I think you all are missing the point that some high school teams only have 5 runners.
And? Whose fault is that?
It is the fault of our low national birth rate, so that most rural schools have declining enrollment.
It is the fault of our crass culture, where many kids now care more about their online profile than joining a sports team.
It is the fault of our corporate culture, which turns most of us into work slaves, struggling to make ends meet, so our kids have to get jobs instead of play sports.
It is the fault of the big city and suburb teams who think there is an endless supply of kids coming from the malls and the Wal-Marts. They are insulated from reality, thinking everyone else is just like them and those who aren't are inferior. "Oh, you only have five runners? What a terrible team you must have."
It is the fault of the old-school traditionalists, who think these dang kids have to have the exact same structures we had 40 years ago, and if it doesn't fit them then there is something wrong with the kids. Ok, Boomer, you aren't transferring wealth or power to the next generations, but you want to keep the exact same structures that created massive inequality in our society, just so you can retain your own status and power? Instead of forcing kids into outdated rituals, be flexible and improve traditions towards what we now know is the right direction: unity, cooperation, equality and peace.
One reason I don't like the college system as much is that the 3rd place team may have beaten both of the 2 first place teams who tied had they used the head to head format but they are not included in the rescore.
It is the fault of our low national birth rate, so that most rural schools have declining enrollment.
It is the fault of our crass culture, where many kids now care more about their online profile than joining a sports team.
It is the fault of our corporate culture, which turns most of us into work slaves, struggling to make ends meet, so our kids have to get jobs instead of play sports.
It is the fault of the big city and suburb teams who think there is an endless supply of kids coming from the malls and the Wal-Marts. They are insulated from reality, thinking everyone else is just like them and those who aren't are inferior. "Oh, you only have five runners? What a terrible team you must have."
It is the fault of the old-school traditionalists, who think these dang kids have to have the exact same structures we had 40 years ago, and if it doesn't fit them then there is something wrong with the kids. Ok, Boomer, you aren't transferring wealth or power to the next generations, but you want to keep the exact same structures that created massive inequality in our society, just so you can retain your own status and power? Instead of forcing kids into outdated rituals, be flexible and improve traditions towards what we now know is the right direction: unity, cooperation, equality and peace.
We are not doing right for the next generation.
you got all that from a 6th man tie-break?
I like the 6th man rule for this reason: You run the race to find out who has the best scoring 5. But if you tie, we have effectively judged that the top 5 of Team A are collectively equal to the top 5 of Team B. So instead of re-litigating that top 5 scoring using a completely different metric (head to head) you just extend the original scoring system to top 6. You reward the deeper team.
It may have to do more with consistency. In high school, if there is a tie in a dual meet (which many high schools still run), then you would have to go to the sixth man tie breaker. You wouldn't want to change the rules with different meets.
One reason I don't like the college system as much is that the 3rd place team may have beaten both of the 2 first place teams who tied had they used the head to head format but they are not included in the rescore.
The same applies to the high school rule... The LAST place team can have a better 6th runner than the two teams tied for first.
It is the fault of our low national birth rate, so that most rural schools have declining enrollment.
It is the fault of our crass culture, where many kids now care more about their online profile than joining a sports team.
It is the fault of our corporate culture, which turns most of us into work slaves, struggling to make ends meet, so our kids have to get jobs instead of play sports.
It is the fault of the big city and suburb teams who think there is an endless supply of kids coming from the malls and the Wal-Marts. They are insulated from reality, thinking everyone else is just like them and those who aren't are inferior. "Oh, you only have five runners? What a terrible team you must have."
It is the fault of the old-school traditionalists, who think these dang kids have to have the exact same structures we had 40 years ago, and if it doesn't fit them then there is something wrong with the kids. Ok, Boomer, you aren't transferring wealth or power to the next generations, but you want to keep the exact same structures that created massive inequality in our society, just so you can retain your own status and power? Instead of forcing kids into outdated rituals, be flexible and improve traditions towards what we now know is the right direction: unity, cooperation, equality and peace.
We are not doing right for the next generation.
you got all that from a 6th man tie-break?
I like the 6th man rule for this reason: You run the race to find out who has the best scoring 5. But if you tie, we have effectively judged that the top 5 of Team A are collectively equal to the top 5 of Team B. So instead of re-litigating that top 5 scoring using a completely different metric (head to head) you just extend the original scoring system to top 6. You reward the deeper team.
The "deeper" team is usually a function of population and socio-economic power, which is decreasing for small schools. They either need an economic lifeline or we can reconsider the tiebreaker rule to fit with modern demographics. Or we can continue to leave small schools off the map for cross country, which will hurt the sport in the long run.
If you want a rich kids sport, become a lacrosse fan.
I didn't read through all the comments, but let me throw this out there for all of you "do it like they do in College" thinkers. IF the six and seven runners do not count in the score, they why do they allow them (#s 6&7) to push someone else's runners back a spot? In other words, if your argument is that they should not count at all, the why not stop scoring after the fifth runner is in? THAT is what makes the College rule beyond common sense...
Another way to think about this is to delve into what constitutes a "team."
You have a qualifying team when you have five runners. Any less than that and the runners are considered individuals. There is no requirement to have more than five.
The sixth and seventh runners are optional, but are not required to have a team and a team score.
In the event that a qualifying team finishes in a tie, why would you then require that team to have additional, optional runners to able to participate in and possibly win a tie breaker?
Counting the sixth runner for a tie breaker alters the already agreed upon requirement for the minimum standard for team participation.
(And again, for those who missed it, the losing team in this event beat the winning team by over a minute of actual running time by the first five runners, and would have won with both the NCAA and IAAF rules in place.)
Some people here are missing the point. Montrose is a small school that only has 5 runners. It beat a well-funded school that recruits runners. Montrose's first runner beat their first. Montrose's average time was faster. Running 7 "men" gives you an advantage because two of the seven could have a bad day. Montrose made it through the season with 5 runners who had to run every race even when sick or injured. Now, you tell me. By every metric but this arbitrary sixth-man, Montrose won that race
Our sixth runner never ran a race this year. She's hurt and we had to only race with five. We ran our hearts out. Everyone's acting like we purposely ran five. That was our only option. We're fine with the result. We were so happy just to be able to be second. We're fine with the rules. No one from our team is complaining.
Id be certain that if you looked at the history of the team- you will see they have done an amazing job and have made huge strides (no pun intended). The fact is- cross country is a demanding sport and kids are much lazier now and dont want to put in the hard work. These kids HAVE put in the work and it shows. Way to go Montrose! Tied for 1st!!
Some people here are missing the point. Montrose is a small school that only has 5 runners. It beat a well-funded school that recruits runners. Montrose's first runner beat their first. Montrose's average time was faster. Running 7 "men" gives you an advantage because two of the seven could have a bad day. Montrose made it through the season with 5 runners who had to run every race even when sick or injured. Now, you tell me. By every metric but this arbitrary sixth-man, Montrose won that race
By the only metric that matters, they lost. They had all season to get 1 more kid out but for whatever reason nobody was interested. If a school shows up with 4 runners, are you going to award them a win based on top 3 scoring?
Another way to think about this is to delve into what constitutes a "team."
You have a qualifying team when you have five runners. Any less than that and the runners are considered individuals. There is no requirement to have more than five.
The sixth and seventh runners are optional, but are not required to have a team and a team score.
In the event that a qualifying team finishes in a tie, why would you then require that team to have additional, optional runners to able to participate in and possibly win a tie breaker?
Counting the sixth runner for a tie breaker alters the already agreed upon requirement for the minimum standard for team participation.
(And again, for those who missed it, the losing team in this event beat the winning team by over a minute of actual running time by the first five runners, and would have won with both the NCAA and IAAF rules in place.)
This is EXACTLY right. If only 5 are required to attain a team score, requiring a 6th for a tie breaker is STUPID.
The point of XC is to see has the STRONGEST TOP 5. Thus the ties should be broken by looking within those 5 runners. The 6th runner had a chance to be top 5 and FAILED.
Another way to think about this is to delve into what constitutes a "team."
You have a qualifying team when you have five runners. Any less than that and the runners are considered individuals. There is no requirement to have more than five.
The sixth and seventh runners are optional, but are not required to have a team and a team score.
In the event that a qualifying team finishes in a tie, why would you then require that team to have additional, optional runners to able to participate in and possibly win a tie breaker?
Counting the sixth runner for a tie breaker alters the already agreed upon requirement for the minimum standard for team participation.
(And again, for those who missed it, the losing team in this event beat the winning team by over a minute of actual running time by the first five runners, and would have won with both the NCAA and IAAF rules in place.)
This is EXACTLY right. If only 5 are required to attain a team score, requiring a 6th for a tie breaker is STUPID.
The point of XC is to see has the STRONGEST TOP 5. Thus the ties should be broken by looking within those 5 runners. The 6th runner had a chance to be top 5 and FAILED.
No, the rule is that the best 5 runners of 7 man team are chosen to calculate the score.
The point of XC is to bring the strongest team up to 7 runners.
...By every metric but this arbitrary sixth-man, Montrose won that race
By the only metric that matters, they lost. They had all season to get 1 more kid out but for whatever reason nobody was interested. If a school shows up with 4 runners, are you going to award them a win based on top 3 scoring?
Your first sentence is correct. By the metric that matters, they lost. Nobody is arguing or discussing that point.
The bigger question is whether that rule, in general, best serves the sport, given that teams are in no way required to have a sixth runner. The NCAA breaks the tie within the five scoring runners. The IAAF breaks the tie within the scoring runners. Why doesn't high school?
The argument "they won because the rule says they won" doesn't add anything here.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.