Why Not Use Total Team Time for Scoring XC?

What an absolutely AWFUL idea. Sure, let's just make distance running even LESS about beating your competitor than it already is, that'll be sure to make it totally less boring than the time trial state it's already in currently.

tunkcart wrote:[/

Personally, I like the contrast; cross is more communist/communal, and track is more capitalist and cutthroat, with the top 1% battling it out and carrying their teams.

Nice. Well said.

Suburban house cat wrote:

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

Agreed.

If XC is a team sport (not an individual sport), why not award place based on what team , that is runners 1 thru 5, crosses the finish first?

I can just imagine the misguided HS coach who sends an extreme talent out to kill him/herself in every dinky dual meet and invitational just because the team needs them to win by over a minute if they have a chance at a "team" win. I really like it for open meets and masters racing. Its extra motivation to train hard and it isn't like an adult is gonna feel too bad when their team loses because they couldn't win by a minute.

If there was going to be a change to the scoring I would prefer scoring all the way through seven places. Count everyone and see who really has the best team!!!

Tie Breaker: 1st runner across the finish line.

hold the phone wrote:

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.

You make no sense at all.

With time-based scoring, a 1-second difference between 30th and 31st would mean exactly as much as a 1-second difference between 1st and 2nd.

Suburban house cat wrote:

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

Here are some random thoughts on the topic:

I dont know about you, but if I'm doing a time trial, I am essentially racing....and wouldnt the time trial only apply to the first runner(s)...or to runners that would kick to acheive a better time when they otherwise wouldnt kick because they have their repective place locked up. Also, the bigger the race, the less likely that a time trial mentality would exist. 10 seconds can be 10 places, especially the middle 80 to 90% of the race. They are all kicking anyhow. Dual meets should certainly be place scoring.

Ramses wrote:

In Oregon you can see the differences in this argument by looking at Jesuit and South Eugene girls teams. Jesuit will likely win the state title with no runners in the top-10 where South Eugene has two of the best runners to come along in a generation along with a fair supporting cast.

Which school should be rewarded as the best team?. The scoring will be close and Jesuit will probably win but I think South Eugene is the most talented top-to-bottom.

Grant is also a close comparison. They'll have three in the top 10 or better with the next two further back. I also couldn't look at Jesuit and say they are better as a team than Grant.

To me, it shows three teams that are very close and get there with different approaches. Grant beat Jesuit once this year on place scoring and team time. I agree I can't look at Jesuit and say they are better than Grant or South Eugene, but I can't look at either of those teams and say they are better than Jesuit either. That's what makes the state meet exciting.

wowsa wrote:

haven't read the whole thread...

you could get fancy and do a weighted average of total time and team score. that way they both come into play.

Completely useless for assessing who is winning the race or what the placing are as the race plays out. Can you imagine a football or baseball score where they do not let you know what the score is and make it impossible for you to know by observation?

time shouldn't matter in XC period - courses change, conditions change, keeping accurate track of true records is impossible. XC "PRs" are meaningless - I'm sure everyone's comes from a course that is either short or pancake-flat. but it is easy to keep track of all-time low scores in meets. the track is always the same distance, that's where time should matter.