[BostonCard]

Personally, I don't think the recent DC results have much to do with the formula. I think the bigger factor is Stanford's (lack of) performance in the mandatory sports--esp. men's basketball and, more recently, baseball and women's basketball.

Well, it doesn't and it does.  The fact that the sports are "mandatory" means that Stanford's poor performance in them matters.  Under the old rules where the best scoring sports contribute would have meant that the impact of failing to score in the mandatory sports would have mattered a lot less (if at all).

Philosophically, the question is whether we are in an "Animal Farm" situation: all sport are equal, but some sports are more equal than others.  It is certainly defensible to set it up that way; nobody is going to deny that as measured by global attendance, or TV revenue, or virtually any other metric, baseball, M & W basketball,  W soccer and W volleyball are bigger than, say, men's gymnastics.  But it is a bit arbitrary (why women's soccer is included but not softball?). More to the point, if the goal is to reward broad athletics department performance, then shouldn't doing better in more sports count more?

Be that as it may, the rules being set up as they are, Stanford will struggle to win unless and until it can start getting more out of men's and women's basketball and baseball.

BC

[BostonCard]

Personally, I don't think the recent DC results have much to do with the formula. I think the bigger factor is Stanford's (lack of) performance in the mandatory sports--esp. men's basketball and, more recently, baseball and women's basketball.

Well, it doesn't and it does.  The fact that the sports are "mandatory" means that Stanford's poor performance in them matters.  Under the old rules where the best scoring sports contribute would have meant that the impact of failing to score in the mandatory sports would have mattered a lot less (if at all).

Philosophically, the question is whether we are in an "Animal Farm" situation: all sport are equal, but some sports are more equal than others.  It is certainly defensible to set it up that way; nobody is going to deny that as measured by global attendance, or TV revenue, or virtually any other metric, baseball, M & W basketball,  W soccer and W volleyball are bigger than, say, men's gymnastics.  But it is a bit arbitrary (why women's soccer is included but not softball?). More to the point, if the goal is to reward broad athletics department performance, then shouldn't doing better in more sports count more?

Be that as it may, the rules being set up as they are, Stanford will struggle to win unless and until it can start getting more out of men's and women's basketball and baseball.

BC