Final takeaways of FL and NXN

The boys' crown is not debatable- Jacobs was 13th at NXN and Kilrea was 5th.

Couple that with the fact that they had to go to the west coast back to back weekends. FL is not a competitive race, the emerging elite division of XC.

Jacobs will be a big deal in track next season and a great prospect for ncaa xc

Takeaways:

1.) Those at Nike must be happy this year, as NXN clearly fielded a more competitive boys race while also hosting arguably the best girls runner in the country.

2.) I personally find NXN to be more entertaining and more watchable as it resembles NCAA XC. The bigger field and sloppy golf course conditions make it more like a traditional cross country race.

3.) While Footlocker has always held the individual prestige, NXN is on to something as it is certainly shaking up high school running as now the top individuals are heading to Portland rather than San Diego. The past two years winners of FL in the boys race were beaten handily at NXN and while it might be just a trend it is certainly something FL should take notice of. In order to save themselves FL should offer the top 5 at NXN an option to race the next weekend.

Both are great race. Thought FootLocker broadcast was better.

Race wise, Foot Lockers was off a little this year on boys side but should be better next year in both.

Lane is going for 1st threepeat ever and that sophomore dude will be going for title. Only 1 guy has made Foot lockers all 4 years.

ozzed wrote:

Both are great race. Thought FootLocker broadcast was better.

Race wise, Foot Lockers was off a little this year on boys side but should be better next year in both.

Lane is going for 1st threepeat ever and that sophomore dude will be going for title. Only 1 guy has made Foot lockers all 4 years.

I agree about the FL broadcast. It was terrific.

mc wrote:

I agree about the FL broadcast. It was terrific.

Too bad the course was so poorly marked, there were several times in each race where there was a question on which way to go. Come on, 39 years and they haven't figured out how to mark a course?

GPS accuracy wrote:

3.) While Footlocker has always held the individual prestige, NXN is on to something as it is certainly shaking up high school running as now the top individuals are heading to Portland rather than San Diego. The past two years winners of FL in the boys race were beaten handily at NXN and while it might be just a trend it is certainly something FL should take notice of. In order to save themselves FL should offer the top 5 at NXN an option to race the next weekend.

I've been saying since NXN began its individual championship that Footlocker was toast. The biggest problem with NXN in the early days was running at Portland Meadows -- and I can't believe they held onto that for so long -- but clearly this has been corrected. Since the course change, NXN has been slowly taking over. The guys/gals going to FL Regionals now are largely second-tier runners who want to claim the prestige of a national championship and have an easier time qualifying through FL than NXN. (Of course, CA is the exception because FL is in their backyard.)

I believe FL used to offer the top-5 at NXN spots on the starting line. They shot themselves in the foot by doing away with that. I personally don't love the dual championships and wouldn't cry if FL went away.

FL: dude in last ran 16:36. NXN: dude in last ran 18:33.

FL > NXN. QED.

Foot locker

40 Camren Fischer 11 Fayetteville AR 17:14.5

NXN

40 FitzGerald, Colin SR CALIFORNIA 15:51.8

FL will make it to 40 and then call it a day

We should thank Kinney and FL for contributing to the sport.

Unfortunately, they were not able to figure out a way to co exist with NXN

Realistically, FL regionals, NXR, NXN and FL right there makes 4 races. Add State championship + 3 or 4 regional races, it's too many races for the top athletes.

I way prefer FL. While I think they need to do something to keep some of the best from going to NXN, if they make the effort they should be fine. Great history and San Diego is way better than Portland!

If I had to choose I’d probably go to San Diego and new balance has really stepped up on the gear but the guys speed ratings looked even worse than expected, the depth was not there this year.

What's wrong with the Portland Meadows? I've raced there myself and I liked it. It was a tough, but that's what makes it a true cross country course. You can't run cross country nationals on a pancake flat course that simulates a track meet and call it the cross country national championship race.

What year did they change the venue and what was their publicly stated rationale?

Recently I watched video of the 2007 race, when my team went. I hadn’t seen it in a while, so I’d forgotten what a mess that was. That would be a fun place to run a weekend invitational, but it really wasn’t the right venue for a national title. The golf course looks much better. Everything else about NXN was top notch.

Can't answer the last 2 questions. I'm all for difficult courses, but I don't like the flat soupy mess that made Portland Meadows difficult. Running on a sandy beach would be just as challenging. Muddy and hills is cool, but when your entire ankle can be engulfed in it, that's not XC IMHO.

Not gonna mention how damn slow the boys race was. And don't come at me with "xc time doesn't matter". Course to course comparisons don't work, but when you have an established course that has been run for 40+ years then yeah, time matters.

FrenchDawg wrote:

Not gonna mention how damn slow the boys race was. And don't come at me with "xc time doesn't matter". Course to course comparisons don't work, but when you have an established course that has been run for 40+ years then yeah, time matters.

I totally agree with this.... except that the guys that ran today have comparable track times to those in the past.

FrenchDawg wrote:

muckraker wrote:

The boys' crown is not debatable- Jacobs was 13th at NXN and Kilrea was 5th.

Not gonna mention how damn slow the boys race was. And don't come at me with "xc time doesn't matter". Course to course comparisons don't work, but when you have an established course that has been run for 40+ years then yeah, time matters.

Did you watch the race in San Diego today? Did the footing look good, did the air quality behind the gator look good, did you check out the relative humidity? There are legitimate factors that can make a historical course run slow...just the facts, JACK!