When I conducted the first benchmarking study, two years ago, I could not tell that there was a difference in runner retention rates between successful and less successful programs. Retention rate was simply “theoretically important”. After all, if it was important to recruit and develop runners, it simply made sense that it would be important to retain them.
Now we have statistically significant data to show the importance of retaining the freshman recruits through their junior years, and we are able to identify some benchmarkable programs. Perhaps even more informative is the relationship between a runner’s freshman PR and the probability he will still be participating as a junior.
As was the case two years ago, retention rate differences between Also Ran programs and their stronger brethren are slight; however, we must consider that Also Ran programs have considerably fewer runners to begin with thanks to low freshman recruitment rates. The first graph shows that they have fewer freshmen and that of the freshmen they do get, they have a disproportionate share of slow freshmen. Given that they already have these major disadvantages, the Also Ran programs are the programs that can least afford to lose a runner, but they still lose more than their share.
The second graph below normalizes the data by Freshman PR, and it suggests that most of the retention rate shortcomings of the Also Ran programs are attributable to the fact that they typically get slower freshmen than do the stronger programs, and the slower freshmen are less likely to stay in any program.
Dynasty: 69%
Contender: 71%
Also Ran: 67%
Public Benchmark: Norcross 88%
Private Benchmark: Galloway 82%