You really thought that higher place meant slower time? Really?
You really thought that higher place meant slower time? Really?
HRE wrote:
You really thought that higher place meant slower time? Really?
This must be a "new math" thing. Does "higher" no longer mean larger in number?
why else run 7 guys?
um wut? wrote:
HRE wrote:You really thought that higher place meant slower time? Really?
This must be a "new math" thing. Does "higher" no longer mean larger in number?
Position/location on list of finishers, first place being highest and last place being lowest.
Did you honestly think that the team whose sixth man finishes behind the other team's sixth man gets the tiebreaker?
HRE wrote:
Did you honestly think that the team whose sixth man finishes behind the other team's sixth man gets the tiebreaker?
As I said, I think it would be a stupid/unfair system. I'm not the one who proposed the idea.
All of the typical xc scoring system is flawed. The relative strength of teams can differ depending on field size; this should not be the case. Compare the teams in your conference by their placings in the conference meet (~ten teams), in a pre-national style meet (~thirty teams), and by scoring your conference meet as multiduals (effective two teams) and you will notice that some of the relative placings shift; this is flawed.
All cross-country meets should be scored as multi-duals where teams are scored 7 v. 7 against every team and sorted by combined record. Matching combined record is broken by head-to-head.
qdog wrote:
I manage our high school conference cross country meet and this year two teams tied for the title through 5 runners at 48 points. We then looked at the place of the 6th runners for both teams and declared one team the champion because their 6th runner placed higher then the other teams 6th runner. The coach from the team that then ended up in 2nd has said that many coaches throughout the country feel that going to the 6th runner is unfair and that other conferences declare co-champs. In my 30 plus years in the sport, I have never heard that a conference would declare co-champs in xc or that anyone believed this rule is unfair. Does anyone on this message board agree that the rule is unfair? Could you post your thoughts on either side of the issue? I never thought it was a controversy.
I think it is a fair rule, and most likely the simplest. One meet which does something different is the McQuaid HS XC Invitational, which turns to dual meet scoring between the tied teams in that case, instead of the sixth man tie breaker. This year, Liverpool and the East Aurora boys teams tied at 65 points in the seeded AAA race, and Liverpool was given the win due to their different rules, as EA's sixth man was even ahead of Liverpool's fifth.
I think it should be a universal rule to have it a sixth man tie breaker. Other posters have said that it is universal, but one of the largest meets in the country even does it differently. As long as all coaches know going into the race what happens in case of a tie, there should be no issues.
What ever the published rule is is the one you use. It sounds like the OP is saying they decided after the scores were tied to use the 6th man. Ad hoc rules cause problems and open the door to protests. If there is no published tie-breaker rule in place you must let the tie stand . As a coach if I know the 6th man will be use (other than to impact ordinal placing) I might chose to staff my team differently especially if there is a JV type race on the program.
I agree that having clear and published rules are the most important so that you are not thrown into the debate at the actual conference award ceremony. The rule itself is secondary.
But with the debate posed by qdog on the table, I would say that having the 6th runner is a nice way to create even more of a team concept to the groupings and it certainly is fair. There may be a disadvantage to smaller schools where depth is challenged and therefore average time or dual meet method can seem "fairer". Worth a debate at the yearly conference.
Awarding co-conference champions is very weak,
um wut? wrote:
HRE wrote:Did you honestly think that the team whose sixth man finishes behind the other team's sixth man gets the tiebreaker?
As I said, I think it would be a stupid/unfair system. I'm not the one who proposed the idea.
That's not what I asked you.
HRE wrote:
um wut? wrote:As I said, I think it would be a stupid/unfair system. I'm not the one who proposed the idea.
That's not what I asked you.
Of course I am aware that this is not how tiebreakers typically work, which is why I find the OP's approach to be so bizarre.
And what did you take the OP's "bizarre" approach to be?
Or let's do it this way:
Suppose that after a cross country meet you hear a coach say, "Our fifth man was 59th at halfway but moved UP 18 places over the last two miles." Do you think that fifth man finished 41st or 77th?
Ha ha HRE, glad you're having fun but this is too easy
HRE wrote:
Or let's do it this way:
Suppose that after a cross country meet you hear a coach say, "Our fifth man was 59th at halfway but moved UP 18 places over the last two miles." Do you think that fifth man finished 41st or 77th?
I would assume that he meant up in the pack, which would be down in places.
I'm thrilled you went with the 6th runner. The NCAA does not. They score the top 5 as a dual meet to break ties which drive me nuts. But having the 6th runner potentially count, you give those guys and gals incentive to never pack it in in a race.
um wut? wrote:
HRE wrote:Or let's do it this way:
Suppose that after a cross country meet you hear a coach say, "Our fifth man was 59th at halfway but moved UP 18 places over the last two miles." Do you think that fifth man finished 41st or 77th?
I would assume that he meant up in the pack, which would be down in places.
Once you have a firm grasp on the English language, will you understand that the OP was using the term "highest" in relation to the "Top" runner or best finisher. Please do not confuse the term: "greater," meaning "larger sum" with higher.
Now my little grasshopper, with this new found education, re-read the OP and you will find the win was awarded to the team with the "best finishing" 6th man or "Highest/closer to the top runner in the field"
um wut? wrote:
HRE wrote:That's not what I asked you.
Of course I am aware that this is not how tiebreakers typically work, which is why I find the OP's approach to be so bizarre.
Give it a rest. It wasn't funny the first time you said it, and it wasn't funny any of the times you tried to push it again. Good for you for getting some bites though I guess...
shut up wrote:
um wut? wrote:Of course I am aware that this is not how tiebreakers typically work, which is why I find the OP's approach to be so bizarre.
Give it a rest. It wasn't funny the first time you said it, and it wasn't funny any of the times you tried to push it again. Good for you for getting some bites though I guess...
I'm just responding to questions I'm being asked. It would be rude not to answer.