17:08? Sam Wharton? Get yourselves together, Nike

Flatlander wrote:

Let's follow your logic. Football is a tough sport for tough men. We should have the Super Bowl played in Green Bay or Chicago during a blizzard. Wouldn't it be fun to watch Peyton Manning or Tom Brady throw the football in that? When the team with the better running game wins, then we can all say they are the true champs. Right. Anyone that complains then would just be a bunch of whiners, right?

Following your logic, all superbowl games should be played indoors so that the best passing team wins, right? Because running the ball is not part of football?

That's not my point. The NXN competition eliminated one type of runner. I don't think that culling one style of runner makes for a good championship. In football, a good running team or a good defensive team can and often does win. But if weather dominates, the team that is designed to throw is toast. Why hold a "championship" on a course designed for a clydesdale?

I wonder if so many kids would sign up for NXN if they also ran their regional qualifying meets through thigh deep mud? Why don't they do that?

For those who are saying Balboa is not a real xc course, what isn't real about it? It does 2 loops and has a nice mix of fast sections and big hills, both uphill and a steep downhill. Not quite as spectator friendly as sitting on your butt at a race track - you do have to move a little if you want to see most parts of the race, but they broadcast all of it from the Gator anyway. I always thought it was a good course, and there is nothing artificial about it except a couple of rubber mats and boards that are placed along very very short sections where there is some sidewalk and where it crosses a road. Weather is generally good, although it did rain heavily during the boys race 3 or 4 years ago, but Verzbicas still easily won it.

Are you calling Sarah Baxter a clydesdale?

Onemile wrote:

of course he's gonna say he liked the course, his team wouldnt have won if the course wasn't terrible

HIS TEAM WOULDN'T HAVE WON IF they didnt run the actual race and just handed out the trophy according to rankings, as they should have.

meadowlark.... wrote:

Flatlander wrote:

Let's follow your logic. Football is a tough sport for tough men. We should have the Super Bowl played in Green Bay or Chicago during a blizzard. Wouldn't it be fun to watch Peyton Manning or Tom Brady throw the football in that? When the team with the better running game wins, then we can all say they are the true champs. Right. Anyone that complains then would just be a bunch of whiners, right?

Following your logic, all superbowl games should be played indoors so that the best passing team wins, right? Because running the ball is not part of football?

... Yes, they do try to make sure all superbowls are played either indoors or in nice weather. That's sort of the point; the best all around team then has the best chance of winning, instead of the best defense/running team.

I'm really kind of shocked at how stupid a lot of the posters here are being. Mud doesn't give an advantage to tough or strong minded people.... it just really hurts those with good running mechanics (as it changes what optimal running mechanics _are_).

Curious Person wrote:

meadowlark.... wrote:

Following your logic, all superbowl games should be played indoors so that the best passing team wins, right? Because running the ball is not part of football?

... Yes, they do try to make sure all superbowls are played either indoors or in nice weather. That's sort of the point; the best all around team then has the best chance of winning, instead of the best defense/running team.

I'm really kind of shocked at how stupid a lot of the posters here are being. Mud doesn't give an advantage to tough or strong minded people.... it just really hurts those with good running mechanics (as it changes what optimal running mechanics _are_).

Dude, it's xc, it is what it is. You run your best regardless of the conditions. If you want a pristine environment where you and your pretty form can be successful, go indoors (and stay there). There are different seasons for a reason.

MW Nike wrote:

Yeah the course cost all of the favorites a chance at a championship!

I mean look at Manlius girls. They ran awful and it was because of the mud.

Oh wait, they won their 7th straight NXN Championship and won by 100 points. Overcoming the obstacles and getting the job done is what champions do.

Congrats to Manlius and Arcadia as well as Sammy boy and Sarah Baxter

I really have to agree. A few things to consider. Baxter won again. Ran a tough race against a rising star. Yes, the girls race made the course sloppier for the boys race. But there was a community race before the girls ran, so both championships were on a chewed up course.

And while Nike may like mud, times were about 2 minutes slower than last year. So it is possible that this year was unexpectedly more muddy. I wish it had been a bit less muddy, but then I remember watching Lynn Jennings win World XC in Boston's Franklin Park on some early snow. Lynn held the US 10K track record for years, but seemed able in XC to handle nearly any conditions. Ditto Pat Porter rising to nearly any conditions--was it 9 times??

So, while perhaps not ideal, sometimes you have to run the course on the day. Like harriers. No cancellations for XC. The muddy race required some smart pacing. Mary Cain clearly was trying to stick to the least muddy parts, running far to the side often. Fair enough. Baxter tended to push right down the middle.

Not ideal, but some great racing. And while not hilly, if you were there you would see it was less flat than one might expect. Not far off the ISU kind of course near Terre Haute in that respect. And fun to watch it all unfold. I will go every year I am nearby, that's for sure. I hope it's more dry next year, but I have high respect for the winners nonetheless!!

Agree with your post. A lot of posters seem to be implying that the race wasn't fair because some of the favorites performed poorly. Well, we all know that the girls race went pretty much according to script, but let's look at the top 5 boys.

Sam Wharton: Ohio 5A XC Champ, 2nd in FL and Nike Regionals

Estevan DelaRosa: CA XC 5A runner up (but barely - with same official time as winner), winner of Stanford Invitational

Luis Martinez: NM 2 time XC champ and 1600 and 3200 champ, SW Nike regional winner

Joe Hardy: WA 3A XC champ, 3200 champ, 8:55 as soph

Robert Domanic: TX 5A XC champ, winner of Nike South Regional

So 4 were state XC champs and the other a close runner up. 3 won their regionals, another was runner up (1 didn't run). Every one of these guys had the XC credentials to run with the front pack. There is no reason to believe that if the race were run on a different course on the same day that the outcome would be a lot different.

It's fine to have a discussion about the merits of the course, but it's a slap in the face to those that went out and performed to suggest that they had an unfair advantage or that something was not legitimate about the race.

I agree that the top 5 shouldn't have been huge surprises - I had all of them in my top 10 going into the race. The top runners usually aren't effected as much by muddy conditions as the rest of the pack is. Note that all those guys are strength guys as well... and, for that matter, I'd say all of the top 21 guys are "strength guys" (more XC guys than track guys; in track, more 3200/5000 types than 800/1600 types). Girls were a bit more mixed - Baxter and Efraimson are both speed types, though it looks like they were significant outliers -- browsing the list, it looks like the vast majority of the rest of the top 25 girls are strength types as well.

But that's a big part of the reason why this year (and 2010) was a bit skewed - most of the time, kids don't run in conditions like those, and these kinds of differences aren't so glaring in normal races (and haven't been so glaring in most of the NXN races either).

Certainly, not all the runners that had bad races in those conditions were 'speed' types, and not all the runners that had good races were 'strength' types, but the conditions led to an advantage for those kinds of athletes - meaning more of the 'strength' type runners ran well compared to the 'speed' type runners.

Correction and note:

should say "All but DeLaRosa in my top ten going into the race" (think I had him 20ish)

And the teams and individuals who ended up on the podium, who went away with trophies, and who won the races, all should get the same credit any other podium finisher, trophy winner and champion should get. They ran well when it counted, and no one should take anything away from them and their accomplishment (and I hope no one interprets my comments as such).

Of course they did. That was also stupid.

Back when the Hawaii state meet was run at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in the 70's, I was running with my teammate Siggy Paaloufaa when he fell into a molten lava vent. When I looked back to see what happened, only a steam plume emerged. My teammates and I went back after the race to look for Siggy and all we saw was a little oily spot down there. What a dreadful day.

I think I disagree with your point, but that was pretty funny. You earn a cookie.

??????? wrote:

Seriously, WTF?? This is a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP? A bunch of no names taking the top spots? What the hell happened?...

It's kind of funny to look back on this post about NXN after one year and reflect on how wrong the outraged OP was about 'a bunch of no names' in the top spots. Most of them have proven to be absolute monsters, on both the boys and girls side.

Teddy Roosevelt's quote about 'it is not the critic who matters, but the man in the ring' comes to mind.