Elevation and the State Meet

[brett]

Regarding elevation: I've have been to the state meet for the last 15 years, and have attended every coaches meeting that has been held over the last 15 years(some years no meeting is organized). Elevation has been discussed maybe and I say maybe twice, and never in a open forum, more from coaches as a complaint or concern issue off to the side. It has been discussed a few times at the state track coaches meeting regarding district at-large qualifing issues. Other than that I cannot remember a coaches meeting where it was a forum topic, and for the last 9 years I've overseen these discussions. So this is a good issue we should discuss, so we can address those who feel it is an legitimate issue.

[brett]

With the above said, do I feel it is a physiological issue? No!!! As has been stated, I looked into the research and the research does not support any physiological evidence that an athlete training at lower elevation, and then having to race at higher elevation has any disadvantage over the athlete training at those evevations. However we are overlooking a very important factor or issue. The Psychology of the sport. "I believe you don't train an athlete you train a mind." If the athlete has been told or led to believe that there is a disavantage to racing at elevation, the thouhgt creates the fact. I saw this while runnig for Utah State. When Utah State hosted the Big West Championships, the other teams from the Big West (mostly California Teams) complained about the elevation. Cal-Irvine were huge favorites one year and USU destroyed them, was it physiological or Psychology. I think the latter. They had it in thier mind they would run poorly and did. Can we fix this? I think coaches can, by coaching the mind.

[bravecoach]

When I first started coaching at Boise High Bob Conley's teams totally dominated the large school class, Tim Dunne's teams did the same in the small school class (hard to believe Jerome was a same school!) Bob as many people will agree was an expert in coaching the mind as Coach Hill calls it. He was also an expert in planting a seed and watching it grow. His counter part at Pocatello Mike Mayfield also did the same. In those days the meet was 'permanently' at Shadow Valley Golf Course in Boise. In every state meet preview interview with Bob or Mike a subtle or not so subtle mention of elevation would come up. Mike was always talking about the 4400 ft that Pocatello trained at and so on. It got to be almost laughable except it played on the runners, the coaches and the parents minds sometimes to the point of being ridiculous.

There is no doubt that elevation above certain levels can be an adavantage or disadvantage for runners. But how much is very difficult to truly quantify. If we try to give elevation (or lack of it) a psychological measure where do we start and even more where do we end? Maybe this is more about the 'art' of coaching and not the science. Sometimes the less we encumber our runners heads with things the better they can perform. John Wooden called it 'Paralysis through analysis'. In our quest to make everything more fair or equitable for our teams we don't sometimes see the forest for the trees. While we are worrying about elevation the bigger picture is this, we need to have our teams be the best trained and prepared runners on a given day those will be the runners that emerge victorious and all the 'science' we spout won't really amount to much. To paraphase an old Nike marketing slogan, Just Do It!

[Jeff Horsley]

I originally posted this on another thread in the "general board" under the title "Potential State Meet Elevation Adjustments". Since this is a "coaches forum" I thought that I'd re-post.

Although I understand wanting to give your athletes the best possible chance of success, altitude doesn't seem to be much of a factor in Idaho High School Cross Country. I should probably look at all the results from 2004 to now to make a more informed decision, but I have a hunch that the numbers would be close to the same. GOOD LUCK to ALL coaches and lets keep Idaho Cross Country GOING STRONG!!!

First I'd like to recognize Lewis Watkins, CDA Charter, and Kent Eggleston, Lake City, and the rest of the Northern Idaho Schools that made this years State Cross Country Meet a SUCCESS. I thought that things ran smoothly and the only thing that I would have changed is a little less wind, but I'm not complaining.

At the coaches meeting the issue of altitude and state meet locations came up...again. I'm sure we all have opinions about the effects of altitude on training and racing and there is science to back up some of these claims, however, the numbers do not reflect the ASSUMPTION that a "high altitude" course is an advantage to "high altitude" schools...at least not in Idaho.
I have looked at the 2004 Meet and compared results to this years state meet to see if there is a noticeable difference between locations, and here is what the numbers say:

2004 State Meet @ Kelly Park - Soda Springs, ID 5800 ft elevation

Of the 32 trophies awarded - 13 of them went to "Low Altitude" schools with Coeur d'Alene Girls, Capital Boys, and Bishop Kelly Boys (all low altitude schools) winning State Championships. So 41% of the "Low Altitude" schools earned a trophy.
Of the 160 medals awarded - 73 of them wen to "Low Altitude" runners. 46% of the runners earning medals lived and trained at low altitudes.

*I also broke things down for each division if anyone is interested.

2009 State Meet @ Circling Raven G.C. - Worley, ID 2650 ft elevation

Of the 32 Team Trophies - 14 went to "Low Altitude" schools with Timberlake Girls, Bishop Kelly Girls, and Boise Boys and Girls (all low altitude schools) winning State Titles. So...44% of the "Low Altitude" schools earned team trophies.
Of the 160 medals awarded - 70 of them wen to "Low Altitude" runners. Only 44% of the runners earning medals lived and trained at low altitudes.

What do these numbers tell us??? To me it, it tells us that there is no significant difference where we run state. The runners that are prepared are going to run well no matter if state is in Lewiston or Soda. If we lived in a State where there could be elevation changes of over 6000 feet, then we might have a problem, but in IDAHO, we don't have that problem, and the numbers don't show an advantage. I'm sure if you were to compare each year from 04 to now, you would find similar results.
There is no "PERFECT" site for the State Meet, all of the locations have their draw backs, so what do we do? I'll tell you what I do, I prepare my runners for the course that we will be running on to the best of my ability. If there are hills, we run lots of hills (Lewiston/Circling Raven), if it is flat and fast (Eagle Island), we run flat and fast, if the course has lots of twists and turns (Freeman Park), we run lots of twists and turns, and if it was to be in Soda again (which hasn't been decided) and I was a low altitude school, I would be doing hills and strength development to prepare my team for the challenge of racing there. I certainly would not be telling or even insinuating to my athletes that we have no chance because of this factor or that factor.

But...maybe I'm way off here.

Sincerely,
Jeff Horsley
Soda Springs XC

[bruincoach]

Part of the beauty of our sport is the ability to run state at a variety of locations. I would hate to see a state site be permanent, or be selected because of altitude considerations. Giving the XC kids the opportunity to see different parts of our state benefits them in my opinion. I feel the current rotation of the site around the state should be kept.

Marty Grindstaff
Twin Falls XC

[bravecoach]

I sincerely hope that this entire elevation issue is not some hidden agenda to move the state meet permanently to the Treasure Valley.

I will admit as a coach I'd be crazy not to want it here on a permanent basis, our runners could sleep in their own beds each year, that's a tremendous advantage. But for the sport I support the rotation as we have it right now. Each of the locations that we have held the meet in the past few years have done very good jobs in putting on the meet. And that should be the criteria we are looking for when the meet moves to each location. Can the meet be managed in a way that is equitable for all?

So far I haven't seen anything that is negative about any location we had held the meet in terms of meet management. The Northern coaches did a fantastic job this year, and when we where in Idaho Falls the District 6 people also did great. When it was in Soda, Jeff's people couldn't have done better. I purposely exclude the two times its been at Eagle Island as I along with Tim Severa were the Meet Managers, but I haven't heard any negatives about how we ran the meet so I assume most coaches were happy with how it was run.

There could also be questions about the physical courses themselves; is the course wide enough, are the turns and downhills safe for the participants, is there a limited amount of concrete or asphalt, are the spectators limited in their viewing of the races, is there ample praking for buses and private vehicles, are there areas for teams to find cover in case of inclimate weather? Again I sincerely hope that elevation of the proposed site/s not be a part of any criteria for selecting a state meet site.

[Rusty McCrea]

Keep it like it is. I loved the trips in HS, and I know in my school it is a big deal for some kids to earn a "trip" to state. In trying to introduce as many young people to the sport as I can, it would be a shame to take this away. I like the course in Soda, and despite the weather I liked the course this year. Our teams run at Eagle Island 3 times without state being there every year. I like the course, but am happy for years when we get to mix it up a bit.