, what can we do to increase high school participation and still allow schools like Cheyenne Mountain and Niwot to run their elite programs?

JFC, 11 pages in and the LRC braintrust hasn't solved this yet? So typical.

Cheyenne Mountain? You are complaining about Cheyenne Mountain? They, like almost every other team in Colorado Springs, simply benefit from the fact that the community enjoys running and fosters it through tons of opportunities for kids to participate. The PPRR has a running series just for kids. The middle school programs at the public schools are competitive and fairly well coached, there are clubs (Kokopelli, REAL, Striders, etc.) that develop talent in the off season, they host lots of meets for youth during the winter and summer, etc. The reason there were 5 teams in Boys 4A in the top 10 from the Springs is more of a testament to the community as a whole than simply one club. Almost any team in 4A could do what Cheyenne Mountain did this year if they cultivated their talent similarly and got the same level of buy in from the community. Why not complain about Battle Mountain or Durango while you are at it? Is it simply because they are smaller? They obviously do not lack for affluence, they have trails all around them and unlike a lot of the front range teams, do not have to worry about other schools poaching their talent (they are the only show in town).

Well, I definitely stand corrected re: CHSAA's reclassification powers. I was definitely out of line. Thanks CO Coach!

Does CHSAA provide examples of when they've exercised these powers? Schools/programs/sports? I'm certainly interested to know if there are any XC/T&F programs that have been moved.

While Cheyenne Mountain's score was similar, the margin was certainly different. I'm curious what you see as the mechanics of how Niwot's or Cheyenne Mountain's lopsided wins hurt the rest of 4A.

And what about the 4 straight wins by the TCA girls? They've had blowouts in there and have won 4 straight years. Why do they stay above the fray in this discussion? TCA and other charter schools (Peak to Peak comes to mind) are somehow immune in these discussions of recruiting, mismatched competitive power, undue influence? I'd be interested in hearing more about how these programs got to be as good as they are/were (Peak to Peak is currently rebuilding, but was a considerable 3A power not long ago).

What's "running mileage" equate to for you, CO Coach? I'm not attacking you about this. I'm honestly curious.

Some thoughts/questions on that:

- Every mile isn't equal.

- Every kid isn't equal when it comes to training volume.

- Training volume for a freshman is different than it is for a senior. What's the progression a program follows for their runners?

- What are programs doing for injury prevention?

- What are programs doing specifically for girls in their program vs. boys in their program (besides running less miles and calling it good)?

- Schools that have better access to soft-surface running definitely have an advantage over those that don't.

- Does a program's volume sometimes spike but more regularly stay at a lower volume than those high weeks?

To your last point, I'd say that Cheyenne Mountain, Niwot, TCA, Valor, Mountain Vista, Cherry Creek, Arapahoe, Battle Mountain, etc. aren't building elite programs in a vacuum. There are a great deal of teams that are pursuing excellence and trying to be dominant powers in our sport. I don't have big concerns about high school XC participation. COVID caused a blip that will take some time to overcome. Does how TCA performed at State on the boys and girls side affect the numbers at Estes Park HS?

Yes, you can see exactly which teams have been moved up or down, on the bulletin for each sport. For example in the most recent track and field bulletin, starting on page 11 you see all of the high schools in Colorado listed by classification with their enrollment next to them. The high schools that were moved up have a "^" next to them and the high schools that were moved down have a "*". CHSAA doesn't say exactly why, but based on the schools you can guess economics and/or past success is driving these decisions. For example you can see Aurora Central and Thornton were both moved down to 4A even though they have over 1700 students and Pueblo Central and Riverdale Ridge were moved up to 4A even though they both have less than 774 students:

So the provision is there, but as you can see, not very many schools have been moved up or down, not nearly enough anyway, and two years is far too long to wait to make these changes. My suspicion is the schools themselves have to petition to start the process of moving up or down, and not very many schools are probably willing to petition to be moved up. TCA is perfect example, they got moved down to 3A a few years ago while they were already winning 4A state titles in XC and track, because the enrollment numbers said so, but otherwise the move made no sense, and those poor 3A schools never stood a chance. Probably the best thing would be to put all the schools listed above in one classification together for cross country, it would honestly be fun to watch.

To be clear, it saddens me just as much to see high school volleyball, soccer, baseball and basketball players competing year round as it does the distance runners running year round, the results of both have been clear for years: increased injury and burnout. I'm not interested in debating the specifics of how much mileage a 12 year old can handle or what surface I need to find for my freshman cross country runners to be able compete at NXN. If that's what it takes to compete against these "power houses" we have surely lost our way.

For me personally I don't care about any of those schools or their programs, I'm trying to have a general discussion, across all sports and schools. The problems discussed here for cross country have been rampant in ball sports for years, if you want to see coaches getting frustrated go watch a high school baseball or football game sometime, you'll hear plenty of cussing. Any meaningful rule changes by CHSAA or anyone else are going to be applied across all sports, their effect on XC is probably nearly an afterthought. My mistake here was trying to talk about high school sports generally on a distance running board. That's clearly not going to be productive.

This is what Ric Rojas and now Nell Rojas dream of building:

http://realtrainingcolorado.com/coaches