[MustardtheBallCarrier]

This is blasphemy, I recognize, but I just don't get it.  Why do you care about the Directors' Cup?

Sure, I respect the commitment to athletics it represents and I like to be #1 as much as the next guy or gal.  Having said that, I don't understand why having this completely arbitrary formula spit out Stanford as the best year after year is that meaningful.  Seems to me winning the Directors' Cup says more about the athletic department's financial resources (we have nicer facilities, we field more varsity sports, etc.), the profile of the student body (generally wealthier, heavily from California = more access to sports, year-round, with better coaching) and how the powers that be determine the scoring system is going to work that particular year.

The Directors' Cup almost seems like a psychological experiment.  If it didn't exist, no one would care.  But, since it does exist, and we've won it 20 times in a row, losing it seems like such a blow.  If the formula was different (top finish in 5 men's and women's sports, average finish in all sports, most tickets sold, most professional athletes produced, etc.) would Stanford not winning really mean anything at all?  What would it say about this award if we could replicate the final standings, more or less, with a formula that ignores completely the actual athletic results and is instead just based on size of athletic department endowment, number of varsity sports and a handful of demographic variables?

Anyway, interested in the views of others on this topic.  As I said above, I just don't get it.   

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

This is blasphemy, I recognize, but I just don't get it.  Why do you care about the Directors' Cup?

Sure, I respect the commitment to athletics it represents and I like to be #1 as much as the next guy or gal.  Having said that, I don't understand why having this completely arbitrary formula spit out Stanford as the best year after year is that meaningful.  Seems to me winning the Directors' Cup says more about the athletic department's financial resources (we have nicer facilities, we field more varsity sports, etc.), the profile of the student body (generally wealthier, heavily from California = more access to sports, year-round, with better coaching) and how the powers that be determine the scoring system is going to work that particular year.

The Directors' Cup almost seems like a psychological experiment.  If it didn't exist, no one would care.  But, since it does exist, and we've won it 20 times in a row, losing it seems like such a blow.  If the formula was different (top finish in 5 men's and women's sports, average finish in all sports, most tickets sold, most professional athletes produced, etc.) would Stanford not winning really mean anything at all?  What would it say about this award if we could replicate the final standings, more or less, with a formula that ignores completely the actual athletic results and is instead just based on size of athletic department endowment, number of varsity sports and a handful of demographic variables?

Anyway, interested in the views of others on this topic.  As I said above, I just don't get it.   

[stupac2]

I don't get it either. I find it vaguely amusing, especially since it spawned the Capital One Cup (or whatever), aka the "Best athletics program using scoring rigged against Stanford since they always win the Director's Cup" Cup. But if we lose it this year my reaction will be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then again, I would trade every single other sport at Stanford losing every single game for a Football Championship, so I may be an extreme of "doesn't care about non-football sports".

[stupac2]

I don't get it either. I find it vaguely amusing, especially since it spawned the Capital One Cup (or whatever), aka the "Best athletics program using scoring rigged against Stanford since they always win the Director's Cup" Cup. But if we lose it this year my reaction will be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then again, I would trade every single other sport at Stanford losing every single game for a Football Championship, so I may be an extreme of "doesn't care about non-football sports".

[Mick]

I don't get it either. I find it vaguely amusing, especially since it spawned the Anybody But Stanford Cup (or whatever), aka the "Best athletics program using scoring rigged against Stanford since they always win the Director's Cup" Cup. But if we lose it this year my reaction will be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then again, I would trade every single other sport at Stanford losing every single game for a Football Championship, so I may be an extreme of "doesn't care about non-football sports".

I seem to recall that one year the Director's Cup presentation occurred during halftime of a football game during a weak season for Stanford.  Sort of spoke volumes to me.  They could have presented the cup at any other athletic event, but it was football.  Golf claps all around.

[Mick]

I don't get it either. I find it vaguely amusing, especially since it spawned the Anybody But Stanford Cup (or whatever), aka the "Best athletics program using scoring rigged against Stanford since they always win the Director's Cup" Cup. But if we lose it this year my reaction will be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then again, I would trade every single other sport at Stanford losing every single game for a Football Championship, so I may be an extreme of "doesn't care about non-football sports".

I seem to recall that one year the Director's Cup presentation occurred during halftime of a football game during a weak season for Stanford.  Sort of spoke volumes to me.  They could have presented the cup at any other athletic event, but it was football.  Golf claps all around.

[yvonne]

Actually, the Directors Cup is presented at a football halftime every year.

The Directors Cup is important because it quantitatively and qualitatively signifies the school with the best overall athletic program. Like an Oscar, it's an award given by one's peers.

You'll often see other schools measuring their programs by how they performed in the standings:

•Â  http://espn.go.com/blog/colleges/michiga...ectors-cup
•Â  http://www.chatsports.com/clemson-tigers...0-10024152
•Â  http://jmiketaylor.com/uk-still-poised-f...of-top-15/

The first few Directors Cups were sponsored by Sears, and some segment of the Stanford fandom separated out the Olympic and "non-revenue" sports as being "Sears Sports," and therefore less important. The problem with that thinking is that although many of Stanford's successes were fueled by success in "non-revenue" sports, the standings actually give the most weight to sports such as basketball in which a large number of teams compete.

Note how the athletic department focused on football's contribution year the Rose Bowl performance figured into the equation. Here's Stanford's 2011-12 Directors Cup press release, which leads with a quote from the football coach about Andrew Luck. Over the past few years, I've seen football players tweets about the Directors Cup. They're proud of it. While they're closest to their teammates, they see themselves as part of the fraternity of Stanford athletes, not as a separate breed apart.

Finally, not only is the Directors Cup an award given by fellow athletic directors, but also unlike the other multi-sport award's system, it equally values men's and women's sports, allowing schools to score in an equal number of sports for each gender.

[yvonne]

Actually, the Directors Cup is presented at a football halftime every year.

The Directors Cup is important because it quantitatively and qualitatively signifies the school with the best overall athletic program. Like an Oscar, it's an award given by one's peers.

You'll often see other schools measuring their programs by how they performed in the standings:

•Â  http://espn.go.com/blog/colleges/michiga...ectors-cup
•Â  http://www.chatsports.com/clemson-tigers...0-10024152
•Â  http://jmiketaylor.com/uk-still-poised-f...of-top-15/

The first few Directors Cups were sponsored by Sears, and some segment of the Stanford fandom separated out the Olympic and "non-revenue" sports as being "Sears Sports," and therefore less important. The problem with that thinking is that although many of Stanford's successes were fueled by success in "non-revenue" sports, the standings actually give the most weight to sports such as basketball in which a large number of teams compete.

Note how the athletic department focused on football's contribution year the Rose Bowl performance figured into the equation. Here's Stanford's 2011-12 Directors Cup press release, which leads with a quote from the football coach about Andrew Luck. Over the past few years, I've seen football players tweets about the Directors Cup. They're proud of it. While they're closest to their teammates, they see themselves as part of the fraternity of Stanford athletes, not as a separate breed apart.

Finally, not only is the Directors Cup an award given by fellow athletic directors, but also unlike the other multi-sport award's system, it equally values men's and women's sports, allowing schools to score in an equal number of sports for each gender.

[BobK]

A beautiful post Yvonne.  Just outstanding. 

The Cups were a tremendous attraction for FB recruits and their families in the Hall of Fame Room.  Lots of conversation about them their history and that they represent all  athletes.   

[BobK]

A beautiful post Yvonne.  Just outstanding. 

The Cups were a tremendous attraction for FB recruits and their families in the Hall of Fame Room.  Lots of conversation about them their history and that they represent all  athletes.   

[Leftcoast]

Among the attributes I admire at Stanford is the broad range of excellence across all sports programs and the support these programs get from the Stanford  fan base. 

Let other other fans myopically focus on football and men's basketball.  Let other programs carry the bare minimum of women's sports required by Title 9 and do so grudgingly and without full athletic department support.  At Stanford we care about Women's basketball, we care about Crew, fans follow Women's Volleyball and Men's Golf.  And we WIN national championships on a yearly basis in at least one of our sports.

Other schools foster a "Football only" attitude among administrators, boosters, athletes and fans.  It's as if people really believe that winning in, say, men's swimming comes at the expense of critical football resources and at a place where only football really matters.  Teams don't support other sports and football boosters pointedly shrug at non-football program accomplishments.  Thank God that's not the prevailing attitude at Stanford.  (To be fair there are currents of this attitude among a minority of fans.)

Winning the Directors Cup is a source of pride not because I have a thing for large crystal cups but because that cup is emblematic of an athletic department that is not only well run but arguably the best within the NCAA.

[Leftcoast]

Among the attributes I admire at Stanford is the broad range of excellence across all sports programs and the support these programs get from the Stanford  fan base. 

Let other other fans myopically focus on football and men's basketball.  Let other programs carry the bare minimum of women's sports required by Title 9 and do so grudgingly and without full athletic department support.  At Stanford we care about Women's basketball, we care about Crew, fans follow Women's Volleyball and Men's Golf.  And we WIN national championships on a yearly basis in at least one of our sports.

Other schools foster a "Football only" attitude among administrators, boosters, athletes and fans.  It's as if people really believe that winning in, say, men's swimming comes at the expense of critical football resources and at a place where only football really matters.  Teams don't support other sports and football boosters pointedly shrug at non-football program accomplishments.  Thank God that's not the prevailing attitude at Stanford.  (To be fair there are currents of this attitude among a minority of fans.)

Winning the Directors Cup is a source of pride not because I have a thing for large crystal cups but because that cup is emblematic of an athletic department that is not only well run but arguably the best within the NCAA.

[winflop]

Directors Cup = overall excellence in college athletics.  And it's why I'm not yet concerned about Muir as AD - provided that Stanford keeps winning them...something that is at significant risk this year.

If Stanford doesn't win it this year, they'd damn well better win it next year - or the questions about Muir will start to percolate.

[winflop]

Directors Cup = overall excellence in college athletics.  And it's why I'm not yet concerned about Muir as AD - provided that Stanford keeps winning them...something that is at significant risk this year.

If Stanford doesn't win it this year, they'd damn well better win it next year - or the questions about Muir will start to percolate.

[Hulk01]

What you all said.  The range of well-expressed opinions makes this board, this board.

[Hulk01]

What you all said.  The range of well-expressed opinions makes this board, this board.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.  Very informative.  So I can now respect that many view the Directors' Cup as a symbol of the commitment to and sustained success of Stanford's myriad varsity sports.  Fair enough.

What I think is going unsaid though is the tremendous financial resource advantage Stanford enjoys relative to other schools.  As we all know, the athletic department endowment dwarfs those of other schools (I'm sure my numbers are stale, but I remember reading articles in the last 2-3 years describing the advantage as 10x-20x most other programs' athletic endowments, meaning Stanford has hundreds of millions of dollars more at its disposal).  Unlike other athletic departments that rely overwhelmingly on the revenue sports to support the non-revenue sports, Stanford can sustain athletic programs with endowment returns.  This does not detract in any way from the accomplishments of the student athletes who compete at a world class level and balance that with the academic demands.  They are truly amazing and inspiring.  But, I think it is more than a little disingenuous to look down on schools that focus more on revenue sports and/or can't field 30+ varsity teams without at least acknowledging that Stanford is playing by a different set of rules (from a resource-constraint perspective).

Again, this does not diminish the achievements or success, in my view.  My point is only that I struggle with a romantic notion of Stanford exceptionalism that ignores the financial realities that give us a brobdingnagian competitive advantage (especially if we are not shy about noting the competitive disadvantages we face in admitting student athletes who can handle the academic rigors).  A cynical person (not me, I swear) could fairly say that what is most exceptional about Stanford athletics is the number and magnitude of donations to the university that are earmarked for sports.

Just my two cents.  Welcome your thoughts.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.  Very informative.  So I can now respect that many view the Directors' Cup as a symbol of the commitment to and sustained success of Stanford's myriad varsity sports.  Fair enough.

What I think is going unsaid though is the tremendous financial resource advantage Stanford enjoys relative to other schools.  As we all know, the athletic department endowment dwarfs those of other schools (I'm sure my numbers are stale, but I remember reading articles in the last 2-3 years describing the advantage as 10x-20x most other programs' athletic endowments, meaning Stanford has hundreds of millions of dollars more at its disposal).  Unlike other athletic departments that rely overwhelmingly on the revenue sports to support the non-revenue sports, Stanford can sustain athletic programs with endowment returns.  This does not detract in any way from the accomplishments of the student athletes who compete at a world class level and balance that with the academic demands.  They are truly amazing and inspiring.  But, I think it is more than a little disingenuous to look down on schools that focus more on revenue sports and/or can't field 30+ varsity teams without at least acknowledging that Stanford is playing by a different set of rules (from a resource-constraint perspective).

Again, this does not diminish the achievements or success, in my view.  My point is only that I struggle with a romantic notion of Stanford exceptionalism that ignores the financial realities that give us a brobdingnagian competitive advantage (especially if we are not shy about noting the competitive disadvantages we face in admitting student athletes who can handle the academic rigors).  A cynical person (not me, I swear) could fairly say that what is most exceptional about Stanford athletics is the number and magnitude of donations to the university that are earmarked for sports.

Just my two cents.  Welcome your thoughts.

[CTcard]

What I think is going unsaid though is the tremendous financial resource advantage Stanford enjoys relative to other schools. 

... Unlike other athletic departments that rely overwhelmingly on the revenue sports to support the non-revenue sports, Stanford can sustain athletic programs with endowment returns.  ...  But, I think it is more than a little disingenuous to look down on schools that focus more on revenue sports and/or can't field 30+ varsity teams without at least acknowledging that Stanford is playing by a different set of rules (from a resource-constraint perspective).

... A cynical person (not me, I swear) could fairly say that what is most exceptional about Stanford athletics is the number and magnitude of donations to the university that are earmarked for sports.

Just my two cents.  Welcome your thoughts.

Stanford athletics has a clear financial advantage over most schools, whether that is true over all schools depends on how you count. There is a rather famous USA Today ongoing look at university AD revenues, expenses, subsidies etc. These are required to be filed by universities with the NCAA and are available through FOI requests from public universities. So, unfortunately for this discussion, Stanford isn't on it.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

The biggest AD revenue in the country in 2013 was University of Texas at $166 million. I am pretty certain from bits and pieces I have seen reported that Stanford's revenue is nowhere near that - which would include income from the endowment but not the endowment itself. My memory of Stanford numbers from other sources was that they were most likely in the $60 million range, or 50-ish in ranking. Probably a few others on here would have a better idea on where Stanford may stand.

Regardless of the source, I like the fact that Stanford has chosen to raise these funds and to use them to support a broad-based athletic department that supports many student athletes. I don't think that liking the fact Stanford does that, and reveling in the success Stanford has had in doing so, is the same thing as looking down on schools that don't.
[On the other hand, I feel perfectly comfortable looking down on schools that have completely divorced their revenue sports operation for the overall running of the university, particularly when that has led to athletes making no pretence of acquiring an education, grade/major fixing, and cheating. But that's not really on point.]

You don't have to be cynical to note that the Stanford is exceptional in the amount of donations earmarked towards sports. It is quite possible to revel in that. Those donations don't just happen, they come from many decades of Stanford making its particular brand of sports programs a school priority, going out and raising the funds to run that sports program, and then receiving further donations down the road from those who benefited from the approach while they were at Stanford. That is not something to be cynical about, even though like all things in life it does have its negative aspects.

[CTcard]

What I think is going unsaid though is the tremendous financial resource advantage Stanford enjoys relative to other schools. 

... Unlike other athletic departments that rely overwhelmingly on the revenue sports to support the non-revenue sports, Stanford can sustain athletic programs with endowment returns.  ...  But, I think it is more than a little disingenuous to look down on schools that focus more on revenue sports and/or can't field 30+ varsity teams without at least acknowledging that Stanford is playing by a different set of rules (from a resource-constraint perspective).

... A cynical person (not me, I swear) could fairly say that what is most exceptional about Stanford athletics is the number and magnitude of donations to the university that are earmarked for sports.

Just my two cents.  Welcome your thoughts.

Stanford athletics has a clear financial advantage over most schools, whether that is true over all schools depends on how you count. There is a rather famous USA Today ongoing look at university AD revenues, expenses, subsidies etc. These are required to be filed by universities with the NCAA and are available through FOI requests from public universities. So, unfortunately for this discussion, Stanford isn't on it.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

The biggest AD revenue in the country in 2013 was University of Texas at $166 million. I am pretty certain from bits and pieces I have seen reported that Stanford's revenue is nowhere near that - which would include income from the endowment but not the endowment itself. My memory of Stanford numbers from other sources was that they were most likely in the $60 million range, or 50-ish in ranking. Probably a few others on here would have a better idea on where Stanford may stand.

Regardless of the source, I like the fact that Stanford has chosen to raise these funds and to use them to support a broad-based athletic department that supports many student athletes. I don't think that liking the fact Stanford does that, and reveling in the success Stanford has had in doing so, is the same thing as looking down on schools that don't.
[On the other hand, I feel perfectly comfortable looking down on schools that have completely divorced their revenue sports operation for the overall running of the university, particularly when that has led to athletes making no pretence of acquiring an education, grade/major fixing, and cheating. But that's not really on point.]

You don't have to be cynical to note that the Stanford is exceptional in the amount of donations earmarked towards sports. It is quite possible to revel in that. Those donations don't just happen, they come from many decades of Stanford making its particular brand of sports programs a school priority, going out and raising the funds to run that sports program, and then receiving further donations down the road from those who benefited from the approach while they were at Stanford. That is not something to be cynical about, even though like all things in life it does have its negative aspects.

[Redrum]

...Stanford steps off the Div. 1  pay-for-play bus envisioned in another thread on this board,  then the sports finance picture changes and Stanford might find itself paring away some "minor" or Directors Cup sports and as a consequence might find its Cup days are over.

[Redrum]

...Stanford steps off the Div. 1  pay-for-play bus envisioned in another thread on this board,  then the sports finance picture changes and Stanford might find itself paring away some "minor" or Directors Cup sports and as a consequence might find its Cup days are over.

[terry]

Stanford's endowment income is nice, but it doesn't come close to putting Stanford in a different financial league from everyone else.

If we assume Stanford's athletic endowment is $450 million, and the payout rate on the endowment is 5%, then the endowment is throwing off about $22.5 million per year. That is not enough to put Stanford in the same revenue tier as the big factory schools. The factories have a big advantage in football income, which is more than enough to offset Stanford's advantage in endowment income. Schools such as Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Alabama, and others generate much more athletic revenue than Stanford does.

Stanford's endowment income is used mostly to pay for endowed scholarships and coaching positions. Scholarships at Stanford are more expensive than scholarships at public schools. So some of Stanford's endowment money is used to cover Stanford's higher scholarship expenses.

[terry]

Stanford's endowment income is nice, but it doesn't come close to putting Stanford in a different financial league from everyone else.

If we assume Stanford's athletic endowment is $450 million, and the payout rate on the endowment is 5%, then the endowment is throwing off about $22.5 million per year. That is not enough to put Stanford in the same revenue tier as the big factory schools. The factories have a big advantage in football income, which is more than enough to offset Stanford's advantage in endowment income. Schools such as Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Alabama, and others generate much more athletic revenue than Stanford does.

Stanford's endowment income is used mostly to pay for endowed scholarships and coaching positions. Scholarships at Stanford are more expensive than scholarships at public schools. So some of Stanford's endowment money is used to cover Stanford's higher scholarship expenses.

[dabomb1227]

There actually is a lot of reported data for spending on intercollegiate sports due to the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act.  I found a lot of this data while writing a paper about Title IX.  The website is: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/index.aspx.

From the data I used, of 126 NCAA Division I-A universities, Stanford had the 10th highest expenses in 2013.  Stanford had $110M in expenses.  This figure combined Men's, Women's, Co-ed and Unallocated Expenses.  Stanford spent less than Texas, LSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Auburn, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida.  Of 68 of the larger universities (mostly the Power 5 conferences), the average spending was $83M.

[dabomb1227]

There actually is a lot of reported data for spending on intercollegiate sports due to the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act.  I found a lot of this data while writing a paper about Title IX.  The website is: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/index.aspx.

From the data I used, of 126 NCAA Division I-A universities, Stanford had the 10th highest expenses in 2013.  Stanford had $110M in expenses.  This figure combined Men's, Women's, Co-ed and Unallocated Expenses.  Stanford spent less than Texas, LSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Auburn, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida.  Of 68 of the larger universities (mostly the Power 5 conferences), the average spending was $83M.

[yvonne]

Thanks for that, bomb.

[yvonne]

Thanks for that, bomb.

[82lsju]

the 2012-13 Stanford Athletics Annual Report on Giving has lots of info (not sure when the 2013-14 version is available)

http://gostanford.com/fls/30600/pdf/giving/12-13-annual-report.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=30600

[82lsju]

the 2012-13 Stanford Athletics Annual Report on Giving has lots of info (not sure when the 2013-14 version is available)

http://gostanford.com/fls/30600/pdf/giving/12-13-annual-report.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=30600

[winflop]

One big difference - as far as i know - is that unlike many other D1 schools, Stanford's AD is required to fund itself.  Many schools operate athletics at a loss.

[winflop]

One big difference - as far as i know - is that unlike many other D1 schools, Stanford's AD is required to fund itself.  Many schools operate athletics at a loss.

[Farm93]

Few quick thoughts,
Stanford AD this fiscal year should have expenses near that $110M, as noted already.  That level would put Stanford in the very top tier of the Pac-12 with Oregon and perhaps SC.  Below the level of spending at many in B1G and SEC land, but still better than most in the Pac-12 at least.
Stanford AD is not burdened with massive long-term debt for facilities.  Some of the wannabe big factory schools have debt associated with their facility construction (think UCB), so a meaningful portion of their annual revenue must be allocated to debt payments.
A lot of the big factory programs (ie. Texas, Alabama, TXA&M, Ole Miss) require very large gifts to renew the best season ticket locations.  That strong dependency on football success (football TV revenue, football ticket revenue and donations directly linked to football ticket locations) makes it very hard to siphon off funds for activities which will not enhance the future value of football season tickets.  Stanford AD's endowment and annual donations are not quite as linked to football success, and that allows Stanford to invest in other sports.

Ultimately the SEC, B1G and Texas ability to capture more TV money and recruit all types of HS athletes could overwhelm Stanford's competitive advantages.  In many ways that is already happening, but at least Stanford will be able to withstand the TV revenue disadvantages for a longer period of time than many other programs.

[Farm93]

Few quick thoughts,
Stanford AD this fiscal year should have expenses near that $110M, as noted already.  That level would put Stanford in the very top tier of the Pac-12 with Oregon and perhaps SC.  Below the level of spending at many in B1G and SEC land, but still better than most in the Pac-12 at least.
Stanford AD is not burdened with massive long-term debt for facilities.  Some of the wannabe big factory schools have debt associated with their facility construction (think UCB), so a meaningful portion of their annual revenue must be allocated to debt payments.
A lot of the big factory programs (ie. Texas, Alabama, TXA&M, Ole Miss) require very large gifts to renew the best season ticket locations.  That strong dependency on football success (football TV revenue, football ticket revenue and donations directly linked to football ticket locations) makes it very hard to siphon off funds for activities which will not enhance the future value of football season tickets.  Stanford AD's endowment and annual donations are not quite as linked to football success, and that allows Stanford to invest in other sports.

Ultimately the SEC, B1G and Texas ability to capture more TV money and recruit all types of HS athletes could overwhelm Stanford's competitive advantages.  In many ways that is already happening, but at least Stanford will be able to withstand the TV revenue disadvantages for a longer period of time than many other programs.

[fullmetal]

Muir mentioned today that this year's Director's Cup field is highly competitive.  Minor hedging of the bets detected after saying that Stanford led the standings through the winter sports.

[fullmetal]

Muir mentioned today that this year's Director's Cup field is highly competitive.  Minor hedging of the bets detected after saying that Stanford led the standings through the winter sports.

[2 for 2028]

For those who do not share the seemingly popular Ricky Bobby attitude to our sports teams, our male gymnasts are holding up admirably on the big stage right now.  Oklahoma is in a class above the rest, but national runners-up could be in the cards tonight. 

Live scoring is available here:

http://www.soonersports.com/fls/31000/mg...tfinal.htm

It's hard to tell who is actually in the lead since the different events have very different average scores, but one way to get a sense of how we are doing is to compare the individual event scoring to our scores in the semifinal.  Michigan had the second highest total score in the semis, but we are outperforming them.

http://www.soonersports.com/fls/31000/mi...ssion1.pdf

Live video is available here:

http://www.ncaa.com/liveschedule/2015/04/10

[2 for 2028]

For those who do not share the seemingly popular Ricky Bobby attitude to our sports teams, our male gymnasts are holding up admirably on the big stage right now.  Oklahoma is in a class above the rest, but national runners-up could be in the cards tonight. 

Live scoring is available here:

http://www.soonersports.com/fls/31000/mg...tfinal.htm

It's hard to tell who is actually in the lead since the different events have very different average scores, but one way to get a sense of how we are doing is to compare the individual event scoring to our scores in the semifinal.  Michigan had the second highest total score in the semis, but we are outperforming them.

http://www.soonersports.com/fls/31000/mi...ssion1.pdf

Live video is available here:

http://www.ncaa.com/liveschedule/2015/04/10

[terry]

I think the Equity in Athletics Disclosure website is useful. But I've always taken it with a grain of salt because I haven't been able to figure out what's in the numbers. This year's Equity in Athletics Disclosure report for Stanford shows $42 million of unallocated revenue and $52 million of unallocated expenses. That's a really big chunk of the $110 million total budget. Without understanding what's in those figures, I'm reluctant to draw too many conclusions.

The information linked by 82lsju shows that Stanford's Athletic Department had revenue of $97 million in 2012-13. Of that amount, $10.6 million came from payments from the university in connection with running the P.E., intramural, recreation, and wellness programs. Another $8.3 million came from the golf course and equestrian center. So that's $19 million that is not related to intercollegiate athletics. I assume the other $78 million probably was related to intercollegiate athletics. That's a lot less than the Equity in Athletics Disclosure revenue figures for 2013-14 -- $110 million, which is supposed to be the figure for intercollegiate athletics. The figures are for different years, but still, that's a really big delta. Why the big difference? Are they counting different things? Are they different accounting methods? I don't know.

Maybe somebody out there can shed some light on this issue?

[terry]

I think the Equity in Athletics Disclosure website is useful. But I've always taken it with a grain of salt because I haven't been able to figure out what's in the numbers. This year's Equity in Athletics Disclosure report for Stanford shows $42 million of unallocated revenue and $52 million of unallocated expenses. That's a really big chunk of the $110 million total budget. Without understanding what's in those figures, I'm reluctant to draw too many conclusions.

The information linked by 82lsju shows that Stanford's Athletic Department had revenue of $97 million in 2012-13. Of that amount, $10.6 million came from payments from the university in connection with running the P.E., intramural, recreation, and wellness programs. Another $8.3 million came from the golf course and equestrian center. So that's $19 million that is not related to intercollegiate athletics. I assume the other $78 million probably was related to intercollegiate athletics. That's a lot less than the Equity in Athletics Disclosure revenue figures for 2013-14 -- $110 million, which is supposed to be the figure for intercollegiate athletics. The figures are for different years, but still, that's a really big delta. Why the big difference? Are they counting different things? Are they different accounting methods? I don't know.

Maybe somebody out there can shed some light on this issue?