How would changing the count of scoring runners impact 2A cross country? Colorado Track XC file photo by Alan Versaw.
At last fall's CHSAA cross country meeting, the committee discussed, and successfully pushed through, a proposal to move 3A from a run six/score four format to the conventional cross country format of run seven/score five.
A tagalong to that discussion was the question of what to do with the 2A format. Last fall, 2A ran five and scored three. It's been noted before that, under such a scenario, one robust family could easily make up your cross country team.
But 2A was not part of the proposal to run seven and score five for 3A, so the committee mostly left 2A alone, contenting itself with adding a single runner, leaving 2A in the nationally unique situation of running six and scoring three for this fall. Lacking good input on the question of runners in 2A, the committee took a step toward encouraging more participation by adding the extra runner, but didn't want to risk a sharp reduction in schools able to field complete teams by adding to the requirement for scoring.
So, without that pressure of making a decision on the spot for which the consequences aren't well known, what of the 2A scoring format? How might 2A fare under a different scoring format? I decided to take a look and see.
Using cross country meet results from last year's database, I was able to find 35 2A boys teams that were able to score a team at some point or another during the season under the score three format. If you required 2A to have four runners to score a team, that number drops, but only to 32 teams. Interestingly, if you were to require 2A to have five runners to score a team, the number of scoring teams only drops to 31 teams. And only three of those 31 teams would not have had the luxury of at least one pusher.
The picture for girls was slightly less optimistic. With a required total of three runners to score a team, 35 2A schools were able to score a complete team last fall. That number drops to 28 if four runners are required to score a team. The number drops again to 22 if five runners are required to score a team. 15 of those 22 teams would have had at least one pusher.
Admittedly, that's not taking into account runners who may have gotten injured during the season or quit before the season was over.
At the very least, however, the suggestion that 2A take on a fourth scoring runner seems plausible. There would be some impact in the number of scoring teams, but it would not be a disastrous impact.
And, that suggestion may increase in importance if the idea of separate classification breakpoints for different sports that CHSAA has been floating of late takes hold. That proposal would take the 2A/3A boundary point up to an enrollment of 325. So, a lot of schools that are currently in 3A (and running seven/scoring five this fall) would move to 2A in the next cycle.
It seems prudent, then, to reopen discussion now of what the best scoring format for 2A would be in the next cycle if the classification would include schools up to enrollments of 325 students.
For those wondering, here is a quick summary of what the states surrounding us do:
- Arizona - all classifications run seven, score five
- New Mexico - all classifications run seven, score five
- Oklahoma - all classifications run seven, score five
- Kansas - the smallest classification (1A) runs seven, scores four; all other classifications run seven, score five
- Nebraska - only the largest classification runs seven and scores five; the three smaller classifications run six and score four
- Wyoming - the smallest classification (2A) runs seven and scores four; the other two classifications run seven, score five
- Utah - all classifications run seven, score five