The Boston Traveler, in reporting one of Harvard's recent cross-country meets, printed this brief paragraph: "Boston University, with 67 points, defeated Providence and Harvard in a triangular meet yesterday. . . . The Crimson was last with 23 points. . . ."

What makes that story so regrettable is not that it is totally wrong--in cross-country the team with the least points wins--but that it probably made little or no impression on the Traveler's readers. The American sports fan is brought up in a society where the person or team with the most takes the laurels, whether it be in dollars, runs, goals, or points. Why should the fan be expected to realize that the Crimson's 23 points were worth more than B.U.'s 67?

Cross-country as a team competition is run on an antiquated system of scoring which not only deceives the average fan, but is also a psychological drawback to the average runner. Consider first, the system as it is recognized by the NCAA.

In a dual meet, the most common type of competition, a team is given credit for its first five places. Thus, if team A takes the first five positions in a meet, it receives the sum of those places--15 points. In addition, a team is allowed two more places as "blockers." In other words, if team A takes the first seven places in a meet, it still receives 15 points (sum of one through five) but team B will not have 40 (sum of six through 10) but a total of 50 (sum of eight through 12).

Against Brown last week, ten varsity runners crossed the line before the first Brown runner. Under the present system, the Crimson won 15-50, a cross-country "slaughter." Yet, there must have been fans and writers who thought it was Brown which did the butchering. To prevent sports editors from making the same mistake that the Traveler writer did, the Associated Press makes a notation after every cross-country score, "Low points win!"

Logical Solution

Cross-country coaches and fans have always known of a perfectly logical solution to the problem, but there seems no one who wishes to try the suggested answer. Why not reverse the scoring system?

Under the present system, a runner in the back of the pack is often very despondent. For he knows that the more points he brings in, the further back his team will place. Many runners in five-mile championship meets have dropped out, more out of disgrace than anything else. Now, in a three team race, there is very little desire to finish 14th in a field of 15. Under the proposed system, though, the 14th man would be adding two points to his team's total, an affirmative finish, not killing it with 14 points.

There is no reason why cross-country should be in opposition to other major sports. Track and swimming, cross-country's cousins, both have realized this and award five and sometimes ten points to the winner, and one point to the last man. Cross-country should get on the band wagon--it's the thing to do. It would save the Traveler a lot of grief, too.