Well, just because you're not a sub 4-minute miler and the national record holder at 2-miles doesn't mean you won't accomplish anything on the track. Out of all the guys to do well in NCAA track and field, none have done what Verzbiscuit did in HS...therefore, you can't use that as a comparison to decide how he'll do in track. If you compare Lutz to the recent collegiate standouts, he fares very well in my opinion. The idea that just because he's performing well in cross country means he'll do poorly in track is absurd. They have no correlation whatsoever, and someone who guts out a 10k in cross can do the same around a flat oval. I mean, it's the same goddamn sport, stop comparing the two as if it's cricket to football...it's plain and simply running and if you're good you're good and if you're a standout in cross, then you should be a standout in track. You guys need to think rationally and stop making claims based on whatever it is that drives them because honestly, you look silly...yes silly, like how a toddler looks silly trying to perform algebra...thinking is just way over your head! And like someone said above, we can look back on this and see how they match up after 4 years...that's all you can do. Just gotta believe that just because Verzbiscuit is running poorly in cross doesn't mean he can't run well in track, and that just because Lutz is running well in cross means he's going to suck in track.