Anatomy Of A NCAA Men's Championship XC Team
Anatomy Of A NCAA Men's Championship XC Team
Let's take a deep dive to figure out what the DI NCAA championship men's cross country teams all have in common.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ae3b1/ae3b1f2174fb0c9d815fc3d2bf8c5a8d1779e235" alt="Anatomy Of A NCAA Men's Championship XC Team"
Unlock this article, live events, and more with a subscription!
Already a subscriber? Log In
It’s a fall tradition to argue about the optimal construction of a cross country team.
"Would you rather have a few low sticks or reliable depth?"
"A tight pack with a small spread, or a couple of outliers with a high ceiling?"
As the NCAA cross country transitions to the championship portion of the season, let's revisit an article from last year that went deep into the numbers of the past men's championship teams (now updated with the results from 2018).
Does the history of the meet reveal any answers about the most common route to a title? We know, for instance, that a team's fourth-place runner is the greatest indicator of success, but can we discover any other trends that championship teams share?
To answer this, we looked at men's results beginning in 1998, when the meet moved to its current 31-team format (we will review the women's tomorrow).
Year | Men's Champion | 1st Runner | 2nd Runner | 3rd Runner | 4th Runner | 5th Runner | Score | Margin |
2018 | NAU | 6 | 15 | 23 | 26 | 29 | 83 | 33 |
2017 | NAU | 2 | 3 | 8 | 28 | 33 | 74 | 53 |
2016 | NAU | 3 | 9 | 18 | 29 | 66 | 125 | 33 |
2015 | Syracuse | 3 | 7 | 8 | 29 | 35 | 82 | 9 |
2014 | Colorado | 5 | 7 | 8 | 19 | 26 | 65 | 33 |
2013 | Colorado | 7 | 15 | 19 | 30 | 77 | 148 | 20 |
2012 | Oklahoma State | 1 | 3 | 11 | 17 | 40 | 72 | 63 |
2011 | Wisconsin | 3 | 13 | 19 | 27 | 35 | 97 | 42 |
2010 | Oklahoma State | 5 | 6 | 7 | 25 | 30 | 73 | 120 |
2009 | Oklahoma State | 7 | 8 | 11 | 24 | 77 | 127 | 16 |
2008 | Oregon | 1 | 4 | 8 | 36 | 44 | 93 | 54 |
2007 | Oregon | 1 | 6 | 21 | 27 | 30 | 85 | 28 |
2006 | Colorado | 8 | 10 | 15 | 27 | 34 | 94 | 48 |
2005 | Wisconsin | 1 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 14 | 37 | 68 |
2004 | Colorado | 4 | 5 | 15 | 31 | 35 | 90 | 4 |
2003 | Stanford | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 24 | 123 |
2002 | Stanford | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 25 | 47 | 60 |
2001 | Colorado | 1 | 3 | 13 | 26 | 47 | 90 | 1 |
2000 | Arkansas | 10 | 12 | 14 | 20 | 27 | 83 | 11 |
1999 | Arkansas | 1 | 6 | 9 | 20 | 22 | 58 | 127 |
1998 | Arkansas | 5 | 14 | 16 | 22 | 40 | 97 | 17 |
Average | 3.77 | 7.48 | 12.38 | 23.24 | 36.95 | 83.05 | 45.86 |
A few observations:
-NAU's 2018 team had the highest-scoring third runner of the group and tied for the highest-scoring second runner (tied with 2013 Colorado). They made up for it by both their fourth and fifth runners finishing in the top 30.
-Once you remove individual qualifiers, a championship team always has at least one runner in the top 10 of the meet.
-The champions with the highest-placing top runner (Colorado in 2006 and Arkansas in 2000) compensated by having a strong two through five. Colorado had five runners in the first 34, while Arkansas packed five men in between 10th and 27th place.
-On average, a championship team’s second runner is also in the top 10. In the 20 championships between 1998 and 2017, the winning team had a second runner outside of the top 10 on just five occasions—and they never fell out of the top 15.
-Having four All-Americans is a prerequisite. The lowest-finishing third runner was 21st, while the worst fourth runner was 36th.
-There’s a vast range for the No. 5 runner, spanning from 10th (from Stanford’s dominant crew in 2003) all the way to 77th (when Colorado won by 20 points over NAU in 2013). It’s no surprise that Colorado’s 149 points that year was the highest winning score in the history of the meet.