State with the most hs running depth

Per capita - Tennessee

This year? On the sprints side, Texas, Florida, or California probably. If we're talking about 800 and up, California is very close to Utah after taking Utah's elevation into account.

CA and it's not even close. Here are the number of athletes sub 4:10, sub 4:15, and sub 4:20 by some top states for comparison (source: Athletic.net).

State, sub-4:10, sub-4:15, sub-4:20

CA, 12, 33, 95

IL, 5, 12, 37

TX, 2, 7, 34

NY, 2, 7, 20

UT, 1, 4, 16

Just one school in CA had 4 runners sub-4:10 or faster.

Out of time wrote:

CA and it's not even close. Here are the number of athletes sub 4:10, sub 4:15, and sub 4:20 by some top states for comparison (source: Athletic.net).

State, sub-4:10, sub-4:15, sub-4:20

CA, 12, 33, 95

IL, 5, 12, 37

TX, 2, 7, 34

NY, 2, 7, 20

UT, 1, 4, 16

Just one school in CA had 4 runners sub-4:10 or faster.

Forgot to mention this is for 1600 only.

NJ has to be up there based on how 11 million people

Out of time wrote:

CA and it's not even close. Here are the number of athletes sub 4:10, sub 4:15, and sub 4:20 by some top states for comparison (source: Athletic.net).

State, sub-4:10, sub-4:15, sub-4:20

CA, 12, 33, 95

IL, 5, 12, 37

TX, 2, 7, 34

NY, 2, 7, 20

UT, 1, 4, 16

Just one school in CA had 4 runners sub-4:10 or faster.

This has a ton of mistakes. Using Athletic.net, I've found that there are 3 Utah runners under 4:10. This says that there is only one. There are 5 under 4:15 (one ran unattached but is from Utah.) The majority of these numbers don't match up with what Athletic.net says. Which season is this talking about anyway? I assumed indoor of 2017 but this claims that there are at least 22 sub 4:10 guys in the nation right now. Looking at the 1600 and mile combined, there are only 10 guys who ran sub 4:10

Jayordon wrote:

Out of time wrote:

CA and it's not even close. Here are the number of athletes sub 4:10, sub 4:15, and sub 4:20 by some top states for comparison (source: Athletic.net).

State, sub-4:10, sub-4:15, sub-4:20

CA, 12, 33, 95

IL, 5, 12, 37

TX, 2, 7, 34

NY, 2, 7, 20

UT, 1, 4, 16

Just one school in CA had 4 runners sub-4:10 or faster.

This has a ton of mistakes. Using Athletic.net, I've found that there are 3 Utah runners under 4:10. This says that there is only one. There are 5 under 4:15 (one ran unattached but is from Utah.) The majority of these numbers don't match up with what Athletic.net says. Which season is this talking about anyway? I assumed indoor of 2017 but this claims that there are at least 22 sub 4:10 guys in the nation right now. Looking at the 1600 and mile combined, there are only 10 guys who ran sub 4:10

Diving in further, I have found that these numbers were taken from the 2016 outdoor track season. That was last year though and things have changed a lot since then.

Jayordon wrote:

Out of time wrote:

CA and it's not even close. Here are the number of athletes sub 4:10, sub 4:15, and sub 4:20 by some top states for comparison (source: Athletic.net).

State, sub-4:10, sub-4:15, sub-4:20

CA, 12, 33, 95

IL, 5, 12, 37

TX, 2, 7, 34

NY, 2, 7, 20

UT, 1, 4, 16

Just one school in CA had 4 runners sub-4:10 or faster.

This has a ton of mistakes. Using Athletic.net, I've found that there are 3 Utah runners under 4:10. This says that there is only one. There are 5 under 4:15 (one ran unattached but is from Utah.) The majority of these numbers don't match up with what Athletic.net says. Which season is this talking about anyway? I assumed indoor of 2017 but this claims that there are at least 22 sub 4:10 guys in the nation right now. Looking at the 1600 and mile combined, there are only 10 guys who ran sub 4:10

You are correct - I forgot to specify. These are from 2016 outdoor as 2017 is not complete and many schools don't run indoor so it seemed like the best time period for complete comparisons.

Jayordon wrote:

Jayordon wrote:

This has a ton of mistakes. Using Athletic.net, I've found that there are 3 Utah runners under 4:10. This says that there is only one. There are 5 under 4:15 (one ran unattached but is from Utah.) The majority of these numbers don't match up with what Athletic.net says. Which season is this talking about anyway? I assumed indoor of 2017 but this claims that there are at least 22 sub 4:10 guys in the nation right now. Looking at the 1600 and mile combined, there are only 10 guys who ran sub 4:10

Diving in further, I have found that these numbers were taken from the 2016 outdoor track season. That was last year though and things have changed a lot since then.

Ohhh wow, Utah had one good year. Congrats.

Jesus.

That makes sense. Here is a replica of your list filtering out all of the seniors who graduated that year leaving only athletes competing this year. Also adding altitude to the end since that does play a role.

State, sub-4:10, sub-4:15, sub-4:20, altitude

CA, 3, 10, 40, about 2900'

IL, 2, 5, 15, about 600'

TX, 2, 3, 16, about 1700'

NY, 0, 3, 8, about 1000'

UT, 1, 3, 8, about 6100'

XD what's wrong? Am I making it too obvious that I like Utah and you can't handle the fact that it's become a distance powerhouse?

Obviously, depth has to be better defined. If you want to look at the number of athletes running at every time, then CA will clearly win. For this definition it would be best to look at more middle of the road times, as sub-4:10 guys are so rare, that if by some fluke a state ends up with three or four, then they will seem much deeper than they are. For the same reason it would be better to consider 8-12 years of data. Probably, the most populous state (CA) will still win. You'll get a pretty basic bell curve of performances for each state, with only the sheer volume of athletes varying.

Some more interesting ways of comparing states:

1) Compare state all time lists (VA for example has both Alan Webb and Drew Hunter) to see which state has produced the best athletes.

2) Look for the biggest depth in relation to the number of high school students in the state (using all high school students instead of runners means that it will show a running culture, which would increase depth, all other things being equal). Ex. (Number of guys between 4:25 and 4:35)/high school students. This would yield a compareable number.

3) Virtual trackmeet where each state can submit their two best athletes and best relay team. Scored like a normal trackmeet. Whichever state wins is declared the best.

None of these ideas would measure depth, but they would be more interesting than the biggest state wins.

I agree. California definitely has the most depth. Their population is also significantly higher than any other state. I may work on something here to find out which state produced the fastest milers by size though. I'll get back if/when I finish it.

Jayordon wrote:

I agree. California definitely has the most depth. Their population is also significantly higher than any other state. I may work on something here to find out which state produced the fastest milers by size though. I'll get back if/when I finish it.

At the same time Texas has a population that is 70% of the size of California, so you would expect avout 70% as many kids running in each time "slot." But if you're only looking at 1600 and 3200, Texas has only 1/3 to 1/4 as many kids running a specific time. I suspect that is indicative of a weaker running "culture."

If the roles were reversed, with Texas having California's distance running culture and vice versa, Texas would have about 50% more depth than California despite the smaller population.

If anybody could compare these two states for sprints and jumps (say, number of boys under 10.7 and 11 in the 100m, and over 21 and 23' in the lj, for example), I would be curious if Texas is looking better again.

I think a lot of interesting "per capita" lists could be made, like you are sayiny, though.

It would also be interesting to try to get an idea of how population density relates to depth per capita. As the density increases, does the typical runner improve? If this occurs, is this from increased competition?

Amused responder wrote:

I'd say California. You need to run low 1:50s for an 800, sub 4:10 1600m and possibly sub 9:10 or even sub 9 to win a state meet

So, the most populous state, California. Crazy how that works.

Season, State, Number of milers, sub-4:10, sub-4:20, sub-4:30, percentage of milers running under 4:10 4:20 and 4:30

2017 Indoor, Alabama, 526, 0, 0, 16, 0%, 0%, 3.04%

2016 Outdoor, Alaska, 329, 0, 1, 6, 0%, 0.3%, 1.82%

2016 Outdoor, Arizona, 1542, 0, 1, 35, 0%, 0.06%, 2.26%

2017 Indoor, Arkansas, 124, 0, 0, 1, 0%, 0%, 0.8%

2016 Outdoor, California, 12758, 12, 95, 466, 0.09%, 0.74%, 3.65%

2016 Outdoor, Colorado, 1057, 0, 3, 44, 0%, 0.28%, 4.16%

2017 Indoor, Connecticut, 850, 0, 0, 14, 0%, 0%, 1.64%

2017 Indoor, Delaware, 79, 0, 0, 3, 0%, 0%, 3.79%

2016 Outdoor, Florida, 3401, 0, 9, 85, 0%, 0.26%, 2.49%

2017 Outdoor, Georgia, 1624, 0, 1, 15, 0%, 0.06%, 0.92%

No Results For Hawaii

2016 Outdoor, Idaho, 857, 1, 4, 26, 0.11%, 0.46%, 3.03%

2017 Indoor, Illinois, 1207, 0, 0, 24, 0%, 0%, 1.98%

2017 Indoor, Indiana, 273, 0, 0, 2, 0%, 0%, 0.73%

2016 Outdoor, Iowa, 166, 1, 7, 23, 0.6%, 4.21%, 13.85%

2016 Outdoor, Kansas, 995, 0, 7, 30, 0%, 0.7%, 3.01%

2016 Outdoor, Kentucky, 792, 0, 4, 16, 0%, 0.5%, 2.02%

2017 Indoor, Louisiana, 191, 0, 1, 5, 0%, 0.52%, 2.61%

2016 Outdoor, Maine, 468, 0, 1, 12, 0%, 0.21%, 2.56%

2017 Indoor, Maryland, 953, 0, 1, 18, 0%, 0.1%, 1.88%

2016 Outdoor, Massachusetts, 171, 0, 1, 8, 0%, 0.58%, 4.67%

2017 Indoor, Michigan, 236, 0, 2, 14, 0%, 0.84%, 5.93%

2016 Outdoor, Minnesota, 1114, 0, 13, 66, 0%, 1.16%, 5.92%

2016 Outdoor, Mississippi, 104, 0, 0, 2, 0%, 0%, 1.92%

2016 Outdoor, Missouri, 1823, 0, 15, 41, 0%, 0.82%, 2.24%

2016 Outdoor, Montana, 680, 0, 4, 16, 0%, 0.58%, 2.35%

2016 Outdoor, Nebraska, 944, 0, 2, 23, 0%, 0.21%, 2.43%

2016 Outdoor, Nevada, 729, 0, 1, 13, 0%, 0.13%, 1.78%

2016 Outdoor, New Hampshire, 40, 0, 2, 9, 0%, 5%, 22.5%

2017 Indoor, New Jersey, 1685, 0, 10, 72, 0%, 0.59%, 4.27%

2016 Outdoor, New Mexico, 581, 0, 1, 11, 0%, 0.17%, 1.89%

2017 Indoor, New York, 2476, 0, 7, 64, 0%, 0.28%, 2.58%

2017 Indoor, North Carolina, 604, 0, 0, 23, 0%, 0%, 3.8%

2016 Outdoor, North Dakota, 119, 0, 3, 15, 0%, 2.52%, 12.6%

2017 Indoor, Ohio, 965, 0, 12, 32, 0%, 1.24%, 3.31%

2016 Outdoor, Oklahoma, 842, 0, 2, 19, 0%, 0.23%, 2.25%

2016 Outdoor, Oregon, 2209, 4, 25, 94, 0.18%, 1.13%, 4.25%

2016 Outdoor, Pennsylvania, 1510, 0, 17, 95, 0%, 1.12%, 6.29%

2017 Indoor, Rhode Island, 178, 1, 2, 12, 0.56%, 1.12%, 6.74%

2016 Outdoor, South Carolina, 824, 0, 2, 25, 0%, 0.24%, 3.03%

2016 Outdoor, South Dakota, 422, 0, 4, 9, 0%, 0.94%, 2.13%

2016 Outdoor, Tennessee, 970, 1, 12, 30, 0.1%, 1.23%, 3.09%

2016 Outdoor, Texas, 4562, 2, 34, 170, 0.04%, 0.74%, 3.72%

2017 Indoor, Utah, 551, 3, 9, 32, 0.54%, 1.63%, 5.8%

2016 Outdoor, Vermont, 327, 0, 0, 4, 0%, 0%, 1.22%

2017 Indoor, Virginia, 1187, 0, 9, 41, 0%, 0.75%, 3.45%

2016 Outdoor, Washington, 3156, 2, 38, 145, 0.06%, 1.2%, 4.59%

2016 Outdoor, West Virginia, 479, 0, 0, 16, 0%, 0%, 3.34%

2016 Outdoor, Wisconsin, 2453, 0, 16, 77, 0%, 0.65%, 3.13%

2017 Indoor, Wyoming, 139, 0, 0, 3, 0%, 0%, 2.15%

If the state did not have a 2017 Indoor season, I used their 2016 or 2017 Outdoor season instead depending on when their 2017 Outdoor season started. If the state runs the 1500m instead of the 1600m, times are converted by taking the pace run and adding the time it would take to run an extra 100m

Holy crap that took a long time. Weird with some of the smaller states that had super high percentages under 4:30. Iowa, North Dakota, and New Hampshire mainly. Not including those three, the states with the highest percentage under 4:30 were 1. Rhode Island 2. Pennsylvania 3. Michigan 4. Minnesota 5. Utah

The states with the highest percentages under 4:20 (again not counting the 3 above) were 1. Utah 2. Ohio 3. Tennessee 4. Washington 5. Minnesota

The states with the highest percentages under 4:10 were 1. Rhode Island 2. Utah 3. Oregon 4. Idaho 5. California

Per capita = Oregon

The most populated states would be a good guess.

Very interesting. I think the fairest way to compare would be to take the 2016, 2012, and 2008 outdoor seasons for each state and add them together. That way you increase sample size without double counting individuals.

I think using indoors has a selection bias,plus many states don't do indoors.

Your use of percentages of milers is interesting, though. Tells a different story than per capita does.