|
Run-Down Forums
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
coachd
Water Boy
Joined: 09 Sep 2002
Posts: 72
Location: Out west
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2002 1:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Well, a quick look at the Stanford website touts Lananna as the head of both teams and the architect of their success...I don't even see a mention of anyone who has helped build the Stanford program.
No doubt about the personalities and fragility of some of the elite runners who have gone on to Stanford. Your Whitsitt reference is well taken--some coaches don't get credit because they have "great talent", but handling talent is an important aspect of being successful...if you can't handle the egos and personalities you'll find yourself in trouble.
As for RW...and I don't want to beat what might be a dead horse on this forum--I think they DO market themselves as a training resource...it's the first thing you see on the website and the cover of the mag most often deals with some training program or another...As long as people take it for what it is---a general interest magazine for the masses, then okay. But there are people out there who look at RW as "the leading running resource in the world"...of course not us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2002 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm probably going to start another debate, but here goes ... I think that Stanford has done a marvelous job at recruitment ... Outstanding ... But i don't think they have done all that so well at coaching/development ...
They have won NCAA championships ... But that was done on depth (recruiting) ... As for outstanding performances, few have occured from Stanford students ... Note I said students ... Several have done real well running with the Farm ... But I see that as a distinction ...
As for the women, I'm not sure I have ever seen a women's program do well when "loaded" !!! I think Stanford has recruited too many top level women ... They seem to NOT do as well in groups as men do ... And I would say that goes for most events involveing women ... The 2 notable exceptions that come to mind being UCLA's women weight eventers, and South Carolina's overall program ... But even squads like those that Texas has had in the past have done well collectively at Chamcionships meets were depth makes a difference, but have not shown much individual improvement ...
And RW has asked to be put on a pedastal, yet has NOT prformed up to that level ... They do a nice shoe review, but should try ot stay out of the coaching business ...
Conway |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Distance_Guru
World Class
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Posts: 1280
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2002 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conway wrote: | | And RW has asked to be put on a pedastal, yet has NOT prformed up to that level ... They do a nice shoe review, but should try ot stay out of the coaching business ... |
I couldn't have said it any better myself, and actually it was almost exactly what coachd told me my freshman year when I brought three or four issues to read on a road trip. Gosh I was naive as a youngster 
As for Stanford and what they do with their talent. The thing is that they are almost can't win from a "success" stand point. Almost every athlete they get there would be the premeir athlete at any other institution and the coach would gear training as much as possible to aid the best runner on the team. Which is certainly what happened to these athletes as high school athletes. When they get to Stanford they are just another runner and the program can't be specially tailored for them since there are so many talented athletes on the squad. Therefore you will get more athletes that either don't improve or actually slow down from where they were in high school.
Of coarse while were talking about success one thing that impresses me is BYU's women's program. They're academiclly as tough to get into as Stanford (give or take) and they don't get as much talent. Or at least it seems like they don't since I am usually much more familiar with the athletes that sign with Stanford than those that choose BYU. TO top all that off BYU being a religous school has a smaller recruiting base since (at least the way I understand it) the student body is almost exclusively Mormon. So when I think success at the college level I think BYU.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2002 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think they DO market themselves as a training resource...it's the first thing you see on the website and the cover of the mag most often deals with some training program or another... |
Sure, they market themselves that way, just like any women's magazines market themselves as weight loss experts. I think the only reason we expect more from RW than typical magazine salesmanship is because they're the only game in town...
Conway, I'm curious about your Stanford/student comments... I've heard all the stuff about it not being a very rigorous academic situation once you get in (that was 10 years ago, so it may have changed), a degree from there wouldn't be worth much if not for the name, etc. Is that what you're hinting at?
Jennings, Riley, Stember, et al, showed a decent amount of improvement, although probably no more than would be expected from 3 of the fastest high schoolers ever... I don't think the Hausers were spectacular coming out of HS, so they might be a decent example of good development. (I've also heard they were the glue that held that team together in many respects, so their graduation may be felt awhile.)
| Quote: | | TO top all that off BYU being a religous school has a smaller recruiting base since (at least the way I understand it) the student body is almost exclusively Mormon. |
Actually, I think that gives them a much larger recruiting base than just about any school, just a more selective one. A single selection criteria, but from a huge subset of the population with few other choices matching that criteria.
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Distance_Guru
World Class
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Posts: 1280
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wrote: | | Actually, I think that gives them a much larger recruiting base than just about any school, just a more selective one. A single selection criteria, but from a huge subset of the population with few other choices matching that criteria |
I'd have to agree and disagree at the same time. I think it does give them a bigger recruiting base than most schools even some good D1s. But I think when you campair them to the Stanfords and Colorados of the world they actually have a much smaller recruiting pool, at least domesticlly. When you limit yourself to one religous group like BYU does it furthur limits the eligable number of athletes that are already very rare (that of coarse being athletes that can compete at a level high enough to win NCAA team championships) who can run for your school. Also just because they are the primary school for their religon doesn't ensure that you will get all the best athletes that are of that religon. The Zeigle sisters from South Jordan Utah, for example that decided to go to CU instead. And when you compare their recruiting base to that of Stanford, who doesn't recruit, they select athletes too have the honor of running for them. Which makes BYU's success both more surprising and impressive.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stanford doesn't recruit?
BYU by no means is a lock to get every star Mormon athlete, but I guarantee you they are high on the list of most every such person. As you know, that's the closest to a sure thing you're going to get in the recruiting game. That's not to say they haven't done a great job recruiting and developing their athletes, because they do seem to do well on both counts, but many of the athletes they get are so unlikely to go anywhere else that I don't see that as anything less than a major recruiting advantage. They obviously have a pool of very good athletes to choose from, and those athletes have few other schools to seriously consider.
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
