Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Long Green Line and Joe Newton

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    "The strong will survive, the weak will fall away. If seven make it, you have your CC team. Next year, others will take some of their places. The usual time for doing well before beginning to downward spiral is two years...do it "right" (by recruiting well with tangible and intangible rewards to make sure you get the annual HUGE numbers of bodies to contribute to your machine--starting to sound familiar, now?) and you can maintain your "excellence" for decades."

    That's quite a conspiracy. Can you support this theory with evidence? Is this supported at York? If this is true, wouldn't you expect the top 7 to rarely have seniors? Wouldn't most freshmen be done by their junior year? If the top 7 is typically made up of seniors, doesn't your theory imply they must have joined the team in their sophomore or junior year? Is the only reason York and other schools get 200 runners out because the coaching staff fools them with the false idols of 'tangible and intangible rewards?' Wouldn't it be instructive to ask a large number of ex-York runners what they think about their time in Newton's program rather than just assume Newton's program is a net loser in the long run.

    Comment


    • #47
      What exactly is an acceptable standard for a coach? How many athletes must have success on the next level for the coach to be judged as caring for the athletes? Arkansas has 41 team titles, 181 All-Americans, but 'only' 25 Olympians. Is McDonnell burning his men out? Or is this a nebulous standard, best left up to the judgment by the people most directly involved?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by K.I.R.
        Originally posted by Brian
        Many coaches fake people out on that last one, claiming one thing while their actions show the opposite. Some use the word "team" when they really mean "me." A big clue for coaching success can be seen in what Lauren Fleischman recently said about the way Vin Lananna coaches...that he finds out what works for each person. Tough to do in larger groups, sure. But not impossible if you truly care about your runners.
        Funny that you (rightly) criticise the "kill-all-but-seven" method and then point out Lananna as an example of doing things the right way. Vinny is a classic example of bringing in a lot of studs and beating the piss out of them for the glory of Vin Lananna.

        I've seen plenty of Lannana's people go on to compete at the next level. That doesn't happen if they've had the "piss beat out of them."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by David Andersen
          "The strong will survive, the weak will fall away. If seven make it, you have your CC team. Next year, others will take some of their places. The usual time for doing well before beginning to downward spiral is two years...do it "right" (by recruiting well with tangible and intangible rewards to make sure you get the annual HUGE numbers of bodies to contribute to your machine--starting to sound familiar, now?) and you can maintain your "excellence" for decades."

          That's quite a conspiracy. Can you support this theory with evidence? Is this supported at York? If this is true, wouldn't you expect the top 7 to rarely have seniors? Wouldn't most freshmen be done by their junior year? If the top 7 is typically made up of seniors, doesn't your theory imply they must have joined the team in their sophomore or junior year? Is the only reason York and other schools get 200 runners out because the coaching staff fools them with the false idols of 'tangible and intangible rewards?' Wouldn't it be instructive to ask a large number of ex-York runners what they think about their time in Newton's program rather than just assume Newton's program is a net loser in the long run.

          Earlier: "You're painting your picture too broadly"

          [How do you espouse a conspiracy is broad terms? Make up your mind.]

          The first is exactly what I'm doing...speaking in general terms; apply it to the Newton arguement if you like. What I've said is how the bad coaches do it. It goes beyond theory, we've all seen this happen. You decide if it applies to Newton.


          I purposely don't get specific about anything concerning Newton because it just doesn't matter. A Newton disciple is pretty closed-minded, as are Newton detractors.

          Comment


          • #50
            Earlier: "You're painting your picture too broadly"

            [How do you espouse a conspiracy is broad terms? Make up your mind.]
            I was talking about two different things. At any rate, is there a rule that conspiracies can't be discussed (or supported) in broad terms?

            Fine, drop York from the discussion. You still made assertions w/o evidence. "We've all seen this happen" is not evidence - nor is it true. I have not.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by David Andersen
              ["We've all seen this happen" is not evidence - nor is it true. I have not.

              You need to get out more.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Long Green Line and Joe Newton

                Just wanted to bump this old thread to point out that The Long Green Line can be viewed free of charge on hulu.com.

                Well done by all those involved.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re:

                  Originally posted by kuha
                  I suspect that Newton got "everything" out his runners during their 4 years in HS--leaving essentially nothing for future years. Maybe not a bad thing--all in all--but definitely not our "ideal" scenario for the development of an athlete from young teenage years into adulthood...
                  Even from a school this size, over the tenure of Newton at the school, on a national (or higher) level you would expect no more than one GREAT runner out of the school. If he produced many national-level High School runners but only a few National-level College runners and one national-level Pro runner, then what he mainly did was up the lower levels by getting them to run beyond there years. developmentally, this is probably not great for many of his runners (150/year? or really 35/year, 4 years in residence at a time).

                  Some good things can come out of this, which is the students realize that they can achieve very good things. One good measure would be whether they did well in high school and in college and post-college relative to their peers (not in a running sense but in a life sense).

                  I was never really 'pushed' until grad school and it did up my level of 'competition'/effort applied to things thereafter. Maybe the 'Greatest Generation', growing up in the Great Depression and then reaching Manhood (and womanhood) in WWII probably were much more 'pushed' than generations since.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X