For teams to tie in a cross country competition is rare. For all three NCAA divisions to agree on how to break a tie also is rare.

Up to this point, the disagreement has not been a major issue, since ties are broken only in NCAA regional qualifying meets and each division is permitted to have its own tie-breaking format for championships competition.

However, the need to break ties in regular-season meets also exists, particularly in Division I. But NCAA legislation calls for playing rules to be common for all divisions, so the difference that currently is in place soon may need to be addressed.

Eighteen of the 31 teams that qualify for the Division I Men's and Women's Cross Country Championships do so by finishing first or second in the nine regional qualifying meets. The remaining 13 teams are selected at-large.

Should there be a tie in a Division I regional that must be broken for the purpose of determining which team advances to the championships, the factor used to break the tie is the finish of each squad's fifth runner. For example, if two teams are tied for second place with 94 points in a regional and Team A's fifth finisher places 33rd and Team B's fifth finisher comes in 41st, Team A would qualify for the championships.

Advancement to the national championships in Divisions II and III is based solely on regional qualifying meets. The method for breaking any ties to determine those teams that will move on to the national championships is much different from Division I's.

In the case of ties, the place finish of each team member one through five is compared to that of their respective competitor on the opposing team. The team to advance is the team that wins the majority (best of five) of the comparisons.

For instance, Team A's first five finishers are in places 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. Team B's first five finishers occupy places 1, 3, 5, 7 and 14. Both Teams A and B would have a team score of 30.

To break the tie, Team B would receive one point since its first finisher won the meet ahead of Team A's first finisher in second place. Based on all five comparisons, Team B would earn four points to Team A's one and would be the team to advance.

Matter of division

As can be expected, each tie-breaking system has its proponents. Gwen Harris, director of the women's cross country and women's track and field programs at James Madison University, and a member of the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee's Division I subcommittee, believes using the fifth finisher has several positives.

"Even though two teams may tie in points, using the place of the fifth runner determines which team finishes ahead of the other," Harris said. "That seems to be a reasonable way to break a tie.

"Most of the time, a team's finish is largely based on its top four runners. This method not only encourages coaches to develop deeper teams, but also spurs athletes in those positions to work just as hard as the top runners."

Don Nichter, head men's and women's cross country coach at Dickinson College, and chair of the track and field committee's Division III subcommittee, spoke on behalf of the best-of-five comparison format. He noted that the Divisions II and III subcommittees developed the same tie-breaking procedure independent of each other at their annual meetings in June.

"Both groups believe that since the top five runners are involved in creating the tie, then they also should be involved in breaking it. This format really gets down to how one team's five runners fared against another team's five, rather than placing an added emphasis on the fifth finishers."

Since 1989, the first year a tie-breaking format was introduced, Divisions II and III broke ties by using the total time of each team's top five finishers. Division I also used the total time method for one year, before switching to the fifth-finishers format in 1990.

Breaking ties follows suit

Currently, since ties are broken only in the regional qualifying meets, which are considered part of NCAA championships competition, it is acceptable for each division to have its own way of doing so. However, the criteria now used to select the 13 at-large teams for the Division I championships may necessitate the breaking of ties in regular-season meets.

At that point, all three divisions would have to come together and agree on a single method to break ties, since NCAA playing rules are to be common for all divisions. Differences among the divisions are not permitted, except for division-specific playing regulations developed to address significant financial impact.

The Division I criteria to determine the at-large teams include the number of wins against teams that qualified for nationals by finishing in the top two of their regional qualifying meets and the results of head-to-head competition against other teams being considered for an at-large bid.

"Right now, if you have a tie with another team in a regular-season meet, it cannot be counted as a win or a loss. The result is basically thrown out for selection purposes," said Harris.

Since there are no at-large bids available to the Divisions II and III championships, the question is whether or not there is a need to break regular-season ties. "Personally, I think we should be breaking ties," Nichter said.

"There have been other sports, for instance, football and field hockey, that have implemented methods to break ties. It may be time for cross country to follow suit."

Diane Howell, associate athletics director at the University of Houston and chair of the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee, looks forward to any future discussion on the issue. "There are advantages and disadvantages to both formats. The committee is anxious to see how the best-of-five method is received by Divisions II and III coaches across the country," Howell said.

It is too soon to predict when a regular-season tie-breaking format might be implemented, according to Howell. "The committee always needs to be receptive to input from the coaches associations, which may take some time to be determined.

"Our objective is to have a format that is fair for the sport, simple to resolve and is easily understood by coaches, competitors, spectators and the media."