Malmo actually made a good point and I upvoted his remark.
"D1 Runner" is just shorthand for "had/has some talent for the sport" vs someone that has never done it.
Same thing if a former D1 football player comes to the gym. They will outperform most of the regular people that show up. There is such thing as talent/natural ability.
95% of D1 runners suck. "Former D1 runner" implies that they are part of the other 5% when they are not. By saying that they are not part of the 95% of D1 or D2, D3, NAIA or JUCO is an attempt at unearned gravitas. If you were the real deal you would simply say "I was a college runner". Thats it. No need to create a class hierarchy that doesn't exist.
For years the brojos used to label nationals not D1, "the Baby Nationals" which was extremely offensive, especially considering that they themselves competed in the "Baby Conference" and were nowhere near the top 80% of NCAA D1. I used to make that point for decades until the message finally sunk in about 5 years ago when they stopped with the baby nationals shtick.
We don't have a class hierarchy in college athletics like social casts in India or other cultures. We don't need to wear a red bindi on our foreheads to show our status. We are all just runners.
Quit saying you are "D1". You are a former college runner, or just a "runner". Why isn't that good enough?
"D1 runner", although true, is really not much better than claiming false times or coaching credentials at a University in San Antonio.
Truth be told, if you were DFL in NCAA D1 XC you were actually better than 99% of all D1 runners. Think about that.
Malmo actually made a good point and I upvoted his remark.
"D1 Runner" is just shorthand for "had/has some talent for the sport" vs someone that has never done it.
Same thing if a former D1 football player comes to the gym. They will outperform most of the regular people that show up. There is such thing as talent/natural ability.
Do you really think that someone in the top seven at Loyola of Maryland or Wagner had/has more talent for the sport than someone in the top seven at Grand Valley State or Adams State?
Ultimately, you concern should be about your health and an activity level and habits that promote it. Once there, any direction toward performances is icing on the cake. IMO.
"D1 Runner" is just shorthand for "had/has some talent for the sport" vs someone that has never done it.
Same thing if a former D1 football player comes to the gym. They will outperform most of the regular people that show up. There is such thing as talent/natural ability.
95% of D1 runners suck. "Former D1 runner" implies that they are part of the other 5% when they are not. By saying that they are not part of the 95% of D1 or D2, D3, NAIA or JUCO is an attempt at unearned gravitas. If you were the real deal you would simply say "I was a college runner". Thats it. No need to create a class hierarchy that doesn't exist.
For years the brojos used to label nationals not D1, "the Baby Nationals" which was extremely offensive, especially considering that they themselves competed in the "Baby Conference" and were nowhere near the top 80% of NCAA D1. I used to make that point for decades until the message finally sunk in about 5 years ago when they stopped with the baby nationals shtick.
We don't have a class hierarchy in college athletics like social casts in India or other cultures. We don't need to wear a red bindi on our foreheads to show our status. We are all just runners.
Quit saying you are "D1". You are a former college runner, or just a "runner". Why isn't that good enough?
"D1 runner", although true, is really not much better than claiming false times or coaching credentials at a University in San Antonio.
Truth be told, if you were DFL in NCAA D1 XC you were actually better than 99% of all D1 runners. Think about that.
So you are saying that most D1 runners are the same talent level of the regular ol Joe blow at the Turkey Trot? Anyone can just go run at a D1 school? C'mon man.. you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
95% of D1 runners suck. "Former D1 runner" implies that they are part of the other 5% when they are not. By saying that they are not part of the 95% of D1 or D2, D3, NAIA or JUCO is an attempt at unearned gravitas. If you were the real deal you would simply say "I was a college runner". Thats it. No need to create a class hierarchy that doesn't exist.
For years the brojos used to label nationals not D1, "the Baby Nationals" which was extremely offensive, especially considering that they themselves competed in the "Baby Conference" and were nowhere near the top 80% of NCAA D1. I used to make that point for decades until the message finally sunk in about 5 years ago when they stopped with the baby nationals shtick.
We don't have a class hierarchy in college athletics like social casts in India or other cultures. We don't need to wear a red bindi on our foreheads to show our status. We are all just runners.
Quit saying you are "D1". You are a former college runner, or just a "runner". Why isn't that good enough?
"D1 runner", although true, is really not much better than claiming false times or coaching credentials at a University in San Antonio.
Truth be told, if you were DFL in NCAA D1 XC you were actually better than 99% of all D1 runners. Think about that.
So you are saying that most D1 runners are the same talent level of the regular ol Joe blow at the Turkey Trot? Anyone can just go run at a D1 school? C'mon man.. you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Do you ever look at meet results from top to bottom, not just the BYUs, Syracuses, Notre Dames, etc. but ALL D1 results? At this year's Paul Short races there were 11 guys from D1 schools slower than 29 minutes. That's pretty Joe Blowish.
95% of D1 runners suck. "Former D1 runner" implies that they are part of the other 5% when they are not. By saying that they are not part of the 95% of D1 or D2, D3, NAIA or JUCO is an attempt at unearned gravitas. If you were the real deal you would simply say "I was a college runner". Thats it. No need to create a class hierarchy that doesn't exist.
For years the brojos used to label nationals not D1, "the Baby Nationals" which was extremely offensive, especially considering that they themselves competed in the "Baby Conference" and were nowhere near the top 80% of NCAA D1. I used to make that point for decades until the message finally sunk in about 5 years ago when they stopped with the baby nationals shtick.
We don't have a class hierarchy in college athletics like social casts in India or other cultures. We don't need to wear a red bindi on our foreheads to show our status. We are all just runners.
Quit saying you are "D1". You are a former college runner, or just a "runner". Why isn't that good enough?
"D1 runner", although true, is really not much better than claiming false times or coaching credentials at a University in San Antonio.
Truth be told, if you were DFL in NCAA D1 XC you were actually better than 99% of all D1 runners. Think about that.
This is a very good post.
As for the original question, most college runners will never approach their college times again. Lack of a team environment, meaningful race schedule, and proper coaching play a role. Obviously there are exceptions including pro runners, but they are the exceptions.
As far as theoretical age, mid thirties to early forties.
So you are saying that most D1 runners are the same talent level of the regular ol Joe blow at the Turkey Trot? Anyone can just go run at a D1 school? C'mon man.. you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Do you ever look at meet results from top to bottom, not just the BYUs, Syracuses, Notre Dames, etc. but ALL D1 results? At this year's Paul Short races there were 11 guys from D1 schools slower than 29 minutes. That's pretty Joe Blowish.
There were 84 over 29 minutes in the open race.
As an aside 574 runners is probably too many to be on the course at one time in any xc race. Sooner or later some one is going to fall and get trampled at that race.
"D1 Runner" is just shorthand for "had/has some talent for the sport" vs someone that has never done it.
Same thing if a former D1 football player comes to the gym. They will outperform most of the regular people that show up. There is such thing as talent/natural ability.
95% of D1 runners suck. "Former D1 runner" implies that they are part of the other 5% when they are not. By saying that they are not part of the 95% of D1 or D2, D3, NAIA or JUCO is an attempt at unearned gravitas. If you were the real deal you would simply say "I was a college runner". Thats it. No need to create a class hierarchy that doesn't exist.
For years the brojos used to label nationals not D1, "the Baby Nationals" which was extremely offensive, especially considering that they themselves competed in the "Baby Conference" and were nowhere near the top 80% of NCAA D1. I used to make that point for decades until the message finally sunk in about 5 years ago when they stopped with the baby nationals shtick.
We don't have a class hierarchy in college athletics like social casts in India or other cultures. We don't need to wear a red bindi on our foreheads to show our status. We are all just runners.
Quit saying you are "D1". You are a former college runner, or just a "runner". Why isn't that good enough?
"D1 runner", although true, is really not much better than claiming false times or coaching credentials at a University in San Antonio.
Truth be told, if you were DFL in NCAA D1 XC you were actually better than 99% of all D1 runners. Think about that.
It would be far more clarifying for anyone, including the OP, to simply state their college PRs.
"Former collegiate 13:50 guy..." Then division is irrelevant.
95% of D1 runners suck. "Former D1 runner" implies that they are part of the other 5% when they are not. By saying that they are not part of the 95% of D1 or D2, D3, NAIA or JUCO is an attempt at unearned gravitas. If you were the real deal you would simply say "I was a college runner". Thats it. No need to create a class hierarchy that doesn't exist.
For years the brojos used to label nationals not D1, "the Baby Nationals" which was extremely offensive, especially considering that they themselves competed in the "Baby Conference" and were nowhere near the top 80% of NCAA D1. I used to make that point for decades until the message finally sunk in about 5 years ago when they stopped with the baby nationals shtick.
We don't have a class hierarchy in college athletics like social casts in India or other cultures. We don't need to wear a red bindi on our foreheads to show our status. We are all just runners.
Quit saying you are "D1". You are a former college runner, or just a "runner". Why isn't that good enough?
"D1 runner", although true, is really not much better than claiming false times or coaching credentials at a University in San Antonio.
Truth be told, if you were DFL in NCAA D1 XC you were actually better than 99% of all D1 runners. Think about that.
It would be far more clarifying for anyone, including the OP, to simply state their college PRs.
"Former collegiate 13:50 guy..." Then division is irrelevant.
That's a good way to put it. It gives a objective way to show your experience and expectations.
I was better than DFL at NCAA XC but I would not describe myself as "better than 99% of D1 runners", I was solid.
The 99% number I pulled out of my azz. The actual number is closer to 97-98%.
There are over 6,000 D1 XC runners. A little over 260 compete at Nationals each year. Many of them are counted 2-4 times over their four years of participation, so the number of unique first-timers each year is much lower than 260. If you've ever competed in D1 Nationals, even once, you are indeed a rare bird. Nationals are a private, self-selected party. Yes, I do realize that some of you just happened be tag-a-alongs on good teams. There's a catch -- you earned that right.
While "suck" might sound harsh and offends you, most NCAA D1 runners do, indeed, suck. Get better. The cool thing about running is that we don't have a caste system.
Even Henry Rono was almost DFL one year, but that was a circumstantial confluence of events.
But alas I was only a D3 runner and not a very good one unless you were measuring enthusiasm.
And I've never in my life, not even once, said I was a D1 XC runner. I've always characterized it as, "I ran cross country." Or if I wanted to make a point, "I ran XC Nationals four times."
Even D3 runners can be badass. Which would you rather be, a top XC runner from University of Washington, or Washington University?
I’m really impressed with the replies on here. You guys are way more dedicated than me. I’ve kept running since college, did some post grad coaching and then got a real job. Barring the pandemic, I have never found a good way to slot real training into my work/life schedule in the decade since graduation. I’ll have the occasional week where I get in a good week, which now means anything over 30 miles, but most of the time I just get a run in here and there and the idea of getting close to PR shape seems out of the question. I think one of the biggest things for me is that running no longer occupies the same space in my life. In college, running was both my exercise and important social time with some of my best friends. Now, pretty much all runs are solo and social time is spent over drinks, dinner, etc.