[Papa John]

Apparently, thanks to the unexpected run by men's golf, it's still mathematically possible for Stanford to win the DC. 

We need 6-seed Texas baseball to lose its Super Regional vs 11-seed Oregon.

And we need Texas men's and women's T&F to massively underperform

And we need Stanford women's T&F to massively overperform.

Practically speaking, of course, Vandelay is correct.

[Papa John]

Apparently, thanks to the unexpected run by men's golf, it's still mathematically possible for Stanford to win the DC. 

We need 6-seed Texas baseball to lose its Super Regional vs 11-seed Oregon.

And we need Texas men's and women's T&F to massively underperform

And we need Stanford women's T&F to massively overperform.

Practically speaking, of course, Vandelay is correct.

[rbr333]

Will the committee start tinkering with the points system so Texas doesn't win too many in a row?

hmmm....well, to be clear, Texas has won 4 of the last 5 since reform coinciding maybe with Covid to only include revenue generating sports that at least 50% of other schools participate. As it happened, almost all of the sports The Card cut were sports over 90% of other schools did not field (I use that word lightly) a team, like Co-ed sailing, (really?). So now that its a more level playing field, schools like (you know who), North Carolina, and of course, Texas (who is almost assuredly going to win it again this year in the last 5 days of the NCAA Outdoor Track and Field events conclude June 13) have competitive shot at.

---

Apparently, thanks to the unexpected run by men's golf, it's still mathematically possible for Stanford to win the DC. 

We need 6-seed Texas baseball to lose its Super Regional vs 11-seed Oregon.

And we need Texas men's and women's T&F to massively underperform

And we need Stanford women's T&F to massively overperform.

Practically speaking, of course, Vandelay is correct.

And of course now that Texas won it's Super Regional against Oregon, it's all but academic (or rather, mathematically still) Texas will win again. Advancing to the CWS now means that Texas could call in sick on half their events at the T&F championships and still get better than 49th place, enough to overtake Stanford for the win. But, as you say, mathematically speaking, Stanford is still in.

[rbr333]

Will the committee start tinkering with the points system so Texas doesn't win too many in a row?

hmmm....well, to be clear, Texas has won 4 of the last 5 since reform coinciding maybe with Covid to only include revenue generating sports that at least 50% of other schools participate. As it happened, almost all of the sports The Card cut were sports over 90% of other schools did not field (I use that word lightly) a team, like Co-ed sailing, (really?). So now that its a more level playing field, schools like (you know who), North Carolina, and of course, Texas (who is almost assuredly going to win it again this year in the last 5 days of the NCAA Outdoor Track and Field events conclude June 13) have competitive shot at.

---

Apparently, thanks to the unexpected run by men's golf, it's still mathematically possible for Stanford to win the DC. 

We need 6-seed Texas baseball to lose its Super Regional vs 11-seed Oregon.

And we need Texas men's and women's T&F to massively underperform

And we need Stanford women's T&F to massively overperform.

Practically speaking, of course, Vandelay is correct.

And of course now that Texas won it's Super Regional against Oregon, it's all but academic (or rather, mathematically still) Texas will win again. Advancing to the CWS now means that Texas could call in sick on half their events at the T&F championships and still get better than 49th place, enough to overtake Stanford for the win. But, as you say, mathematically speaking, Stanford is still in.

[rbr333]

Anything short of winning the title lowers our directors' cup hopes as the projections already bake in 100 points for us.

I haven't seen any projections, certainly not on the Cardboard.  Did I miss something?

I seriously doubt the WGolf team members have the Directors Cup even in the back of their minds.  Their focus is naturally on winning the NCAA team title.  That's enough pressure.

Yes, I think you may have. I think the projections reference that EVERYONE, including the Athletic Directors and most students, athletes', etc., is " https://x.com/Direct_Cupdates " on X where you will find many more spirited discussions than on the Cardboard.

[rbr333]

Anything short of winning the title lowers our directors' cup hopes as the projections already bake in 100 points for us.

I haven't seen any projections, certainly not on the Cardboard.  Did I miss something?

I seriously doubt the WGolf team members have the Directors Cup even in the back of their minds.  Their focus is naturally on winning the NCAA team title.  That's enough pressure.

Yes, I think you may have. I think the projections reference that EVERYONE, including the Athletic Directors and most students, athletes', etc., is " https://x.com/Direct_Cupdates " on X where you will find many more spirited discussions than on the Cardboard.

[rbr333]

Fair question. Maybe if Texas has multiple consecutive runaway wins? Last year Texas won with 1255.25 points, University of Satan's Children 1253.75 and Stanford 1251, so that would be evidence that the formula produces competitive results. And Texas has won just two Cups in a row; Stanford won three years ago.

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.

Actually, I think the tinkering began 6 or 7 years ago when Stanford, with something like 36 sports, including Co-ed sailing (maybe?), women's "lightweight" rowing?, etc., won the Cup 26 years in a row after UNC?? won the very first one, a record that will never be approached much less, tied or broken.  

Since then, Texas has won the last 4 of 5, the 2 in a row streak broken in 2023 by Stanford, then 2 more in a row by Texas. and finally, its looking pretty certain Texas will win its 3rd in a row, 5 of the last 6 wins, tomorrow when W T&F concludes (maybe even today when M T&F concludes), possibly without even needing CWS points added in. (from X Directors_Cupdates) 

And yes, the cause looks to be almost exclusively, the three mandatory 0's from the 5 mandatory sports that Stanford used to just swap out with another point getter sport (see lightweight rowing :-)).

---

Will the committee start tinkering with the points system so Texas doesn't win too many in a row?

Actually, I think the tinkering began 6 or 7 years ago when Stanford, with something like 36 sports, including Co-ed sailing (maybe?), women's "lightweight" rowing?, etc., won the Cup 26 years in a row after UNC?? won the very first one, a record that will never be approached much less, tied or broken.  

Since then, Texas has won the last 4 of 5, the 2 in a row streak broken in 2023 by Stanford, then 2 more in a row by Texas. and finally, its looking pretty certain Texas will win its 3rd in a row, 5 of the last 6 wins, tomorrow when W T&F concludes (maybe even today when M T&F concludes), possibly without even needing CWS points added in. (from X Directors_Cupdates) 

And yes, the cause looks to be almost exclusively, the three mandatory 0's from the 5 mandatory sports that Stanford used to just swap out with another point getter sport (see lightweight rowing :-)).

[rbr333]

Fair question. Maybe if Texas has multiple consecutive runaway wins? Last year Texas won with 1255.25 points, University of Satan's Children 1253.75 and Stanford 1251, so that would be evidence that the formula produces competitive results. And Texas has won just two Cups in a row; Stanford won three years ago.

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.

Actually, I think the tinkering began 6 or 7 years ago when Stanford, with something like 36 sports, including Co-ed sailing (maybe?), women's "lightweight" rowing?, etc., won the Cup 26 years in a row after UNC?? won the very first one, a record that will never be approached much less, tied or broken.  

Since then, Texas has won the last 4 of 5, the 2 in a row streak broken in 2023 by Stanford, then 2 more in a row by Texas. and finally, its looking pretty certain Texas will win its 3rd in a row, 5 of the last 6 wins, tomorrow when W T&F concludes (maybe even today when M T&F concludes), possibly without even needing CWS points added in. (from X Directors_Cupdates) 

And yes, the cause looks to be almost exclusively, the three mandatory 0's from the 5 mandatory sports that Stanford used to just swap out with another point getter sport (see lightweight rowing :-)).

---

Will the committee start tinkering with the points system so Texas doesn't win too many in a row?

Actually, I think the tinkering began 6 or 7 years ago when Stanford, with something like 36 sports, including Co-ed sailing (maybe?), women's "lightweight" rowing?, etc., won the Cup 26 years in a row after UNC?? won the very first one, a record that will never be approached much less, tied or broken.  

Since then, Texas has won the last 4 of 5, the 2 in a row streak broken in 2023 by Stanford, then 2 more in a row by Texas. and finally, its looking pretty certain Texas will win its 3rd in a row, 5 of the last 6 wins, tomorrow when W T&F concludes (maybe even today when M T&F concludes), possibly without even needing CWS points added in. (from X Directors_Cupdates) 

And yes, the cause looks to be almost exclusively, the three mandatory 0's from the 5 mandatory sports that Stanford used to just swap out with another point getter sport (see lightweight rowing :-)).

[rbr333]

Interesting. Learfield's June 9 standings have Stanford's total at 1587 instead of 1263 for current standings, with Texas at 1172. We know the 1245 John has at X Cup Updates site, comes from adding the 73 points from Texas winning the super regionals. Adding that to the 1172, you get the 1245 you see for Texas current standings. What apparently has not been changed, for what, 3 days now?, is Stanford's 342 additional pts is a total of ALL sports, not just the 19 that count toward Director's Cup points. At some point, one would presume, Learfield (or rather NACDA) has to be made aware of it before they go and proclaim a winner, no?

[rbr333]

Interesting. Learfield's June 9 standings have Stanford's total at 1587 instead of 1263 for current standings, with Texas at 1172. We know the 1245 John has at X Cup Updates site, comes from adding the 73 points from Texas winning the super regionals. Adding that to the 1172, you get the 1245 you see for Texas current standings. What apparently has not been changed, for what, 3 days now?, is Stanford's 342 additional pts is a total of ALL sports, not just the 19 that count toward Director's Cup points. At some point, one would presume, Learfield (or rather NACDA) has to be made aware of it before they go and proclaim a winner, no?

[M T]

And yes, the cause looks to be almost exclusively, the three mandatory 0's from the 5 mandatory sports that Stanford used to just swap out with another point getter sport (see lightweight rowing :-)).

You really should fact check your comment about lightweight rowing -- I guess you were disparaging that Olympic sport, even though it isn't a NCAA team championship sport and doesn't enter into the Director's Cup discussion.


In 2024-2025 (since we don't have final scoring for 2025-2026), in the final scores, Stanford was 4.25 points short of Texas. 
The NCAA 3rd place finish for Men's Water Polo had been scored as 55 points in the fall scores (fall total of 413 points) was removed when computing the final score (counting only 358 points for Fall sports).
An additional 108.5 points was removed from the Winter sports (originally, 491 points, reduced to 382.5) by dropping WGym and M Wrestling.
In the spring sports, WGolf, MGolf, WLax, Softball, Beach VB, W T&F were all dropped, losing another 256.5 points.   
That's a total of 420 points that were dropped.

Texas drops:  27 points for M CC, 35.5 for W In. T&F for a total of 52.5 points.

If all NCAA team championships were counted, Stanford would have trashed Texas by a score of 1671.0 - 1307.75.   Not even close. And Texas is a very big and very rich school.  It chooses not to participate in more sports.

For the 5 sports that Director's Cup makes "more equal", the score was Texas 252, Stanford 150.  The difference of 152 points is far less than the 367.5 point difference in dropped scoring.

So, no, it isn't the case that the loss is due to 5 sports not scoring much, but by sports being dropped by the Director's Cup scoring system. If even one of those 9 dropped sports were allowed (and one for Texas too), Stanford would have won.

[M T]

And yes, the cause looks to be almost exclusively, the three mandatory 0's from the 5 mandatory sports that Stanford used to just swap out with another point getter sport (see lightweight rowing :-)).

You really should fact check your comment about lightweight rowing -- I guess you were disparaging that Olympic sport, even though it isn't a NCAA team championship sport and doesn't enter into the Director's Cup discussion.


In 2024-2025 (since we don't have final scoring for 2025-2026), in the final scores, Stanford was 4.25 points short of Texas. 
The NCAA 3rd place finish for Men's Water Polo had been scored as 55 points in the fall scores (fall total of 413 points) was removed when computing the final score (counting only 358 points for Fall sports).
An additional 108.5 points was removed from the Winter sports (originally, 491 points, reduced to 382.5) by dropping WGym and M Wrestling.
In the spring sports, WGolf, MGolf, WLax, Softball, Beach VB, W T&F were all dropped, losing another 256.5 points.   
That's a total of 420 points that were dropped.

Texas drops:  27 points for M CC, 35.5 for W In. T&F for a total of 52.5 points.

If all NCAA team championships were counted, Stanford would have trashed Texas by a score of 1671.0 - 1307.75.   Not even close. And Texas is a very big and very rich school.  It chooses not to participate in more sports.

For the 5 sports that Director's Cup makes "more equal", the score was Texas 252, Stanford 150.  The difference of 152 points is far less than the 367.5 point difference in dropped scoring.

So, no, it isn't the case that the loss is due to 5 sports not scoring much, but by sports being dropped by the Director's Cup scoring system. If even one of those 9 dropped sports were allowed (and one for Texas too), Stanford would have won.

[fullmetal]

It's both -- 

Capping the number of sports scored is supposed to help the schools with smaller athletic departments.
Mandatory counted sports helps the richest schools who can afford to pay the NIL $$ to compete in those sports.

Both of those rules hurt Stanford's final score.

[fullmetal]

It's both -- 

Capping the number of sports scored is supposed to help the schools with smaller athletic departments.
Mandatory counted sports helps the richest schools who can afford to pay the NIL $$ to compete in those sports.

Both of those rules hurt Stanford's final score.