The McGorty (FL South winner) conundrum, what would you do?

To me it doesn't matter what the overall distribution of talent between the two meets is.

As long as there is a question of which of the winners of FL and NXN would have won, had they raced head-to-head, there is no national championship. Just a couple of high-level invitationals with qualifying meets.

There are so many greats who probably wouldn't have run Footlocker if the current system had been in place when they were in high school. There will be years where the best are going to be at NXN with their teams, and I hope others will choose racing the best over the history of Footlocker.

There isn't a question who the national champion is. The national champion is the individual that wins Foot Locker.

who's questioning wrote:

There isn't a question who the national champion is. The national champion is the individual that wins Foot Locker.

I'd have a hard time saying that with a straight face if I knew there was a better runner at NXN.

Especially because a kid going to NXN because of his team basically doesn't have a choice unless he's willing to screw over his teammates and coach.

A kid choosing Footlocker when the best one going to NXN is choosing the fanciness over racing the best. No need to ask what Pre would do.

who's questioning wrote:

There isn't a question who the national champion is. The national champion is the individual that wins Foot Locker.

And, strangely, also the individual that wins NXN...

One of the winners isn't the national champion because they ran at either race, but because they were the best. And that is at question unless the champions of both meets raced eachother.

Yes, we can say for example that "Molly Seidel's race at FLN was better than Sarah Baxter's at NXN, so she must have been the best this year" but since they never raced we can never say one beat the other - that one is THE champion and the other is not.

Likewise, we cannot before the races happen, say that Race X is better than the other because the top ranked runner is at Race X, because we don't know if they will win or if their win will be better than the winner of the other race. It's a big question, and will only leave us with our own opinions of which was better after all was said and done, even though they will rarely race (Cheserek and Futsum last year was an exception that I don't expect will happen most years, given that almost all of the nation has to choose one or the other).

runn wrote:

He screwed his team. FL does not attract the best runners. Look at NY- the teams have great runners, they go to Nike. Mary Cain was at Nike (I don't want to hear about Salazar).

Many people who go to FL pick it because it's watered down with all the best runners going to Nike.

Comedy at it's finest.

You say that he screwed his team and then you use Cain as a poster child for your Nike greatness. Can you remind us again what she did to her team?

Foot Locker is doing just fine in attracting elite talent and won't be folding anytime soon, despite what you Nike clowns have been saying for years now.

Fun Dip wrote:

Comedy at it's finest.

You say that he screwed his team and then you use Cain as a poster child for your Nike greatness. Can you remind us again what she did to her team?

Foot Locker is doing just fine in attracting elite talent and won't be folding anytime soon, despite what you Nike clowns have been saying for years now.

This is only the 5th year of NXN regionals, right? So there hasn't' been much time, and I'm fairly confident that FL will fade out in the long run unless some kind of agreement is reached between the two meets to combine or make doubling manageable.

I think the Cain situation is very different. She chose to leave her school's team to train and race completely outside that system.

This kid (along with others) is presumably coached by the school team's coach, competed with the team all season when there wasn't a conflict between his own ambitions and what was best for the team. Then as soon as there was a conflict, he chose not to compete with the team whose resources he depended on for his entire season up to that point.

The reason the terrain matters is because of the nature of the sport. I wish XC was about going out and running on all different kinds of terrain to see who is the best but it's just not that anymore. Look at the NCAA championships, USATF championships, World XC. None of them are about rough terrain. Having a course that is intentionally extremely muddy changes the nature of the contest. It would be like having the Little League World Series at a baseball field where the outfield is significantly shorter. It's still just two teams battling it out to see who can score the most runs. Details like easier homeruns, or the diminished influence of effective outfielders should be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

The Nike employees and over-zealous backers have been saying this since the day Nike added individuals and there's been no overall trend in elite talent migrating to one meet or the other. Foot Locker is doing fine and will continue to do fine, same with Nike.

McGorty has freedom of choice to select the race he wanted to run, as did Cain and all others. This is a post-season race and you're not running for your h.s. regardless of whether this is Nike or FLN.

I don't see why everyone is demonizing McGorty for doing what he said he'd do all season. Since day 1 his goals have always been to win the state championship (individually and as a team) and to place in the top 5 at FL nationals. There is evidence in multiple interviews of him stating this exact fact and I'm sure his team has been well aware of the fact that he would do FL since the beginning of the season. In a post-race interview, their number 2 runner Logan Miller (who finished 2nd at NX Regionals) stated that the team had no problem with Sean racing at FL and they respected and supported his decision. Sean was obviously attempting to face the best competition (as the race winner at NX regionals was 15:08, he had run 14:43 earlier in the season on that same course) and nobody should blame him for making the decision to race against the best individuals in the nation.

That being said, the Chantilly team should deserve to go to NXN based on the fact that they tied for 2nd (lost on 6th runner tiebreaker to Blacksburg, Chantilly only ran 5) and that some consideration should be given to the fact that McGorty would be able to join them at NXN. It is not his fault that the races are scheduled on the same day and he decided to go back to a meet he had already participated in. The fact that Chantilly wasn't selected in the at-large process when they basically qualified even without their number #1 runner is BS. Putting McGorty into the results at the number 1 spot overall reduces Chantilly's team score to 82, which bests the southeast winner Louisville Extreme by about 10 points.

This isn't rocket science this is just basic statistics analysis. Chantilly is clearly the best team in the southeastern region and the fact that they weren't selected in the at-large process is frankly unacceptable.

who's questioning wrote:

There isn't a question who the national champion is. The national champion is the individual that wins Foot Locker.

Exactly.

If someone doesn't show up, then they're out of luck.

Soon nike will be hosting the nike olympics and the nike world championships, will troll the IAAF forum, declare the old Olympics are dead and that the best runners run the nike olympics etc ad nauseum. Nike can pretend all they want, but a rotten tomato is still a rotten tomato.

The Olympics are the Olympics, the World Championships are the World Championships, and Footlocker is the National Championship for high school cross country.

who's questioning wrote:

There isn't a question who the national champion is. The national champion is the individual that wins Foot Locker.

watchout wrote:

And, strangely, also the individual that wins NXN...

One of the winners isn't the national champion because they ran at either race, but because they were the best. And that is at question unless the champions of both meets raced eachother.

No, the individual winner of NXN is not the national champion. They are no more a national champion than say the winner of Mt. Sac or the Great American XC festival.

The winner of Foot Locker is the national champion.

For american XC, yes, golf courses and similarly "smooth" courses reign supreme. That doesn't mean that's true cross country, that is just what we happen to run cross country races here.

As for "intentionally extremely muddy" at NXN... wouldn't it only be "intentionally extremely muddy" if Nike were hosing down the course every year to make it that way every year? There are years where the course is in pretty good condition (in regards to mud), others when it is in very muddy conditions. Just like there are years when it is windy or it isn't very windy. Or years when it's sub-30 degrees at race time and years when it's over 40. Or years when it's raining, or even snowing, during the race and years when it's clear skies. These are all WEATHER CONDITIONS, and the only place you won't find them is in southern california where it's always going to be pretty dry and pretty warm. So, if you want the same conditions year after year, that's fine, head down to San Diego, but that doesn't make it "true cross country" just because the weather is consistent.

Whether you're racing at Footlocker or NXN, you still have to toe the line and run the same course as everyone else, first to the line is the winner. Period.

Yes, as I said, I prefer courses with a bit of variety rather than courses that are flat/fast grass tracks because it allows for a greater variety of strategy that can alter how the race is run. But that's just my own personal preference (and both national courses offer that).

get learned wrote:

who's questioning wrote:

There isn't a question who the national champion is. The national champion is the individual that wins Foot Locker.

watchout wrote:

And, strangely, also the individual that wins NXN...

One of the winners isn't the national champion because they ran at either race, but because they were the best. And that is at question unless the champions of both meets raced eachother.

No, the individual winner of NXN is not the national champion. They are no more a national champion than say the winner of Mt. Sac or the Great American XC festival.

The winner of Foot Locker is the national champion.

Cross Country Series A, starting at week 7 and continuing until week 10, with a round of qualification races before a national race.

Cross Country Series B, starting at week 8 and continuing until week 10, with a round of qualification races before a national race.

Which crowns the "national champion"?

BOTH. They both crown separate national champions, one is not intrinsically superior to the other, even if one biased poster on Letsrun or another believes that to be the case.

VHSL wrote:

That being said, the Chantilly team should deserve to go to NXN based on the fact that they tied for 2nd (lost on 6th runner tiebreaker to Blacksburg, Chantilly only ran 5) and that some consideration should be given to the fact that McGorty would be able to join them at NXN. It is not his fault that the races are scheduled on the same day and he decided to go back to a meet he had already participated in. The fact that Chantilly wasn't selected in the at-large process when they basically qualified even without their number #1 runner is BS. Putting McGorty into the results at the number 1 spot overall reduces Chantilly's team score to 82, which bests the southeast winner Louisville Extreme by about 10 points.

little problem with this is that this runner would probably skip the NXN meet so that he is rested enough to get properly crushed by cheserak.

why wouldn't he hesitate to dismiss team ambition once again?

nobody has been on here saying that he would have gone to NXN, and that the team made the choice to qualify without him.

he quit on the team, simple as that.

After party? What two topping pizza & Mountain Dew? Shove the party; the quality of the race is what is most important.

All covered in the above thread a few years ago. If FLocker/Kinney had the fore thought back 1979/80 to include the team element this would be a mute discussion. Nothing left but to start counting down till its all about Nike and their mud run warrior dash; 3-5 years...no doubt.

Same debate going on now for at least 5 years. Surprisingly, when it comes to top flight talent, neither meet looks like it's gained a clear edge over the other.

*moot

Foot Locker is more prestigious, at least in the circles I run in.

george oscar bluth wrote:

*moot

Foot Locker is more prestigious, at least in the circles I run in.

I don't think anyone would question that Footlocker is currently more prestigious.

The question is at what point do we let go of a meet with history and the "prestigious" branding and move on to a system that makes much more sense, will lead to better competition, and is more fair to the kids participating.