What changes should be made to NXN and NXR to make it even better

Niles wrote:

......But I remind you that this is you complaining it is unfair because you are losing. It is not about what is best for the HS athletes, and I think you are setting a bad example for HS athletes by your coaching attitude. I know that’s harsh, but that’s my honest opinion. I do have respect for your success, though.

First how is allowing middle school athletes to take high school athletes spots in the best interest for high school athletes? The high school runners are displaced and dont even get to participate at all, that doesnt sound good if I am a hard working but low talent 7th runner waiting to get my chance on varsity as a senior. And then as often as not the MS runners disappear from the scene. (Often by getting replaced themselves by the next generation of 7th and 8th graders).

Second, at what point is it o.k. to complain when something is clearly unfair. Do you think his athletes like losing? What are you teaching your athletes if you don't advocate for them? You don't need to be a jerk about it, but simply pointing out the obvious inequities to allow for improvement at an event is not at a bad example at all, I am sure the athletes appreciate the passion.

With each successive step up in competition it takes that much more of a student-athletes finite energy reserves to stay competitive. Competing for a league title takes a certain amount of investment. Competing for a state title takes a more substantial investment of time and energy. Competing for a national title takes even more. Competing for an international title of course will take more. One could argue that winning a league championship for some such as Great Oak and Vista Murrieta is just as difficult as winning state since they are in the same league, but that's not how it actually plays out because both teams focus more on the latter meet.

A question that I ask is how are kids affected by competing for a national championship when they are in middle school? How are they affected when in 9th grade? What about as a 10th grader or 11th and 12th? Basically, at what point are most humans developed enough to be ready to focus on something with such intensity that they are most likely training year round for that one sport and competing at many high-level races that bring a lot of stress into their lives.

I don't have a degree in psychology or physiology, but my feeling is that a high school national championship for XC should be contested by 10th-12th graders only. As nobody else is suggesting this I fully realize it's not going to happen, but if I were magically in charge of NXN rules all of a sudden this is something I would consider strongly. I think there are a lot of very talented 7th-9th grade girls especially that are pushed too hard too soon and because of that do not become "all they are capable of becoming". You can't bake a loaf of bread twice as fast with twice the heat, right? It is the same with education and athletics; it shouldn't be rushed if you want the best end result for the student-athlete.

Realizing NXN will never be changed to grades 10-12 only, I would vote for it to be 9-12 only purely based on what I believe to best for the student-athletes health.

I don't think breaking up the regions punishes NY/CA teams for being good. It punishes the rest of the region for not being as good. They don't get the same shot at representation, therefore they simply won't go. NCAA regions aren't evenly balanced. Some of them pathetically so, as made obvious by their consistently piss poor NCAA results. Why would we try to do it in HS? A system like this will never truly be perfect. I'm sure under yours new issues would come up as well. So why go through the trouble of changing it? Who really benefits? If you examine closely, I suspect the answer is no one, despite a marginally more competitive meet (again, all speculation, as is my analysis, but mine has historical backing).

As I said, following your outline, the outcome in terms of who would qualify is likely to remain the same. The most competitive teams in NE are from NJ and PA for the most part. If they're not in the NE region, you're basically telling all the other NE states to screw off. They simply can't compete. They do not produce teams that are good enough to compete even for at large bids in NY. It's hard to tell exactly how many NE schools are actually competing in the region since it's all by club name. I certainly would think if something like this were adopted it would just be a de-facto NXN NY all over again, except you're alienating all the NE states and thus lowering participation. Remember, there are open races too - some teams travel a bunch of people, not just their varsity squad. Something they certainly think about is how the regional breakdown affects the draw to the race.

Notice how very few New Yorkers compete at FLNE? They think they have a better shot at NXN, so that's where they go. The best individuals from the other NE states flock to there. The only NY qualifier placed higher at the regional than he did in his class at the state meet (although he did unquestionably have a superb performance at the regional). Maybe New Yorkers should consider giving FL a better shot.

As much as thosewho dont wAnt to allow 7/8 graders i am even more a believer that if their respective states allow it then nxn should allow it.

State associations make decisions that they think are best for their schools. They do this with the good intentions of doing what they think is best for their participants as well. There are all sorts of state association rules ranging from grade level eligibility to academic eligibility to transfer eligibility and more. These are the rules that allow for state champions , which is one of the outcomes and goals for state associations. These associations from any one state get to review regulations from other states but then get to decide what is best for their own state. They dont see themselves nor care about national level competitions.

The high school national championships are made up championships and not the product of a national association ( like ncaa, usatf,etc). They are like the bcs of running and we all know that the bcs is always being debated. There is no debate for fbs (ncaa) tournament. These hs running championships are optional. There is no requirement to participate in any or all of these made up championships. Call them whatever, national championships or whatever you want. They are really just open or exhibition competitions which tend to attract the very best athletes and teams and the rules are all arbitrary.

Those arguingng for grade level consistency should also argue that there should be consistency in all other areas as well ( transferring, coaching contact, etc). They need an association to set the rules. Nike isnt interested in serving as an association and if the association does things nike disagrees with then they will just pull their support or continue to do it the way they want (nike will always win and get what they want).

Too many whiners including coaches who think this is a true national championship. It isnt. It is however a great event that creates excitement and enthusiasm for the sport. Those who are serious high level competitors love the event (or they wouldnt be doing it). If any egomaniac coach wants to pull his/her team then they are doing it for their own egotistical reasons and not in the best interests of the athletes because the athletes have fun.

To respond to some of the other discussion involving middle schoolers, this does in fact have a marginal impact on boys. I was running mid 4:30s in the mile in middle school and was recruited by many D1 teams by the time I was peaking my Jr year due to slow, longer term development. Ironically enough I was thrown against a wall in college and sucked the whole time. Maybe my training in HS was better, but that's neither here nor there. Would I have been in the same position had I been dusting kids in modified track running 5:10 1500s? Can't say for sure, but I certainly think I benefited greatly. Where I am today was dramatically impacted by me competing as middle schooler.

Although I am biased, I definitely think all states should allow middle schoolers (7th grade+) to compete. What even defines a 'high schooler' anyway? Some schools in my area of separate schools for freshman. Are they not 'high schoolers'? It's completely arbitrary. What matters is maturity and that is why the NY system is in place and it is proof that it works. Other states should follow suite so we don't have to have this debate.

Here is the actual finish and then projected finish with grades 9-12 only and then grades 10-12 only.

Place School Score Grades

1 Summit 120 7-12

1 Summit 118 9-12

1 Summit 153 10-12

2 Naperville North 186 7-12

2 Naperville North 180 9-12

2 Naperville North 159 10-12

3 Wayzata 207 7-12

9 Wayzata 264 9-12

7 Wayzata 215 10-12

4 Manlius 212 7-12

7 Manlius 252 9-12

6 Manlius 206 10-12

5 Niwot 219 7-12

3 Niwot 212 9-12

3 Niwot 199 10-12

6 Saratoga 228 7-12

N/A Saratoga Only 3 Runners 9-12

N/A Saratoga Only 2 Runners 10-12

7 Vista Murrieta 231 7-12

4 Vista Murrieta 223 9-12

13 Vista Murrieta 255 10-12

8 Great Oak 249 7-12

5 Great Oak 240 9-12

4 Great Oak 199 10-12

9 Battle Mountain 253 7-12

6 Battle Mountain 244 9-12

5 Battle Mountain 200 10-12

10 Boise 273 7-12

8 Boise 262 9-12

15 Boise 307 10-12

11 Jesuit 278 7-12

11 Jesuit 268 9-12

12 Jesuit 249 10-12

12 Claremont 280 7-12

10 Claremont 268 9-12

14 Claremont 305 10-12

13 Yorkville 284 7-12

12 Yorkville 272 9-12

9 Yorkville 237 10-12

14 Mountain Vista 290 7-12

13 Mountain Vista 278 9-12

8 Mountain Vista 227 10-12

15 Liverpool 297 7-12

14 Liverpool 283 9-12

10 Liverpool 238 10-12

16 North Hunterdon 315 7-12

15 North Hunterdon 300 9-12

11 North Hunterdon 244 10-12

17 Edina 358 7-12

16 Edina 343 9-12

N/A Edina Only 4 Runners 10-12

18 Flower Mound 401 7-12

17 Flower Mound 382 9-12

19 Flower Mound 473 10-12

19 Champlain Valley 421 7-12

18 Champlain Valley 399 9-12

16 Champlain Valley 363 10-12

20 Prosper 450 7-12

19 Prosper 426 9-12

N/A Prosper Only 4 Runners 10-12

21 Blacksburg 451 7-12

20 Blackdburg 428 9-12

18 Blacksburg 422 10-12

22 Chiles 469 7-12

21 Chiles 446 9-12

17 Chiles 375 10-12

I think your suggested alignment has potential... Would you be recommending 3 auto-bids per region, or 2 auto-bids and a ton of at-larges?

One potential pitfall is with competitive balance. Your new SouthEast region would be pathetically weak. It essentially takes MD, DE, and VA away from the existing SE region, which was already weak to begin with.

Oh? wrote:

Also, for those more visually inclined, here's a map of what it would look like:

https://postimg.cc/dZm1gsH1

black dots = the center of population for each state, the blue circles being the rough location of the meet (based on regional center of population).

For your Mid-Atlantic (which I think would be a somewhat fair region), Hershey (PIAA States Course) and Paul Short are your obvious choices to host. If you moved it closer to Pittsburgh, maybe the RWB course.

I'd also increase the number of at larges with this reorganization or change the rules to 4 teams from each region.

ny guy wrote:

A system like this will never truly be perfect. I'm sure under yours new issues would come up as well. So why go through the trouble of changing it? Who really benefits? If you examine closely, I suspect the answer is no one, despite a marginally more competitive meet (again, all speculation, as is my analysis, but mine has historical backing).

My suggestion would have historical backing as to how it could help. You just are refusing to consider it for some reason.

But, for a longer response to the more important point...

Who would benefit?

-The NXN field for having stronger teams (e.g. 14 AQ + 8 At-Large, with all but one region having more competitive fields to qualify out of than the current situation, plus it then becomes reasonable to allow up to 5 teams from a region rather than 4). Think the NY girls and maybe CA boys/girls are far better than they are allowed to show at NXN due to the region cap? Giving them the potential to get another team in sure would help strengthen the field then, wouldn't it?

-The NXR fields for being more competitive. Adding Utah to the already strong Northwest region; adding Colorado, New Mexico and Kansas to a pretty weak South region; adding Illinois, Missouri and Indiana to the Heartland region; adding Nevada, Arizona and Hawai'i to the California meet; adding the New England states to the New York meet ... it's pretty hard to deny that would make for a more competitive fields.

-The bulk of the nation would benefit because despite having fewer regions, the regions are more evenly spread out meaning the average distance from the state population centers to the regional meet would be less. In other words, the NXR meets become more accessible for more athletes.

I just calculated the distances from each state population center to these seven regional courses:

Southwest = Riverside CA (CIF-SS Finals location ... I don't know if this is a good fit, but I'm not sure that Mt. SAC probably could hold 30 teams + another 50 or so elite individuals and not sure where else it would go)

Northwest = Eagle Island State Park (same as it already is)

South = North Lakes Park, Denton TX (home of the Marcus Invite and the Lewisville area meets)

Midwest = Davenport IA (don't know what course, but the Quad Cities seems like a good fit)

Southeast = McIntosh Nature Preserve, Whitesburg GA (home of the Coach Wood invite)

Mid-Atlantic = California PA (home of the WPIAL ... don't know if there is a better course in the area)

Northeast = Bowdoin Park (same as it already is)

The average distance to the meet from the state centers is actually 21 miles closer with the 7-region system than the current 8-site model. Of note: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin are all 200+ miles closer to the 7-region sites than the current sites. Nevada, Florida, Iowa and Kentucky are more than 100 miles closer. 22 states in total move closer to the 7-region sites (23 if you wanted to count Hawai'i), while only 15 move further away.

In the current layout, there are 26 states whose centers of population are less than 347 miles from the NXR locations. In the 7-region layout, there are 29. There are 31 states within 410 miles of the NXR locations, and in the 7-region model there are 39. There are 9 states in the current layout that are more than 500 miles away from their NXR sites, while only 7 in the 7-region layout. All those numbers are only looking at the continental US (Alaska and Hawai'i would drastically throw off those numbers).

Taking population of each state into account, in the current layout, the average person is about 281 miles from their NXR meet. In the 7-region layout, that number drops to 266. In short, the 7-region layout would mean the meets are more accessible.

tl;dr - Who would benefit from combining NY and the New England states in to one region and otherwise rearranging the regional boundaries? The NXR Regional meets, the NXN National meet, and the bulk of the nation.

University of Iowa has a dedicated XC course that can handle more runners and it has ample parking making it much better than the current heartland course in SD.

Interesting alignment... wrote:

I think your suggested alignment has potential... Would you be recommending 3 auto-bids per region, or 2 auto-bids and a ton of at-larges?

One potential pitfall is with competitive balance. Your new SouthEast region would be pathetically weak. It essentially takes MD, DE, and VA away from the existing SE region, which was already weak to begin with.

I would think it should be 2 AQ and more At-Large unless you expand the field to 25. As you mention, the Southeast would be pretty weak, and giving them a third AQ spot at the expense of a stronger region's #4/5 team might not benefit the field.

However, I don't think it would necessarily be as weak as it currently seems because it would be more accessible to teams and this is only a scenario that works out if Footlocker is no longer drawing athletes and teams away from the meet (which is a bigger deal for NXR-SE than any other region). Take this year's results for example: I'm not sure Weddington NC wouldn't have finished in the Top 20, while Belen Jesuit FL and Brentwood Academy TN and Huntsville AL and several others wouldn't be that far behind. As a region, the Southeast boys have been as good as most of the rest of the nation over the last 9-10 years. Even taking away Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia they wouldn't be much if any worse than the South has been lately. That being said, in the new layout, it would certainly be the weakest region by a notable margin ... but the benefits of increased accessibility and stronger NXN/NXR meets in general would probably outweigh a weaker SE, especially given the theory that increased accessibility to these kinds of meets will raise the bar and help lift up the region and make it more competitive (as NXN has seemingly shown around the nation over the last 15 years).

kid from PA wrote:

Oh? wrote:

Also, for those more visually inclined, here's a map of what it would look like:

https://postimg.cc/dZm1gsH1

black dots = the center of population for each state, the blue circles being the rough location of the meet (based on regional center of population).

For your Mid-Atlantic (which I think would be a somewhat fair region), Hershey (PIAA States Course) and Paul Short are your obvious choices to host. If you moved it closer to Pittsburgh, maybe the RWB course.

I'd also increase the number of at larges with this reorganization or change the rules to 4 teams from each region.

Those were the first two courses I thought of (Paul Short and PA State). However, those were further east than the center ... is the RWB course the same as the WPIAL course (in California PA)?

Midwest Course wrote:

University of Iowa has a dedicated XC course that can handle more runners and it has ample parking making it much better than the current heartland course in SD.

Good suggestion. I was originally thinking the Heartland Classic course was closer to Iowa City, but that's a bit farther west than the course should ideally be. University of Iowa would be a good location if the course is suitable.

Another improvement I would like to see is the elimination of the cap on the number of teams from a single region. This is an unnecessary restriction, and has hurt the quality of the meet several times. The auto-bids provide regional balance; the at-larges should go to the best remaining teams, whether they're all from the Midwest or CA (boys) or New York (girls).

kid from PA wrote:

Oh? wrote:

Also, for those more visually inclined, here's a map of what it would look like:

https://postimg.cc/dZm1gsH1

black dots = the center of population for each state, the blue circles being the rough location of the meet (based on regional center of population).

For your Mid-Atlantic (which I think would be a somewhat fair region), Hershey (PIAA States Course) and Paul Short are your obvious choices to host. If you moved it closer to Pittsburgh, maybe the RWB course.

I'd also increase the number of at larges with this reorganization or change the rules to 4 teams from each region.

Just looked up the location for the RWB meet. Schenley Park in Pittsburgh. That would be a good location if the course is suitable: about 61 miles west of the region's center of population. Seems like a winner!

I don't know if Glendoveer would work well with 28 competitive teams plus another 40 or so elite individuals. That would be 235-240 runners on the course, and it seems like 200 is already pushing it with how crowded it gets. I think somewhere in the 20-25 range is a good fit for the number of teams at NXN, and 6-10 At-Large invites + 2 AQ (with a regional cap of 5 rather than 4), or 4 At-Large invites + 3 AQ (with the regional cap staying at 4) would be plenty.

Having the proposed Southwest regional at the Riverside, CA course would be embarrassing. That course is an absolute abomination. Using the same course as Footlocker Nationals or Mt SAC would make much more sense.

Even by CA standards the Riverside course is a joke that doesn’t represent XC at all.

Another improvement... wrote:

Another improvement I would like to see is the elimination of the cap on the number of teams from a single region. This is an unnecessary restriction, and has hurt the quality of the meet several times. The auto-bids provide regional balance; the at-larges should go to the best remaining teams, whether they're all from the Midwest or CA (boys) or New York (girls).

The problem with removing regional caps is the tendency towards bias in the selection process. If one region is considered stronger than they really are, they could easily be overepresented at the expense of other teams that might have ended up being better. IMO, any more than a quarter of the field being from the same group of teams is probably too much (any more than 5 out of the 20), and probably any more than half of the hand-selected (At-Large) teams going to a specific group of teams is probably too much (e.g. no more than 2/4 or 3/6). It may be that that means some better teams are being left out, but it protects against subjective bias of the committee and ensures greater geographic representation at the national meet. Besides, if the goal of the meet is to get all of the teams that are expected to compete for a team trophy (Top-3 finish), any more than 4-5 teams from one region is probably overkill even if they didn't have a great race at their regional meet.

J McDermot wrote:

Having the proposed Southwest regional at the Riverside, CA course would be embarrassing. That course is an absolute abomination. Using the same course as Footlocker Nationals or Mt SAC would make much more sense.

Even by CA standards the Riverside course is a joke that doesn’t represent XC at all.

I really don't know much about the SoCal courses. I figured it wouldn't be great to hold it in the desert.

I didn't suggest it at Mt. SAC because I'm not sure the course can handle it. After all, I'm sure there is a reason that only 18 teams were in the Sweepstakes race at the invite this year, right? Could the course really handle nearly double that amount at an even more elite/crowded field??

What other courses in the northern/eastern LA area would truly be suitable to hold 30-35 teams that are very competitive with one another plus another 50 or so elite individuals?

I don't think the facts bear this out. As was posted previously, almost 40% of the SouthEast's auto-qualifiers 2007-2018 failed to beat a single at-large team. This is almost as bad as the South and significantly worse than any other region but the NorthEast - and this despite having the boys champion the past two years.