[M T]

IMO, it is the limit on the number of sports that counts

[M T]

IMO, it is the limit on the number of sports that counts

[Goose]

IMO the entire premise of a "Director's Cup" is flawed. Every schools sport's program has different challenges. At some schools just fielding a few teams year after year is almost a miracle, and that AD has no chance at all at the "Director's Cup". It isn't even vaguely apples to apples. The scoring system is tweaked to produce the "answer" the sponsor's want. It is therefore a meaningless award, no matter who wins it, even if the winner is Stanford. I lose no sleep over our position in this alleged "contest".

[Goose]

IMO the entire premise of a "Director's Cup" is flawed. Every schools sport's program has different challenges. At some schools just fielding a few teams year after year is almost a miracle, and that AD has no chance at all at the "Director's Cup". It isn't even vaguely apples to apples. The scoring system is tweaked to produce the "answer" the sponsor's want. It is therefore a meaningless award, no matter who wins it, even if the winner is Stanford. I lose no sleep over our position in this alleged "contest".

[Jamesy]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

[Jamesy]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

[cardcrimson]

Thanks Bernie. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Thanks Bernie. . . .

[bnarver]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

No, I believe Texas would not have won under the old scoring system. Texas has only 9 men's sports and 12 women's sports. Under the old scoring system, a school counted their top 10 sports for each gender, so Texas was already in the hole with only 9 men's sports. All of their men's teams scored points this year.  The women scored points in 11 of their 12 sports; beach volleyball was the only one that did not. The lowest women's score was 28 points for cross country. That one not only would have been dropped under the old scoring system, it does not count this year either. Thus, Texas, by my account, has 1377 points in both systems.  I believe Stanford has 14 men's sports, 16 women's sports, and 1 coed sport (fencing). I'm only counting the NCAA sports. Thus, Stanford has potential backups in both genders, although there have been years where the men haven't scored in 10 sports. With coed sports allowed to count for either gender, the men would have scored in 10 sports this year. It was always a given that the women would score in 10 sports as well. This year, the men only scored in 5 sports while the women scored in 12. Adding 5 sports for the men while dropping 2 for the women would bring Stanford's total up from 1310.75 to 1430.75. I may have some sports scores off a little, but, bottom line, Stanford still wins under the old scoring system.

[bnarver]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

No, I believe Texas would not have won under the old scoring system. Texas has only 9 men's sports and 12 women's sports. Under the old scoring system, a school counted their top 10 sports for each gender, so Texas was already in the hole with only 9 men's sports. All of their men's teams scored points this year.  The women scored points in 11 of their 12 sports; beach volleyball was the only one that did not. The lowest women's score was 28 points for cross country. That one not only would have been dropped under the old scoring system, it does not count this year either. Thus, Texas, by my account, has 1377 points in both systems.  I believe Stanford has 14 men's sports, 16 women's sports, and 1 coed sport (fencing). I'm only counting the NCAA sports. Thus, Stanford has potential backups in both genders, although there have been years where the men haven't scored in 10 sports. With coed sports allowed to count for either gender, the men would have scored in 10 sports this year. It was always a given that the women would score in 10 sports as well. This year, the men only scored in 5 sports while the women scored in 12. Adding 5 sports for the men while dropping 2 for the women would bring Stanford's total up from 1310.75 to 1430.75. I may have some sports scores off a little, but, bottom line, Stanford still wins under the old scoring system.

[fullmetal]

That twitter account mentioned that fencing can only count toward the women's point totals, but I cannot personally verify that.  Not sure about the other coed NCAA sports.

[fullmetal]

That twitter account mentioned that fencing can only count toward the women's point totals, but I cannot personally verify that.  Not sure about the other coed NCAA sports.

[Mick]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

No, I believe Texas would not have won under the old scoring system. Texas has only 9 men's sports and 12 women's sports. Under the old scoring system, a school counted their top 10 sports for each gender, so Texas was already in the hole with only 9 men's sports. All of their men's teams scored points this year.  The women scored points in 11 of their 12 sports; beach volleyball was the only one that did not. The lowest women's score was 28 points for cross country. That one not only would have been dropped under the old scoring system, it does not count this year either. Thus, Texas, by my account, has 1377 points in both systems.  I believe Stanford has 14 men's sports, 16 women's sports, and 1 coed sport (fencing). I'm only counting the NCAA sports. Thus, Stanford has potential backups in both genders, although there have been years where the men haven't scored in 10 sports. With coed sports allowed to count for either gender, the men would have scored in 10 sports this year. It was always a given that the women would score in 10 sports as well. This year, the men only scored in 5 sports while the women scored in 12. Adding 5 sports for the men while dropping 2 for the women would bring Stanford's total up from 1310.75 to 1430.75. I may have some sports scores off a little, but, bottom line, Stanford still wins under the old scoring system.

Apropos of nothing, seems odd to me that a signature public university with 52k students like UTexas has just 9 men's sports. No soccer, lacrosse. Not even rifle. Has swimming and diving, but no water polo. No rowing, no lacrosse, no wrestling. No fencing. Not even a bowling team. They have 47 national championships, every men's team is excellent (or at least good) and for eight straight years (2005-13) they sold the most collegiate licensed items. Strange.

[Mick]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

No, I believe Texas would not have won under the old scoring system. Texas has only 9 men's sports and 12 women's sports. Under the old scoring system, a school counted their top 10 sports for each gender, so Texas was already in the hole with only 9 men's sports. All of their men's teams scored points this year.  The women scored points in 11 of their 12 sports; beach volleyball was the only one that did not. The lowest women's score was 28 points for cross country. That one not only would have been dropped under the old scoring system, it does not count this year either. Thus, Texas, by my account, has 1377 points in both systems.  I believe Stanford has 14 men's sports, 16 women's sports, and 1 coed sport (fencing). I'm only counting the NCAA sports. Thus, Stanford has potential backups in both genders, although there have been years where the men haven't scored in 10 sports. With coed sports allowed to count for either gender, the men would have scored in 10 sports this year. It was always a given that the women would score in 10 sports as well. This year, the men only scored in 5 sports while the women scored in 12. Adding 5 sports for the men while dropping 2 for the women would bring Stanford's total up from 1310.75 to 1430.75. I may have some sports scores off a little, but, bottom line, Stanford still wins under the old scoring system.

Apropos of nothing, seems odd to me that a signature public university with 52k students like UTexas has just 9 men's sports. No soccer, lacrosse. Not even rifle. Has swimming and diving, but no water polo. No rowing, no lacrosse, no wrestling. No fencing. Not even a bowling team. They have 47 national championships, every men's team is excellent (or at least good) and for eight straight years (2005-13) they sold the most collegiate licensed items. Strange.

[Farm93]

Apropos of nothing, seems odd to me that a signature public university with 52k students like UTexas has just 9 men's sports. No soccer, lacrosse. Not even rifle. Has swimming and diving, but no water polo. No rowing, no lacrosse, no wrestling. No fencing. Not even a bowling team. They have 47 national championships, every men's team is excellent (or at least good) and for eight straight years (2005-13) they sold the most collegiate licensed items. Strange.

They have the most revenue and the largest budge in athletics too.  
And that was before they get sweet SEC money.

However, the reality is they are plowing most of their revenue right back into football.   The new world of football is rather expensive, so I don't think they will seek to add men's sports.   If anything Texas may need to cut men's sports if they plow money into football at the rate I think will be required for all of those with serious top 15-20 aspirations.

[Farm93]

Apropos of nothing, seems odd to me that a signature public university with 52k students like UTexas has just 9 men's sports. No soccer, lacrosse. Not even rifle. Has swimming and diving, but no water polo. No rowing, no lacrosse, no wrestling. No fencing. Not even a bowling team. They have 47 national championships, every men's team is excellent (or at least good) and for eight straight years (2005-13) they sold the most collegiate licensed items. Strange.

They have the most revenue and the largest budge in athletics too.  
And that was before they get sweet SEC money.

However, the reality is they are plowing most of their revenue right back into football.   The new world of football is rather expensive, so I don't think they will seek to add men's sports.   If anything Texas may need to cut men's sports if they plow money into football at the rate I think will be required for all of those with serious top 15-20 aspirations.

[Jamesy]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

No, I believe Texas would not have won under the old scoring system. Texas has only 9 men's sports and 12 women's sports. Under the old scoring system, a school counted their top 10 sports for each gender, so Texas was already in the hole with only 9 men's sports. All of their men's teams scored points this year.  The women scored points in 11 of their 12 sports; beach volleyball was the only one that did not. The lowest women's score was 28 points for cross country. That one not only would have been dropped under the old scoring system, it does not count this year either. Thus, Texas, by my account, has 1377 points in both systems.  I believe Stanford has 14 men's sports, 16 women's sports, and 1 coed sport (fencing). I'm only counting the NCAA sports. Thus, Stanford has potential backups in both genders, although there have been years where the men haven't scored in 10 sports. With coed sports allowed to count for either gender, the men would have scored in 10 sports this year. It was always a given that the women would score in 10 sports as well. This year, the men only scored in 5 sports while the women scored in 12. Adding 5 sports for the men while dropping 2 for the women would bring Stanford's total up from 1310.75 to 1430.75. I may have some sports scores off a little, but, bottom line, Stanford still wins under the old scoring system.

I ran the numbers under the old system and agree with the Director's cup twitter account that we would have 1374.25 and have lost on the old system. This assumes that fencing has to count as a women's sport. We would count 9 men's (XC, soccer, gym, swim, indoor track, wrestling, golf, tennis, outdoor track) and 10 women's sports (soccer, VB, gym, swim, golf, rowing, softball, tennis, water polo, beach volleyball).

[Jamesy]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

No, I believe Texas would not have won under the old scoring system. Texas has only 9 men's sports and 12 women's sports. Under the old scoring system, a school counted their top 10 sports for each gender, so Texas was already in the hole with only 9 men's sports. All of their men's teams scored points this year.  The women scored points in 11 of their 12 sports; beach volleyball was the only one that did not. The lowest women's score was 28 points for cross country. That one not only would have been dropped under the old scoring system, it does not count this year either. Thus, Texas, by my account, has 1377 points in both systems.  I believe Stanford has 14 men's sports, 16 women's sports, and 1 coed sport (fencing). I'm only counting the NCAA sports. Thus, Stanford has potential backups in both genders, although there have been years where the men haven't scored in 10 sports. With coed sports allowed to count for either gender, the men would have scored in 10 sports this year. It was always a given that the women would score in 10 sports as well. This year, the men only scored in 5 sports while the women scored in 12. Adding 5 sports for the men while dropping 2 for the women would bring Stanford's total up from 1310.75 to 1430.75. I may have some sports scores off a little, but, bottom line, Stanford still wins under the old scoring system.

I ran the numbers under the old system and agree with the Director's cup twitter account that we would have 1374.25 and have lost on the old system. This assumes that fencing has to count as a women's sport. We would count 9 men's (XC, soccer, gym, swim, indoor track, wrestling, golf, tennis, outdoor track) and 10 women's sports (soccer, VB, gym, swim, golf, rowing, softball, tennis, water polo, beach volleyball).

[M T]

And, what is the result if all sports count?

[M T]

And, what is the result if all sports count?

[bnarver]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

No, I believe Texas would not have won under the old scoring system. Texas has only 9 men's sports and 12 women's sports. Under the old scoring system, a school counted their top 10 sports for each gender, so Texas was already in the hole with only 9 men's sports. All of their men's teams scored points this year.  The women scored points in 11 of their 12 sports; beach volleyball was the only one that did not. The lowest women's score was 28 points for cross country. That one not only would have been dropped under the old scoring system, it does not count this year either. Thus, Texas, by my account, has 1377 points in both systems.  I believe Stanford has 14 men's sports, 16 women's sports, and 1 coed sport (fencing). I'm only counting the NCAA sports. Thus, Stanford has potential backups in both genders, although there have been years where the men haven't scored in 10 sports. With coed sports allowed to count for either gender, the men would have scored in 10 sports this year. It was always a given that the women would score in 10 sports as well. This year, the men only scored in 5 sports while the women scored in 12. Adding 5 sports for the men while dropping 2 for the women would bring Stanford's total up from 1310.75 to 1430.75. I may have some sports scores off a little, but, bottom line, Stanford still wins under the old scoring system.

I ran the numbers under the old system and agree with the Director's cup twitter account that we would have 1374.25 and have lost on the old system. This assumes that fencing has to count as a women's sport. We would count 9 men's (XC, soccer, gym, swim, indoor track, wrestling, golf, tennis, outdoor track) and 10 women's sports (soccer, VB, gym, swim, golf, rowing, softball, tennis, water polo, beach volleyball).

The twitter account is incorrect as to how the coed sports of fencing, skiing and riflery were counted in the old standings.  Those 3 sports were allowed to count in either gender.  If you look in the 2015-16 or 2016-17 or 20017-18 Winter standings, you will see that Stanford has fencing counted in their scores. If you look at the Fall and Spring scores, you will see that it could only be counted as a men's sport since the women had 10 sports that exceeded fencing's total. The latest scoring results came out today. They counted beach volleyball as 65 points. I had it has 60 points. Last year, it was 70 points.  Oh, well. Add fencing into the 1374.25 mentioned above (which I agree with, by the way), and the total becomes 1431.25.  Stanford wins the cup.

[bnarver]

With track done, we have lost the directors cup. https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/179..._gGUn80CEA

Inevitable, but sad.

Texas men's track and field underperformed by quite a bit, and Stanford women's track had a heroic meet.   And yet, that was never going to be enough.   It was all over the moment Stanford didn't secure the Pac-12's automatic bid in baseball. 

Ultimately the difference is the core sport concept.   Stanford certainly has teams that had better results than some that had to be included in the tally.  With the 4 sports in the core mix it is rather critical to post something in each one of them.    Texas scored and posted higher totals in all 4 core sports.   Stanford had two zeroes (baseball and men's basketball).

I haven't done the analysis, but per that account, Texas would have won even under the old scoring system without the core sports.

No, I believe Texas would not have won under the old scoring system. Texas has only 9 men's sports and 12 women's sports. Under the old scoring system, a school counted their top 10 sports for each gender, so Texas was already in the hole with only 9 men's sports. All of their men's teams scored points this year.  The women scored points in 11 of their 12 sports; beach volleyball was the only one that did not. The lowest women's score was 28 points for cross country. That one not only would have been dropped under the old scoring system, it does not count this year either. Thus, Texas, by my account, has 1377 points in both systems.  I believe Stanford has 14 men's sports, 16 women's sports, and 1 coed sport (fencing). I'm only counting the NCAA sports. Thus, Stanford has potential backups in both genders, although there have been years where the men haven't scored in 10 sports. With coed sports allowed to count for either gender, the men would have scored in 10 sports this year. It was always a given that the women would score in 10 sports as well. This year, the men only scored in 5 sports while the women scored in 12. Adding 5 sports for the men while dropping 2 for the women would bring Stanford's total up from 1310.75 to 1430.75. I may have some sports scores off a little, but, bottom line, Stanford still wins under the old scoring system.

I ran the numbers under the old system and agree with the Director's cup twitter account that we would have 1374.25 and have lost on the old system. This assumes that fencing has to count as a women's sport. We would count 9 men's (XC, soccer, gym, swim, indoor track, wrestling, golf, tennis, outdoor track) and 10 women's sports (soccer, VB, gym, swim, golf, rowing, softball, tennis, water polo, beach volleyball).

The twitter account is incorrect as to how the coed sports of fencing, skiing and riflery were counted in the old standings.  Those 3 sports were allowed to count in either gender.  If you look in the 2015-16 or 2016-17 or 20017-18 Winter standings, you will see that Stanford has fencing counted in their scores. If you look at the Fall and Spring scores, you will see that it could only be counted as a men's sport since the women had 10 sports that exceeded fencing's total. The latest scoring results came out today. They counted beach volleyball as 65 points. I had it has 60 points. Last year, it was 70 points.  Oh, well. Add fencing into the 1374.25 mentioned above (which I agree with, by the way), and the total becomes 1431.25.  Stanford wins the cup.

[bnarver]

And, what is the result if all sports count?

I don't think there's any doubt that Stanford would definitely have won the last few years that Texas has won.  I don't know about the first year (1993-4), but I suspect Stanford would have won that year as well. I don't know how many NCAA sports Stanford and North Carolina had back then.

[bnarver]

And, what is the result if all sports count?

I don't think there's any doubt that Stanford would definitely have won the last few years that Texas has won.  I don't know about the first year (1993-4), but I suspect Stanford would have won that year as well. I don't know how many NCAA sports Stanford and North Carolina had back then.

[fullmetal]

The 10 women's + 10 men's sports is perhaps a reasonable limit on counted points so that it doesn't become a spending competition.  But the required sports that put more value on some sports than others...that's a very pointed decision.  I see why, but I don't like it.

The big emphasis on fundraising/donations I've heard lately are to shore up anticipated travel expenses as part of the ACC.  We're in survival mode it seems, much less "Take back the Cup" mode.

[fullmetal]

The 10 women's + 10 men's sports is perhaps a reasonable limit on counted points so that it doesn't become a spending competition.  But the required sports that put more value on some sports than others...that's a very pointed decision.  I see why, but I don't like it.

The big emphasis on fundraising/donations I've heard lately are to shore up anticipated travel expenses as part of the ACC.  We're in survival mode it seems, much less "Take back the Cup" mode.

[OCcardinal]

And, what is the result if all sports count?

I don't think there's any doubt that Stanford would definitely have won the last few years that Texas has won.  I don't know about the first year (1993-4), but I suspect Stanford would have won that year as well. I don't know how many NCAA sports Stanford and North Carolina had back then.

Speaking of sports not counting, up through the 2005-06 sports year you were allowed to count indoor or outdoor track for a gender, but not both. Link: Director's Cup 2006-07 Rule Change

[OCcardinal]

And, what is the result if all sports count?

I don't think there's any doubt that Stanford would definitely have won the last few years that Texas has won.  I don't know about the first year (1993-4), but I suspect Stanford would have won that year as well. I don't know how many NCAA sports Stanford and North Carolina had back then.

Speaking of sports not counting, up through the 2005-06 sports year you were allowed to count indoor or outdoor track for a gender, but not both. Link: Director's Cup 2006-07 Rule Change

[Farm93]

And, what is the result if all sports count?

I don't think there's any doubt that Stanford would definitely have won the last few years that Texas has won.  I don't know about the first year (1993-4), but I suspect Stanford would have won that year as well. I don't know how many NCAA sports Stanford and North Carolina had back then.

Speaking of sports not counting, up through the 2005-06 sports year you were allowed to count indoor or outdoor track for a gender, but not both. Link: Director's Cup 2006-07 Rule Change

FWIW - I never thought that the only one rule was fair.  
The NCAA awards both trophies in both sports.  Although schools can win both in an academic year, but it certainly doesn't happen every year.

It was a touch ironic that the rule was ever included because when the cap was at 20 the no double counting rule really hurt programs that were not able to get close to 20 scoring results each year.

The easiest method remains to score the full set of sports.   If the NCAA awards a title to D1 participants, then it should count.  No caps!
Yes, that would reward programs that have the most nationally competitive sports programs, but that seems to be the point of the cup.  And as Texas has the largest AD budget and the most AD revenue, it really seems like it would be hard for them to claim it is bias against schools in their financial position.  I am sure the NACDA will not be racing to include all 37 for everyone in D1, but it would be fair.

I will know they are tired of Texas winning when they create a scoring system that makes skiing, men's ice hockey, women's ice hockey and the new core sports.

[Farm93]

And, what is the result if all sports count?

I don't think there's any doubt that Stanford would definitely have won the last few years that Texas has won.  I don't know about the first year (1993-4), but I suspect Stanford would have won that year as well. I don't know how many NCAA sports Stanford and North Carolina had back then.

Speaking of sports not counting, up through the 2005-06 sports year you were allowed to count indoor or outdoor track for a gender, but not both. Link: Director's Cup 2006-07 Rule Change

FWIW - I never thought that the only one rule was fair.  
The NCAA awards both trophies in both sports.  Although schools can win both in an academic year, but it certainly doesn't happen every year.

It was a touch ironic that the rule was ever included because when the cap was at 20 the no double counting rule really hurt programs that were not able to get close to 20 scoring results each year.

The easiest method remains to score the full set of sports.   If the NCAA awards a title to D1 participants, then it should count.  No caps!
Yes, that would reward programs that have the most nationally competitive sports programs, but that seems to be the point of the cup.  And as Texas has the largest AD budget and the most AD revenue, it really seems like it would be hard for them to claim it is bias against schools in their financial position.  I am sure the NACDA will not be racing to include all 37 for everyone in D1, but it would be fair.

I will know they are tired of Texas winning when they create a scoring system that makes skiing, men's ice hockey, women's ice hockey and the new core sports.

[OCcardinal]

Speaking of sports not counting, up through the 2005-06 sports year you were allowed to count indoor or outdoor track for a gender, but not both. Link: Director's Cup 2006-07 Rule Change

FWIW - I never thought that the only one rule was fair.  
The NCAA awards both trophies in both sports.  Although schools can win both in an academic year, but it certainly doesn't happen every year.

It may be hard to win both but there is a LOT of overlap between those 2 sports so it is very distortive.  Texas, for example, accumulated Director's Cup points because its women's 4x400 team and shot putter did well at both meets. That doesn't really make sense to me.  Why should we count the performances of the same athletes in the same skill at two different meets?  There's overlap with cross country too and, in fact, Stanford and Texas and many other colleges operate CC/T&F as a single sports program (the NCAA limits it to 12.6 men's scholarships and 18 women's scholarships for cross country and track and field athletes combined).  If you are going to limit scholarships across those 3 programs I would think the Director's Cup should measure how a school performs in total, no matter how it allocates those scholarships. I haven't given enough thought to figure out the fairest way to score that, but my view is the Director's Cup should account for the idiosyncrasies in CC/T&F that simply aren't present in other sports.

[OCcardinal]

Speaking of sports not counting, up through the 2005-06 sports year you were allowed to count indoor or outdoor track for a gender, but not both. Link: Director's Cup 2006-07 Rule Change

FWIW - I never thought that the only one rule was fair.  
The NCAA awards both trophies in both sports.  Although schools can win both in an academic year, but it certainly doesn't happen every year.

It may be hard to win both but there is a LOT of overlap between those 2 sports so it is very distortive.  Texas, for example, accumulated Director's Cup points because its women's 4x400 team and shot putter did well at both meets. That doesn't really make sense to me.  Why should we count the performances of the same athletes in the same skill at two different meets?  There's overlap with cross country too and, in fact, Stanford and Texas and many other colleges operate CC/T&F as a single sports program (the NCAA limits it to 12.6 men's scholarships and 18 women's scholarships for cross country and track and field athletes combined).  If you are going to limit scholarships across those 3 programs I would think the Director's Cup should measure how a school performs in total, no matter how it allocates those scholarships. I haven't given enough thought to figure out the fairest way to score that, but my view is the Director's Cup should account for the idiosyncrasies in CC/T&F that simply aren't present in other sports.

[BobK]

Not exactly correct on what it costs as Stanford more recently has allowed tuition and more breaks as a number of schools and states did 20 years ago. So Stanford at one time competed against schools with 20-25 with no tuition room or board
All for those who wouldn’t afford school and some are athletes

[BobK]

Not exactly correct on what it costs as Stanford more recently has allowed tuition and more breaks as a number of schools and states did 20 years ago. So Stanford at one time competed against schools with 20-25 with no tuition room or board
All for those who wouldn’t afford school and some are athletes

[Farm93]

Speaking of sports not counting, up through the 2005-06 sports year you were allowed to count indoor or outdoor track for a gender, but not both. Link: Director's Cup 2006-07 Rule Change

FWIW - I never thought that the only one rule was fair.  
The NCAA awards both trophies in both sports.  Although schools can win both in an academic year, but it certainly doesn't happen every year.

It may be hard to win both but there is a LOT of overlap between those 2 sports so it is very distortive.  Texas, for example, accumulated Director's Cup points because its women's 4x400 team and shot putter did well at both meets. That doesn't really make sense to me.  Why should we count the performances of the same athletes in the same skill at two different meets?  There's overlap with cross country too and, in fact, Stanford and Texas and many other colleges operate CC/T&F as a single sports program (the NCAA limits it to 12.6 men's scholarships and 18 women's scholarships for cross country and track and field athletes combined).  If you are going to limit scholarships across those 3 programs I would think the Director's Cup should measure how a school performs in total, no matter how it allocates those scholarships. I haven't given enough thought to figure out the fairest way to score that, but my view is the Director's Cup should account for the idiosyncrasies in CC/T&F that simply aren't present in other sports.

There is overlap for sure, but they are not identical.

Once you start trying to carve out perceived idiosyncrasies the list of possible carve outs becomes endless.   And all are valid, from different points of view.  In the end they both count now, which is for the best as I am in the camp of counting every NCAA sport in the tally. 

FWIW - When the NCAA schools start paying athletes, will distance runners that compete in Indoor T&F, outdoor T&F & CC get triple pay?  LOL!

[Farm93]

Speaking of sports not counting, up through the 2005-06 sports year you were allowed to count indoor or outdoor track for a gender, but not both. Link: Director's Cup 2006-07 Rule Change

FWIW - I never thought that the only one rule was fair.  
The NCAA awards both trophies in both sports.  Although schools can win both in an academic year, but it certainly doesn't happen every year.

It may be hard to win both but there is a LOT of overlap between those 2 sports so it is very distortive.  Texas, for example, accumulated Director's Cup points because its women's 4x400 team and shot putter did well at both meets. That doesn't really make sense to me.  Why should we count the performances of the same athletes in the same skill at two different meets?  There's overlap with cross country too and, in fact, Stanford and Texas and many other colleges operate CC/T&F as a single sports program (the NCAA limits it to 12.6 men's scholarships and 18 women's scholarships for cross country and track and field athletes combined).  If you are going to limit scholarships across those 3 programs I would think the Director's Cup should measure how a school performs in total, no matter how it allocates those scholarships. I haven't given enough thought to figure out the fairest way to score that, but my view is the Director's Cup should account for the idiosyncrasies in CC/T&F that simply aren't present in other sports.

There is overlap for sure, but they are not identical.

Once you start trying to carve out perceived idiosyncrasies the list of possible carve outs becomes endless.   And all are valid, from different points of view.  In the end they both count now, which is for the best as I am in the camp of counting every NCAA sport in the tally. 

FWIW - When the NCAA schools start paying athletes, will distance runners that compete in Indoor T&F, outdoor T&F & CC get triple pay?  LOL!

[Jamesy]

The 10 women's + 10 men's sports is perhaps a reasonable limit on counted points so that it doesn't become a spending competition.  But the required sports that put more value on some sports than others...that's a very pointed decision.  I see why, but I don't like it.

The big emphasis on fundraising/donations I've heard lately are to shore up anticipated travel expenses as part of the ACC.  We're in survival mode it seems, much less "Take back the Cup" mode.

In case anyone was curious like me, if the cut sports had stayed cut, we would have lost an 11th place finish by fencing (worth 57 points) and a 16th place finish by wrestling (worth 58.5 points). Fencing would have been replaced by another women's score but would have lost all 58.5 wrestling points.

[Jamesy]

The 10 women's + 10 men's sports is perhaps a reasonable limit on counted points so that it doesn't become a spending competition.  But the required sports that put more value on some sports than others...that's a very pointed decision.  I see why, but I don't like it.

The big emphasis on fundraising/donations I've heard lately are to shore up anticipated travel expenses as part of the ACC.  We're in survival mode it seems, much less "Take back the Cup" mode.

In case anyone was curious like me, if the cut sports had stayed cut, we would have lost an 11th place finish by fencing (worth 57 points) and a 16th place finish by wrestling (worth 58.5 points). Fencing would have been replaced by another women's score but would have lost all 58.5 wrestling points.