NXN adds individual at large qualifiers

Honestly they should not even run a regional. Just select the best teams across the region from the season. Save these kids from another race.

I would go along with that. I would still like to also see just teams at Nike and Individuals at Footlocker. If they pulled individuals out of Nike, they could invite the best team from each state and another of the 12 best. A few dozen or so would decline (Hawaii, Alaska, etc). Footlocker could invite the top 100 individuals.

The question would be is what determines "best teams across the region"? Best over the whole year? Best at the end of the year? Best based on what? Speed ratings? It seems to me a head to head race at the end of the year, right before the National race is the only way to go.

I think it would have made more sense for FootLocker to have come up with this idea, but sadly, they seem quite resistant to change. Invite kids who were tops at NXN, or who had an off day at the FL regional after a stellar season, or who couldn't run the FL regional qualifier since their team was running the NXN qualifier. Adding 5 kids to the FootLocker field doesn't make the meet unmanageable or too big. The NXN field is already huge and the individual entries already feel like an afterthought, in my opinion, having been there as a team AND as the coach of an individual qualifier.

I don't know, but Nike has decided to do this by adding 5 individuals based on no specified criteria.

Yygygvfyf wrote:

That wouldn't work either. NR #2 probably has a better chance to make FL Nationals than getting an at large for NXN. So she would prefer to go to FL regionals.

However NR has a real shot to make NXN

North Rockland's #2 is a fine young runner, who has virtually no chance of qualifying for Footlocker.

She's :30 seconds away from qualifying for either one as an individual.

And North Rockland isn't going to Portland.

Deadstream is dead on!

Do you think if Nike knew that NR was going to run NXR that this new addition would have happened?

Regardless this is a shot in the arm for NXR....maybe even FL.

Nike and Foot Locker are cutthroat competitors - let's not lose sight of this fact. They're not cooperating pals, as in "You take the individuals, FL, and Nike will take the teams." Instead, Nike has upped the challenge by taking in more individuals, in the hope of ultimately seeing FL wither and fade away. It's warfare, and behind the scenes probably gritty and unfriendly, even ugly and dirty and hateful.

Most have no idea how expensive it is to host so many kids in San Diego, or to host so many kids in Portland, but each company knows that there will be major disappointment among the competitors if certain standards aren't met. Which translates into $$$. And the profit line must be an estimate, at best. Just imagine the transportation and food bills alone! I think I heard that NXN scaled back on some of the goodies presented to the kids last December, because the costs were skyrocketing.

Now, yes, FL is set at "a mere" 80 individuals each and every year, but treating those kids like the teen elites of the sport certainly costs a pretty penny, with spiraling costs. There are huge fundamental differences between the two championships, but ultimately it's a classic business battle - Nike vs the Foot Locker people, and there may be a lone victor emerging down the line. I hope not, because they are two unique and enthralling championships, to me. You can see it in the kids, who take their participation in either or both with an intense pride for years to come. (That is, I've seen it in a few such kids, who are as proud today as they were when they competed at FL and/or NXN in the past.)

Obvious Why wrote:

I guess what I am trying to say is it will likely improve both Nike and Footlocker at the National meets.

At the same time it will likely hurt the Nike Regional meets, but help the Footlocker Regional meets, which are already way better due to there being only four of them.

I do not seeing this hurting NXR meets. We're only talking 5 additional individuals. Very, very few have the resume to assume they will be selected on the merits of their season. Tuohy, of course. Without any inside knowledge, it does feel as though this was a Tuohy-motivated-move. Not sure how I feel about it, but you can't blame Nike for wanting the best of the best to be at their meet.

another hs coach wrote:

Not sure how I feel about it, but you can't blame Nike for wanting the best of the best to be at their meet.

It's way less unseemly than them sitting around praying North Rockland takes 4th at NXN-NY, and then burning two "at large" bids in NY to get her in their race. lol

I wish the Division 1 NCAA cross-country final would also invite Kaitlyn Tuohy as she would win by 30 seconds. They could just give the person who finishes next after Tuohy the score of 1. Kaitlyn Tuohy is by far the best non-professional female runner in the US. She would have won all the NCAA division 1 cross-country races this year by over 30 seconds.

So let me ask you on what you base this statement "She would have won all the NCAA division 1 cross-country races this year by over 30 seconds." I just looked at the Pac 10 results (and also saw the replay of the meet). The winning time for 6K was roughly 19:25. For 5K that pace would be 16:11. She perhaps (likely) could have done that, but from watching the race the 2K splits were (very) roughly 7:10/6:10/6:05 and there was a decent kick at the end. Rainsberger got dropped badly when the pace picked up. Tuohy no doubt would have been very competitive, but win by 30 seconds? Really?

Except that the Pac12 Championships were held at STANFORD which not only has some of the best weather conditions for running but is also a bogus excuse for a cross country course. It's a true track on grass, the times from that course are always absurdly faster than anyone ever runs again (unless also on a short/super fast course).

For reference, the top 10 in the mens race all ran around 23:10 for 8k - the runner up ran a minute slower at Pre-Nats at Wisco (placing 14th in his race), which is already a fast (and short) course. The next guy, Ostberg, also ran nearly a minute slower - barely breaking 24 at Wisco. Bottom line is, judging a performance based on time at this Pac12 meet is completely meaningless.

Tuohy on the other hand jogged sub 5:20 per mile at her meaningless, super hilly county meet. No reasonable person doesn't think Tuohy could at least give Jones a run for her money. I know who my money is on.

I believe I said she would be competitive, although I am not sure the way the race was run would have been to her advantage. But I was really questioning the "win by 30 seconds". BTW, even on the fast course in Rhode Island she only ran 16:07 for 5K yes it was the first meet of the season, but still....