[Madera86]

#MuirMustGo. 
#NotFeelingtheBern

[Madera86]

#MuirMustGo. 
#NotFeelingtheBern

[TrumpCard]

I went to look for info on the Director's Cup standings and found this thread.  In the old days, I could say "Pass me the Sears' Cup."  Now, we don't even have that.  Is Stanford at least on track for *second* place in the Director's Cup?

[TrumpCard]

I went to look for info on the Director's Cup standings and found this thread.  In the old days, I could say "Pass me the Sears' Cup."  Now, we don't even have that.  Is Stanford at least on track for *second* place in the Director's Cup?

[BostonCard]

The issue is getting zero points in mens basketball, and having a down year in womens volleyball.  Yes, the fact that our scores get truncated after 15 hurts us, but it’s still better to have more sports than fewer, and if we displace a sport, it still increases the contribution of the sports that do count.  But because the mandatory included sports (men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and women’s volleyball) can’t be displaced scoring zero (basketball) or having a disappointing season (volleyball) can’t be made up for by scoring well in something else and displacing that score.

BC

[BostonCard]

The issue is getting zero points in mens basketball, and having a down year in womens volleyball.  Yes, the fact that our scores get truncated after 15 hurts us, but it’s still better to have more sports than fewer, and if we displace a sport, it still increases the contribution of the sports that do count.  But because the mandatory included sports (men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and women’s volleyball) can’t be displaced scoring zero (basketball) or having a disappointing season (volleyball) can’t be made up for by scoring well in something else and displacing that score.

BC

[Madera86]

The issue is getting zero points in mens basketball, and having a down year in womens volleyball.  Yes, the fact that our scores get truncated after 15 hurts us, but it’s still better to have more sports than fewer, and if we displace a sport, it still increases the contribution of the sports that do count.  But because the mandatory included sports (men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and women’s volleyball) can’t be displaced scoring zero (basketball) or having a disappointing season (volleyball) can’t be made up for by scoring well in something else and displacing that score.

BC

Guess the NACDA finally found the magic potion.

[Madera86]

The issue is getting zero points in mens basketball, and having a down year in womens volleyball.  Yes, the fact that our scores get truncated after 15 hurts us, but it’s still better to have more sports than fewer, and if we displace a sport, it still increases the contribution of the sports that do count.  But because the mandatory included sports (men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and women’s volleyball) can’t be displaced scoring zero (basketball) or having a disappointing season (volleyball) can’t be made up for by scoring well in something else and displacing that score.

BC

Guess the NACDA finally found the magic potion.

[Nan3cy]

The issue is getting zero points in mens basketball, and having a down year in womens volleyball.  Yes, the fact that our scores get truncated after 15 hurts us, but it’s still better to have more sports than fewer, and if we displace a sport, it still increases the contribution of the sports that do count.  But because the mandatory included sports (men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and women’s volleyball) can’t be displaced scoring zero (basketball) or having a disappointing season (volleyball) can’t be made up for by scoring well in something else and displacing that score


BC

Guess the NACDA finally found the magic potion.

Yup, after however may iterations, they finally found the formula that will give them a different winner…

[Nan3cy]

The issue is getting zero points in mens basketball, and having a down year in womens volleyball.  Yes, the fact that our scores get truncated after 15 hurts us, but it’s still better to have more sports than fewer, and if we displace a sport, it still increases the contribution of the sports that do count.  But because the mandatory included sports (men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and women’s volleyball) can’t be displaced scoring zero (basketball) or having a disappointing season (volleyball) can’t be made up for by scoring well in something else and displacing that score


BC

Guess the NACDA finally found the magic potion.

Yup, after however may iterations, they finally found the formula that will give them a different winner…

[M T]

The issue is getting zero points in mens basketball, and having a down year in womens volleyball.  Yes, the fact that our scores get truncated after 15 hurts us, but it’s still better to have more sports than fewer, and if we displace a sport, it still increases the contribution of the sports that do count.  But because the mandatory included sports (men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and women’s volleyball) can’t be displaced scoring zero (basketball) or having a disappointing season (volleyball) can’t be made up for by scoring well in something else and displacing that score.

I'd say that's a fallacy. 

When I did the spread sheet earlier in the year (using 2021 Spring scores, not 2022 Spring scores), Texas got 68 more points in required sports than Stanford.  Compared to winning all 4 required sports, Stanford lost 189 points (ie, scored 211). Stanford lost 236.5 points because of the 15-sport limit, while Texas lost none.

Having more sports means that a good year in Women's Golf can help to cover for a lesser year in Women's Tennis.  But MVB won't help unless Stanford makes it to the finals.  BVB won't help much unless Stanford makes it to the semifinals.

At that earlier time, I did a What-If, overly-optimistic Even-if scenario in which Stanford won WGolf, WWP, WRow, BSB, and BVB.  That let Stanford get to the points that Texas was looking like.  At least one miracle didn't happen.  While we're cheering for Softball to advance further, they've assured Stanford of at least 14 more DC points than I had counted on (64, displacing a 50).  (Our next scores to lose are 53.5 (W indoor T&F), 54 (Fencing), 55 (Wrestling))

But, in the what-if scenario, I only adjusted Stanford scores, not Texas.  Stanford knocking off #1 Texas in WRow would probably only cost them 10 points.
If Texas finishes at their #1 ranking in MT&F, they get an additional 27 points over last year.
If Texas finishes at their #1 ranking in WT&F, they get an additional 30 points.
If Texas finishes at their #6 ranking in MGolf, they get another 21 points.  
If Texas finishes at their #19 ranking in Baseball, they lose 33 points.
Texas is still going in Softball (but have a loss in the Super Regional; if they lose, they get the same number of points as last year).

To gain a few points, MGolf (ranked 17), Men(#19) or Women(#23) T&F would have to be 17th or better (57 points so a net of 4 or fewer each).
Remember, I was doing a what-if, not predicting.
If Stanford finishes at their #3 ranking in Baseball, they lose 17 points to the what-if scenario, gaining 5 points over last year.
If Stanford Softball loses in the Super Regional (9th), that's a wash in the what-if scenario (I already adjusted for that), gaining 14 points over last year.
If Stanford Softball wins in the Super Regional, that's an additional 9 points at least (7th) up to an additional 34 (1st) (on top of the what-if)

I still don't see much of a chance for Stanford.   If WRow and BSB should win a NC, Stanford is still short.  If Softball should win a NC also, then Texas would still beat Stanford if they perform at their rankings in the other sports, but it would get really interesting.  

I have Michigan about 100 points behind Stanford.  North Carolina and Florida more than 100 points further behind.

I get the feeling we'll see a video from a 1994 movie....

[M T]

The issue is getting zero points in mens basketball, and having a down year in womens volleyball.  Yes, the fact that our scores get truncated after 15 hurts us, but it’s still better to have more sports than fewer, and if we displace a sport, it still increases the contribution of the sports that do count.  But because the mandatory included sports (men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and women’s volleyball) can’t be displaced scoring zero (basketball) or having a disappointing season (volleyball) can’t be made up for by scoring well in something else and displacing that score.

I'd say that's a fallacy. 

When I did the spread sheet earlier in the year (using 2021 Spring scores, not 2022 Spring scores), Texas got 68 more points in required sports than Stanford.  Compared to winning all 4 required sports, Stanford lost 189 points (ie, scored 211). Stanford lost 236.5 points because of the 15-sport limit, while Texas lost none.

Having more sports means that a good year in Women's Golf can help to cover for a lesser year in Women's Tennis.  But MVB won't help unless Stanford makes it to the finals.  BVB won't help much unless Stanford makes it to the semifinals.

At that earlier time, I did a What-If, overly-optimistic Even-if scenario in which Stanford won WGolf, WWP, WRow, BSB, and BVB.  That let Stanford get to the points that Texas was looking like.  At least one miracle didn't happen.  While we're cheering for Softball to advance further, they've assured Stanford of at least 14 more DC points than I had counted on (64, displacing a 50).  (Our next scores to lose are 53.5 (W indoor T&F), 54 (Fencing), 55 (Wrestling))

But, in the what-if scenario, I only adjusted Stanford scores, not Texas.  Stanford knocking off #1 Texas in WRow would probably only cost them 10 points.
If Texas finishes at their #1 ranking in MT&F, they get an additional 27 points over last year.
If Texas finishes at their #1 ranking in WT&F, they get an additional 30 points.
If Texas finishes at their #6 ranking in MGolf, they get another 21 points.  
If Texas finishes at their #19 ranking in Baseball, they lose 33 points.
Texas is still going in Softball (but have a loss in the Super Regional; if they lose, they get the same number of points as last year).

To gain a few points, MGolf (ranked 17), Men(#19) or Women(#23) T&F would have to be 17th or better (57 points so a net of 4 or fewer each).
Remember, I was doing a what-if, not predicting.
If Stanford finishes at their #3 ranking in Baseball, they lose 17 points to the what-if scenario, gaining 5 points over last year.
If Stanford Softball loses in the Super Regional (9th), that's a wash in the what-if scenario (I already adjusted for that), gaining 14 points over last year.
If Stanford Softball wins in the Super Regional, that's an additional 9 points at least (7th) up to an additional 34 (1st) (on top of the what-if)

I still don't see much of a chance for Stanford.   If WRow and BSB should win a NC, Stanford is still short.  If Softball should win a NC also, then Texas would still beat Stanford if they perform at their rankings in the other sports, but it would get really interesting.  

I have Michigan about 100 points behind Stanford.  North Carolina and Florida more than 100 points further behind.

I get the feeling we'll see a video from a 1994 movie....

[Leftcoast]

Let's also acknowledge that Texas is having a good year even without football points.  

They have always been our logical rival in terms of all around athletic program excellence.

[Leftcoast]

Let's also acknowledge that Texas is having a good year even without football points.  

They have always been our logical rival in terms of all around athletic program excellence.

[fullmetal]

I went to look for info on the Director's Cup standings and found this thread.  In the old days, I could say "Pass me the Sears' Cup."  Now, we don't even have that.  Is Stanford at least on track for *second* place in the Director's Cup?

The Sears Cup is the Director's Cup.  It is also now the basketball-baseball-volleyball-uber-alles cup.

[fullmetal]

I went to look for info on the Director's Cup standings and found this thread.  In the old days, I could say "Pass me the Sears' Cup."  Now, we don't even have that.  Is Stanford at least on track for *second* place in the Director's Cup?

The Sears Cup is the Director's Cup.  It is also now the basketball-baseball-volleyball-uber-alles cup.

[TrumpCard]

I went to look for info on the Director's Cup standings and found this thread.  In the old days, I could say "Pass me the Sears' Cup."  Now, we don't even have that.  Is Stanford at least on track for *second* place in the Director's Cup?

The Sears Cup is the Director's Cup.  It is also now the basketball-baseball-volleyball-uber-alles cup.

I get it.  I was just saying that the thread made clear Stanford could not WIN the Director's Cup this year.  I was hoping that I could say, "Pass me the Director's Cup runner up trophy."  Is there even such a thing?  At some point, it becomes a "participation trophy" or a "it's nice that you're trying" trophy.

[TrumpCard]

I went to look for info on the Director's Cup standings and found this thread.  In the old days, I could say "Pass me the Sears' Cup."  Now, we don't even have that.  Is Stanford at least on track for *second* place in the Director's Cup?

The Sears Cup is the Director's Cup.  It is also now the basketball-baseball-volleyball-uber-alles cup.

I get it.  I was just saying that the thread made clear Stanford could not WIN the Director's Cup this year.  I was hoping that I could say, "Pass me the Director's Cup runner up trophy."  Is there even such a thing?  At some point, it becomes a "participation trophy" or a "it's nice that you're trying" trophy.

[Spiny_Norman]

The Stanford women are in a good position to win the Capital One (aka, the ESPN) Cup. They are 2nd to Florida State in the posted scores. It's hard to tell if the posted standings include recent sports like golf and tennis. The link to the detailed scores is broken.

https://www.capitalone.com/capital-one-cup/

For historical perspective, Stanford women have won the Capital One Cup in 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021.

The men are top 10 currently but further behind. They won in 2021 and were 2nd in 2019.

[Spiny_Norman]

The Stanford women are in a good position to win the Capital One (aka, the ESPN) Cup. They are 2nd to Florida State in the posted scores. It's hard to tell if the posted standings include recent sports like golf and tennis. The link to the detailed scores is broken.

https://www.capitalone.com/capital-one-cup/

For historical perspective, Stanford women have won the Capital One Cup in 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021.

The men are top 10 currently but further behind. They won in 2021 and were 2nd in 2019.

[fullmetal]

And ironically we used to call the Capital One cup a manufactured award to be awarded to a non-Stanford athletic department.

[fullmetal]

And ironically we used to call the Capital One cup a manufactured award to be awarded to a non-Stanford athletic department.

[BostonCard]

Last year I think was the ultimate irony, as we won both the mens and Women’s ESPN cup, but failed to win the Sears cup.

BC

[BostonCard]

Last year I think was the ultimate irony, as we won both the mens and Women’s ESPN cup, but failed to win the Sears cup.

BC

[BigEasyCard]

MT nailed it two months ago.  Stanford will finish second to Texas again:

June16DIOverall (PDF) - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (nacda.com)

Texas leads by 97.25 points with Baseball remaining and both teams at Omaha.

Geaux Cardinal!

---

Meanwhile, over in Ann Arbor:

Michigan falls in updated Directors' Cup standings (247sports.com)

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

MT nailed it two months ago.  Stanford will finish second to Texas again:

June16DIOverall (PDF) - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (nacda.com)

Texas leads by 97.25 points with Baseball remaining and both teams at Omaha.

Geaux Cardinal!

---

Meanwhile, over in Ann Arbor:

Michigan falls in updated Directors' Cup standings (247sports.com)

Geaux Cardinal!

[ca245]

Our fate was sealed in the fall when WVB and WSoc only got 75 points combined and MSoc got none. Pre-COVID, all three teams usually made deep runs into the tournament, often for 200+ points.

[ca245]

Our fate was sealed in the fall when WVB and WSoc only got 75 points combined and MSoc got none. Pre-COVID, all three teams usually made deep runs into the tournament, often for 200+ points.

[Phogge]

To the Tonga drinkers it will always be the Ted Cup.

[Phogge]

To the Tonga drinkers it will always be the Ted Cup.

[fullmetal]

Our fate was sealed in the fall when WVB and WSoc only got 75 points combined and MSoc got none. Pre-COVID, all three teams usually made deep runs into the tournament, often for 200+ points.

I think our weakness was rather weak showings in two of the four required sports: baseball (we're fine), men's basketball (ouch), women's basketball (we're fine), and women's volleyball (ouch).  Sure, more points helps at the margins, but the required sports are deep cuts.

[fullmetal]

Our fate was sealed in the fall when WVB and WSoc only got 75 points combined and MSoc got none. Pre-COVID, all three teams usually made deep runs into the tournament, often for 200+ points.

I think our weakness was rather weak showings in two of the four required sports: baseball (we're fine), men's basketball (ouch), women's basketball (we're fine), and women's volleyball (ouch).  Sure, more points helps at the margins, but the required sports are deep cuts.

[BigEasyCard]

More than half of the Texas margin of victory stems from MBB where they earned 50 and Stanford earned 0.  

If Texas has a weakness, it's having only 20 NCAA sports while Stanford has more than 30.

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

More than half of the Texas margin of victory stems from MBB where they earned 50 and Stanford earned 0.  

If Texas has a weakness, it's having only 20 NCAA sports while Stanford has more than 30.

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

And here's the view from Texas:

Texas Athletics clinches 2021-22 Division I LEARFIELD Directors’ Cup - University of Texas Athletics (texassports.com)

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

And here's the view from Texas:

Texas Athletics clinches 2021-22 Division I LEARFIELD Directors’ Cup - University of Texas Athletics (texassports.com)

Geaux Cardinal!

[fullmetal]

Trust me, I'm getting an eyeful of burnt orange around the Cup in my locally-targeted email advertisements.  It's jarring at best lol.

[fullmetal]

Trust me, I'm getting an eyeful of burnt orange around the Cup in my locally-targeted email advertisements.  It's jarring at best lol.

[M T]

MT nailed it two months ago.  Stanford will finish second to Texas again:

June16DIOverall (PDF) - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (nacda.com)

Texas leads by 97.25 points with Baseball remaining and both teams at Omaha.

Geaux Cardinal!

I haven't run the numbers in quite a while, but I am sure Texas has done even better than last year.  Their positioning in the T&F sports (6 championships available between Indoor, Outdoor & Cross-country) is going to make them tough to beat.  They've clearly matched their sports budget to track the NACDA limit on number of scoring sports.  One has to tip the hat to the limited number of NCAA teams they field.

HOWEVER, I'm sure that Stanford scored more points than Texas overall by more than 50 points when all sports are counted, not using some artificial limit.   The public should be pushing to get NACDA to remove the limit on the number of sports, as it allows big schools like Texas to ignore some of the sports when they clearly have the capacity to include more student-athletes.

As I've said before, Stanford is losing more points by sports being dropped from the scoring than any team is scoring TOTAL across the required sports (Texas is close, and may exceed that number).  It looks like Stanford will be 2nd in scoring across the required sports. (The required WVB scored only 50 points this year - down by 50 from the best possible finish. Dropping the 54 points from fencing hurts more than that. Dropping the 56 points from MGolf hurt even more.)

If I understand the numbers correctly, Stanford has around 6,500 undergrads;  UT-Austin had over 9,000 freshmen this year (a record;  40,000 total undergrads in 2019 - the senior class is by far the biggest (as it collects people from different incoming years)); Michigan had over 32,000 undergrads this year.

IMO, if NIL continues, it will allow schools big schools like Texas to bypass scholarship limits in the sports they choose to finance.  With 6x the number of alumni per year, alumni can finance a lot of athletes outside the school's NCAA scholarship limits.   Maybe women rowers at Texas will get big NIL deals.
(Oooops... I shouldn't assume 40K current students graduate ....   Ok, it is more like 5x the number of alumni per year.)

[M T]

MT nailed it two months ago.  Stanford will finish second to Texas again:

June16DIOverall (PDF) - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (nacda.com)

Texas leads by 97.25 points with Baseball remaining and both teams at Omaha.

Geaux Cardinal!

I haven't run the numbers in quite a while, but I am sure Texas has done even better than last year.  Their positioning in the T&F sports (6 championships available between Indoor, Outdoor & Cross-country) is going to make them tough to beat.  They've clearly matched their sports budget to track the NACDA limit on number of scoring sports.  One has to tip the hat to the limited number of NCAA teams they field.

HOWEVER, I'm sure that Stanford scored more points than Texas overall by more than 50 points when all sports are counted, not using some artificial limit.   The public should be pushing to get NACDA to remove the limit on the number of sports, as it allows big schools like Texas to ignore some of the sports when they clearly have the capacity to include more student-athletes.

As I've said before, Stanford is losing more points by sports being dropped from the scoring than any team is scoring TOTAL across the required sports (Texas is close, and may exceed that number).  It looks like Stanford will be 2nd in scoring across the required sports. (The required WVB scored only 50 points this year - down by 50 from the best possible finish. Dropping the 54 points from fencing hurts more than that. Dropping the 56 points from MGolf hurt even more.)

If I understand the numbers correctly, Stanford has around 6,500 undergrads;  UT-Austin had over 9,000 freshmen this year (a record;  40,000 total undergrads in 2019 - the senior class is by far the biggest (as it collects people from different incoming years)); Michigan had over 32,000 undergrads this year.

IMO, if NIL continues, it will allow schools big schools like Texas to bypass scholarship limits in the sports they choose to finance.  With 6x the number of alumni per year, alumni can finance a lot of athletes outside the school's NCAA scholarship limits.   Maybe women rowers at Texas will get big NIL deals.
(Oooops... I shouldn't assume 40K current students graduate ....   Ok, it is more like 5x the number of alumni per year.)