BELL LAP #38

COLLEGIATE DEVELOPMENT--THE DARK SIDE (April 4, 2001)

College coaches aren't paid to develop distance runners, or any other athletes for that matter. They're paid to field competitive individuals and teams that represent the university. And no coach gets a raise, a bonus, or even a free meal based on how well his or her athletes--especially athletes who have already graduated--perform in the Olympics, World Championships, major road races, or anywhere else outside the college setting.

Let's start with those cold facts, and pick up the conversation about how well the collegiate system develops distance runners.

Hal Higdon started this discussion with his suggestion that top high school runners like Alan Webb and Dathan Ritzenheim should skip college track. Higdon's assertion was that most universities have cut back on money devoted to track and cross country, and that athletes who do get scholarships are required to overrace to make up for the underfunding. Top runners, the argument goes, would be better off focusing on their own development, rather than pledging allegiance to an indifferent and abusive collegiate system.

USATF CEO Craig Masback responded by insisting that "The U.S. has the most powerful development engine in the world--our high school and college and track programs." He also claimed that "the problem with middle-distance and distance running in America isn't that we don't have talented athletes or that they are ruined by attending college. It's that we have no overall plan for identifying young athletes with potential, nurturing them while they are in school, and supporting them as they climb toward the top of the world ranks after leaving school."

I think Higdon is mostly right about the problem, but mostly wrong about the solution. And I think Masback glosses over the dark side of the collegiate system, but that he's mostly right about what needs to be done.

First, the dark side. Spoken aloud, it sounds like this: "We're providing you a four-year scholarship worth over $100,000. In return, we have the right to run you ragged three seasons a year, and to insist that you double and triple on demand. Don't complain. We need the points to keep this program going."

Is this development?

No one wants to admit to these sentiments, but I've seen way too many coaches--high school as well as college--willing to draft an exhausted athlete for one more race if it means one more point. And to do it week after week. Where in this formula is the long-term interest of the athlete?

Even when athletes aren't abused, and when they develop steadily under the guidance of a knowledgeable and caring coach, the collegiate system fails when runners need it most. A few decades ago, when international standards were less lofty, college-trained distance runners used to automatically move on to international success. It still happens, but more often the "powerful development engine" runs out of steam before runners on board reach their destination. And this is where Masback is correct in saying we need more cooperation between collegiate and post-graduate programs. An overall plan and continuity, assuming that's possible.

Hal Higdon's poke in the ribs aside, high school runners cannot reasonably skip collegiate competition. There is no viable alternative in this country. The high-level training and competitive opportunities a high school graduate needs are virtually nonexistent outside the college setting.

The trick, though, is to find a coach who shows interest in long-term development, whether it's in his job description or not. A coach who isn't willing to sacrifice an athlete for a point.

Either find that kind of coach, graduates, or get ready to matriculate to a collegiate system with an undeniable dark side. Prepare to become an indentured servant.