|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 11, 2009 14:41:12 GMT -5
Oldster, I am totally fine with optimistically delusional (I am a Leaf fan, after all).
Ok, fine. Let's assume this is the wrong way to go about it. What is the right way? These are the options that I can see:
Option 1. Simply restore full funding to a team going to WXC. Optimistically speaking, this would allow the best runners to use World Cross as part of their training without a significant financial burden. From what you are telling me, if the team was fully funded, this would entice the top runners to go. What if it doesn't?
Option 2. Full funding+count back, so that no matter what happens, we send a team, even if it means sending men and women we know will not finish in the top half. But, according to what you guys are telling me, this will help their development because they'll get to be out-classed at the international level. I fail to see how this is good for development, but this seems to be what people are arguing for.
Option 3...
Any suggestions? Because I don't see how the above two options help development any more than the current situation. In fact the current situation ensures that IF we send a team, that team does reasonably well, which is more likely to contribute to a positive development situation. I think in that documentary about Motram, his coach says something about how they set up his races so that he would always have a shot at winning, so that when the time came for him to be racing against the best in the world, he would believe in himself. That seems like a reasonable model to follow.
With respect to your last point, AC setting the bar high does not imply athletes are not trying their hardest, it is implying that there is an objective level of performance that is acceptable at an international level and that there is no good reason to send people to get beaten. I don't think they are saying try harder, I think they are saying keep trying. This is a sport that rewards persistence, and rarely is skipping steps useful method.
As an aside, another reason why we will continue to send Mountain Running teams is that there are not enough other competitive opportunities for those athletes, so in order to learn (and Mountain Running is really a sport that needs learning) going to Worlds is really the only option. Cross country is not that way. There are any number of cross country meets available within North America that would serve as good competition for those in the 8-15 group at nationals. One disagreement I would have is that if you send the 8-15 group to NACAC and they do well, then maybe they'll be ok at World Cross. So that is an argument in favour of at least trying the next group down...except it seems to have been tried the last couple of years and success at NACAC has not translated to success at World Cross.
It seems to me that those who are critical of the most recent criteria are basically saying, just fund it and take the best who want to go. I am not going to speak to AC's financial situation, as I don't know it, though I suspect, like some of you, that perhaps there are enough funds for cross country. Clearly a decision has been made to the effect that it is not worth paying for sub-elite athletes to go to elite competitions. I don't see how that is so earth shattering or bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 11, 2009 15:01:11 GMT -5
Just thinking a little more about the developmental issue. If one of my guys were to finish top 20 at nationals cross and get a chance to go to World Championships, would I tell them I think it is a good idea? Yeah, maybe, once. I'd say, ok, get ready to get railed. Do you want to spend a couple grand on that? If so, cool. It probably is a great experience to have. It's like I brought my Concordia team to CIS last year because I wanted them to see what it was like. They got killed. And if it made anyone cry or feel sorry for themselves and want to quit the sport, well, they probably weren't going to make it anyway. Yeah, there are tough lessons to be learned, for sure. And it can be positive. But should the Canadian National Cross Country Program consist of learning that lesson over and over, of driving home the fact that we are not good enough, so that people who stay home and see guys and girls who regularly kick their asses get destroyed at the IAAF level? Is this the environment we want to create? No.
Do we want to spend our associations money in this endeavour? Because it is one thing to ask a guy to pay a couple grand to go to Europe to lose. He's paying his own way and hopefully he understands the risks. But is that what I want AC spending money on? I think there are other institutions that can teach that, for cheaper. AC is about high performance sport. Sending losing teams to WXC is not high performance sport.
Sorry for the change in tone, but I just watched the Iverson "practice" press conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Oct 11, 2009 16:34:07 GMT -5
Option 1. Simply restore full funding to a team going to WXC. Optimistically speaking, this would allow the best runners to use World Cross as part of their training without a significant financial burden. From what you are telling me, if the team was fully funded, this would entice the top runners to go. What if it doesn't? See this is where you have problems. If you read Oldsters comments you would have understood, this isn't an experiment, these are facts he was stating. fact: Teams in the past were funded fact: most of the top went then Fact: It stopped being funded fact: there has been a decline in participation of top guys fact: If i'm in the top 6-8 guys, and it's going to cost me thousands to go to WXC (even if i'm "funded"), I'm less likely to go than if it was free. Option 2. Full funding+count back, so that no matter what happens, we send a team, even if it means sending men and women we know will not finish in the top half. But, according to what you guys are telling me, this will help their development because they'll get to be out-classed at the international level. I fail to see how this is good for development, but this seems to be what people are arguing for. No one here is arguing that any and all teams should go and be funded. But making going dependant on 3 guys saying "yes" is stupid. These are 2 different points. If they had said we will partially fund the trip if 3 of the top 4 say "yes" and place etc at NACAC.. etc etc. But otherwise every athlete pays for their own way. No one here would be up in arms. The truth is that AC wants to make things more difficult. Ahutch pointed out earlier that when AC puts the standard from 27:52 (IAAF standard) to 27:49 in 10k track, you think that AC is simply saying "try harder"? You think someone who ran 27:50, who normally would have qualified, someone better off by that standard? But you stated: Skipping steps??? Are you kidding me? If it's sooo easy to be the best, (just don't skip steps) why are you not providing us with this solution? I'll end this with a question: If you are going to make the team self-funded (as in they pay for 100% for their own way), what is so bad about letting the team go to worlds? Or as you put it, |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 11, 2009 22:06:35 GMT -5
If cross country is as valuable as everyone on this thread is making it seem (and I agree that it is), then the best runners won't turn away just because of a funding issue (and by the way, there IS FUNDING, AGSI+winning at Americas=FUNDED). It is a privilege to run for Canada. They should be happy to run for Canada. If they run well, they don't have to pay their own way (which is the point everyone seems to be ignoring). LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: THIS IS NOT A FULLY SELF-FUNDED TRIP IF THE TOP RUNNERS GO AND FINISH TOP TWO AT AMERICAS. So don't say it is self-funded therefore anyone who wants to go has a "right" to go. First of all, no one has a "right" to compete anywhere in cross country or any other race. It's a privilege accorded by the cities who let us use their streets, parks and tracks, and by the organizers who put on the races. Second of all, there is no requirement whatsoever for the government or anybody to pay for our teams to run. BUT THEY ARE ANYWAY. No one is forced to do anything. It is not the responsibility of one athlete or a small group of athletes to ensure we send a team to World Cross every two years. I don't agree with the cynical view taken by Oldster and Ronb that AC will come along later and blame the athletes. I just don't see it shaking out that way. If you guys want to keep being pessimistic, that's fine, but from what I've seen, Canadian distance running has gotten BETTER in the last 10 years. No, it is not at the level it was in the 80s, and until the memories of those who were there fade enough not to remember it at all, it probably will not be. But this is not a crisis. This is a good thing. We have a ton of good, fast, young men and women out there. It's getting better. In terms of funding, there a number of ifs and buts but ultimatley it is still a self funded team. Just because there is some FUNDING available, doesn't mean that this team isn't SELF-FUNDED. AC is not paying for this team to go anywhere, they are funding the winners if they chose to go. (Along with I'm sure a full compliment of coaches and other assorted team personel). Neither is the government providing direct funding for this team apart from the fact that they are AC's primary source of income which is a whole other thread. If AGSI helps to fund some of this trip through the money they make at nationals than that is awesome but it's not guarenteed and it's not full funding. The funding from Americas is not guarenteed either, it is dependent on being in the top 2. So now let me ask you journeyman: Pretend you are one of our top runners, living on the small amount of carding funding our athletes get. Would you be willing to risk spending a bunch of money so you can potentially go to world XC or would you spend that money perhaps in an another way (training camp?) that might help you secure your carding money for the next year? Like ensuring you run your A standard 3 times in different months of the year while wearing different coloured shoes and singlets as they are required to do so now? You can continue to put your head in the sand on this but I'd also be willing to bet you money that AC will come back and say that there is a lack of interest from our top runners so that is the reason they are no longer sending teams to world XC. You can call me cynical all you want, I could care less. What I do care about is our XC program that AC doesn't seem to care about at all anymore. Last question for you: Why do you think our recent improvement is due to the rediculous standards AC sets? There is no correlation between the 2, the fact that one thing has been increased and another has also increased does not mean that one caused the other to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 11, 2009 22:17:00 GMT -5
Oldster, I am totally fine with optimistically delusional (I am a Leaf fan, after all). Ok, fine. Let's assume this is the wrong way to go about it. What is the right way? These are the options that I can see: Option 1. Simply restore full funding to a team going to WXC. Optimistically speaking, this would allow the best runners to use World Cross as part of their training without a significant financial burden. From what you are telling me, if the team was fully funded, this would entice the top runners to go. What if it doesn't? Option 2. Full funding+count back, so that no matter what happens, we send a team, even if it means sending men and women we know will not finish in the top half. But, according to what you guys are telling me, this will help their development because they'll get to be out-classed at the international level. I fail to see how this is good for development, but this seems to be what people are arguing for. Option 3... Any suggestions? Because I don't see how the above two options help development any more than the current situation. In fact the current situation ensures that IF we send a team, that team does reasonably well, which is more likely to contribute to a positive development situation. I think in that documentary about Motram, his coach says something about how they set up his races so that he would always have a shot at winning, so that when the time came for him to be racing against the best in the world, he would believe in himself. That seems like a reasonable model to follow. With respect to your last point, AC setting the bar high does not imply athletes are not trying their hardest, it is implying that there is an objective level of performance that is acceptable at an international level and that there is no good reason to send people to get beaten. I don't think they are saying try harder, I think they are saying keep trying. This is a sport that rewards persistence, and rarely is skipping steps useful method. As an aside, another reason why we will continue to send Mountain Running teams is that there are not enough other competitive opportunities for those athletes, so in order to learn (and Mountain Running is really a sport that needs learning) going to Worlds is really the only option. Cross country is not that way. There are any number of cross country meets available within North America that would serve as good competition for those in the 8-15 group at nationals. One disagreement I would have is that if you send the 8-15 group to NACAC and they do well, then maybe they'll be ok at World Cross. So that is an argument in favour of at least trying the next group down...except it seems to have been tried the last couple of years and success at NACAC has not translated to success at World Cross. It seems to me that those who are critical of the most recent criteria are basically saying, just fund it and take the best who want to go. I am not going to speak to AC's financial situation, as I don't know it, though I suspect, like some of you, that perhaps there are enough funds for cross country. Clearly a decision has been made to the effect that it is not worth paying for sub-elite athletes to go to elite competitions. I don't see how that is so earth shattering or bad. Why not chose option #1? No one has been suggesting #2 so not sure why you seem to claim that one. You seem to think that a few of us are saying AC should fund anyone who wants to go to world XC which is not the case. No one is saying AC should pay for a sub elite team to go to worlds. Option #3: How about: We (AC) don't really care about XC so there will be no funding for this so anyone who wants to go can just pay their own way. No training camps. No 3 of the top 5 or 5 of the top 8 or whatever the silly hoop is they want the team to jump through this year. Just let the top 8 guys and girls who want to go to world XC go and go there and do the best they can. What harm does this do when AC doesn't care about it anyways? In regards to mountain running, why don't we apply the same silly hoop jumping that you seem to be okay with for XC and then we'll get all of our top XC runners, top marathoners, top track athletes to all show up at the national MR champs and we'll see how fair it seems to you. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 11, 2009 22:19:13 GMT -5
Just thinking a little more about the developmental issue. If one of my guys were to finish top 20 at nationals cross and get a chance to go to World Championships, would I tell them I think it is a good idea? Yeah, maybe, once. I'd say, ok, get ready to get railed. Do you want to spend a couple grand on that? If so, cool. It probably is a great experience to have. It's like I brought my Concordia team to CIS last year because I wanted them to see what it was like. They got killed. And if it made anyone cry or feel sorry for themselves and want to quit the sport, well, they probably weren't going to make it anyway. Yeah, there are tough lessons to be learned, for sure. And it can be positive. But should the Canadian National Cross Country Program consist of learning that lesson over and over, of driving home the fact that we are not good enough, so that people who stay home and see guys and girls who regularly kick their asses get destroyed at the IAAF level? Is this the environment we want to create? No. Do we want to spend our associations money in this endeavour? Because it is one thing to ask a guy to pay a couple grand to go to Europe to lose. He's paying his own way and hopefully he understands the risks. But is that what I want AC spending money on? I think there are other institutions that can teach that, for cheaper. AC is about high performance sport. Sending losing teams to WXC is not high performance sport. Sorry for the change in tone, but I just watched the Iverson "practice" press conference. As I explained early journeyman: AC is only offering to pay for the winner to go to world XC. AGSI is not AC. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 11, 2009 23:14:52 GMT -5
Journeyman, as usual, your contributions are sincere and well articulated; however, I think you're taking far too narrow a view of this issue. The basic problem for Canadian distance running over the past 20 years has been that of retaining a sufficiently large enough pool of serious senior distance runners to sustain a decent depth of performance. In earlier times, there was such a critical mass, and competition within it for things like funded spots on the WXC team sustained a level of depth in the country that has not been seen since. WXC funding was not the only factor here, but it was a crucial one for encouraging younger senior runners to stick with the sport long enough to develop their talents. In the end, it got great bang for the buck in keeping our up our depth, which had a knock-on effect in producing runners capable of doing well at the international level. The production of international level runners begins with producing a highly competitive domestic scene, and WXC was at the centre of that scene in those years. I was there. I saw and felt it. The decline of this sport has proceeded in lock-step with the gradual loss of WXC participation for our up-and-coming distance people. In the short term, the restoration of WXC funding would have little or no effect on our depth, and there's no doubt that our teams would continue to get routed for years to come. For the small amount of money it would cost, however, the availability of this opportunity would go along way toward encouraging more of our post-collegians to stick with it. And unless more of them can be persuaded to stick with it, no amount of ACs "bar raising" rhetoric is going to make a whit of difference.
And one other thing: The only thing I'm cynical about when it comes to distance running in this country is the current role of our national federation, which, as I've said before, pursues standards and team funding policies that have as their central aim the preservation of the organization's own budget, with the assumption that this is in the best interest of the sport as a whole. Because of this core bureaucratic pathology, it is completely incapable of playing any real role in development in this sport. It's only real concern is with the tiny number of super-elite athletes whose world and Olympic performances can score the points necessary to win its funding from Sport Canada. And who's developing these athletes in the first place? Their largely un- or under-paid club, school and university coaches. By the time they're in position to be carded, they're already really good. If AC has any role is taking them to the final level, it is very small indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 12, 2009 8:20:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 12, 2009 10:36:41 GMT -5
I am convinced and have said this over and over again in different ways on different threads: The pool creates the opportunities. It isn't the other way around. And many of us are also convinced that the limited opportunities are limiting the pool. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 12, 2009 11:09:53 GMT -5
The difference being, I have actual data. In the marathon, there are fewer sub 3 hours, sub 2:50s, etc. etc. That has nothing to do with competitive opportunities. There are lots of them at whatever level you want. There are just as many people running marathons-maybe more. Correlation does not imply causation. To make your case, you have to explain why the drop off at ALL time levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 12, 2009 11:57:41 GMT -5
It's good to see the passion around this topic. I think we have a pool, and a "potential pool", and part of our task is see how many of the "potential pool" we can entice in the pool.
So that would mean encouraging and supporting as many of our developing distance runners as possible to make a commitment commensurate with their talent, and create some time and space in their lives to explore their gift.
I think our "potential pool" is huge. Let's just say for instance that as a Christmas gift for ourselves this year, we were able to enumerate the number of runners who:
1) raced in a school cross-country race in Canada, whether in elementary, junior, or senior secondary schools. Not too seriously at first of course.
2) raced in a college or University cross-country race this Fall, whether in CIS, or NCAA, or NAIA, or in one of the many college conferences across Canada.
3) post-collegiate runners who ran a local or provincial or national level cross-country race this Fall.
4) raced in a Fall Marathon, or other road-race in Canada. And I mean those who actually trained and raced, not including the tens of thousands of recreational runners. I am glad we have the tens of thousands affiliated with our sport. They represent a huge opportunity to develop sponsorship and media attention, as well as doing something healthy for themselves.
So, that's our "potential pool". Thousands and thousands of Canadians who have put themselves on a start line, and tried to run fast in a distance race during this season.
Now, what are the best ways to get these people into the real pool.
And, how do we construct an optimal National cross-country program to use as an effective tool in that process???
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 12, 2009 12:38:56 GMT -5
The difference being, I have actual data. In the marathon, there are fewer sub 3 hours, sub 2:50s, etc. etc. That has nothing to do with competitive opportunities. There are lots of them at whatever level you want. There are just as many people running marathons-maybe more. Correlation does not imply causation. To make your case, you have to explain why the drop off at ALL time levels. I agree that something has been lost when we see so many people running marathons, yet running them so much more slowly than in the past. I'm not sure, however, that there's a strong connection between the drop off at the elite level and the decline at the sub-elite level-- not no connection at all, just not a strong one, or one that could prevent return of depth at the elite level independent of what's going on at the sub-elite level. From actively coaching a number of young seniors, and talking with many others, I know that what many potentially successful post-collegians lack is a clear, mid-level competitive focus, such as the prize money road racing scene (many more races offered small amounts of money in the 80s and 90s) and WXC qualification offered in years past. After the tight structure of age class and university competition is gone, many talented runners see a yawning chasm of structurelessness between where they are currently and the "pro" level, and they haven't the first idea how to bridge it. They thus need some clear and meaningful intermediate goals (along with the requisite guidance, of course). Young athletes also tend to feel odd pursuing something that the rest of society, and often they themselves, perceive as kid's activity-- unless they're already elite. (A big part of the success of DST's group is that he has managed to create a sub-culture in which young adults don't feel strange or "un-grownup" for doing what they love into their late 20s and early 30s while the other people their age are appearing to "get on with their lives", whatever the hell that means.) We may prefer that young athletes simply pull themselves up by their boot-straps and show some "moral fibre", but it's not that simple; it wasn't back then, and it isn't now. The loss of something like full funding for WXC is an example of not knowing what we had till we'd lost it. The fact is, as many or more young people are taking up this sport than ever before, and the presence of a clear competitive structure is a big reason why (think OFSAA, CIS and the NCAA). The presence of a clear structure of opportunity is clearly crucial in driving mass participation at this level; the mass participation did not create the structure. Take away the structure and see how long kids remain interested in doing all that hard work. You simply can't think of training for the international level when you're 14. You have to have a series of intermediate steps, and the need for these steps continues in the post-collegiate years. The possibility of fully funded WXC participation used to represent precisely this sort of intermediate step. It gave dozens of talented young senior runners a clear answer to the simple question: "What are you still doing running?"-- a question that young runners must be able to answer, both for themselves and for the others in their lives. If we are forced to rely simply on the maverick individuals who would do it anyway, our depth will continue to disappear, and doubly quickly in an era when running is utterly dominated by age class competition and is thus strongly perceived as a kid's sport (think soccer here). |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 12, 2009 12:49:19 GMT -5
Further to Ron's post: In other thread on this board they're talking about 800, yes 800, 16 and 17 year old boys being entered in a single invitational race, with another couple of thousand kids in the other races. And why? Simply to preview the OFSAA course. There is plenty to work with in this country, but there is a yawning lack of structure beyond the age group and college ranks. Built and they will come, I predict. There's nothing to be cynical about here.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 12, 2009 13:17:14 GMT -5
Many excellent points, Steve. We are very close to being on the same page here. Where some of the "building" needing to be constructed involves figuring out what to do in the yawning gap between the first weekend of December, and the last weekend of March. That is basically 1/3 of the year, and is a huge determiner in how our runners either move forward in the sport, or not. So, if we have 100's in the pool by December, and thousands more who could move in that direction in the foreseeable future (with adequate support and encouragement), what happens between then and track season?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 12, 2009 15:13:51 GMT -5
fact: Teams in the past were funded fact: most of the top went then Fact: It stopped being funded fact: there has been a decline in participation of top guys fact: If i'm in the top 6-8 guys, and it's going to cost me thousands to go to WXC (even if i'm "funded"), I'm less likely to go than if it was free. Those facts listed all in a row don't make them connected. What you guys seem to be saying is that if we fund the team, the best runners will go. So you agree that the goal should be to have the best runners go. If that is the case, the current criteria provides for that: only the best runners should go. This is a different line of argument than saying WXC is part of a post-collegiate developmental structure that we are lacking. Because "top guys" is not "post-collegiate developmental." Actually, that is the impression I am getting from the posts. I don't know if it is stupid. It may seem arbitrary if the goal is developmental, because obviously it prevents a certain class of athletes from participating. But if the goal is high performance, then it makes sense because there is no reason to send a team that is not our best team. It all depends on what you view as the purpose of WXC. So maybe that is a better starting point. The current criteria fit very well with WXC as an elite, international competition, at which we expect Canadians to perform in the top half of the field. If we view it as a stepping stone to other world championships, that is not really an "elite" competition, that is another thing. The problem is that at the IAAF level it is NOT developmental. The level of competition is higher than that. It is arguably too high to send a group of athletes who are looking for a mid-level competitive opportunity. Standards are what they are. If someone just missed the IAAF standard by one second, would you argue they should go anyway? A bright line needs to be drawn. It is much easier to draw a bright line in track, but this seems to be a good way to do it in XC. Anyway, this is not about track standards. If the AC track standard was 27:50 and the IAAF standard was 27:47, yes, I completely agree, that criteria is stupid, because the 3 seconds are not statistically significant. In XC there are no IAAF standards, so there is nothing to compare it to. Someone drew a line. Argue with the line, but draw it somewhere. I never said it was easy. Our sport is simple, but not easy. I believe that sending people to competitions where they are unprepared or not at the right level can be beneficial to a point, but not as a national team policy. National championships are a carrot enough, I think. Finish 15th one year, go for top 10 the next year, go for top 6 and national team the third year. What is the rush, is all I'm saying, to get those 8-15th place people to the World Championships? Everyone on here knows the solution: pressure and time (among other things). I think it is a bad idea because it promotes mediocrity. This is what has happened for the last few years, and as someone pointed out, we have not done well. So while I agree that a fully-funded team would likely do better, I would still limit that fully funded team in a similar way as this year's criteria would do. As far as funding goes, I agree that the focus of AC does seem to be on the few medal hopes, and there is certainly the impression left that the organization's budget is dependent on high level individual success. Is this the best way? Not in my opinion, but come on guys, let's not pretend that Scott and Martin and the rest of the people at AC are simply working out ways to keep their own jobs. That's insulting to them and to their commitment to the sport. Where does AC get its money? Government and sponsors. Do sponsors want to touch XC with a ten-foot pole? Doesn't seem like it, except in relation to specific events like nationals. Government money is conditional on performance at the Olympics, so it is quite reasonable that the focus of the high performance group should be on securing those funds. Cross country just doesn't fit. Perhaps there is another solution, like creating a society or something. I think that if someone came along and said they would like to fund a national cross country team program, AC would say: yes, please. But no one has, and there are limited resources. If you think that's not true then you are truly delusional (and sadly, pessimistically so, unlike me). |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 12, 2009 15:20:57 GMT -5
So now let me ask you journeyman: Pretend you are one of our top runners, living on the small amount of carding funding our athletes get. Would you be willing to risk spending a bunch of money so you can potentially go to world XC or would you spend that money perhaps in an another way (training camp?) that might help you secure your carding money for the next year? Like ensuring you run your A standard 3 times in different months of the year while wearing different coloured shoes and singlets as they are required to do so now? I am definitely spending my money according to my needs, and not to ensure that a couple other guys get to go to WXC. We are in agreement there. Wow, upping the ante from beer to money! Maybe. As I suggested in my post above, I don't think it is a matter of the people at AC not caring, but a matter of limited resources and having to make difficult decisions. What if, in order to fund XC, AC decided to cut the throwing program? That would be equally upsetting to a number of folks, for sure. My point is that given the crisis we are in, this is a good way of getting a good team together. The decision to send either a good team or no team is fair enough, in my mind. It's better than scrapping the program entirely, which is maybe another option. This way, maybe we show some good results, and manage to get some sponsorship down the road. Not sending a team saves some money at least (both to AC and the athletes). Sending a second-rate team costs everyone money and we get nothing back for it. I guess not. I could make the same argument back to you that a decrease in funding and a decrease in performance are not necessarily cause and effect. But you wouldn't buy that, would you? What is the reason for the recent improvement, then? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 12, 2009 15:31:04 GMT -5
Maybe because there is not enough money to do it. I don't know if that is the case. As I said before, I am all for fully funding the WXC teams. I'm just throwing out ideas, that's all. Looking for solutions. Maybe the reason this wasn't done was because AC DOES care about XC. AC wants Canada to do well, and has put together a plan to ensure that it happens, or if it doesn't, that we will have no team, rather than a last-place team. [/quote]In regards to mountain running, why don't we apply the same silly hoop jumping that you seem to be okay with for XC and then we'll get all of our top XC runners, top marathoners, top track athletes to all show up at the national MR champs and we'll see how fair it seems to you.[/quote] Luckily, I am pretty much the sole decider when it comes to mountain running because no one else cares enough to do it, haha. Actually, the situation with mountain running is basically option 3 as you described it above. It has been working so far, as we have improved our performance every year since I left myself off the team (best coaching decision I ever made--bench myself!). The difference is that there is already a very large pool of XC runners. Mountain running is just trying to recruit people any way we can. I'm sure there are guys and girls out there who would be great mountain runners, but training and qualifying happens over the summer, so you have to skip track (or at least focus on 10k and hope the schedule works out for you). WMRC are in September, which makes it hard for students (Lambert has sacrificed much for mountain running, let me say!). We don't have the structure Oldster was talking about. So it's a different beast. As I mentioned before, there are different political pressures involved as well. If AC wanted to help with selection criteria, well, they can ask me, and I guess they could withhold their patronage or whatever it is, if I didn't let them, but I'm pretty sure that our good relationship will continue, mostly because if there are hardly enough funds for XC, Mountain Running is certainly not a headache AC wants to add to their list. I think that if we started regressing, they might ask us not to send a team unless we were going to be competitive. As it is, we are doing ok. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 12, 2009 15:34:28 GMT -5
The only thing I'm cynical about when it comes to distance running in this country is the current role of our national federation, which, as I've said before, pursues standards and team funding policies that have as their central aim the preservation of the organization's own budget, with the assumption that this is in the best interest of the sport as a whole. I think this is a pretty accurate assessment of the situation from my understanding. Two questions arise from it though: 1) why is this the case? 2) what can be done about it? What would be your solution to this problem, Oldster? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 12, 2009 15:46:58 GMT -5
From actively coaching a number of young seniors, and talking with many others, I know that what many potentially successful post-collegians lack is a clear, mid-level competitive focus, such as the prize money road racing scene (many more races offered small amounts of money in the 80s and 90s) and WXC qualification offered in years past. After the tight structure of age class and university competition is gone, many talented runners see a yawning chasm of structurelessness between where they are currently and the "pro" level, and they haven't the first idea how to bridge it. They thus need some clear and meaningful intermediate goals (along with the requisite guidance, of course). I agree with your assessment of the post-collegiate void, but I don't agree that WXC is the thing to fill it. WXC is the thing AFTER that void, the other side of the bridge. Not the bridge. Even if AC wanted to bring it down to that level, for Canada's purposes, the IAAF is not going to agree to make sure that other countries don't send their best runners, just to make it a developmental championships. I have some ideas about how to fill that void. Maybe at the end of the road I'm about to go down, WXC will make an appearance, but it really depends. I think ronb will like this... Extend cross country season over the winter like everywhere else in the world. Indoor track is absolutely useless for that post-collegiate group (an indoor club nationals is also an idea, but I refuse to advocate it. I'll leave that to someone else). The winter season is the killer, and if we had a series of races, one or two a month in each region (probably already exists in the west) starting in December, going to late February or early March, that would give some structure to the season. A national championships in February, with team selection for NACAC or Americas or whatever would be the goal, but I feel that a national championship should be goal enough. If you have all winter to train for it, it becomes more meaningful. The fall season is too short, even if you go to December. What do you do for the rest of the winter after that? Anyway, if it was found that, within this structure, a calibre of athlete who could finish in the top half (or whatever is defined as being competitive--I'm not sure what that should be) of WXC emerged, then send a team. The way XC is used now by our best runners, as many of you have pointed out, is secondary, not primary. If half the year was "cross country" season, maybe it would become primary. Until this is the case, it makes sense to limit participation in WXC. There are many other ways to develop and reward, though I agree that the system is not ideal right now. And who cares about snow. It's cross country for heaven's sake. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 12, 2009 16:15:18 GMT -5
It all depends on what you view as the purpose of WXC. An important point that I think is getting lost in the shuffle here is that these criteria also apply to the Americas meet. There's all this rhetoric about how our second-tier guys don't belong at Worlds, and they should find a more appropriate level of competition for developmental purposes... Okay, fine, that's the Americas meet, which recent history shows is far from overwhelming for our teams. But the exact same restrictions (top 6, top 8) are being applied to this "developmental" meet. I'd be much more willing to accept that we wouldn't send a team to Worlds (other than if the top guys committed) if that was accompanied by a commitment to send the best runners who are interested to the regional champs instead. Exactly. 27:47 is a tough standard, but at least you know that if you run the time, you've made the team. What we're doing here is saying, you can devote your life to mastering XC, place top three at nationals, but we're still not going to send you to Worlds (or Americas) because three other guys you don't even know have other plans in March. In other words, even if you personally make the standard, you're guaranteed nothing -- which doesn't strike me as a very fruitful reward structure. No, sponsors aren't interested, and government isn't either since it's a non-Olympic sport. But let's pretend for a minute that all of your "raising the bar" strategies really work, and all of our top guys commit to running Worlds. Let's say they have awesome races and place 20, 40, 50, and 60, for a team placing of 10th. That would be a tremendous accomplishment -- but it wouldn't register as even a blip on the media and sponsor landscape. So what's the end game? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 12, 2009 16:35:37 GMT -5
An important point that I think is getting lost in the shuffle here is that these criteria also apply to the Americas meet. Good point, and I think that if the Americas meet were the end of the road, then perhaps a deeper pool would be justified. But if the goal is WXC, then that has to remain in the picture. The difference is that XC is a team sport, so there is a team component to selectin. Another good question, but perhaps it could be asked of all non-mainstream sports (even track and field). I'm not saying the only reason AC should be interested in funding XC is for sponsorship reasons. I'm just saying it is a consideration. Probably, because there are real people involved, who do care and who do love the sport, the end game is being part of a successful Canadian team on the world stage. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 12, 2009 17:11:05 GMT -5
Good point, and I think that if the Americas meet were the end of the road, then perhaps a deeper pool would be justified. But if the goal is WXC, then that has to remain in the picture. I don't get it. Rather than leaping all the way to WXC, you said runners have to develop step by step. Now you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed to go to the intermediate step because the ultimate goal is still beyond their abilities? |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 12, 2009 17:17:33 GMT -5
Keeping up with this thread is a full time job. I love it --- nice going, guys ! I think this topic, and related issues, are worth it - We are talking about the essence of the future of Canadian distance running, imo. It' difficult to know how to focus perspectives, as there are so many interesting sub-themes here. But how about this one, just to get some people fired up. It seems that events that are 1500 metres or longer on the track, and the roads, and over the country are not worthy of much consideration at the moment. All the "own the podium" and "road to excellence" programs SEEM to me to be very narrowly focused on immediate results, and have no regard for longer developmental concerns that are especially important to endurance athletes. I think we should make a very serious effort to create a separate organization in Canada, that will assume responsibility for developing and funding these events. We need to work together, and do it as a package. Work with all the coaches and athletes, race organizers and sponsors and media folk, and create an entity that represents distance runners. All road runners, cross-country runners, and longer distance track runners should be represented by an organization that is capable of providing the support and encouragement that these thousands of athletes deserve. And that support and encouragement should be totally independent of whether we win a medal in these events in the next few years or not. Obviously, the connection with the road races/runs would be crucial to this mission, as that is where a lot of the numbers and $$$ and media attention will flow from. For instance, the tens of thousands of runners who take part in the Royal Victoria Marathon weekend in the Fall, and in the Times Colonist 10K in the Spring are all part of the big picture that we need to paint. In fact, many thousands of $$$ have gone into the elite part of our sport from these events over the past couple of decades. And that's just in one City, where only about 1 in every 100 Canadians live. So let AC and government partners become a sprint/jump/throw organization, and let's take the rest of the sport by storm. I wonder which one the shoe companies and other corporate sponsors will support  |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 12, 2009 18:02:18 GMT -5
My point is that given the crisis we are in, this is a good way of getting a good team together. The decision to send either a good team or no team is fair enough, in my mind. It's better than scrapping the program entirely, which is maybe another option. This way, maybe we show some good results, and manage to get some sponsorship down the road. Not sending a team saves some money at least (both to AC and the athletes). Sending a second-rate team costs everyone money and we get nothing back for it. I guess not. I could make the same argument back to you that a decrease in funding and a decrease in performance are not necessarily cause and effect. But you wouldn't buy that, would you? What is the reason for the recent improvement, then? I think AC should scrap the program since they no longer want to fund it and just let us, the athletes, create something like you have going for Mountain Running. Recent improvement are due to some great coaching we have out there right now along with more athletes getting back to mileage based programs. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 12, 2009 18:05:49 GMT -5
I have some ideas about how to fill that void. Maybe at the end of the road I'm about to go down, WXC will make an appearance, but it really depends. I think ronb will like this... Extend cross country season over the winter like everywhere else in the world. Indoor track is absolutely useless for that post-collegiate group (an indoor club nationals is also an idea, but I refuse to advocate it. I'll leave that to someone else). The winter season is the killer, and if we had a series of races, one or two a month in each region (probably already exists in the west) starting in December, going to late February or early March, that would give some structure to the season. A national championships in February, with team selection for NACAC or Americas or whatever would be the goal, but I feel that a national championship should be goal enough. If you have all winter to train for it, it becomes more meaningful. The fall season is too short, even if you go to December. What do you do for the rest of the winter after that? Anyway, if it was found that, within this structure, a calibre of athlete who could finish in the top half (or whatever is defined as being competitive--I'm not sure what that should be) of WXC emerged, then send a team. The way XC is used now by our best runners, as many of you have pointed out, is secondary, not primary. If half the year was "cross country" season, maybe it would become primary. Until this is the case, it makes sense to limit participation in WXC. There are many other ways to develop and reward, though I agree that the system is not ideal right now. And who cares about snow. It's cross country for heaven's sake. Finally, a sensbile a post that I can agree with Journeyman! I'd be all for this. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Moulton on Oct 12, 2009 18:08:03 GMT -5
If AGSI helps to fund some of this trip through the money they make at nationals than that is awesome but it's not guarenteed and it's not full funding. Just a point of clarification AGSI doesn't make any money hosting Nationals. AGSI is the title sponsor, they in fact give money to the local organizing committee to host the event. I think what they do is exactly what this thread is talking about; Chris and Cathy Cameron along with his brother Geoff and his wife Jill Cameron all went to University of Guelph and were teammates with Dave Scott-Thomas. They started a small business which has grown and now are giving back to the support the sport they love. Their commitment to the Canadian Cross Country program is guaranteed and they leave it up to Athletics Canada to determine the funding model. AC has decided to use the funds to fund travel to NACAC, this makes sense as you can receive additional funding for World Cross from the IAAF by winning NACAC. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 12, 2009 18:09:27 GMT -5
The difference being, I have actual data. In the marathon, there are fewer sub 3 hours, sub 2:50s, etc. etc. That has nothing to do with competitive opportunities. There are lots of them at whatever level you want. There are just as many people running marathons-maybe more. Correlation does not imply causation. To make your case, you have to explain why the drop off at ALL time levels. For XC running, there is plenty of actual data to support what I am saying. When funding stopped for world XC, the number of top runners that wanted to go to world XC decreased. This makes sense as you asking already poor athletes to now pay their own way to represent their country. In this, correlation does imply causation. Lets save the marathon stuff for a different thread, this one is about XC. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 12, 2009 18:10:33 GMT -5
Just a point of clarification AGSI doesn't make any money hosting Nationals. AGSI is the title sponsor, they in fact give money to the local organizing committee to host the event. In addition they give money to support the Canadian Cross Country team, historically this money has gone to fund people going to NACAC as team's receive funding from the IAAF for World Cross based on how they perform at NACAC. I stand corrected on the actual details, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 12, 2009 18:18:43 GMT -5
I've been waiting for someone to say something like this: I think we should make a very serious effort to create a separate organization in Canada, that will assume responsibility for developing and funding these events. We need to work together, and do it as a package. Work with all the coaches and athletes, race organizers and sponsors and media folk, and create an entity that represents distance runners. All road runners, cross-country runners, and longer distance track runners should be represented by an organization that is capable of providing the support and encouragement that these thousands of athletes deserve. And that support and encouragement should be totally independent of whether we win a medal in these events in the next few years or not. We complain a lot on here about the state of distance running in Canada in general, and AC's apparent lack of interest in our sport more specifically. But I can't recall anyone offering a specific idea of how to DO something about the issue before. |
|
mpd
Junior Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mpd on Oct 12, 2009 18:27:32 GMT -5
What has happened with this World Cross Funding seems to be fairly significant and I was just curious if those that are writing on TnF are writing Athletics Canada? ronb made an interesting comment and said to me (on the world-half thread), "mpd....What is ironic is that some people are seeing "what is wrong with Canadian Distance Running" and others are seeing "How Can We Be Better"."
I am being sincere:
Will writing on a message board actually make things better?
Do people like Martin read this? I know Scott M does.
Is it plausible to take this cyber-passion and put on the desks of those at AC?
Would they listen or not?
|
|
