I can really see both sides to this debate. Recently, my alma mater had a great coach, a 14-minute 5K guy who was devoted to the sport and knew what he was doing. But back when I was running -- on my school's first-ever XC team -- we had a football coach assigned to us who didn't know the first thing about running. Thankfully, he didn't lift a finger to coach us, and just drove the bus. I coached myself. If he had actually tried to train us, I cringe to think what might have happened.
On the other hand, a coach who actually knows what he's doing -- in any sport -- needs to have control of the team. I've actually seen a good football coach get fired because the son of a powerful athletic booster didn't get enough playing time. Ultimately, the proper thing has happened for the girl in the story -- if she expects to be treated different from the team, then she shouldn't be on the team. Lee >With all respect to the many good high school coaches, there are many more >who don't know what the f%# they're doing. There are also athletes who >don't do well in a structured environment, even if the coach is good. >Finally - and most importantly in my mind - there are too many high schools >where 2-3 meets per week is the norm. While many are of course still >successful, racing 15 times in 8 weeks before the important meet will reduce >the chances of peaking successfully. Now if one wants to argue that high >school running shouldn't be taken so seriously, I can see the point - those >people should be advocating the abolition of championship meets, however. >Telling an athlete that we want you to run two or three "championship" meets >(on which we all know scholarships will be based), but don't take it too >seriously, is the worst kind of generation-gap hypocrisy. > >For most athletes, high school programs are going to be their best option. >For a few, especially some of the top distance athletes, it makes more sense >to go it alone rather than sacrifice your goals and opportunities for the >sake of the team and the coach. > >- Ed Parrot >----- Original Message ----- >From: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:19 PM >Subject: RE: t-and-f: Run to the Top > > >> I agree the HS coach should take a stand, but I also think that this girl >> probably should not run high school XC/track. What is to be gained? >> Enjoyment? If you are running to enjoy being on a cross country or track >> team I could list a whole lot of things more enjoyable. She has goals >that >> she wants to fullfill, let her go after them. I don't see how HS >> competition is very important when you can compete in open races. She can >> still run footlocker, USATF, etc. >> >> While there seems to be some idea that distance runners who are very >serious >> early burn out, I haven't seen any evidence of it. Surely, they make it >to >> the college ranks and beyond in much higher numbers than other groups. >> >> Think of the state tennis and gymnastics would be in if they left it to >high >> school competition to develop talent. >> >> Regards, >> >> Paul Talbot >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Matt Stohl >> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 12:49 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: t-and-f: Run to the Top >> >> >> Any bets on whether this girl will be even be running by the time she >> graduates high school . . . . >> >> The dad should probably let his daughter enjoy the high school CC and >track >> experience, and ease up a bit. >> >> I am glad that the CC coach stood up to the dad, the last thing our sport >> needs is fathers of middle schoolers directing high school cc teams based >on >> their childs own individual needs. >> >> Matt Stohl >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com >> >> >> -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
