High school running is a MESS. Not enjoyable to follow anymore.

The NIL doesn't only apply to money, it also applies to equipment/gear/apparel. This has been going on since the 80's. Also, these kids are 'out of season' from high school, they can rep anything they want. With regard to the "National Meets", yes I agree there should be a sanctioned U-19 (must be in high school) National Track and Field Championship meet. This would be super easy to coordinate, the top marks from each event qualify. For example; top 15 for distances-1500/3000/5000, top 8 for 100/200/400/800, and a similar requirement for the field events, maybe top 10? The actual National Meet can be rotated annually from sponsor to sponsor (Nike, New Balance, Hoka, etc...) If a sponsor isn't hosting that particular year they can host a sanctioned 'Qualifier' meet leading up to the actual National Championship.

Done Deal!

As one of my favorite fictional characters would say: "The glass is at 50% capacity."

I know that Cooper Lutkenhaus ran faster than everyone at NCAA's, but I don't think he would have won NCAA's. That NCAA final was a physical race and people had to move for position. It was much harder to run fast than the high school race because in the high school race most of the competition melted away and the top runners had free lanes to simply run fast. Not like NCAAs where everyone was pretty close together. Looking at the context of even those two races, run in the same year, shows why simply comparing times across eras is not a good way to draw conclusions about who is better. You can't even do that in races run just a week apart.

Don't take this the wrong way either. I think Lutkenhaus is great, would be very competitive at the college level, would be able to run with any high school athlete ever, and will hopefully continue on to be a historically great athlete at the world level.

US distance runners just had their most successful Olympics ever from the standpoint of placement and medals. That is an indication to me that the fast times at the developmental level are about more than the footwear everyone can buy. We will see over the next decade to 15 years if our current high school athletes are even more competitive internationally, stay the same, or fizzle out. That will tell a lot more about the validity of the fast times.

The only big negative to me is that track and field used to be a more equal access sport. Some of these difference making products today are extremely competitive and cost prohibitive. It has never been perfect, but super shoes and Maurtens create a much wider gap between the haves and the have nots. That is unfortunate in my eyes.

Why do American shoe companies provide so many “opposition” countries with crate after crate of free shoes - the best shoes - while charging Americans (many whom are unable to afford) premium prices?

In particular, girls sports. I've never seen so much attention on girls sports in the general media, ever. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to result in actual bodies in the stands, for the most part.

USA is one of the only countries in the world who care this much about anything other than Pro sports.

Is it because the franchise system is a closed shop and there are millions of people not represented?

It is a strange cult

some good points here but to call it a mess and unenjoyable is such a stretch. If anything, it's more competitive and kids are running faster across the board with deeper talent than ever before. You can chalk some of that up to better training and technology, but it's legal and it's still fun to see.

I'll tackle your points in my opinion though.

- some highschoolers run races with collegiate and even pro guys but imo this is fine. we rarely see kids forego their highschool eligibility to race pros (I'm admittedly a little murky on how the rules here work) but i like the idea of giving kids the best opportunities. There is an argument to be made for continuity, with how in the past rules were more stringent and kids had less opportunities.

- multiple national champs I fully agree with. it is stupid. the meets should coalesce. I don't hate that nb is on the east Coast, and Nike on the West, but many kids from the east side of the country travel to nb and vice versa, and I'm overall in favor of creating one definitive national championship. Would also concentrate all the talent, make it even more exciting. Adidas is quite clearly inferior to the other two in my view. New balance seems to have the premier indoor meet, so maybe let nike have outdoors? I don't really care who sponsors it, but have just one.

- what abundance lol. the only one I know of is kitchen this year. sure there's a few others. 18 vs 19 is not a huge difference, in highschool when kids are going through puberty at different speeds anyway. Some kids start real early and some get a big boost later on. but by 18 and 19 this difference is minimal. not the same as 14 or 15 where some boys have not started puberty and other kids are rather far along.

- 9 seconds over a mile is a hilariously bad estimate for super spikes. world Athletics has found them legal. Technology will always advance and push the edge, sure it is a little unfortunate we won't have a perfectly even playing field with the past but that is how this sport has always been, the past 100 years there have been lots of developments, not just super spikes, which are worth MAYBE .8 a lap over an absolute best case scenario. But almost definetely less.

If you want overage seniors, you ought to look at athletes from the first 30-40 years of the 20th century. Quite a few near-20 or even 20-yr olds. Jesse Owens himself was 19 years, 8-9 months old when he was setting his national HS records during May-June 1933. I know of 20-yo athletes from that era, too.

most state federations don’t allow you to represent your high school outside of your official track season with your team. In fact i’m pretty sure at new balance nationals your can’t even register with your high school team. Only exceptions are schools like Bullis which are private and lowkey just do whatever they feel like.

Careful now, your liable to upset the bouncy shoe fan club with your facts and data

So, HS kids with high participation and running fast is not good for the future of track and field?

He didn’t wear a South Lakes uniform at Footlocker.

Why isn't USATF repping a serious Youth Championship? Shouldn't wearing USA on your chest for a year be cooler than wearing a sponsor (and yes in the case Nike would win being the National Team sponsor)

Middle school track was what HS track used to be. The problem is shoe companies are exploiting youth runners for their own profit. It's now reaching middle school levels.

"Bodies in the stands" isn't where the money is made anymore. That's a position from the past. Now it's about eyes on the sport in general, social media, advertisers, etc. It's absolutely getting more eyes on the sport.

It's hilarious that OP thinks a sub 4 today is only worth 4:08 with old shoes. Why haven't the top times in the world gotten faster? World leaders are still running 3:27-3:28 just like they were 15+ years ago. The difference is there's way more depth now, and we have more Americans competing at a world class level due to more Americans doing great training at earlier ages. Very few people knew how to train well 20 years ago, now social media and the internet has made it so it's easy to see what the top people in the world are doing and young people can mimic it.

Yes, and these kids shouldn't be allowed to push themselves in other competitive contexts because there's a grumpy 50 year old from the other side of the country who has that opinion.

the whole discussion around this is just low-quality. There are numerous variables that could be impacting times besides the racing shoes, and simply looking at time improvements as evidence is comically poor methodology. Shoe technology has absolutely made a material difference, but people who bring it up incessantly are drastically overrating it. Moreover, shoe technology improvements only matter in ranking historical comparisons difficult, and cross-era comparisons are difficult to impossible in every sport. Competition, which is actually the cornerstone of the sport, isn't really impacted when the super shoes are worn by all major competitors. It's not a variable among directly competing participants. MOREOVER, shoe and track technology improvements didn't just start with the recent batch of "super shoes". There as no point in the history of the sport in which conditions were static compared to 20 years prior, and the people who focus on this one issue are being delusionally myopic.

The obsession is sour grapes.

I've never worn em, them bouncy shoes.

Reckon at my age; I was 62 1/2 yesterday, I would look ridiculous unless I could run very fast for my age.

But I'm definitely a fan. 2% improvement is not a marginal gain, it's a game changer that can only be good for the sport. Why would anyone want to halt inevitable technical improvements?