Official 2018 NXN Discussion Thread

Valuecat wrote:

Sorry, You are right. Looked at wrong number.

Genhrer would have had to run close to Tripp and Otis like he did at States to bag second.

Other than Howles stepping in it, they had a decent day. Great race by Brennan, par races by Tripp and Otis, a bit sub-par by Geehrer. Speaks well for the strength of a program that they can have a top guy essentially DNF and only lose one place in the team rankings.

I too am curious to know what happened with him.

Micro wrote:

I've completed the analysis of my NXN predictions. Kamiakin had 4 of their 5 scorers go down before the first corner, and they were in nearly last place at the 1st mile and recovered back to finish 15th overall. Central Valley was without their #1 runner who was running at Foot Locker.

The comparisons of my predictions to the actual results can be found here:

https://micro.runnerspace.com/profile.php?member_id=173603&do=photos&photo_id=942339

Micro: the actuals vs estimates was interesting. I was struck with how the actuals were "poorer" than their best, and, surprisingly, even the average. Any ideas why that was?

Meaning, did the top n kids that represented their teams under-perform, or did those kids not run?

Saw Rupp walking around in a boot

I'm not really sure why some teams like the top 3 ran somewhere between their average and the best performances at NXN, while other teams did worse than their average. I'm just guessing here, but I think that some differences may come from experience at NXN, and training on muddy courses. I saw a video on MileSplit where Great Oak's coach decided to start training his team on loose surfaces like sand to get them used to the different running form needed to do well at NXN where you can't push off as much with your toes for propulsion.

Another big issue of NXN is how similar all of the runner and teams really are to each-other. Most of the runners and teams are used to quickly establishing their relative positions in front of other runners and settling into a pace. At NXN, the pace for the first 400 meters is so fast that it is hard to transition into a normal pace after being gassed so early in the race.

It is so crowded at the first left hand corner after the start, and many people get spiked, lose shoes, fall down, or otherwise get impeded. In other words, I don't really know why some teams do so much better than others at NXN.

There is a picture on Oregonlive dot com (search for Nike) showing a Manlius runner fall at the start.

Oh? wrote:

Jabroniii wrote:

I did not watch the race today or check the weather.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's the problem>

Maybe that Texans might not be used to 40 degree weather? I don't buy that, though. I figured El Paso Eastwood was going to finish #22, and they finished #22. Not really that surprising (though I did think they'd finish closer to the rest of the teams scoring in the low 400s, but a couple off days will add up those points pretty quick at NXN).

I mean, Carroll lost to Eastwood at NXN South in their only race head-to-head. Why would you figure Eastwood would finish 22nd but not Carroll?

At the Nike Desert Twilight, they had a 23 second spread from 1 - 5.

8 seconds for 1 - 4.

At Texas 5A state, Eastwood had a 31 second spread from 1 - 5.

17 seconds for 1 - 4.

At Nike South invitational, Eastwood had a 12 second spread from 1 - 5. Spread was the same for 1 - 4. This was a slower race than NXN.

At NXN, their spread changed to 36 seconds for 1 - 5. 29 seconds for 1 - 4.

Their #4 guy was their top finisher. Their #2 guy finished 5th on the squad. Their #6-7 guy was 3rd on the team. Clearly, they didn't run their best and under-performed, although I'll admit not by too much.

I looked, and it seems like Eastwood started all the way in the back of the pack. I think that's where the biggest issue on their part came. It was their first time running at NXN and they ran too conservatively.

I remember those years when Texas girl's team were estimated to finish towards last place. Carroll came out and finished top 6 a few of those times if I recall, I think 3rd/4th one time (when they were ranked towards the back). But that was at Portland Meadows... so I guess it's irrelevant now.

I mean, travel and temperature surely is a factor. Texas doesn't get much cold weather, at all. Maybe it affects runners sometimes, maybe it doesn't, but I'm thinking traveling does. Alex Maier ran a good race overall and finished 7th. Then look at many of the other Texas runners. Jarrett Kirk completely bombed and finished around 90th or so. Cruz finished 65th at NXN and behind most of the other South runners, but then he went on to win Footlocker South. Come track season, they will run much faster times then the guys that they finished around at NXN (for the one's who under-performed, I mean).

The short answer is that the NXN field is different than the NXR field (or any other field). Just because Team A beat Team B in one race, doesn't mean they would do that in a different race even if they had identical performances.

Without getting into a ton of data, you can just look at how the front runners compared between the two teams, and consider that the field at NXN is going to be much more elite than is seen at NXR, meaning that difference is going to be much more exaggerated. I figured there would be about a 70 point difference for the top 2 scorers from SLC and Eastwood, and Eastwood's pack would only be able to make up about 45 of those points... that's the problem when your #1 is about on par with the average qualifying team's #3 and both teams #3-5 runners are comparable to the average qualifier's #4-6.

Texas isn't any further away than New York (a state that traditionally does extremely well at NXN) or Virginia (the home state of the first back-to-back boys team champion), and has done well enough in the past. Meanwhile, some of the home region Northwest schools have done poorly in the past. With the athletes usually having two days to adjust to the travel (IIRC they usually fly in on Thursday afternoon), the travel concerns are fairly well mitigated IMO.

For a lot of sports, by the time athletes have reached 11th or 12th grade, they've traveled many time zones many times.

So I'm not buying the travel as an issue.

Having a kids body and running conditioned to the wet and cool strikes me as much more legitimate. Surprised that the contending teams don't figure out a way to run an Invitational or two in Portland like conditions.

TravelSchmavel wrote:

For a lot of sports, by the time athletes have reached 11th or 12th grade, they've traveled many time zones many times.

So I'm not buying the travel as an issue.

Having a kids body and running conditioned to the wet and cool strikes me as much more legitimate. Surprised that the contending teams don't figure out a way to run an Invitational or two in Portland like conditions.

Running at altitude once or twice a month or two before racing at altitude doesn’t do much for adaptation just as running in Portland once a few months before NXN won’t do anything for someone living in Temecula where it’s 30 degrees warmer on the average. The body isn’t very easy to trick.

Adaptationary wrote:

TravelSchmavel wrote:

For a lot of sports, by the time athletes have reached 11th or 12th grade, they've traveled many time zones many times.

So I'm not buying the travel as an issue.

Having a kids body and running conditioned to the wet and cool strikes me as much more legitimate. Surprised that the contending teams don't figure out a way to run an Invitational or two in Portland like conditions.

Running at altitude once or twice a month or two before racing at altitude doesn’t do much for adaptation just as running in Portland once a few months before NXN won’t do anything for someone living in Temecula where it’s 30 degrees warmer on the average. The body isn’t very easy to trick.

IMO, running in temperatures in the low/mid 40s doesn't negatively affect runners as long as you have a decent warm-up routine (e.g. don't strip down to shorts too long before your race) - being 'chilled' for a prolonged time can mean your muscles get more stiff and you are spending more energy trying to stay warm, but that's warm-up 101 kind of stuff that I would think everyone at this level should understand. Running in mud can negatively affect performance, but that's an individual bias rather than a regional bias: no single region is "more" adapted to that than others.

I agree that running in the Northwest in late September/early October (especially considering it is usually still in the 70-90 degree range and usually not wet) isn't going to prepare you for the 40-50 degree weather you'll see at NXN.

You really think that living in the Northwest isn't going to prepare you for racing in the Northwest?

Good video by Emma Abrahamson now out on YouTube with lots of post race interviews that are much better than the typical ones by Nike or MileSplit. Very loose and candid interview from Katelyn Tuohy where she laughs about how NXN was the stupidest race she's ever run because she went out way too fast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E12z1ZCu9FM

Yes.

Do you really think Jesuit, Gig Harbor, Camas or Central Catholic have run more consistent well to a notable degree than other teams? Or the individual qualifiers from western OR/WA? (I'm not including Eastern WA/OR or ID/MT since those areas have significantly different climates).

It rains a bit all across the nation. Some regions (NW/NE/SE) maybe more than others (CA/SW). Given that the SW tends to run extremely well in addition to a fair share of CA teams and athletes, I think that discounts the 'well adjusted to wet weather' advantage.

It gets cool (40-50 degrees in late fall/early winter) across most of the nation. Some regions (MW/HL/NE) much moreso than others (CA/SO). California and South have both had their share of good performances, so I'm not sold on that scenario either.

Whether you live in the Northwest, Southeast, Southwest or Northeast doesn't really affect how well you'll race in 40-50 degree temperatures that may or may not include mud. What kind of build and stride you have might affect how well you handle the mud in significantly wet years, but that's not a regional issue.

I would argue the most consistent programs at meeting or exceeding expectations at NXN have tended to be from outside the Northwest. The only ones from the Northwest that are up there would be North Central and Bozeman, both of which come from significantly different climates, while Summit maybe Jesuit have tended to be on the opposite side of the spectrum (though both have now combined to have 3-4 races out of their 17 appearances where they've met or exceeded my expectations, so I guess if you call a ~30% success rate as having an advantage then sure). Add in Joel Ferris boys to that list of typically underperforming programs (though they haven't qualified in a while). Some of that is coaching, a good amount is individual factors (some kids being better at handling the pressures and conditions than others), and not much of it is due to geographic location.

At NXN race time it tends to be in the upper 30s to low 40s and generally it's wet. Certain regions will absolutely be better adjusted to that. Anybody who has lived in the mountains understands how well the body can adapt to cool weather. When I lived in the mountains anything above about 45 was t-shirts and shorts weather. When I lived down the hill where it was typically 25 degrees warmer, t-shirt and shorts weather was around 70 and higher.

Locales that have November average highs in the 40s or lower are definitely at an advantage.

What sort of build you have is ALSO a regional issue, at least on the girls side. Just look at the schools that allow 7th and 8th graders to run. Now look at the top-10 girls at NXN last year. What do you see in common? They were all less than 100 pounds. This is a massive advantage that NY has.

Anyway, some of the CA teams that seem to perform better at NXN than they do at their state meet are from central or northern california where the temps are cooler than southern california. This year the CA teams got lucky because it was dry.

Race time temperature this year at NXN was 42-45F. Average hi temps for November

Bozeman 40

Manlius 40

Spokane 46

Bend 53

Temecula 74

Adaptionary wrote:

Race time temperature this year at NXN was 42-45F. Average hi temps for November

Bozeman 40

Manlius 40

Spokane 46

Bend 53

Temecula 74

And the Great Oak boys ran well. The girls also ran fairly well. Actually, I think most if not all of the California teams ran well this year.

Arcadia boys tended to run very well at NXN.

Royal (Simi Valley) boys tended to run very well at NXN.

... I don't see any advantage/disadvantage there.

Yes, temperatures have usually been in the low 40s at race time. Most of the nation sees similar temperatures.

I agree that the body adapts to the temperature. I'm saying that most of the nation has similar temperature, and since those areas that don't have also had their share of good performances, I don't think it's necessarily an issue. Yes, it might feel colder to warmer climate athletes, but is that really affecting race performance? I don't think so. Everyone is dealing with those temperatures. It's not like a situation where the body is suddenly overheating itself due to abnormally high temperatures - instead, the body is staying cooler during physical exertion. As long as you are warming up properly (leaving your warm-ups on until close to race time, and keeping your muscles warmed up) it isn't going to harm your ability to race. And that's down to understanding how to warm up, which shouldn't be a regional advantage.

I agree that having younger athletes being able to compete would influence the size of the athletes, but not as much the stride (which has a similar effect). That may well be an advantage to NY (Saratoga has had a lot of younger athletes on their teams, and FM has had a few, though I don't think taking those athletes away from racing at NXN would have prevented FM from their domination of the meet).

Oh? wrote:

Adaptionary wrote:

Race time temperature this year at NXN was 42-45F. Average hi temps for November

Bozeman 40

Manlius 40

Spokane 46

Bend 53

Temecula 74

And the Great Oak boys ran well. The girls also ran fairly well. Actually, I think most if not all of the California teams ran well this year.

Arcadia boys tended to run very well at NXN.

Royal (Simi Valley) boys tended to run very well at NXN.

... I don't see any advantage/disadvantage there.

Maybe you're jut trolling at this point?

Yes, Great Oaks boys ran well, but it was dry. Dry and cold is world's different from wet and cold. Dry and cold means you wear a bit more clothes than normal around town and when warming up. Wet and cold will shock the body, plus it means there will be mud on the course and as has been stated regions that are used to racing on asphalt and hard-packed dirt will not be used to it. Again, racing in spikes isn't allowed in CA for a reason.

Generally speaking Great Oak underperforms at NXN relative to what others predict them to do. Personally I don't think they underperform when you consider all factors, but historically CA teams are called out for underperforming when it's wet at NXN.

How many times did Royal or Simi Valley's boys run at NXN?

Thanks for making it clearer as to why the NY girls do so well: they are lighter/younger on average and the month leading up to NXN is almost exactly the same weather conditions as to the race itself.