Why do fast HS runners get slower/ stagnate in college?

it takes a lot of dedication to have the kind of lifestyle to keep improving in a college setting. Lots of distractions and reasons to stay up late, drink a lot, eat poorly etc, even if you are putting in the miles.

Priorities change. Some discover alcohol and partying. Some after being away from parents for the first time can’t handle the swap of nutrition and responsibilities. School gets harder and stress is more. Training increases and some get hurt or burnt out. There’s no single reason.

I don't disagree at all. However, a lot of D1 programs have solved the issues that plagued runners in the 80s, 90s, and 00s... Distance runners now get training table food, grab and go meals, study table (that isn't some random academic building without supervision) with tutors, and they enter college more focused than ever before.

I would argue that HS runners of the last decade are better prepared to handle college mileage and to understand the need for rest, sleep, and slower recovery miles than back in the day when we hammered everything.

The glaring failure seems to be at the coaching level.

The partying thing was a major issue in the 1990s, and you could almost separate successful teams from unsuccessful teams by the level of partying. I think that the expectation of, "no partying", is a lot more overt these days from what I've seen/ heard from athletes.

The bigger issue seems to be lack of culture, belonging, and the feeling that the coaches care or want to develop these young athletes coming into the program. So, they eventually lose interest in wanting to train hard and succeed for that program.

I agree, which means that the coaches are being really lazy and failing.

i think its team culture which is controlled by more than just the coach. A coach only gets so much face to face time with the runners, the team leaders are the ones who set the standard for how they live the rest of the day. If the seniors on the team are all partiers the younger kids will probably start prioritizing going to parties too.

You dont see many kids at NAU for example stagnate too bad unless they get injured.

The real reason is most people are only "so good". You can't improve indefinitely. Most of the best HS runners have a training age of at least 4, maybe more. You begin butting up against the limits of your potential. This is especially true for shorter races--most 800 runners, even the most elite, hit their PR between age 19-24.

Events like the marathon where it's mostly about aerobic development are easier to improve at--but track is simply much harder because it's not just about a lot of miles.

There's also a lot more to life than running, so if you aren't willing to push very hard to squeeze out what might be only a few more seconds, you end up running what you did the year before, along with having a more "normal" life.

why is it you think every runner should continue to improve through college and beyond? seems unlikely statistically. only a minority become elites in high school. a minority of those become college level elites. doesnt that make sense statistically? also, are you implying that this didnt happen up until "30+" years ago? and if this is simply about fishing for people to bash college coaching these days, what about the other direction? could this indicate that high school coaching and the ability to develop high school runners to their max has increased in this time period and so you are sending more kids to college with less room for improvement and that looks like "stagnation"?

I agree that the culture seems dialed at NAU. But, look again at their roster and the times that many of those runners put up in HS (I'm looking at men's only). Look at how deep the roster is, and how many of those runners were putting up incredibly stellar times in HS. I don't see the sort of progression one would expect of 3-5% every year. Yes, injuries happen, but there is a lot of stagnation and even regression.

I'm not intending to call out particular runners on the roster, but look at the HS vs college track times. XC is tough as its subjective.

Here is a good example of college regression. If a runner is 4:10/ 9:05 in HS and then runs 25:30 8k, and 14:30 track 5k, 3:551500m that shows no development despite physiological gains into their peak years.

A lot of good answers. Also- some people are over trained in high school and there's no "room" to get better.

Others may get injured because they can't handle the extra work load.

The rewards also change. You go from being a national class kid winning races to being the 7th man. Tough on the ego. It is one thing to put in the work when you dream of being great. It is another when the reward is a lot less.

there is also a lot of issues with coaching. Those HS kids had a program that worked for them. The college program (no matter how good) might be a poor fit.

Yes, I think you're exactly right. HS coaching has gotten cutting edge whereas college coaching seems to be stuck in this idea of cranking talent through a grist mill and seeing what comes out the other side. Why would a college coach accepting a talented and well trained high schooler completely disregard what made them successful and uninjured and then just apply their program? Thats lazy.

I would hope/expect that a D1 recruit with these really decent times (4:10/ 9:05) would generally progress to become a 3:45 1500m/ 8:00 3k/ 13:45 5k by the end of their senior year.

Maybe they got hurt, maybe 4:10 mile was their physiological limit.

This is the equivalent conversation--

Everyman: "Hey Old Balls what's your 5k PR?"
Old Balls: "XX:XX"
Everyman: "Well why wasn't it 15 seconds faster?"
Old Balls: **confused look on face**

Agreed. I think the ego damage is a big deal that HS studs aren't prepared for. They're recruited on promises of becoming great and being given lots of attention, but ultimately, you're a turd once you start camp as a frosh.

How many college coaches reach out to the HS coach and find out what works/ doesn't work for the athlete? What's injured them? What kind of work they hate or don't respond to? In my experience, zero.

Why match a kid to a training program/ philosophy that is the opposite of what has worked for them?

I feel like I see a lot of 1:48-1:50 HS 800m runners not be able break 1:55 in college. Sure, they might have moved up, but the college coach just absolutely killed/ disregarded that speed. More than likely by piling on miles and not paying attention to aspects of training that worked for the athlete in HS.

Sorry, but your not going to tell me that 4:10 was their physiological limit running 40mpw and winning 3A by 7 sec in a flyover state. That kid is just getting started.

I ran 4:30 and 9:50, then 25:15 the first week of September. Crickets. Stuck around another year or two in anonymity then stopped going.

Just chiming in that Old Balls is doing a great job at pointing out an obvious problem. If there were 10% of the scrutiny that college football coaches receive, we'd have so much better running.