in 2014 below is what you had to run to crack the top 100 in California high school track.
100th position, men:
800 - 1:56:X (McMillan predicts 9:10 for 3200)
3200 - 9:26:X (McMillan predicts 2:00 for 800)
100th position, women:
800 - 2:17:X (McMillan predicts 10:49 for 3200)
3200 - 11:07:X (McMillan predicts 2:22 for 800)
It seems that 3200 meter times are "softer" so which athlete would you prefer the 800 meter runner or the 3200 meter runner?
Or is the McMillan calculator flawed?
As a general rule, I would always prefer the athlete with better speed... BUT it isn't that simple. I would need to see the way they move and the way they run. Were they multi sport athletes? Or did they specialize? Did the run club track their whole life? Did they have good coaches in HS? Or were they just raw and running for fun? Do they have motivation? What's their character like? Their family like? Do they have crazy over-controlling parents who will be calling me every day?
These are just as important Questions among many others. But if it comes down to all else being equal. Natural speed over fitness any day. If they can't run under 60 secs in a 400 but run 2:17, what is their ceiling? Not very high!
Recruiting Aide wrote:
Or is the McMillan calculator flawed?
Yes
/thread
McMillan always assumes superior endurance.
If I'm trying to build a cross country program and the 1:56 and 9:26 guy both ran 45mpw, I would definitely go with the 3200 guy. That shows they can make aerobic gains without training a lot and would be well suited for improving. The 1:56 guy might have more trouble moving up if he too ran 45mpw and is only capable of 10:00 or some such.
Obviously background and other PRs make a huge difference.
If my focus was XC, I'd go with the 9:26 guy no matter what mileage they ran. If I were focusing on track, maybe the 1:56 guy.