The NCAA Cross Country Championship is a true test of team strength, where every runner’s position matters. Coaches often emphasize “every point counts,” as each runner contributes to the team’s overall score. Traditionally, team scores are calculated by adding the places of a team’s top five finishers. The team with the lowest total wins. However, this method raises questions: why use place over time, and why count only five runners?
This article explores alternative scoring methods, such as including the sixth and seventh runners, flight scoring, and time-based scoring, to see how these changes could impact the results of the NCAA championships. These alternative methods highlight different aspects of team performance and provide a fresh perspective on cross country competition.
The Impact of Including the 6th and 7th Runners
When including the 6th and 7th runners in the scoring, the results change significantly. BYU’s women’s team, known for its depth, increased its margin of victory substantially. With traditional scoring, BYU won by just 17 points over West Virginia. However, by including the 6th runner, their margin grew to 70 points over Northern Arizona, and with the 7th runner counted, BYU’s victory expanded to 79 points.
On the men’s side, the inclusion of more runners also benefited BYU. While they won by 13 points with traditional scoring, their margin grew to 38 points when considering the 6th runner and 49 points with the 7th runner included. This demonstrates the significant advantage teams like BYU have in terms of depth, where later runners can secure crucial points.
Flight Scoring: A New Way to Rank Teams
Flight scoring, a unique method that groups runners by their finishing position within each team, provides a fresh way to assess team strength. Instead of focusing solely on overall placements, flight scoring evaluates how a team’s runners perform against their teammates in different finishing positions.
In this system, BYU and West Virginia swapped places in the women’s race, with West Virginia coming out on top. Providence held onto third place, but Stanford moved up from sixth to fourth, largely due to strong performances from their later runners. For the men, the top three teams—BYU, Iowa State, and Arkansas—remained unchanged, but North Carolina, originally finishing sixth, jumped onto the podium thanks to an impressive performance by their second runner.
Embed from Getty Images
Time-Based Scoring: Shifting Focus from Place to Performance
Time-based scoring focuses on the actual race times, rather than the placement of each runner. This alternative scoring method saw less dramatic changes compared to flight scoring, but still had an impact. North Carolina’s men’s team, for example, moved down from fourth to sixth, while Oregon’s women’s team moved up to the podium in fourth place. Time-based scoring rewards consistency and overall performance, providing a different perspective on team strength.
The Importance of Team Spread: Cohesion and Pack Running
In cross country, a team’s “spread” refers to the gap between the first and fifth runners. A smaller spread usually indicates that the team is running well together, which is often a sign of strong teamwork and consistent performance.
Teams like Wisconsin and BYU excel in this area. Wisconsin’s women’s team had the smallest time spread, with just a 15.2-second gap between their top five runners. On the men’s side, Iowa State had the smallest place spread, with only a 39-position gap between their first and fifth runners. These tight spreads highlight the importance of running as a cohesive unit, a crucial element in cross country success.
Conclusion: The Value of Depth and Consistency
No matter which scoring system is applied—traditional, flight scoring, time-based scoring, or including more runners—BYU’s dominance at the NCAA Championships is clear. Their depth, team cohesion, and consistent performances across all seven runners make them a formidable force in the race.
These alternative scoring methods offer fresh insights into the nuances of cross country racing. Whether through a focus on depth, time performance, or pack running, these changes reveal new ways to appreciate the team dynamics that define cross country success. In the end, cross country is about more than just the top five runners—it’s about teamwork, consistency, and every runner’s contribution to the victory.
