Why have only 5 of 7 XC runners score? Why not 6? 7?

because when you can't have a number that ends in zero, five is the way to go

Should throw out the high and low (so score finishers 2-6 from a team)

judgedsportrules wrote:

Should throw out the high and low (so score finishers 2-6 from a team)

That's a terrible idea. So your top runner doesn't matter? The reason only 5 of 7 score is so that having a runner or two have a bad day or get injured doesn't automatically sink the whole team.

It's really done in reverse: we decide 5 should score, and then you get to bring a couple more runners as back-ups. Again, if everybody scored, the race would be all about nobody having a bad race rather than trying to run a good one. We could expand it to 7 score, but then we should allow say 10 on a team.

Agree with your argument against scoring 2-6. I get your logic for why it'd be bad for all 7 to score, but I'd think a good mark of a team would be having at least 6 of your 7 run relatively good races. Seems weird we can only count on under 5 to do so, and give a pass for 2 bad races. I would argue that having 2 guys run like crap on a 7-person team SHOULD sink a team in a team sport.

automorphic wrote:

judgedsportrules wrote:

Should throw out the high and low (so score finishers 2-6 from a team)

That's a terrible idea. So your top runner doesn't matter? The reason only 5 of 7 score is so that having a runner or two have a bad day or get injured doesn't automatically sink the whole team.

It's really done in reverse: we decide 5 should score, and then you get to bring a couple more runners as back-ups. Again, if everybody scored, the race would be all about nobody having a bad race rather than trying to run a good one. We could expand it to 7 score, but then we should allow say 10 on a team.

XC is weighted more toward no bad performances than other sports are. Baseball can have several guys strike out every time or basketball can have some guys miss every shot. You also have the option of pulling guys from the lineup in other sports while in XC you have to stick with the lineup after the gun fires. So scoring 5 out of 7 is very weighted toward a solid performance for all athletes. Don't change. If any change, I would allow more competitors but keep scoring at 5 like they do at some meets including some conference meets.

automorphic wrote:

judgedsportrules wrote:

Should throw out the high and low (so score finishers 2-6 from a team)

That's a terrible idea. So your top runner doesn't matter? The reason only 5 of 7 score is so that having a runner or two have a bad day or get injured doesn't automatically sink the whole team.

It's really done in reverse: we decide 5 should score, and then you get to bring a couple more runners as back-ups. Again, if everybody scored, the race would be all about nobody having a bad race rather than trying to run a good one. We could expand it to 7 score, but then we should allow say 10 on a team.

The top runner already matters least. Take the first place guy (or any of the top 3), add 30 seconds, they finish in 19th place. Take the 50th place guy, add 30 seconds, they're in 104th place. So 30 seconds is worth 18 places up front and 54 places further back.

That doesn't even account for how much harder it is to subtract 30 seconds at the faster pace.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Just don't see many sports where almost 30% of the team doesn't even count.

It depends on what you mean by team. Here's Alabama's football rooster:

There are 115 players on that rooster. I'm sure that in actually competitive games, far more than 30% don't actually play. They do have reasons for being there, of course, but in actual competition (again, if the game is close), probably a majority won't a snap.

Of course, every player who is on the field counts, but few players will play every snap. Probably no player will play every single play, if we include special teams.

Fair rebuttal, and you could say the same for benchwarmers in basketball. That being said, in Cross Country all 7 starters go on the course and have the exact same role. I don't see why all but one shouldn't count. If you want to scale it some way fine, so that the first runner is more important (e.g. by time or something) thats OK, but its weird you'd have 2 starters do an entire race only to be crossed out.

compressed wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Just don't see many sports where almost 30% of the team doesn't even count.

It depends on what you mean by team. Here's Alabama's football rooster:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/roster/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide

There are 115 players on that rooster. I'm sure that in actually competitive games, far more than 30% don't actually play. They do have reasons for being there, of course, but in actual competition (again, if the game is close), probably a majority won't a snap.

Of course, every player who is on the field counts, but few players will play every snap. Probably no player will play every single play, if we include special teams.

This is what I mean (histogram from this year's race):

I say allow at least 10 (score 8) entrants for each team and also allow a list of alternates, where and 10 from your team’s list could be entered and race, up until the moment the race starts.

8 scoring out of 10 would be cool, too. This is a depth, team sport and yet you need just 5 guys, so 70% of your 7 varsity roster which probably 35% or so of your actual team to run to their level? Odd.

Charles M. Wetless wrote:

I say allow at least 10 (score 8) entrants for each team and also allow a list of alternates, where and 10 from your team’s list could be entered and race, up until the moment the race starts.

compressed wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Just don't see many sports where almost 30% of the team doesn't even count.

It depends on what you mean by team. Here's Alabama's football rooster:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/roster/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide

There are 115 players on that rooster. I'm sure that in actually competitive games, far more than 30% don't actually play. They do have reasons for being there, of course, but in actual competition (again, if the game is close), probably a majority won't a snap.

Of course, every player who is on the field counts, but few players will play every snap. Probably no player will play every single play, if we include special teams.

That's a bad example unless there are only 7 runners on a whole XC team's roster. Look at Stanford's roster. They have 22 athletes on the men's team so only 31-32% of the runners run in the National races. I would imagine that in the Bama football games, that is pretty close to the percentage of players on the roster who play in the game (36-37 would be the same % from 115).

Hitchhiker: You heard of this thing, the 5 runners score?

Ted: Yeah, sure, 5 runners score. Yeah, that's cross country right?.

Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: ….7… runners… score.

Ted: Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you’re going.

Hitchhiker: Think about it. You go to a cross country race, you see 5 runners score sittin’ there, there’s 7-runners score right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?

Ted: I would go for the 7.

Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7 runners score! . And we guarantee just as good a score as the 5 runner teams.

Ted: You guarantee it? That’s — how do you do that?

Hitchhiker: If you’re not happy with the first 7 runners, we’re gonna send you the extra runner free. You see? That’s it. That’s our motto. That’s where we’re comin’ from. That’s from “A” to “B”.

Ted: That’s right. That’s — that’s good. That’s good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-runners score. Then you’re in trouble, huh?

Hitchhiker convulses.

Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody’s comin’ up with 6. Who scores with 6 runners? You won’t even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.

Ted: That — good point.

Hitchhiker: 7’s the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that’s the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin’ on a branch, eatin’ lots of sunflowers on my uncle’s ranch. You know that old children’s tale from the sea. It’s like you’re dreamin’ about Gorgonzola cheese when it’s clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Ted: Why?

Hitchhiker: ’Cause you’re fvkin’ fired!

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b9d61d11-4a14-44d1-8ade-0ef63fbcde76

Deep thoughts, World Cross Country used to score 6 runners from 9 runner teams.

Five shall be the number thou shalt score, and the number thou shalt score shall be five. Six shalt thou not score, neither count thou four, excepting that thou then proceed to five. Seven is right out!

compressed wrote:

[quote]THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

There are 115 players on that rooster.

O.

Damn, how does that poor rooster feel?

ocracoke wrote:

compressed wrote:

[quote]THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

There are 115 players on that rooster.

O.

Damn, how does that poor rooster feel?

Like a turkey on Thanksgiving day!

I recall reading years ago about cross country competitions in England, between different towns, typically dual meets, where 100 or more runners were scored for each team. I vaguely recall that the number scored was decided on the day of the race, and would be the total number of runners on the smaller of the two teams. There was also some formula to make sure that each team had a lot of runners, and not allow a town to field a team of, say, two or three ringers. I wonder if anybody else has heard of this or knows about this "mass cross country."

Schools have tried different things in their invitationals. Some meets go by total team time or have

individual races. I say give it a whirl with some invitationals that score six runners out of nine.

See how people react. But do not go to 7 right away.

If you have more people run varsity perhaps more talented kids will turn out for the sport?

Maybe they will stay with it longer? If you've never tried it how do you know.

Good thread.