Cross Country Sucks-It Needs a New Scoring Method.

Cross Country sucks wrote:

The old scoring Method (1-2-3-4-5) where you take the place of the athletes and at them up so a team that had an athlete in 2nd, 6th, 13th, 19th and 150th, would receive a score of 190, instead, they should change the system to be off time, not place. Obviously this method of places, caters much more to the track and field system, as it should, because of the more diverse amount of events. In cross country however, with everyone running the same event, the scoring system should be more directly related to how one preforms at ones on level, not to the extent of the field. The new scoring system should involve taking the top 6 times, of a 7 person team, and add them up. So for 5k, you could have total times averaging from 1.5 hours to 2 hours. This method makes chasing a PR more desirable, especially for the first group, take the example of a runner in 1st place, running faster might put more distance on the field, but it's still only going to be 1st place, you don't help you team more by running faster. NOW, they would want to run faster to give their team a cushion, thus motivating athletes more in this sport.

Strongly disagree wrote:

Cross Country sucks wrote:

The old scoring Method (1-2-3-4-5) where you take the place of the athletes and at them up so a team that had an athlete in 2nd, 6th, 13th, 19th and 150th, would receive a score of 190, instead, they should change the system to be off time, not place. Obviously this method of places, caters much more to the track and field system, as it should, because of the more diverse amount of events. In cross country however, with everyone running the same event, the scoring system should be more directly related to how one preforms at ones on level, not to the extent of the field. The new scoring system should involve taking the top 6 times, of a 7 person team, and add them up. So for 5k, you could have total times averaging from 1.5 hours to 2 hours. This method makes chasing a PR more desirable, especially for the first group, take the example of a runner in 1st place, running faster might put more distance on the field, but it's still only going to be 1st place, you don't help you team more by running faster. NOW, they would want to run faster to give their team a cushion, thus motivating athletes more in this sport.

I strongly disagree because this would completely remove the team aspect from the race.

Right now, there is incentive for a faster runner to try to work with some slower runners on their team to pull them up in place for a better team finish.

Your method would encourage that faster runner to try to gain as much 'time' for their team by abandoning them and just going as fast as possible. One of the things that make cross interesting are the strategy components.

shuddap wrote:

Nope!!! wrote:

No. Cross country is about COMPETING WITH PEOPLE, NOT THE CLOCK! You know, competition, the thing sports are supposed to be about. If a runner is ahead of you, you better run your guts out to beat him because that might be the one point that decides the meet.

We do NOT need more time trials. It's a sport, so beating people SHOULD matter.

this is the problem with xc, we have old fogies who don’t run anymore forgot how to race. we see it in the ncaa champs and we see it in the olympics, people are too concerned about PLACE that the long distance running part of it is shed, it turns into a jog for 10 laps then a dead sprint to the finish, when you are at that elite level you should be running for TIME, not PLACE, you know you’re place YOUR THE BEST OF THE BEST, just another reason why long distance has failed while sprinting continues to thrive

Cross Country sucks wrote:

The old scoring Method (1-2-3-4-5) where you take the place of the athletes and at them up so a team that had an athlete in 2nd, 6th, 13th, 19th and 150th, would receive a score of 190, instead, they should change the system to be off time, not place. Obviously this method of places, caters much more to the track and field system, as it should, because of the more diverse amount of events. In cross country however, with everyone running the same event, the scoring system should be more directly related to how one preforms at ones on level, not to the extent of the field. The new scoring system should involve taking the top 6 times, of a 7 person team, and add them up. So for 5k, you could have total times averaging from 1.5 hours to 2 hours. This method makes chasing a PR more desirable, especially for the first group, take the example of a runner in 1st place, running faster might put more distance on the field, but it's still only going to be 1st place, you don't help you team more by running faster. NOW, they would want to run faster to give their team a cushion, thus motivating athletes more in this sport.

jAjshzn wrote:

Cross Country sucks wrote:

The old scoring Method (1-2-3-4-5) where you take the place of the athletes and at them up so a team that had an athlete in 2nd, 6th, 13th, 19th and 150th, would receive a score of 190, instead, they should change the system to be off time, not place. Obviously this method of places, caters much more to the track and field system, as it should, because of the more diverse amount of events. In cross country however, with everyone running the same event, the scoring system should be more directly related to how one preforms at ones on level, not to the extent of the field. The new scoring system should involve taking the top 6 times, of a 7 person team, and add them up. So for 5k, you could have total times averaging from 1.5 hours to 2 hours. This method makes chasing a PR more desirable, especially for the first group, take the example of a runner in 1st place, running faster might put more distance on the field, but it's still only going to be 1st place, you don't help you team more by running faster. NOW, they would want to run faster to give their team a cushion, thus motivating athletes more in this sport.

Possibly the dumbest idea of all time.