A great high school runner will get trounced in college unless they improve. So their improvement arc, work ethic and high school training level play into it.
Mindset is the most important thing. Many great HS talent cannot handle the pressures of being a collegiate student-athlete. Many cannot cope with the necessary self-discipline and time management skills required. A great many couldn't handle their first real injury or setback. Others get lost to parties, alcohol, and regular sex.
The successful athlete is one that can avoid distractions, loves training as much as they love competing, and can stay focused on process of long-term development. Impatience and fixation on quick results/accolades ruins many "can't miss" kids once they leave home and their small local ponds.
This is 100% the answer and can't always be easily determined before the kid enters the college environment. I saw many people out-perform others in college due ONLY to their daily determination to get better. So many people with the profile from HS that leads you to believe they'll be an All-American go right off that track super quickly when they don't live with mommy and daddy.
2) Exceptional performances prior to national XC meet.
3) 3200, 3000, 2 miles times
4) 1600, 1500, mile times
Any of the above, combined with running lower mileage in high school (higher upside in college).
There is such thing as running too little mileage in high school, though. I think doing around 55 mpw as a senior is the sweet spot that allows for strong performances in high school and prepares somebody for the intensity of college training while still leaving something in the tank.
Many guys I know who ran low mileage in high school weren't successful taking it to the next level. They either got injured trying to raise their mileage or mentally burned out because they weren't accustomed to really training hard. Meanwhile some of the best guys in the NCAA like Nico Young, Charles Hicks, and Alex Maier all trained very hard in high school.
2) Exceptional performances prior to national XC meet.
3) 3200, 3000, 2 miles times
4) 1600, 1500, mile times
All are good predictors, probably in that order. But 1,2,3 go hand in hand. 4 is the only one that might exist without the others. But a good miler can often do any event well if trained properly.
Well, if we want to pick one variable and keep it as simple as possible:
Did you WIN Kinney/Footlocker/Champs?
Yes or no.
If yes, it is a good predictor of collegiate success.
I'll take that variable over heart, mileage, best times or anything else.
Sadly, for the girls, “yes” is more predictive that the runner won’t be running at all in 3-4 years than it is predictive that she will be successful in collegiate running.
Well, if we want to pick one variable and keep it as simple as possible:
Did you WIN Kinney/Footlocker/Champs?
Yes or no.
Sadly, for the girls, “yes” is more predictive that the runner won’t be running at all in 3-4 years than it is predictive that she will be successful in collegiate running.
Ironically the mom of a Footlocker/Champs runner who finished mid-pack yesterday asked me that same question.
I told her that her mid-pack daughter had just as good of a chance of being great in college as the top girls in yesterday's race based on the unfortunate history of the top Footlocker girls finishers over the years.
Any of the above, combined with running lower mileage in high school (higher upside in college).
There is such thing as running too little mileage in high school, though. I think doing around 55 mpw as a senior is the sweet spot that allows for strong performances in high school and prepares somebody for the intensity of college training while still leaving something in the tank.
Many guys I know who ran low mileage in high school weren't successful taking it to the next level. They either got injured trying to raise their mileage or mentally burned out because they weren't accustomed to really training hard. Meanwhile some of the best guys in the NCAA like Nico Young, Charles Hicks, and Alex Maier all trained very hard in high school.
To some extent leaving stuff in the tank is stupid. The 4:05 guy off 60mpw and 4:15 guy off 35mpw have similiar talent. Predicting if that 35mpw will be able to handle higher mileage is impossible. Predicting if that 60mpw will keep improving as the mileage goes up is also impossible. Now the 60mpw just need to add doubles. The 35 mpw needs to add days of running, doubles, and making each session longer. That's a lot more unknowns.
There is that line though between hard training and too hard. We focus on mileage but year round anaerobic training(or even vo2max type efforts) seems a lot sketchier.
50-60mpw is that sweet spot that you can get to with about an hour/running/day. Most HS don't have schedules that lead themselves to doubles... But in college it is easy to get in 3-5 30 min runs and get up into the 70s.
Along with the metrics you listed, I’m more interested in knowing their current mileage and how long they’ve been running. When predicting future success, I’d choose the kid who has run 4:10 on 30 miles a week and just started running in high school over someone who started running in 6th grade and has run 4:05 on 50 miles a week.
I don’t think this is the best take. I rather go with the kid who has trained at 50 without injury for years because I know he will be able to handle workload.
Yes, this is good. I know someone who “only” ran 9:00 (not in milesplit since it was a dual meet, but he had a college coach there), but he progressed from 11:00-10:20-9:38-9:00 and I believe he only peaked at 55-60 mpw. Ended up having a very successful college career.
The 1500/1600/mile is the benchmark that coaches look at. And for girs, progression is necessary becuase there are many who have a fast mile but after furhter examination, they ran it freshman year.
Well, if we want to pick one variable and keep it as simple as possible:
Did you WIN Kinney/Footlocker/Champs?
Yes or no.
If yes, it is a good predictor of collegiate success.
I'll take that variable over heart, mileage, best times or anything else.
Sadly, for the girls, “yes” is more predictive that the runner won’t be running at all in 3-4 years than it is predictive that she will be successful in collegiate running.
You make a good point. I was thinking of the boys' race when I wrote that winning Champs would be my choice.
I would be curious to know what the real record is for the girls who win. I'm sure we can list both the success stories and those who weren't quite. We would need to determine the metric for "successful college career" though.
Sadly, for the girls, “yes” is more predictive that the runner won’t be running at all in 3-4 years than it is predictive that she will be successful in collegiate running.
You make a good point. I was thinking of the boys' race when I wrote that winning Champs would be my choice.
I would be curious to know what the real record is for the girls who win. I'm sure we can list both the success stories and those who weren't quite. We would need to determine the metric for "successful college career" though.
Looking at the last 10 years or so. Dudek was just 20th, Claudia Lane has done nothing, Masciarelli hasn't done much, kelati was a stud, Rohrer was solid, Barret was a NCAA qualifier, Seidel was a stud, cuff was good, Goethals had some ED issues it had some decent races, and Hasay had a good career. That's not horrible
If every year you picked 1 random person from 10-20, does anyone think you would have ended up with better results? I would also suggest that the total studs ( the sub 4:45 milers) do better than the 4:50 crowd. If you take 20 people , sure the odds of one of them outperforming goes up a ton.
Now that is a weak analysis. Doing something like plotting every NCAA NXN/footlocker finish would be interesting.
But I think a lot of people have the delusion that a footlocker/nxn winner should be winning in the NCAA. That isn't realistic. Being an all American level talent is.
2) Exceptional performances prior to national XC meet.
3) 3200, 3000, 2 miles times
4) 1600, 1500, mile times
Awesome question!
Although bit of a trick question. If only choosing one, you'd have to go with #1. If an athlete shows national prominence, say being a Footlocker/Champs/NXN finalist in X-C, they will without a doubt be able to run quality track times.