Cross Country vs Track (Building a Distance Program)

[Stacy]

In order to build a prestigious distance program, does it make sense to stack your team with gifted long distance runners (i.e. Wisconsin) that can capture x-country titles, or with middle distance ones (i.e. Michigan) that dominate on the track. It seems to me that most schools have to make a choice given the limited number of scholarships, and that very few are able to be among the very elite in both.

[tafnut]

Re: Cross Country vs Track (Building a Distance Program)

I kinda like Arkansas's approach, get every stud you can lay your hands on.

A program is merely a reflection of the coach. He/she/it tailors it to his strengths and biases.

[26mi235]

Re: Cross Country vs Track (Building a Distance Program)

You can get a distance program that attains high-level placing in XC and helps in track and field. Top runners often want to go to a top program. Thus, you get there more easily in XC. The distance runners form a base for points that then allow the track and field program to get athletes to a strong program and then you keep building as the T&F program builds credibility for coaching more more than distance runners.

Wisconsin seems to be following this approach. Besides the distances, they now have athletes that can score in the 100m (and maybe the 200 soon), the shot (crossover scholarship from football), decathlon, middle distance, and they even sent a 4x100 team to nationals. I think that Arkansas had a version of this strategy, although they have been good at events other than distances for so long, I am not sure.

[utopian]

Re: Cross Country vs Track (Building a Distance Program)

Suppose we look at it a little differently, that is, from the viewpoint, not of building a program, but of developing the individual athletes.

Although all distances runners have a cross-country background of one sort or another, is it the best program to develop a track middle- or long-distance runner?

I don't see many distance runners running cross-country after college and those that do are quite selective in how many races they run. But in college it is at least once a week or more. Is the physical and psychological stress worth it?

Even more challenging for college atheletes is the fact that they compete for two (or even three where there is indoor competition) seasons a year. This includes training, trips and the stress of competing. Their classmates compete in one sport a year. Of course, they are probably training for that sport most of the year also, but at a less intense level. They are building themselves up--not tearing themselves down.

[26mi235]

Re: Cross Country vs Track (Building a Distance Program)

Most of the UW runners have run one race this year except for those that will not run at the end of the season (Big 10s, regionals, and Nationals), who might have run two. Where do you get the perception that top-level distance guys race XC meets even once a week, much less more than one?

[utopian]

Re: Cross Country vs Track (Building a Distance Program)

>Most of the UW runners have run one race this year except for those that will
>not run at the end of the season (Big 10s, regionals, and Nationals), who might
>have run two. Where do you get the perception that top-level distance guys
>race XC meets even once a week, much less more than one?

You are right, of course. Even at Div III school Williams College, which near my home, the participants are alternated and do not run every week.

[Stacy]

I'm just sort of amazing that a program like Michigan has so many studs on the track--Willis, Brannen, Sullivan, Webb (sort of) but they aren't at all impressive in x-country. And, quite honestly, with a few exceptions, the Wisconsin guys don't do great at national track meets (and even when they do they get short shrift cause they can't run relays).