Former athletes' college progression

Kids from the higher level high school distance programs more often have issues in college.

Some would say it's burnout, but I think a lot of times it has to do with motivation and talent.

For four years in HS your kids were running in something that resembled a college program and they probably had team/individual success fueling that drive.

They go to college and they are in the back of XC races, and the motivation is harder to come by. They are away from home and distractions are everywhere. They are probably less serious now, than they use to be, and struggling with the fact that they are no longer a "standout" or exceptional athletes for their level of competition.

When I look at kids from HS programs that have great coaches, or regularly produce DI recruits, I really try to evaluate how talented the kid actually is. A lot of times athletes out of these programs are just not that talented. They may have good times, but they are a product of coaching, and lack the potential to run sub 14 for a 5k.

I had been afraid of that answer. I'd hoped that by staying away from very 'specific' work, I was creating a strong foundation while leaving plenty of room for long term development.

If you're right--do I try to leave athletes MORE undertrained? Even with a heavy emphasis on LT1 and easy mileage, my top boys rarely run more than 50-55mpw! Or should I just be grateful they get to have a college running experience and hope that the truly talented can continue to grow?

You are not doing anything wrong...it's on the athlete.

Maybe try to prep them for the fact that at the DI level they will have to race 25 year olds from around the world. They can't eat whatever they want and binge drink on a weekly basis and continue to improve.

Also, not improving in year one with a program is common. Let athletes know they need to be patient in transition.

For many, finishing in the triple digits in XC is humbling. Some check out or go through the motions. The good ones buckle down.

You say you’ve had only a couple graduating classes; that indicates to me these are pretty recent graduates. Progression might alter when an athlete switches training styles. Also, your sample doesn’t seem to be huge. It sounds to me like you’re training them appropriately and these athletes just happen to be struggling at the next level

Good point--I may be panicking early. To be specific, I have two athletes in their sophomore year (both 800/1500 at top 20 distance D1 programs) and five in their freshman year (one naia, one D2, one small D1, another strong D1). I think the variety of programs they've entered with similar outcomes has me very self-critical.

So many cases of this situation that I know of. I have to disagree that they may be less serious. All the cases I know of were related to burnout and were very serious about doing well in college. Some coaches making boys run 80-100 mpw, others all focused on championship races and to your point, yes they were standouts. There is just so much a physical and mental body can go through yet another 4 years in a new environment where you are no longer the star and your legs are beat up by years of intense mileage and your only 18. HS coaches that cause this burnout are selfish and looking out for themselves as "star coaches" and "win at all costs", as opposed to guiding young runners to be able to flourish and reach their potential in college.

At the same time, a lot of people from worse/less serious high school programs come to college not fully dedicated to the sport, then either quit a year or two because they can't win anymore or they found something else they'd rather do. Good HS programs install a love of the sport in an athlete a lot better than a program that plays ultimate frisbee every Friday and takes the weekends off. See Newbury Park for example. Say what you want about Brosnan's coaching, but Young and Sahlman would not be as good as they are now without them having the passion and desire to reach their full potential that they developed during their high school days.

I'd also rather have an untalented but dedicated guy over a talented but lazy guy, too. Besides them probably being a giant pain in the ass, talented but unmotivated people are the people most likely to create a poor/unserious team culture.

Not to mention that training easy in high school gives you more room for improvement, but it also makes you unprepared for the jump in intensity of college workouts and it leaves you significantly more likely to be constantly injured. I've seen it with some of my teammates -- my coach brought on this guy who ran pretty decent off of some crappy 30 mpw training a few years ago. He improved a good bit, but he was also constantly injured and never got to realize his full talent. He was just not durable enough for college-level workouts even though his mileage only increased by about 10 each year.

I don't envy the job of coaches, for sure. I think the guy who ran 50 mpw in high school is probably best compromise.

The same college coaches that tell you that you overtrained an athlete or that you are all about you and not the kid, email you this type of scholarship standard sheet (random example):

Do not train your kid to be fast or we won't want them. Also, they need to run 4:03 to run here.

I had an alum reach out to me the other day. Was struggling to finish races. I asked him what his coach told him to fix the problem? He was told to run his long run faster. I asked him what type of speed/anaerobic work he was doing. Virtually none. He is a middle distance runner.

I'm sure selfish high school coaches are the problem...

Doug

In HS I averaged 35 mpw in a program that sounds similar to yours. I won my state 1600, but it was obvious to my coaches and myself I didn't have the raw speed to be a 1500 runner at the D1 level.

As a college freshman I was so unprepared for the training the 5k/10k/XC required. It took me 2 years to build up to 70+ mpw with the workouts required to become a factor at 5k and above and qualify for NCAAs. Many times my first 2 years I thought about quitting.

You are doing great with your 800/1600 runners. For your 1600/3200 runners who want to run in college you are doing a disservice if they can't handle 60+ mpw with a weekly 12+ mile long run by their senior year.

i would not assume it is you. if you want good TF coaching at the college level you need better pay and the sort of scrutiny that college football teams get. people know when someone is a "lane kiffin" in college football. they see the decisionmaking. they see the recruiting classes. they see the results. they are well educated about what bad football or a waste of talent looks like. TF, not so much. you can almost by statistical luck get a few conference winners on a team. across a few dozen events, you should have a couple doing nothing. you can tout them like you did something.

no, to evaluate TF coaching you need to dig into, what came in, what went out, how much did the team progress, do we breed an unusual bunch of competitive kids, even if recruiting has an off year? is success constant? does everyone improve? does the team like the coach? does the team grow as people? that takes digging into details and watching. how many colleges watch their TF/XC coaches like hawks like it's college football?

i played soccer and ran TF in D3. my personal assessment with the exception of the guy hired senior year for soccer, the coaching was inferior to youth select soccer and my HS TF coach. both primary coaches were also jerks. the senior year soccer guy was a nice dude and could coach. he was a former HS guy.

the soccer guy could recruit, and the TF guy tended to focus the majority of his attention on a handful of kids who showed up ready to compete for conference. this is what props up many a program, is recruiting.

to me the test of a good coach is do a lot of kids improve across the board. any idiot can saddle up the best recruits and then put "coached ____ conference champions" on their resume -- even if that's most of the team points they get, and they don't make nationals, and everyone else plateaus or regresses.

i felt like training at the college level was excessive and counterproductive. the idea is not to peak week 1 off some insane preseason workload. the idea is not be tired at every meet but conference. the idea is not have half the team on the training table midseason where the travel roster shrinks way down.

but if your skill set is recruiting, you just shovel off the breakage into the trash can and recruit a new class. the jerk coach runs off or breaks a bunch of kids. basically patches the losses next year instead of adding and improving. since the team game is about accumulation -- a class atop a class atop a class etc. -- the team just sits mid-standings all the time.

on college choice -- it's awkward because it's their choice, not yours. maybe some D1 seem more effective to you than others with their kids. maybe some D1 coaches seem like better stewards of their kids. conversely, maybe you hear back x coach is a jerk and y coach runs kids in the ground. surely you talk with your graduates after they head off to college, when they come back for summers? if the next kid then asks for input on choice, or to make connections, set aside the "i have produced _____ D1 runners" billboard ego and point them to the happier programs with more successful kids and less breakage.

also, along the lines of billboard ego, i came up with kids who won D3 titles, made D1 final fours, D3 all-america, on down to kids who sat D1 benches as walkons. jerk coach aside, i went to a program that eagerly wanted me, was starting frosh year game 3, endless playing time, flourished. i could have walked on D1 and sat. i had teammates who can say they were on the team at some name D1 but they really sat most of 4 years. the best kids making the D1 choice were the amazing ones. they did play plenty D1. if you have some marginal kids, good but not great, and you can hook them up as walkon, but they stagnate, maybe that isn't the choice. maybe the kid who barely makes the D1 -- and everyone associated can brag on it -- is then an afterthought of the D1 coach in his tenuous walkon role. maybe you send them D2, NAIA, D3 instead. they start. they get more attention. they flower. that's one fewer D1 kid to count but they have an actual college career to discuss.

point being, you can't make kids' college decisions for them, and you can't put the outcomes on yourself, but you can suggest D1s that do a better job, have contacts with D1s you think do their job right and treat the kids well, and nudge desperate and less talented kids where they might be more seen and successful.

Like many have said high school training is only one factor in determining college success.

I trained hard in high school and improved every year in college. Mostly because I continued to train harder each year as was super dedicated. I had team mates that barely ran in high school, went to JC then came to DI and kicked ass. Mostly because they wanted to and trained like it.

so much of highschool success is the system and environment. A lot of college success is up to the athlete. You could run for Mike Smith but if you don’t take care of yourself and aren’t 100% it won’t matter.

best thing you can do is give your athletes a realistic view of what college will be like. Lots of OYO days. Managing their training and lifestyle etc

Look at the top of the NCAA right now. Most trained really hard in high school too