Ehhh I don't know about this one. I think the 6th man tiebreaker is still the best. The "head-to-head" method is silly because the score was the same, so the overall net performance is still the same. A 6th man tiebreaker at least measures depth, which is the whole point of the team race to begin with.
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.
Emulating other sports that are much more popular is a smart strategy for generating more attention.
What would be more exciting to tell a friend if you were recapping yesterday’s race: it was a tie that got settled by looking at the placings on a computer screen, or it was a tie that got settled by a relay race?
How about we let them duel in mutual combat? Or maybe we can have "run boxing" - run a 400 then box for 60 seconds.
Resolving a running tie with combat fighting makes no sense. Resolving a running tie with more running is logical. Do you not like running? Would you not like to see more of it?
More running? Like if they tie at 10k, then let's force them all to run 20k to break the tie?
Or how about we just do what we currently do and have a tie breaker, and not run a second race.
You seem to have amnesia. Go back and read my first post.
Or just have positions count for further down the field, the 6th runner. These are stupid proposals to change a race which already run with another race.
I don't think ties should be resolved. Yes ties are anticlimactic, but so be it. The scores are actually tied. Multiple teams ran well enough to the the lowest number of points - reward both of them.
I'd also say no non-scoring runners - all places count - whether you set the total number of runners per participating team at 5, 6, or 7. I know that would probably never happen, but I wouldn't be against it.
Or just have positions count for further down the field, the 6th runner. These are stupid proposals to change a race which already run with another race.
You want to race all day it seems
The problem is that Ric Fair is not too bright. He actually thinks that teams will want to run a second race after their first race. It's such a crazy idea.
Or just have positions count for further down the field, the 6th runner. These are stupid proposals to change a race which already run with another race.
You want to race all day it seems
The problem is that Ric Fair is not too bright. He actually thinks that teams will want to run a second race after their first race. It's such a crazy idea.
What’s so crazy about it? It’s not uncommon these days for distance runners to do an interval workout after a race.
You say I’m not too bright. I say you lack creativity and a sense of fun.
The problem is that Ric Fair is not too bright. He actually thinks that teams will want to run a second race after their first race. It's such a crazy idea.
What’s so crazy about it? It’s not uncommon these days for distance runners to do an interval workout after a race.
No distance runners do an interval workout after a 10k xc national championship. Do you not know anything about the sport?
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!
No offense but that's a horrible analogy. I think. If the 6th person is utterly irrelevant, then everyone should only run 5. It's a team score, you invited more than 5. Then use the next guy.
In fairness, I don't completely understand what the head to head is measuring and rewarding? Is it a smaller spread? It feels random. The points are tied, so...what does head to head to do with anything? I also like the dynamic ( as a coach of kids) of telling my squad they all count. Like the motivation for every guy and gal that they might decide the meet?
If you think about it, xc is unique in that the runners don't have any good idea what the score is? Keep running you might decide it. Like that.
I know that young college runners recover fast and could handle an extra 2k. Why are you so mean?
I'm not mean. Your idea to run 2 xc races in one day is a really bad idea and you don't seem to be capable of understanding that it's a bad idea.
We as a sport will just stick with our current tie breaking method.
Explain it to me then instead of insulting me. An average high schooler running track can triple every single week, but a highly trained NCAA level athlete can’t run a measly 20% more just one time in rare circumstances to break a tie for the national championship?