XC teams that defy the wealth barrier

Crappy area? Have you been to the inner city areas of Milwaukee?

I think this thread highlights how little interaction some folks have had with different social classes.

If you have spent any time in a poor area or have been in these struggling schools it is quite obvious why they aren’t as successful at distance running of all things.

Safety, having enough food, troubled home life, crime etc are all ahead of getting out on the roads for a few miles.

But hey those rich kids just have a better work ethic right?

Younger me would’ve scoffed at what I’m about to say, but . . . yeah the shoe thing is super true and only going to get worse. I used to buy 1-2 pairs of cheap-ish shoes per year with my pizza money and managed alright, but the game’s different now. Some teams will be outfitted in shoes that allow kid to train and recover faster, and the parents will buy them new ones when necessary. Other teams will be made up of kids using a pair of $35 Walmart shoes per year. Obviously there’s always been a discrepancy, but it’s only getting wider—especially as (1) even mid-range shoes start to incorporate super aspects, and (2) kids who have time/bandwidth can immediately find out from social media/youtube what their peers and pros are wearing.

Shoes are FAR from the only factor, as others have discussed, but it’s something I would’ve been slower to acknowledge before that is making a bigger difference than ever.

Edit: This has probably always made a difference between poor and wealthy schools, but could also exacerbate differences between middle-class and wealthy schools too. I used to work at a running store—which don’t exist everywhere—and it was pretty clear whose parents were shelling out for the good stuff without even paying attention to the price. Even for the ones who might be able to afford it, convincing a lot of non-wealthy parents to buy $100+ shoes is tough, let alone multiple times per season/year. But at least there you’ll be able to get good shoes at discount online.

Because wealth is not all that matters. The support system is what creates or sustains the wealth. I am talking about things like resiliency, work ethic, a long-term mindset vs. instant gratification. Things like that are what make athletes successful in XC, regardless of wealth.

Like I said, it is about a long-term mindset. The people you mention have a priority of "today", which is expected. They are in survival mode.

Yes, "the held back by the wealth barrier" schools field football teams that are usually horrible as most of the talent has been pilfered by private and suburban schools by the time the kids get to high school.

Wealthier schools are better in ALL sports these days. Reasons for cross country being good at wealthier schools have been addressed pretty well in this thread.

HOWEVER, Cross Country in a poor school can thrive if a coach is willing to work to recruit a team and then be willing to put up with all the travails and complications of coaching at a poor school (and there are many).

Not all non-wealthy areas are the same. Alamosa county is toward the bottom of income rankings by county in Colorado. Niwot, Cheyenne Mountain, and Mountain Vista--the typical XC powerhouses--they all draw from high net-worth areas. Alamosa is not a wealthy area, and so it fits the thread, but it's not a crime-infested hell hole, either. It has a strong sense of community, rich traditions, and a strong sense of pride. Just as it's stereotypical to associate work ethic with wealth, so too is it stereotypical to suggest that all non-wealthy areas have the exact same characteristics.

I coached for over thirty years at a school with a wide range of socio-economic groups. We had kids whose parents were worth a fortune to kids whose parents struggled to survive. One year while helping a student with his FAFSA paperwork, that senior's family income looked like a monthly income it was so low. Yet, he played two sports throughout high school (our school at that time refused to charge fees to play and we had very successful fundraisers.) BTW he earned a full ride to a UC school. Lastly, we were also in a geographically advantageous area for running with plenty of parks, hills and trails to access. Our uniforms were free and a local shoe store donated shoes. Occasionally, we did face the "my child needs to work" issue or we've been evicted and are moving. But we averaged over 100 kids on our CC team and 200 on our track team. Lastly, Looking over the school's all time lists, it is filled with that same wide range of socio-economic groups.

How big are these schools with 100 XC runners? We struggle to get 50 in a school of about 1500 kids.

I had college teammates from both F-M and Saratoga Springs in NY. Both very affluent areas with storied programs. One thing that struck me was that both would do full camps each summer, at the family camps of someone on the team. Just a full week of training, bonding, etc. Additionally, they would travel for practices (Green Lakes/SPAC). Not far from the schools, but required parents to carpool, etc.

I went to a good Syracuse-area school, but no summer camps, and just running from the school, which wasn't ideal. Of course successful teams can come from anywhere and any circumstance, but some of these established programs take advantage of their situations, and disposable income doesn't hurt.

Used to have a kid in my conference who would run in Converse from the poorer district and he would still get 3rd , although a ways back about 4:30, since the top two guys were both sub 4:15 in spikes.

Always wondered how he would have done if he had my coaching and shoes at the wealthier district.

Witnessed programs just rise and die in poor/smaller districts. I thought my school's program winning was going to continue but basically my team went from winning states to not making it for almost 8 years now, sent numerous guys to D1 colleges. They're still competitive at track because it's easy to get kids to do jumps and sprints, but it takes time to develop a distance runner. So there needs to be a continued culture of running just like all the nxn qualifying teams. Running gear is expensive we'd get donations and kids would share spikes. Only chance we find talented kids now is pressuring some sprinters to try the 800. Kind of feel bad for the kids now sub 4:10 meant you might get a national publication to write about you when I was in hs, now it barely gets you on a P5 roster. This also connects into my other pint that small college programs qualifying a distance athlete at nationals is becoming an increasingly rare sight. We might not ever see an Eric Jenkins from Northeastern type ever again.

Read through a bunch of these posts and I agree IN GENERAL the successful schools are from affluent areas. Yes it is obviously possible to be successful anywhere most do come from wealthy areas.

Many reasons stated are true. I feel the biggest that has been touched upon is that in general wealthier areas have parents who grew up wealthy and probably played sports in HS and maybe college so they see the importance of athletics and do not NEED to have their kids work. Also they believe in the VALUE of interscholastic sports. In wealthier districts way more parents train and run road races, marathons. hike, trail run etc....

That being said I am proud that I have coached in two poorer districts and been very successful vs the wealthier districts. And by poorer I mean rural poor not urban inner city and have had the great fortune of my own daughters be very successful vs some of those wealthier schools so i know it can be done!! Of course both my wife and I are in edyucation and were HS and. college athletes so we understood the importance and value of athletics.

TLDR. Parents are a key reason for the success of wealthier districts but its possible anywhere, just more difficult!!

Cross country is probably the cheapest sport there is for participation. All it takes is a decent pair of shoes. After all, this is a sport dominated by athletes from countries with among the lowest standards of living in the world. Name one other sport where that is the case.

One factor you are missing in parental involvement. I know we all love to hate on parents that attempt to meddle with the coaching, but top cross country teams have involved parents who attend the meets, drive in carpools, bring snacks, take videos, etc. And generally, these are parents with time and resources. I think that makes a big difference.

Many good points. I've been a xc and swim coach and math teacher in a few different schools, wealthy and not. The best students don't cram for an exam, they study a little bit every night, and some days they study a lot. To get better in an endurance sport an athlete has to take the same approach: chip away at it day by day. Delayed gratification. Chances are they learned these successful traits from their successful parents. Without such an influence, they somehow need to learn how to set a goal and relentlessly pursue it.

Sure, but they still field football and basketball teams easily. The fact is, distance running isn't popular so people aren't going out of their way to compete in it.

I remember when people here explained the success of NewburyPark by pointing out that it is an affluent area with successful parents who taught their sons their successful habits, neglecting the fact that hardly any of the kids actually lived in Newbury Park.

Lol that was me who got carried

Perhaps all the US schools should move to Kenya.