What D1 and D2 womens distance teams have the best development rates? Meaning what schools did the runners improve most at based on their high school times on average.
What D1 and D2 womens distance teams have the best development rates? Meaning what schools did the runners improve most at based on their high school times on average.
one can do something like with Excel but to me that does not tell the whole story so it easy gudgel to some in their arguments but in the end not much really.
BYU always.
You need to look at programs that aren’t on the top of the podium to answer that question.
For instance, CSU Stanislaus has taken girls in the 5:30/20:00 range (1600/5000) and turned them into 4:30/17:30 types. Same school had a boy enter as a 4:38 1600 guy and leave as a 3:51 1500 guy.
They’re not going to light up the National ranks, but that’s som really solid improvement.
Coincidentally, they’re getting a reputation for developing talent and as a result, are starting to get higher levels of recruits
That's just recruiting. Anyone can find some slow girls with crappy high school coaches and get them to improve.
if anybody can do anything why are all us doing it as there are thousands s#itting on this coach and that coach....
"Why are all us doing it?" What does that mean?
I've seen people from every school who were not fast in high school and become fast in college. I've seen people in every school who were fast in high school and did not improve in college. It seems it's up to the individual.
But some examples, I'm from the Midwest. There are people who have gone to Drake who were only 9:20's 3200 guys and become sub 14/sub 29 guys for 5k and 10k. I've seen someone at Wisconsin who couldn't even make the team as a walk-on, run on the club team, then get a walk-on position and then be 2nd place at Big Ten championships. I've seen 9:20's/9:30's 3200 guys go to South Dakota State and become all-american cross country runners (top 20 or better). At Iowa State Lisa Kohl went from maybe 10th at the Iowa high school cross country meet to being NCAA champion and olympian. At Minnesota some people have gone from decent high school runners but nothing flashy to Big Ten Champions and even All-American. At Iowa I've seen a 1:55 high school boy become a world championship medalist.
And then at all of these schools I've seen really good people from high school stagnate and not even finish their college career with these schools. So again, it is more of the individual. People succeed everywhere, and there are people who don't succeed everywhere.
Who was the Wisconsin guy?
^^^ You can't just look at the podium. The podium teams are typically getting several top recruits and some of them pan out which helps the team get on the podium. Most teams do not get any spectacular recruits and yet some of their individuals can still compete at the top of the NCAA ranks. A benchmark for high school boys has become 9:00 3200 and 4:10 for 1600... Not many teams get anyone faster than those marks, but the top several schools get people faster than those marks every single year. So of course those programs are going to be competitive near the top of the NCAA since they have a head start. But lots of schools get 9:20 or 4:18 guys and some of them end up being All-American type people after a few years.
BYU. I will say it again. BYU gets the most improvement. Some of you are talking in circles.
What a lot of people don't realize is that turning 9:00 guys into 13:30 guys is considerably more difficult than turning 9:20 guys into 14:00 guys. Many of those 9:20 guys are as talented as the 9:00 guys, but undertrained. But it's rare for someone to run 9:00 or better without pretty solid training. It does happen, and that's how you end up with someone like Cole Hocker (4:08 to 3:48 in two years). However, just because a team is competitive without talent doesn't mean that their development is necessarily more impressive than a team like NAU or Oregon, which gets strong talent and STILL manages to make it better. Taking Nico Young from 13:50 to 13:24 in a year was an incredibly impressive feat, given how good his high school coaching was (just as impressive imo as, say, Graham Blanks' improvement). This is why so many people are saying BYU in the comments, because BYU gets those top guys running 8:40s or equivalent in high school (Mantz, Clinger, etc.) and still manages to improve them, while also turning 9:00-9:20 types into NCAA studs in the 13:30-13:50 range.
I know for a fact that kids at school don't know what they want to do, so they're advised to go to as many clubs and activities as possible and try everything. But that doesn't mean that those interested in sports at school will want to achieve professional results. Sometimes the attraction to sports comes later. For example, my cousin was already in college studying economics when he was offered the chance to play football. He was so passionate about it that he entered football college this year at www.footballcolleges.com and achieved extraordinary success.
Under Arm wrote:
BYU always.
+1 for BYU
I'm not a runner, but I have a lot of friends who do this. I'm from Miami, and I'm studying diagnostic medical sonography programs. And I have some colleagues in my class who are professional athletes. Even if they learn about medical sonography, their hobby is running. And they didn't have to go to college to do that, but they did join a Miami running team that gave them a chance to advance in their athletics careers. So I don't think college is that important. It's better to focus on different sports teams to gain experience and good performance.