Oregon's ROJO states any Math's teacher could be a good coach. Just about numbers.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Natural talent does way more than a coach. Why do you think UTEP only has a few good Africans every so often and nobody else on the team would even make a high school JV team? And the many, many high school coaches with one good athlete in their career.

Coaching is just throwing spaghetti on the wall and hoping something sticks. Coaches make up all these fancy training strategies to justify why they are special. But you aren’t. You’re just lucky to get good athletes.

End of story.

Says someone whos never won anything....ever.

As a coach the comment is fairly arrogant. He takes out relationships and yes as many have stated the psychology of coaching. To actually believe that coaching is just a number game is an insult to those of us who actually work with developing athletes.

McMillans Running Calculator coached me to my half-marathon PR. Of course I had a solid understanding of training and racing thanks to my high school and college coaches. To coach a team or group you need to have some level of emotional intelligence.

I think he’ll be fired or resign. Speaking of college coaches I’d like to see lose their job, I still regret UPenn’s Dolan didn’t lose his job in the wake of Madison Holleran’s suicide. If he would have supported her decision to quit, she might still be alive.

Obamas Preacher wrote:

Math in running is at an elementary level. Johnsons point is BS to try and escape the fat shaming scandal at Oregon.

A coach being excellent in both psychology and exercise science is what’s important. The mental aspect of an athlete is as important as the physical. Interestingly Mike Smith at NAU has a degree in psychology. He’s also the best coach in the country rate now.

The owners of this site run far from being good in psychology. If anything this place causes mental issues rather than helps with them.

There have been many great HS runners with coaches that didn't use exercise science or were excellent in psychology. Is your belief applicable to all sports or is it only distance runners that are such delicate flowers?

Recruiting.

Recruiting is by far the most important factor in being a successful coach.

Angelo Mysterioso wrote:

Recruiting.

Recruiting is by far the most important factor in being a successful coach.

This. It's 100% about the athletes, and recruiting said athletes.

Look at Salazar - one of the GOATS. I don't remember the exact quote, but the Nike exec said something along the lines of, "Al wasn't that great of a coach, until I got him better athletes."

Alan Turing placed fifth in the British 1949 Olympic trials for the marathon with a time of 2:46, which at the time was elite.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't understand others.

14 championships says he's right.

Natural talent isn't all that important in high school distance, maybe more in college and most in the pros, but maybe not. When you see how the best high school coaches take material that never did anything--that is, the general students at his or her school over generations with mediocre results--and turn it into a year-round power for a decade or more, you can see how much your program does to create some of the best in the country. That's how Newbury Park and York and Loudon Valley and so forth get great. And you may point out that some of their athletes don't do great, but in most cases those are the ones who didn't follow the program all the way.

NAU has a lot of talent, no question, but develops that talent, unlike some programs.

Drew Bosley, hs pr's 4:05/8:47/14:32; college 22nd xc frosh, 4:02/13:43

Ryan Raff, hs pr's 4:15/8:51/14:50; college 23:37 xc 2021; 10000m 29:13

Nico Young, hs pr's 7:57 3k, 8:40/13:50; college 13:24/22:30

Abdihamed Nur, hs pr's 4:27/9:26/15:30xc; college, 13:26/27:47

Theo Quax, hs pr's 1:53/3:47/8:22; college 1:50/3:39/13:49

As a coach the comment is fairly arrogant. He takes out relationships and yes as many have stated the psychology of coaching. To actually believe that coaching is just a number game is an insult to those of us who actually work with developing athletes.

I thought it was the art and science of coaching.....the mathmatics of coaching just doesn't have a ring to it. Sounds like athletes are just numbers at Oregon. Sounds like he is a recruiter not a coach. Big difference i would think.

Rojoduck's comment about data strikes me as pretty reductive and crass. Data - specifically biometric data - is no doubt important. But it should be more important to the athlete than the coach, and it is the coach's obligation, especially with incoming athletes, to make them understand that and to teach them how to interpret and use that data as useful tool that they own. That presupposes a coach who is invested in a particular athlete's success.

I read this article as the profile of a program where there is a surplus of raw talent and the coaches are using this sort of data as part of their investment/divestment strategy in who is going to get their time and attention. That creates a lot of wreckage.

SUPERIOR COACH J.S 1 wrote:

Einstein light wrote:

Do you have a higher education in mathematics , JS ?

Yes I have. I have studied mathematical analysis at the well- rated Chamers University of Technology in Gothenburg , Sweden. Also I`m an educated data programmer at Gothenburg University. Mathematics has always been one of my favourite subjects in school.

We commend you for your mathematical ability and that is possibly why you have decided to adopt the DANCAN system which is rather unique in long-distance running circles. You are indeed a numbers man. Hopefully you will receive the kudos you deserve in the coming months for the up-and-coming runners that you coach. You have a French masters runner (40-44) who can run 30 minutes flat for 10 km on the road who will be aiming for a marathon soon right around 2:20:00. If he achieves that time on 50 miles a week, that will be quite a feat.

Where have you been for the past 3 years? Newbury Park got great by taking the students at his or her high school and turned into a year-round power for a decade or more?

Let's walk through this.

1) "Taking students from the surrounding schools." Only one of the top seven lives in the school boundary.

2)" turn it into a year-round power for a decade or more." Newbury has only qualified for state 3 times in the past 25 years (assuming they will do it again this year which will be four) and has won the State Championship a grand total of two times ever (assuming they will make it three this year). I would hardly call it a year-round power for a decade. I'm sure they will will win another title next year, which will make it four, but then the cupboard looks a bit bare. So, we're really talking about a great five year run. Barring some heavy duty recruits moving in from outside of the area, their time looks to be over after the 2022 season. You can say they're gonna do it, but until they do, leave the decade long year-round powers talk to the likes of Great Oak, Loyola, Dana Hills, etc.

Unless I'm missing something, the quantitative analysis he's talking about basically requires some familiarity with Excel and a middle school level understanding of statistics. One doesn't have to be a mathematician to do even the most complicated exercise physiology related analysis unless you're getting into some kind of stochastic modeling of biochemical pathways or something on that level (which isn't what he's talking about and wouldn't be too helpful for a coach anyway). The two jobs require two totally different skill sets. The fact that they both use numbers is where the similarities end.

SUPERIOR COACH J.S 1 wrote:

A good mathematician is only part of being an experienced and knowledgable coach . But it`s a very important part.

I've read all the posts below yours before responding. I agree with you but maybe not for the reasons you or others have touched on.

I coached high school x-c and track for 8 years. Some, actually more than some of the kids that came out couldn't do simple math in their head. I've had high school kids on many times ask me what time it was. I'd point to the old clock on the wall, the kind that had hands on it. They knew what it was but never learned how to read one.

So I spent more time with math and numbers and tic marks on clock faces than I could have ever imagined before I got involved in coaching. Knowing math isn't one of the worst attributes a coach could have.

Mathematic skill is for sure helpful, but gentlemen this is only one part of the story.

I do sports since around 40 years, and a good coach can make the difference. A good coach brings in the experience and know-how which is missing for a young athlete.

Of course its better if you get or recruit an already good athlete.

Not adressed so far is the mentality of the athlete. Is the athlete really willing to win?

Some characters are hard to change, or even impossible to change. They will never made it as pro.

But no need to blame anyone, goals must be set for any person individually whatever that is.

lexel wrote:

Mathematic skill is for sure helpful, but gentlemen this is only one part of the story.

I do sports since around 40 years, and a good coach can make the difference. A good coach brings in the experience and know-how which is missing for a young athlete.

Of course its better if you get or recruit an already good athlete.

Not adressed so far is the mentality of the athlete. Is the athlete really willing to win?

Some characters are hard to change, or even impossible to change. They will never made it as pro.

But no need to blame anyone, goals must be set for any person individually whatever that is.

Yes when the 11 year old came to me who recently ran 3:43 after 10 years with me for 1500m and now runs for Princeton it was never about the numbers it was about making it an enjoyable, challenging experience. Coaching is a privilege and unfortunately some think of it as a number crunching endeavour. Hopefully Rojo has relationships, empathy and respect for the athletes that he recruits.