Anyone that would bring up cumulative time is an idiot. Cross country is only about place. Time is irrelevant. One of the beautiful aspects of cross country is that the scores can be done even if there are no times kept.
Do the NAU and OSU runners involved have track times on the team websites that could tell you how this might have worked out? Maybe 1500 meter times divided by 4 x 5 to = 2,000 meter time. Is my math right ?
It’s a team sport, there is no backup runner. If all the team are running cross country despite only the top 5 scoring then the next highest place runner counts if you don’t want to tie the event.
Not sure why you think this is wrong, if your team mates don’t turn up for a race that’s on the team. Maybe run a harder cross country course ran than glorified track and see who is stronger.
Of course it’s a team sport, but that doesn’t mean the 6th men should be determining the outcome of a championship. Imagine a tied NCAA basketball championship final game being decided by which team’s 6th man scored more points. That would be ridiculous!
So would adding up the scores of only the 5 starters, yet that’s how every XC meet is determined. Basketball is a different sport and doesn’t really work as a great comparison. If you want to look at basketball, one can argue that fouling out actually does put a little more weight on the back-up players in OT vs the rest of the game, which would argue that the 6 and even the 7 should play some role in a XC tie breaker but not an exclusive role.
Either way, it seems that the 6th man and the head to head are both better than the final determination in the world’s most popular sport — PKs in soccer.
It is funny that you mention football and soccer, because while yes, they have extra time, they also have TIES. Unresolved ties. They just say "hey, we gave you time to figure it out, we even gave you some extra time, when you couldn't figure it out, but since you still haven't figured out who is better, you tie....go home, no one wins"
Football and soccer don't have unbroken ties in championships.
first - there should just be a tie. You couldn’t get the outright win on the day, you deserve only to be considered a co-champion, and not sole winning team.
Sounds like you grew up in the “everybody gets a trophy” generation.
Not exactly. I was trying to say that by ending in a tie it makes it slightly bittersweet for the would-be winner. Under a tiebreaker you get to claim you bear all comers. Ending as a co-champion you are only equal best, not quite top dog.
I am okay with either method but wouldn't use either one as they exist today if ias my decision. Both methods alter the original methind of scoring while excluding all but the two teams. What methind is used if there was a tie for 2-3 yesterday or would it remain a tie?
Sounds like you grew up in the “everybody gets a trophy” generation.
Not exactly. I was trying to say that by ending in a tie it makes it slightly bittersweet for the would-be winner. Under a tiebreaker you get to claim you bear all comers. Ending as a co-champion you are only equal best, not quite top dog.
If both teams agree to it, like Barshim and Tamberi in mHJ at Tokyo, then fine.
Not exactly. I was trying to say that by ending in a tie it makes it slightly bittersweet for the would-be winner. Under a tiebreaker you get to claim you bear all comers. Ending as a co-champion you are only equal best, not quite top dog.
If both teams agree to it, like Barshim and Tamberi in mHJ at Tokyo, then fine.
Otherwise, cumulative time.
I bet most teams would prefer to have a relay race to break the tie.
Do the NAU and OSU runners involved have track times on the team websites that could tell you how this might have worked out? Maybe 1500 meter times divided by 4 x 5 to = 2,000 meter time. Is my math right ?
Not sure. Math is not my forte. That’s one of the reasons I’m advocating for the relay. Less math, more running!
I bet most teams would prefer to have a relay race to break the tie.
You came up with a really dumb idea and now you are imagining that most teams would agree with your really dumb idea? Give me a break.
It’s a great idea that would give everyone involved, including the fans, a thrilling finish and a decisive winner. It would also generate much needed increased attention for the sport. There is nothing more exciting in sports than overtime.
Anyone that would bring up cumulative time is an idiot. Cross country is only about place. Time is irrelevant. One of the beautiful aspects of cross country is that the scores can be done even if there are no times kept.
And you think your screen name does not mark you as a wanking idiot?
Then why even bother with a timer?
Why not run it naked and free? They can settle ties by measuring dicks.
Flaccid, of course, as many XC runners could not get hard if their life depended on it.
You came up with a really dumb idea and now you are imagining that most teams would agree with your really dumb idea? Give me a break.
It’s a great idea that would give everyone involved, including the fans, a thrilling finish and a decisive winner. It would also generate much needed increased attention for the sport. There is nothing more exciting in sports than overtime.
You got any brighter ideas, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Not the worst idea, but not sure how having a different tie break policy would generate any more attention to the sport. No one is going to sit around waiting for an XC tie. Again, not worst idea.
You came up with a really dumb idea and now you are imagining that most teams would agree with your really dumb idea? Give me a break.
It’s a great idea that would give everyone involved, including the fans, a thrilling finish and a decisive winner. It would also generate much needed increased attention for the sport. There is nothing more exciting in sports than overtime.
You got any brighter ideas, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Yes. Use a tie breaker like they do now, and not have them run a second race right after they just ran a 10k.
It’s a great idea that would give everyone involved, including the fans, a thrilling finish and a decisive winner. It would also generate much needed increased attention for the sport. There is nothing more exciting in sports than overtime.
You got any brighter ideas, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Yes. Use a tie breaker like they do now, and not have them run a second race right after they just ran a 10k.
Do the NAU and OSU runners involved have track times on the team websites that could tell you how this might have worked out? Maybe 1500 meter times divided by 4 x 5 to = 2,000 meter time. Is my math right ?
Not sure. Math is not my forte. That’s one of the reasons I’m advocating for the relay. Less math, more running!
Okay if you can find me either 1500, 3000, mile or 5000 times for the ten runners involved I think I can do the math for you.
It’s a great idea that would give everyone involved, including the fans, a thrilling finish and a decisive winner. It would also generate much needed increased attention for the sport. There is nothing more exciting in sports than overtime.
You got any brighter ideas, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Not the worst idea, but not sure how having a different tie break policy would generate any more attention to the sport. No one is going to sit around waiting for an XC tie. Again, not worst idea.
Think of the relay race video clips that could be shared on social media or shown on Sports Center. That would generate more attention, especially if the relay race is close and/or involves a pass on one of the legs.
You know what video wouldn’t be watched? Footage of officials tabulating the “head to head” placing.
Why do we have to score like other sports? The scoring system in cross country is not like other sports (lower score wins instead of higher) and every sport has its own way of dealing with tiebreakers. Plus, I don't consider it anticlimactic trying to figure out how 6th runners finished or how teams match up head to head.