Yesterday’s NCAA D1 Cross Country Championships in Terre Haute, Indiana again produced compelling competitions and high drama. But that drama was immeasurably stretched out by the interminable wait for team results, especially in the women’s race. So long was the hold up that it nearly bled over into the men’s competition.

Oh, it was pure torture, like waiting for voting results on election night. But in the end the Oregon Duck women were that much more thrilled, and Coach Mike McGuire’s Michigan Wolverines were all that much more disappointed when the whisper-thin 125 to 126 scores were finally posted.

This is not a new problem for NCAA cross. Most recently in 2012 there were all kinds of technical difficulties that had officials declaring Oregon as the women’s national champs, then Providence, and finally the Ducks one more time after the technology failed to account for several finishers.

But what is it with technology that can be so impressive in almost every regard – automation is replacing every worker in the nation, including brain surgeons  – but it can’t keep track of several hundred runners going 10 mph over an open grass field?

Now most of you are too young to remember, but at one time America flew a man to the moon and back safely, or at least perpetrated an elaborate hoax to that effect, which might actually even be harder, come to think of it. But because we had accomplished that seemingly impossible goal, the standard refrain when anything possible was not achieved was, “if we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we do X?”

Well, today we can’t put a man on the moon, so everything possible has been reduced by a quarter million miles across the board. Maybe we shouldn’t be that confounded, then, that we can’t score a cross country championship automatically with all the technology that we have at hand. Plus, would it be nearly as exciting if we knew instantaneously who had won by one point?

But is using eyeball counting from a video stream the most efficient way to figure results in the 21st century? Is it a little like baseball continuing to use umpires to call balls and strikes because it’s all about tradition when it’s been shown endlessly how wrong so many of their calls are? Tennis still uses lines people, too, but they’ve got the Hawkeye technology for challenges to those calls as a backup.

Is timing and scoring cross country so difficult that they can’t automatically program the results so that the individuals are automatically removed for team scoring? Facebook gives us options on who we send our posts to. Maybe we should return to using popsicle sticks like we did in the old days. Or make sure everyone stays lined up in the chutes exactly as they crossed the finish line. I mean, how hard is this?

I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. But hopefully  this will bleed through to President-elect Trump in Bedminster, N.J. this weekend (who knows, maybe he’s a Flotrack Pro subscriber and saw the thing himself).  And just maybe the NCAAs will become the impetus to get us back to the moon, or maybe even Mars, just so everything else below that difficulty factor improves.



  1. I believe the NCAA wanted the places verified with photo finish to avoid team score problems like 2012. They decided to hold results until complete. Chips are not 100% accurate for finish order – especially in tight races. The timing company does not have a history of problems. They have years of experience at many levels of competition.

    1. If chips aren’t 100% certain, why continue to use them? Or is it a cost issue?

      Better safe than sorry, for sure. Just wonder why the technology hasn’t developed far enough to make the scoring instant and certain. Some meets still use chips-on-shoes technology rather than on bibs. It can’t be that we can’t count and score a couple hundred people running five minute pace, can it?


  2. The important thing is to get it right. The amazing thing about the women’s championship was that it was decided by .1 of a second between the 5th runners from Oregon and Michigan. What other team title is decided by that narrow of a margin?

  3. The meet at which Oregon was initially declared the winner, was held at William & Mary, known as “Bill & Mary” to their compatriots in the Southern Conference, in 1970, 2016-1970 = 46 years.

    Manual calculation can be off as much as auto with incorrect inputs.

  4. The NCAA meet at William & Mary, known as “Bill & Mary” by those in their Conference, was in 1970.

    2016-1970 = 46.

  5. Hey anonymous- I would like to know what specific problems that the timing company has had?? And Tony, I agree with you. It is nice to know the results as soon as humanly possible. The key word is humanly. It is difficult to pass judgment on any particular situation unless you are there behind the scenes seeing all the different moving parts working in real time.

  6. Before computerized scoring, 36 years ago @ William & Mary, Oregon left the Div. 1 XC Meet site with the NCAA Trophy. The scoring was accomplished manually and had to be a fiasco. Villanova
    actually won the Meet.

  7. NCAA needs to get a better timing company. This company historically has problems but have got a sweet deal with NCAA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.