An issue is brewing in cross country, and the long and short of it is just that -- long and short.

Discussion is heating up about whether to run long- and short-course events during cross country meets instead of a single race.

Proponents of a dual-race option argue that in many cases, the top finishers in collegiate cross country races do not share those exciting few moments after crossing the line with their teammates because most of them are still competing on the course.

That would-be experience is a reality at some venues, however, as a few institutions have contested both long- and short-course races as part of regular-season competitions. Whether the two-race format ever will become the norm at the collegiate level is an unanswered question, but already there are supporters -- and detractors -- who are willing to make their points known.

"A runner who has never seen a teammate win a race would now get the chance to witness it and share in the excitement," said Don Nichter, Dickinson College men's and women's cross country coach and a former chair of the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee's Division III subcommittee.

Nichter implemented the two-race format for the Dickinson Invitational this year and was pleased with the results. "It really created a cross country carnival atmosphere, which is good for the competitors and the spectators."

One of the first issues that would need to be addressed in long- and short-course discussions is course length. At Dickinson, the men's races were 8,000 and 4,000 meters, and the women's events were 6,000 and 4,000 meters.

Currently, the NCAA men's championships course lengths are 10,000 meters in Divisions I and II, and 8,000 meters in Division III. The women's championships for Divisions I and II are 6,000 meters. The Division III women's course length is 5,000 meters in 2001, and is moving to 6,000 meters beginning next year.

"The shorter race distance will have to be one that attracts those who run the middle-distance events in track and field," Nichter said. "These are athletes who sometimes do not compete in cross country because of the length of the races."

Another major matter for discussion would be how to score a two-race format. Team scoring in cross country now is determined by totaling the team-finish place points of the first five runners of each team. The team scoring the fewest points is the winner.

Although the sixth and seventh runners of a team to finish do not score points toward their team's total, their places, if better than those of any of the first five of an opposing team, serve to increase the team score of the opponents. The sixth and seventh runners of a team commonly are known as displacers.

Using that scoring method in a two-race format would require an institution to have a minimum of 10 runners, five in each event, not including displacers, to obtain team scores in both races.

Several possibilities exist on what the make-up of college teams could be in the short- and long-course arrangement. The International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF), the international governing body for track and field, has six-person teams in both races in its World Cross Country Championships. The point total of the first four finishers determines the team score, with the fifth and sixth finishers serving as displacers.

In the Dickinson Invitational, Nichter used a five-runner team format, with three scorers and two displacers. Stanford also ran two races per gender at its invitational this year, and made no changes to the current five-scorer, two-displacers scoring method.

"My hope with reducing the number of scorers was to encourage coaches to field teams in both the long- and short-course races," Nichter said. "We succeeded in that 19 schools fielded scoring teams in both men's races and 15 did so in the women's competition."

Whom to crown

Added to the decision on how to score the individual races is the issue of whether there would be an overall team champion. If the verdict is to crown a men's and a women's team winner based on both the short- and long-course results, then comes the dilemma of developing a scoring method that would satisfy most people.

In that regard, the IAAF does not provide any assistance. The organization does not designate an overall team champion.

Mark Bockelman, NCAA assistant director of championships and liaison to the Track and Field Committee's Division I subcommittee, envisions that if the Association's championships ever include short- and long-course races, the winners of both would be recognized appropriately.

"If the NCAA is sponsoring a race as part of a championship event, I believe it would crown a champion," Bockelman said. "If it did not, the winners would more than likely proclaim themselves as the short- or long-course champion anyway."

At this year's Dickinson event, team scores were determined by adding the points from the short- and long-course races. As always, the institution with the fewest number of points would be declared the winner.

Nichter readily admitted that this method may not be the ideal one. "It was the way I wanted to try it," he said, "but I'm sure there are other approaches out there."

Another matter to review is whether a school that fields a complete team, in whatever form that takes, in one race, but not in the other, should be regarded as a team at all.

"If I entered a full team in one race, I would want to know where it finished in the scoring for that event, even if my school was not going to be involved in the combined short- and long-course scoring," said Margaret Simmons, assistant athletics director at Murray State University and secretary-rules editor of the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee.

Nichter has received several letters from coaches whose teams competed in the Dickinson Invitational and who enjoyed the new format. He noted, however, that some schools at his meet, and one held recently at the University of Wisconsin, Stout, did not fully grasp the two-race concept.

"There were coaches who still treated it as a single race, choosing only to field a team in either the long or short course," Nichter said. "Their minds are geared toward the traditional form."

Changing course

Getting coaches to move away from what is familiar to them certainly will be a challenge for those who prefer the two-event format. "Why should we try to please everybody?" said Jeff DeGraw, head coach of the men's and women's cross country and track and field teams at Lewis University. "For years, cross country has been a sport for distance runners. I do not see the need or desire for that to change."

Simmons offered some rationale for a potential move to a new cross country look. "Whether it be four scorers and one displacer, four and two, or team scoring as we now know it, whatever is implemented should enhance the number of competitive opportunities for student-athletes.

"Currently in meets with many teams, a school may be limited to seven runners. With two races, that number would increase to 10 or more. That is good for both the sport and the competitors."