Question about NXN Regionals

[GeorgieTheK]

Maybe someone in the know (with connections to the meet) can help me out here...

Is there anyone looking into the incredible differences in field sizes of the different regionals?

The MW boys race this year had 36 teams, and almost 400 runners!, while the NY region had 160 runners and 19 teams. There are a couple other regions with well over 200 runners and 30+ teams, and others with significantly less.

It makes the races completely different, both in terms of tactics and outcomes. I don't see how it's remotely fair for some races to have less runners than you'd see in a normal conference meet and others with more participants than the Battle of Thermopylae.

Just wondering if this was a consideration.

[TeamOrange]

Maybe someone in the know (with connections to the meet) can help me out here...

Is there anyone looking into the incredible differences in field sizes of the different regionals?

The MW boys race this year had 36 teams, and almost 400 runners!, while the NY region had 160 runners and 19 teams. There are a couple other regions with well over 200 runners and 30+ teams, and others with significantly less.

It makes the races completely different, both in terms of tactics and outcomes. I don't see how it's remotely fair for some races to have less runners than you'd see in a normal conference meet and others with more participants than the Battle of Thermopylae.

Just wondering if this was a consideration.

NY is one state (obvious), NXN MW is six. When New York split from NTN NE, the previous year or two (I think) had NY teams winning both girls and guys side of NTN. So they earned the right to have their own conference, and have up held that standard on the girls side and to a lesser extent the guys.

[greenman]

Maybe someone in the know (with connections to the meet) can help me out here...

Is there anyone looking into the incredible differences in field sizes of the different regionals?

The MW boys race this year had 36 teams, and almost 400 runners!, while the NY region had 160 runners and 19 teams. There are a couple other regions with well over 200 runners and 30+ teams, and others with significantly less.

It makes the races completely different, both in terms of tactics and outcomes. I don't see how it's remotely fair for some races to have less runners than you'd see in a normal conference meet and others with more participants than the Battle of Thermopylae.

Just wondering if this was a consideration.Unfair for whom?

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Maybe someone in the know (with connections to the meet) can help me out here...

Is there anyone looking into the incredible differences in field sizes of the different regionals?

The MW boys race this year had 36 teams, and almost 400 runners!, while the NY region had 160 runners and 19 teams. There are a couple other regions with well over 200 runners and 30+ teams, and others with significantly less.

It makes the races completely different, both in terms of tactics and outcomes. I don't see how it's remotely fair for some races to have less runners than you'd see in a normal conference meet and others with more participants than the Battle of Thermopylae.

Just wondering if this was a consideration.

????:confused:

Do you PERSONALLY know anyone connected with NXN?

I am surprised that you didn't consider the courses. Some will accomodate very large fields with no issues at all while others will be a little tighter.

[nyrunner]

NY/NE NXN is the same day as NE footlocker. many other regions don't compete with footlocker for athletes.

If NY/NE NXN was different weekend then FLNE then many top athletes could do both.

FLNE fields have been decimated by NXN regionals so the same could be said about FLNE compared to other FL regionals. Not only the seeded races but the grade level races are also way down at FLNE.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Good point as FLNE races had 189 finishers for boys and 90 for girls.

[nyrunner]

Good point as FLNE races had 189 finishers for boys and 90 for girls.
Girls FLNE class races had 50, 55, 39, 32

about 250 runners over 5 races and 12 states involved is about 20 runners per state :(

[Kalaby]

NY/NE NXN is the same day as NE footlocker. many other regions don't compete with footlocker for athletes.

If NY/NE NXN was different weekend then FLNE then many top athletes could do both.

FLNE fields have been decimated by NXN regionals so the same could be said about FLNE compared to other FL regionals. Not only the seeded races but the grade level races are also way down at FLNE.

Very true, but somewhat surprisingly, the quality at FLNE on the top end was very high (particularly on the boys side), even with some of the most talented runners in the region running at Bowdoin at the same time. Bottom line though is that both meets suffer to some degree with diluted talent pools.

[greenman]

NY is one state (obvious), NXN MW is six. When New York split from NTN NE, the previous year or two (I think) had NY teams winning both girls and guys side of NTN. So they earned the right to have their own conference, and have up held that standard on the girls side and to a lesser extent the guys.The MW is four states. There are technically five but MI isn't allowed to compete in the team competition due to state rules so only four states actually compete.

And this doesn't effect just NE/NY...FLMW has lost runners as well. Prior to 2007, the year NXN regionals started, the boys seeded race would get 350 runners. Since 2007, the numbers have dropped to 310, 223, 249 and 235.

And FLMW covers 13 states as well.

[Greg Beal]

Is there anyone looking into the incredible differences in field sizes of the different regionals?

The MW boys race this year had 36 teams, and almost 400 runners!, while the NY region had 160 runners and 19 teams. There are a couple other regions with well over 200 runners and 30+ teams, and others with significantly less.

It makes the races completely different, both in terms of tactics and outcomes. I don't see how it's remotely fair for some races to have less runners than you'd see in a normal conference meet and others with more participants than the Battle of Thermopylae.

Just wondering if this was a consideration.

Not that I can answer his question but I'm amazed that no one has addressed the question GeorgieTheK asked originally.

Let me restate it: could a difference in field size affect the outcome of a NXN regional race?

What I think he's really wondering is whether it is fair to compare third place teams as potential at large qualifiers when the fields they ran in were so different.

[greenman]

Not that I can answer his question but I'm amazed that no one has addressed the question GeorgieTheK asked originally.

Let me restate it: could a difference in field size affect the outcome of a NXN regional race?

What I think he's really wondering is whether it is fair to compare third place teams as potential at large qualifiers when the fields they ran in were so different.Obviously it makes a difference. A team with a weak fifth runner is going to get clobbered in the MW, but can skate by in a smaller field.

The real question is how many teams does a legit field contain? The NCAA has over 30 teams.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Not that I can answer his question but I'm amazed that no one has addressed the question GeorgieTheK asked originally.

Let me restate it: could a difference in field size affect the outcome of a NXN regional race?

What I think he's really wondering is whether it is fair to compare third place teams as potential at large qualifiers when the fields they ran in were so different.

And again, I stated that the field size has to be considered in light of the course. Some courses can hold gigantic fields, others not.

Adn the bottom line is that it is what it is. What could anyone expect NXN or Footlocker to do about this?

[GeorgieTheK]

And again, I stated that the field size has to be considered in light of the course. Some courses can hold gigantic fields, others not.

Adn the bottom line is that it is what it is. What could anyone expect NXN or Footlocker to do about this?


One solution would be to limit the size of the fields in what is supposed to be a championship race. Do 36 teams really have a shot at qualifying out the MW NXN? Turn the question around - is there a limit to the number of people on the line? Is it 400? 500?

In light of how many people a course can hold is one thing, but you've also got a scenario where 2 regions (NE/NY) run on the same course on the same day...with vastly different field sizes.

Beyond how many a course can hold, simply putting 400 runners on a line changes what happens in a race dramatically. The slinky effect of 400 people is much different that of 150.

Just curious, because as NXN seems to be growing each year, I'm wondering what the limits are.

[greenman]

This was actually brought up a couple months ago on Rise. Watchout believes the NXN regionals should be the same size as the final, 22 teams.

I feel 30 is a fairer limit. The size of the field should be such that it can expose a weakness in any team, if any such weakness exists.

If it's too small, it denigrates the importance of the five man scoring system.

For example, at NXN you could have your fifth runner finish dead last (154 points) and have the rest go something like 10-20-30-40 and you will still score 254 points and likely get a top 10 finish and still beat almost 2/3 of the field. In fact in the last few years 254 points isn't far out of the top 3.

However, in a 30 team field, you would go 10-20-30-40-210 = 310 which will get you 15th or worse and put you more in the middle of the field. Your weakness was exposed.

[nyrunner]

Not that I can answer his question but I'm amazed that no one has addressed the question GeorgieTheK asked originally.

Let me restate it: could a difference in field size affect the outcome of a NXN regional race?

What I think he's really wondering is whether it is fair to compare third place teams as potential at large qualifiers when the fields they ran in were so different.
I would like to see NY/NE combine. There are not enough NY teams showing up (we have like 600 teams in NY and only a dozen or so are showing up).

This would be bad for NY boys and very bad for NE girls (have to run for 3rd every year behind FM/Toga) chances of qualifying. It would likely force NY boys and NE girls to run at a much higher standard to get to NXN so could push both regions to higher levels of performance.

Prior to regionals the old NE seemed too good for 1 region but now it seems like that could be more fair.

It would eliminate 2 spots at nationals though and 5 individuals so I doubt it will happen.

[backtoback]

I would like to see NY/NE combine. There are not enough NY teams showing up (we have like 600 teams in NY and only a dozen or so are showing up).

This would be bad for NY boys and very bad for NE girls (have to run for 3rd every year behind FM/Toga) chances of qualifying. It would likely force NY boys and NE girls to run at a much higher standard to get to NXN so could push both regions to higher levels of performance.

Prior to regionals the old NE seemed too good for 1 region but now it seems like that could be more fair.

It would eliminate 2 spots at nationals though and 5 individuals so I doubt it will happen.

18 teams. 160 runners in NY Boys.....13/112 girls
31 teams. 245 runners in NE Boys.......22/189 girls

kinda of close. 1 state, obv a smaller field. and who really can challenge on the girls side vs the #1-2 team in the country? its gotta be discouraging

[Joe Lanzalotto]

I would like to see NY/NE combine. There are not enough NY teams showing up (we have like 600 teams in NY and only a dozen or so are showing up).

This would be bad for NY boys and very bad for NE girls (have to run for 3rd every year behind FM/Toga) chances of qualifying. It would likely force NY boys and NE girls to run at a much higher standard to get to NXN so could push both regions to higher levels of performance.

Prior to regionals the old NE seemed too good for 1 region but now it seems like that could be more fair.

It would eliminate 2 spots at nationals though and 5 individuals so I doubt it will happen.

If you want to ensure that no NE girls' teams outside of NY compete you'll combine the two regions. I know coaches who have said they would not bother. Think Hillsborough which has been 3rd in the NR two years in a row now would think they had any chance at all if NY were in the NE?

[Joe Lanzalotto]

One solution would be to limit the size of the fields in what is supposed to be a championship race. Do 36 teams really have a shot at qualifying out the MW NXN? Turn the question around - is there a limit to the number of people on the line? Is it 400? 500?

In light of how many people a course can hold is one thing, but you've also got a scenario where 2 regions (NE/NY) run on the same course on the same day...with vastly different field sizes.

Beyond how many a course can hold, simply putting 400 runners on a line changes what happens in a race dramatically. The slinky effect of 400 people is much different that of 150.

Just curious, because as NXN seems to be growing each year, I'm wondering what the limits are.

There is no prequalifying for the regional - "you're not good enough to get in the championship race". I agree that the field sizes were vastly different but I have yet to hear a coach or athlete, including the 3rd and 4th place teams from the NE (and I spoke to all of them today) say a thing about it.

[Col Crunch]

I would like to see NY/NE combine. There are not enough NY teams showing up (we have like 600 teams in NY and only a dozen or so are showing up).

This would be bad for NY boys and very bad for NE girls (have to run for 3rd every year behind FM/Toga) chances of qualifying. It would likely force NY boys and NE girls to run at a much higher standard to get to NXN so could push both regions to higher levels of performance.

Prior to regionals the old NE seemed too good for 1 region but now it seems like that could be more fair.

It would eliminate 2 spots at nationals though and 5 individuals so I doubt it will happen.

I would combine NE/NY back together. But I wouldn't eliminate the extra regional. I would have it be a floater regional that could be assigned to a pre-existing regional to even out a difficult field. This would allow you to assign it to a different area of the country for the boys and the girls.

For example, this year you could assign the Girls' floater to NY (no real change) and have three championship races at the NE/NY regional (NE/NY boys, NE girls, and NY girls). However, you could then assign the Boys' floater to IL and have them run an extra championship race at NXN-MW. If the situation dictated it, you could even combine several states into a floater regional.

I don't think it would be impossible to do logistically. At the actual meets, we are just talking about adding one race (there is no need to run separate open races). As for determining where the floater goes, the committee should be able to pick several possible areas before the season starts and monitor them.

[distancerunner2011]

I would combine NE/NY back together. But I wouldn't eliminate the extra regional. I would have it be a floater regional that could be assigned to a pre-existing regional to even out a difficult field. This would allow you to assign it to a different area of the country for the boys and the girls.

For example, this year you could assign the Girls' floater to NY (no real change) and have three championship races at the NE/NY regional (NE/NY boys, NE girls, and NY girls). However, you could then assign the Boys' floater to IL and have them run an extra championship race at NXN-MW. If the situation dictated it, you could even combine several states into a floater regional.

I don't think it would be impossible to do logistically. At the actual meets, we are just talking about adding one race (there is no need to run separate open races). As for determining where the floater goes, the committee should be able to pick several possible areas before the season starts and monitor them.

What about 6 at-large bids instead of 4?

[palimmer]

I'd say the system is as good as it is ever going to get... I see no real reason to change anything. Fact is, it works!
And for those who said months ago that the course at Bowdoin is too narrow and that it would result in a distorted race, do you still think that?.... it ran smooth as silk. 42 boxes were used in the Boys' NE Race. Each team got to put ALL 7 on the line with room.. no complaints were heard, only compliments about the course... many said it was the fairest course they had been on. :)
I'm sure I just brought out the naysayers and complainers. I've got my hard hat on..... let the bricks fly.... it'll be tough, I'm at 30,000' now

[Col Crunch]

What about 6 at-large bids instead of 4?

I don't think that would be adequate if you keep the limitation of requiring a team to be top 4 to get an at-large bid. As I think that is a good rule, I prefer the floater regional.

I'd say the system is as good as it is ever going to get... I see no real reason to change anything. Fact is, it works!


The fact that something works does not exclude the possibility that a different method could work better.

[Illinois Prep PHD]

One solution would be to limit the size of the fields in what is supposed to be a championship race. Do 36 teams really have a shot at qualifying out the MW NXN? Turn the question around - is there a limit to the number of people on the line? Is it 400? 500?

In light of how many people a course can hold is one thing, but you've also got a scenario where 2 regions (NE/NY) run on the same course on the same day...with vastly different field sizes.

Beyond how many a course can hold, simply putting 400 runners on a line changes what happens in a race dramatically. The slinky effect of 400 people is much different that of 150.

Just curious, because as NXN seems to be growing each year, I'm wondering what the limits are.

Do you think the Northeast/NY should be one region? If so, then the powers that be could have more at-large berths. This would mean NE/NY power merge would have to get on their horses even more.

[Kevin M.Byrne Sr.]

I'd say the system is as good as it is ever going to get... I see no real reason to change anything. Fact is, it works!
And for those who said months ago that the course at Bowdoin is too narrow and that it would result in a distorted race, do you still think that?.... it ran smooth as silk. 42 boxes were used in the Boys' NE Race. Each team got to put ALL 7 on the line with room.. no complaints were heard, only compliments about the course... many said it was the fairest course they had been on. :)
I'm sure I just brought out the naysayers and complainers. I've got my hard hat on..... let the bricks fly.... it'll be tough, I'm at 30,000' now

I "coached" (drove the van to and from) the Red Bank Catholic girls this past weekend when they finished 4th in the NE race. When they warmed up on the course on Friday, they ALL told me they liked the course. After they finished on Saturday, several of them stated that they didn't get out fast enough, and had trouble getting around people in the middle of the race because of the turns, and that the course narrowed down. Others said they would have performed better if they had raced on it previously so they would know to get out faster, but NOBODY complained that the course was too narrow. The underclassman all said they would like to come back and race it next year because they loved the course and the whole atmosphere, etc. Van Cortland can be tough in the front woods if you don't get out, but its not like the NXN NE course was a secret, and there are races earlier in the year if you want a test run to see how it plays out. CBA said they did not get out as well as they would have liked, but nobody said the course was too narrow, and there is/was plenty of time (and room) in the last 1000m or so to pick up spots if you didn't get out well. I think its a great venue, a fair test, and a well run meet.

[Eva N]

I would like to see NY/NE combine. There are not enough NY teams showing up (we have like 600 teams in NY and only a dozen or so are showing up).

This would be bad for NY boys and very bad for NE girls (have to run for 3rd every year behind FM/Toga) chances of qualifying. It would likely force NY boys and NE girls to run at a much higher standard to get to NXN so could push both regions to higher levels of performance.

Prior to regionals the old NE seemed too good for 1 region but now it seems like that could be more fair.

It would eliminate 2 spots at nationals though and 5 individuals so I doubt it will happen.

What I think would be a better idea: take CT out of the NE region and lump it in with NY. This would help level out the participation numbers in the two regions, beef up the NY boys (who have under-performed at NXN since becoming their own region), and not significantly weaken the NE girls based on recent performance levels.

Would this make it tough for CT girls teams to qualify for NXN? Absolutely... but no tougher than what all the girls teams in NY outside of Manlius and Saratoga have had to deal with for the past several years (and the forseeable future). Burnt Hills, Warwick, Shen, Queensbury, and now North Shore have risen to the challenge, so it can be done.