Why Not Use Total Team Time for Scoring XC?

I've wondered about that too. The downside would be that close head-to-head battles would have less meaning. If the two fifth men are fighting it out, then it doesn't matter who outleans whom, because they're essentially getting the same time anyway. With place-based scoring, outleaning your rival for 30th place has just as much meaning as the difference between first and second.

The other thing is that you then have to be really accurate and foolproof with timing. It's relatively easy to assign places with a small crew (and have a simple back-up with a video camera), but it takes more work and equipment to produce accurate times.

I don't see anything wrong with that except the emphasis would be racing the clock instead of the other runners. In the big meets, there can be 30 places within a few seconds.

Most of the time it wouldn't matter anyway.

I see no reason a few early season meets shouldn't try it out that way and see how it works.

Let's try new things and see what happens.

The first problem is that you need a clock. Real xc only needs a start and finish line and a plotted out course. No need to make it too complicated. Time means nothing anyway. Besides, does anyone really know what time it is?

Because XC isn't about time, it's about racing--that is the heart of the sport.

That being said, it is really hard not to get caught up in times because we are used to it being a relatively objective way to compare performances across time. As a coach, I have seen athletes (and other coaches) get too caught up in times at the expense of competing against other runners. The "everyone's a winner" mentality may work for the local benefit 5K run/walk, but XC should be about defeating your opponent, which is why placing should always be emphasized over time.

Northwest Apprentice wrote:

Because XC isn't about time, it's about racing--that is the heart of the sport.

Would changing the scoring change the sport? That's a fair question. If there would be any affect it might be that sit-and-kick tactics would be negated.

Looking at the NCAA Women's Results the first three teams would be reversed under a team-timed system:

1. Georgetown - 162 - 1:42:37

2. Washington - 170 - 1:42:23

3. Vilanova - 181 - 1:42:08

This system would reward strong front running by Sheila Reid and Bogdana Mimic from Vilanova who went 1 and 4 rather than Georgetown who had most of their scorers in the 30-50 range.

I'd expect that races would be faster if time was rewarded over points but also be more easily readable by teams and fans. If you could see that three teams were coming into Nationals with 1:42:xx potential it might be easier for coaches and fans to follow the race by tracking split times.

Place Scoring is to XC as the Electoral College is to Presidential Elections.

Does a team deserve to win a meet just because its top runner is 80 seconds faster than everyone else?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Does a team deserve to win a meet just because its top runner is 80 seconds faster than everyone else?

Only if their remaining 4 scoring runners aren't collectively 80 second slower the other teams.

6 of one or half a dozen wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with that except the emphasis would be racing the clock instead of the other runners. In the big meets, there can be 30 places within a few seconds.

Most of the time it wouldn't matter anyway.

It usually doesn't matter but a few years ago I had a team that won every meet we went to but never had the fastest time. We had 7 runners finish within about 15-20 seconds of each other so were packed well but didn't have an individual "superstar".

One difference that no one has mentioned yet is that with place scoring, 6th and 7th place runners can affect the scoring by beating another team's 5th placer and adding to the other team's score. It seems to me like place scoring favors teams with good depth or a really tight pack, while time scoring would favor teams with one really good runner and a bunch of other average runners.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Does a team deserve to win a meet just because its top runner is 80 seconds faster than everyone else?

Therein lies the rub. Determining the winning team involves making judgment calls that are inherently subjective.

1. How much do we want to reward unusually successful outliers?

2. How much do we want to reward good racing and outleaning one's opponent at the finish?

Having said that, perhaps a reasonable compromise would be a hybrid system. Compute rankings based on (1) time only, and (2) position only. Then add up these two rankings to determine the winning team. Make aggregate position the tiebreaker.

Cross country is (and should remain) about racing only. Why do you people want to turn everything into a time trial?

Because you take away from the whole team concept. You could have two really fast guys out front 1 min ahead everyone, and have some real drag asses as your #4 and #5 man.

I certainly understand the concept of time. If your #1 is truly great, then his huge margin of victory and the cushion it gives is a more accurate view of his domination of the event. Like having one great basketball player.

Because with the current scoring system, big races are typically determined by the slower runners on the team. I think it's stupid if my #s 1-4 handily beats your 1-4, but my team loses because your #5 beat mine by a similar amount of time but was far back enough in the race for the point difference to be big.

I get that it's supposed to be a "team sport," and you're only as good as your weakest player, blah blah blah, but why should the slower runners be making the biggest difference when it comes to scoring? Everyone's run should contribute equally. The total time system is a far more objective and overall better way to score a meet. You really think people won't race as hard? Runners would be trying to edge each other out for one second just like they would for one point. Plus, it would give a huge incentive for the fastest runners to run as fast as they possibly can rather than just running to win. Total time scoring is the best of both worlds in my book. People who don't think so are either just hanging on to tradition or slow runners who want to be important.

Hatethesystem wrote:

Everyone's run should contribute equally.

Why? Does the punter contribute as equally as the starting quarterback? Does the 12th man who played 1 minute contribute as much as the starting shooting guard who scored 30 points?

If you want a sport where everyone contributes equally, cross country is not for you. Maybe you should find a different sport. It's going to be hard to find one where "everyone contributes equally". Communist.

Well you've already stated that you hate the idea of total team competition so what's the point?

The current system awards the best TEAM. Sorry if you can only get 4 good runners and one really $hitty one, but that's why it's the TEAM.

The great thing about running is that we are already rewarded on both the individual and team levels. For those that have one or two good runners they reap their rewards in the individual medals, for schools that develop teams; there are the team awards.

The "total time" approach would just reward those that develop individuals that much more.

Tribe wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Does a team deserve to win a meet just because its top runner is 80 seconds faster than everyone else?

Only if their remaining 4 scoring runners aren't collectively 80 second slower the other teams.

What if the 80 second ahead person could have run faster if she was pushed? It could be advantageous for them to let the star runner run ahead without someone pushing them to a better time. We would still see strategic races, but the strategy would change.

Let's use that Basketball (or any team sport) scenario for a second...

If a team is very well-coached, determined, disciplined, fit and intelligent, they are like the Hoosiers. They are a well oiled machine with the ability to run solid plays and win the game. Think Friday Night Lights (the book/movie, not that awful television series). Isn't that what we like to watch? Isn't that what we aspire to? A team of hard working SOBs that train like animals, study the plays and finally play like gladiators to finally beat Dallas Carter?

Do we really want a mediocre team with one LeBron James who is dunking over everyone all the time? Is that good for the sport? Is that good for sport in general? If anything, I think XC is a sport that intentionally deals with outliers by rewarding teamwork and dedication THROUGHOUT the entire roster.

Total time would be a bastardization of the sport for the sake of (a weak attempt at) commercialization.