How UL won the battle to the ACC

[RioDog]

Hay. I say allow the National Football League and the National Basketball Association to create their own FARM leagues on their own. They both are certainly self sustaining enough. The College level does not need to be their farm system. It just doesn't. There is a 30 for 30 show about how when Ohio State flushed Maurice Clarette he had no where to go when the Ohio State Athletic Director black balled him.. There is not farm NFL team.

I'm all about intercollegiate competition. And I like lawn darts too. But having colleges hold professional athletes hostage for financial gain sucks. Kentucky is now doing it in basketball. There are many lowering their standards in football now to do it too.

That's why I love the Director's Cup. Give both Football and Men's Basketball the 100 points for a national championship. They deserve it. But if no one graduates like Kentucky basketball, they are not student athletes to be commended. They never wanted to be there in the first place. Then the rest of the athletes who actually value college can compete for something.

I'm with you in terms of the spirit of the thing, but the reality is that the universities have given over control to TV networks and bowls. The Director's Cup is great in theory, but weak in the reality of public perception. You said that the Capitol One Cup is designed to "...make Conferences that only sponsor 19 sports (i.e. SEC, Big XII) feel artificially important in overall athletics." I think its the other way around.

Director's Cup- some effete Yacht Club types in blazers and university ties standing around at a cocktail party saying (Thurston P. Howell III voice) "Say Bif, did you see that James Madison won the Director's Cup? Their squash team is fantastic this year... take THAT SEC..."

Capitol One Cup- ESPN broadcasting to millions of the great unwashed promoting the institutions that make them money, telling any twisted tale that serves their purpose. And the masses turn to each other and say "Wow, Big 12 and SEC, paragons of collegiate athletics... "

To me it seems that the Directors Cup exists to make those schools on the margins feel artificially important. Again, I believe in the spirit of the DC, but its pi$$ing against the tide of mass media.

 

[btstimpy]

I'm with you in terms of the spirit of the thing, but the reality is that the universities have given over control to TV networks and bowls. The Director's Cup is great in theory, but weak in the reality of public perception. You said that the Capitol One Cup is designed to "...make Conferences that only sponsor 19 sports (i.e. SEC, Big XII) feel artificially important in overall athletics." I think its the other way around.

Director's Cup- some effete Yacht Club types in blazers and university ties standing around at a cocktail party saying (Thurston P. Howell III voice) "Say Bif, did you see that James Madison won the Director's Cup? Their squash team is fantastic this year... take THAT SEC..."

Capitol One Cup- ESPN broadcasting to millions of the great unwashed promoting the institutions that make them money, telling any twisted tale that serves their purpose. And the masses turn to each other and say "Wow, Big 12 and SEC, paragons of collegiate athletics... "

To me it seems that the Directors Cup exists to make those schools on the margins feel artificially important. Again, I believe in the spirit of the DC, but its pi$$ing against the tide of mass media.

James Madison isn't going to win the Director's Cup. James Madison isn't going to finish in the top 30. It's teams from the Power 5 Conferences filling the top 10 of the Director's Cup each year just like they fill the BCS Bowls.

My comments about the Capital One Cup are based on where they weight the sports. Who in their infinite wisdom decided that winning the Track & Field Championship is worth tripple than winning Men's Ice Hockey? And why is Track & Field triple to Swimming? or Tennis? There should not be weighting arbitrarily decided by someone at ESPN trying to prop up the SEC. The General Public will probably fall for it due to the media influence ESPN has and general lack of awareness on the scoring by that unwashed mass you cite. But the Learfield Sports Director's Cup is the better measure and the more accurate measure.

There are athletic departments in the SEC that have the ability to compete straight up with the schools in the NCAA that sponsor a larger sports portfolio. It's the same with the Big XII. The Big XII is one of the best Wrestling Conferences. What the heck is Texas, who is the richest athletic department overall, doing without a team? or without a Men's Soccer Team?

I understand that football has its role, and that is fine. It is driving the recent conference realigment. I also think that in judging a NCAA athletic department, there are other measures beyond football that are important. When the ACC decides to add another member, I want them to bring in a good athletic department rather than a good football team. If both can be accomplished, that's all the better.

 

[btstimpy]

Cincinnati just reinstated full scholarship funding to all Olympic Sports this spring. I am hoping within 3-4 years the other sports will be successful to complement a good football/basketball program.

Oh and these "other" sports are important especially since there are talks that the ACC is interested in creating it's own network. A lot of the inventory will be made up women's sports, baseball, lacrosse, etc.

That's good. Hopefully it will help improve the overall athletic department at Cincinnati.

 

[btstimpy]

Yes because schools that sponsor 25 sports are so much more 'important' than those that sponsor 19. Water Polo, Men's Volleyball, Women's Lacrosse - that is what separates the 'important' programs from the lowly dregs.

Maybe you believe this nonsense or maybe it's because you are a Virginia fan so you have to crank up your unwarrented faux elitism...

I know that this Alabama Oklahoma game isn't important because the SEC just doesn't value field hockey.

When I'm watching a tight UVA-UNC field hockey game, and they have been on ESPNU, the Alabama Oklahoma Sugar Bowl Game means ZERO to me. Congratulations to Connecticut by the way in Field Hockey. By your comments, you might have missed where UConn finished the season this year in Field Hockey.

 

[ZooCougar]

When I'm watching a tight UVA-UNC field hockey game, and they have been on ESPNU, the Alabama Oklahoma Sugar Bowl Game means ZERO to me. Congratulations to Connecticut by the way in Field Hockey. By your comments, you might have missed where UConn finished the season this year.

I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Director's Cup placing is actually a meaningful metric to insiders. But I am continually dismayed at how UConn gets crapped on despite it's top level success in nearly every sport.

 

[btstimpy]

I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Director's Cup placing is actually a meaningful metric to insiders. But I am continually dismayed at how UConn gets crapped on despite it's top level success in nearly every sport.

We're not at the end game yet on CR. UConn needs to build football back up though as does my school. It will go a long way to helping. As for standing through fall sports, UConn did very well.

http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/w-fieldh/spec-rel/122413aaa.html

 

[whaler11]

When I'm watching a tight UVA-UNC field hockey game, and they have been on ESPNU, the Alabama Oklahoma Sugar Bowl Game means ZERO to me. Congratulations to Connecticut by the way in Field Hockey. By your comments, you might have missed where UConn finished the season this year in Field Hockey.

Don't worry I know what the field hockey team did. I just don't care about field hockey and don't pretend to just because they won the national championship. Half the people crowing about the field hockey team have never seen a game nor would they have been able to name a player beforehand.

It's good that you like what you like - but when you are in the .0000001%, it's wise to at least acknowledge that fact.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Don't worry I know what the field hockey team did. I just don't care about field hockey and don't pretend to just because they won the national championship. Half the people crowing about the field hockey team have never seen a game nor would they have been able to name a player beforehand.

It's good that you like what you like - but when you are in the .0000001%, it's wise to at least acknowledge that fact.

I did not go to the NCAA tile game; but, when I was at UConn I would often watch a Field Hockey game at Sherman on my way back and forth from Hilltop, especially as the team captain my senior year was from my high school. While football is more important than any sport, including field hockey when it comes to money and CR, I am very proud of the Huskies for their title this year. Well earned by group of athletes who play all four years, get a degree, and do not make millions in their sport after college.

 

[billybud]

Curling, Field Hockey, Diving, Rifle, Sand Volleyball...it's all good....for the very few people devoted to a niche sport.

 

[billybud]

I like women's Rugby as a niche sport ( I played Rugby through my late 30's)...but it is what it is...a niche.

 

[RioDog]

James Madison isn't going to win the Director's Cup. James Madison isn't going to finish in the top 30. It's teams from the Power 5 Conferences filling the top 10 of the Director's Cup each year just like they fill the BCS Bowls.
You're focusing on details where I was speaking hyperbolically (is that a word? SP?) to make a general point that the message of collegiate athletics is being lost, and the DC is an inadequate vessel, particularly in face of media behemoth that is ESPN.

My comments about the Capital One Cup are based on where they weight the sports. Who in their infinite wisdom decided that winning the Track & Field Championship is worth tripple than winning Men's Ice Hockey? And why is Track & Field triple to Swimming? or Tennis? There should not be weighting arbitrarily decided by someone at ESPN trying to prop up the SEC. The General Public will probably fall for it due to the media influence ESPN has and general lack of awareness on the scoring by that unwashed mass you cite. But the Learfield Sports Director's Cup is the better measure and the more accurate measure.
I don't disagree with anything you say here, but I think again you miss the larger point. Quibbling over which cup weighted which sport to which degree becomes meaningless if NOBODY cares. ESPN is telling people what to care about, and traditional college athletics is being swallowed up in the process.

There are athletic departments in the SEC that have the ability to compete straight up with the schools in the NCAA that sponsor a larger sports portfolio. It's the same with the Big XII. The Big XII is one of the best Wrestling Conferences. What the heck is Texas, who is the richest athletic department overall, doing without a team? or without a Men's Soccer Team?
If they're in compliance with conference and NCAA rules, why do you care? The school has the right to field those teams that they deem support the interests and goals of the athletic department and the mission of the university at large.

I understand that football has its role, and that is fine. It is driving the recent conference realigment. I also think that in judging a NCAA athletic department, there are other measures beyond football that are important. When the ACC decides to add another member, I want them to bring in a good athletic department rather than a good football team. If both can be accomplished, that's all the better.

I agree that all accomplishments of student athletes should be recognized and celebrated at some level, regardless of the sport they have chosen to play, but realignment decisions made by universities and conferences will be driven by revenue sports and dominated by football for the forseeable future, right or wrong, the DC notwithstanding. Thanks for giving me the chance to create the longest run-on sentence I've written since I was 12 years old.

 

[btstimpy]

I agree that all accomplishments of student athletes should be recognized and celebrated at some level, regardless of the sport they have chosen to play, but realignment decisions made by universities and conferences will be driven by revenue sports and dominated by football for the forseeable future, right or wrong, the DC notwithstanding. Thanks for giving me the chance to create the longest run-on sentence I've written since I was 12 years old.

I agree that football is driving the realignment decisions. I just want for the ACC to remember that they are also dealing with the business model and logistics of a college level athletic conference. It is a very different model than the American Football Conference or the National Football Conference of the NFL. Roger Goodell and the Owners of the 16 members of each of his conferences don't have to worry about the health of 24 other sports, academics, travel issues, time away from class, etc. John Swofford and the ACC Presidents need to. So far they have I think.

 

[btstimpy]

I'm with you in terms of the spirit of the thing, but the reality is that the universities have given over control to TV networks and bowls. The Director's Cup is great in theory, but weak in the reality of public perception. You said that the Capitol One Cup is designed to "...make Conferences that only sponsor 19 sports (i.e. SEC, Big XII) feel artificially important in overall athletics." I think its the other way around.

Director's Cup- some effete Yacht Club types in blazers and university ties standing around at a cocktail party saying (Thurston P. Howell III voice) "Say Bif, did you see that James Madison won the Director's Cup? Their squash team is fantastic this year... take THAT SEC..."

Capitol One Cup- ESPN broadcasting to millions of the great unwashed promoting the institutions that make them money, telling any twisted tale that serves their purpose. And the masses turn to each other and say "Wow, Big 12 and SEC, paragons of collegiate athletics... "

To me it seems that the Directors Cup exists to make those schools on the margins feel artificially important. Again, I believe in the spirit of the DC, but its pi$$ing against the tide of mass media.

Ok. Here are the final fall standings in the Director's Cup. This is the one that includes input from Football. The highest rated SEC school is at 19. The highest rated Big XII school is 23. Now we go forward into the winter and spring sports.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools..._pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/Jan9DIRelease.pdf

After a couple of decades of those conferences being behind, ESPN created the Capital One Cup to artificially prop up the SEC and Big XII along with the mid-majors. It also separates men and women. I think it's a joke. You might think differently. The Director's Cup is a better measure and the one most athletic departments use. You can see North Dakota State and Auburn jump in there in the Capital One Cup because of football weighting.

http://www.capitalonecup.com/?external_id=WWW_GB164_XXX_SEM-Brand_Google_ZZ_ZZ_T_Home

 

[billybud]

Sooooo?

FSU is #3 in Director's Cup?

Big secret down here in Tallahassee. Nobody much cares other then the AD when he trots out a speech about his department.

 

[btstimpy]

Sooooo?

FSU is #3 in Director's Cup?

Big secret down here in Tallahassee. Nobody much cares other then the AD when he trots out a speech about his department.

The Conference cares. It's plastered right on the headline of the ACC website. Five Conference schools in the top 9 ain't so bad.

If folks in Tallahassee only care about 1 or 2 sports, that's fine. But I imagine that isn't actually the case since FSU is #3. Someone is funding that AD's plans when he gives that speech. Auburn, who probably does only care about 1 sport and got a lot of points for football runner up, is nowhere to be found on the list at the top.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

The Conference cares. It's plastered right on the headline of the ACC website. Five Conference schools in the top 9 ain't so bad.

If folks in Tallahassee only care about 1 or 2 sports, that's fine. But I imagine that isn't actually the case since FSU is #3. Someone is funding that AD's plans when he gives that speech. Auburn, who probably does only care about 1 sport and got a lot of points for football runner up, is nowhere to be found on the list at the top.

But, how much is driven by an actual interest in winning the ‘best college sports program’ title versus a need to address Title IX funding requirements?

 

[btstimpy]

But, how much is driven by an actual interest in winning the ‘best college sports program’ title versus a need to address Title IX funding requirements?

The NCAA minimum for Division 1 is 15 sports (7 men's, 8 women's). That addresses Title IX if the funding is equal. Those schools that only care about football and men's basketball or perhaps one other like Rice does for baseball or Johns Hopkins does for lacrosse will hover around that 15 mark, which is the bare minimum. No one in this category will compete for the Director's Cup or look good in the standings.

Those that are competing at the top of the Director's Cup are trying to win the best college sports program. In this talk about Division 4 separating from the rest of the NCAA, hopefully one of the requirements for Division 4 should it happen will be 22 sport minimum rather than 15 or at least 20 sport minimum. That would help weed out those only worried about Title IX minimums. There would be a few school in the ACC needing to make a decision. Not many, but a few. Most ACC schools sponsor 20 sports or more.