Better first year: Sean Brosnan or Jerry Schumacher?

Jerry S had a great year. If you look at what everyone posted before the team improved from unranked top half of nationals, think of it as a sweet 16 basketball team. Also the women had a much improved year. He also got the most out of that team, go look at the split information from the major races. They ran even, as a pack and moved up methodically through the field with one low stick. It is also hard to compare the two. One has been high level coaching for 20 years, the other has a handful of high school seasons under their belt. On paper the teams have similar level talent, one performed way better. Jerry also is going to run off half that team and make room for some more guys.

In the USTFCCCA Rankings, Oregon went:

RV*, RV, RV, 26, 24, 15, 18, 21 and then actually finished 16th.

In the NCAA Championship their point totals at each checkpoint were:

832, 769, 736, 680, 646, 594, 543, 499, 467, 465

Their placement went:

31, 30, 30, 30, 28, 25, 21, 18, 16, 16

Very few teams can or do improve their point total at every checkpoint. That's an impressive day.

*Receiving Votes

Trick question. Correct answer is Ryan Vanhoy.

Well, during his first year, Schumacher has done nothing to disperse the cloud of doping he created and has, in fact, only exacerbated it by his and his coaching team's continued association with a convicted doper. Great baggage to bring to a collegiate program.

Brosnan, on the other hand, doesn't have any doping suspicion that I'm aware of. On that merit alone, I'll give him the nod.

Think it's pretty clearly Schumacher based on Oregon's jump at nationals, especially considering they graduated Teare, Yearian, and Brown while UCLA brought everyone back.

But also, of course we should expect Schumacher to do better immediately. Why compare these two? Schumacher has had decades of sustained success with distance runners at the highest level and has done it in the NCAA. Brosnan seems like a great coach, but a couple amazing years at Newbury Park doesn't really compare to what Schumacher has done. Maybe he'll get there, but for now Schumacher shouldn't be a marker of comparison for Brosnan and Brosnan obviously isn't one for Schumacher.

You are exactly right, but the fan boys who have catapulted Brosnan to the top of the coaching ranks based on the success of two families seem to not understand this. Who knows, maybe he’ll turn out to be a great coach, but his success at NP doesn’t guarantee he will be as his followers seem to think.

How do you know we are thousands of miles away? I am in your walls.

By we I mean Brosnan Nation

The two family argument is moronic. Brosnan did the unthinkable with those two families and on top of those families he had guys going 8:51, 8:44, 9:00. Not to mention girls running 4:36 and peaking them right on time.

Take away those two families and it's still unreal results. And if you take away two families from Newbury Park, then take the top two families from other programs and they would be nothing.

The guy can motivate and coach. It's that simple and clear.

Is the argument that he doesn't have credentials to say he will be a top NCAA coach moronic?

The two family argument is still valid even with other success. Those others were elevated by training with the uber talented brothers. The coach CERTAINLY helped this, but talent is still king. A different set of runners would yield a different result.

Brosnan has only one college season under his belt. He did not recruit or even train the team very long. Schumacher also did not train his team very long, but stepped into a situation where the runners were prize recruits and were well coached previously on a team with a winning culture and nearly unlimited resources comparatively.

Give it a few years. Oregon will probably still be the winner, but again, talent rules and recruiting gets talent. Oregon has the edge regardless of coach. Brosnan may prove to be a very good college coach, though.

I was not aware of this. In fairness, I'll re-evaluate my post if you can sum up what the relationship was/is and/or what that thread said.

Still unsure how I feel about Bronson as a coach. On one hand, he seems to have a solid philosophy when it comes to working hard and believing in yourself as an athlete, but he also trained his high schoolers very hard considering they were just kids, albeit extremely talented. Not sure how or if he has changed as a college coach, but at least his high intensity program will be better suited for college-aged athletes.

Thank you for this! It's very helpful.

So the facts as I see them...

Schumacher's case was direct doping - he coached an athlete who was busted. Defended her and was decietful AT BEST about the circumstances about the incident, then salted the earth against the AIU. All the facts come out and the case against his athlete is overwhelming. Disappears into the shadow and will not answer questions about the incident. Then, against the wishes against some of his own athletes, still has that athlete work with the coaching staff to this day.

Brosnan - looks like he was galivanting with a known drug cheat and PRs lined up with the doping timeframe. While this is merely circumstantial, it is not good.

Verdict: We're talking associate of coach vs. coach's athlete and the actions and influence of the coaches' on their athletes. There is no evidence whatsoever that Brosnan was doping his athletes, in Schumacher's case he was running interference AT BEST. Schuhmacher still associates with a doper, Brosnan does not. On this alone, Brosnan had the better year.

Shane will be a play an important role for Harvard next year. He made an impact in 2022 with a strong showing at regionals and nationals as a true freshman. Should be a solid contributor next year for a team that should be too 10 next year with Blanks and Iverson on the front end.