|
|
Post by danishduck on Apr 1, 2024 20:30:52 GMT -8
Report on Oregon Live says Micah will enter the transfer portal this Spring. Something is not right with the Oregon sprint program.
|
|
|
|
Post by olephill2 on Apr 1, 2024 21:20:26 GMT -8
Dang, major bummer for the Ducks. Williams certainly had a bit of a disappointing season last year, but there's no questioning his talent. He will be missed, and won't be replaceable this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by mallardg on Apr 1, 2024 23:06:00 GMT -8
A few random thoughts: Pac 12 and National Championships aside, it has been evident for years that a large number of Oregon fans, especially those with influence, have preferred Oregon to be the traditional distance oriented program. Though Robert Johnson was delivering championship teams based on a complete program, many of the faithful resented the downplay of Distance as the focus. I suspect the wants of those who do have influence over the program, had at least a small part to play in the replacement of Robert by a Distance oriented head coach. Because coach Taylor has such an immense reputation, I suspect he was coaxed with financial incentives to stay on board for a few more years. I also suspect that coach Taylor would probably prefer to return to his roots in the Oakland area, something that could easily take place in the next year or so. I also suspect that coach Taylor, who seems to be an honest and ethical guy, has had discussions with Micah Williams about this very issue. So, if there is any validity to my comments, we should not be surprised to see the Distance program flourishing, while the throws, jumps and sprint events will be just good enough to be respectable within the Conference.
Does this mean we won't be seeing any/many National Championships in the near future? It probably all depends on how successful Oregon is in recruiting/developing/keeping great distance runners. Of course that doesn't account for the unknown future of NIL, transfer portal, professional opportunities, etc. Speaking of that, is it possible another university has offered Mycah enough NIL money to steal him away? Is he leaving Oregon for a Masters degree program elsewhere; or has his agent found a major pro sponsorship for him? Perspiring minds want to know.
Comments from others are appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by chileduck on Apr 2, 2024 6:46:09 GMT -8
I think it's about NIL. If he can get a better deal somewhere, he should take it. Given his injury, he might not get a better deal, but he needed to jump into the portal to find out. Plus, he is probably ready to move on from Eugene. He is listed as a Jr. but this is is 4th year and is probably graduating.
I don't think Johnson downplayed Distance and I don't think Schumacher will downplay Sprints/Jumps. Clearly they each have different individual focuses. Those events having the focus of your head coach will favor those events. I might be wrong, but I don't think Johnson was let go over resentment by Distance fans as he had a very good men's Distance coach who was thriving with runners like Cole Hocker and Cooper Teare. If coach Taylor leaves, then Schumacher may very well have difficulty replacing him but change is inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by olephill2 on Apr 2, 2024 12:15:56 GMT -8
Good post & thoughts, Mallard. I suspect the main reason for Robert Johnson's departure was still the body shaming reports, though (to be clear I don't have inside info) what you wrote may very well have been a contributing/supporting factor. Especially given who some of our benefactors are. First and foremost, my priority for the UO T&F program is to see us compete for NCAA team championships. My second priority is to see us retain and nurture our heritage as a distance powerhouse. Those two aren't inherently incompatible, but outside of the magic trick Vin Lananna pulled off with Stanford in 2000, it's hard for a purely distance school to win an NCAA Team Championship in outdoor T&F -- you simply need more balance. I also believe that distance races tend to be more unpredictable than other events, because there's more strategy at play and more time for things to go wrong. If you have a 10.00 sprinter, you can generally rely on that sprinter to score well in the 100m and the 4x100m assuming they don't get injured or false-start out. If you have a 3:35 1500m runner or a 13:20 5000m runner, there's a lot more variability at play based on tactics and how the race plays out on the day. Who can forget Mac Fleet winning the first of his 2 NCAA 1500m Championships in 2013 with a 3:50 winning time. Or Matthew Centrowitz winning the 2016 Olympic Gold Medal with a 3:50 winning time. In an Olympic Final. Centro's PR wasn't close to the best in that field. And who can forget Galen Rupp losing a shoe in the 10K final at the 2009 NCAA T&F Championships. Thankfully, Galen was so talented and so much better than the competition that he was able to stop running, put his shoe back on, catch up, and win the race. But that's the type of variability you don't see as much of in sprints or other events. So my takeaway is that I do believe we need to have some studs in other event groups if we want to compete for NCAA Championships. Having 3-4 nationally elite sprinters, jumpers, throwers and/or decathletes who can score points at the NCAAs makes a huge difference and takes the pressure off of needing to load up points in the events that sit between 800m - 10,000m. That said, I am supportive of prioritizing blue chip recruitment for distance runners (again, it's not an all or nothing thing) to ensure we get talents like Rheinhardt Harrison, Simeon Birnbaum, Connor Burns and Maddy Elmore (  ) to want to come to Oregon. It's always a numbers game, especially for mens T&F when you only have 12.6 scholarships to work with. I'm supportive of skewing more of our scholarships for blue chip distance runners as long as we prioritize some for those other events and do enough to keep great coaches like Curtis Taylor in our program. Chile -- I thought Ben Thomas was a decent/solid distance coach, and he certainly knocked it out of the park with Cooper Teare and Cole Hocker. But outside of those two studs, I thought our distance recruiting and our depth in the distances grew stale during his tenure, particularly when compared to the Andy Powell era. Same is true for Helen Lehman-Winters -- whether due to factors outside her control or not, I thought our recruiting in the womens distances really dwindled during her tenure as compared to what Maurica Powell accomplished. |
|
|
|
Post by arizonaduck on Apr 2, 2024 21:33:06 GMT -8
Good post & thoughts, Mallard. I suspect the main reason for Robert Johnson's departure was still the body shaming reports, though (to be clear I don't have inside info) what you wrote may very well have been a contributing/supporting factor. Especially given who some of our benefactors are. First and foremost, my priority for the UO T&F program is to see us compete for NCAA team championships. My second priority is to see us retain and nurture our heritage as a distance powerhouse. Those two aren't inherently incompatible, but outside of the magic trick Vin Lananna pulled off with Stanford in 2000, it's hard for a purely distance school to win an NCAA Team Championship in outdoor T&F -- you simply need more balance. I also believe that distance races tend to be more unpredictable than other events, because there's more strategy at play and more time for things to go wrong. If you have a 10.00 sprinter, you can generally rely on that sprinter to score well in the 100m and the 4x100m assuming they don't get injured or false-start out. If you have a 3:35 1500m runner or a 13:20 5000m runner, there's a lot more variability at play based on tactics and how the race plays out on the day. Who can forget Mac Fleet winning the first of his 2 NCAA 1500m Championships in 2013 with a 3:50 winning time. Or Matthew Centrowitz winning the 2016 Olympic Gold Medal with a 3:50 winning time. In an Olympic Final. Centro's PR wasn't close to the best in that field. And who can forget Galen Rupp losing a shoe in the 10K final at the 2009 NCAA T&F Championships. Thankfully, Galen was so talented and so much better than the competition that he was able to stop running, put his shoe back on, catch up, and win the race. But that's the type of variability you don't see as much of in sprints or other events. So my takeaway is that I do believe we need to have some studs in other event groups if we want to compete for NCAA Championships. Having 3-4 nationally elite sprinters, jumpers, throwers and/or decathletes who can score points at the NCAAs makes a huge difference and takes the pressure off of needing to load up points in the events that sit between 800m - 10,000m. That said, I am supportive of prioritizing blue chip recruitment for distance runners (again, it's not an all or nothing thing) to ensure we get talents like Rheinhardt Harrison, Simeon Birnbaum, Connor Burns and Maddy Elmore ( ) to want to come to Oregon. It's always a numbers game, especially for men's T&F when you only have 12.6 scholarships to work with. I'm supportive of skewing more of our scholarships for blue chip distance runners as long as we prioritize some for those other events and do enough to keep great coaches like Curtis Taylor in our program. Chile -- I thought Ben Thomas was a decent/solid distance coach, and he certainly knocked it out of the park with Cooper Teare and Cole Hocker. But outside of those two studs, I thought our distance recruiting and our depth in the distances grew stale during his tenure, particularly when compared to the Andy Powell era. Same is true for Helen Lehman-Winters -- whether due to factors outside her control or not, I thought our recruiting in the women's distances really dwindled during her tenure as compared to what Maurica Powell accomplished. I need to always get my voice in here for the sprinters. An elite sprinter can easily get into three events. And if they can long jump, they could make it four. An elite distance athlete can get into two max. |
|
|
|
Post by olephill2 on Apr 4, 2024 21:25:01 GMT -8
Good post & thoughts, Mallard. I suspect the main reason for Robert Johnson's departure was still the body shaming reports, though (to be clear I don't have inside info) what you wrote may very well have been a contributing/supporting factor. Especially given who some of our benefactors are. First and foremost, my priority for the UO T&F program is to see us compete for NCAA team championships. My second priority is to see us retain and nurture our heritage as a distance powerhouse. Those two aren't inherently incompatible, but outside of the magic trick Vin Lananna pulled off with Stanford in 2000, it's hard for a purely distance school to win an NCAA Team Championship in outdoor T&F -- you simply need more balance. I also believe that distance races tend to be more unpredictable than other events, because there's more strategy at play and more time for things to go wrong. If you have a 10.00 sprinter, you can generally rely on that sprinter to score well in the 100m and the 4x100m assuming they don't get injured or false-start out. If you have a 3:35 1500m runner or a 13:20 5000m runner, there's a lot more variability at play based on tactics and how the race plays out on the day. Who can forget Mac Fleet winning the first of his 2 NCAA 1500m Championships in 2013 with a 3:50 winning time. Or Matthew Centrowitz winning the 2016 Olympic Gold Medal with a 3:50 winning time. In an Olympic Final. Centro's PR wasn't close to the best in that field. And who can forget Galen Rupp losing a shoe in the 10K final at the 2009 NCAA T&F Championships. Thankfully, Galen was so talented and so much better than the competition that he was able to stop running, put his shoe back on, catch up, and win the race. But that's the type of variability you don't see as much of in sprints or other events. So my takeaway is that I do believe we need to have some studs in other event groups if we want to compete for NCAA Championships. Having 3-4 nationally elite sprinters, jumpers, throwers and/or decathletes who can score points at the NCAAs makes a huge difference and takes the pressure off of needing to load up points in the events that sit between 800m - 10,000m. That said, I am supportive of prioritizing blue chip recruitment for distance runners (again, it's not an all or nothing thing) to ensure we get talents like Rheinhardt Harrison, Simeon Birnbaum, Connor Burns and Maddy Elmore ( ) to want to come to Oregon. It's always a numbers game, especially for men's T&F when you only have 12.6 scholarships to work with. I'm supportive of skewing more of our scholarships for blue chip distance runners as long as we prioritize some for those other events and do enough to keep great coaches like Curtis Taylor in our program. Chile -- I thought Ben Thomas was a decent/solid distance coach, and he certainly knocked it out of the park with Cooper Teare and Cole Hocker. But outside of those two studs, I thought our distance recruiting and our depth in the distances grew stale during his tenure, particularly when compared to the Andy Powell era. Same is true for Helen Lehman-Winters -- whether due to factors outside her control or not, I thought our recruiting in the women's distances really dwindled during her tenure as compared to what Maurica Powell accomplished. I need to always get my voice in here for the sprinters. An elite sprinter can easily get into three events. And if they can long jump, they could make it four. An elite distance athlete can get into two max. Totally agree. The sprints are blessed with two relay events which offer logical opportunities for doubling (or tripling) up elite athletes. And I'd argue that it's easier to do a 100m/200m double than it is to do a 800m/1500m double or a 5000m/10,000m double. |
|
|
|
Post by chileduck on Apr 5, 2024 9:31:43 GMT -8
I need to always get my voice in here for the sprinters. An elite sprinter can easily get into three events. And if they can long jump, they could make it four. An elite distance athlete can get into two max. Totally agree. The sprints are blessed with two relay events which offer logical opportunities for doubling (or tripling) up elite athletes. And I'd argue that it's easier to do a 100m/200m double than it is to do a 800m/1500m double or a 5000m/10,000m double. There is no disputing the logic of this and no one can argue that having good sprinters increases your chances of winning a national championship. I've heard this logic expressed a lot and it seems the common wisdom is that Robert Johnson was responsible for two Oregon men's championships because he is a sprint and jump guy. I'm not saying anyone in this thread is making that claim but when one actually looks at where the scoring came from Robert Johnson's two NCAA Men's title teams, in 2014 and 2015, the distance events far exceeded the sprints. Here is a little chart I put together just to refresh my memory.  I think it's clear that Andy Powell had a lot to do with the success of these teams. (< 2015 point total should be 85 but I can't find the other 3 points) The key to successful national championships is depth. Sure, having one elite sprinter may outweigh having one elite distance runner. But having two elite distance runners to one elite sprinter is probably a wash. It's true that Cheserek was a phenomenon but Jenkins contribution was enormous. How about a whole stable full of elite distance runners? I think Oregon has shown having depth in the distances is one way to win a championship. I'm not arguing balance isn't important too as these championship teams had good points in the Javelin, Hammer and Decathlon and well as sprints. As olephill2 points out, you need some elite scoring in all areas. Conversely having a whole stable full of elite sprinters and jumpers is a surefire way to success. At Oregon, I think it is safe to say that getting a stable full of distance runners is far easier than a stable full of sprinters. |
|
|
|
Post by everlast on Apr 5, 2024 9:57:45 GMT -8
And Oregon men have a bunch of empty stables.
how many on this board expect Oregon men to score 80 odd points in the mighty Pac 12 swan song?
If you do, please show your accounting.
|
|
|
|
Post by chileduck on Apr 5, 2024 10:40:31 GMT -8
And Oregon men have a bunch of empty stables. how many on this board expect Oregon men to score 80 odd points in the mighty Pac 12 swan song? If you do, please show your accounting. I'm sure no one expects that. And getting back to the original thread, I'm sure all are sorry Micah Williams is not healthy in his last outdoor season as a Duck. Otherwise we might have expected 20 or more additional points to whatever the men will muster in the final Pac 12 championship. |
|
|
|
Post by olephill2 on Apr 5, 2024 20:39:04 GMT -8
Totally agree. The sprints are blessed with two relay events which offer logical opportunities for doubling (or tripling) up elite athletes. And I'd argue that it's easier to do a 100m/200m double than it is to do a 800m/1500m double or a 5000m/10,000m double. There is no disputing the logic of this and no one can argue that having good sprinters increases your chances of winning a national championship. I've heard this logic expressed a lot and it seems the common wisdom is that Robert Johnson was responsible for two Oregon men's championships because he is a sprint and jump guy. I'm not saying anyone in this thread is making that claim but when one actually looks at where the scoring came from Robert Johnson's two NCAA Men's title teams, in 2014 and 2015, the distance events far exceeded the sprints. Here is a little chart I put together just to refresh my memory.  I think it's clear that Andy Powell had a lot to do with the success of these teams. (< 2015 point total should be 85 but I can't find the other 3 points) The key to successful national championships is depth. Sure, having one elite sprinter may outweigh having one elite distance runner. But having two elite distance runners to one elite sprinter is probably a wash. It's true that Cheserek was a phenomenon but Jenkins contribution was enormous. How about a whole stable full of elite distance runners? I think Oregon has shown having depth in the distances is one way to win a championship. I'm not arguing balance isn't important too as these championship teams had good points in the Javelin, Hammer and Decathlon and well as sprints. As olephill2 points out, you need some elite scoring in all areas. Conversely having a whole stable full of elite sprinters and jumpers is a surefire way to success. At Oregon, I think it is safe to say that getting a stable full of distance runners is far easier than a stable full of sprinters. Great post. Dakotah Keys getting 3rd in the Decathlon is your missing 3 points from 2015, btw. He was 3rd that year. No points for Mitch Modin that year. Chile, I think your findings from 2014 and 2015 kinda support my first post above, which is that Oregon can win national championships with a strong distance squad, as long as we have ample balance and a few elite studs to make up points in the other events. Both of those squads added 2 elite sprinters and 2 elite throwers to the distance stable. 2014 is perhaps a better template than 2015 -- in 2015, Edward Cheserek and Eric Jenkins were miles and miles more talented than any other distance runners in the NCAA that year; we're not always going to have that kind of dominant talent in the squad. The 2014 team as maybe a bit more balanced, where we had guys like Trevor Dunbar do yeoman's work, mixed in an elite 1500m runner who had an awesome day, and snagged a few extra points in the steeple. I realize we pulled down 4 individual national championships in the 2014 squad which isn't going to be consistently realistic either, but usually you don't need 88 points to win an NCAA Title or be in contention. Those two squads truly were dominant. |
|
|
|
Post by mallardg on Apr 5, 2024 22:31:36 GMT -8
Naming a few who are entered in the Bryan Clay meet next weekend, Harding, Birnbaum, Affolder, Palfrey, Harrison, Erickson and Cook (800/1500); Del Barrio, Scasso (Steeple) and Steury (5K). should give us a glimpse at how well the youngsters are developing and how full or empty the distance stables are going to be this year. I, for one, will be following with interest.
Coach Schumacher has made it clear that the men's team still has a way to go in the re-build. In addition to a squad heavy with mid-distance and Steeplers, I suspect he is counting on some contributions from incoming throwers and Decathletes as the formula to make Oregon relevant once again.
|
|
|
|
Post by chileduck on Apr 6, 2024 6:19:22 GMT -8
I updated my chart, thanks olephill2 and yes you are right about it supporting your post.
|
|
) to want to come to Oregon.