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

Some interesting information and opinions have been presented in this thread ... For example, Oh? has presented some great data and a nicely thought out redrawing of the NXR regions.

The original question of the thread was "What changes should be made to NXN and NXR to make it better?" ... My thought was "Make it better for who?" ... Hopefully the high school kids, but what about Nike?

I have always said that NXN is Nike’s party ... Nike makes the rules and the guest list, so it seems that any changes need to make it better for Nike in some manner.

So from Nike’s Perspective, What’s not working or broken in the current setup of NXN?

Going back to the inception of NXN in 2004 when it was known as NTN (Nike Team Nationals) ... One catch phrase used by Nike and spokespeople in announcing and publicizing the event was "Who’s Number One?"

A good description of NTN was posted by Marc Bloom in March 2004 on DyeStat (currently available in the DyeStat archives via Google search) ... The article states "Teams will be chosen based a new and expanded regional ranking system produced by high school cross country expert Marc Bloom, editor of The Harrier magazine who has been ranking high school cross country teams for 15 years ... The event executive committee will contribute expertise to The Harrier rankings throughout the season, and the committee will choose the at-large teams once the state meets are over".. The executive committee (as of March 2004) was Josh Rowe (Nike), Jim Spier, A.J Holzherr, John Dye, Rich Gonzalez, Marc Bloom and Danny Green (The Woodlands).

The vision of Nike Team Nationals was to have the top ranked teams race head-to-head to determine "Who’s Number One?" ... with equal representation from all regions across the US and At-Large selections to pick extra teams from the stronger regions ... Teams as they were ranked throughout the high school season (so that means junior high runners included if allowed by the State Associations).

In 2008, NTN was modified to become NXN (Nike Cross Nationals) ... Nike wanted to be more inclusive so they added individual runners to event and added the regional NXR qualifying events ... this allowed many runners to become directly involved as participants in NXR races ... a great move by Nike with "added in”lusion" being a major vision by Nike.

In 2018, Nike became even more inclusive by adding At-Large individuals ... individuals that didn’t even need to be NXR participants ... an inclusion seemingly aimed at Foot Locker ... Nike’s current vision of NXN seems to be to gather the best teams and individuals from across the US and have them compete in a single race to determine "Who’s Number One?" ... Nike’s current format seems to working OK for Nike’s vision, although I’m sure some logistics tweaking is possible.

In terms of eliminating junior high participation in the championship races ... That would be an exclusion policy and doesn’t seem to fit the Nike vision ... NXN has access to a talent pool of junior high runners that Foot Locker excludes ... Since Nike wants the top talent to race head-to-head at NXN, why would Nike want to exclude these runners? ..... I do respect the "fairness" issue raised by some people with respect to junior high participation at the varsity level, but I can’t agree with it ... Not allowing appropriate junior high kids to compete varsity is a restriction States are placing on themselves.

Nike is abiding by State Association rules where ever possible (by necessity) to run NXN ... Nike refers to NXN as a "club championship" by necessity ... Different rules by different States means the playing field is not level ... a paradigm that exists throughout American society ... This is not Nike’s battle ... It’s an internal situation within each State ... The Nike NTN vision goes away if Nike implements restrictive rules ... NXN is currently a great event and it’s wonderful for many kids.

I am one of the sane people who thinks otherwise wrote:

I would feel that if i was on a team that won nxn where only 9-12 grades are eligible but yet i defeated a team that won their state meet but who had to remove a few of their top runners because they were 8th graders it would feel like i won on a technicality. It would open up the argument that i beat a team that was more successful in high school meets only because they couldnt run their true team.

I say bring on the very best who are eligible during the season. It wouldnt feel like a hollow victory if i beat the best when they were made up of their very best team members.

So it is not a hollow victory if your team is allowed to use a greater pool runners that another team could use, except the rules strictly prevent the other team from using them?

But it would be a hollow victory if a team wins with every team following the same rules?

You have an unusual perspective on the phrase hollow victory.

"..but who had to remove a few of their top runners because they were 8th graders it would feel like i won on a technicality."

That "technicality" being those runners are not students at the school they were representing? To some, that is more than a "technicality", it is the spirit of school competition, at any level, in any sport. Are you having trouble understanding that concept?

Regarding:

"..are you then going to ban ninth graders from competing just because those schools don't have ninth graders on their campus? Sure, it's a very small minority of schools in that situation, but that would be following the same rationale you are using."

No, what I said was, : "..that a high school national championship team should be made of members who are eligible to attend that high school. That is an absolute fundamental idea to base the event on."

So, for those high schools were ninth graders do not attend, they will not be on the high school team. You must attend the high school you represent. Get it now?

I went to a 3 year high school when nearly all other schools we competed against 4 year. We never complained that 9th graders should be excluded. It was high school versus high school, as high school competition should be.

I personally do not care if NXN continues as a club championship with mixed grades. I am merely just trying to explain the viewpoint that a true high school championship would be an improvement to some, and if that is the goal, it should only be open to people attending those high schools. I understand that those that live in area where using middle schoolers is so engrained, they wouldn't see this as improvement because it means they may lose some runners. That doesn't change how many others feel about what a high school championship should be. I don't see a win-win here, so I suspect it will never change.

Better rules for a better event wrote:

So it is not a hollow victory if your team is allowed to use a greater pool runners that another team could use, except the rules strictly prevent the other team from using them?

Are you having trouble understanding that concept?

FM's enrollment is less than half of GO's. In fact FM's entire school district from K-12 is the same size as GO's high school. If you want to draw from the same pool of runner then FM ought to be allowed to run any kid from their district at NXN.

Running 7th and 8th graders isn't an issue of being fair to one team or another. The issue is whether or not it's healthy for these pre-pubescent girls to be putting in big training loads to chase a national championship.

Yep it would be a hollow victory.

The idea of nxn was to determine who is the best high school team in the nation at the completion of their respective seasons. You can only establish that if you keep team membership the same all the way through nxn. Anything other than this is not a true team championship.

What about schools that are actually a combination of schools? For example, 2-3 smaller schools that combine their sports programs within their athletic association to compete as one team. Or a 'high school' with multiple campuses focusing on different disciplines/pathways. Those situations also wouldn't fit your limited definition.

Scoreboard!!! wrote:

Better rules for a better event wrote:

So it is not a hollow victory if your team is allowed to use a greater pool runners that another team could use, except the rules strictly prevent the other team from using them?

Are you having trouble understanding that concept?

FM's enrollment is less than half of GO's. In fact FM's entire school district from K-12 is the same size as GO's high school. If you want to draw from the same pool of runner then FM ought to be allowed to run any kid from their district at NXN.

Running 7th and 8th graders isn't an issue of being fair to one team or another. The issue is whether or not it's healthy for these pre-pubescent girls to be putting in big training loads to chase a national championship.

People keep bringing up GO as if NXN rules all have to be relative to how they effect GO, and not what is a consistent set of rules, and continue to miss the point because of this fixation. There are bigger and smaller schools in each state. Smaller schools in some states still can not use middle schoolers. There will always be bigger and smaller schools. Smaller ones would be at a enrollment disadvantage. Many smaller schools are in suburban areas where they have a running environment advantage. Trying to solve every difference between high schools is a fool's errand. Best you can do is have a set of rules that everyone follows.

Running 7th and 8th graders isn't an issue if NXN is labeled a "club championship" and nothing more, although it sure seems like every team should be able to use them in that case. If you want to CHANGE NXN (what this thread is about) to a true HIGH SCHOOL championship, then running 7th and 8th graders is an issue, because they don't go to any high school. That is the suggestion, and the impact. It sounds like there is a lot of pushback to that suggestion, so I have no expectation it will happen.

Well, there are 7-8th graders that do attend public high schools. I coached at one, they attended the same school, were in the same building and had the same principal. We were allowed to use them to fill varsity rosters, graduating classes were 95-100 students. Even with them we were at a disadvantage to larger schools. How would these guys complaining about 7-8 graders do with only 50 girls per class?

hp wrote:

Well, there are 7-8th graders that do attend public high schools. I coached at one, they attended the same school, were in the same building and had the same principal. We were allowed to use them to fill varsity rosters, graduating classes were 95-100 students. Even with them we were at a disadvantage to larger schools. How would these guys complaining about 7-8 graders do with only 50 girls per class?

“We were allowed to use them”. This is the point I’d like to make; “using” middle school girls to keep a coaches ego inflated at the expense of long term development and health is not appropriate. It’s not about fairness from one achool to another, the issue with middle schoolers is the severe mental burnout and potential physical health issues.

Sane guy again wrote:

Yep it would be a hollow victory.

The idea of nxn was to determine who is the best high school team in the nation at the completion of their respective seasons. You can only establish that if you keep team membership the same all the way through nxn. Anything other than this is not a true team championship.

>>The idea of nxn was to determine who is the best high school team in the nation at the completion of their respective seasons.

--OK, but the suggestion is to CHANGE "best high school team in the nation" to mean high school runners only, consistently across the nation, not depending on each state's definition. If you want a NATIONAL championship, you should have NATIONAL rules, not state ones.

--You can only establish that if you keep team membership the same all the way through nxn.

No. That is not the only way to do it. The team changes during the season due to injuries, sickness etc, This is just another race where some members may not be able to race. I realize YOU think that this is the best way. It is NOT the only way. The suggestion here is there is another way because we would be changing the purpose of the NXN.

--Anything other than this is not a true team championship.

Well, it is not a true high school championship right now, because there are people representing a school who don't even attend that school. I will give you it is some "club championship", titled NXN, as defined by the people who run it.

Look, this is simply a stating a suggestion on "How to make NXN better". Practically speaking, significant rule changes are difficult. I don't disagree that given the current way high school cross country is run across the nation, the rules used by NXN are a workable solution. This suggestion is how to create a true high school championship, on the basis that many view the current rules as not doing that, with the full realization that others disagree.

At some point, we will have to agree that we disagree on what a "true high school championship" is, otherwise this thread may end up being 1000 pages long of the same arguments over and over.

Getting rid of NXN would make FL a lot better

hp wrote:

Well, there are 7-8th graders that do attend public high schools. I coached at one, they attended the same school, were in the same building and had the same principal. We were allowed to use them to fill varsity rosters, graduating classes were 95-100 students. Even with them we were at a disadvantage to larger schools. How would these guys complaining about 7-8 graders do with only 50 girls per class?

The rules we are talking about are for a national championship race only. Probably not a concern for such a school. If they were somehow good enough to qualify for a national championship my view would be if the area is so sparsely populated that their is no middle school, and high school is for grades 7-12, then they could compete for that school because that is their school. Others might hold firm on 9-12, but not by my definition of a high school team. To a lesser extent, some high schools are 10-12 only still (I think), but we wouldn't make that the national standard.

I fully agree that using ms runners for coaching egos and at the expense of long term success should never happen. However the argument was made that it is unfair to those who cant use them- not because of the potential developmental issues.

hp wrote:

Well, there are 7-8th graders that do attend public high schools. I coached at one, they attended the same school, were in the same building and had the same principal. We were allowed to use them to fill varsity rosters, graduating classes were 95-100 students. Even with them we were at a disadvantage to larger schools. How would these guys complaining about 7-8 graders do with only 50 girls per class?

When I was in highschool, at that time 30 years ago, they allowed students to come back for a "grade 13" if they didnt graduate on time or if they wanted to do some "upgrading". They were basically given an extra year of eligibility and were allowed to participate in sports. If some state's went to that model should those states be allowed to use 13th graders?

My understanding is in Quebec they have a "grade 13" for high school and university is only 3 years, if neighboring New York started including a grade 13 would it then be fair for them to include grade 13s?

Great historical summary. I believe the regional qualifying races were actually instituted in 2007, though. Individuals were included sometime after that, maybe the following year.

Oh? wrote:

Another improvement... wrote:

So you are saying there's no tangible reason whatsoever to put any arbitrary constraints on the at-large bids. Good, we agree.

I don't think they are arbitrary, I think there is a reason and a purpose for them.

Let me ask you, then: what fifth team from any region in the last decade do you feel was CLEARLY better than all but one other potential at-large team?

2008 comes to mind immediately. They took 2 NY girls teams as at-larges, they finished 5th and 8th. The 5th and 6th place teams from the NY regional that year (Shen and East Aurora) were both way better than the two at-larges they took from the South - who took DFL and 2nd-from-DFL.

Same can be said for the NY girls in 2009, and to a lesser extent 2007.

Great Summary wrote:

BMeylan wrote:

Some interesting information ... ... NXN is currently a great event and it’s wonderful for many kids.

Great historical summary. I believe the regional qualifying races were actually instituted in 2007, though. Individuals were included sometime after that, maybe the following year.

Thank you for that correction ... I should have remembered 2007 because one of the Saratoga girls (Hannah Davidson) wanted to run both Foot Locker and the NTN qualifier on the same day ... Hannah was a senior and had qualified for Foot Locker the previous three years ... the Foot Locker race at Van Cortlandt Park was first, and had she qualified and gone through the photo taking and sign-up afterwards, it left about an hour to drive from Van Cortlandt Park to Bowdoin Park (which is possible on a Saturday) ... some time changes made the attempt impossible, so she ran NTN-NY and then finished 4th at NTN Nationals (FM girls won, Saugus CA 2nd, Saratoga 3rd).

Back to making NXN-NXR better ... I'm sure some good suggestions are available such as the regional, logistical ideas mentioned in this thread ... If the best teams are given the opportunity to qualify and win the title of "Who's Number One", then that's mission accomplished ... any ideas that can truly get more of the best teams and individuals in the race is another mission accomplished.

Another improvement... wrote:

Oh? wrote:

I don't think they are arbitrary, I think there is a reason and a purpose for them.

Let me ask you, then: what fifth team from any region in the last decade do you feel was CLEARLY better than all but one other potential at-large team?

2008 comes to mind immediately. They took 2 NY girls teams as at-larges, they finished 5th and 8th. The 5th and 6th place teams from the NY regional that year (Shen and East Aurora) were both way better than the two at-larges they took from the South - who took DFL and 2nd-from-DFL.

Same can be said for the NY girls in 2009, and to a lesser extent 2007.

The reason I said "in the last decade" was because the other regions have been catching up to the NY region. 2008 was more than a decade ago now (the last 10 races were 2009-2018), and was still a time when I feel the rest of the nation was pretty far behind. Torrey Pines CA would be one team that I feel was better than the NY#5 (Shenendehowa), and maybe the Southeast teams have an argument, but Shen probably would have been anywhere from #4 to #6 in terms of potential At-Large teams if you could have gone 5 deep in a region that year. That being said, I'll repeat: I think the rest of the nation has been catching up since then, and that's the last year I think that would have been the case.

In 2009: East Aurora was about 15 seconds behind Shenendehowa and Queensbury at their regional, and about 10 seconds ahead of Bishop Feehan. That would put them somewhere around 19:30 at NXN. Mira Costa CA was an At-Large team that ran 19:30, so that's one team there. Orange Lutheran was 5 seconds behind Mira Costa and 27 seconds behind Saugus, suggesting they would have been somewhere around a 19:25-19:35 as well. Mountain View UT was about 25 seconds behind both Fort Collins and Classical Academy, which would put them anywhere from 19:17 to 19:42 depending on which team ran more average, so that's a second potential team right there. The Southeast #3 team ran a 19:32.7 average, and the Southeast #4 team was only 9 points back at their regional meet, suggesting two more teams that might have been as good or better. Even the #5 Southeast team was right with them. East Aurora wasn't clearly better than any of those 6 teams, which could have put them as far back as the #9 potential At-Large team.

In the last decade, I don't think there's been any #5 team from any region that clearly deserved to be in the field as one of the 4 At-Large selections.

Actually, that would be "anywhere from #4 to #8" for Shenendehowa (the others being #4 and 5 teams from the Southeast, one of whom beat them head to head at Manhattan).