It is truly unbelievable the things people here will say that are not true.
It is truly unbelievable the things people here will say that are not true.
Dudley wrote:
It’s hard for us to go and research her accomplishments at NC state I’m sure someone can but no one knows better than her. I’m sure if you ask her she has many stories of someone going from a mediocre runner to a contender or from
being someone on the sidelines to someone who is in the top 7. Maybe they don’t become all-Americans so you don’t recognize it. But, as coaches we know that we have many stories of say a girl who was running 20 min for 5k improve to 17:50 or 22:00 for 6k from a 24:00. They may never be rockstars but that improvement takes dedication and commitment from the athlete as well as support from their coach. I’m sure henes has many many of these stories she could tell.
Fixed my mistakes
there is a tendency to focus on the athletes that had high expectations out of HS, and didn't fulfill them ie. Fraziers -credit should be given to though to some success stories such as Koon in 2016-2017
http://www.technicianonline.com/sports/article_37cb26d6-9757-11e7-96e5-4ffb54491a03.htmlpaul72 wrote:
...
there is a tendency to focus on the athletes that had high expectations out of HS, and didn't fulfill them ie. Fraziers...
Can we relax a bit on how bad the Fraziers did in College
This is how they did compared how the top 2 girls at FL in the last 6 years did in College (the ones that actually competed).
3000m
W. Frazier 9:01
Barrett 9:07
Rohrer 9:11
Alcorta 9:14
R. Frazier 9:17
Pendergast 9:25
Johnson 9:29
Mareno 9:30
Wesley is #1. Her sister is pretty much mid pack and at the top of the pack if you also look at the girls who never made it to the starting line in College.
There is a difference between being a disappointment and being #1
How is picking one distance meaningful? Wesley Frazier ran 17:19 and Rohrer ran 15:29. Frazier ran 20:21 for XC and Rohrer ran 19:26. Which one improved more in college?
3000 sp wrote:
How is picking one distance meaningful? Wesley Frazier ran 17:19 and Rohrer ran 15:29. Frazier ran 20:21 for XC and Rohrer ran 19:26. Which one improved more in college?
Rough crowd. You run 9:01 for 3000m and that’s just not good enough. You are still a disappointment to the LR crowd.
Don't misunderstand. 9:01 is great. But some of the others are not being given their due if yout list just one distance.
you are not kidding, at the right school with better tactics would have been 8:59
nc state fan wrote:
superawesomness wrote:
I did an analysis of all of the recent runners for the NC State women and tried to figure out how they developed since high school. I scored them based on the ratings:
1--Significantly Regressed
2--Regressed
3--Stagnant
4--Improved
5--Much Improved
Average Rating: 3.8 (Somewhat Improved)
BUT I recognize that my data didn’t well capture the fact that several athletes got injured and couldn’t really compete, transferred schools mid-way through college, got cut for one reason or another, or quit collegiate running altogether. Also, a lot of these athletes had years when they improved and years when they regressed, and my analysis doesn’t really capture that.
BUT I am confident in saying that IF an athlete sticks with the program and doesn’t get perpetually injured, then they should improve at least somewhat during their time at NC State
However, I must note that NC State does not appear to really develop mid-distance athletes. In general, they mostly create good 5000m runners on the track, or have aerobically-based 1500m runners. So not good for low-mileage or pure mid-d athletes.
Alyssa Rudawsky
HS: 800--2:18, 1600--5:03, 5000 (XC)--18:22
College: 1500--4:32, 3000--9:32, 5000--16:26
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Improved (4)
Anna Vess
HS: 800--2:13, 1600--4:59, 3200--10:42, 5000 (XC)--17:40
College: 800--2:16, 1500--4:21, Mile--4:46, 5000 (XC)--17:26
Rating: Improved (4)
Bethany Neeley
HS: 800--2:11, 1600--4:42, 3200--10:52, 3000S--10:19, 5000 (XC)--18:04
College: 800--2:13, 1500--4:28, Mile--4:51, 3000--10:09, 3000S--10:41 5000 (XC)--17:42
Rating: Regressed (2)
Bethlehem Taye
HS: 1600--5:02, 2 Mile--10:35, 5000 (XC)--18:08
College: 5000--16:38
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Improved (4)
NOTE: She hasn’t posted many results from college, though when she does they are pretty good. Has injuries sidelined her?
Bianca Bishop
HS: 1600--5:13, 3200--10:50, 5000 (XC)--17:40
College: 1500--4:48, Mile--5:10, 3000--9:51, 5000--17:08, 10000--35:45
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Improved (4)
Dominique Clairmonte
HS: 1600--4:52, 3200--10:43, 5000 (XC)--17:29
College: 1500--4:18, Mile--4:38, 3000--9:19, 5000--15:55
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Much Improved (5)
Elly Henes
HS: Mile--4:53, 3200--10:24, 5000 (XC)--17:17
College: 1500--4:18, Mile--4:38, 3000--9:06, 5000--15:31
NCAA XC, Indoor, Outdoor Participant. 4 Time All-American
Rating: Much Improved (5)
Heather Holt
HS: 1500--4:33, 3200--10:42, 5000 (XC)--17:18
College: 1500--4:28, 3000--9:46, 5000--16:36
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Improved (4)
Isabel Zimmermann
HS: 1600--4:59, 3200--10:41, 5000 (XC)--18:04
College: 1500--4:39, 3000--9:43, 5000--16:36
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Improved (4)
Julia Zachgo
HS: 800--2:15, 1500--4:33, 3000--10:03, 5000 (XC)--17:44
College: 800--2:17, 1500--4:25, 3000--9:40, 5000 (XC)--17:00
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Improved (4)
NOTE: Zachgo looks poised to have a good year this year, so her rating may improve after this year if she stays healthy
Nevada Mareno
HS: 1500--4:18, Mile--4:43, 2 Mile--10:00, 5000 (XC)--16:36
College: 1500--4:17, Mile--4:45, 3000--9:30, 5000--16:14
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Stagnant (3)
NOTE: Went to Stanford Freshman year. Also, there was an article on Milesplit from when Mareno was in HS about her anxiety that got so bad that she had a hard time training at all her senior year. I think it’s great that she has been able to post any results in college
Nell Crosby
5th Year transfer from Columbia. Ran slightly slower than her PRs from Columbia, but placed higher at NCAA XC and NCAA Outdoor Championships while at NC State
Rating: Stagnant (3)
Rachel Koon
HS: 1600--5:40, 3200--11:45, 5000--18:41
College: 1500--4:33, Mile--4:50, 3000--9:09, 5000--16:01
NCAA XC, Indoor Participant, 1 All-American
Rating: Much Improved (5)
Rebekah Greengrass
HS: 1600--5:02, 3200--10:49, 5000 (XC)--17:56
College: 1500--4:46, Mile--5:03, 3000--9:55, 5000--17:32
Rating: Stagnant (3)
Ryen Frazier
HS: Mile--4:38, 3200--10:05, 5000--16:12
College: 1500--4:23, 3000--9:19, 5000--16:02
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Stagnant (3)
NOTE: Trained by her father in College, so she does not factor into the overall average
Savannah Shaw
HS: 1600--4:49, 3000--10:04, 5000 (XC)--17:58
College: Mile--4:47, 5000--17:11
NCAA XC Participant
Rating: Stagnant (3)
NOTE: She is only in her second year, so there may not be enough information yet to be able to tell whether or not she will improve
List missing Mariah Howlett and Sarah Latour.
Also Savannah Shaw ran U20 XC worlds so that would distracted from NCAA work.
..was Erika Kemp mentioned ..?!
I can tell you that Greengrass had some health issues, stopped running and got married.
show me wrote:
fox hunt wrote:
So only 2 NCAA All-Americans. One is the coach's daughter (both parents were NCAA All-Americans). The other was a walk on that eventually ran faster than all the top recruits.
Looks like it's a program where you can improve a little bit but they struggle to produce elite athletes and All-Americans. Compare that to Colorado who in 2018 had 6 girls go All-American in XC.
Programs like Furman produce more improvement and All-Americans.
LOL at the 2018 Colorado reference. They have a lot of AAs because they recruit a lot of HS AAs.
And you conveniently skipped over 2019. NC State 5th. Colorado 10th.
Henes (10th) and Chmiel (22nd) AAs. Colorado's first finisher at 38th.
NC State's scorers other than Chmiel except for maybe Henes would have likely not have been able to go to Colorado as freshmen even if they wanted to. That suggests superior development at NC State.
NC State has obviously now solved the recruiting deficiency. If you want to make an argument about development using the number of AA s then give the number of college AAs versus the number of HS AA recruits. Who has the better percentage?
Last year:
XC (2018)
Furman - 1 All American
NC State 1 All American
Indoor (2019 -
Furman - Zero All Americans
NC State - 1 2x All American (2nd team, last in 3k, second to last in 5k)
Outdoor (2019 -
Furman - 2 All Americans
NC State - 1 All Americans
XC 2019:
NC State - 2 All Americans
Furman - 2 All Americans
Pretty damn close between NC State and Furman, a school that most people in the nation have never even heard of.
NC State perennially brings in better recruiting classes than Colorado - FYI. Colorado has had more success because they develop athletes very well - look at Emma Coburn and Jenny Simpson as examples.
Hshshshsh wrote:
3000 sp wrote:
How is picking one distance meaningful? Wesley Frazier ran 17:19 and Rohrer ran 15:29. Frazier ran 20:21 for XC and Rohrer ran 19:26. Which one improved more in college?
Rough crowd. You run 9:01 for 3000m and that’s just not good enough. You are still a disappointment to the LR crowd.
Wesley Frazier ran 9:57 in the 3200 in high school, which converts to approx 9:13 for 3k.
Wesley Frazier ran 9:01 in her FIRST meet as a NC State runner then got worse.
She was a ZERO time all-american. Times don't matter, results do.
Isn't the head coach of women's track and cross-country a pretty recent new appointment
I think it's Henne
Hasn't she only recently been appointed head coach so isn't all the talk of past recruits a little misguided
Ezrun wrote:
Isn't the head coach of women's track and cross-country a pretty recent new appointment
I think it's Henne
Hasn't she only recently been appointed head coach so isn't all the talk of past recruits a little misguided
Um no.
"After 15 years as a member of Rollie Geiger's staff, Laurie Henes became NC State's women's head cross country coach in the fall of 2006. A former national champion in track & field and an All-American in cross country at NC State, Henes is the third head coach in the history of the Wolfpack's women's cross country program.
In many ways, Henes' promotion to head coach was a formality. She was heavily involved with the women's program from the time she joined the coaching staff in 1992, and took a more prominent role with the women's team in subsequent years. Geiger stepped back from coaching the women's program following the 2005 season and made Henes the unofficial but de facto head coach."
Why do top recruits continue to commit?
indoor! wrote:
Why do top recruits continue to commit?
Because the results the team and runners are getting, the coaching staff, the quality of the school and it's location. NC State has an incredible class coming in this year. Many top runners to go along with Tuohy. They have consistently been in the top 5-10 in the NCAAs. Go read what many of these runners are saying as the reasons they are choosing NC State. Great choice.
DistanceRunner14 wrote:
indoor! wrote:
Why do top recruits continue to commit?
Because the results the team and runners are getting, the coaching staff, the quality of the school and it's location. NC State has an incredible class coming in this year. Many top runners to go along with Tuohy. They have consistently been in the top 5-10 in the NCAAs. Go read what many of these runners are saying as the reasons they are choosing NC State. Great choice.
That wasn’t me that asked the question.
I just answered the question about the coach.
We will have to agree to disagree on the level of the program. You and a few others seem to no acknowledge anything questionable about the program or that any others could be better. There is no denying that they have a great recruiting class and anything short of winning the next 4 XC titles will be a massive failure.
paul72 wrote:
Dudley wrote:
It’s hard for us to go and research her accomplishments at NC state I’m sure someone can but no one knows better than her. I’m sure if you ask her she has many stories of someone going from a mediocre runner to a contender or from
being someone on the sidelines to someone who is in the top 7. Maybe they don’t become all-Americans so you don’t recognize it. But, as coaches we know that we have many stories of say a girl who was running 20 min for 5k improve to 17:50 or 22:00 for 6k from a 24:00. They may never be rockstars but that improvement takes dedication and commitment from the athlete as well as support from their coach. I’m sure henes has many many of these stories she could tell.
Fixed my mistakes
there is a tendency to focus on the athletes that had high expectations out of HS, and didn't fulfill them ie. Fraziers -credit should be given to though to some success stories such as Koon in 2016-2017
http://www.technicianonline.com/sports/article_37cb26d6-9757-11e7-96e5-4ffb54491a03.html
So they can develop an athlete that likely ran only 10 miles a week in high school, but they can't develop an elite talent. They should switch to high school coaching.
Indoor? wrote:
...There is no denying that they have a great recruiting class and anything short of winning the next 4 XC titles will be a massive failure.
Not too sure about this.
As we know, it is very risky to recruit the very top HS girls.
Typically, a bit less than half end up never stepping on the starting line at the Collegiate level (or for a few races only), approx one quarter stagnate or improve a little. Less than one quarter actually improve (remember, Henes, who was not a superstar in HS now has a better 3000m PB than Rohrer, Barrett...). Once in a blue moon, a top HS girl will improve significantly in College (Ostrander...), but that is very rare. Don’t bank on that.
What do you do with a girl that has been red lining already? Increase her mileage? She has probably tested that upper limit already and found that she cannot run more than X miles without risking injury. Add more speed sessions? She’s probably tested that limit too. Change her program completely? That sounds risky.
Now what if you get an influx of 5 or 6 top girls all at once? Do you tailor all their programs? First of all, you probably not fully understand what they were all doing and how the buildup actually works.
Ok, so you put them all through the blender and hope for the best.
It will be very difficult for N.C. State to do better than the 50% (no show)/25% (stagnation)/25% (improvement) that is usually achieved with top HS girls given the shear number of top girls which they are getting all at once.
If they do better than that it’s either luck or incredible understanding of training methods.
Winning NCAA is certainly not a given. They are losing their low post (Henes) next year.
They are using a very risky recruiting strategy. It’s tempting, but very risky.
Yeah did we count Kemp?
Indoor? wrote:
DistanceRunner14 wrote:
Because the results the team and runners are getting, the coaching staff, the quality of the school and it's location. NC State has an incredible class coming in this year. Many top runners to go along with Tuohy. They have consistently been in the top 5-10 in the NCAAs. Go read what many of these runners are saying as the reasons they are choosing NC State. Great choice.
That wasn’t me that asked the question.
I just answered the question about the coach.
We will have to agree to disagree on the level of the program. You and a few others seem to no acknowledge anything questionable about the program or that any others could be better. There is no denying that they have a great recruiting class and anything short of winning the next 4 XC titles will be a massive failure.
Wow! You show once again you have little to no knowledge of the program or college cross country in general.