IMO I think Leachman and Forsyth's poor performances are much more related to the fact they were obvious uncomfortable being in a field were someone else was actually capable of going with them. Both Leachman and Forsyth have dominated all year, and weren't mentally prepared for actually competition, and as a result had a crazy first kilo trying to establish a lead. Maybe they will learn from that and do better this week and try to ease into the race more, but even in dry conditions I think the same script happens were Leachman and Forsyth have a stupid fast first k trying to front run like they have all year.
^stupid take
Agree that’s a stupid take. Both athletes have won huge races. Some just aren’t mudders. Go to World XC and learn a little. Forsyth and Sadie are 2:05/4:30 types and Leachman is #1 FR all-time 3200m.
By the way, of course it’s “easier” to qualify at FL bc it’s 10 vs 5 spots but people probably didn’t realize that/ I even thought it was 10 at NXN but the Nike guy said to my face it’s a TEAM championship.
By the way, of course it’s “easier” to qualify at FL bc it’s 10 vs 5 spots but people probably didn’t realize that
Not true. There are 4 Footlocker regions x 10 = 40 qualifiers.
There are 8 NXN regions x 5 = 40 qualifiers PLUS an additional 5 at large = 45 qualifiers. Not to mention all the NXN individual qualifiers that only got into NXN because a faster runner didn't need their individual spot because they were on a top team.
"In 2023, for the first time, Foot Locker offered at-large spots to two top California athletes, Sadie Engelhardt and Emmanuel Perez, meaning they would advance straight to nationals without having to run the West Regional."
Now if Foot Locker can expand that invitation from one boy and one girl to a few more, then Foot Locker can get some high quality runners who previously weren't able to run both NXR and Foot Locker Regional races.
That would have been a mistake.. opening up Pandora’s box of other deserving talent instead of playing favorites to the CA sweethearts.
If you read the article, they are trying to figure out ways to make it possible for some of the best runners to run FL who otherwise wouldn't because of schedule conflicts. That has been advocated MANY times by posters on this site, and I think 90%+ people on this site think something along those lines is a good idea. In the end I am sure it won't be California specific, because the issue extends beyond that region. Of course, whatever they come up with I am also sure people will complain about that too. But I for one am glad to hear that they realize this has reached the stage where it is a necessity.
The solution is NOT to let athletes run both, but rather COMBINE them.
It's DUMB to have 2 different national championships, it would be dumb to have the same kids race each other for a 2nd time but on a different course, it's dumb to keep the kids away from school for so long to race 2 championships, and it's dumb to over-race them and burn them out as high schoolers.
If it's Foot Locker sponsored by Hoka this year, why can't it eventually be Foot Locker sponsored by Nike? Forget the history of the old course, put it on a course big enough to host 300+ runners per gender. The excitement of a new page will far outweigh the loss of the historical aspect, but new history will be created.
An added benefit to both Nike and Footlocker is that they can split the cost - and the extra hype may help them both to turn a big profit off the meet.
The biggest issue NXN has is a lack of memorable individual winners and a meaningful course record. Each year, the conditions seem to vary wildly and I think the course has changed a few times but honestly I'm not sure how many or what the courses were because I don't really care. Foot Locker will always be the legit national champs for me. It's also funny to me that Gault brought up that Cole Hocker lost NXN but won Foot Locker as a point against Foot Locker, when I'd say that was actually a huge selling point because Hocker turned out to be the way bigger talent Liam Anderson.
Ultimately though, I think people watching nationals from the outside and ranking the competition at the very top isn't the big issue. What I got from the article is that Foot Locker is getting hurt by NXN in the regionals, which is really the big issue since that's the mass participation race where you can get more entry fees and sell gear at booths. Also, since they're both running at a loss, Nike just has deeper pockets so they could keep going and just let Foot Locker struggle to make up the loss while they laugh at the pocket change it costs to run.
Katelyn Touhy, Nico Young. Course records in cross country are overrated. The beauty of cross county is the conditions can "vary wildly" from year to year. Two courses in NTN/NXN history: Portland Meadows and Glendoveer. The latter being a huge improvement. Glendoveer is a very fair XC course. And your Hocker/Anderson comparison doesn't have the meaning you were hoping for. Many future Olympians were not the very best in HS, but Anderson was the better cross country runner that year. He beat Hocker head to head. What happens later is irrelevant to which race was more competitive at that time.
I'm a fan of both events, but to deny that NXN hasn't had more than it's share of the top individual talent in the last decade is denying reality.
I really appreciate Jon Gault's article. I didn't think LetsRun would give HS running that much in-depth attention, so I'm pleasantly surprised. And yes, in particular I would've had no idea that Footlocker had already started offering byes to a few top California athletes etc. It's great to know that they're actively looking for ways to improve the situation vis-a-vis NXN.
The solution is NOT to let athletes run both, but rather COMBINE them.
Disagree.
The solution is to add runners based on a ranking system. Something to the effect of “All Top 20 ranked runners” get automatic entry; the rest will qualify via regionals. And perhaps “any unranked Top-10 runner at Team Nationals receives automatic entry.”
While this would lessen the importance of regionals, it would demonstrate that Footlocker is more of an individual achievement than NXN.
The solution is NOT to let athletes run both, but rather COMBINE them.
Disagree.
The solution is to add runners based on a ranking system. Something to the effect of “All Top 20 ranked runners” get automatic entry; the rest will qualify via regionals. And perhaps “any unranked Top-10 runner at Team Nationals receives automatic entry.”
While this would lessen the importance of regionals, it would demonstrate that Footlocker is more of an individual achievement than NXN.
that is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. For Tuohy, for example, being from NY how would that work logistically? Racing in Oregon and then 7 days later racing in San Diego? Should she just miss nearly 2 weeks of high school for this? Or would she fly back to NY for 1.5 days then fly back to San Diego? How much would that cost her family for planes, hotels, rental cars, etc?
The NCAA cross country championships is the best collegiate sports event (better than the football playoff, better than March Madness). It is the only championship where EVERY athlete competes at the same exact time, on the same course and the same conditions.
Put the team competition and the individual competition at the same time. This is the ONLY solution
The solution is to add runners based on a ranking system. Something to the effect of “All Top 20 ranked runners” get automatic entry; the rest will qualify via regionals. And perhaps “any unranked Top-10 runner at Team Nationals receives automatic entry.”
While this would lessen the importance of regionals, it would demonstrate that Footlocker is more of an individual achievement than NXN.
that is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. For Tuohy, for example, being from NY how would that work logistically? Racing in Oregon and then 7 days later racing in San Diego? Should she just miss nearly 2 weeks of high school for this? Or would she fly back to NY for 1.5 days then fly back to San Diego? How much would that cost her family for planes, hotels, rental cars, etc?
The NCAA cross country championships is the best collegiate sports event (better than the football playoff, better than March Madness). It is the only championship where EVERY athlete competes at the same exact time, on the same course and the same conditions.
Put the team competition and the individual competition at the same time. This is the ONLY solution
I think there is merit to having two separate meets, because the top individuals on teams tend to run differently to ensure they get a low stick and don't blow up. See Ritz, Bethany and Simmons last weekend. Ritz and Bethany made it up because the pace up front was stupid, but in a more tactical race Simmons was like 10 seconds back the whole way. I think Simmons isn't laying off the pace if he is running as an individual.
that is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. For Tuohy, for example, being from NY how would that work logistically? Racing in Oregon and then 7 days later racing in San Diego? Should she just miss nearly 2 weeks of high school for this? Or would she fly back to NY for 1.5 days then fly back to San Diego? How much would that cost her family for planes, hotels, rental cars, etc?
The NCAA cross country championships is the best collegiate sports event (better than the football playoff, better than March Madness). It is the only championship where EVERY athlete competes at the same exact time, on the same course and the same conditions.
Put the team competition and the individual competition at the same time. This is the ONLY solution
I think there is merit to having two separate meets, because the top individuals on teams tend to run differently to ensure they get a low stick and don't blow up. See Ritz, Bethany and Simmons last weekend. Ritz and Bethany made it up because the pace up front was stupid, but in a more tactical race Simmons was like 10 seconds back the whole way. I think Simmons isn't laying off the pace if he is running as an individual.
That's exactly what makes it even more interesting. See Valby vs. Tuohy from 2022 that was one of the most excited NCAA races ever.
I think Simmons just got beat, no excuses. If the race was strategic there is no risk for Simmons to be with the lead group. He didn't make up any significant ground in the last 1k either, which indicates he was giving his best effort the whole way. He just got beat on that day. AF lost by nearly 20 points anyway.
I think there is merit to having two separate meets, because the top individuals on teams tend to run differently to ensure they get a low stick and don't blow up. See Ritz, Bethany and Simmons last weekend. Ritz and Bethany made it up because the pace up front was stupid, but in a more tactical race Simmons was like 10 seconds back the whole way. I think Simmons isn't laying off the pace if he is running as an individual.
That's exactly what makes it even more interesting. See Valby vs. Tuohy from 2022 that was one of the most excited NCAA races ever.
I think Simmons just got beat, no excuses. If the race was strategic there is no risk for Simmons to be with the lead group. He didn't make up any significant ground in the last 1k either, which indicates he was giving his best effort the whole way. He just got beat on that day. AF lost by nearly 20 points anyway.
Simmons fell early on. Not saying he would have won, as that's part of racing, but I imagine he very much wanted to win the race individually AND as a team. Don't forget he was 2nd last year while running on a strong team.
IMO I think Leachman and Forsyth's poor performances are much more related to the fact they were obvious uncomfortable being in a field were someone else was actually capable of going with them. Both Leachman and Forsyth have dominated all year, and weren't mentally prepared for actually competition, and as a result had a crazy first kilo trying to establish a lead. Maybe they will learn from that and do better this week and try to ease into the race more, but even in dry conditions I think the same script happens were Leachman and Forsyth have a stupid fast first k trying to front run like they have all year.
^stupid take
I come back to say that today's performances prove my point. Forsyth took it out ridiculously hard and gapped the field earlier, Leachman learned and held back early and won the race gapped forsyth by 18 seconds. Their poor performances at NXN had much more to do with their race strategy than the mud.
The best runners in the West have to choose between racing in NXN and the Footlocker regionals race which is the same day. Since most choose NXN, it’s relatively easier to qualify for Footlocker West since the best are not there.
she is a relatively new runner who doesn't understand just how much hills, water, mud, etc. effect a cross country race.
I think that by next year Leachman will have matured and learned a lot.
But is she capable of learning a valuable lesson about pacing in just a few days time, and apply it to tomorrow's Foot Locker race?
After Leachman won Foot Locker, here is what she told Milepslit that she learned from NXN. (And also what she learned about preparing for a tough course like Balboa Park.)
"That's always been my strategy, going out really fast like that," Leachman said. "I didn't really expect it to end up that way doing it [at NXN]. But I think I really learned that different courses and different conditions mean you have to race a different kind of way."
Footlocker has to change the qualifying schedule to allow West athletes to run both NXN and Footlocker. Both are diluted (currently mostly Footlocker) because the Footlocker West qualifying race is the same day as the NXN final race. I think one other region is in the same situation. Sadie Engelhardt (she was at Footlocker as a spectator), Riley Blade, Jason Parra, Evan Noonan, etc. would love the opportunity to do both.