Thought I might respond to a couple other comments. As to the Arcadia 2-mile, I was very excited about the quality of the meet. However, having raced in IL in the 1970's, it is not so easy to be impressed. After all, Hammond's Chapa, Pinkowski and Kiel pulled another 3-4 runners under or around 9 minutes INDOORS (of which Bloom's Small was one of them). And it is very exciting to see the HS mile times getting back to where they should be, around 4 min. Which leads to my response to why IL was so great in the middle or long distances in the 70's.
Chicago was the third largest city, but the best layout for cross country and training for middle-long distance in track. Its plentiful wooded areas, fall climate and conveniently laid out (and relatively affluent) suburbs were ideal for cross country. New York, LA, etc., none had this layout; and places that may have some of the amenities did not have the population base to generate intense competition. I remember a runner on our CC team who could not break into the top 7, so he never got to race except in meets where JV was allowed. His family moved to Nebraska his senior year and he placed 4th in the state. IL competition in CC was intense.
Back then football is king in most high schools and soccer did not exist. Baseball was the 2nd sport and BB was an afterthought. Top IL middle-long distance runners were not usually physically suited to excel in any of those sports, with the possible exception of soccer.
So, I do not believe its BB that killed off running. Instead, the amount of work that goes into being that good is so intense and draining, it requires a big payoff. In other words, where is all the recognition, sense of accomplishment and OPPORTUNITY TO WIN. My first race in college was against the reigning world cup gold medalist in 800 meters. He was 26 years old and blew me off the track. When he was 18, I could have beaten him, but...
It was worse for my teammates who ran a 5000 meters in a
triangular meet in March against Stanford and Washington State. Henry Rono lapped them as he set a world record, one of 4 in the next few days. This was all caused by a loophole in the NCAA rules that allowed military to compete past "acceptable" ages, so as to not unfairly penalize our troops (it was a mandatory draft then). Ted Banks, who should not be in the Track Hall of Fame, was an unsuccessful coach at UTEP. Then he started recruiting some of the elite runners in the world whose countries subsided them by putting them in the army, although all they did was run. Now Ted no longer had to coach, just manage (one thinks of Arkansas now). Imagine if Galen Rupp had to race 7-8 athletes who were all running 26:60-27:30. How would that effect him, especially if it was his whole college career? You try to do your best, but inside you can not find that extra edge needed to train that must harder, because your just training to get 5th, or 9th, etc. I hate to say it, but there is something special about winning, or the realistic chance to be the best.
Once the NCAA repealed the loophole, I thought the US miler (there used to be stories about what happened to the US miler) would return in 10-15 years, and that is precisely what has happened.
Well, this has been great chatting. It was especially fun to see all the responses from participants from that race in 1976. Oh...there was only 1 sub 1:50 split and that was Don White, the 440 champ (who ran almost even splits to win that race, very unusual). So...why do I think IL will not return to those glory days? I wouldn't run now, I would play soccer. Also, as a guy I know who closely followed professional boxing for 60 years told me: today's fighters would get destroyed by the old time greats because the old time greats were animals in training. Most of us know about Ryun's or Liquouri's or Lindgren's or Chapa's or Virgin's or Prefontaine's training. Didn't mean to leave out Hulst (what ever happen to Jeff Nelson?), Craig Young, etc.