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.