How comes runners from top HS cross country teams don't make it at the next level?

The top individuals do. Look at top 5 at footlocker & NXN.

It's talent, not the program.

Sometimes they do. But often they don't develop as much as others at a similar level in high school, once at college. Usually because top high school programs are training a lot harder than other high schools programs and that leaves less room for improvement. Pretty straight forward.

A lot of it depends on what they're background was like inhigh school in terms of their training and how stuck they are to the certain principles. Some people struggle with their willingness to being open to changing the core of their training. Exhibit A. Paavo training.

I would argue that top HS program generate a strong team culture that fuels motivation and that either doesn't exist or is very different at the college level. Without that fuel, motivation wanes and life's other interests begin to dominate .

Injuries can certainly derail careers, but I think more potential elites are derailed by other interests than poor training.

You can say there is might be a negative correlation between high mileage training in HS and achievement in college, but I would argue that the higher mileage was a symptom of a motivating environment that too often doesn't exist at the next level. The mileage was never the root cause of success at one level or the cause of disappointment at the other.

Athletes at top programs get better training, are driven to be better by their teammates, and therefore come closer to reaching the peak of their natural abilities in high school. They are passed up by more talented individuals who didn't get the same level training and support in high school. It's the York effect. This is often confused with burnout or overtraining.

Some don't want to make it at the next level. Not everyone has qualifying for the Olympic Trials as a life goal.

Some they do, some they don't, some you just can't tell. Some they will, and some they won't, and some it's just as well.

Chris Derrick won team Nat's and still went pro

Free Advice wrote:

Some they do, some they don't, some you just can't tell. Some they will, and some they won't, and some it's just as well.

You can laugh at my behavior, That'll never bother me. Say the devil is my savior. But I don't pay no heed

Depends on what you define as doing well.

In HS, the top few HS programs might have maybe 2 runners in the top 100 nationally. What separates them from the rest is the number of runners that might be in the top 400-500 (still probably only 3-5 for Top 5 teams). Saying that there are lots of runners from top programs that don't end up NCAA D1 All Americans, for example, is a completely different topic because there aren't often multiple runners from teams at that level in HS either, and that's not including fifth year runners or foreign athletes as happens in the NCAA.

It's harder to understand this in XC than it is in track, so for comparison's sake, there aren't often many teams that have multiple runners under 4:12/9:00 (roughly similar to being Top 100 in XC), and not all of those teams have the #4/5 runners to be at the top in XC.

Depends on what you define as doing well.

In HS, the top few HS programs might have maybe 2 runners in the top 100 nationally. What separates them from the rest is the number of runners that might be in the top 400-500 (still probably only 3-5 for Top 5 teams). Saying that there are lots of runners from top programs that don't end up NCAA D1 All Americans, for example, is a completely different topic because there aren't often multiple runners from teams at that level in HS either, and that's not including fifth year runners or foreign athletes as happens in the NCAA.

It's harder to understand this in XC than it is in track, so for comparison's sake, there aren't often many teams that have multiple runners under 4:12/9:00 (roughly similar to being Top 100 in XC), and not all of those teams have the #4/5 runners to be at the top in XC.

1) girls

2) booze

3) weed

4) early physical maturity

5) burnout

6) stop going to class

7) homesick

8) don't buy into program

Goodby Stranger wrote:

Free Advice wrote:

Some they do, some they don't, some you just can't tell. Some they will, and some they won't, and some it's just as well.

You can laugh at my behavior, That'll never bother me. Say the devil is my savior. But I don't pay no heed

If you can have two POTDs, these are it. Or them. Or they.

Got my Boxing Day started with a laugh.

Plenty of high school runners from top teams do well at the next level. Being in a top high school program helps them get closer to reaching their potential. I would argue that most of these runners wouldn't ever be as fast or even participate in the sport if they didn't go to these high schools with top running programs.

Do you think "burnouts" like Don Sage or Sean McNamara would have run as fast or faster than they did in college if they didn't attend York? I doubt it. Also, the level of competition in D1 is so much higher. You have runners who are the best of the best and many came from top high school programs in the U.S. or overseas. Btw, Sage still managed to win an NCAA title.

Flash runner wrote:

I don't understand why so many HS XC runners from top HS programs don't do well at college level.

I think the big thing, as has been pointed out, is the mileage and talent. At my high school, we had a guy go 1:51/4:11 (mile) his senior year, and is now a 1:47 guy in college. But his mileage in HS was kept low (40-45 mpw) to preserve him for NCAA competition, which he is thriving in. Our main conference rival in HS had all their top 7 guys go 60-70 mpw, but they all burned out at the end of the season, and now they either don't run in college or they suck. With young guys and girls, most (there are probably exceptions) have to stay at the lower end of mileage and just let their talent take over. In my view, HS is not about winning titles and setting records, it's about prepping for college competition, and if you win titles along the way, then that's a nice bonus.

Flash runner wrote:

I don't understand why so many HS XC runners from top HS programs don't do well at college level.

Because they burn them out. A good HS program will send their squad to nationals, have them all under 16, blah blah blah, but they'll do it at the expense of the kids future abilities. But a great program will see their alumni continue to succeed all through college, even if that means not pushing them through 70 miles a week in high school and actually caring about the kids long term progression. Keep the mileage low, develop the kids. Its highschool.

kod3200 wrote:

Flash runner wrote:

I don't understand why so many HS XC runners from top HS programs don't do well at college level.

Because they burn them out. A good HS program will send their squad to nationals, have them all under 16, blah blah blah, but they'll do it at the expense of the kids future abilities. But a great program will see their alumni continue to succeed all through college, even if that means not pushing them through 70 miles a week in high school and actually caring about the kids long term progression. Keep the mileage low, develop the kids. Its highschool.

Exactly.

... leaves less room for improvement.

You can't pick your parents, and that is what's needed to excel at anything beyond the HS level. In high school, all you have to do is work slightly hard to find success. At most colleges, you need to bust your rear 24-7, and still get left behind by slacker guys with better genes.

Life.

Because their high school coach gets them closer to their max potential than other high school coaches do. Think of two scenarios:

Kid A: Runs for one of the top 5 HS programs in the country and leaves high school with a 9:20 PR. Worked hard all four years because his teammates are motivated and their team is performing well.

Kid B: Comes from a less competitive team/area. Doesn't train super hard because no one else around him is training hard plus he doesn't need to in order to win. Leaves high school with a 9:20 PR.

Kid A will not progress as much as Kid B in college because he has already been working hard/smart the last 4 years. This is not a bad thing though and Kid A's coach should not be criticized for this. In fact, that kid may have run 9:45 if he was in Kid B's situation and would not have earned a scholarship to pay his way through college.

While there are exceptions (looking at you, York) most of the good high school programs aren't just burning kids out. They are just taking those 9:45 Kid A's and turning them into 9:20 guys.

Dave Smith made a similar point the one time he gave me a recruiting call. He said he wants the kids that are winning their state meets, even if it means they are running 9:20 in Oklahoma. He understood high schoolers have different levels of development/competition and that you can't just recruit 9:05 guys from California.