The day cross country died?

Ed Smallwood wrote:

an older guy wrote:

The college/high school seasons are Oct.-Nov., but the international XC season is Dec.-Mar. (look at the picture on the front page). Having a February XC championship is far from absurd. In my opinion, the December meet (US Champs or Club race) should be kicking off a mini-season in the US concluding with the Trials in February.

Problem is, we have an indoor season so collegians won't be part of a Dec.- March XC season.

The system worked fine for us when Nats were on Thanksgiving weekend and the World XC Trials were in Feb. But since it wasn't broke they had to fix it.

There are enough elites and sub-elites to fill fields. A team aspect would be a good idea because then more than JUST the winner of the race "matters". Knowing how to watch an XC team race makes it more exciting.

Chips with the scores coming up at intervals (like at the Nike Team Nats) would be a great addition.

Loop courses- yes for easy viewing but make it hilly if possible.

Go to youtube and look for World XC in, I think 82 or 83 in England with Salazar, DeCastella, Bekele, Prieto, etc. Multi loop, serpentine, hilly course. Great race that was on TV!

asdfasdf wrote:

I'm warming up to the idea of a short pro circuit in Oct/Nov/Dec, culminating in USA Cross. But USATF can't be trusted to put it on. They'd f**k it up, just like everything else. No, it'd have to be some other group.

Cross country meets are pretty easy to put on. All you need is a decent venue, some runners, and a prize purse and you'll get runners to show up. Big question: Should a pro circuit have a team component to it (i.e. would there be prize money for, say, the top 3 teams of 5? Asics aggies vs. Nike farm team vs. Indiana elite, etc.?), or just be a field of individuals.

Having a team component would certainly make the races bigger.

------------------

Oh yes, pretty easy to put on. Who is going to put up the prize purse??

There's no money in it.

It is obvious that XC or any sport trying to reinvent itself needs to be a money-maker, not a money pit.

So the answer is to make it more like the pro cycling model. Team-based with sponsors' names plastered over everything. Yes, it turns into a day-glo sh*tstorm of ugliness, but the sponsors get their name out and the athletes get paid. Both of those are more important points that the design of uniforms.

A circuit of events where sponsored teams of 7-9 athletes with 4-6 scoring points could work, especially if the pro races were matched with club/open races for the general running public.

I think we'd all like to see the OTC (probably not the Oregon Project or Schumacher's group) go up against the Hansen's and the McMillan team in a set circuit of events. Maybe there could even be amateur, semi-pro, or minor leagues where teams could get promoted/demoted depending on performance.

Anyway, the main barrier to this kind of contemporary financial arrangement is that the USATF and the IAAF rules that limit sponsorship. I don't know how to break their corrupt hold on the sport, since they control the Olympic and WC selection and Olympics and WC are the ticket to sponsorship dollars today. They artificially reduce the amount of money that is available to athletes in order to keep their hold on their cut of the current pie.

****Extended TL:DR version****

Maybe the Kenyans are showing us the way out of the current problem. Since their is such a log-jam of talent at the top of Kenyan running and Olympic/WC berths are limited to 3 max (or 4 w/ returning WC champ) some have opted out of track events and focused on road races / marathons where they can make a living without having to play politics. For some of these runners, they can still make money without having to play the national team selection politics game.

Maybe if cross country took a page out of road racing or even morphed into a kind of sponsored team road racing event, then they could bypass the corruption in USATF and find a way to inject more money into the sport and allow more athletes to make a living. Sure, the top elites, the men and women who make Olympic teams wouldn't go there, but what about the guys and women who finish 4th-20th at the US Nats? What if they could make a living competing in team XC / Road Running? For those who fear the dark-skinned menace, perhaps rules like some leagues have limiting the number of non-citizens on each team could be implemented? A maximum of 3 non-citizens per 9 person team?

This was ridiculous

http://www.iaaf.org/Mini/cros12/News/NewsDetail.aspx?id=63296

You had a senior mens race over 3km and you also had a senior mens race over 8km. They got some good guys out there but why did they have to separate them? If they had combined the races it would have been much more entertaining for the spectators.

When I first got into athletic administration I was appalled at the lack of concern for events, for history and for promotion. Cross country in the US epitomizes this attitude. Why shouldn't the best distance runners in the country all be in one place, on all levels, on one weekend, in the late fall? I'm talking open masters and high school. The young kids should have a look at the best open athletes we have to offer and use that as an inspiration. With FL, NXN, Junior Olympics, Junior nationals, Club Nationals, NCAA, and World Trials all at different venues, it's no wonder the sport is a mess. There should be two races, the NCAA's followed a week or maybe 12 days later, by all other groups with collegiate athletes included.

Greed is the disease that has ruined the sport. A bad case of indoor track doesn't help.

Everywhere in the world the nationals are a few weeks before the World Championships.

Spectators would probably enjoy a shorter cross country race. Why go beyond 10K. Actually I think 5 miles would be better.

In addition STOP using metric distances in track and cc in america. We need the mile run, and 100 yard dash.

Recipocrity wrote:

Everywhere in the world the nationals are a few weeks before the World Championships.

Not true. Europe and Northern Africa are not everywhere.

runn wrote:

lane 8 wrote:

When will the Kenyans take up CC skiing? Shouldn't they completely dominate this sport also? Did the Scandinavians kill CC skiing as they almost always dominate this?

I'd love to see what the Kenyans could do if giving an opportunity in CC skiing.

Cross-Country skiing as a spectator sport or as a world wide sport is nowhere near what distance running is. In Europe major marathons are major sports events.

Cross country skiing is huge in Europe. 100,000 to 200,000 watching sprints in Dusseldorf, 50,000 to 100,000 in Norway to watch races there.

The year the US's top pros decided not to go and represent their country. This set the presence for future runners to opt-out of this meet.

Recipocrity wrote:

Everywhere in the world the nationals are a few weeks before the World Championships.

The US isn't everywhere. In the US XC is a fall sport. Any solution that doesn't work with that fact is doomed to failure.

Ed Smallwood wrote:

Recipocrity wrote:

Everywhere in the world the nationals are a few weeks before the World Championships.

The US isn't everywhere. In the US XC is a fall sport. Any solution that doesn't work with that fact is doomed to failure.

I agree but a winter season would be good for distance runners, indoor track for sprinters and mi-distance.

I remember when indoor track was more popular- more meets with a lot of spectators- they were like mid-distance festivals with events like 400,500/600, 800 Mile all in the same meet.