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.
It is amusing that we had these 2 threads. In one case everyone talks about how bad using the 6th runner is. The other talks about how bad using head to head is... All tie breakers suck when your team loses them...
I would argue for NCAA there is no need to break ties. Declare them cochamps and move on. Nobody cares...
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.
It is amusing that we had these 2 threads. In one case everyone talks about how bad using the 6th runner is. The other talks about how bad using head to head is... All tie breakers suck when your team loses them...
I would argue for NCAA there is no need to break ties. Declare them cochamps and move on. Nobody cares...
I agree with you. While I think that using the 6th runner (a runner you are not required to even have) is the worst, and that there are more fair means, I would be in favor of not breaking ties at all. If we are tied after five guys cross the line, then we could accept that the teams are equally worthy.
Would we break a tie in track and field? How about swimming? We could devise a method to do so in both but I don't think that they do.
I'm more comfortable saying that NAU and Oklahoma State are equal and co-champions than saying that one is more deserving based on whatever tie breaker could be used.