AEtheridge

Could possibly be time to delete this thread...

ETSU is a DI school. They also offer the major he's interested in, which is not a bad thing. The kid ran the 200 of his life yesterday at State, having beaten the state recordholder earlier in the day in the long jump but then having struggled in the 100. He's become a tough-minded competitor with a laser focus.

If it comes down to that, my money's on Murph as well. 2 of the best runners in AAA may not be out there: Ferowich and Stover. As I understand it, both are playing soccer.

During the summer--yes. Once made eligible--no. Quick fix: Don't make your kid eligible until you're sure he's finished road racing.

It doesn't have to be that way if you don't want it to be that way, at least not at your school. I've brought teams to the Northwest (Nike Team Nationals), the Midwest (Roosevelt Relays in Dayton, OH), the Northeast (Nike Indoor Nationals), Virginia (Maymont), and all over the Southeast. The key is that each of these events was huge--the best competition, the teams and individuals who cared. That rubs off on kids and on a program--it's hard to accept less than that when you've been there. I'm not sure why anyone cares about respect, though. Do what you do and don't worry about what anyone else thinks.

Jordan Chaney of Maryville ran 1:56 indoors twice and opened with 1:58 outdoors yesterday.

Please tell me you're competing against my team, then... /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Best advice I've ever seen for running Steeplechase!

I'm almost always watching the team race, which is almost always decided by that point. On the other hand, I was there when Matt Sonnenfeldt suddenly ripped the field a new one by moving from 6th to 2nd right where you're talking about. Maybe that's a more strategic place for the individual, whereas the team race happens in the second mile.

Yeah, but if you stood where I always stand (the place you speak of) you'd see that very few positions change after that point. Sure, there are some changes in that tough part of the course, but it seems as if it's largely already decided.

I agree that Steeple is a far tougher course mentally than physically. The thing that appeals to me is this: it's the state meet, and every marginal team that wants to go for it is going to get out like morons. While the second mile is not physically challenging, it's a mental beast, yet that's where the meet is decided every single year--even last year, when we had one of the better boys teams around. If you've gone out with the morons but aren't named Keveren or O'Donnell or Sonnenfeldt, you're toast in the second mile.

Sure. I think they have something like 7 out of the top 10 teams there. It's always a great field. It's hard to be nervous for State when you've stood on a starting line like that!

USJC is on the entry list for Maymont. Science Hill, Markie Voyles, and Matt Sonnenfeldt will be running there this year along with OR. On the girls' side, you have this: SE#1 Collins Hill SE#3 Tatnall SE#4 Midlothian SE#6 Oak Ridge SE#7 Oakton SE#8 Lake Braddock SE#9 Blacksburg The boys' field is nearly as strong. Totally ridiculous.

I thought she looked pretty good in the 2-mile at NON, running 10:24. I didn't get the sense, though, that she felt like she could control that race, which is probably going to have to happen if she's going to beat Brasovan and Hasay. IMHO, Hasay has put herself on another plane and will not be beaten. On the other hand, I would like nothing better than to be shown otherwise.

That's kind of an unusual question, isn't it? She'll win by a lot, over a very good AAA field.

Well, it's very good that you clarify that for me. I cannot say that I support your argument, though, in very many ways, at least from a philosophical point of view. Perhaps you'll argue that the "real world" is different. Our team's "half-dozen" supporters actually provide more than 85% of the money that funds the sports that I coach. In the school systems that surround me, those supporters often provide 100% of the money that funds those sports, including uniforms, supplies, transportation, entry fees, and other money associated with an athletic budget. (I am thinking specifically of several top-of-the-line programs with dozens of kids on the team.) I'm not opposed to to that, since we have loads more freedom to do exactly what we want to do in terms of travel and competitions than we would if I had to argue for every dime we spent. But let's be clear that football does not always fund us "minor" sports. Athletic departments are not providing these sports with all of the money you suggest, at least not in this area. Individual boosters clubs are--and I'm not talking about those boosters associated with football. Most of us see very, very little money with any relation whatsoever to football or any other sport. I wouldn't mind having it--more money is always better! But it has not happened during my tenure as a coach. Neither is the difference "night and day" if you are at a good school. At a good school the coaching staff is expected to do more than just coach--period. I see that this thread has gone astray. I rarely post on football threads, although they are always more interesting than everything else other than girls' soccer, but I had to in this case because of the argument above re: coaches, teaching, and (later) athletic budgets.

Teachers are not on hourly contracts: when my work is done, I'm off the clock. That means that a teacher rarely works a 5.5 hour day or a 27.5 hour week, especially if that teacher takes the profession seriously. Generally, the teachers in my school remain in their rooms working for several hours after the last bell rings and often bring work home at night, especially English teachers, who have to grade writing over an extended period of time. That also entails working on Saturdays and Sundays doing the same thing and spending summers reworking yearly plans. The argument you are making regarding coaches--that the many extra hours they work unseen add up--holds true just as much for a committed teacher, such as most of those in the school where I work As the coach of a "minor" sport--which I'll take to mean a "non-revenue" sport--I do think you need to narrow your discussion of coaching hiring to a few select positions. Sure, a head football or basketball coach is a different kind of hire than a cross country or track coach (which I am). Perhaps much of what you say is true regarding these coaches and their limited classroom duties--I don't know. Most of us here do teach passionately, though, and look at that as our primary task for the school. I am an English teacher, head cross country coach, and assistant track coach, which means I'm coaching for all but about 3 weeks during the school year and all but 2 weeks during the summer. It's a great job, and it's been great fun to win a few things as a coach. Make no mistake, though: if I didn't get it done in the classroom, I wouldn't be coaching at this school, no matter how many pretty trophies I hand them. I can say the same thing for my assistants and for the many coaches who work in some capacity or other in a variety of sports at my school: they get it done in the classroom. That's also the way it should be everywhere.

Yeah, they will be very good--probably a little better on the front than we were, definitely good at 2-4. The big question at that level is where your 5-7 guys are, and theirs seem good. I think that OR, SH, and St. Agnes, at a minimum, will challenge on the girls' side. TN xc teams have really upped the ante.

I believe they have Matthews, Lord, Meadows, Townsend, and Dix back. Van also alluded to a couple of jv 3200 runners in the 10:15 range. That's better than we had coming back last year. I don't currently see anyone who can play with that other than Hoover. As I see it, the key for them--as well as for everyone who wants to make NXN--is not to over-race, not to worry about September and October, and to stay reasonably fresh for November. That's a bigger challenge than you might think!

Baylor's chances for NXN are very, very good, IMHO. I think that they will go into the season ranked 1st in the SE (with Hoover at #2) and stand an excellent chance of being Tennessee's second boys' qualifier for NTN/NXN. I am impressed with Matthews as a team runner--he and McGregor could really lead a pair of powerful SE teams next year.

Don't know about Aiken, but Peacock won't make it in the 400, because he won't run it. We might let him run the 800, though.

It's not quite like listening to David Clary, but I listened to this site last night, and they did a good job: http://965wbfg.coacht.com/partner/965wbfg/965wbfg.asx

I can't believe you found me on a girls' basketball thread, Coniglio!

I brought it up because I figured it might aggravate the OR coaches. I'm sure they'd rather be under the radar and avoid all of the Middle Tenn.-style rivalries. However, as OR's cross country coach, it is my duty to rile somebody up...

Just thought I would point out that Oak Ridge is currently #21: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/high...clay/index.html