Well, it's about that time of the year, huh? Yes, that's right, our summer preseason cross country rankings are BACK! Believe it or not, NCAA cross country racing is only five-ish weeks out from returning. And with our preseason team rankings taking up a heavy portion of that lead-up time, we thought now would be an appropriate moment to introduce our preseason individual rankings. After all, we can only talk about transfers for so long, right? You, the reader, will almost certainly disagree with certain aspects of our rankings. In fact, I would be shocked if you didn't. That, of course, is what makes this so fun. Even so, we wanted to provide our BOOST subscribers with a broad idea of how our summer cross country rankings are constructed in an effort to create some transparency and understanding. That way, you can at least return to this article and say, "This is probably what they were analyzing," if you don't understand a certain decision we made. Yes, much of the language that you're reading below has been recycled from last summer. However, I have made a few tweaks to offer greater clarity. Here we go... The Schedule Our Preseason NCAA D1 XC Top 50 Individuals will officially begin on July 28th. Our D1 "Just Missed" and "Honorable Mention" names will likely be coming on July 27th. Simply put, we will most likely begin publishing tomorrow. Our Preseason NCAA D2 & D3 XC Top 25 Individuals will (likely) be starting the following week via a similar schedule. So don't worry, those are definitely on the way! And yes, we are doing NAIA rankings this year! However, we will only be doing so for teams. Our group of NAIA writers is still relatively small ( click here if you want to join ). As such, those preseason rankings will look a bit different compared to our NCAA group. For our NAIA rankings, those lists will have less analysis (although we won't discard the analysis, entirely) in favor of ranking more squads. As for our NCAA cross country team rankings, we're still working on those, but they should be coming out shortly after our individual rankings. Just Missed & Honorable Mention Names I always get a question or two about these sections, so I thought I would quickly add a section in this article offering some explanation. The "Just Missed" group is exactly what it sounds like. These athletes are the first set of individuals who barely missed securing a spot inside of our rankings. They are, in the eyes of The Stride Report, slightly better than the "Honorable Mention" names. Our "Honorable Mentions" section is reserved for athletes who weren't quite our first choices to enter our rankings should a spot open up. However, these athletes still felt too accomplished and too talented to not even mention. It should also be noted that for our preseason rankings (not necessarily during the season), we limit our "Just Missed" group to 10 names and our "Honorable Mention" group to 10 names. Creating Rankings Despite Eligibility Uncertainty Creating these summer rankings has been a major test of the mental fortitude of our entire writing staff at The Stride Report. But frankly, that's been the case every year. Trying to figure out who has cross country eligibility, who doesn't have cross country eligibility, who has cross country eligibility but isn't using it and who is appealing for additional eligibility makes these rankings extremely difficult to craft. We have counted the seasons of used eligibility for all of our listed names via TFRRS. We have searched tirelessly for articles, interviews, social media posts, updated rosters and notes indicating who has eligibility and who does not. We have even messaged some athletes throughout the country and we have emailed a ridiculous number of coaches. In other words, we have done everything in our power to ensure that these rankings are as accurate as humanely possible. On paper, I feel pretty confident about our rankings and I think we have a very good chance of getting every returner (and every departure) correct. However, there is a possibility that someone is actually not returning who we didn't catch. There is also a possibility that someone IS returning and we didn't catch them. But for the most part, I like to think that we did an excellent job of checking for eligibility. Sure, not every coach or athlete got back to us, but all things considered, I'm not sure that we could have done much more. Alright, now let's actually talk about the ranking criteria... The NCAA XC Championships Do Not Entirely Dictate How Successful An Athlete's Season Was Let's suppose that Runner X comes into the 2025 cross country season and absolutely dominates. The athlete easily dusts a handful of elite talents during the regular season, cruises through their conference meet and wins their regional meet with no one close by. Then, all of the sudden, that runner unfortunately has an "off" day at the NCAA XC Championships and falls back to 200th place. Are we really going to say that Runner X wasn't a top-five or top-10 runner that season? Not all examples are as extreme (or as easy) as that. But one performance at the national meet is not going to be the sole driving factor of how someone is ranked. The national meet obviously holds the most weight when it comes to the order of our rankings. And yes, there is something to be said about those who perform well on the big stage. Even so, the cross country season is so much more than just one meet. Consistency is a HUGE Factor That We Consider This ties into the above section, but one great race or one bad race isn't going to drastically alter someone's ranking for the entire season. Reliability can make runners extremely valuable. Coaches know what they are going to get out of their more consistent athletes and they can have the comfort of knowing that they will likely not perform below a certain standard. Did you perform well in a smaller meet? Did you perform well in a larger meet? Have you defeated top talents on more than one occasion? Have you shown that you can be competitive in multiple race scenarios? Runners in our top-50 (or top-25) don't necessarily need to hit all of that criteria. Even so, it certainly helps when they show time and time again that they can produce strong results regardless of the races that they are in. And yes, consistency applies to poor performances as well (albeit, not in a favorable manner). Progression, Momentum & Peaking Sometimes, it takes a while for certain athletes to get in a groove. Some athletes perform at a much higher level after they get a few races under their legs. Some coaches are experts at ensuring that their team peaks for the postseason. Some athletes are younger and simply become more comfortable with racing at the collegiate level as the season goes on. If an athlete can show an upwards trend in a positive direction, then we are going to take that into consideration. Momentum is a very real thing when it comes distance running. Athletes on a hot streak are often difficult to take down (i.e. Bryce Hoppel on the track in 2019). The Weight of Regular Season Meets & Postseason Meets Each cross country meet needs to be put into context. If we take a look at last year, then you could make the argument that meets like the Nuttycombe Invite and Pre-Nationals were more competitive than most of the conference meets in the country. It would also be unfair to compare the A-10 or the Horizon League to conferences like the ACC or the BIG 10. To be blunt, those first few conferences are not equal to the latter conferences in terms of their competitiveness. The same can be said for regional meets (although there is usually less disparity). This brings me to our next point... Varying Levels of Competition Some teams can't always travel to larger invitationals like Nuttycombe or Pre-Nationals. We completely understand that. However, we are then forced to put things into perspective. There have been multiple instances where athletes have dominated every (relatively small) meet that they have entered, but then get to the national meet and completely blow up. It's one thing to go undefeated and run super fast during the regular season. However, things are going to be extremely different on the national stage when you're facing a stampede of the greatest collegiate runners that the country has to offer. Lack of Emphasis for Regional Championships Speaking of postseason meets, let's chat about the regional cross country meets for a brief moment, shall we? The regional meets are tough to gauge, mainly because a lot of the best teams and individuals in the country don't always put forth their best effort. This is usually in an attempt to preserve themselves for the NCAA XC Championships. On the other hand, some teams and individuals are going all-out to extend their seasons. Those men and women are fighting for the last few national qualifying spots and are hoping that the Kolas system swings in their favor. Generally speaking, we don't look at the regional meets too heavily (especially at the D1 level). In our opinion, those meets are not truly indicative of what the overall cross country season actually looks like as far as competition is concerned. While we certainly take outstanding performances into consideration, it's rare for us to really look at the nine regional meets and have them be a significant part of our rankings. Analyzing Performances on the Track Do performances from the indoor track and outdoor track seasons play a role in our cross country rankings? Yes, most definitely. Do those performances from the oval have a bigger influence on our rankings than actual cross country results? It's not an exact science, but 95% of the time, I would probably say no. We use marks from the track as indicators of someone's improvement or which direction they'll trend. However, in most cases, performances from the cross country season are the main (but not entire) driver behind someone's ranking. That said, there are going to be instances where someone had a decent cross country season, but didn't really break out until the track season started. Some performances are just too good to ignore and for that reason, someone will usually sneak into our rankings thanks to their fast times on the oval. Absences, Down Years & Injury History Runners are human. Not everyone is going to make massive improvements or even match their performances from a year ago. If an athlete had a great 2023 cross country season, but struggled/underwhelmed in 2024, then we'll still consider them for a spot in our rankings. Talent rarely just disappears and injuries are typically to blame for "down" years. That said, not everyone who was great in 2024 will automatically get a spot in our rankings in 2025. Does this athlete have a history of injuries? If so, how significant were those injuries? And how often was this runner injured? How good were they in 2023? Have they raced at all recently? If so, were their performances encouraging? These are the questions we ask ourselves when trying to rank runners that we, a) haven't seen in a while, or b) have been struggling as of late. Freshmen Incoming freshmen often draw plenty of debate. Every year, there are always a couple of high school superstars who enter the collegiate ranks and conjure discussion about whether or not they deserve a preseason ranking. There are two trains of thought on this... College is obviously a wildly different and new experience for almost everyone transitioning out of high school. In a lot of instances, it takes time for these incoming freshmen to get adjusted to their college workload and new environment. They also don't (usually) have the same lengthy experience of racing at this level whereas other collegians are simply more proven against NCAA competition. On the other hand, some high school athletes have set all-time marks which indicate that they will be superstars in the future. Sometimes, historically great talents need to be recognized as such before they even toe the line for an NCAA race. Our TSR writers who are responsible for constructing our women's rankings may also view how we rank freshmen differently from our men's team (and vice versa). We don't often crowd our rankings with freshmen, but there are certainly instances where a couple of true freshmen will make appearances inside our lists... High-Upside Talents If you are a consistent TSR reader, then you may have seen a lot of words/phrases like "upside" or "high ceiling" in our articles when we talk about certain athletes. What this means is that there is greater room for growth and improvement for one athlete in comparison to another. Freshmen, naturally, have greater upside than most collegiate athletes. They hold plenty of NCAA eligibility and should (in theory) only get better once they are exposed to higher-level training and stronger competition. Unsurprisingly, a runner's upside will eventually plateau in the latter portion of their careers. But if an elder distance talent is only recently beginning to find their true potential, then we would consider them to have some "untapped" upside. It's a similar story for a junior athlete who has been on a non-stop streak of growth since first coming into the NCAA. While this aspect may seem wildly subjective (and it is), it still holds a level of validity that should be considered as we craft our top-50 and top-25 lists. International Athletes Athletes who are coming into the NCAA from overseas / another country are truthfully difficult to rank. It's tough to know what their competition was like prior to joining the NCAA and no one is 100% sure how they'll handle the rigors of a competitive cross country season. There are also a lot of instances where we can't confirm rumored marks from the track. That said, some athletes have track times that are just too good to ignore or have championship experience and finishes that we believe make them game-changers for the upcoming fall. Now, admittedly, we simply don't know about each and every international athlete who is coming into the NCAA. We've done our best to track all of the recent moves and transfers that have taken place this offseason, but it's boarderline impossible to know about all of them. Plus, there are still a handful of foreign athletes who are expected to join the NCAA for this fall, but have yet to do so (or they have yet to be announced). Even so, we'll continue to evaluate every name that we can in order to ensure that our research is extensive and exhaustive. Difference of Opinions We have a variety of different groups overseeing each of our rankings. We have a D1 group, a D2 group, a D3 group, an NAIA group and a four-person squad combing through high school results. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree on a ranking. Some writers will want to place a greater emphasis on championship performances while others will want to rely on consistency. Others will place a significant amount of importance on injuries and absences while others will think it's not a big deal. Oftentimes, we debate about an athlete's potential versus what the athlete has actually done. The debates are endless, but my point is clear: Just because we have this ranking rubric doesn't mean that everyone is going to place the same amount of weight on each category. That, however, is what makes these rankings so much fun.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an exec utive order titled "Saving College Sports," with the stated aim of eliminating the "third-party market of pay-for-play inducements". The order leaves room for brand endorsement deals for a "fair market value". There is no clear definition of "fair market value" outlined in the executive order. However, the College Sports Commission (CSC), which was founded in response to the NCAA vs the House settlement that permitted revenue sharing between athletes and universities, created the NIL Go Portal last month in conjunction with global accounting firm, Deloitte. The new NIL Go Portal will evaluate third-party name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals based on the relationship between the university and the payor, the validity of the business goals of the entity providing payment, and the amount of compensation the athlete is given compared to their calculated NIL value. If a deal is not cleared by the CSC, the parties are required to either revise the deal, cancel it, or appeal the decision. Ultimately, the goals of the CSC are largely in alignment with the guidance from the recent executive order. The executive order also directs schools with a revenue greater than $125,000,000 during the 2024-25 academic year to increase scholarships to non-revenue sport athletes. It further states that schools with revenue above $50,000,000 in the same period should not decrease non-revenue scholarship opportunities. Per ESPN's Dan Murphy , most Power Four schools are above the $50,000,000 threshold while roughly 30 to 40 school have amassed revenues above $125,000,000. The order also urges Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, along with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), to clarify the employment status of student-athletes. The NCAA does not currently recognize student-athletes as employees, although there is growing legal momentum to challenge that. In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that, "it is factually possible for a Division I student-athlete to be an employee under the [Fair Labor Standards Act]". Student-athletes would not be considered employees under the recently proposed Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act . That bill will be voted on in the House of Representatives later this fall.

NOTE: Direct references to certain sections of the SCORE Act documentation can be found at the very top of the page/screen when clicking the hyperlinks. Earlier this month, on July 10th, Congressmen Brett Guthrie and Gus M. Bilirakis proposed the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act. In essence, the SCORE Act would "formalize" the recent NCAA vs the House settlement, creating a framework of protections for student-athletes while also putting greater control back in the hands of the NCAA. The full documentation for the bill can be found by clicking here . Among the core pieces of the bill, universities would be required to provide out-of-pocket healthcare costs for three years (for an injury that was sustained during collegiate competition) after a student-athlete leaves the school. [1] For any university that annually makes $50,000,000 or more in media rights revenue, student fees cannot be allocated to athletics.  [2] The proposed bill also ensures that student-athletes would not be restricted from retaining an agent and/or representation for their Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) negotiations and agreements. [3] The student-athletes will have the "right to privacy" (within the confines of the bill) when it comes to their agreed-upon NIL deals.  [4] It is important to note that the proposed bill would effectively supersede all state-level protections. [5] It would also allow schools to deny their student-athletes from signing NIL deals that conflict with university sponsors. [6] The NCAA and its member institutions would also be protected from antitrust lawsuits (broadly speaking) [7] while student-athletes would not be deemed as employees of schools, conferences and/or any intercollegiate athletic association. [8] That latter part would be a crushing hit for proponents of collective bargaining agreements for student-athletes. The SCORE Act does allow student-athletes to transfer once and be immediately eligible to compete. But beyond that, the NCAA could still establish, "parameters for the manner in which and the time period during which student athletes and prospective student athletes may be recruited for intercollegiate athletics." [9] The SCORE Act also requires universities to sponsor at least 16 varsity sports teams by July 1st, 2027. That minimum only applies to universities who employ coaches with an annual base salary of $250,000 or more...which happens to be a heavy majority of Division One schools. [10] The 16-team minimum is intended to protect non-revenue driving sports (i.e. track and field, cross country, wrestling, swimming, etc.) from being cut in favor of funding for football and basketball. The 16-team minimum is a clause that largely mirrors a rule already in place for the NCAA's FBS programs, per the Associated Press (via ESPN) . However, Steve Berkowitz of USA Today noted that, "over the past two decades, according to NCAA data, Division I schools have sponsored, on average, 19 teams." While amendments to the bill are expected to be made, Ralph D. Russo and Chris Vannini of The Athletic have reported that the bill is now moving to the House of Representatives after clearing committee voting. Current sentiment suggests that the bill will advance through the House with relative ease before it moves to the Senate where it will likely see pushback. A House vote isn't expected to happen until September. Per Bryan DeArdo of CBS Sports , if the proposed bill does make it to the Senate, then it would need 60 votes in order to move to the Executive Branch for President Donald Trump to sign into law. That, however, is expected to be an uphill battle. Democrats have largely opposed the SCORE Act despite fellow Democrats Janelle Bynum and Shomari Figures joining Republicans to help introduce the bill earlier this month. Direct Bill Citations [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#HD2F427589A34442A9C0609D717C220CA [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#H3A0E7AFCFEB247FB944A48DD50119FA7 [3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#H9DC442614299415EA2E50A551ACA0A59 [4] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#HE9F99864C6D4405694C073A8985F58C0 [5] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#H9823C8E5D0B24CC5BB557AF6F9BFA962 [6] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#HC1932D62DACB44ADA9FCC3B65D91F0D5 [7] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#H9823C8E5D0B24CC5BB557AF6F9BFA962 [8] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text [9] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#H317AC046D35C463DA3BCFF80D798C2A1 [10] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4312/text#H317AC046D35C463DA3BCFF80D798C2A1

Production via Wyatt Barnsley On this week’s episode of The Stride Report Podcast, Ben and Garrett dive into some of the biggest names to watch ahead of the 2025 NCAA cross country season! From established stars like James Corrigan and Angelina Napoleon to emerging talents like Ruth White and Lex Young, the guys react to the athletes who were the most difficult to get a grasp on while creating our NCAA D1 Preseason XC Top-50 Individual Rankings! Get ready for deep analysis and plenty of XC hype and be sure to listen, subscribe and review! (4:17) James Corrigan (7:32) Will Anthony (11:55) Ruth White (15:52) Angelina Napoleon (20:30) Lex Young (25:02) Douglas Buckeridge & Carson Noecker (30:47) Vera Sjoberg  (35:40) Billah Jepkirui  (38:14) Allan Kiplagat  (42:40) Fouad Messaoudi  (45:52) Diana Cherotich (48:47) Jenna Hutchins You can listen to that episode (and others) on our PODCASTS  page! You can also find the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Soundcloud. If you like it, be sure to leave us a rating  and a review ! Note: If you're having issues loading the episode on the site via mobile, try refreshing  the episode page. We will look into this issue for future episodes.

Written by Kevin Fischer, edits & additional commentary via Garrett Zatlin Last week, Arizona State announced the hires of Milton Mallard (Associate Head Coach) and Adam Meyer (Cross Country Coach). Mallard and Meyer will work under Dion Miller, the Director of Track & Field and Cross Country for the Sun Devils since 2019. Milton Mallard served as the Associate Head Coach at USC during the 2024-25 academic year. During that time, the Trojans continued to have national-level success. The men won the team title at the 2025 NCAA Indoor Championships and later shared the national team title at the 2025 NCAA Outdoor Championships. The USC women recorded podium finishes at both national meets. However, maybe more importantly, Mallard previously coached at Texas A&M and (very briefly) UTEP. While working with the Aggies, Mallard was responsible for producing all-time elite middle distance superstars. Those names include Olympic champion, Athing Mu, and fellow Olympian, Brandon Miller. A handful of other top-tier NCAA half-milers have also come out of College Station under the guidance of Mallard. Arizona State, especially on the men's side, has had respectable success in the middle distance events over the last few years. Dayton Carlson, Vinny Mauri and Will Paulson are just a handful of national-caliber 800-meter and mile standouts who donned Sun Devil singlets over the last six years. Meanwhile, Adam Meyer served as an Assistant Cross Country Coach at UNLV before joining the Sun Devils' coaching staff earlier this summer. Meyer was a member of Arizona State's middle distance squad from 2017 to 2022, running 1:49 over 800 meters and qualifying for the 2022 NCAA West Regional Championships on the track. In recent years, the Sun Devils have had great success in the throws events and the 400 meters. The distance side of their roster, however, has been lacking, especially on the grass. During the 2024 cross country season, the Sun Devil women took 9th place at the BIG 12 XC Championships while the men settled for 11th place. And with cross country All-American Judy Chepkoech having transferred away to Florida earlier this summer, a rebuild is now underway in Tempe, Arizona.