What COLLEGE GETS MOST IMPROVEMENTS FROM HS

VTech

is that from ben thomas? or is their new coach still good?

University of Portland

I feel like you posted this a few weeks ago.

Schools like NAU, BYU and Colorado get an unfair bump in this category from altitude but they’re also having a lot of kids running 100+ mpw.

Villanova, Ole Miss, and many mid-majors or schools that are a later below the very best will get good kids, but not the best, so they often have more room to grow as opposed to Oregon, Washington, Stanford that get the very best kids that are maxed out in HS/have already run really fast so it’s harder to improve.

the knowledge room wrote:

is that from ben thomas? or is their new coach still good?

Their new coach has quietly done a great job as well. See Peter Seufer's XC season this past fall.

The programs that are able to develop talent are those with sufficient support from the school's administration and from the HC.

There are several programs that do a fine job.

Keys are financial and moral support from those in charge.

Team culture

A staff who actually cares about the athletes

And the ability of the staff to identify and attract those athletes with the desire, motivation, and dedication to do the work needed at the D1 level.

Some schools do a great job because they already have the ball rolling and are able to attract the right athletes.

Siemers at Colorado State. He doesn't get nearly the recruits Wetmore does, but he does an astounding job developing his athletes.

Not sure about distance development but UO seems to have done well by Cravon Gillespie.

High 10.4 in hs.

9.93/19.97 and World top-10 last year.

Are you considering any maximum starting times:

For example, some programs that don't have money end up with kids that run 4:45 and 10:00. Kids like that can improve a lot more than someone that runs 4:10 and 9:05. Give me an estimate of hs times and I'll tell you what I have for schools that improve.

You are incorrect. I challenge you to list a program that has a record of improvement better than the top programs.

Chico State

Care to list a handful of guys? BYU and NAU win the award hands down.

Montana State has had some pretty great times these past few years, and big improvements the athletes hs times.

No school close to NAU right now and BYU last year.

I second VTech, seen so much improvements from a little above average local athletes to NCAA superstars. Rachel Pocratsky anyone?

This is a very hard question to answer but here are some guidelines I'd suggest:

-As was said, developing slower guys into faster guys will get bigger "seconds of improvement" than fast guys into really fast guys purely for the reason of diminishing returns. But, from personal experience, I can say that it's tough to get much out of kids who are just flat out not that talented. They get injured easily and don't respond well. Highly talented kids respond very well to any training.

-Casualties. Looking at a team's finishing position and some of their top 5 improvement is a very misleading and dangerous exercise. I wish there was an official published stat for this. There are so many top programs that have good finishes but have the dark secret of massive talent graveyards out back. Is a program that destroys half the kids really a good program? If it were my kid, I'd steer clear. I don't see a coach throwing 25 kids into a highly demanding program, coming out with 10 studs and 15 injured kids as good program.

-Roster size. This goes with the last point. If you've got 30 guys on your roster, chances are you'll get get development out of a few of them purely on statistical odds. If all 30 are making significant improvements then great. Often, that's not the case. Always look at the back half of the team.

-Altitude. I think this is a big advantage of many of the mountain region teams. They seem to get great improvement up there. Most of those programs would be a good choice it seems.

-Budget/brand. There are some truly great programs that just don't have the money in scholarships to get guys who are talented at all. I've seen teams who finish mid pack that have zero business being there. They have coaches that just out-coach the big budget schools.

Your main premise is incorrect. NAU took a 9:30 type guy and turned him into a 13:15 type. They also turn many 9 flat guys into 13:30 guys. The mid level prograns get 9:20 guys and turn them into 14:15 guys. BYU had multiple sub 28:30 guys last year. That is more improvement than the programs who take 9:30 guys and turn them into 30 flat guys. I look forward to anyone trying to compare NAU to a mid level program.

I think there are lots of programs that develop guys well in different ways. I would like to know a program that doesn't develop guys well at all. NAUs, BYUs, Portlands, Colorados, Oregons all develop elite athletes very well, in my eyes Mike Smith, Ed Eyestone, Rob Conner, Mark Wetmore and Ben Thomas are the best 5 coaches in the NCAA right now, so of course they're developing athletes right now. There are others out there that develop well as well from all over the country, I would just like to know schools outside the elite 5 group that develop athletes well and also ones who stand out in a bad way.

Nau and byu get 5 stars, international, and 25 year olds. I don’t count them. Portland develops well and so does vt, those are the only two schools that people have mentioned in this thread that are worth noting, I would know.