NCAA T&F Problems

Expert Discussion Advanced Sprint Training
41

Well, if you want to see something that works for all, you are going to likely sacrifice many of the elites. The Bulgarian Olympic lifting program was based upon simply taking the few survivors of the program and having them be WR holders. You can see the same thing in the former GDR women’s sprint and swimming programs and more recently with the Chinese Olympic lifting programs.

I think people are vastly underrating aspects of the NCAA. Not every problem is from the coaches or the training programs and much of the great work they do is written off to genetics. Face it, athletes like Richard Thompson, Michael Leblanc, Lolo Jones, and numerous others have been developed quite well by their coaches. Not to say that in a system where there are literally hundreds of coaches and training programs that everything will be perfect–it never is–but there are a lot of coaches doing as well as they could that are being lost for one reason or another. Part of the “problem” with NCAA T&F is not even simply due to coaching or the sports system, but the culture of college drinking/partying/etc. People see a kid get worse when he gets to college and assume it is the training, only to find out the athlete is spending more time at the bar or local frat house than at the track and weight room.

42

This Scot was an isolate success like Borzov for USSR and Eugen Ray for GDR. Wells won the Olympics, so did Borzov, but only Borzov (1971 & 72) and Ray (1977) were ranked #1 in the World by Track & Field News.

As for Moscow, Aksinin and Muravyov were in the final. Ray, 10.30 in quarter final, was disminished by injuries and didn’t get through the semis. The other GDR guy Schlegel ran 10.28 in the first quarter final but placed only six as this race, won by Wells in 10.11, was packed with many big names (one of the many scandals during these Games?), and Schlegel and defending Olympic Champion Crawford (10.28 as well for 5th place) didn’t advanced. Mennea, 4th, barely qualified with 10.27 for 4th place. Mennea and Quarrie, who would eventually get gold and bronze at 200m, ran baddly in semis (10.58 and 10.55 respectively) and didn’t advanced to the final. Note than 10.39 was enough to get bronze in final.

43

Competition of Ideas must never be discouraged

44

You comment for GDR female sprinters doesn’t stand, since the main junior sprinters (Göhr, Koch, Wöckel, Krabbe to name the bests) were equally dominant at the later stage of their career. Only a few never fullfiled the promises like Petra Koppetsch but the rate is probably less that any country in the world.

45

For point one, I will simply say, based on intimate, first hand knowledge not available to most, that it would be a mistake, and quite possibly a lost opportunity, to judge programs through this filter. We’ll leave it at that.

46

Charlie, on past occasions we’ve discussed the magnitude of genetic potential that lies within CONUS and how the problems of the current coaching tactics and coaching infrastructure are related to the lack of the US being even more competitive than we are on the world stage in all disciplines.

Besides some of the stories I remember you sharing, off camera, in Vancouver, I’m curious what you might be willing to share on open forum only with respect to your thoughts on the existing USA T&F model and what you’d change if granted complete autonomy.

47

For James:
If there is to be some sort of educational shift, how will it work?
Who will have to upgrade their current qualifications, or will this only apply to the next group of coaches?
How will the pitiful salaries available in starting positions (D3 etc) attract aspirants who would then have to go through this higher qualifying standard before starting?
Who will pay for the creation of educational materials? NCAA or USATF?
Who will pass judgement?
How will apprenticeships work since the top coaches are usually far removed from the entry level paying opportunities?
I’m not saying that something couldn’t be done, but these issues need to be considered.

48

Ok, I asked the question so I deem myself eligible to speak idealistically:

Via the political/social transformation to state sponsored athletics and, in this context only, the associated advantages of a socialist sporting regime.

All existing coaches will need to pass the new selection process.

The socialist sport regime will provide each state with a budget commensurate with the amount of existing programs in that state.

The socialized state sponsorship will upgrade and create more uniformity in the coaching pay scale regardless of the size of the institution. Each institution will be provided with a budget commensurate with the amount of athletes and size of existing facilities (each location maximized to its current potential)

Neither, the benevolent and objective body of the socialized sporting regime

A collective of the most successful and globally informed coaches and sport scientists will appoint a council known as ‘the organization’

The re-organized infrastructure of the new unified regime will enhance the proximity of the top coaches to the entry level ones and a circulation will commence that effectively filters coaches to various sport qualification levels based upon interest and demand.

History tells us that one can pull the most useful concepts of existing models and form an aggregate suitable for their purposes and interests. In this context only, I am drawn to the novel advantages that the communist regimes have demonstrated with respect to the unified and organized infrastructure of developmental sport training models and, again in this context only (sport training/coaching), the advantages of socialized systems.

49

OK so this is fantasyland then.

50

I prefer to think of it as the way things would be if I were in charge; but my wife calls it fantasy land as well.

Regarding what is probably more likely to happen in our lifetime, more visitors to this website and others who will, thereby, be provided the awareness and subsequent opportunity to succeed in spite of the narrow and misinformed curricula of academia.

Of course this says nothing of the lousy paying entry level salaries and so on.

51

Let’s try it this way, maybe: If you had some significant but not unlimited amount of money – $10 million, say, give or take, but feel free to throw in your own number, since I have no idea what national track and field budgets look like – where would you spend it to improve international results?

Coaching education, coaching salaries, race prizes (depending on the rules), athlete stipends, grants to training centers, a national facility, European tours, a mix of these, etc.?

52

Posting from the Blackberry without typos is not one of my skills, obviously.

53

I was thinking ‘pipe dream’. I know USATF coaching education is “undergoing changes” but I don’t know what exactly they changing. The one change I would like to see is more difficulty / more class requirements. However difficulty and requirements means more cost and less students. It always comes back to money.

I know the IAAF has a coaching education path that seems to be better…seem much more demanding. I was pretty excited about it when I discovered it but you generally have to travel out of the country to get involved with it. I am still always looking into that option personally.

The best school is often the school of hard knocks…and being accepting the fact that performances are largely a reflection of you, for better or worse (coaches need to get out of the habit of always blaming the athletes when things don’t go well). Some sort of mentorship is tremendous also if possible.

54

I completely disagree. Look, I realize that with each coach being individually in charge of their programs that there is going to be a wider range of results. There is inherently going to be fair number of terrible programs with this system, but there is also going to be some great programs. And the great thing about this type of system is that the best athletes are able to look at which programs are consistently improving the athletes that come there and make their decision on where to go based off of that. (Not that this is the only factor track guys account for when choosing a college and it is probably even less true at a DII level type of college where educational opportunities and things like that are probably weighted higher in the decision making process.) So the programs that are consistently successful at what they do will get alot of the best athletes anyways.

Whereas in the type of system you seem to be advocating you have to hope whoever is in charge of this decision making process has the same ideas of what it takes to run a successful program as you. While there will probably be less awful programs (although, again, it depends on who is in charge) there is a much higher probability that great programs will be constrained in how much they can improve a track athlete’s time.

Just my 2 cents. I know we are probably going to disagree on this, but I am still interested in hearing what you have to say. Let me know what you think.

55

Nothing motivates “better” than intrinsic motivation for success and/or financial incentive. Products of communism/socialism based programs often despise the methods used to create their performance.

The pressure ultimately falls to the individual… and most who advocate for more state support typically lack an appreciation for what their freedom offers them or lack an understanding of all that comes with more government/state involvement.

Example given:
Let’s say that, in Fantasyland, the people who take control over a state-sponsored/run training program are the same majority who now bastardize the development process (why would the balance suddenly shift?). Assuming state involvement/regulation would correct the current process is assuming that the state would get it right.

I will leave it to Charlie, Pfaff, and many others to steer things in the right direction and allow the few to dominate the many.

56

While I agree that there will never be a “perfect system” and the coaches won’t always get out of the athletes what we always expect, from my personal experience, as well as coach/athlete tesitimony, there is a very big discrepency in the knowledge that “most” of the coaches on the NCAA level have and the positions that they hold. And it’s a very fine line that I have to fight with for the reasons you’ve just stated. It’s NOT always the coaches fault. It just so happens however, that in 95% of the situations i’ve been made aware of, it was their fault.

While it’s typically stereotypical to assume that the best coaches(any sport) are on the D1 level, I will say for that reason the descrepency in competence is even higher. I don’t think the problem is neccessarily the coaching education classes, or the system. They can be a valuable resource and stepping stone even though I don’t see them as “qualification”. I think that a large majority of the coaches are simply too lazy, prideful, or egotistical to realize they need to learn a little more than what they know.

I don’t even buy the genetics argument for the most part because D1 & D2 coaches have the whole country at their disposal. There’s no way that if given access to recruit athletes from across a country(let alone world)that I wouldn’t be able to field a top notch program year after year.

The one defense I will give to the coaches is that the pressure to win/score points/etc is often the mostivation factor behind the decisions made coaching and otherwise. If I decided to develop a program from scratch, we will most likely not win any big meet for a season or two. That may be too long for some athletic directors and head coaches.

57

There’s no problem in us disagreeing.

I have such a concrete idea of the way things should be that I have no problem envisioning a state sponsored system that operates according to what I have in mind. Hence Charlie referencing my fantasy land.

I’m not sure that I believe in past lives; however, if there is such a thing I’m fairly certain that I was involved at the higher levels in some type of dictatorship because I, inherently, have very strong feelings on the way things ‘should’ be according to what I think and know.

Regarding the disastrous potential of socialist regimes, in reference to the balance weighing on:

  • who is in charge
  • the degree to which they are informed
  • what their objectives are
  • and so on

While the US does not currently operate under any significant socialist regime, per se, I feel very much constrained by the current sport training infrastructure as my minority viewpoint creates a situation for me in which I feel like I’m going against the grain almost all the the time.

People might forget that I am a coach working in the NCAA at the D1 level so there’s no theory imparted on this particular aspect of my statements.

While I am not in the T&F business, I can only speak most concretely towards NCAA D1 “S&C” as well as my very good knowledge of the nature of this business in the NFL level due to my associates in the league, and in these regards, I assure you, according to my views and perceptions on things, the infrastructure of this particular aspect of sport training is as in need of reform as the imagined down side of a disastrous theoretical socialist sport training regime…

58

I think having money is better than not having money, and a “competition of ideas,” as KitKat termed it, is better than an authoritarian structure.

In capitalist countries, money goes where the public wants it to (as they vote, essentially, with ticket purchases and viewing habits and such). In communist countries, money went where the government wanted it to, which was to Olympic sports.

In rowing, the East Germans, especially, and the Soviets, were great in heavyweight rowing, but they did not even have teams in lightweight rowing, because while it was a World Championship category, it was not an Olympic category.

In the US, professional sports competition between cities is huge, sometimes bigger than the Olympics. In the GDR and USSR, the Olympics were everything. Yes, many western Olympic athletes get very little support, while communist athletes got a lot of support, but no communist athlete got anywhere near as much support as Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Roger Clemens, or Joe Montana did.

I think it’s wrong to say that the communist system worked and the capitalist system does not. The capitalist system works tremendously well, but differently, and not necessarily in the same sports.

I think the goal should be to get money (and therefore resources) into Olympic sports under a free structure, rather than to impose an authoritarian system. That’s not easy, but once resources enter a free system, results will, generally, follow. (I realize there will be exceptions, which is why I said “generally.”)

59

Is there a way to educate the people who hire the coaches? The Associate AD’s and such? So maybe they wont hire bad coaches? To me until that problem is solved a formalized education system and certifications etc will only produce a bunch of hypothetically qualified people that the person who has the say so if you get a job or not has no idea if your better than the next. What does he go on? Success, Word of mouth, certifications, ones ability to “sell” themselves.

60

I think there is another way entirely. First off, I think the mai9n responsibility for coaching education lies with USATF since the NCAA is already funding the athlete/coach system.
As such, they should be paying identified master coaches to prepare educational material and the incentive for developing coaches is not the threat of unemployment but the promise of stipends depending on the level of advanced education. Imagine a first tier coach making 25,000 having the possibility of apprenticing in the summer with a master coach and seeing the USATF top up his salary with “expense money”. Let’s say first level 200 per month. Second level, another 400/mon and third level another 700/mon. That would total an additional 1300/mon or 15,600/year. not a professional salary by itself BUT a huge change for the young coach which also increases his chances for advancement and likewise increases the chances for the USATF to inheret more great athletes from the NCAA. It also creates another revenue stream for successful pro coaches like John Smith. As master coach he would have the financial incentive to pass on information to potential successors. At a reasonable fee per apprantice passing through his hands, he could do well.
When you think of it, HSI has almost produced some of the educational materials with their short film clips etc.
Thoughts??