How much self-selection takes place in an average high school track team?

Kind of confusing, but whichever group has the most talented runners will have the fastest PRs. Any head start won't make a difference over 5 years.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Kind of confusing, but whichever group has the most talented runners will have the fastest PRs. Any head start won't make a difference over 5 years.

Are most talented runners even on a track team? They're probably playing other sports or are too lazy/have no interest in joining any sport teams in the first place.

Clearly it's Group A. People who have little talent for running self-select out of sports entirely. People who have some athletic talent but not the precise set of skills for basketball etc. end up in track, as do people with a great deal of talent. Yes, there are some kids with very modest talent who try track, but they were very much a minority. And that one scrub freshman managed to break 2:20 in the 800 by his junior year. Not blazing fast, but faster than the average yearbook staffer is going to be.

That's an interesting question. On the one hand, most kids who join the team do so because they think they will succeed and conversely most who don't think they will succeed dont join. So you have a (self) selection bias in favor of the kids on the team.

On the other hand, some of the kids on the team are in the wrong event entirely. As a coach, I see kids with obvious distance talent insisting they are sprinters, kids with obvious throws talent insisting they are sprinters, etc. Presumably group B wouldn't have this problem, since they are being prescribed their best event, regardless of other reasons for choosing an event.

If I had to make a choice, I am going with group A for the best top kids in each event and group B for best of the mid pack kids.

Group A has too many boys throwing the shotput who weigh 130 pounds and should be running 4:40 in the mile. However, group B just lacks the kids with obvious outlier talent, since they've already self selected in to track and are running 4:10, 10.8, jumping 25 feet, etc.

It depends on what part of the country you pick those groups from.

A 130 pound kid putting the shot? Come on. He must have also played on the OL for the football team.

I doubt the median times would be much different, but Group B would have a lot more outliers on both ends. Those sub 5 mile potheads in group B who were too lazy to join a team and show up to practice will actually be forced to train. But so will those no talent chumps who sound seriously asthmatic after jogging a 2:30 lap. It all evens out, I guess.

The scenario is badly written. As written, clearly the athletes with track experience would do better, because the random sample of non-track athletes would include a lot of obese people, totally non athletic people, athletes who are clearly built for football/basketball, etc.

A better scenario would pit all of the 15 year olds on track teams vs all of the 15 year olds without prior track experience, and then you would only examine the top few performers after the 5 year trial. It’s harder to say in this scenario which group would produce better top performers. It will depend on what your population is. If your population is the big XC high school that wins state every year and has 150 people on the team, the track group will likely prevail. In most places where track/XC participation are low, the the general population will likely prevail through talent depth.

Ehso wrote:

As written, clearly the athletes with track experience would do better, because the random sample of non-track athletes would include a lot of obese people, totally non athletic people, athletes who are clearly built for football/basketball, etc.

I'm not too sure about that. The obese people could become good throwers, and the football and basketball guys could become good sprinters and jumpers. Even some of the non athletic people might be good responders and are able to run a decent 3200 after 5 years of optimal training.

Some of our best track and field athletes play other sports, but they kind of suck at them.

We have a 49 second 400 runner who should place at the state meet (small school division) who is 7th man on the basketball team that was 5-17. His teammate (6th man) was top 15 in xc at the state and may get to the state in the 110H.

Couple years ago a girl was one jump from winning the state pole vault and came in 3rd. She spent the winter playing on a 1-22 basketball team.

Another girl played basketball last year after getting 3rd at the state xc meet and was injured most of the season. Was lucky to get in shape and placed well at the state meet. Didn't play this year and ran solid at the state indoor meet.

That being said, if you take the best athletes from other sports, they can certainly find an event in T&F they are good at.

the next question would be... wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Kind of confusing, but whichever group has the most talented runners will have the fastest PRs. Any head start won't make a difference over 5 years.

Are most talented runners even on a track team? They're probably playing other sports or are too lazy/have no interest in joining any sport teams in the first place.

I've seen this comment on other threads, but why is distance running the unique sport where the naturally talented blow it off. I ended up being a 9:30 2-miler and ran the fastest mile in PE at my junior high school. After years of being a mediocre baseball player, having talent at something was very intoxicating. Why would a kid interested in sports, with talent to run 9:00, decide to be merely good at another sport after having run a minute faster than anyone else in PE?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I've seen this comment on other threads, but why is distance running the unique sport where the naturally talented blow it off. I ended up being a 9:30 2-miler and ran the fastest mile in PE at my junior high school. After years of being a mediocre baseball player, having talent at something was very intoxicating. Why would a kid interested in sports, with talent to run 9:00, decide to be merely good at another sport after having run a minute faster than anyone else in PE?

Because football and basketball are typically way more popular than XC and track. It's the quarterback who's in the news and gets the girls, not the winner of last night's 3200.

SEC wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I've seen this comment on other threads, but why is distance running the unique sport where the naturally talented blow it off. I ended up being a 9:30 2-miler and ran the fastest mile in PE at my junior high school. After years of being a mediocre baseball player, having talent at something was very intoxicating. Why would a kid interested in sports, with talent to run 9:00, decide to be merely good at another sport after having run a minute faster than anyone else in PE?

Because football and basketball are typically way more popular than XC and track. It's the quarterback who's in the news and gets the girls, not the winner of last night's 3200.

Playing HS basketball and especially football are unlikely to be options for a 9 flat runner. And at my HS, soccer was even lower on the totem pole than track.

If talented runners are not competing then it must because they aren't involved in any sport.

Did you run in HS? If so, why did you choose to compete?

Great topic! I would have to go with Group B. I lean toward the idea that the track team is mainly 2 groups:

Those whose coach 'makes' them do a Spring sport to keep in shape and so that the coach can keep an eye on them. At my school, I believe the track coach was one of the football coaches in the Fall semester. I am guessing that relievers sprinted, linemen threw, or something like that.

Those who do it for friends. I weigh in on the Board occasionally and one thread years ago caught my eye. Somehow the topic of running in your teens but not for the glory of the school came up. I posted that I did just that. The distance crowd at our school had nothing to do with the track team but ran road races. Of course, most people oppose this vigorously, but it was never clear to me why. Then, one guy whom I actually respect said that was absolutely not OK but gave the reason that the friendships he made on the HS team were some of the most valuable memories in his life.

Guys like me would flourish if a full slate of events were offered including 10k. The guys in popular ball sports could often sprint or jump. The big ones could throw. There are a lot of kids around campus that have genetic ability toward some T&F event or other that aren't on the team now. I think the experiment would drag enough out of the general population that they'd beat the current team.