Wrong you are! 2:20 is huge for an individual, but in the long run what does it do for the runner who is on Hanson's, nothing. What does it do for Hanson's, plenty! Volume exposure with more jersey's bunch together and therefore the name Brooks being seen by more and more people. Marketing 101, nothing more.
I am not on Hanson's and my opinion is not personal, one way or the other. If I happened to "coincidentally" break 2:20 12 years ago and could have been on Hanson's, what would I have done, gone from 2:19:08 to 2:10? That's not likely. Having the talent to break 2:20 is not having the talent to run 2:10. Argue, name call, do whatever you can to disagree, it won't change my life.
Years ago good runners didn't run 2:16 over and over and then suddenly run 2:10. If I'm wrong, then it should be easy to name a dozen, at least. Mark Messler and Don Johns are to very good Michigan runners who trained hard and ran 2:13 and 2:15 respectively. Don never ran 2:10, but besides Brian, he was way better than any runner other runner on the Hanson's team, including Kyle, Clint, Chad, etc....all reached close to their best and never improved. They aren't 2:10-2:12 marathoners and never could be.
I've read this on Letsrun by more than one poster, so it isn't just me. Personally, I find it pretty simplistic and are confused over posters bickering about a sub 2:20. That is no man's land and will get you nowhere. If you can't substantially improve in 4-5 years "after 4 years of college", then accept the fact that you gave it a shot and move on.
Again, argue, call me names and all that typical Letsrun rhetoric, it only shows your running IQ, or lack of.
By the way, Hanson's is great for the sport and gave it even more exposure, but it doesn't change their level of talent on the men's side, which is Brian and ??????????????