D1 College Coaches. Which athlete would you rather take?

You also would get athlete #2 for less scholarship, which is what it probably comes down to.

An example I've used in the past is that Salazar has two people on his team that were very well known runners in high school. One of them ran 40 mpw in the summer going into his junior year, and the other at 100 mile weeks.

NOW, the 40 mpw guy has run 26:48, and the 100 mpw guy is his coach (no longer competing).

Like Johnny Mac, and I think like Vin, we look for high school middle disctance guys with good leg speed, and we move most of them up in distance in college. We want to know the kid's (not the coach's) description of his training, and we would take a 1:52 guy off 30-40mpw over a 1:48/4:11 guy off 80-100. The reason is training leverage.

At a pure distance-oriented program with high pressure to perform at the very beginning and without the ability to wait for, say, a Wheating, the coach might go for the 100 mpw guy who can jump in and maybe score as a freshman.

It would depend on their attitude and which athlete really wants to be at my school. I would rather the guy that is tough and listens than the one that thinks they know everything and does what he wants.

I think you also need to take a look into each of the kids minds. If the second athlete has never really been pushed and never had to deal not being the best on the team, coming into a competitive college program might be really hard for him, in terms of motivation.

This obviously isn't the only factor but I think it needs to be in the conversation.

Cheers!

Nas

Runner 2 is going to need 2-3 years to catch up to runner 1, but runner 1 isn't going to just sit around and let runner 2 catch up to him. As long as runner 1 stays healthy and is dedicated he is the runner to take. He has proven he can train at a high level and will be a strong competitor for every year in college. Runner 1 will continue to improve in college similar to runner 2, but will keep being a couple years aerobically stronger.

It is myth that training very hard in high school makes an athlete stagnate in college. Training a lot in high school only prepares high school runners for college, especially XC. Not training due to injuries or lack of interest is what creates stagnation in college.

not a swimmer wrote:

I think you also need to take a look into each of the kids minds. If the second athlete has never really been pushed and never had to deal not being the best on the team, coming into a competitive college program might be really hard for him, in terms of motivation.

This obviously isn't the only factor but I think it needs to be in the conversation.

Cheers!

Nas

this reminds me of Lukas Verzbicas. I mean obviously he was pushed to run some great times in high school, but he couldn't handle running for the Ducks.

another coach wrote:

It would depend on their attitude and which athlete really wants to be at my school. I would rather the guy that is tough and listens than the one that thinks they know everything and does what he wants.

I agree with this. There is something to be said for the guys that are willing to work hard and just go out there and compete. These guys may not have more talent than everyone, but they will train hard and let it all hang out on race day. And hey, if you can find a HS kid that is like this and runs sub-1:50, it just makes it all the better.

In the last 25 years, I believe not a single person who ran high mileage when young has gone on to win a medal for the USA. That includes Deena (35 mpw in HS; 50 mpw at Arkansas) and Meb (60 mpw as a freshman at UCLA, increasing to around 100 as a senior).

Training high mileage in high school prepares one for a career as a mediocre marathoner.

Why would you say a 1:53 guy who runs in the high 1:50's has more potential then the 1:48 guy. I'd say the opposite.

I don't like the word potential. It means they haven't done it or can't do it. Give me a doer over potential any day.

By the way, 800 runners in hs aren't running 100 mile weeks.

Only a handful of kids run 1:48-1:49 each year, but many more run 4:11. If anything, it looks like the 1:48 guy still has plenty of room to improve in the over distances. I'd say the first guy would be heavily recruited by the top level programs, while the second guy would probably be lucky to walk on.

This is collegiate athletics; you can have both athletes.

You think Rupp only ran 40 a week in hs? Balony

Ahahahahha that's hilarious. I did a bunch of training with central catholic guys in high school. Maybe the freshman were running 40 but Rupp sure wasn't. Neither was Klotz, Wall, or Oliver for that matter.