I was looking over the past season's NCAA Outdoor Results and was wondering how the team scoring would look if put in a different format. As it stands, team points are awarded for first through eighth place as 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. The new format I came up with scores the current years performances against the All Time meet record as a percentage, then multiplies the percentage by 100 to give the amount of points awarded. Instead of a flat 10,8,...2,1 points given to position, this scoring system for team scoring would award based on good performances and not reward as much for slower or worse performances.
An example of low graded performance:
Men's 1500 meet record is 3:35.3 by Sydnee Maree. This year's race was a very slow and tactical 3:54.96 for Noelle of Ok St. This works out to be worth 91.6 team points for the winner, and 91.5 points for Air Force since Zach Perkins ran 3:55.08. In a close finish race like this 8th place ran 3:55.86, only .9 behind the winner yet they only gain 1 team point. In the new format the would gain 91.2 team points for Boise State.
An example of a high graded performance:
Men's Triple Jump meet record is 17.57m. This year, Marquis Dendy of Florida jumped 17.71 which would score 100.7 points. Second place (TXAM) would have gained 96.8 points with a jump of 17.01, and 8th place (Penn State) would have gained 92.5 points with a jump of 16.26. The new scoring system would reward for great performances like Dendy's jump compared to the current record.
This year's top four teams would have actually finished in the same order, just with different scores. I'll list them out here with the Team, New Scoring, and current scoring in parentheses.
1. Oregon - 1047.7 (85)
2. Florida - 965.34 (56)
3. Arkansas - 778.9 (52)
4. LSU - 686.8 (45)
One of the benefits of a new scoring system like this would be to encourage athletes to strive for meet record performances and be at their best at the end of the year. Another benefit would be a better judge of an actual team competition. Rather than have a bunch of teams scoring 1-10 points (63 teams in the current format) and having multiple ties there would be a better judge on how teams compare to each other. However, a drawback for this type of scoring would be factoring in performances like sprint of field events that are influenced by the wind to be adjusted based on conditions. I'd love to hear what people think about the scoring format, the good, bad, whatever!
If you're interested here are links to spreadsheets with the data:
By Event:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eehQuvq3WjF5wCHACYcovjQtZLsIca7fmLOKk5IKS1w/edit?usp=sharing
Team Scoring:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WiI4WF8-BpDq0CSHFSdTGU--GeiJdjnNPrVylJDEECs/edit?usp=sharing