THE GOLF IS OPTIONAL, THE MIRTH IS REQUIRED! The only blog detailing PSU Track and Field, (not always great!) Golf, Physics topics and great videos at the same time! An eclectic mish-mash (mess) of just about everything imaginable. Penn State Track and Field Alumni Golfers have honored PSU Track/XC, Coach Harry Groves and abused golf courses throughout Happy Valley since 2002. Help spread the word!
Friday, June 9, 2017
A Little Rant: I Wish The Scoring System At NCAA Would Be Updated
It has always confused me as to why the scoring system for the NCAA Track Championships is as restricted as it is. Only scoring the top 8 in the Nation shortchanges so many schools and individuals who are at the top of the Sport. It doesn't make sense.
The 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system is fine for smaller invitationals, but doesn't do justice for anyone who truly loves the Sport. A team with 1 dominant sprinter/long jumper and NO OTHER TEAM MEMBERS can place high or even win the Championship (think a one man team of Carl Lewis!). And that would be a team likely to be at the bottom of their conference Championships and unable to win any dual meets (Not that they exist anymore anyway!).
A 20-18-16-14-13-12-11(...)-1 system would make more sense! It would still weight the top 3 positions as more important, but would reward well-balanced teams equitably. It is supposedly a team sport, after all.
What do you think?
Excellent idea. Should definitely be looked into and considered.
ReplyDeleteNot many people back me up on this. Thanks for the support. PSU had 3 separate 9th place finishes and another 11th place. "My" scoring system would have moved us up in the team scoring for sure.
ReplyDeleteThe current scoring system encourages coaches to use their resources to recruit a few superstars rather than develop a complete team.
ReplyDeleteI like your proposal but am concerned about the inequity in assigning placements to those who didn't make the final. Since the semi-finalists compete in separate heats, the placements (track events) would have to be based solely on their semi-final times.
A scoring system that would provide even more encouragement for depth would be to give points for advancement starting with the first round of NCAAs. For example, each athlete that advanced to the quarter-finals (at the regional sites) would earn 5 points for their team. Each athlete advancing to the semis would earn another 5 points. Field qualifiers (single step process) would earn 10 points for advancing. In the case of the multi-events, those who qualified for the finals based would earn 10 points for the team.
In running events, those who qualified for the finals would earn another 5 points for the team. Additional points would be in accordance with the present system. For example Harris and Perretta would have each earned 10 points for advancing to Eugene. Harris would have earned 5 more points for qualifying for the final and an additional 8 points for finishing second. The 3 javelin throwers would have earned a total of 30 points for advancing to Eugene plus Shuey's additional points for finishing third. This system would encourage both depth and quality, and would reward complete teams.
Wow. Your answer is exactly why I posed the question in the first place. Hope others chime in. Really, either your answer or mine (or just about anyone else's!) would be better than the current system. IMHO hee hee hee
DeleteI like Bud's system. it would be great to model this year's results.
DeleteI'll try to run some numbers when time permits.
DeleteThat may earn you some of the Intern Stipend Fund! hee hee hee
Delete