Very true. In a sport like running, where ones abilities take months and years to develop, it's absolutely stupid to assume that an elite high schooler will be an elite college runner only 5-6 months after graduating. It could take another year or two before Sahlman's talent catches up to the advantage of extra work that the college upperclassmen have on him. It even took Cooper Teare until his junior year before he was able to replicate his level of dominance at the college level. Some guys like Donovan Brazier can make the jump immediately, but they are outliers.
The issue is expectations. The NP/Brosnan cult believed he was an elite college runner last year and was going to come in and dominate day one. It all depends on what you view as success. Through the lens of the fan club expectations, this was a bomb.
Remember those NP posts from last year arguing that they could make NCAA Nationals as a team!!!! Even if this was a poor showing for Sahlman, this still officially debunks that BS.
I don’t mean to come across like I’m rooting against Colin, nor would I use the word “bomb” to describe this first race. However, he was definitely touted as a top 10 high school prospect all time and I think it’s revisionist history to say this was all about his mid D performances and not distance/xc too. Based on history, it’s reasonable to expect a top 10 all time prospect to finish in the top 20 at NCAA xc as a true freshman, and though we have a month to go, this seems very unlikely. Is he a bust, of course not. Is he just a miler unlikely to leave his mark in longer distance or xc, no, wouldn’t say that either. Do we really think he’s an 800/1500 runner? No, he’s going to be a 1500/5000 runner and maybe ultimately a 5000/10000 guy. Is he performing out of the gate as might reasonably be expected given how he was running this spring, no not yet. I’m from CA and watched the Newbury Park crew run many times, and Sahlman was every bit as impressive as Nico in HS. Leo and Alex are amazing, but no, Sahlman had them beat every time it counted and with no doubt. Of course, they are a year below him.
I don't quite get why you are assuming Sahlman will move up in distance. He has run 1:48.84 and obviously the fast 1500/mile times. Yes he was great at the high school 5K on flat and fast courses, but it is unlikely to find an aerobically well-trained athlete who can run 3:56 for a mile that would NOT be really good at the 5K at the high school level. Now, he's training for the 8/10K, which is a major jump unless you fall heavily on the aerobic side like a Chris Derrick or Nico Young. I don't know that Sahlman does, as he looks to have ample speed. It's really no foregone conclusion that he will move up at all to me. Centro was outstanding in the 2 mile in HS and was best at the 1500, Teare/Hocker look as competitive in the 1500/5000 despite strong HS XC exploits. Webb obviously no slouch at overdistance.
Former Newbury Park start Colin Sahlman finished 60th place at the Nuttycombe Invitational in his collegiate debut for Northern Arizona University.While the ...
I like this take. It was a solid opener, I like that they ran him in the A race instead of going for the win in the open race. It is a whole different challenge running in that pack of bodies, he ran smart moved up during the race. I don’t think many 1:48 guys beat him either. I can see him running very well at conference maybe sitting at regionals, then running nationals. Having him on the national squad in my eyes is all upside. He could finished 28th and win you the meet or he finishes 100th with the other freshmen
The issue is expectations. The NP/Brosnan cult believed he was an elite college runner last year and was going to come in and dominate day one. It all depends on what you view as success. Through the lens of the fan club expectations, this was a bomb.
Remember those NP posts from last year arguing that they could make NCAA Nationals as a team!!!! Even if this was a poor showing for Sahlman, this still officially debunks that BS.
How exactly? Just at the Clovis meet, NP averaged 14:43 - which converts to 30:32 10k. At NCAA's that average, on the net-downhill FSU course, would have placed them at 26th/31. At nationals, they averaged 14:14, just converts to 29:33 and would place them 3rd at NCAA's. Now I'm not so dumb to think that they would have gotten third, and I know that comparing XC times is a crapshoot, but I think this data shows that they definitely could have qualified for NCAA's. Not trying to fanboy, but they really were that good, and Sahlman's latest result is completely independent of last year's performances.
Remember those NP posts from last year arguing that they could make NCAA Nationals as a team!!!! Even if this was a poor showing for Sahlman, this still officially debunks that BS.
How exactly? Just at the Clovis meet, NP averaged 14:43 - which converts to 30:32 10k. At NCAA's that average, on the net-downhill FSU course, would have placed them at 26th/31. At nationals, they averaged 14:14, just converts to 29:33 and would place them 3rd at NCAA's. Now I'm not so dumb to think that they would have gotten third, and I know that comparing XC times is a crapshoot, but I think this data shows that they definitely could have qualified for NCAA's. Not trying to fanboy, but they really were that good, and Sahlman's latest result is completely independent of last year's performances.
I think what this raced proved was that data and those conversions don’t mean squat. College 8k and even more so 10k, are completely different and they would have gotten spanked badly.
How exactly? Just at the Clovis meet, NP averaged 14:43 - which converts to 30:32 10k. At NCAA's that average, on the net-downhill FSU course, would have placed them at 26th/31. At nationals, they averaged 14:14, just converts to 29:33 and would place them 3rd at NCAA's. Now I'm not so dumb to think that they would have gotten third, and I know that comparing XC times is a crapshoot, but I think this data shows that they definitely could have qualified for NCAA's. Not trying to fanboy, but they really were that good, and Sahlman's latest result is completely independent of last year's performances.
I think what this raced proved was that data and those conversions don’t mean squat. College 8k and even more so 10k, are completely different and they would have gotten spanked badly.
You're saying a 14:14-5k team couldn't beat Furman in a 10k for a spot at NCAA's? That's probably the hottest take in this thread. Lex Young (you know, the guy who didn't beat Sahlman in a race one time last year) would have smoked Furman's fastest 5k guy by 12 seconds on the track. You're just being a contrarian.
I think what this raced proved was that data and those conversions don’t mean squat. College 8k and even more so 10k, are completely different and they would have gotten spanked badly.
You're saying a 14:14-5k team couldn't beat Furman in a 10k for a spot at NCAA's? That's probably the hottest take in this thread. Lex Young (you know, the guy who didn't beat Sahlman in a race one time last year) would have smoked Furman's fastest 5k guy by 12 seconds on the track. You're just being a contrarian.
That’s what I’m saying. 8k/10k XC are not 5k on the track. You may be a NP super fan, but you’re ignoring what happened on Saturday.
You're saying a 14:14-5k team couldn't beat Furman in a 10k for a spot at NCAA's? That's probably the hottest take in this thread. Lex Young (you know, the guy who didn't beat Sahlman in a race one time last year) would have smoked Furman's fastest 5k guy by 12 seconds on the track. You're just being a contrarian.
That’s what I’m saying. 8k/10k XC are not 5k on the track. You may be a NP super fan, but you’re ignoring what happened on Saturday.
The supposed dropoff from 5k-10k performance is overrated, and if you can beat someone by 12 seconds in a 5k on the track you can beat them on grass. Again, it's insane to say that a hs team that averaged 14:14 on grass couldn't move up to 10k and beat the last place team at NCAA's. Sahlman had a mediocre race and if you're saying that he is in the same shape he was in winning nationals in 14:03, then you dumb.
That’s what I’m saying. 8k/10k XC are not 5k on the track. You may be a NP super fan, but you’re ignoring what happened on Saturday.
The supposed dropoff from 5k-10k performance is overrated, and if you can beat someone by 12 seconds in a 5k on the track you can beat them on grass. Again, it's insane to say that a hs team that averaged 14:14 on grass couldn't move up to 10k and beat the last place team at NCAA's. Sahlman had a mediocre race and if you're saying that he is in the same shape he was in winning nationals in 14:03, then you dumb.
I guess I’m dumb thinking 6 months of training at altitude specifically for 8k/10k XC, with the best college team in the nation, for the best coach in the NCAA’s would prepare him better for this race then what he did last year in high school.
Some SoCal high school runners don't transition well from road and hard packed "cross country" races to actual races on grass and soft dirt. IMHO, California does its young athletes a big disservice by holding most events on super manicured courses built exclusively for fast times. Some will rise to the occasion and learn how to race on real terrain while others can only perform on tracks/roads. I grew up in the heartland racing on grass and we got excited about golf course races because they would be easier and faster. When I went to college in California, I was shocked to find that XC was basically a road race with a few short patches of grass, dirt, or bark chips thrown in. The vaunted Mt. SAC course is just a hilly dirt road race. When we had a rare all grass race, I would always place higher because I knew how to pace myself on it. This is why I don't get all amped up over the NP boys when they get to college. They have amazing talent but they will need a year or two to figure out real XC.
This ^
My home XC course was harder than Mt. Sac. 99 percent of the courses we ran were harder. I ran (Midwest) state in 30 mph wind gusts with pouring rain. SoCal courses, and I've seen them all, are road races.
Some SoCal high school runners don't transition well from road and hard packed "cross country" races to actual races on grass and soft dirt. IMHO, California does its young athletes a big disservice by holding most events on super manicured courses built exclusively for fast times. Some will rise to the occasion and learn how to race on real terrain while others can only perform on tracks/roads. I grew up in the heartland racing on grass and we got excited about golf course races because they would be easier and faster. When I went to college in California, I was shocked to find that XC was basically a road race with a few short patches of grass, dirt, or bark chips thrown in. The vaunted Mt. SAC course is just a hilly dirt road race. When we had a rare all grass race, I would always place higher because I knew how to pace myself on it. This is why I don't get all amped up over the NP boys when they get to college. They have amazing talent but they will need a year or two to figure out real XC.
real xc does not exists in the US, you have to go to Europe for that
23:50 in his debut is hardly a bomb, especially at this point in the season. Many of the top runners there can definitely run faster. No one is peaking yet
Wow. Some of you underestimate him. I expected much more from him. Many posters claimed that he would have been top 20 last year while in HS. Steury was 28th in this race. He has a 4:09 mile and 8:55 3200.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.