FL/NTN: A plea for sanity

It's looking more like youth soccer or AAU basketball. I'd agree with you on indoors, however most of the country doesn't have an indoor season for high schoolers. Put a petition before me to get rid of indoor track, on ALL levels, and I'd happily sign it. Put one before me to scrap extending any post-season (especially for a team but also for individuals) beyond the state championships (and excepting junior nationals) and I'd sign that, too. For every Hall, Kennedy, Davis, Goucher, Ritz, etc. who has succeeded after, and maybe in spite of, competing at FL and all the other non-sanctioned meets there are two or more who got raced into the ground or burned out or suffered injuries that robbed them of their motivation. The results from past FL championships are testament to that, just take a look for yourself.

my opinion wrote:

Wow, where's that coming from? Seriously, I don't see it the same.

I would argue that having an indoor season (hs or college) has done much more to promote over-racing than Foot Locker or NTN.

FL didn't seem to hurt Hall, Kennedy, Davis, Goucher, Ritz, etc.

A few points

1) Of course a kid is going to choose NTN Nationals over his regional or whatever it is. He's on a team and if his coach says, "We're going to this meet" he's going to go. He doesn't have much choice. I don't think it means that one meet is better than the other.

2) If Nike was just about doing what was best for the runners then they would continue to let a few people from their meet go to FL. (If Footlockers was the one who cut this off then obviously this comment doesn't apply.)

3) The fact you mention the free hat is typical of what I think is kind of wrong with some of the whole process. I've heard kids when they go on a recruiting trip to Oregon are most impressed with all the Nike gear they are going to get. I don't think that is a good reason to choose a college. And same thing with the kids at NTN. Yes they get a ton of free Nike gear but that shouldn't be the reason to go to a meet. Yes its cool they get it. When the border challenge guys came up with a regional national XC championship (which Nike quickly implemented on their own, yes I know some say they were thinking of this beforehand but I don't have a problem with competition) I remember there were coaches asking "will the Border XC guys be giving as much free gear away?") And I'm thinking "this is high school athletics" and that shouldn't be the first thought in people's minds.

4) Perhaps if another shoe company was doing this it would be better received. But I've received too many emails and heard from too many people that clearly think Nike wants THE national championship and they don't like some of their actions. But Nike does have a lot of resources and in the business world of course they are going to use them.

Wejo,

Thank you for dropping in again. I'm glad to be having a relatively intelligent discussion here on these boards.

The hat--as one girl who got one put it, "Wow, I had to pay $20 for one like this at Foot Locker!" Between giving away a hat that costs $2 or $3 to make vs. charging $20 for it, I think Nike's plan takes the morally higher ground. Yes, they do it figuring they'll get it all back in brand loyalty. I understand this is business with Nike, but they do seem to understand the business they're in. It's not that all the other running-related corporations couldn't have done this had they wanted to. By the way, I'm a coach and I wasn't supposed to have gotten a hat by design, but by the time the hats arrived, some of the athletes had left and the circle of distribution seemed to get a little wider at that point.

It's not just that Nike has the resources, it's that they have the savvy to see this will pay off for them in the end. What should they do? Should they be stupid about business because their competitors aren't as quick to see opportunity? This isn't a good reason for people to hate Nike.

Entry fees are a little higher for NTN, so doubtless that helps them to be able to do things like give away hats. Of course, the cost to get there is less because the NTN regionals are closer than FL regionals for about 90% of the country. Foot Locker had years and years of opportunity to create more regionals and put them on better dates (believe me, both were suggested--Thanksgiving weekend is bad for several big reasons), but they dug their feet in on this issue.

Anyhow, as for our team... nobody was compelled to go to NTN. It was a team choice, not mine. I presented the options (including calling it done after the state meet) and they made their choices. Was there some peer pressure? Probably, but any who wanted to do Foot Locker could do that, too. I told them NTN meant extra weeks of training--it would conflict with the start of winter sports for some of them. They chose to go and, I believe, they chose largely on the basis of having an opportunity to do something like this *with their teammates*. We committed to going before we had an invitation to a regional championship race. A large percentage of the successful high school teams get pretty close to one another. I don't think many kids are getting lassoed and dragged off to these NTN meets.

I trust that answers some of your questions.

They also chose because they had stars in their eyes. You should have brought in the parents and let them make the vote. And the hats (and whatever other gear they got) are also about advertising, as the kids will surely wear them to spring track meets and returning team members will wear them to xc meets next fall. The more swooshes that are before more sets of eyes the better. For pretty much all other shoe companies, it just isn't an "opportunity". This is targeting a niche market. Nike has the luxury of taking a scattershot approach to marketing. Who else does? I doubt that any do.

my opinion wrote:

Not a team sport?! I think you missed the boat somewhere along the way.

You can score a meet as a team but you do not need a team to compete in xc. In baseball, you need nine players. In basketball, you need 5 players. In football, you need 11 players. If you don't have the minimum number, you do not play.

In xc, you need 5 to score as a team but individuals can run if you don't have the minimum number. In track, the best individuals go to the state meet. They can score those individuals as a team, but what about the other 40 members of that "team" who were not allowed to compete?

That being said, I always enjoyed being on a team. Whether I was on a good or bad team though had no effect on how I ran as an individual.

be responsible. wrote:

They also chose because they had stars in their eyes. You should have brought in the parents and let them make the vote.

That's exactly what we did. I had the boys and their parents in a room and we decided whether the extra month worth of running was something they wanted to commit to. I did not coach them for that month because of our association rules. It was their choice.

Nike did not pay my way to Oregon, either.

Footlocker representitives were very very very passionate that they were not going anywhere at a meeeting with parents and coaches. And having been there with Nike's support and this year without....It was the same. Same free stuff, same professonal speakers (Ryan Hall) and others, same things paid for for the atheletes. Would never know that there was ever a problem. I for one was very happy to see the level of excellence maintained. It is a great event and will be around for a long time. Next years date is already set for Dec. 13th.

be responsible. wrote:

They also chose because they had stars in their eyes. You should have brought in the parents and let them make the vote. And the hats (and whatever other gear they got) are also about advertising, as the kids will surely wear them to spring track meets and returning team members will wear them to xc meets next fall. The more swooshes that are before more sets of eyes the better. For pretty much all other shoe companies, it just isn't an "opportunity". This is targeting a niche market. Nike has the luxury of taking a scattershot approach to marketing. Who else does? I doubt that any do.

Translation: I came into this discussion with a pre-established, passionate dislike of Nike.

It's easy to hate the big guy, but guess how the big guy got there. That's right, better marketing. You know and I know that shoe companies aren't about underpricing the competition.

You're kidding about giving parents the vote, right? If kids with stars in their eyes is a problem, that somehow gets better by putting the decision primarily on the parents?!

Hate? How did you come up with such a stupid conclusion? I issued no value judgment on Nike's ability to do what it does, not even through implication. I was simply recognizing some facts on Nike's ability to do certain things compared to its competition's ability to do them. You, on the other hand, must have a pre-established, passionate love of Nike to take such an unprovoked defensive stance.

1) Of course kids have a choice and there were teams that chose not to participate in regionals because some team members decided to compete in other events, move on to a winter sport, etc. In the vast majority of cases where a team had a chance to qualify for nationals, I would guess that the team members WANTED to participate in NTN.

2) Nike didn't prevent runners from moving on to Foot Locker.

3) Of course it shouldn't be about free gear, but that's true at any level - high school or college. My guess is that most D1 athletes at any 'sponsored' school get far more gear than these kids get at NTN. Free gear at NTN is an extra, just as it is for Foot Locker. Ultimately, it should be about the race and I'd bet that's the case in most instances.

4) I would agree that Nike wants "THE national championship," but I'm also convinced they were ready to make a long-term partnership with Foot Locker, but FL has wanted to maintain it's individual format and has shown no interest in a team format. As you mentioned, there's nothing wrong with competition, so why is Nike at fault for proceeding with their idea of a team and individual championship, especially if they were ready to make this a joint event with Foot Locker?

In the end, if you're not against post-season for high school kids, what's not to like about NTN?

Okay, I can grant the possibility that I read more into your response than was intended. But, help me understand--"they did" seems to be saying that Nike is doing nothing more than engaging in a little free market capitalism that any other corporate entity could engage in if they wanted to. His or her post implies that people seem to hate Nike for this kind of activity. Your response to that was that Nike enjoys corporate luxuries, like scattershot marketing, that other shoe companies don't.

To my ears, that sounds a lot like the sort of cheap shot Nike takes all the time. Like Microsoft, they are a big target and big targets are easy. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I fail to see how Nike has any more ability to scattershot market than any other shoe company and, if they do, it would be only because they were quicker to see an opportunities and capitalize on them. I've been to meets and races where Brooks, Ascis, Mizuno, and Adidas have had promotional giveaways. What's different about these companies doing it versus Nike doing it? Why is it "scattershot marketing" when Nike does it and niche marketing when the others do it? Your implication would appear to be that we should interpret Nike's intentions differently than we judge other shoe companies' intentions for doing the same thing. That doesn't have to be a cheap shot, but if you don't mean it that way, you should tell us why it's different for different corporations.

I am not, as you say, an apologist for Nike. I am, however, an apologist for free market capitalism. I'm glad Nike is around, but I'm also glad the other shoe companies are around. I have Nike, Saucony, and Brooks shoes in my closet. Competition between these entities makes things better for all of us.

"UNLESS you are playing a team sport which xc is not."

...really?

Summary: it is what it is. Some of my neighbors can afford to own and drive Porsches while I and other neighbors cannot, at least if we want to be smart with our finances and not overextend ourselves into debt and possibly bankruptcy. For a good majority of its competitors it would be some level of recklessness to market to a niche the way that Nike has with distance running. Investment vs. return. Opportunity cost. Basic economics.

Trust me, Katie'a fine. I saw her at school today and although she's a pretty quiet and very modest person, she can handle things especially when she's got Betsy and her family, with molly and annie, very cute and and molly has passed the 8 mile marker and she's in first grade. :D