Come On!! Why is the NCAA XC Championships held on a Monday, and in Terre Haute? This is BAD for the sport.

My loyality is with FL...NXN is OK, But FL is 10 times more exciting for me...but yea....I am only one vote!

Cheap Trick wrote:

They brought the Kenyan kids in since low attendance had plagued NTN/NXN in the past. It didn't help. Website stats show that FL's popularity is as strong as ever.

Low attendance? I assume you mean by spectators since the list for teams trying to make it to NXN keeps getting longer and longer.

As for spectators, you are simply wrong. NXN is attended by just as many--if not more--spectators than FL. This is simply a fact of the amount of runners at NXN. FL has 80 runners; NXN brings out 320.

Website stats? Cite them. According to Alexa.com:

runnerspace.com/nxn page rank = 50,000

footlockercc.com = 400,000

You funny boy. Alexa stats are bogus. Even though I like FL and hate NX, you still sound like Dickless Cheney quoting Alexa numbers.

Actually FLN, FL West, FL East, etc. attendance is 10 times that of NX.

Plus, NX will be moving to Las Vegas or Phoenix in 2011 and that will very likely triple the attendance and eventually make NX a hit.

Right now, though, I agree that NX has been a terrible big dud for Nike.

Listen carefully, NXN is simply not "a terrible big dud for Nike." This is propaganda. By any measurable standard to any reasonable person, NXN has been a resounding success.

I have no issue with FL. The world is big enough for two meets. But, please stop with the propaganda. It makes you sound desparate.

honestly nxn is a misnomer. nx it's not a nat'l anything. so far nx has been a big dud but giant nike has the money and when they move it to texas or florida it might become popular. having nx it in the pac nw it dec is the dumbest thing in meet management in 100 years.

Big Dud wrote:

honestly nxn is a misnomer. nx it's not a nat'l anything. so far nx has been a big dud but giant nike has the money and when they move it to texas or florida it might become popular. having nx it in the pac nw it dec is the dumbest thing in meet management in 100 years.

Go back to Middle School small fry. And this time pay attention in English- that post was a giant heap of grammatical dogshit.

I support NXN over FL for one reason- it supports XC as a team sport, not only as individuals. It follows the same format as EVERY OTHER CHAMPIONSHIP MEET HELD AT ANY LEVEL OF THE SPORT. Every league, section, division, state, regional and national level race in this country, in High School and College, is run by both teams and individuals EXCEPT Footlocker. Why? XC is a team sport. If there is a national "Championship", why not let there be an actual championship-style race?

The race location is obviously not the best, but the event as a whole is 1000X better because it recognizes the true nature of the sport. That is something that FL will never do. If FL never existed, and NXN has been around for the last 30 years, would there really be people out there saying that the team aspect is stupid and they should only bring the individuals? I don't think so.

How boring would NCAAs be if there were just 40 runners in each field?

lashing out is what little pussies like you do when called out for stupid statements. don't get mad, it's a part of growing up. the fast is nx will improve after this year when it's moved to the southeast or southwest. fln is the only hs xc champs now in the u.s. nike has a chance if they follow the sun like fl has.

I was at one of the coaches' meetings when we discussed the day of the national race, and at that time it had been at the same site for a good number of years (in Michigan). The decision to move to Monday (from the previous Saturday) was two-fold. One, it was felt the results would get more attention if not competing with football, and two, it was quite common to hold races on golf courses and many golf courses were closed on Mondays for care after heavy weekend traffic and the host school could avoid having to pay so much to have the course closed on a busy money-making Saturday. It was also suggested that students would may miss less school, traveling Saturday and home Monday night. I had the last DIII runner who got to run DI Nationals and it was tough -- raced and won DIII Saturday, drove home over Saturday night; drove all day Sunday to DI site and raced Monday. As I recall, the reason that was dropped, was it was felt it put non-scoring individuals in the race and supposedly they might influence how the race played out. I'm not speaking in favor of or against the decisions, just providing some insight into the situation

First of all Terre Haute as actually a great course to run nationals on both for runners and spectators. In fact its probably one of the better spectator courses in the country. Second of all its always packed for nationals. Third of all only die hard XC fans are going to watch the NCAA XC championship anyway so they are going to drive/fly there where ever it is and Terre Haute is at least in the mid west so its some what centrally located(as opposed to being on a coast)

th is a terrible place that hides our cross country programs from the spotlight and diminishes all of our hard work. d1xc should be held at a spot close to a major airport in a big city such as dallas, tucson, san diego, phoenix, houston.

not not not wrote:

th is a terrible place that hides our cross country programs from the spotlight and diminishes all of our hard work. d1xc should be held at a spot close to a major airport in a big city such as dallas, tucson, san diego, phoenix, houston.

4 out of the 5 places you named are hot or hot/humid and would make crappy places to hold it. I don't know about Dallas or Houston but I have raced in Tucson, San Diego, and Phoenix and every course I raced on would have been far less suitable to a National championships, than the Terre Haute course. Plus do you really think that anyone in a place like Houston or Dallas gives a darn about XC. The only people who will ever go to a XC race are people who love the sport and are involved in it in some way. These people are going to make it there everyone else is not going to even know it is going on no matter how big a city you hold it in.

Those places aren't humid at all in Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar when XC is held. I agree though that mandatory criteria for NCAA/USA outdoors are 1) warm/mild weather, 2) low humidity, 3) major airport/hotels, 4) major media market.

NCAA/USATF should dump the corruption and hold those champs in primo metro areas with perks banned from the meet. Only volunteers should be allowed to be in meet management, just the same as the 1,000 of my fellow certified officials. Airfare/hotel/car must be paid by individuals not the local college, association, nor NCAA/USATF.

If you can't afford it or you don't want to pay for your own expenses, then stay home. There's 100,000 people willing to work for free for our sport. Already 90% of the people providing labor at meets are superb volunteers. Why not the other 10%. Even Doug Logan should pay his own way, or he can watch it on blip.tv via fanboys-r-us.com.

jtupper wrote:

I was at one of the coaches' meetings when we discussed the day of the national race, and at that time it had been at the same site for a good number of years (in Michigan). The decision to move to Monday (from the previous Saturday) was two-fold. One, it was felt the results would get more attention if not competing with football, and two, it was quite common to hold races on golf courses and many golf courses were closed on Mondays for care after heavy weekend traffic and the host school could avoid having to pay so much to have the course closed on a busy money-making Saturday.

Thanks for background info jtupper! For many years (30s-'65) the NCAA meet was held in E Lansing by MSU. It'll take another meeting & vote of coaches to move the meet from Monday and that is NOT going to happen any time soon. The meet goes to sites that BID ON THE MEET AND WIN. It's fine that many here want the meet 'here or there' but it ain't happening if 'here or there' don't submit a bid. Get used to the Monday date.

scotth wrote:

It's fine that many here want the meet 'here or there' but it ain't happening if 'here or there' don't submit a bid.

The complacency in that approach is disappointing but not surprising given the bottom-of-the-barrel priority the NCAA gives to xc. The NCAA is a powerful enough organization that if they really really wanted to have the meet in a particular location, they could do so. It would require using that power to convince someone to submit a bit for a particular location, but since that would require actual effort on behalf of the NCAA, I'm sure they won't do it. It's a lot easier just to solicit bids.

kohlberg wrote:

The NCAA is a powerful enough organization that if they really really wanted to have the meet in a particular location, they could do so. It would require using that power to convince someone to submit a bit for a particular location, but since that would require actual effort on behalf of the NCAA, I'm sure they won't do it. It's a lot easier just to solicit bids.

Huh? So you are all for the authoritarian approach where some big-whigs at the NCAA decide where the meet should be, regardless of whether the fans, participants or anyone at that location actually want it there?

And then these same administrators conscript local organizers against their will to actually put on and host the meet, even though they had no desire to bid on having it?

Good luck with that.

The NCAA has no desire to ever become a meet management company. They do not have the manpower or infrastructure for such an undertaking.

Um, yeah wrote:

Huh? So you are all for the authoritarian approach where some big-whigs at the NCAA decide where the meet should be, regardless of whether the fans, participants or anyone at that location actually want it there?

And then these same administrators conscript local organizers against their will to actually put on and host the meet, even though they had no desire to bid on having it?

Good luck with that.

If the alternative is the status quo - having the national championships in some cornfield in Iowa or Indiana - then, yes, I am for the authoritian approach - provided that the NCAA has a compelling vision behind it.

Obviously the event organizers couldn't be forced into doing anything against their will. But, an organization as powerful as NCAA certainly has the ability to sufficiently incentivize (non-monetarily) the organizers so that it is in their interest to hold the event. But, again, that's would require a vastly different vision of and prioritization for the sport from what is currently held at NCAA HQ.

kohlberg wrote:

Obviously the event organizers couldn't be forced into doing anything against their will. But, an organization as powerful as NCAA certainly has the ability to sufficiently incentivize (non-monetarily) the organizers so that it is in their interest to hold the event. But, again, that's would require a vastly different vision of and prioritization for the sport from what is currently held at NCAA HQ.

So with your obvious expertise on the matter, just how would this all-powerful NCAA non-monetarily incentivize local organizers to take on the task that don't currently exist?

For that matter, what kind of accountability do you expect from whoever at the NCAA decides where they want to mandate the race to be held? What criteria do they use to decide since they don't have any actual legitimate bids? Do they survey letsrun readers where they think the champs should be held?

Um, yeah wrote:

So with your obvious expertise on the matter, just how would this all-powerful NCAA non-monetarily incentivize local organizers to take on the task that don't currently exist?

For that matter, what kind of accountability do you expect from whoever at the NCAA decides where they want to mandate the race to be held? What criteria do they use to decide since they don't have any actual legitimate bids? Do they survey letsrun readers where they think the champs should be held?

They would have legitimate bids. The only difference is that NCAA would also actively encourage particular bids. For example, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that the NCAA wants to have Nationals in NYC. In order of plausibility, they could:

- Ask the organizer of Regionals at VCP (Manhattan College?) to host Nationals in a year where Regionals are in Franklin Park.

- Suggest that a willingness to host Nationals every few years will be a critical piece of the bid criteria for Regionals.

- Create a 'package deal', where if another NYC school was bidding on another National champs in another sport, in order to win, they would have to also host the XC national championships (using a NCAA-approved meet organizer vendor to assure quality).

- Work more aggressively with existing NCAA corporate sponsors (ie. Coca-Cola, Pontiac, etc.) to help defray organization costs in that location (ie. increased value-in-kind) in return for on-site visibility.

Location selection criteria would be sole discretion of the NCAA...the same as it is with the Olympics and IOC or the World Cup and FIFA (talk about an organization that knows how to use a bit of muscle to get what it wants).

Will this ever happen for NCAA xc? Almost certainly not since there's no real incentive for the NCAA to develop the sport - it will always be a cost center to them. But it is possible if someone at NCAA who was passionate about the sport and had a vision for it's development wanted to make it happen.