I have no knowledge of this situation, having ended my Division 1 career 35 years ago. But from my observation, some of the anecdotes cited above - for example - a 9:07 3200 guy in high school running 9:15 for 3k - are not all that unusual. Lots of Division 1 athletes "check out", even if they show up physically. And running essentially a 10 minute 2 mile for a Division 1 athlete is indeed "checking out". I saw this in my own program, where two of my high state XC champion teammates - 9 minute two milers in high school with real talent - certainly better XC runners than I was - checked out and were running 9:50 for two miles and 4:30 for the mile their senior year. They checked out. And our coach was indeed inconsistent and aloof - he really spent most of his time on the administrative side of the athletic department (where I think he was effective) and very little time or effort at coaching the sport. Having had some success in the early 70's, he would set a generalized expectation of 70/80 miles a week, which, if met, was met only intermittently, with guys going down to 20 or less during finals or if they had procrastinated on a project, or, as was all too often the case, recovering from a hard party. I was not as successful as I should have been - a 4:08 high school miler - but I realized I was on my own and mustered up a feeble sort of maturity to run a quality 40 miles a week in streaks, which in 30 days time would produce 3:47 1500 and 8:10 3k performances, but no better, about what one in hindsight could expect from someone with a bit of speed (sub 50 400) on that kind of training, but frankly, mediocre all around. At the time, I thought it was a rational decision. It allowed me to retain some pride in my running, but albeit a pride consistently nagged by the thought I wasn't developing my talent during the short window we all have to compete at the top level. This particular school had an outstanding reputation academically, considerably for what it is worth above a Minnesota (which by the way is itself a very good school), so the rationalization to be mediocre was even easier than at other schools (a problem which plagues the school to this day). Note that the rare individual with talent and the maturity to do it on your own - with your own training and doing sufficient volume consistently without over-training (a big challenge) could lead to doing well at the school - but it required a maturity I didn't have. Two of my teammates did - they came from fantastic families (I was from a broken single mother home) and they were very secure people in everything they did. To this day all I have left is an odd pride I didn't check out - running a 4:04 mile leg at one of the big relay carnivals as my last race (again, mediocre but competitive) and being happy not to run competitively any longer. I would think this factual detail would strike a chord with a lot of us on this forum, and even with the Division 1 All Americans, too, who know that it was a level of commitment that brought them to that status.
My limited and perhaps uninformed view? A coach needs to recruit talent, but beyond that, he or she really must build a welcoming environment, where the coach leads and incrementally inculcates leadership in the upper class athletes. Easier said than done, but being direct, transparent, positive and encouraging all are likely necessary attributes. Again, easier said than done in a sport which pays coaches insufficient salaries to consistently attract that level of skills and performance.