"He's just an All-American type guy - not a contender."

wrong until it is right wrote:

Speaking of Eritrean

This is a really great thread, and I am really impressed with all of the arguments, but I honestly think you have to take the Kenyans out of the equation in your analysis.

skeptical dude wrote:

Bekele's agent 5 years later after London: "Science - not sport - has won."

Science is code for drugs.

False.

Hermans was referring to Salazar's widely reported (over-reported) use of the latest gadgetry (e.g., antigravity treadmills, cryotherapy).

He was NOT referring to drugs.

In college Ambrose Burfoot was the star, Bill Rodgers the also-ran. The coach worked with both of them.

One program that developes runners is Colorado School of Mines. They have a track record of taking medocre hs talent and making all Americans and national contenders. The class load is so hard they are forced into a slower (2-4 years) development path. They run big mileage year round and have specific times off scheduled each year to let the body recover.

To broaden the discussion outside of the guys who are "just all-american" i looked at the sophomores who placed in the top 50-100 in 2010 and how they did the next two years (sorry if the formatting gets screwy)

david forrester 53 16 62

bill kogel 54 29 51

matt mildenhall 57 74 108

wesley rickman 59 234 77

lars erik malde 62 133 115

matthew bayley 63 43 DNR

andrew bayer 67 39 DNR

zachary mayhew 78 64 13

eric fernandez 79 38 83

sean keveren 82 DNR DNR

jeremy rae 93 105 DNR

reed connor 95 36 12

ross millington 96 DNR DNR

kevin williams 99   53 78

It's interesting that the results are actually better for guys their junior years than senior years. Nearly half (6 of 14) of the guys made jumps in to the top 50, with another guy going from 99th to 53rd, and improved 37 spots on average. You've got three guys that ran slightly better or slightly worse, two guys that ran way worse, and two guys that didn't run (which could mean a variety of things).

Their senior years, you've got 2 guys that have made big jumps to the top 15, 5 guys that finished in the same ballpark as their sophomore years, 2 guys that did a chunk worse, and 5 guys that didn't run. I believe Andrew Bayer redshirted xc, but if he ran there's a good chance he would have been in that group that made a jump to the top 15.

I think the main conclusion here is that it is definitely hard to consistently improve your place at the national meet, but also that lots of guys at this level do see improvement beyond their sophomore years. The fact that half the guys made solid improvements from sophomore to junior years shows that it doesn't take anything exceptional to improve and that coaches can certainly expect their guys to be able to do it, but also that improvement doesn't come automatically. The inconsistency with senior year results suggests that over the long term, guys have to be doing a lot of things right to keep improving. Some guys will be able to make a big jump, while a lot of guys will fall or end up around where they were sophomore years.

No such thing as a "just a" person.

Calling these guys "back of the pack sophs" is a bit misleading, maybe insulting, since every one were All Americans. In addition, all of the Americans listed were top 3 in Foot Locker back when it was the ONLY National Championship. The foreigners were national leaders in high school. They all showed the promise of being an NCAA Champ well before their soph year.

wrong until it is right wrote:

It's pretty obvious you can find many examples of back in the pack sophs competing for titles and years when they had no chance which somehow always involved a kenyan runner dominating.