In the NCAA, the tie-breaker doesn’t go to the sixth runner

They still displace, even if they can't count for scoring.

You are permitted to run as many as 7 and the 1st 5 count. You can run 5 if you feel comfortable doing that but most teams don't know which 5 will be the best in any given week so they all really are competing to score every meet. You question is sort of like saying that in a particular basketball game, only 4 of your guys scored so why have 5 in the game? The next game another guy doesn't score and the 5th man from the game before puts up 20 points.

Why even race at all? We should put all meet entrants into a spreadsheet with their PRs and then sort it! Then we would have the winners and losers without even having to deal with the hassle of having an actual race.

The real reason is coaches wanted a system that rewarded front end performance and not depth. Currently the tie breaker is head to head score...1v1, 2v2...best of 5. The tie breaker is a minor and rarely applicable, but coaches wanted the team score to depend on the top 5 who are more likely on aid, then the 6th guy.

Look around the NCAA, you see some programs where there is not a big difference between 5, 6, 7 but there is also a lot of programs with a dramatic drop off from 5 to 6.

I still think total time (of top five) would be a better tiebreaker. If you can't decide it by placing, don't go back into the minutia of placing, when you already have a telling statistic right there on the scoresheet.

Yep, that would be another interesting option.

To the OP, consider this:

What if teams tie and one of them does not have a sixth runner?

I assume that some people would answer, "If you don't have a sixth runner then you lose."

But teams have no obligation to have six runners, or you could have drop outs and only have five finishers (which is enough to qualify for a team score). You can't be punished for not having six finishers, so counting the sixth finisher as the tie breaker is inherently flawed.

That’s a messed up way at looking at it. No team with 5 runners would be “punished”, rather teams with 6 or more would be rewarded.

or... should a team that only had 5 runs beat a team they tied that had 6 or 7 runners because they performed the same with less resources (runners)... I like the current way the NCAA does it.

For the love of God why does this stupid rule even exist????

Personally I think the tie breaker should be the 6th man, then down to the 7th if needed.

If you don't field a 6th man, then that is the risk you are taking by not having one.

In other sports you can chose to carry X number of players, and decide on which positions to load up on or not, it's part of the risk. (Ever see a football game where the #1, and #2 Qb's go down and they are forced to use a punter as Emergency QB?)

I do like the idea of taking the fastest average time as a tie breaker too. Like someone else stated, the stat is there, it's easy to figure, it doesn't punish a team for not carrying 7 runners.

How can it get to a 7th runner? Somebody’s 6th is faster than someone else’s 6th.

I like the 6th place man better. The top five (on aid) had their chance. They tied/couldn’t decide it. Now it goes to the other members who know all season long they could make a difference if it comes down to that. More of a ‘team effort’.