Are many of the nation's best coaches at the HS level? Collectively, does the HS system have better coaching than NCAA?

The problem is these HS kids training like they're in college. Great way to get a scholarship... also the best way to ruin your upside. Can't really blame a college coach for not being able to tune up the training of a kid who ran a quality 80-90 miles a week in HS. Not putting any blame on these kids cause the less talented ones who train hard will get big money for college but they shouldn't expect to be the best guys in the NCAA.

Sure everyone's ceiling is different in terms of ability, but can anyone's full potential be realized by 18 yrs old? I don't think there's reason a kid can't improve after HS, regardless of the training they have done. Example: I ran 80mpw in HS and was a 9:25 3200 guy, but progressed to sub 30 for 10k on the track off of the same volume. Didn't go to a big school nor had above average talent.

hard training wrote:

The problem is these HS kids training like they're in college. Great way to get a scholarship... also the best way to ruin your upside. Can't really blame a college coach for not being able to tune up the training of a kid who ran a quality 80-90 miles a week in HS. Not putting any blame on these kids cause the less talented ones who train hard will get big money for college but they shouldn't expect to be the best guys in the NCAA.

This is repeated frequently on this site. But I disagree. The reason I don't believe this is the problem is that if you look at collegiate runners who then pursue a running career after graduation, they continue to improve to another level.

As an example: Rupp ran 13:55 in high school off of very high mileage and high level training. Despite this, he went on to run 13:30 in college off of high mileage and high level training. After he graduated, he went on to run 12:58 4 years later, with a steady progression leading up to that point. If the idea that high mileage in high school makes you peak early and fail to improve were true, we wouldn't see athletes like him.

I think the genesis of the mantra that high level training in high school leads to stagnation in college really does have to do with bad coaching, or in some cases good coaching that just unfortunately doesn't fit well with a given individual. Then a small number of athletes who happen to have been high mileage runners in high school burn out in college, and it becomes blamed on their HS training. These people conveniently don't point out the myriad of low and medium mileage runners who burn out in college.

Don't accuse me of being an advocate of very intense training and high mileage in high school: I am not. I coach high school, and only allow my very best athletes to move up to more than 50mpw at their peak. I currently have one boy at this level (a senior), he peaked at about 55mpw this past summer. I also have one freshman boy and one freshman girl that are on my radar as maybe being able to do this as well in a few years. So while I don't push high mileage, I also think there is more than one way to train that is effective and that the "high mileage in high school is evil" originated from bad college coaches as well as some good college coaches who were frustrated with some specific individual failures they have had.

hard training wrote:

The problem is these HS kids training like they're in college. Great way to get a scholarship... also the best way to ruin your upside. Can't really blame a college coach for not being able to tune up the training of a kid who ran a quality 80-90 miles a week in HS. Not putting any blame on these kids cause the less talented ones who train hard will get big money for college but they shouldn't expect to be the best guys in the NCAA.

If a kid has been running 80-90 quality miles/week in HS and improving, it may be that the college coach doesn't need to tune the training.

mees94 wrote:

Sure everyone's ceiling is different in terms of ability, but can anyone's full potential be realized by 18 yrs old? I don't think there's reason a kid can't improve after HS, regardless of the training they have done. Example: I ran 80mpw in HS and was a 9:25 3200 guy, but progressed to sub 30 for 10k on the track off of the same volume. Didn't go to a big school nor had above average talent.

I agree with you 100%

My wife is someone who came from running 70+ miles per week in high school, but was only mediocre. Her college coach did not continue to increase her mileage, but actually dropped it. She ended up running 17:30 for 5k when her best time in HS was like 19 minutes.

I think part of the problem is making the transition from HS to college is hard and not everyone can do it well. Similar to college to pro. Your training background is only part of the picture.

I think most good HS coaches have learned how to develop runners (or they just have huge teams and it's survival of the fittest!). Coaching less talented people teaches you how to coach, personalize training, etc, if you are invested in making your athletes the best they can be. I really believe that. Most college coaches have not coached developmental athletes- they started as college coaches, and are perhaps not as skilled at tweaking things for kids who don't fit their "system" or kids who come in as lower mileage athletes. I'm always amazed that college coaches recruiting my athletes aren't interested in talking to me about the kid's high school training. I don't know if it's arrogance, or just lack of interest, but to me, it's pretty relevant information to know what the kid has been doing and succeeding with, training-wise.

So many things factor in to college runners not improving. I have a girl who was a Foot Locker finalist who hasn't improved a lick since high school. But she's had 3 different coaches in 3 years at her college. She wasted her time running 800/1500 early on in college when she is a total long distance girl. This was obvious to me, but evidently not to the college coach. It makes me sad, because I see other girls she raced and beat at Foot Locker running at NCAAs, and she can't even run as fast as she did in HS. Sadly, this is a pretty common story.

mees94 wrote:

Obviously, there are a number of great coaches in college...but it also seems to me that much promising HS talent goes to waste. For every 16:00 HS 5ker that turns into a stud, it seems like there are 3 more that never progress. Sure running in college requires a different level of commitment so lazy/disinterested kids quit, but I think there is more to it. 90+ boys broke 16min at Texas HS State meet alone, so the talent is out there. Why does only a fraction of it get developed? Power house programs aside, is college coaching just that bad across the board? Surely others have made similar observations.

Thoughts?

OP, why do you assume it's not being developed?

JK's converion chart has 16:05 at basically 9:58. How good do you expect a 10 flat 2- miler to become?

Most top end talent is developed. The 90th kid in the state may not like going to college and working his ass off and realizing their are 49 other states so he's only the 4500th best runner in college. So he parties a little, doesn't train 80 mpw, etc.

I don't know that I agree with the statement that "much promising HS talent goes to waste" in college. I'd wager more promising talent is wasted in high school.

Anyway, there is a big difference between being a high schooler and being in college. There is much more individual freedom, which can get the best of some athletes. There are more important academic focuses, which leads to some athletes thinking about their future career more than maximizing their running potential for four years. The coach certainly has some responsibility in fostering a competitive mentality in his runners, but some of the above mentioned distractions are out of his/her control. I think they are significantly different roles (high school coach vs. college coach) with different advantages/disadvantages.

I've met great high school coaches that are better than some of the poor college coaches that I had, but I've met more idiotic high school coaches than not.

No.

Are many of the nation's best coaches at the HS level? Of course. It would be hard to argue otherwise. Looking at state meets 80% of the teams are the same year after year. Somehow, the coaches at these schools are getting the talent to come out and motivating them to work.

Collectively, does the HS system have better coaching than NCAA? I'd say no. The colleges coaches are better collectively.

I'd say the college coaches have it harder than the HS coaches. Recruiting the right fits, recruiting the talent, keeping kids motivated, working around school schedules, financial concerns along with the training just makes college coaching more difficult.

No offense, but a 9:25 3200 guy and sub-30 10K guy is WAY above average in talent. Just because other people have more talent doesn't mean you don't have any. Same way that people making $250K/yr don't think they are 1%er types.