Has Foot Locker gone too far?

In my opinion there's no way to place cross country in the traditional team or individual sport dichotomy. If it was a team sport then individual state champ wouldn't be such a big deal. If it was an individual sport then team championships wouldn't be such a big deal.

Now what we need to recognize is that the individual/team blend is not something that can be cleanly divided. The current argument demonstrates that. Footlocker does just fine as an individual race if it's the only one. But the team nature of the sport dictates that having another race, one with a team element, will take some of the individuals away from the individual side, resulting in a messy split. Then when the race more oriented to the team side of things starts to emphasize the individual race, it gets even worse.

So what we have now is a stalemate in which both companies are hurting the sport. Footlocker messed up by not having a team race. Nike messed up by not killing Footlocker when it had the chance. If I was an omnipotent being I would have Nike buy the Footlocker race, keep the Footlocker name, and move their team race to San Diego. That way the people with the most resources are directing it, there are undisputed individual national champions, and the race gets to keep its history.

In general high school teams so thin and an individual team means essentially nothing except for people connected with that school. Thus, as a team championship it is a mediocre concept compared to Footlocker. In college, the connection to the schools is much greater and the teams are much better known. High school nationals and college (DI) are just two entirely different types of events.

van wrote:

... to be a Footlocker finalist is to cement your place in history ...

Actually, after a few years it becomes the phrase right before this one: "Oh, that's cool. What have you done, you know, lately?"

I like the Footlocker Nationals team concept the best, having the 4 teams are divided amongst the best 40 runners in the country. It was awesome seeing the midwest girls at the front of the girls race.

As far as I'm concerned, the Footlocker Nationals are better than the nike meet in every way, shape and form. The nike debacle helps to emphasize how good Footlocker really is!

Tumbledweeb wrote:

So you Footlocker types are ok with a course that is more like a roadrace, running on a flat hardpack surface nearly the entire distance? No wonder the US can't develop international level XC racers anymore. The Balboa course is an embarrasment to traditional cross country racing.

-------------------------------------------------------

There really are some morons on this site. Can't help myself on this one. Raced there in the late 80's when it was Kinney's. Course is hard. You obviously have not raced it. Muddy? Usually not. Hay bales? No. Uneven terrain and a lot of up and downs along with a challenging hill at miles 1 and 2.5? Hell yes. Honest CC course? No doubt.

You guys who summarily conclude that the San Diego course is "pancake flat" and "manicured" have obvously not raced it, have only seen it on TV and are way off here. Give me one post from a guy (or gal) who has raced here saying this is an "easy" course and I'll turn you onto to a great deal on swampland in Florida.

Totally agree with you, "Has Been". Tumbleweeb probably mixed up Balboa with that sham of a course they use at Mission Bay for the USATF XC Champs (which is indeed, pancake flat and an embarassment to traditional cross country racing). Balboa, on the other hand, is a legit course which does not reward the milers as much as it does the grinders. In fact, Footlocker's only blemish is when they moved the race to Florida for a pancake course and Ritz ran 14:30. That was NOT cross country, even when it rained.

Hierarchy of XC Courses:

1. Balboa

2. Pretty much anywhere else

3. Portland (dry)

4. Portland (wet)

I'm a huge fan of Kinn...ahem, Footlocker. I rely on Nike keeping the race in Portland. If they ever moved it to Franklin Park or Lexington or Virginia or Jersey or anywhere with a couple of hills and mild weather it'd be all over. Don't change a thing, Nike!

A team championship is not meaningless or a "mediocre concept" to the thousands of HS runners competing each fall, either at the state or national level. Speaking for my own state, the challenge of trying to make NXN (or place well in the region) has certainly raised the bar. I understand your point about people being connected to a college more so than a high school, but it doesn't diminish the team concept of XC at the HS level. If anything, team competition at the college level is irrelevant - just look at how few different institutions have won titles in men's XC. It's the same schools year after year standing on the podium... OSU, CU, Wiso, Stanford. In the past 40 years, only 9 institutions have ever won the men's NCAA D1 title. Although the same could be argued with Manlius' domination of girls HS XC, the boys results at NXN have 8 different champions in 9 years and many schools from all over the country have made the podium.

Chet the Cheet wrote:

van wrote:

... to be a Footlocker finalist is to cement your place in history ...

Actually, after a few years it becomes the phrase right before this one: "Oh, that's cool. What have you done, you know, lately?"

Would you say the same about an Olympic gold medalists?

Wait a second, USA Today did report on the races. You be the judge to it's accuracy and benefit to the sport...the earlier version of this report said Cheserek was hoping to three-peat next year, since updated.

http://www.usatodayhss.com/news/article/cheserek-goes-back-to-back-foot-locker-championships

Yes, I think was actually generally agree. Teams do have something to shoot for. However, who really cares. And, that means that it does not really matter very much. In fact, in general, it may lead high school runners to be pushed way too hard in high school to the detriment of development and college running.

As someone else said, I think that having the regional teams actually gives some team sense that people can relate to because few can relate to, say the school of the FL winner, but many can related at a lesser level to the Midwest region doing well. In fact, the total domination of the girls race was an answer to those that say that the west coast/California is the place to be, and this despite the fact that the race favors those from the west coast (except that the west region timing creates difficulties...).

Thanks for the reasoned reply.

Chet the Cheet wrote:

van wrote:

... to be a Footlocker finalist is to cement your place in history ...

Actually, after a few years it becomes the phrase right before this one: "Oh, that's cool. What have you done, you know, lately?"

Presuming that the person wasn't clearly being boastful (and probably not even then), the "What have you done...lately" part would just label the speaker a jerk (and likely an envious jerk).

I'm 45 and have been a fairly serious runner and big fan of the sport since about 6th grade. But hearing the "team sport" part of x-country emphasized has never sounded "right" me. Camaraderie in training and otherwise? Sure. Maybe a bit of pacing/pack running here and there? OK. But for the most part, the gun goes off, everyone runs as hard as they can (or are willing!)...and then you count things up at the end and call it a "team" sport. Well, compared to just about all of the other team sports we're familiar with....not really. Not a BAD things to do, but it falls SO far short of most team sports that absolutely require full-time and direct interaction between the team members AND have SPECTATOR excitement tied to scoring, or stops, or whatever, that everyone can see. Not a 5th runner passing another 5th runner in the middle of the pack somewhere... Again, not bad thing, but pretty darn lame in comparison to the vast majority of other team sports.

I thought you were kidding about having ass-pergers, but I guess not

[quote]whazzamatteryou wrote:

Balboa, on the other hand, is a legit course which does not reward the milers as much as it does the grinders.

--------------------------------------------------------

You nailed it here. I was more of a miler and got my a@! handed to me on this course by guys that I could usually sit and kick on on flat/faster courses. "Grinders," true harriers and guys that are just flat out mentally tough do well @ Morley. Is that not the test of good cc course?

I don't see a problem with either course. They both have their challenges.

The truly "bad" courses are those that are pancake flat, hard surface, smooth, with nothing to break up the rhythm. I've got no issues with hay bales or mud. Shoot, I run an invitational here in Hughson where we dig a mud pit and put some hay bales out on the course because we're 20 miles from the nearest hill. Everyone that comes here loves it. With only 2 exceptions, every team that has ever come to my invitational (which is more similar to NXN, course wise) has come back every year since the first time they came.