NXRSW- OVER 100 METERS LONG

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

I'm guessing you are Rendon and have ran a bunch of 15 lows and mids...you should definitely do FL/Eastbay.

Looks like you had a great season and certainly should be recruited by some great schools!

Thank you! I’m looking at runninglane right now because I’m not sure how I would do at nationals after mt. Sac the week before. I’m not set on which I’m doing just yet though.

Of the guys you spoke with that had these long strava marks, where did they place? Were they all in the front and could run clean tangents, or further back and possibly ran wide on some/many of the turns? That could easily be the difference on a course with a lot of turns but doesn't impact the top guys as much. Also, gps is far less accurate on courses with a lot of turns.[/quote]

I believe nearly the entire Cheyenne Mountain team (who won) uploaded on strava. I saw elsewhere someone analyzed 35 different strava posts and came up with a 3.176 mile average on strava.

It's XC for heavens sake!

You want accuracy? Go out and measure it with a steel tape. Everything else is inaccurate.

Stop comparing times from different XC courses.

But the reality is - who cares? Leave the watch home.

etage wrote:

Bottom line: Measuring most XC courses is a fraught process. There is no easy or reliable method.

A properly tensioned steel tape is reliable, but not particularly easy. I think the meet organisers of a meet of this caliber owe it to their paying customers to lay out an accurate and properly marked course. But it seems laziness rules the day.

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

I'm guessing you are Rendon and have ran a bunch of 15 lows and mids...you should definitely do FL/Eastbay.

Looks like you had a great season and certainly should be recruited by some great schools!

run

ran

have run

I can't believe you illiterates still don't understand this. Of all the words you can't conjugate...

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

I'm guessing you are Rendon and have ran a bunch of 15 lows and mids...you should definitely do FL/Eastbay.

Looks like you had a great season and certainly should be recruited by some great schools!

Rendon is signed up for Runninglane. They posted an interview with him about it their IG page. I guess he could change his kind though.

My guess is this poster is another high finisher who tried to stay anonymous. If I’m right, the same advice the Ghost gave applies, though Runninglane is a good option too this year. Can’t really do wrong with either race IMO.

Kid from somewhere wrote:

Looking at NXRSW posts on strava, its pretty clear that the course is long by at least 100 meters. I have seen no shorter than 3.16, and up to 3.25. I can't believe Nike could not properly measure the course. It became obvious early on from times the course was long. Typically the vast majority of Colorado runners pr, and it was a rarity in the early races, so I knew something was up.

The course is at least 20 seconds long. For some kids, when they need to hit X time to get recruited/scholarship etc, its a big deal when a course is off by this much.

Also, this means that Cheyenne Mountain ran about 15:00 average today. Impressive, but they obviously can't compete with Newbury Park.

Cross country course length does not matter. Here are the criteria for being recruited for cross country:

1. Place highly at nationals. All-Americans will get recruited by the best programs.

2. Place highly at regionals. National qualifiers will get recruited by good D1 teams.

3. Place highly at states. Depends on the state, but in NY for example most of the Class A medalists go D1.

4. Run a fast time FOR A SPECIFIC COURSE (or a high speed rating). Courses like Bowdoin Park, Woodward Park, Detweiller Park, etc. are known quantities, and coaches recruiting athletes who run there will have an idea of what a good time is. Some coaches now use to speed ratings, which is basically the same idea.

5. Run a fast time overall. Obviously, a guy who runs a 14:40 could draw some interest. But from a coach's perspective, if it's your only major draw, it's essentially meaningless. Course could've been 2.8 miles and called a 5k. Who knows. There could be another guy with a 16:10 PR that's only run hilly courses at altitude, and he's actually a better runner.

No good coach actually recruits based on "they must hit X time" for cross country. Everything I laid out above is far more important. The only thing a fast time can do is back up everything else. Ceteris paribus, a 14:40 guy will get recruited over a 16:10 guy. But if the 16:10 kid beat the 14:40 guy at championship meets and head to head races, then a program will take the 16:10 guy all day.

Kid from somewhere wrote:

The course is at least 20 seconds long. For some kids, when they need to hit X time to get recruited/scholarship etc, its a big deal when a course is off by this much.

No coach worth talking to is recruiting based off of xc times. It's a championship race, the only thing that matters at all is place!

What is this NXR SW race everyone speaks of? As far as I can tell, the biggest races in the country this past weekend (according to MileSplit) were the small school nationals and some sort of doobie dash.

On a more serious note, does anyone actually have Intel on the whole MS/Dyestat rift and why MS isn't posting most of the NXR results? I'm sure there's politics behind it, but it's odd nonetheless.

Go on down to your local track and run a lap in lane 2. You've run 3.519 meters farther than a person in lane 1 by the break line at the start of the back stretch (7.038 m. longer for the entire lap). If you did that for an entire 5k, you will have run 87.975 meters longer (3.162 miles total). The NXR-SW course had a ton of turns. Any money, nobody, including the OP, ran the shortest possible distance and all the tangents.