Has NXN gone too far?

What your arguing though is that it doesnt ruin NXN, which I think is just a spectacle (which may or may not be a fabulous experience for the kids). But if its only about the kids' experience and not the race, lets just make this another invitational. I would argue that this particular course it does ruin a true national championship. Just stick the meet on a natural course, not the infield of a horse track.

crosscountryenthusiast wrote:

What your arguing though is that it doesnt ruin NXN, which I think is just a spectacle (which may or may not be a fabulous experience for the kids). But if its only about the kids' experience and not the race, lets just make this another invitational. I would argue that this particular course it does ruin a true national championship. Just stick the meet on a natural course, not the infield of a horse track.

How did the course ruin a true national championship in 2008, 2009 and 2011 (and 2007 IMO)?

How many kids were far off their usual compared to the usual in this type of circumstance (past the peak for the majority of teams, many traveling a long distance to compete on a course they might not have a good feel for, running against a level/depth of competition they haven't seen all year if ever, etc.)? I'd say not many in all those years except 2010 and 2012, which is why I think the only change that needs to be considered is an alternate course for years when it would be ridiculous conditions. Nothing wrong with a little mud, and nothing wrong with a loop course that has man made moguls and hay bales...

First of all what people should realize is that the layout of the course at Portland Meadows is what 99% of the world does for XC. Go to most World XC meets and you will see teh layout is very much liek Portland Meadows. It is the USA that runs fake made up courses runing up crazy hills.

Course layouts liek PM make it a great spectator event where you are able to watch large sections of the race with little movement.

Courses in the NE that people seem to be in love with as real XC (Holmdel & VCP to name two) are the worst when it comes to watching a race. You see them start and you see them finish you have pretty much zero idea of what went on during the real racing.

PM has many great points to it - tons of parking, easy to get to from major highway, indoor seating(I really don't think anybody really does that), and of course you can follow the flow of the race.

Those who come on this and other boards demanding that Nike move the race to another site in the USA are kidding themselves. In case you don't know the Nike HQ is in the Portland area and with all the parts of the event that they use the Beaverton HQ for it will NEVER move from the greater Portland area and why should they move it.

It seems the mud at PM this year more than others have upset people. I was there it was bad, but it was bad for all involved. Why did it seem to effect the exoected top 4 individuals in the boys race then others I don't know. Did it have an impact on the boys scoring? We will never know.

My issue with the event this year was not the mud or the failure of the top boy individual to wage a great battle to the wire - there was just a different vibe all day at the event compared to past year (I have been to almost every NXN (NTN) Championships - NO I am not connected with Nike or the running of the event in anyway ). It felt thsi year more than ever like a huge marketing effort that had a small running event tagged onto it instead of as in the past a national championship race put on my Nike. This year it felt like it was all about selling how Nike elites did in London and the "Nike Experience" and not about the races.

Just 1 fools thoughts

version 2.7 wrote:

My issue with the event this year was not the mud or the failure of the top boy individual to wage a great battle to the wire - there was just a different vibe all day at the event compared to past year (I have been to almost every NXN (NTN) Championships - NO I am not connected with Nike or the running of the event in anyway ). It felt thsi year more than ever like a huge marketing effort that had a small running event tagged onto it instead of as in the past a national championship race put on my Nike. This year it felt like it was all about selling how Nike elites did in London and the "Nike Experience" and not about the races.

Just 1 fools thoughts

Saturday at NXN seemed very typical to me, just a lot more mud than usual. Maybe I missed something, but how was the "vibe" more about Nike elites? There are always a number of elites present, but it didn't seem very different than usual with the exception that some elites in the past have done a better job of interviewing kids. Amd what is the "Nike Experience?" Not trying to be a smart a**, just asking.

Not at all the thoughts of a fool. I concur at almost every point.

In the end, my issue is a little different than yours, but the thoughts along the way are pretty similar.

I think mud is part of the Nike marketing effort, but--while the chance at a demolition derby in the mud does do something to attract some people--the appeal of that part of the marketing effort has reached its saturation point. At this point the mud factor is hurting Nike's effort to build a true national championship more than it is helping it. And Nike can't seem to let it go (as evidenced by the interviews of the teams following the races where they pushed for rave reviews of the course and mud).

Bottom line, mud is a gimmick that appeals to some and not to others. The some is a smaller group than the others.

On the team level, NXN probably won't be hurt until and unless there's an alternative. On an individual level, I expect a substantial swing of individuals back to FL next year. If I'm an 18-year-old kid with any kind of shot at the national title, I'd a lot rather take my chances and have my high school cross country career end up on the Balboa Park course than take my chances with what Portland Meadows will be like on the first Saturday in December.

At the end of the season, a lot more of your top talent wants to go fast than wants to get muddy.

Someone else made the point that if mud at NXN is such a good idea, then why not go for as muddy of courses as possible at the regional meets. That's a good question. Maybe because the regional meets are contracted out and the people hosting those for Nike actually have a need not to lose money on those events?

[/quote]

Saturday at NXN seemed very typical to me, just a lot more mud than usual. Maybe I missed something, but how was the "vibe" more about Nike elites? There are always a number of elites present, but it didn't seem very different than usual with the exception that some elites in the past have done a better job of interviewing kids. Amd what is the "Nike Experience?" Not trying to be a smart a**, just asking.[/quote]

This year more then ever I heard over and over again when the kids were interviewed what they thought about the Nike Experience.

In thinking about it more I have been trying to figure out why it did not feel like championship race and i think now I have it. It was the mud but not in the way everyone in complaining about.

It is difficult enough at NXN to follow the the race since the runners are wearing uniforms in colors and design you are not used to seeing them in. That makes it hard enough on a good day (and I know and understand why they have to wear those uniforms and that is fine). But with the mud being so bad teh uniforms were covered and numbers unable to read before they hit the mile point so now it was impossible to really get a feel for how the race was playing out.

It is great that Nike and the other shoe companies put on these elite events and 100% of the crowd will be happy with the outcome. It is just interesting how this year there seems to be a bigger/longer discussion about the event.

Call me crazy but I love to run on flat firm courses in good weather. I think fast courses are good and allow for athletes to worry about racing each other and not the course. A great example of this is when the Arcadia guy who got second was spending the entire race running on the outside and trying to find firm ground. He was not spending all of his energy racing against the guy in first he was trying to beat the terrible course conditions.

It is pretty simple. Forget what happened this year. Nike needs to change courses. The spectator and convenience advantages are outweighed by the course's propensity to deteriorate. The idea of NXN is revolutionary and quite frankly something I wish was around when I was in HS but in order to improve it needs to move.

i have been out to oregon back when the meet was ntn and have watched the webcasts when possible over the past few years.

in most cases in regards to the mud i typically say deal with it and adjust, it isn't that bad and you can run in it (we had a muddy year)

this year it seemed over the top and perhaps it was just because the results seemed skewed from what was expected and that it reduced the ability to follow the race with the teams but that brings up another point for me

i tuned into the race because to me nxn still represents the team national championship and i was curious how teams from my home state would fare. i logged in a few minutes before the start and had to wait 8 minutes for the first mention of the team race aside from team splits briefly at the check points. it seems like they have completely focused in on the individual portion of the race. i understand those are the better runners typically but the tag line for this meet used to be giving those runners who were on good teams a chance for recognition. they had (still have?) the anchor award for the top 5th men. the feed used to pan through the runners and follow runners in the pack much more often this year you hardly saw anyone but the front pack and had no sense of the team race outside of the split scores.

this isn't meant to be negative i think it is a great event and that nike does a ton for the sport. it was one of the greatest experiences of my life to be able to out there. and people are correct not a chance this meet leaves portland and it shouldn't because that is a great part of the experience. but if individuals are going to be a major focal point and be heralded as individual national champions then a new course should be found.

been there loved it wrote:

it seems like they have completely focused in on the individual portion of the race.

I thought they were spending too much time on the teams, 5th runners, mid and back of the pack. Even though it's a team race, I found that part of it very boring and mundane, kind of like watching nbc cover distance running. But then, nx is supposed to be a team race, afterall.

I think the event will continue to be a dud as long as nike tries to make it both things; but if they focus on having solely a team race, and don't accept individuals unless they're on one of those teams, then the meet might have more novelty significance than it does.

Individuals can run at Footlocker, as they always have done.

It would be very annoying to have the individual race mixed up with various teams. By the way, how do you account for some of top runners having their teammates help them, i.e. they could take out the competition etc. At WCCC, all the runners have their teams there. That's not the case at nx. The message here is to not mix the races together!

version 2.7 wrote:

First of all what people should realize is that the layout of the course at Portland Meadows is what 99% of the world does for XC. Go to most World XC meets and you will see teh layout is very much liek Portland Meadows...

...Nike HQ is in the Portland area and with all the parts of the event that they use the Beaverton HQ for it will NEVER move from the greater Portland area and why should they move it...

About the course - really, including championship races, 99% of courses are like PM? So Worlds (championships) over say the last 10 years, 8 or 9/10 were basically small, flat loops capable of being flooded over much of it? I'm ignorant of the courses used for Worlds, but I'd like to see if you can point me to where I can take a look at the course maps or the like to verify that. It seems doubtful championship level racing is over courses that could be flooded like PM.

As to moving to a different part of US, I agree, as long as Nike's hq is in Portland, race'll likely be nearby, as it should be. But it seems there must be better or even adequate courses nearby, too.

I'm no expert on international XC courses, but it seems like the ones I've seen have been mostly loop courses in muddy conditions and often including either hay bales or something similar as an additional obstacle to the course. May not be flooded, and may not be as flat as the inside of a horse track, but they are courses that favor strength over speed (unlike many US cross country courses).

No matter how you cut the nut, NXN was a complete disaster this year. Anyone who argues differently is either associated with one of the "winners" or affiliated with Nike. There are possible exceptions, but not many. 2012 NXN was no more a national XC championship than a mud wrestling exhibition would determine the nation's best high school wrestlers. Sure, there were a few like Baxter who are just so strong and ahead of the class that they were able to overcome the horrible conditions offered this past year, but most of the runners were not. A bad start or any other single misstep ended many of the runners chances since the course prevented runners from making moves in congestion. As several posters have stated, the runners were just concerned about staying upright and that is unfortunate for the vast majority of the runners. Time will tell and maybe everyone will forget about NXN2012 next year, but from what I witnessed and from what I've heard from others who were there, this year's conditions reduced the likelihood NXN will ever take over Footlocker as hosting a real national championship race.

Enough with the hyperbole. Yes, the mud was over the top, but it happens. There have been plenty of US championships and World championships run in unreal mud. The strongest teams and individuals surfaced at the top. Maybe it is time that Nike considers a different location in the Portland area, but Nike's event is doing quite well. Regional participation was at an all-time high and many of the nation's top individuals continue to choose mud over sunny San Diego.

Here is the weather for the last two weeks or so. It actually was relative dry from the 24th through the 28th and then rained some.

22 50 35 43 -2 22 0 0.00

23 53 42 48 3 17 0 1.12

24 53 38 46 2 19 0 0.20

25 50 38 44 0 21 0 0.00

26 51 40 46 2 19 0 0.00

27 47 35 41 -3 24 0 0.00

28 46 38 42 -1 23 0 0.04

29 46 42 44 1 21 0 0.29

30 61 44 53 10 12 0 0.54

1 54 46 50 7 15 0 0.54

2 51 47 49 7 16 0 0.36

3 54 48 51 9 14 0 0.23

4 57 47 52 10 13 0 1.02

Because they run two races there, the second is muddy much of the time. How many loops do they run. If they are going 3 loops, then by the last one, they have raced over that section 6 times, plus any prints put on reviewing the course.

It makes for an 'interesting' race, but does not particularly make for a good race. Since they are running on terrain that they never really race on elsewhere (the rollers and hay bales) and lack real hills, different people will adjust better than others. Thus, it tells us less about who are the better runners.

NCAA rejected this course because of the betting angle, but the course was probably a problem as well. Can you imagine a 6 km race and then a 10km race after the athletes had previewed the course. And, of course, those hay bales are out. College coaches do not want their athletes injured during the races.

watchout wrote:

I'm no expert on international XC courses, but it seems like the ones I've seen have been mostly loop courses in muddy conditions and often including either hay bales or something similar as an additional obstacle to the course. May not be flooded, and may not be as flat as the inside of a horse track, but they are courses that favor strength over speed (unlike many US cross country courses).

I'm no expert either, that's why I asked the one who commented about 99.9% of the world's xc courses.

Thanks, but I'm not asking mainly about loops or loops w/obstacles, but flat and potentially flooded loops like PM.

mfrank wrote:

I'm no expert either, that's why I asked the one who commented about 99% of the world's xc courses.

Sorry. Fixed.

Loops yes

mud - depends on where it was - Belgium (yes), Edinburgh (Yes), Spain (no), France (they built a mud pit and did water it down), Onsteed (VERY VERY muddy), Dublin (mud), Belfast (Mud)

was water pumped onto teh above courses to make mud? Only in France was it. All courses are 2k loop as per IAAF rules - just like what most USATF courses are

version 2.7 wrote:

Loops yes

mud - depends on where it was - Belgium (yes), Edinburgh (Yes), Spain (no), France (they built a mud pit and did water it down), Onsteed (VERY VERY muddy), Dublin (mud), Belfast (Mud)

was water pumped onto teh above courses to make mud? Only in France was it. All courses are 2k loop as per IAAF rules - just like what most USATF courses are

So sounds like possibly 1/7 (Onsteed) as being basically flat and capable of being mostly flooded. I'm not asking about mud or mud pit(s) on the course.

I don't believe Nike has ever pumped water onto the course at PM.