[Papa John]

Has no one yet started a thread on this topic? If so, I apologize, but I couldn't find it!

In any case, I think this is the time of year when we cheer for Texas (and maybe UCLA and Florida) to miss their flights and/or have their hotel reservations canceled for every remaining sporting event.

As of April 23 Stanford was in first place, followed by Michigan, UNC, Ohio State, Penn State, Virginia, Princeton, Nebraska, Alabama and Notre Dame.

That sounds great, but the following sports remain to be counted:
Women's Water Polo--Stanford 3rd, Texas doesn't have WWP?
Men's Volleyball--no idea if Stanford earned DC points, Texas doesn't have MVB?
Women's Beach Volleyball--Stanford 2nd, Texas lost in semifinals
Lacrosse--Stanford women lost in quarterfinals, Texas doesn't have LAX?
Tennis--Stanford men lost in super regionals, Texas finished 2nd/Stanford women lost in second round, Texas lost in sweet 16
Golf--all men's and women's teams still playing, Stanford men ranked #15, Texas #3/Stanford women ranked #1, Texas #5
Women's Rowing--both teams in championship, no idea how to rank them
Softball--Stanford won two games in OK State regional, Texas in the WCWS
Baseball--Stanford no DC points, Texas ranked #6
Outdoor Track & Field--Stanford men ranked #106, Texas #18/Stanford women ranked #24, Texas #18

As folks know, there's a lot more that goes into the scoring, like mandatory events and dropped scores, but the bottom line is that Texas is going to make a late run like they did last season, and in the sole remaining mandatory non-droppable sport--baseball--Stanford has already tapped out.

[Papa John]

Has no one yet started a thread on this topic? If so, I apologize, but I couldn't find it!

In any case, I think this is the time of year when we cheer for Texas (and maybe UCLA and Florida) to miss their flights and/or have their hotel reservations canceled for every remaining sporting event.

As of April 23 Stanford was in first place, followed by Michigan, UNC, Ohio State, Penn State, Virginia, Princeton, Nebraska, Alabama and Notre Dame.

That sounds great, but the following sports remain to be counted:
Women's Water Polo--Stanford 3rd, Texas doesn't have WWP?
Men's Volleyball--no idea if Stanford earned DC points, Texas doesn't have MVB?
Women's Beach Volleyball--Stanford 2nd, Texas lost in semifinals
Lacrosse--Stanford women lost in quarterfinals, Texas doesn't have LAX?
Tennis--Stanford men lost in super regionals, Texas finished 2nd/Stanford women lost in second round, Texas lost in sweet 16
Golf--all men's and women's teams still playing, Stanford men ranked #15, Texas #3/Stanford women ranked #1, Texas #5
Women's Rowing--both teams in championship, no idea how to rank them
Softball--Stanford won two games in OK State regional, Texas in the WCWS
Baseball--Stanford no DC points, Texas ranked #6
Outdoor Track & Field--Stanford men ranked #106, Texas #18/Stanford women ranked #24, Texas #18

As folks know, there's a lot more that goes into the scoring, like mandatory events and dropped scores, but the bottom line is that Texas is going to make a late run like they did last season, and in the sole remaining mandatory non-droppable sport--baseball--Stanford has already tapped out.

[Nurdyguy]

Has no one yet started a thread on this topic? If so, I apologize, but I couldn't find it!

In any case, I think this is the time of year when we cheer for Texas (and maybe UCLA and Florida) to miss their flights and/or have their hotel reservations canceled for every remaining sporting event.

As of April 23 Stanford was in first place, followed by Michigan, UNC, Ohio State, Penn State, Virginia, Princeton, Nebraska, Alabama and Notre Dame.

That sounds great, but the following sports remain to be counted:
Women's Water Polo--Stanford 3rd, Texas doesn't have WWP?
Men's Volleyball--no idea if Stanford earned DC points, Texas doesn't have MVB?
Women's Beach Volleyball--Stanford 2nd, Texas lost in semifinals
Lacrosse--Stanford women lost in quarterfinals, Texas doesn't have LAX?
Tennis--Stanford men lost in super regionals, Texas finished 2nd/Stanford women lost in second round, Texas lost in sweet 16
Golf--all men's and women's teams still playing, Stanford men ranked #15, Texas #3/Stanford women ranked #1, Texas #5
Women's Rowing--both teams in championship, no idea how to rank them
Softball--Stanford won two games in OK State regional, Texas in the WCWS
Baseball--Stanford no DC points, Texas ranked #6
Outdoor Track & Field--Stanford men ranked #106, Texas #18/Stanford women ranked #24, Texas #18

As folks know, there's a lot more that goes into the scoring, like mandatory events and dropped scores, but the bottom line is that Texas is going to make a late run like they did last season, and in the sole remaining mandatory non-droppable sport--baseball--Stanford has already tapped out.

Yup.  Stanford has wet the bed in basketball and baseball, and didn't go far enough in softball, so it's not looking good for us since we know we can't ever count on football points.  I'm thankful that at least men's gymnastics ensured we achieved the 50-year national championship streak.

[Nurdyguy]

Has no one yet started a thread on this topic? If so, I apologize, but I couldn't find it!

In any case, I think this is the time of year when we cheer for Texas (and maybe UCLA and Florida) to miss their flights and/or have their hotel reservations canceled for every remaining sporting event.

As of April 23 Stanford was in first place, followed by Michigan, UNC, Ohio State, Penn State, Virginia, Princeton, Nebraska, Alabama and Notre Dame.

That sounds great, but the following sports remain to be counted:
Women's Water Polo--Stanford 3rd, Texas doesn't have WWP?
Men's Volleyball--no idea if Stanford earned DC points, Texas doesn't have MVB?
Women's Beach Volleyball--Stanford 2nd, Texas lost in semifinals
Lacrosse--Stanford women lost in quarterfinals, Texas doesn't have LAX?
Tennis--Stanford men lost in super regionals, Texas finished 2nd/Stanford women lost in second round, Texas lost in sweet 16
Golf--all men's and women's teams still playing, Stanford men ranked #15, Texas #3/Stanford women ranked #1, Texas #5
Women's Rowing--both teams in championship, no idea how to rank them
Softball--Stanford won two games in OK State regional, Texas in the WCWS
Baseball--Stanford no DC points, Texas ranked #6
Outdoor Track & Field--Stanford men ranked #106, Texas #18/Stanford women ranked #24, Texas #18

As folks know, there's a lot more that goes into the scoring, like mandatory events and dropped scores, but the bottom line is that Texas is going to make a late run like they did last season, and in the sole remaining mandatory non-droppable sport--baseball--Stanford has already tapped out.

Yup.  Stanford has wet the bed in basketball and baseball, and didn't go far enough in softball, so it's not looking good for us since we know we can't ever count on football points.  I'm thankful that at least men's gymnastics ensured we achieved the 50-year national championship streak.

[PVTree]

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

[PVTree]

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

[Papa John]

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.

[Papa John]

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.

[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

[Papa John]

Thanks, BC, my point was that when the Directors' Cup started in the 1993-94 academic year, Stanford was earning points in men's and women's basketball and baseball for a number of years until we weren't. If those sports had been mandatory back then I seriously doubt it would have made any difference in the Cup results.

Men's BB: made NCAA tourney 1994-95 season through 2004-05; 2006-07; 2007-08; 2013-14
Women's BB: made NCAA tourney 1993-94 through 2023-24
Baseball: made NCAA tourney 1993-94 through 2005-06; 2007-08; 2009-10 through 2011-12; 2013-14; 2016-17 through 2018-19; 2020-21 through 2022-23

When Stanford won the Directors' Cup in 2022-23, the following sports were mandatory:  women's volleyball, women's basketball, men's basketball and baseball. We earned points in everything but men's basketball (ugh). This year we won't earn points in three mandatory sports (triple ugh).

However, last year the Cup added women's soccer as a mandatory sport. This change will *help* Stanford this year, since Texas did not make the NCAA tournament in that sport. If softball, instead of women's soccer, had been added as a mandatory sport, Texas would have been able to drop women's soccer this year and would win running away. But it wasn't and they can't.

My sense is that the Cup committee wants a competitive race like they had last year, and the tinkering with the formula is trying to achieve that, as opposed to trying to punish a particular school for winning too many times. I suppose that competitive doesn't mean fair in the absolute sense--e.g. giving some sports more weight than others--but I'm OK with that.

[Papa John]

Thanks, BC, my point was that when the Directors' Cup started in the 1993-94 academic year, Stanford was earning points in men's and women's basketball and baseball for a number of years until we weren't. If those sports had been mandatory back then I seriously doubt it would have made any difference in the Cup results.

Men's BB: made NCAA tourney 1994-95 season through 2004-05; 2006-07; 2007-08; 2013-14
Women's BB: made NCAA tourney 1993-94 through 2023-24
Baseball: made NCAA tourney 1993-94 through 2005-06; 2007-08; 2009-10 through 2011-12; 2013-14; 2016-17 through 2018-19; 2020-21 through 2022-23

When Stanford won the Directors' Cup in 2022-23, the following sports were mandatory:  women's volleyball, women's basketball, men's basketball and baseball. We earned points in everything but men's basketball (ugh). This year we won't earn points in three mandatory sports (triple ugh).

However, last year the Cup added women's soccer as a mandatory sport. This change will *help* Stanford this year, since Texas did not make the NCAA tournament in that sport. If softball, instead of women's soccer, had been added as a mandatory sport, Texas would have been able to drop women's soccer this year and would win running away. But it wasn't and they can't.

My sense is that the Cup committee wants a competitive race like they had last year, and the tinkering with the formula is trying to achieve that, as opposed to trying to punish a particular school for winning too many times. I suppose that competitive doesn't mean fair in the absolute sense--e.g. giving some sports more weight than others--but I'm OK with that.

[M T]

Philosophically, the question is whether we are in an "Animal Farm" situation: all sport are equal, but some sports are more equal than others. 

If softball, instead of women's soccer, had been added as a mandatory sport, Texas would have been able to drop women's soccer this year

HUH???   Unless they've changed the rules since I last looked, not "all sports are equal".  Only a certain number are.  The rest count for nothing and because of that, they created a group that couldn't be dropped.
If all sports counted as equal, Stanford would again run away with it.   

And, last I looked, Texas couldn't drop any women's sport since they did only the number that counted.  (I think maybe Texas added one, so maybe they do have one to drop.)

[M T]

Philosophically, the question is whether we are in an "Animal Farm" situation: all sport are equal, but some sports are more equal than others. 

If softball, instead of women's soccer, had been added as a mandatory sport, Texas would have been able to drop women's soccer this year

HUH???   Unless they've changed the rules since I last looked, not "all sports are equal".  Only a certain number are.  The rest count for nothing and because of that, they created a group that couldn't be dropped.
If all sports counted as equal, Stanford would again run away with it.   

And, last I looked, Texas couldn't drop any women's sport since they did only the number that counted.  (I think maybe Texas added one, so maybe they do have one to drop.)

[Jamesy]

Philosophically, the question is whether we are in an "Animal Farm" situation: all sport are equal, but some sports are more equal than others. 

If softball, instead of women's soccer, had been added as a mandatory sport, Texas would have been able to drop women's soccer this year

HUH???   Unless they've changed the rules since I last looked, not "all sports are equal".  Only a certain number are.  The rest count for nothing and because of that, they created a group that couldn't be dropped.
If all sports counted as equal, Stanford would again run away with it.   

And, last I looked, Texas couldn't drop any women's sport since they did only the number that counted.  (I think maybe Texas added one, so maybe they do have one to drop.)

Texas women's soccer is going to be good going forward. They hired the former UCLA head coach and our former assistant coach Margueritte Aozasa. It's going to be hard for us to win the next few years with FB, MBB/WBB and baseball all giving us 0s.

[Jamesy]

Philosophically, the question is whether we are in an "Animal Farm" situation: all sport are equal, but some sports are more equal than others. 

If softball, instead of women's soccer, had been added as a mandatory sport, Texas would have been able to drop women's soccer this year

HUH???   Unless they've changed the rules since I last looked, not "all sports are equal".  Only a certain number are.  The rest count for nothing and because of that, they created a group that couldn't be dropped.
If all sports counted as equal, Stanford would again run away with it.   

And, last I looked, Texas couldn't drop any women's sport since they did only the number that counted.  (I think maybe Texas added one, so maybe they do have one to drop.)

Texas women's soccer is going to be good going forward. They hired the former UCLA head coach and our former assistant coach Margueritte Aozasa. It's going to be hard for us to win the next few years with FB, MBB/WBB and baseball all giving us 0s.

[BostonCard]

Philosophically, the question is whether we are in an "Animal Farm" situation: all sport are equal, but some sports are more equal than others. 

If softball, instead of women's soccer, had been added as a mandatory sport, Texas would have been able to drop women's soccer this year

HUH???   Unless they've changed the rules since I last looked, not "all sports are equal".  Only a certain number are.  The rest count for nothing and because of that, they created a group that couldn't be dropped.
If all sports counted as equal, Stanford would again run away with it.   

And, last I looked, Texas couldn't drop any women's sport since they did only the number that counted.  (I think maybe Texas added one, so maybe they do have one to drop.)

You might want to re-read Animal Farm.  The five “must count” sports: Baseball and Men's Basketball, Women's Basketball, Women's Volleyball and Women's Soccer are akin to the pigs in Animal Farm, a bit “more equal” than the other sports.

BC

[BostonCard]

Philosophically, the question is whether we are in an "Animal Farm" situation: all sport are equal, but some sports are more equal than others. 

If softball, instead of women's soccer, had been added as a mandatory sport, Texas would have been able to drop women's soccer this year

HUH???   Unless they've changed the rules since I last looked, not "all sports are equal".  Only a certain number are.  The rest count for nothing and because of that, they created a group that couldn't be dropped.
If all sports counted as equal, Stanford would again run away with it.   

And, last I looked, Texas couldn't drop any women's sport since they did only the number that counted.  (I think maybe Texas added one, so maybe they do have one to drop.)

You might want to re-read Animal Farm.  The five “must count” sports: Baseball and Men's Basketball, Women's Basketball, Women's Volleyball and Women's Soccer are akin to the pigs in Animal Farm, a bit “more equal” than the other sports.

BC

[Papa John]

So Florida has underachieved, based on expected finish with respect to iseed/rank--in both women's softball and women's golf. For now I'm going to pretend that it's a three-way horse race between Texas, Stanford and UCLA (the Bruins are the no. 1 seed in baseball), with Texas in the "predicted-based-on-seed/rank" lead.

Texas came in to the women's golf tournament ranked 5th, so they've already achieved "expected" points. Any wins in match play would be extra. Stanford, on the other hand, came in ranked 1st...

[Papa John]

So Florida has underachieved, based on expected finish with respect to iseed/rank--in both women's softball and women's golf. For now I'm going to pretend that it's a three-way horse race between Texas, Stanford and UCLA (the Bruins are the no. 1 seed in baseball), with Texas in the "predicted-based-on-seed/rank" lead.

Texas came in to the women's golf tournament ranked 5th, so they've already achieved "expected" points. Any wins in match play would be extra. Stanford, on the other hand, came in ranked 1st...

[Jamesy]

So Florida has underachieved, based on expected finish with respect to iseed/rank--in both women's softball and women's golf. For now I'm going to pretend that it's a three-way horse race between Texas, Stanford and UCLA (the Bruins are the no. 1 seed in baseball), with Texas in the "predicted-based-on-seed/rank" lead.

Texas came in to the women's golf tournament ranked 5th, so they've already achieved "expected" points. Any wins in match play would be extra. Stanford, on the other hand, came in ranked 1st...

This week will be pivotal in Directors cup standings as both Women's golf and Women's rowing have their championships this week and we may well go head to head with Texas in both of them (rowing definitely will, golf will know in a few hours). UT beating us in both will largely clinch the cup for UT barring catastrophes for them in T&F and baseball.

[Jamesy]

So Florida has underachieved, based on expected finish with respect to iseed/rank--in both women's softball and women's golf. For now I'm going to pretend that it's a three-way horse race between Texas, Stanford and UCLA (the Bruins are the no. 1 seed in baseball), with Texas in the "predicted-based-on-seed/rank" lead.

Texas came in to the women's golf tournament ranked 5th, so they've already achieved "expected" points. Any wins in match play would be extra. Stanford, on the other hand, came in ranked 1st...

This week will be pivotal in Directors cup standings as both Women's golf and Women's rowing have their championships this week and we may well go head to head with Texas in both of them (rowing definitely will, golf will know in a few hours). UT beating us in both will largely clinch the cup for UT barring catastrophes for them in T&F and baseball.

[fullmetal]

Rowing is a little bit of a toss-up in my opinion, but I like Stanford's chances.

[fullmetal]

Rowing is a little bit of a toss-up in my opinion, but I like Stanford's chances.

[Jamesy]

UT losing in the QFs today as the #5 ranked team coming in is (pardon the pun) par for the course from the Directors' cup perspective. Anything short of winning the title lowers our directors' cup hopes as the projections already bake in 100 points for us. Lots of pressure on the team.

[Jamesy]

UT losing in the QFs today as the #5 ranked team coming in is (pardon the pun) par for the course from the Directors' cup perspective. Anything short of winning the title lowers our directors' cup hopes as the projections already bake in 100 points for us. Lots of pressure on the team.

[M T]

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.

[M T]

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.

[Jamesy]

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.

From two weeks ago https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/205..._gGUn80CEA

[Jamesy]

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.

From two weeks ago https://x.com/direct_cupdates/status/205..._gGUn80CEA

[Papa John]

Thanks, Jamesy.

2-seed Texas softball has their first game of the WCWS tomorrow. So this is a reminder to be a Tennessee fan for a couple of hours starting at 11:30 pm PT on Thursday.

[Papa John]

Thanks, Jamesy.

2-seed Texas softball has their first game of the WCWS tomorrow. So this is a reminder to be a Tennessee fan for a couple of hours starting at 11:30 pm PT on Thursday.

[Jamesy]

Thanks, Jamesy.

2-seed Texas softball has their first game of the WCWS tomorrow. So this is a reminder to be a Tennessee fan for a couple of hours starting at 11:30 pm PT on Thursday.

Update after today's golf championship. https://x.com/Direct_Cupdates/status/205...94540?s=20

[Jamesy]

Thanks, Jamesy.

2-seed Texas softball has their first game of the WCWS tomorrow. So this is a reminder to be a Tennessee fan for a couple of hours starting at 11:30 pm PT on Thursday.

Update after today's golf championship. https://x.com/Direct_Cupdates/status/205...94540?s=20

[BostonCard]

Looking like a second place finish behind Texas…

https://x.com/channeltree/status/2059848...02171?s=46

We have an outside chance at winning it, and could still fall behind UCLA for third, but almost impossible to finish any worse.

BC

[BostonCard]

Looking like a second place finish behind Texas…

https://x.com/channeltree/status/2059848...02171?s=46

We have an outside chance at winning it, and could still fall behind UCLA for third, but almost impossible to finish any worse.

BC

[Farm93]

Looking like a second place finish behind Texas…

https://x.com/channeltree/status/2059848...02171?s=46

We have an outside chance at winning it, and could still fall behind UCLA for third, but almost impossible to finish any worse.

BC

Missing point contributions from baseball, men's basketball and women's basketball (3 of the required 5) remains problematic.

[Farm93]

Looking like a second place finish behind Texas…

https://x.com/channeltree/status/2059848...02171?s=46

We have an outside chance at winning it, and could still fall behind UCLA for third, but almost impossible to finish any worse.

BC

Missing point contributions from baseball, men's basketball and women's basketball (3 of the required 5) remains problematic.

[BobK]

Tennessee just beat Texas in the softball World Series

[BobK]

Tennessee just beat Texas in the softball World Series