Dunno--though I was interested to look at last year's results and see that Cornell graduated only one of its twelve competitors in last year's meet (http://www.leonetiming.com/2014/XC/IvyLeague/), while Princeton graduated three of its top four runners.
Cornell for the win.
And not only that, but the discrepancy of rerouting classes across the league is enormous in terms of talent as well. I think it's amazing that Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard (and oftentimes Yale as well) bring in unbelievable recruiting classes, with half a dozen or more kids who have run sub 4:12/9:05/15:20 while the other Ivies are lucky to even get one. When it comes time for Heps in XC though, the other Ivies, especially Dartmouth in most years but also Penn/Cornell as we saw last year (and Brown in other years), can be competitive with and even beat those top recruiters. I don't know if it's a testament to the coaching ability of the lesser recruiting schools or they just know how to find more untapped talent, but it's pretty remarkable that they can compete.
So Colombia had 14 mens distance recruits, Harvard 9 and Yale 4? Do some teams have more roster spaces than others? That's a huge discrepancy.
I would say Dolan (Penn) is the best. He did a great job at Princeton and built a consistently strong distance program, and Penn has shown great improvement in the couple of years that he has been there. In addition to developing the talent that he has (Penn had a slew of 14:20-14:40 5k guys this year), he has also developed some of his runners to be amongst the very best in the country (Awad and Cabral, for example).
Rank the Ivy coaches: ?
Who's the best at developing talent and who's the best at wasting it?
As a 15:30 5k running in HS, where do I go?