Why is the SF BAY AREA so bad (per capita) at high school running?

SF Resident wrote:

Why is the San Francisco Bay Area so bad (per capita) at high school running?

They're all homeless?

The hyper nerds that populate the Bay Area and make $500K+/yr do not possess great athletic genes. Thus their children score 1570+ on the SAT, but aren't ready to throw down with the more athletically gifted gene pools elsewhere.

more worried about getting into stanford, UCSF, and Berkeley I bet

tell me more about your 5k tho, OP

OP is restocking shelves at Walmart.

tarckstar wrote:

https://preview.redd.it/vki8fcpgn4u21.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=aa6dd85fbee051dadb8ab231aaff1550d370c5eb

Economies of scale tend to improve athletic outcomes, so what's your point?

because theyre too busy majoring in leftist farts.

Flibs wrote:

because theyre too busy majoring in leftist farts.

Because they're too busy playing on their computers indoors, their parents are passive non-athletes, and they discourage productive (or offensive) forms of raw emotion.

SF Resident wrote:

Why is the San Francisco Bay Area so bad (per capita) at high school running?

Because the Bay Area isn't good at much beyond talking and typing.

The bay area has over 7 million people. The population is bigger is larger than the entire population of most states, so of course the economy will be bigger. Looking at other states with slightly greater populations (New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio) - their economies are spread over different metro areas often spreading into other states so it's not a fair comparison. Nevertheless the bay area has tons of wealth, no one can deny that.

Back to the original question - is the Bay Area really that bad at running? Could it just be that other sports - soccer, basketball, etc are just more popular than in other areas? Just wondering.

Too smug for the trials and miles it take to be a good distance runner.

I don't know whether it is so bad at high school running, though Southern California certainly dominates the state in the sport. However, as far as the economy goes, the Bay Area has two of the top four metropolitan area economies in the country by per capita income, so it's not just that it has a big population but that its population is rich:

1. Washington, D.C. 47k per capita

2. San Jose-Silicon Valley 40k

3. Seattle 39k

4. San Francisco-Oakland 38k

5. Boston 37k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas_by_per_capita_income

zxczxcv wrote:

I don't know whether it is so bad at high school running, though Southern California certainly dominates the state in the sport. However, as far as the economy goes, the Bay Area has two of the top four metropolitan area economies in the country by per capita income, so it's not just that it has a big population but that its population is rich:

1. Washington, D.C. 47k per capita

2. San Jose-Silicon Valley 40k

3. Seattle 39k

4. San Francisco-Oakland 38k

5. Boston 37k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas_by_per_capita_income

Economies of scale tend to improve athletic outcomes, so what's your point?

Economan wrote:

zxczxcv wrote:

I don't know whether it is so bad at high school running, though Southern California certainly dominates the state in the sport. However, as far as the economy goes, the Bay Area has two of the top four metropolitan area economies in the country by per capita income, so it's not just that it has a big population but that its population is rich:

1. Washington, D.C. 47k per capita

2. San Jose-Silicon Valley 40k

3. Seattle 39k

4. San Francisco-Oakland 38k

5. Boston 37k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas_by_per_capita_income

Economies of scale tend to improve athletic outcomes, so what's your point?

Not only do economies of scale tend to improve athletic outcomes, but they tend to also enhance leisure time and excess which allow for training and superior dietary practices. From my point of view, the culture in the San Francisco Bay Area lacks an appreciation for physical work and outdoor activities. Additionally, many corners of the United States value sports and rivalries, whereas the Bay Area lacks traditions, legacies and really any sense of community. Most residents in the Bay Area are self-centered professionals or otherwise academics, budding professionals or commuters who are scraping by, passing through (after a couple of years), or entirely consumed by work to appreciate sports. From a generational perspective, athletic achievement appears a relic of a time gone by, especially in the day and age of social media, streaming services and smart phones. The Bay Area typifies this shift.

ProfessorDuh wrote:

Not only do economies of scale tend to improve athletic outcomes, but they tend to also enhance leisure time and excess which allow for training and superior dietary practices.

Last I checked, the two countries who dominate distance running are poor AF.

zxczxcv wrote:

I don't know whether it is so bad at high school running, though Southern California certainly dominates the state in the sport. However, as far as the economy goes, the Bay Area has two of the top four metropolitan area economies in the country by per capita income, so it's not just that it has a big population but that its population is rich:

1. Washington, D.C. 47k per capita

2. San Jose-Silicon Valley 40k

3. Seattle 39k

4. San Francisco-Oakland 38k

5. Boston 37k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas_by_per_capita_income

It's weird that this poster would cite per-capita income over household income, especially as we're talking about high-schoolers who grow up in households.

Obviously a non-economist trying to sound relevant.

Running_with_the_devil wrote:

ProfessorDuh wrote:

Not only do economies of scale tend to improve athletic outcomes, but they tend to also enhance leisure time and excess which allow for training and superior dietary practices.

Last I checked, the two countries who dominate distance running are poor AF.

The greatest runners in Kenya come from the Kalenjin people, who are not poor. Many of the Kalenjin people work as subsistence farmers, while others work commercially or for government. While the nation of Kenya may be relatively "poor" by comparison (through measures of per-capita GDP), the bulk of Kenya's greatest runners are from a concentrated area around Iten, so those aforementioned measures are too broad (at the national level) to capture the real economic conditions of their environment. What's more, you're probably evaluating the economic conditions by dollar value instead of by the cultivatable and fertile environment that is rich in consumables. You're also committing the error of citing general outliers instead of adhering to the trend. Two solitary outliers fail to independently disprove the influence of any variable.

Professor Duh, I like the general vibe of your take: you have captured well the "types" of folk who live here: the wealthy, the ultra-busy professionals (me), the temporary passers-by who give it a shot and move on, the commuters from inland, the servant class, and the poor.

Who is NOT here is a thriving middle class with lots of time on their hands. Most families are squeezed to the brink just trying to afford housing here.

There really is NOT much of the demographic that traditionally makes up USA HS distance talent: middle class whites and latinos.

Middle class whites and latino families with energy to devote to running are in SoCal, AZ, Utah, Texas, Southern oregon, eastern washington, etc.

On my list of "types" above, let's analyze:

1. the wealthy: they have the free time, but their kids are ski racing in tahoe, taking fencing lessons, interning in Europe, etc. The true wealthy do not usually make good HS runners.

2. The ultra-busy professional class: I am one of these. I make deep into 6-figures annually, but it takes huge weekly hours to get there. In other parts of the country, my class does supply good runners, but in the Bay, the kids I see at my kids' schools are soft as hell, distracted by a million other opportunities, and my fellow parents want their kids to pursue the same options as the truly wealthy kids. I have zero time to coach their teams, volunteer, etc.

3. Commuters from inland: these folks live in Turlock, or even up to Sacramento: Their kids do not run for Bay schools.

4. The passers-by: these types generally don't have HS kids

5. The servant class: these folks live in Antioch, Vallejo, etc. Kids from this socioeconomic group do not usually pursue running in the US

6. The poor: blacks, homeless, etc: these folks do not pursue distance running.

I come from the white, blue collar, working class to lower middle class. I was HUNGRY for achievement in sports. I became one of the top HS runners in CA and went to college on a track scholarship. I don't see much hunger in the children of my upper middle class peers here in one of the Bay's most affluent cities. I see a lot of kids driving their mom's BMW SUV (mom drives the new Tesla SUV) and playing lacrosse.

Bottom line: good HS runners in the US usually come from big, public, middle class schools. There are not many middle class whites and latinos in Bay Area schools.

So what are you referring to exactly. They are consistently producing some of the best athletes in the state and nation. I’m confused.