[Bruce Wang]

Kudos to the Women's Tennis Team for keeping the streak alive and keeping Stanford in the running for the Directors' Cup.

I recall that they changed the Directors' Cup scoring system a number of years ago to weight the Men's Basketball and Football more heavily.  Anybody have a sense of how much responsibility Dawkins be.ars for jeopardizing the Directors' Cup this year.

[Bruce Wang]

Kudos to the Women's Tennis Team for keeping the streak alive and keeping Stanford in the running for the Directors' Cup.

I recall that they changed the Directors' Cup scoring system a number of years ago to weight the Men's Basketball and Football more heavily.  Anybody have a sense of how much responsibility Dawkins be.ars for jeopardizing the Directors' Cup this year.

[BobK]

I think you are referring to the capital one cup not the Directors. In the Directors Cup in sports that have 64 team tournaments you only get points if you are in the tournament.  MBB got zero.  Baseball is on the verge of zero. Women's Tennis got 100 points. 

We are very close to Florida.  Right now projected to lose to them by 17.  But women's golf is doing great and Florida's team not so.  We could pick up those 17 and a few more right there.

[BobK]

I think you are referring to the capital one cup not the Directors. In the Directors Cup in sports that have 64 team tournaments you only get points if you are in the tournament.  MBB got zero.  Baseball is on the verge of zero. Women's Tennis got 100 points. 

We are very close to Florida.  Right now projected to lose to them by 17.  But women's golf is doing great and Florida's team not so.  We could pick up those 17 and a few more right there.

[Leftcoast]

Gawd, I hope Stanford wins! 

Part of me knows that it would be great for the Cup and it's perception around the NCAA if someone else won the darn thing but I like seeing that cabinet of crystal trophies grow.

[Leftcoast]

Gawd, I hope Stanford wins! 

Part of me knows that it would be great for the Cup and it's perception around the NCAA if someone else won the darn thing but I like seeing that cabinet of crystal trophies grow.

[fullmetal]

Florida's got nothing in women's rowing, and yesterday Stanford was selected as an at-large team to participate in the NCAA women's rowing championship regatta.  As a team, I don't think Stanford's projected to finish better than #10-#15 place though.  Still, points are points.

[fullmetal]

Florida's got nothing in women's rowing, and yesterday Stanford was selected as an at-large team to participate in the NCAA women's rowing championship regatta.  As a team, I don't think Stanford's projected to finish better than #10-#15 place though.  Still, points are points.

[pauloalto]

In the Women's NCAA golf tournament Florida has finished their second round and are now in 19th place.

Stanford is tied for fifth with a less than a handful of holes left.

Will that be enough to cover 17 points?

[pauloalto]

In the Women's NCAA golf tournament Florida has finished their second round and are now in 19th place.

Stanford is tied for fifth with a less than a handful of holes left.

Will that be enough to cover 17 points?

[terry]

In the Women's NCAA golf tournament Florida has finished their second round and are now in 19th place.

Stanford is tied for fifth with a less than a handful of holes left.

Will that be enough to cover 17 points?

There are two rounds of golf left. It's not over until John Daly sings. Then we have to see what happens in baseball and track. . . .

[terry]

In the Women's NCAA golf tournament Florida has finished their second round and are now in 19th place.

Stanford is tied for fifth with a less than a handful of holes left.

Will that be enough to cover 17 points?

There are two rounds of golf left. It's not over until John Daly sings. Then we have to see what happens in baseball and track. . . .

[fullmetal]

Florida baseball and T&F are reportedly very good....doh.

[fullmetal]

Florida baseball and T&F are reportedly very good....doh.

[BobK]

Also Softball where Florida is the # 2 overall seed.

[BobK]

Also Softball where Florida is the # 2 overall seed.

[Farm93]

Florida baseball and T&F are reportedly very good....doh.

Florida could get close to 400 points running in circles and swinging bats.  If they get near those totals Stanford can't match it.  Stanford needs women's golf to keep this 2 day trend AND for Baseball to win some games too.

It will be close, but a big problem was that basketball failed to deliver NACDA points AGAIN.

[Farm93]

Florida baseball and T&F are reportedly very good....doh.

Florida could get close to 400 points running in circles and swinging bats.  If they get near those totals Stanford can't match it.  Stanford needs women's golf to keep this 2 day trend AND for Baseball to win some games too.

It will be close, but a big problem was that basketball failed to deliver NACDA points AGAIN.

[Bruce Wang]

http://winthropintelligence.com/2013/05/...ign=Buffer

Came across this interesting analysis on the Directors' Cup standings which adjusted the rankings based on how athletic departments allocated resources.  Stanford still comes out on top. 

If Stanford fails to win the Directors' Cup this year, but still finishes on top with these adjustments, and Muir trots out this kind of analysis then we should be worried.  Akin to when NBC fell off the top perch for ratings, but dismissed that fall by citing its top rating among 18-49 year olds.

[Bruce Wang]

http://winthropintelligence.com/2013/05/...ign=Buffer

Came across this interesting analysis on the Directors' Cup standings which adjusted the rankings based on how athletic departments allocated resources.  Stanford still comes out on top. 

If Stanford fails to win the Directors' Cup this year, but still finishes on top with these adjustments, and Muir trots out this kind of analysis then we should be worried.  Akin to when NBC fell off the top perch for ratings, but dismissed that fall by citing its top rating among 18-49 year olds.

[76lsjumb]

It will be close, but a big problem was that basketball failed to deliver NACDA points AGAIN.

Basketball points would have been nice, but, as I recall, we seemed to do pretty well in the Director's Cup back when football was delivering exactly zero points year after year after year after ...

In fact, the bigger problem(s) this year seems to me to be the loss of reliable (more) points from men's tennis and (perhaps all) from baseball.

[76lsjumb]

It will be close, but a big problem was that basketball failed to deliver NACDA points AGAIN.

Basketball points would have been nice, but, as I recall, we seemed to do pretty well in the Director's Cup back when football was delivering exactly zero points year after year after year after ...

In fact, the bigger problem(s) this year seems to me to be the loss of reliable (more) points from men's tennis and (perhaps all) from baseball.

[Farm93]

In fact, the bigger problem(s) this year seems to me to be the loss of reliable (more) points from men's tennis and (perhaps all) from baseball.

Sure, every team that delivered a sub-par year would be part of the greater problem.  But to be fair I think a coach should be evaluated over their longer tenure.  Let's say...take any coach with more than 2 years at the healm.  For that group, take their average annual NACDA Directors Cup point contribution as coach of the program and compare it to the 10-year average from that sport before they arrived.  The coaches with the largest negative differences are the biggest problem.

Don't have time to run the numbers, but will anyone be more negative than Coach Zero?

[Farm93]

In fact, the bigger problem(s) this year seems to me to be the loss of reliable (more) points from men's tennis and (perhaps all) from baseball.

Sure, every team that delivered a sub-par year would be part of the greater problem.  But to be fair I think a coach should be evaluated over their longer tenure.  Let's say...take any coach with more than 2 years at the healm.  For that group, take their average annual NACDA Directors Cup point contribution as coach of the program and compare it to the 10-year average from that sport before they arrived.  The coaches with the largest negative differences are the biggest problem.

Don't have time to run the numbers, but will anyone be more negative than Coach Zero?

[jacketree]

Do we really need the Director's Cup as a crutch to evaluate the performance in any sport over any period of time? Basketball (or any other sport) is a poor performer because it is a poor performer; not because that sport might have helped provide X points in some broader shiny metal (or crystal I guess) object competition.

On the whole, the suggestion of evaluating coaching performance against the longer term has merit of course, as long as you drop the "before they arrived" criterion.  I mean who coached baseball before Marquess arrived and why would that be relevant? Also, what are the benchmarks for success?  A good program, or on par with historic Stanford performances? How recent?  What do you do with Marquess? (He seems to have Bowdened.)  Dawkins will be gone after next year's power nose dive.  Men's tennis is in an abyss just about in any context. Swimming programs have plateaued at less than great (but hey they are No. 2 in the Bay Area!), but does that justify head chopping? (Natty or else!) Man, if Shaw goes 8-4 is he on a hot seat after 3 years of program studliness? Compared to historic program performance he can average 7 wins a year and keep his job indefinitely.

I think it is more like obscenity. You know it when you see it.  Or maybe we can get Garvin to pound those numbers for Dawkins....

[jacketree]

Do we really need the Director's Cup as a crutch to evaluate the performance in any sport over any period of time? Basketball (or any other sport) is a poor performer because it is a poor performer; not because that sport might have helped provide X points in some broader shiny metal (or crystal I guess) object competition.

On the whole, the suggestion of evaluating coaching performance against the longer term has merit of course, as long as you drop the "before they arrived" criterion.  I mean who coached baseball before Marquess arrived and why would that be relevant? Also, what are the benchmarks for success?  A good program, or on par with historic Stanford performances? How recent?  What do you do with Marquess? (He seems to have Bowdened.)  Dawkins will be gone after next year's power nose dive.  Men's tennis is in an abyss just about in any context. Swimming programs have plateaued at less than great (but hey they are No. 2 in the Bay Area!), but does that justify head chopping? (Natty or else!) Man, if Shaw goes 8-4 is he on a hot seat after 3 years of program studliness? Compared to historic program performance he can average 7 wins a year and keep his job indefinitely.

I think it is more like obscenity. You know it when you see it.  Or maybe we can get Garvin to pound those numbers for Dawkins....

[Farm93]

Jacketree - I think you read a lot into the quick math idea.

There were already dozens of reasons to let Dawkins pursue a new path away from Stanford, but they apparently were not meaningful enough for Muir.  I would just like to add to the list.  Dawkins has delivered 0 NACDA points in his multiple years at Stanford.  No other program on campus has done less, and those near that level were not at lofty levels for the several years before their recent coach arrived.  Therefore, in my eyes, Dawkins' disappointing performance will be the first place to look when the NACDA cup run ends in another 30 days.

Comparing Marquess or Shaw to Dawkins is just silly.  Marquess has earned the right to retire on his schedule.  Shaw probably has earned the right to coach here for a decade or more.  Though based on Muir's patience with Dawkins, Shaw might already have earned his right to coach here for life.

[Farm93]

Jacketree - I think you read a lot into the quick math idea.

There were already dozens of reasons to let Dawkins pursue a new path away from Stanford, but they apparently were not meaningful enough for Muir.  I would just like to add to the list.  Dawkins has delivered 0 NACDA points in his multiple years at Stanford.  No other program on campus has done less, and those near that level were not at lofty levels for the several years before their recent coach arrived.  Therefore, in my eyes, Dawkins' disappointing performance will be the first place to look when the NACDA cup run ends in another 30 days.

Comparing Marquess or Shaw to Dawkins is just silly.  Marquess has earned the right to retire on his schedule.  Shaw probably has earned the right to coach here for a decade or more.  Though based on Muir's patience with Dawkins, Shaw might already have earned his right to coach here for life.

[Bruce Wang]

The best thing that Monty and Harbs did is to prove that you can succeed because of, not in spite of Stanford's academic standards.  At the very least we don't hear Dawkins complaining Tom Davis-style.

[Bruce Wang]

The best thing that Monty and Harbs did is to prove that you can succeed because of, not in spite of Stanford's academic standards.  At the very least we don't hear Dawkins complaining Tom Davis-style.

[jacketree]

I probably undervalue the Cup for a number of reasons, but primarily because Stanford is batting 0.947 in the competition. Not winning it for the second time isn't going to destroy the athletic department. A secondary reason is that I am a Neanderthal when it comes to college sports. There are two. Football and men's basketball. (Well, I will also watch lacrosse because it interests me and I got sucked into Rugby 7s, but that was between Fiji and Samoa, so never mind.) The Cup recognizes broad athletic success. Great.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with fielding 30+ teams, doing really well in 20+ sports, and winning a national title or two every year. I happen to think that those things should be their own reward. (They all have trophies for the winners.) Piling up additional trophies in some room and parading the latest crystal around during halftime seems superfluous to me.  Falling a few points short while fielding 30+ teams, doing really well in 20+ sports, and winning a national title, but abdicating the crystal parade to frisbee dogs once in a while won't bother me in the least.

I certainly hope Muir doesn't need this NACDA thing added to any list when evaluating a specific program.  I can't believe Leland ever thought 'well football sucks but at least we have the Cup,' although it sure felt like it at times. (I know Bowlsby didn't.) The Cup is just ancillary confirmation of running a good overall program; it shouldn't be the goal in and of itself.  (That is, without NACDA hardware would anything be run differently?) I know that opinion likely places me in a small minority around here.

Garvin, you are right and I am wrong.  I really was thinking about Marquess when I made the 'before they arrived' comment. Tara would be in the same category. I have no clue what Ray Young did, but there was really nothing before Van Derveer, so those comparisons need not be made.  I guess Marquess has earned the right to retire on his own schedule, but based on what I heard last year from some kids who went through the recruiting process with him, this might not be pretty. But you are right; it is fair to judge Dawkins against his immediate predecessor, just like it is fair to judge Johnson against his.  I am sadly unimpressed with both comparisons.

I was hoping Dawkins would be successful. Even if it was for Duke, the guy could flat out play. He basically made Coach K. Even with tons of tradition and after reaching the 1978 Final Four, Duke bottomed out with K at the helm before Dawkins got there in '82.  One of my friends was a basketball manager and she allowed us to have fairly unfettered access within the basketball area when we wanted it.  So we got to meet Dawkins, Alarie, Amaker, Bilas, and that crew. They were all pretty cool. Well, for Dookies. Heck even 30 years later when Dawkins was at a high school gym watching his son play and I was just a dad selling hot dogs, he pretended that he might remember talking to a bunch of yokels Monica knew before that game in 1983. I mean I know he didn't, but at least he was nice about it. I suppose I still hope he is successful. It would be funny to see the reaction around here anyway.

It is always about the coach at Stanford. History suggests as much. But be very careful about granting lifetime contracts or tenured status to any coach, no matter how successful. I remember Bobby Cremins lifting Tech from the 4-23 and losing to Presbyterian College ashes when I arrived, to ACC Champion and a few points away from taking down Patrick Ewing and the Hoyas in the Eastern Regional Final when I left four years later (just as Dawkins was simultaneously resurrecting Duke). Couldn't be done at Tech; but it was. Cremins would lead Tech to the 1990 Final Four (with a better showing than Duke against UNLV), recruit a long list of all-Americans, and consistently fill the arena.  They eventually named the court after him.  But he lost it. (Without a lifetime contract as far as I know - he gracefully retired.)  Enter Paul Hewitt. In four short years (there is a theme in here Johnny) he had Tech in the National Final. I probably should have just died happy after the semi-final and that finish for the ages. Maybe they were a hurt B.J. Elder away from winning it all, but as it was we could only take some solace in waking Billy Packer up after cutting a 27 point deficit to 7 with the ball and enough time to actually do something. Like eventually lose by 9. "Jim, they are actually in this game!"  I suppose that is kind of a crappy highlight moment for all time in men's basketball. Ah, the life of a Tech fan.

Anyway Coach Hewitt had to be locked up, so they gave him an evergreen roll-over lifetime contract.  The kind where he would need to be caught with a dead girl, or live guy, or coach the New York Knicks to get rid of him.  Idiots.  He did none of those things while driving the program into the ground, refusing to take the St. John's job that went to Lavin (despite our collective prayer wheels working in overdrive), and insisting that his job was to develop NBA players above all else.  So Georgia Tech still pays George Mason's current head coach about three times what it pays Georgia Tech's current head coach. How wonderful.

[jacketree]

I probably undervalue the Cup for a number of reasons, but primarily because Stanford is batting 0.947 in the competition. Not winning it for the second time isn't going to destroy the athletic department. A secondary reason is that I am a Neanderthal when it comes to college sports. There are two. Football and men's basketball. (Well, I will also watch lacrosse because it interests me and I got sucked into Rugby 7s, but that was between Fiji and Samoa, so never mind.) The Cup recognizes broad athletic success. Great.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with fielding 30+ teams, doing really well in 20+ sports, and winning a national title or two every year. I happen to think that those things should be their own reward. (They all have trophies for the winners.) Piling up additional trophies in some room and parading the latest crystal around during halftime seems superfluous to me.  Falling a few points short while fielding 30+ teams, doing really well in 20+ sports, and winning a national title, but abdicating the crystal parade to frisbee dogs once in a while won't bother me in the least.

I certainly hope Muir doesn't need this NACDA thing added to any list when evaluating a specific program.  I can't believe Leland ever thought 'well football sucks but at least we have the Cup,' although it sure felt like it at times. (I know Bowlsby didn't.) The Cup is just ancillary confirmation of running a good overall program; it shouldn't be the goal in and of itself.  (That is, without NACDA hardware would anything be run differently?) I know that opinion likely places me in a small minority around here.

Garvin, you are right and I am wrong.  I really was thinking about Marquess when I made the 'before they arrived' comment. Tara would be in the same category. I have no clue what Ray Young did, but there was really nothing before Van Derveer, so those comparisons need not be made.  I guess Marquess has earned the right to retire on his own schedule, but based on what I heard last year from some kids who went through the recruiting process with him, this might not be pretty. But you are right; it is fair to judge Dawkins against his immediate predecessor, just like it is fair to judge Johnson against his.  I am sadly unimpressed with both comparisons.

I was hoping Dawkins would be successful. Even if it was for Duke, the guy could flat out play. He basically made Coach K. Even with tons of tradition and after reaching the 1978 Final Four, Duke bottomed out with K at the helm before Dawkins got there in '82.  One of my friends was a basketball manager and she allowed us to have fairly unfettered access within the basketball area when we wanted it.  So we got to meet Dawkins, Alarie, Amaker, Bilas, and that crew. They were all pretty cool. Well, for Dookies. Heck even 30 years later when Dawkins was at a high school gym watching his son play and I was just a dad selling hot dogs, he pretended that he might remember talking to a bunch of yokels Monica knew before that game in 1983. I mean I know he didn't, but at least he was nice about it. I suppose I still hope he is successful. It would be funny to see the reaction around here anyway.

It is always about the coach at Stanford. History suggests as much. But be very careful about granting lifetime contracts or tenured status to any coach, no matter how successful. I remember Bobby Cremins lifting Tech from the 4-23 and losing to Presbyterian College ashes when I arrived, to ACC Champion and a few points away from taking down Patrick Ewing and the Hoyas in the Eastern Regional Final when I left four years later (just as Dawkins was simultaneously resurrecting Duke). Couldn't be done at Tech; but it was. Cremins would lead Tech to the 1990 Final Four (with a better showing than Duke against UNLV), recruit a long list of all-Americans, and consistently fill the arena.  They eventually named the court after him.  But he lost it. (Without a lifetime contract as far as I know - he gracefully retired.)  Enter Paul Hewitt. In four short years (there is a theme in here Johnny) he had Tech in the National Final. I probably should have just died happy after the semi-final and that finish for the ages. Maybe they were a hurt B.J. Elder away from winning it all, but as it was we could only take some solace in waking Billy Packer up after cutting a 27 point deficit to 7 with the ball and enough time to actually do something. Like eventually lose by 9. "Jim, they are actually in this game!"  I suppose that is kind of a crappy highlight moment for all time in men's basketball. Ah, the life of a Tech fan.

Anyway Coach Hewitt had to be locked up, so they gave him an evergreen roll-over lifetime contract.  The kind where he would need to be caught with a dead girl, or live guy, or coach the New York Knicks to get rid of him.  Idiots.  He did none of those things while driving the program into the ground, refusing to take the St. John's job that went to Lavin (despite our collective prayer wheels working in overdrive), and insisting that his job was to develop NBA players above all else.  So Georgia Tech still pays George Mason's current head coach about three times what it pays Georgia Tech's current head coach. How wonderful.

[akiddoc]

A college can score in only 10 events for each gender. If the rowing team does not do well, it won't make a difference. Our real problem is that we are guaranteed points in only 9 men's sports.

[akiddoc]

A college can score in only 10 events for each gender. If the rowing team does not do well, it won't make a difference. Our real problem is that we are guaranteed points in only 9 men's sports.