I've seen some team road races use this to decide the overall winner. Makes every second count for everyone. No one around you? You still need to push yourself to get the best time you can get. It also makes a super fast runner that beats everyone by a lot that much more important. In the current state winning by 1 second or 30 seconds doesn't matter. If this was the tie breaker NAU would have still won since their top 2 were way ahead, and all of the rest of the pack was very close to each other.
I've seen some team road races use this to decide the overall winner. Makes every second count for everyone. No one around you? You still need to push yourself to get the best time you can get. It also makes a super fast runner that beats everyone by a lot that much more important. In the current state winning by 1 second or 30 seconds doesn't matter. If this was the tie breaker NAU would have still won since their top 2 were way ahead, and all of the rest of the pack was very close to each other.
The problem with cumulative time is that it gets away from placement.
One of the beautiful things about XC is the 6th and 7th runner, whose role is to displace other scorers, step up into a scoring role if a top 5 runner falters, or - in rare cases, let's be honest - break ties. There's a reason 7 athletes run and comprise a varsity. It's like having 11 football players on the field at one time, even though not all will score TDs. The 6th man tiebreak is superior for all of these reasons.
honestly the best way to do a tie breakers is very clear and simple. it should be done by the rock paper scissors, best 2 out of 3. i don’t know why you nerds that think you know everything haven’t thought of this before.
an alternative option to my last proposal to have a tie breaker, we could have these mfs having a boxing match with 12 rounds. lets see who the toughest runners really are.
I've seen some team road races use this to decide the overall winner. Makes every second count for everyone. No one around you? You still need to push yourself to get the best time you can get. It also makes a super fast runner that beats everyone by a lot that much more important. In the current state winning by 1 second or 30 seconds doesn't matter. If this was the tie breaker NAU would have still won since their top 2 were way ahead, and all of the rest of the pack was very close to each other.
The problem with cumulative time is that it gets away from placement.
One of the beautiful things about XC is the 6th and 7th runner, whose role is to displace other scorers, step up into a scoring role if a top 5 runner falters, or - in rare cases, let's be honest - break ties. There's a reason 7 athletes run and comprise a varsity. It's like having 11 football players on the field at one time, even though not all will score TDs. The 6th man tiebreak is superior for all of these reasons.
The 6th man tiebreaker is fatally flawed by the fact that it requires you to have a 6th runner, which is not required to have a qualifying team.
To say, "To qualify as a team you must have five runners, but to win a tie breaker you must have a 6th," alters the definition of a "qualifying team" needlessly. Another way to say it would be, "To win a tie breaker, you must have a runner that you are not required to have to be a team."
The NCAA rule, or using total time, or a dual meet score, or the place of the fifth runner... literally all of these rules or ideas are superior to the 6th runner rule.
I agree cumulative time would be better than the current system, but I would still prefer to see extra running be used to determine the true winner. Ties should be settled on the field with extra running, not in a booth with extra calculating.
Cumulative time shouldn't be the tie breaker. XC is all about place, time has nothing to do with it.
In football a 99 yard pass counts 6 pts, just like a 1 yard run counts 6 pts. In XC it doesn't matter is you win by 10 min or 10 sec you still get 1 pt.
What if we just used all three existing methods and then gave it to the better team, the team that won 2-3 (or all three) of the tie-breaks?
1. 6th runner (the high school model)
2. head-to-head 1-5 (the NCAA model)
3. Average time (of the 1-5 runners)
There is no way you could argue against the team that won 2/3 of these (or all three). And because we have smartphones and computers, we know the winner instantly.
p.s. I like races, so the OP's idea of a "race off" actually sounds fun. That said, it would never happen in real life nor we we always have time to hold an additional event after the scheduled meet is over...
It’s idiotic and anticlimactic that cross country team score ties are resolved by “head to head” scoring. It shouldn’t be done by 6th man either because a championship shouldn’t come down to who had the best backup runner.
In other sports, ties are resolved by the only fair way to do it: MORE ACTION. Football and basketball have overtime. Baseball has extra innings. Soccer has extra time and/or penalty kicks. Why then do we resolve cross country ties by some arbitrary technicality?! It’s inane.
Instead, the tie should be resolved by a relay race over the same distance that was covered initially. So in the case of the tie between OSU and NAU, the top five finishers for each team should have faced off in a 5 x 2,000 meter relay (so each team collectively covers 10k). This is the ONLY fair way to resolve a tie.
Nope. Actually the only fair way to resolve a tie is to apply the actual rules of the sport to the situation in question.
Instead, the tie should be resolved by a relay race over the same distance that was covered initially. So in the case of the tie between OSU and NAU, the top five finishers for each team should have faced off in a 5 x 2,000 meter relay (so each team collectively covers 10k). This is the ONLY fair way to resolve a tie.
Have you seriously considered the logistics of this proposal?
Firstly there were two races that day, the women's and the men's races. If the women's race results in a tie does the men's race get delayed while the women run their relay or do you move the relay(s) to the end of the day? In an earlier post you suggested a 15 minute rest before the relay race so therefore if the women had tied the men's race would have to be delayed for about an hour. This delay would only become apparent maybe 10 minutes after the women had finished - or about 10 minutes before the men were scheduled to start. At that point most of the male runners would be at the start area and would now have to be told to come back in an hour.
Secondly the men and women ran different courses. These courses were dynamic in that they changed for each lap. At the end of the women's race they would have been reconfiguring for the men's race. If the relay race occurs straight after the tie you will have to get the marshals to stop reconfiguring and go back to the women's course. Telling the marshals may be easy using radios but telling the spectators will be a whole other matter.
Thirdly you will need to identify the relay hand over boxes and have marshals stationed to ensure the hand overs are legal. Again as the men and women ran different courses and different lengths these boxes will be in different places. The organisers will need to ensure these eight boxes are all located correctly.
Fourthly you have to get the relevant athletes to their relevant boxes prior to starting the relay. Imagine the outcry if a male athlete inadvertently ended up waiting at a female box. You said earlier that you envisioned a 15 minute recovery period prior to starting, you probably need to add another 15 minutes to get the athletes to their respective positions and have the both the course and box marshals radio in to confirm they are ready.
Fifthly it would be more sensible to move the relays to the end of the day. But either way you would have to plan assuming there could be two run-off relays to contend with. That means you will have to have all necessary support services present for that eventuality. By this I mean: officials marshals, timekeeping, medical, security, television, post race refreshments, transportation etc. etc. This would mean you will probably have to extend their contracts by two hours. As they will probably want to be paid up front you could find that in most cases you will still be paying these people long after they have packed up and gone home.
Sixthly, the race was televised by ESPN. They will have blocked an amount of time to cover the race. If you want to be sure the run-off relays are covered you will need to ensure ESPN will cover them. I am not sure they will be willing to allocate a couple of hours of broadcast time for an eventuality that most probably will not happen.
Instead, the tie should be resolved by a relay race over the same distance that was covered initially.
So in the case of the tie between OSU and NAU, the top five finishers for each team should have faced off in a 5 x 2,000 meter relay (so each team collectively covers 10k). This is the ONLY fair way to resolve a tie.
Have you seriously considered the logistics of this proposal?
The answer is "No, he didn't." He had a brain fart of an idea that for some reason he decided to turn into a Letsrun post.
The problem with cumulative time is that it gets away from placement.
One of the beautiful things about XC is the 6th and 7th runner, whose role is to displace other scorers, step up into a scoring role if a top 5 runner falters, or - in rare cases, let's be honest - break ties. There's a reason 7 athletes run and comprise a varsity. It's like having 11 football players on the field at one time, even though not all will score TDs. The 6th man tiebreak is superior for all of these reasons.
The 6th man tiebreaker is fatally flawed by the fact that it requires you to have a 6th runner, which is not required to have a qualifying team.
To say, "To qualify as a team you must have five runners, but to win a tie breaker you must have a 6th," alters the definition of a "qualifying team" needlessly. Another way to say it would be, "To win a tie breaker, you must have a runner that you are not required to have to be a team."
The NCAA rule, or using total time, or a dual meet score, or the place of the fifth runner... literally all of these rules or ideas are superior to the 6th runner rule.
Can you name an NCAA team with only 5 runners? The "qualifying team" standard is the minimum a team must roster - or finish - in order to post in the team results. It's like in basketball... if you have a ton of people foul out, you can finish the game with only four on the floor instead of five. That's the minimum "qualifying team".
But no on in their right mind starts only four basketball players. Just like no one in their right mind only puts five runners on the line in XC. I suppose if you do... you lose any and all tiebreakers, and if you have a runner fall or drop out, your team is out.
I don't mind the "best of 3" tiebreakers posed above, but to me the more simple solution is the best solution. And I still maintain it's the 6th man. The mano-mano approach essentially double scores each runner, who have already figured in the scoring of the tie. Further, it doesn't allow for a difference in gaps between each runner - say, one team's #2 gets 14th, and the other #2 gets 35th (a beatdown), counts the same as #4 runners going 65th and 66th, only 1 place apart. It rewards more even top fives, and punishes those with outliers/studs up front.
For all these reasons... bringing the 6th runner in, to me, effectively breaks a tie and determines the better overall team.
Have you seriously considered the logistics of this proposal?
Firstly there were two races that day, the women's and the men's races. If the women's race results in a tie does the men's race get delayed while the women run their relay or do you move the relay(s) to the end of the day? In an earlier post you suggested a 15 minute rest before the relay race so therefore if the women had tied the men's race would have to be delayed for about an hour. This delay would only become apparent maybe 10 minutes after the women had finished - or about 10 minutes before the men were scheduled to start. At that point most of the male runners would be at the start area and would now have to be told to come back in an hour.
Secondly the men and women ran different courses. These courses were dynamic in that they changed for each lap. At the end of the women's race they would have been reconfiguring for the men's race. If the relay race occurs straight after the tie you will have to get the marshals to stop reconfiguring and go back to the women's course. Telling the marshals may be easy using radios but telling the spectators will be a whole other matter.
Thirdly you will need to identify the relay hand over boxes and have marshals stationed to ensure the hand overs are legal. Again as the men and women ran different courses and different lengths these boxes will be in different places. The organisers will need to ensure these eight boxes are all located correctly.
Fourthly you have to get the relevant athletes to their relevant boxes prior to starting the relay. Imagine the outcry if a male athlete inadvertently ended up waiting at a female box. You said earlier that you envisioned a 15 minute recovery period prior to starting, you probably need to add another 15 minutes to get the athletes to their respective positions and have the both the course and box marshals radio in to confirm they are ready.
Fifthly it would be more sensible to move the relays to the end of the day. But either way you would have to plan assuming there could be two run-off relays to contend with. That means you will have to have all necessary support services present for that eventuality. By this I mean: officials marshals, timekeeping, medical, security, television, post race refreshments, transportation etc. etc. This would mean you will probably have to extend their contracts by two hours. As they will probably want to be paid up front you could find that in most cases you will still be paying these people long after they have packed up and gone home.
Sixthly, the race was televised by ESPN. They will have blocked an amount of time to cover the race. If you want to be sure the run-off relays are covered you will need to ensure ESPN will cover them. I am not sure they will be willing to allocate a couple of hours of broadcast time for an eventuality that most probably will not happen.
Thank you for seriously considering my proposal, unlike the others who rudely dismissed it or ridiculed it.
I believe all those logistics can be figured out. Totally fine with doing the women’s tiebreak after the men’s race, and the men’s tiebreaker needing 30 minutes to set up, as both scenarios give the runners more rest, which alleviates the concern that one guy had about 18-25 year old NCAA athletes running another step after a moderate distance race.
Television coverage of overtime happens regularly. They know how to do it. When there’s a will there’s a way.
The 6th man tiebreaker is fatally flawed by the fact that it requires you to have a 6th runner, which is not required to have a qualifying team.
To say, "To qualify as a team you must have five runners, but to win a tie breaker you must have a 6th," alters the definition of a "qualifying team" needlessly. Another way to say it would be, "To win a tie breaker, you must have a runner that you are not required to have to be a team."
The NCAA rule, or using total time, or a dual meet score, or the place of the fifth runner... literally all of these rules or ideas are superior to the 6th runner rule.
Can you name an NCAA team with only 5 runners? The "qualifying team" standard is the minimum a team must roster - or finish - in order to post in the team results. It's like in basketball... if you have a ton of people foul out, you can finish the game with only four on the floor instead of five. That's the minimum "qualifying team".
But no on in their right mind starts only four basketball players. Just like no one in their right mind only puts five runners on the line in XC. I suppose if you do... you lose any and all tiebreakers, and if you have a runner fall or drop out, your team is out.
I don't mind the "best of 3" tiebreakers posed above, but to me the more simple solution is the best solution. And I still maintain it's the 6th man. The mano-mano approach essentially double scores each runner, who have already figured in the scoring of the tie. Further, it doesn't allow for a difference in gaps between each runner - say, one team's #2 gets 14th, and the other #2 gets 35th (a beatdown), counts the same as #4 runners going 65th and 66th, only 1 place apart. It rewards more even top fives, and punishes those with outliers/studs up front.
For all these reasons... bringing the 6th runner in, to me, effectively breaks a tie and determines the better overall team.
I can name a high school team that just ran with five runners and lost the state title because of the flawed "6th man tie breaker." They ran over one minute faster than the winning team and would have won the NCAA-style tie breaker, but lost because they didn't have a runner that you are not required to have.
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.
Is there any commonly-run footrace where this isn't true?
Thank you for seriously considering my proposal, unlike the others who rudely dismissed it or ridiculed it.
I believe all those logistics can be figured out. Totally fine with doing the women’s tiebreak after the men’s race, and the men’s tiebreaker needing 30 minutes to set up, as both scenarios give the runners more rest, which alleviates the concern that one guy had about 18-25 year old NCAA athletes running another step after a moderate distance race.
Television coverage of overtime happens regularly. They know how to do it. When there’s a will there’s a way.
He did NOT seriously consider your idea. In fact, he told you SIX WAYS that it would never work. Can you not read?
And TV overtime happens IMMEDIATELY after, not 30 or 60 minutes later.
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.