Avoiding high school stars that are college busts: Far superior in XC v. Track?

What kind of logic is that?

Most kids better in XC are just better at running distance. There are also blenty of college busts that were good at track, google them. Obviously its better to avoid schools that are burnout factories, but it would be wrong to make that kind of blanket statement based off of one school.

3/10.

no??? wrote:

Most kids better in XC are just better at running distance.

Regardless if they are better at distance they should still be able to throw down a fast 2 mile

I'd agree. Cross county is more popular for distance runners. I know a lot of people who never really got into track, and they didn't last in college.

Some regions are better suited for training for one season than the other.

Texas summers are brutal and good training for XC would be more challenging than prepping for track.

Some programs focus on one or the other. I would have preferred to have focused on XC or track in HS, but ran XC, indoor and outdoor. I was a distance runner with OK speed and sometimes ran 4 events in indoor/outdoor.

Sidebar: I grew up in the southeast and attended college there as well. I had terrible allergies and not surprisingly, many of my college PRs were in indoor track. I was able to train and race well from the end of XC through Feb/March, but fell apart during allergy season, then struggled to run close to my indoor times a month later. Summers in the south are brutal and are less than ideal for XC training. The same is likely the case for northern schools where tracks, roads and trails are under a lot of snow during the winter months.

Angry Willy wrote:

Texas summers are brutal and good training for XC would be more challenging than prepping for track.

Summers in the south are brutal and are less than ideal for XC

Incorrect! If you make it through training in the Texas summer, you'll be ready to ROLL in the fall when the cooler weather hits. It's almost as good as training at altitude.

Heat and humidity...the poor man's altitude!

Peters and Shiek broke 15 at NXR and went to nationals. They went on to run 9:22 and 9:13 in track. Those times are ok but there were dozens of guys who ran 15:30 at the meet that ran faster than them in track. It’s not that Shiek is a distance guy either as some suggest here. He is a great B.B. player with much quickness. Some guys just roll better on a track while others can push on hills and on soft surfaces.

HS Coach 2001 wrote:

Reading through a thread about national high school rankings I was reminded how dominant Fayetteville-Manlius is in XC for both genders, yet they all but disappear when track rolls around. This must be a red flag for college coaches, right?

For any college coaches out there, if a kid is far superior at XC v. Track and especially if they come from a school that is far superior at XC v. Track, how does that change your view on the potential recruit, if at all?

I think it’s unfair to say that FM’s athletes disappear during track. They aren’t usually a great indoor team but usually run solid times outdoors. It seems like FM’s yearly focus is on XC, which would explain why they are better at XC relative to track.

Their mindset may be that track prepares them for XC, while other programs view XC as preparation for track. FM guys have had multiple sub 4:10 1600m and 9:00 3200m runners over the years. You don’t need to be a 9:00 guy to run 15:30-16:00 in an XC 5k though.

Full disclosure: Our team seems to be better at XC versus Track, but we aren't nearly on the same level as FM, which is why I used them as an example since people outside our area don't really know us. We've had 2 sub-9:00 guys, 3 sub-4:10 guys, 2 sub-10:30 girls and 2 sub-5:00 girls. We've sent individuals to NXN or FLN each of the past 6 seasons and it feels like as the distance goes up we get better. However, I'm not sure if I should be focusing on the 400-800 more in track to help with their longterm college development.

I appreciate the responses thus far.

Heartland beasts wrote:

Peters and Shiek broke 15 at NXR and went to nationals. They went on to run 9:22 and 9:13 in track. Those times are ok but there were dozens of guys who ran 15:30 at the meet that ran faster than them in track. It’s not that Shiek is a distance guy either as some suggest here. He is a great B.B. player with much quickness. Some guys just roll better on a track while others can push on hills and on soft surfaces.

This post just answered the OP.

A lot of schools have athletes play other winter sports. While they can run all summer, it is much harder to train distance playing a sport like basketball.

Usually what happens is the spring season is just long enough to have one or two good races at the end and then it is over.

Maybe it's the scoring, you can do really well in XC with a bunch of solid runners but in track you need standouts to score points. Having said that I don't follow HS track so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Google Liz Mueller, Waterford, CT.

HS Coach 2001 wrote:

Reading through a thread about national high school rankings I was reminded how dominant Fayetteville-Manlius is in XC for both genders, yet they all but disappear when track rolls around. This must be a red flag for college coaches, right?

For any college coaches out there, if a kid is far superior at XC v. Track and especially if they come from a school that is far superior at XC v. Track, how does that change your view on the potential recruit, if at all?

I can not speak for everyone but I personally was fairly strong runner in XC and even beat guys with much faster track credentials than mine. 2 times all-state and competed with the lead pack even pushing the pace. In Track I struggled to even make it to state. The few times I did make it I was in the back of the pack. I had bad allergies and took medicine for it but my speed never seemed to translate over. I also got sick my last two years when I dropped in mileage for state. Wasn't like I did not have speed I ran a 51 400. It just seemed like anything aerobic I was not able to perform or compete with my peers from xc.

I just htink some runners are better at distance/xc and that some runners are also affected by allergies.

asdsdfasdfas wrote:

Maybe it's the scoring, you can do really well in XC with a bunch of solid runners but in track you need standouts to score points. Having said that I don't follow HS track so I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's a good point

In all fairness, you have to factor in that a some of the FM kids screw up and go to UB to get ruined.