Who would win in a track meet, a team comprised of XC runners, or a team comprised of the rest of the school?

XC team would get their clock cleaned. Assuming the rest of the school is up for it, the soccer, football, and basketball teams would come out and dominate every single event except the 800, 1600, and 3200.

What mark would win the pole vault is the question.

The non XC team would quadruple the score. The throwers and sprinters and jumpers and hurdles all do track already.

XC guys win 24 points in the best case 800/1600/3200/4x800 and then lose literally every single other point to the others. They might even lose a point or 2 in the 800 since there are some football players who are good at the 800 and XC runners aren't automatically amazing at 800 unless they train for it.

3 sprinters alone easily match and exceed the XC score with 100/200/400/sprint relays/LJ/TJ.

My daughter was in cross country in the same school that Yared Nuguse attended (Dupont Manual in Louisville) but was there after he graduated. The girls team won state when she was there, but they were also very deep so in track the coach had them in quite a few different events. My daughter ran just under 22 in cross country and was the 18th or 20th best runner. One girl from CC was in the 400 and hurdles, some were in field events, my daughter was a pole vaulter. Except the 100 and 200 the majority of the team who were competing in regionals and state were in cross country and they would have killed the rest of the school.

Soccer wouldn't be a factor since many soccer players have joined the XC team at some point.

I think the XC team might be able to get a tiny lead in the running events, but the non-XC team would absolutely dominate the field events. Would the XC team even be able to squeeze out one point? Maybe by getting third in the long jump?

Predictions for running events:

100: team B

200: team B

400: 50-50

800: team A

1500/1600/mile: team A

3200/5000: team A

100/110 hurdles: team B

300/400 hurdles: 50-50

4x100: team B

4x400: team A

That's best case scenario for XC. Most schools 4x400 would crush their XC 4x400. I also know that soccer is the same season as XC in many parts of the country, so it would be a potential factor in a lot of places.

Our xc boys would get crushed.

Our girls would be a win for the XC team as our 3 very good girl hurdlers also run XC and we would actually sweep the 200 and 400. Our sprint girls are not deep at all. XC girls would score 6 in each the 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 100mh, 300mh and I'm not convinced that our hurdlers/our 400/800 girl wouldn't pick up some points in the 100 or LJ if they had a week's worth of practices. They would definitely win each relay.

Significant difference in boys or girls in this case I would think. If it's a "good" XC team then the girls would win. But there are plenty of schools that have a terrible girls' XC team. But on the boys side I would think at most schools the non-XC team would win.

For boys, the XC teams would do relatively better at small private schools than at large and/or public schools, but even at small private schools I think the non-XC teams usually would win.

For girls, the lack of football teams in most places (though in the last few year flag football has been a sport for girls where I live) means that a larger % of the better athletes run XC, so the girls' XC teams might have better chances.

"southlake carroll." at a district level they lose badly as a team. they are competitive at the distance events, which they will approach sweeping, but little else. in HS track that's worth a max of 72 points, for 1-3 from 800-3200. plus a handful for relays. which won't win your district meet against a balanced team earning points all over the place. if you don't believe me, they finished 4th and got 87 total team points at their district meet this year.

one argument against this -- a counter-inuititive subtlety is that by training up a few highly elite athletes in specialties, southlake keeps scoring as they progress to state, thus finishing 4th there too! (with 30 points.). it pays at the bigtime meets to have a few top notch athletes who compete for state podia as opposed to merely being "good" in bulk.

but, yeah, locally, at some invite meet, lowest levels of state progression, they can't even win their area because they have funneled everyone into distance and seem to have little teaching ability in field or sprints.

How bad are some of your cross country teams?

critiques of the Southlake approach would be, i am surprised they can't take some distance runner kid and make him a serviceable 300H runner -- several colleges i have seen (including my alma mater) have sometimes converted excess XC or mid-distance types into low hurdlers for points -- and they have surprisingly few good 800 guys for that good a XC team. which perhaps hints at the type of runners they produce to get the XC job done, pace machines.

southlake won 6A Tex state, low scorer 28th in 15:44, #7 guy 54th in state at 16-flat. their JV was 1-5, 7-8, 16:49. the trick is an endless roster of subvarsity dozens that even allows a kid running 29 to compete. all energy into XC, funneled into those events for TF. few kids in any event finals outside of distance at TF meets.

which, like i said, when you're struggling for points at 400, 300H, mile relay, none of those dozens could be retasked, even just for the spring?

You think XC athletes win in the High Jump, Discus, Shot Put, Triple Jump, Pole Vault, Hurdles, Long Jump, 100, and 200?

i mean their 5th scoring kid at JV is 16:49.

I agree with those saying this wouldn’t be a close track meet for boys at most high schools. The cross country team is getting demolished at a typical large public school.

I’m trying to think of what would actually be a close competition. Best I can think of is this: a three-mile cross country race in which each member of the cross country team completes the full distance, while the rest of the school is able to field 3 x 1 mile relay teams to go up against the cross country team. That could be a good battle. I’d pick the cross country team.

6 places deep for points, maybe the distance sweeps make it competitive.

3 places deep, the field and sprint events add up so the distance team loses.

i was an ok XC runner, back end of varsity, dabbling from sprints (100-400) and hurdles (300H). soccer players, hoopsters. all around athletes. i have also seen some D3 colleges double steeple and 400H, or turn a XC kid into a 400H. you are overrating how fast we run that hurdle race in HS. a lot of it is keeping pace that last 100. which is easy with endurance.

110H a lot of that in HS is technique and being tall enough. you might not win state but an athletic XC kid drilled in technique might be serviceable. you are neglecting how unathletic and slow some HS hurdlers are.

LJ, HJ, or TJ, maybe, take a hoops player who can run distance.

throws and PV, you have somewhat of a point and yet decathletes exist.

to me you're letting "win" do a lot of your heavy lifting. most coaches aren't making their allocation decisions just on who "wins," getting "points" might suffice. and if like southlake carroll you have dozens of kids in the program, and 9 total distance slots at meets without distance relays, and 7 varsity XC slots......it's either "JV is as far as you go," or you get creative. if you have 1 guy or none in many event finals, why not try?

Some of you are making this too difficult. You don;t need soccer or basketball players. Hs rules said that the track team gets to compete. That is why this drill is ridiculous. The actual shot put thrower and pole valuter and triple jumper and all of the other no cros country runners compete on team B.