Punto Cana wrote:
Is is just me, or does it seem weird that an NCAA team could win every event and still lose the meet? Shouldn't winning a title pay out a higher point premium relative to second, third, etc.?
When I was coaching at Cornell, when our team was really rocking, I realized that yes we averaged more than 10 points per event. So another team could win every event as we'd still beat them.
But no, Idon't think it's weird.
If you win an event and I go 2-3 in every event, I think the team that goes 2-3 is much better. They have 2 good people in every event - the other team only has 1.
Would you likewise say that a country that wins silver and bronze in the Olympics is "better" than the country that wins gold? Of course not. Winners matter. Championships matter. Second place is nothing (ok, not nothing, but much less)