It's time to have ONE national championship.

Runners CAN'T wear their school uniforms at FL or Nike. Some do and if someone calls them on it they'll be done.

I can't imagine calling someone on it but it's a stupid chance to take.

Morons like you have been repeating the same line every single year in the hopes that it will turn out to be true. Admit it, you're shocked that FL hasn't yielded to the Almighty Nike and in fact are easily coming out no worse than a draw with them when looking at multiple years on the girls and boys side since this whole split happened. It goes without saying that FL will easily be the more competitive place to be this year on the guys side for the big dogs.

It's time for Nike and their sycophants to concede that they're not quite as great as they think they are.

First, I'm not a moron.

Second- I'm telling you the truth. I really don't understand why we can't have both in one race and why FL doesn't accept teams.

XC is individual AND team- have both just like any state meet or invitational does.

Third- I've talked to kids who've been to both and they liked Nike better BUT they were on teams that went.

I talked to two individuals who went to Nike and they both loved it.

One individual who went to FL and loved it.

The difference is in the regional race.

The FL NE race is just a race- nothing special

The Nike NY/NE race is a big affair.

I've been to both, my runners have been to both.

FL NE went downhill when Nike pulled out.

I don't care who sponsors it, I want ONE National Championship with team and individual.

In NY kids will choose the one they think they have the best shot at, unless they're just going to extend their season, then they choose Nike for the atmosphere.

wow...your guys seems special. lolMost people on any team believe this. Track is an individual and a team sport. Golf and tennis teams in HS score points based on individual performances just like in XC.Baseball players don't not go to the pros because their teammates can't come with them.

runn wrote:

XC isn't just a team sport any more than tennis is at the HS level. Yet they have individual tournaments.

Don't tell the runners on my team that. Our tradition is the team and everyone contributes by working hard to push everyone to be better.

My top runner (who has a shot at Nationals) credits his team for making him better. He has told newspaper and TV reporters this.

I don't know of any HS sport with any sort of true "National Champion". I would not expect XC to be any different.

watchoutxcrankings wrote:

I agree that Dressel can improve, and could run better at FLN than he did at WA State... but

For not working for Nike, you sure do give a good impression of it, and sad you feel the need to chop high school kids down just for making their own choices.

George Atlas wrote:

What would be best is if you had the top teams in the country from each region selected and run a team championship the third weekend of November. Just take the top 20 teams in the country after their state meets. Pick them

Then the next weekend have the Footlocker Individual regionals.

Two weeks later have the top individuals race.

California's State Meet is always Thanksgiving weekend (4th weekend of Nov), and CA athletes can't compete in non-HS competitions during their HS season - which throws a wrench into any kind of national postseason scheduling.

random3 wrote:

Until kids can put on their school uniforms to run at NXN its like a glorified USATF or Hershey meet with lots of Nike swag.

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water. My state doesn't allow kids to wear school uniforms at footlocker regionals, does a uniform make a runner?

Do you still fell the same knowing this?

stripes of a zebra wrote:

We will have a definitive boys champ - the winner of footlocker. If Anderson chooses not to partake then he is forgoing any claims to the national champion crown.

this. /thread

I was in the top 5 of number 6 men on the team in a 100 mile radius. So as much as I'd like to run with my team, I'd like out top guy to duke it out for individual glory. Which is what he's doing now.

bloob wrote:

I was in the top 5 of number 6 men on the team in a 100 mile radius. So as much as I'd like to run with my team, I'd like out top guy to duke it out for individual glory. Which is what he's doing now.

I hope you are the top guy, because you certainly aren't getting any academic scholarships for college.

But. . . wrote:

I like what you said, but Nike doesn't want that. They want their national championship to be THE national championship. As much as people on LRC say it, NXN is not yet of the same caliber as Footlocker up front. Fisher was better than Wilmot; Cheserek than Wharton; Cheserek than Futsum; Verzbicas than Lutz; etc. However, Nike has more money and better marketing and swag. In time, they're just going to outmuscle Footlocker, and there will be a single national championship. Until then, give Footlocker its due. Right now, it is the best individual national championship.

I don't know if Fisher was better than Wilmot or not, but Wilmot was faster - both in absolute and comparative terms - than Fisher last year. Cheserek WAS better than Wharton and Futsum (he was able to run both, and got edged by Cheserek in a good race), I agree. Verzbicas was a double winner, but yes the year he didn't run NXN he was faster than Lutz - not surprising FLN was faster that year, as it was only the second year of the NXN individual qualifiers and the top six were all juniors...

I imagine the Wilmot vs. Fisher discussion is questionable towards my opinion, but just to back up my point rather quickly: in the four years where NXN had good conditions (2008, 2009, 2011 and 2013), 36 athletes competed at both FLN and NXN - their times were essentially the same at both meets (0.04% slower taking out the 4 statistical outliers, or 0.04% faster without removing the outliers). If you don't include 2011 (understandable, as there was some mud that year), there were 27 athletes that competed at both and their times were, on average, slightly faster at NXN (0.17% faster if you take out the 2 statistical outliers, or 0.53% faster if you don't). Wilmot ran 15:00, and using the above %s that means anywhere from 14:59-15:05 at FLN. Fisher won in 15:07. This is further backed up by looking at how close Dressel was to Fisher, and how close Dressel was to Anderson throughout the year (and throughout his career). For more on that, see this post I made earlier this year:

(summary: Anderson vs. Dressel was tied at 8-8 going into this fall and 7-7 when they were within 2% of eachother's times with average XC times only 3 seconds apart). I have no idea who would have won between Wilmot and Fisher if they faced off at 5k that December - anyone OBJECTIVE would probably say the same. And that's why it would be a great thing if Fisher doubled this year, because he can, and because Anderson is looking awfully good as well and if he doesn't run NXN but wins FLN, there will always be that question of if he really was better than that other guy that he never faced.

No one is saying NXN has always been as strong or stronger up front for either gender. You'd have to be blind not to see the trends, though. FLN has maintained a shrinking edge for the very top athletes (the national title favorites), kept a pretty event split of the top 15 type athletes, and has been losing pretty heavily on the #20-50 type athletes. Most CA athletes have opted for NXN over FLN (not surprising, as that means one less race and they don't have to risk not qualifying if they have an off day - ask Finn what that's like); most years, the majority of the top NW and SW athletes have opted for NXN over FLN. Texas athletes go NXN en masse. Non-Michigan/Wisconsin athletes have either doubled or favored NXN (though most WI athletes have joined the club and had good attendance at NXN-HL this year). Northeast athletes have been very split with I think a slight edge (mostly due to the power programs in NY/NJ) goes to NXN. The only region that seems like a FLN lean for the majority is the Southeastern states (and Michigan). To be clear, I'm not talking about just the national title contenders (as I already mentioned in this post, FLN has often had a slight but shrinking edge in that demographic) but rather all the national caliber athletes. To continue saying that NXN doesn't get the same caliber of athletes as FLN is like putting fingers in your ears and saying, over and over unless everyone agrees with you, "Footlocker is better, Nike is a joke, I'm not listening to you because Footlocker has tradition and NXN fans are just corporate shills!" ... BOTH events have had national title caliber athletes (with NXN gradually pulling even if not ahead in some years), BOTH events have had about the same amount of All-American caliber athletes, and BOTH events have had a good share of the top 50/60/70/80 athletes (with NXN having the edge most years in that group).

tl;dr - no one was saying all NXN athletes are better than all FLN athletes; both meets have been great, and will be great once again this year.

Fischer doesn't need to go race Anderson - he is going to the national championship, again, to race the best in the country. Anderson or Wilmot should/have raced Fischer if they wanted to prove they were the best. One championship race being statistically insignificantly faster than another doesn't mean squat. Wilmot lost at the state meet last year, too. And then Maton (3rd at Footlocker) beat him, Anderson, De La Rosa, etc. at BUPA Great Edinburgh XC. It's pretty easy to objectively say that Fischer was the best runner last year.

Your contention that "BOTH events have had national title caliber athletes (with NXN gradually pulling even if not ahead in some years)" is absolutely false, no matter how many times you re-post it. There have been 0 years where NXN has been better, and this year, like most, Footlocker clearly will have the better field.

This all speaking to they boys - I don't follow girls cross country.

Lot's of wonderful information.

With respect to time comparison of each course... If you have been to both courses... better yet run or jogged both courses, reality would hit you in the chest, legs etc. much differently on the Footlocker course. Apart from years when Portland was wet, muddy and very slow due to weather conditions, it is a very flat course with man-made small rollers (that can zap the legs somewhat), course time comparison is a silly exercise. Balboa Park on the other hand IS very hilly, with multiple hills and curves, different footing (dirt, grass, roots, sidewalks with mats) limited flat sections, side hill and is a two loop course with a monster hill. Granted, one can count on better weather at San Diego than Portland (seems compelling to me) and does provide greater consistency of time comparison at that course.

Last year the Portland course was in great shape (hard, dry) the temperature was cold but on a relatively flat course the set-up was perfect for very fast running.

This year who ever wins NXN will be the new course record holder. Who ever wins Footlocker will be the National Individual Cross Country Champion.

There HAS been a definitive national championship for 30 years or so. Ask Marc Davis. Ask Ritz. Ask Bob Kennedy. Ask Reina. Nike throwing money and monkey wrenches into the mix is nothing but offensive.

That you are trying to use 25 individuals who have run on both courses in "good conditions" to make a statistical comparison between the two is laughable. Just thought I would chime in on that. Also, good competitors usually produces good races, so a weaker field on an easier course could have comparable times to a better field on a difficult course, making the courses seem similar in difficulty when they really aren't!

I don't know how seriously to even take your post if you can't spell the name of the kid you're trying to promote as being the best... but, regardless, I'll make one last post on letsrun:

Maton won BorderClash (where Dressel did race him) and FLW. It's not that surprising that a guy that smashed Dressel at BorderClash and beat him at FLW would beat those guys - he was better than his 3rd place showing at FLN would suggest. Furthermore, he had the same time in that 6k race as Tanner Anderson (19:16) and only 5 seconds faster than Wilmot (19:21) and 7 ahead of DeLaRosa (19:23). Again, hardly surprising for a guy that was better than Dressel. If we were talking about who was the best in the Northwest for the season, Maton would have a GREAT argument for #1. Anderson would probably have the best argument for #2, and it would be between Wilmot and Dressel for who would be #3 (and that would depend on what you cared about more - performance at post-season meets, consistency during the season, PRs to date, or head to head score).

One championship race running similarly to another was meant to show that the courses run similarly fast, despite what proponents of one meet or the other repeatedly say. And, given that they run similarly fast, one winner being faster than the other PUTS INTO QUESTION which was the better performance. Yes, it is my opinion that Wilmot's NXN race was better than Fisher's FLN race, and I have also said before that Fisher deserved the US#1 ranking just as much as Wilmot did despite that. But I'm not arguing here, and haven't bothered trying to debate it anywhere regarding this since before Christmas last year, that Wilmot was a better runner than Fisher - I'm pointing out that his NXN race was better and that the caliber of athletes at the top of NXN isn't much different, if different at all, than the caliber of athletes at FLN. BOTH meets have great athletes.

I don't see how some of you can continually post that it is FALSE to have the opinion that the talent at the top are close, and that sometimes the NXN winner ran better than the FLN winner, when the FLN winner hasn't always raced the winner at NXN! THAT is why Fisher should run NXN - because he CAN, because it won't hurt his chances at FLN, and because it would put to rest any debate IF he won both races, just like it did when Verzbicas won both (and just like it did when Futsum won NXN and finished second to Cheserek by about half a second, or when Lutz won NXN and finished only fourth at FLN). Verzbicas being a double winner in 2010, Futsum barely getting edged in 2011, is just DIRECT proof that NXN isn't so far behind and hasn't been for a few years, even if you don't want to bother looking at the 2013 races objectively.

Once again, here's to hoping that Fisher runs both.

NXN is just stupid, doesn't matter how much money Nike throws around.

If you are going to hold the meet, at least move it around the country.

Team XC races are decided at the state level, no real reason for a national championship.

Footlocker Regionals should be eliminated and qualifying for nationals individual championship based on individual finishing place at state meets, say top 5 best times from each state meet. Of those, a portion would of course choose not to run Footlocker at all.

As a contingency allow HS athletes with

No, that is why Wilmot/Anderson should run Footlocker, not why Fiscscscher should run both. THEY CAN TOO!

As another poster pointed out, you CANNOT say definitively that Wilmot's race was comparably faster, though you continue to try. That 27 guys have run about the same time on both is nowhere near enough proof to say that the courses should run relatively equal in similar conditions, so, no, it's not a certainty that "his NXN race was better" before even getting to which athlete was better.

Why are you so focused on NY? this is a national level discussion. Both national races have co-existed and both will co-exist for the foreseeable future.