NXN - A case for why individuals should not be at a TEAM race

I agree with the OP that combining team and individual races is a problem. If you are an contender for overall win, but on a good team, you have an incentive not to chase after individuals ahead of you.

There's not a great solution because separating races would mean necessary recovery for whichever version went first. I suppose just holding the championships a week or two apart might help. This may dilute fan interest though.

Comparing how they do it at NCAA's to NXN is ridiculous.

The top HS talent usually ends up in NCAA powerhouses that are going to be at NCAA's, always a few exceptions, but for the most part a lot of the good runners are going to be on team that qualified.

In HS, well its just not the same, there were so many individual runners at the finish line before the 'Team Battle' even began it was comical. It was like, 'OH ya, there is a team battle going on I almost forgot'.

Having just returned from NXN with my athlete, after going to FL the last couple years, with individual athletes, I would not agree that NXN is the best experience for an individual runner. FL is a far better experience for the individual kids, at least from this coach's point of view. I feel the individual element of NXN feels a little contrived and the format and focus of the meet is ALL about the teams. Which is awesome for teams- the kids on teams are hanging with their teammates and coaches, enjoying the experience! But frankly, individuals sort of get lost in this meet's format- it just isn't set up for them to feel fully included and there really isn't a way to do it well. The best solution would be for NXN to go back to a team only format BUT make it possible for the best individuals who are on good teams to race Foot Locker as well, something that is not possible in several regions. I know in the future if my team doesn't stand a chance of qualifying for NXN, and I have some strong individuals, we will be going to the Foot Locker qualifier instead.

Simplify It wrote:

A true national xc championship would simply invite the large school team champ from each state and limit each team to five runners. Run it the second or third weekend in November at a place like Bloomington, Indiana or the Farm at KU. 250 runners, every runner scores. Simple and no need to compete with Footlocker in terms of naming an individual champ.

Your logic is a bit flawed here. In some states, the large division winner is not always the best team to represent that state. And in some states, the winner of any of the top three divisions is better than the all-time best in some other states. In a large state like California or New York, or just a deep state, the best team in that state might be in the second largest division, and they just might happen to be the best in the country - and oops, they don't even get a chance to run? That would be bad.

The qualification process also requires teams to keep training and continue to "earn" their birth in a national championship meet. Not all states conclude at the same time, so it is possible that some of the states that finish nearly mid-October, with a locked in birth, might perform terrible at nationals because they really didn't have to train between then and nationals. That might sound ridiculous, but if your team has winter sport athletes, the pressure for them to start their winter sport season immediately after the state meet concludes is high. You'd see some of these athletes do that, barely train, and run terribly at nationals. At least with the qualification process, you assure that those at nationals will have been training long enough not to embarrass themselves at nationals.

So you are saying that if the best runner in the nation wants to go against the other top individuals, he shouldn't be given the chance if he is on a trash a** team? That no sense at all. I know there is FL but what if all the competition is at NXN.

CWRP wrote:

In the girls race at NXN the 2nd team point was 20th place. 5th team point was 35th… Individuals should have their own division and should be separate from the team race.

When going for a team title every runner should be a point. I'd rather see less individuals and more teams. It messes up the team races having them in the race.

RunningIsMyDrug101 wrote:

So you are saying that if the best runner in the nation wants to go against the other top individuals, he shouldn't be given the chance if he is on a trash a** team? That no sense at all. I know there is FL but what if all the competition is at NXN.

CWRP wrote:

In the girls race at NXN the 2nd team point was 20th place. 5th team point was 35th… Individuals should have their own division and should be separate from the team race.

When going for a team title every runner should be a point. I'd rather see less individuals and more teams. It messes up the team races having them in the race.

Trash teams don't make NXN. Best (and if not damn close to the best) individuals are at FL.

It just works at the HS level.

Lolololol so true. Who the hell wants to watch a bunch of 17:00 guys race and have no good individuals.

Although this probably wouldn't be a popular idea, I've always thought this would make for a great race, especially considering how tight the top teams are with each other: Assign each runner with the name of another runner of similar time, and each team earns points based on whether their runners beat their opponents or not. Would certainly make for a tactical race, although the influence of teams' average times would be in peril, although the current system doesn't take it into account either so what the hell.

Anyways, the individuals should be scored as part of the race--it would completely solve the problem of clubs like American Fork that obviously were the deserved winners.

I'm amazed out how many people think less talent in a race is somehow better than more. It really doesn't hurt anything (except, perhaps, a few people's feelings) to have the bulk of the team competitors running behind the top individuals.

Cross country is notoriously difficult to ascertain team leaders in the middle of a race to begin with. Removing the individuals from the field would only make it marginally easier. It would be nice, though, if the intervals where team scoring was posted were more frequent and if Nike would go a little deeper in the team scoring when they do post mid-race team scoring.

We will see if the trend of this year continues, but, if so, Foot Locker may be just about done as a national race. A lot more of the nation's top individuals ended up at NXN this year.

one thing they have done in the past with success in my opinion was putting all of the individuals in primarily white jerseys with different color lettering while the teams had color with white lettering. this year it seemed more mixed.

I feel like that was a nice touch that made it easier to look at a pack and see who was worth points rather then trying to remember who was who from the panning shot at the starting line.

It was shocking how most of the top individuals were not part of a team. That being said, this girls race had something like 50+ state champions and most of the top 25 nationally ranked runners with a few exceptions. It was a loaded field.

Maybe incorporate the regional aspect where those individuals can race both individually and score for their region. That would add an extra level of interest. Based on the results, several of the regions, if scored as teams, wiped the course with the school teams. One of those regions had all of its runners cross the line before the first FM placer.

They do have a regional champion. It is recognized at the awards program for the kids on Saturday night. I am really glad the posters on the board don't have a say at Nike because there are some seriously stupid ideas on this thread. NXN is incredibly well run. There is virtually nothing that should be done to change it. The last coach who posted is the first poster I have read that has actual first hand knowledge of NXN with something negative to say about it. Try to find a kid who ran there to post something bad about it. That doesn't happen.

Actually, my athlete might have something negative to say about it, but doesn't read or comment on this board. I feel bad that my athlete could not participate in FL as well as NXN, but we had a pretty strong team and chose NXN. And I spoke with several coaches at NXN (who also have had athletes at FL) and all agreed that FL is a better experience for the individual kids. It is also a far better experience for coaches of individuals. Other than a printed schedule of events, there was zero communication with coaches or parents of individual kids. I felt pretty clueless as to what I could attend and what I could not attend, and the few times I asked either an official, or a team coach, I either got "I don't' know" or conflicting answers. I also shared a credential with my athlete's mother, and individual coaches were not allowed to ride the buses to events or participate in the coaches meetings. My athlete's mother couldn't even ride the shuttle from the airport with her kid- she had to rent a car (which was a good thing since she couldn't get on a bus to go anywhere during the weekend.) FL is not like this at all. I understand that there are numbers issues with NXN, so NXN pays for very little for individuals and their coaches and parents, but after going to FL it was kind of a let down.

As far as nothing being done to change NXN, well, I still think NXN would be a great meet with JUST teams. Since they are not likely to change the format, I do like the idea of putting all individuals in white jerseys (or some easily identifiable color). It would make viewing the race that much more interesting for those who are interested in the team race (which I would think EVERYONE would be interested in). Other than the FM girls (!!!) , it was hard to really see where teams were.

Curious about recent FL coaching/parent experiences. I had an athlete run there about 15 years ago and as a coach I felt very much on the outside looking in. I was fine with it too, but there was no airline ticket, no ground transportation, and no hotel, just like with NXN. I remember one brief meeting where coaches were invited, but otherwise the athletes spent the weekend at the hotel with the region chaperone and I felt like an outsider. Again, the trip was for the athlete and I just hung out with coaching friends and the athlete's parents. Not a big deal, but we were not part of the event at all. At NXN in recent years, I was given a credential that allowed me to have dinner each night with my athlete and access to the athlete village plus I was welcomed on the Nike campus. Granted my FL trip was a long time ago, but my NXN experiences were just as positive if not more so.

I can understand how the individual attention at FL is different, arguably better by some standards. The nature of 32 vs. 400 athletes is obvious, but as a cross country purist, NXN felt more natural with both individuals and teams competing. And, ultimately, whether an athlete chooses to pursue FL or NXN is up to them and not me. And any recommendations are not going to based on my experiences as a coach, but what I think will be best opportunity for the athlete.