NAU wins coin flip to claim national championship. Excuse me for not being impressed

For those that prefer going to the 6th or 7th runner to break a tie, what if a team didn’t have a 6th or 7th runner?

I think they should handle ties the way they do in football. Overtime. Get everyone on both teams together a few minutes after the race and have them do a 2k. then we’ll see who the winner really is.

If they scored it as a dual all the way to the 7th man NAU still wins 26-29...

The best part about this post was the Vegas advertisement!

It sounds like anti-NAU posters want to create a new rule for the sole purpose of giving OSU the win.

My brother was part of the committee that proposed the head-to-head tie breaker and it is all predicated on resolving ties with 5 runner teams. Teams cannot be penalized for only entering 5 runners as 5 runners constitutes a team in the NCAA. This is done to protect smaller less resources programs.

That's a wonderful testimonial but I have no problem with the way it's done now. I just pointed out to those that wanted to change it NAU would still win if you scored it as a dual meet because they beat OSU 26-29 over the first five men.

I understand the point about there being 5-runner-only teams. So why wouldn't total time of your five runners be a different, measurable tie-breaker compared to a literal coin toss? To those saying "NAU won the toss so it doesnt matter"-- imagine an alternate universe with these same performances but NAU lost the coin toss instead. What would you be saying then?

But it's not a coin toss. A coin toss would be assuming the result is random and could change any time you toss the coin. The rule is in place, and by following the rule, NAU wins 100% of the time in the scenario.

Let's present this simplified scenario.

Team A has 5 guys run 9:20 for a total time of 46:40

Team B has 4 guys who run 9:25 plus their number one runner who runs 8:50 for a total time of 46:30

Now, who would win based on total time but who would win based on place?

One guy can skew the total time comparison, but he still only counts as one place. Plus the guys running 9:25 are likely going to be displaced more than the 9:20 guys.

Umm, it’s a dynasty because this year followed all the others where they made it happen when it counts most. Just like they did this year.

I've never been a fan of the sixth-finisher rule, and not just because some teams only have five finish. (Although, if you think about it: Team A, which only finishes five, is already at a disadvantage; Team B finished six/seven, yet could only tie A? B already had an advantage over A; why should they get another? But I digress.)

TBH my favorite was the NCAA's former rule: A tie is a tie, and we break ties only to determine which teams go to Nationals. A tie at Nationals (which happened) was just a tie!--and IMO was the right result for two teams that did equally well through their five scoring finishers.

But if we're forced to break ties, I definitely prefer the current head-to-head rule over comparing sixth finishers, and definitely over comparing total times (which, we're always reminded, are meaningless in cross country). The sixth finisher already had his/her chance to score, and to add points to other teams' scores; why should the sixth runner, someone who couldn't even score for the team, get another bite of the apple?