UConn/ACC

[Cleanface]

Oh, come on, Terry. That pic is gold Terry, GOLD!

 

[StevieDude]

So, you think Cleanface adds a lot to the discussion, eh?

He takes unprovoked shots at ND all of the time. Once in a while, I fire one back. I never start any discussion here (or anywhere) that is negative to any school.

Grow a set

 

[billybud]

huh?

I think that the ACC is set...unless the Irish do the unthinkable. And there just doesn't look like there will be any disincentive for the Irish in remaining independent.

The ACC tie in was a win-win for the ACC and ND....but the Irish are good about seeing that their part of a win-win is spelled with a capital W.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

The other scenario involves UConn to the B1G and a significant threat to the ACC
An extra 20mm is peanuts

I just don't see UConn to the B1G. Adding three schools in the last five years is an extremely radical departure from where they've been historically, and they felt it was forced on them by circumstances elsewhere. However, all things being equal, they will always prefer stasis to chaos.

 

[noeynox]

Uconn’s best chance for a p5 invite continues to be the big12, but even that looks unlikely at the moment.

 

[btstimpy]

huh?

I think that the ACC is set...unless the Irish do the unthinkable. And there just doesn't look like there will be any disincentive for the Irish in remaining independent.

The ACC tie in was a win-win for the ACC and ND....but the Irish are good about seeing that their part of a win-win is spelled with a capital W.

The biggest shock for me is how well Notre Dame came into the ACC with non-football this year and dusted all of us. I had no idea that the ND non-revenue sports were this good as a whole. UVA had one of our better years in the Director's Cup and still finished behind ND. I'll say that there is no question that ND is a good fit. David Teel breaks down the year:

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-review-1314,0,2192861,full.post

UConn finished in the Top 65 at 57, which is definitely P5 level. And with the basketball championships being in revenue sports, there is no question UConn belongs in a P5. The decision to take Pitt over UConn certainly wasn't because of athletic success. Pitt did 29 spots lower and needs work. I haven't followed UConn in the Director's Cup over the years, so I don't know if 57 is a normal showing or not. I'd like to see UConn in the ACC if the opportunity presents itself with full understanding that many here prefer the Big Ten.

 

[itgoeslike]

The Director's Cup is useless indicator of athletic success. The fact that it rewards sports with very few participants and very little competition equally with sports played widely at virtually every university is pathetic. A National Championship in Mens Basketball gets the same number of points as Bowling. A team that reaches the Final Four can end up with the same number of points as the fourth best bowling team. This is not to take away from the national champion of a particular sport, because they were the best. However, allowing schools down the list that really weren't that good to accumulate points toward the "cup" is silly. In fact, in many instances, a school can be the worst in the country at their respective sport and still rack up points. Look at D1 Fencing, there's about 20-25 schools that participate. Let's say you place dead last (25th). No worries, you get points! Any legitimate ranking should be weighted with regard to number of participants and/or schools participating. The Capital One Cup is not perfect, but at least there's some credit given to sports that are more widely contested.

 

[Fishy]

When shooting is basically the same value as winning a hoop title, you're dealing with a dogcrap metric.

The Capital One thing covers what counts.

 

[TerryD]

When shooting is basically the same value as winning a hoop title, you're dealing with a dogcrap metric.

The Capital One thing covers what counts.

I agree.

Here are the men's and women's Capital One Cup final rankings:

http://www.capitalonecup.com/


MEN'S CUP STANDINGS

SCHOOL POINTS

1. Notre Dame 98.5
2. Oregon 92
3. Florida 86
4. Virginia 77
5. Florida State 68
5. USC 68
7. Connecticut 66
8. Duke 60.5
9. Maryland 60
9. North Dakota State 60
9. Vanderbilt 60
12. Michigan State 51



WOMEN'S CUP STANDINGS

SCHOOL POINTS

1. Florida 152
2. UCLA 110
3. Stanford 106
4. Maryland 94
5. Texas A&M 89
6. Connecticut 80
6. Oregon 80
6. Texas 80
9. Penn State 72
10. North Carolina 68
11. Georgia 62
12. Virginia 56

 

[TRest]

I agree.

Here are the men's and women's Capital One Cup final rankings:

http://www.capitalonecup.com/


MEN'S CUP STANDINGS

SCHOOL POINTS

1. Notre Dame 98.5
2. Oregon 92
3. Florida 86
4. Virginia 77
5. Florida State 68
5. USC 68
7. Connecticut 66
8. Duke 60.5
9. Maryland 60
9. North Dakota State 60
9. Vanderbilt 60
12. Michigan State 51



WOMEN'S CUP STANDINGS

SCHOOL POINTS

1. Florida 152
2. UCLA 110
3. Stanford 106
4. Maryland 94
5. Texas A&M 89
6. Connecticut 80
6. Oregon 80
6. Texas 80
9. Penn State 72
10. North Carolina 68
11. Georgia 62
12. Virginia 56

We had a great year, but we have a lot of great years. it looks like Maryland has a much better athletic program than all their former brothers in the ACC want to give them credit for. Where's that juggernaut from Kentucky?

 

[btstimpy]

The Director's Cup is useless indicator of athletic success. The fact that it rewards sports with very few participants and very little competition equally with sports played widely at virtually every university is pathetic. A National Championship in Mens Basketball gets the same number of points as Bowling. A team that reaches the Final Four can end up with the same number of points as the fourth best bowling team. This is not to take away from the national champion of a particular sport, because they were the best. However, allowing schools down the list that really weren't that good to accumulate points toward the "cup" is silly. In fact, in many instances, a school can be the worst in the country at their respective sport and still rack up points. Look at D1 Fencing, there's about 20-25 schools that participate. Let's say you place dead last (25th). No worries, you get points! Any legitimate ranking should be weighted with regard to number of participants and/or schools participating. The Capital One Cup is not perfect, but at least there's some credit given to sports that are more widely contested.

The Capital One Cup is nice. They give a $200k scholarship at the end. It's an ESPN created thing that represents what ESPN want to promote.

But the Gold Standard in College Athletics is the Learfield Sports Director's Cup sponsored by the National Association of Collegiate Director's of Athletics. Each college team can submit up to 20 sports programs in their athletics departments to compete, men's and women's. If you want to submit more widely contested sports like basketball, that's fine. If you want to submit ice hockey, which hardly anyone competes in, that's fine too. Submit your top 20, and good luck. It's the fairest. And it's the one widely accepted in athletics departments across the country similar to USN&WR in academics.

 

[itgoeslike]

The Capital One Cup is nice. They give a $200k scholarship at the end. It's an ESPN created thing that represents what ESPN want to promote.

But the Gold Standard in College Athletics is the Learfield Sports Director's Cup sponsored by the National Association of Collegiate Director's of Athletics. Each college team can submit up to 20 sports programs in their athletics departments to compete, men's and women's. If you want to submit more widely contested sports like basketball, that's fine. If you want to submit ice hockey, which hardly anyone competes in, that's fine too. Submit your top 20, and good luck. It's the fairest. And it's the one widely accepted in athletics departments across the country similar to USN&WR in academics.

I'm familiar with the product. The problem is that it is anything but fair. Learfield is also antiquated and is quickly becoming irrelevant. It is easy to see why some schools would submit fencing or woman's bowling as part of their 20 sport mix—you get points no matter how bad you are. For instance, Temple finished in the bottom half nationally in fencing, but they received 51 points, or about half of what UConn received for winning the NC in basketball. At the same time, the 150th best team in the 300 team D1 basketball receive no points (which is they way it should be). It artificially favors schools that perform poorly in uncontested sports. As I stated above, they need to proportion points based upon the number of participants and it should be weighted toward teams that win championships or finish in the top tier. Teams that finish outside of the top 10% of their respective sport should receive no points.

People can judge for themselves. Look up a particular obscure sport; see where a particularly bad school at the sport placed; and look how many points they racked up.

http://thedirectorscup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Apr24DIRelease.pdf

It needs to change or it will simply become more and more ignored.

 

[Fishy]

No one cares about the Director's Cup.

 

[billybud]

Actually...no one cares about women's sports, Olympic sports, and assorted special interest sports like Rifle, volleyball, sand volleyball, etc...

It is football...three lengths behind, basketball....Everything else is clustered around the starting gate.

 

[itgoeslike]

Clearly the pattern being formed is for me to drone on for several paragraphs and then have Fishy say the exact same thing in ten words or less. . .

 

[NickyNewark]

The Capital One Cup is nice. They give a $200k scholarship at the end. It's an ESPN created thing that represents what ESPN want to promote.

But the Gold Standard in College Athletics is the Learfield Sports Director's Cup sponsored by the National Association of Collegiate Director's of Athletics. Each college team can submit up to 20 sports programs in their athletics departments to compete, men's and women's. If you want to submit more widely contested sports like basketball, that's fine. If you want to submit ice hockey, which hardly anyone competes in, that's fine too. Submit your top 20, and good luck. It's the fairest. And it's the one widely accepted in athletics departments across the country similar to USN&WR in academics.

Welcome back from the Cuse board....nice to see you're still touting the Directors Cup...the Cav's must be a yrly finalist to see someone who cares so much here!?! But truthfully your insight has been sorely missed. SU fans loss is our gain!

 

[btstimpy]

I'm familiar with the product. The problem is that it is anything but fair. Learfield is also antiquated and is quickly becoming irrelevant. It is easy to see why some schools would submit fencing or woman's bowling as part of their 20 sport mix—you get points no matter how bad you are. For instance, Temple finished in the bottom half nationally in fencing, but they received 51 points, or about half of what UConn received for winning the NC in basketball. At the same time, the 150th best team in the 300 team D1 basketball receive no points (which is they way it should be). It artificially favors schools that perform poorly in uncontested sports. As I stated above, they need to proportion points based upon the number of participants and it should be weighted toward teams that win championships or finish in the top tier. Teams that finish outside of the top 10% of their respective sport should receive no points.

People can judge for themselves. Look up a particular obscure sport; see where a particularly bad school at the sport placed; and look how many points they racked up.

http://thedirectorscup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Apr24DIRelease.pdf

It needs to change or it will simply become more and more ignored.

The Director's Cup is the gold standard. It is what each of the P5 Commissioners and all of the Athletics Departments in major Division I sports care about and talk about. John Swofford just brought it up yesterday during his welcome speech at Louisville. They don't even discuss the Capital One Cup or anything else. The twenty sport limit prevents a big department like Stanford or Ohio State, who field 30+ sports from running away with it, although it hasn't stopped Stanford yet. It also doesn't let a small department of 16 sports who might win one major sport National Championship win it either.

Yes if you're in women's bowling, fencing, or have a ski team, you can get points. That's part of it, but I had to go to the fourth page to even find Temple to see what you're worrying about. The issues you are complaining about are on the margin. They are not even a factor at the top. If you want to fight city hall, go ahead. But the Director's Cup is today's measurement of athletics department success nationally. It is not ignored.

 

[NickyNewark]

The Director's Cup is the gold standard. It is what each of the P5 Commissioners and all of the Athletics Departments in major Division I sports care about and talk about. John Swofford just brought it up yesterday during his welcome speech at Louisville. They don't even discuss the Capital One Cup or anything else. The twenty sport limit prevents a big department like Stanford or Ohio State, who field 30+ sports from running away with it, although it hasn't stopped Stanford yet. It also doesn't let a small department of 16 sports who might win one major sport National Championship win it either.

Yes if you're in women's bowling, fencing, or have a ski team, you can get points. That's part of it, but I had to go to the fourth page to even find Temple to see what you're worrying about. The issues you are complaining about are on the margin. They are not even a factor at the top. If you want to fight city hall, go ahead. But the Director's Cup is today's measurement of athletics department success nationally. It is not ignored.

Well stated bstimp...for those interested.

 

[btstimpy]

Actually...no one cares about women's sports, Olympic sports, and assorted special interest sports like Rifle, volleyball, sand volleyball, etc...

It is football...three lengths behind, basketball....Everything else is clustered around the starting gate.

Football is one sport. It's the most popular no doubt, but you have to have a minimum of 15 sports to be classified Division I to compete in Division I football. A school can suck at everything else it does and win football championships if it wants to. That would be a football factory. Virginia Tech did that for years. They are now at least trying to compete in other stuff. To each his own.

 

[itgoeslike]

The Director's Cup is the gold standard. It is what each of the P5 Commissioners and all of the Athletics Departments in major Division I sports care about and talk about. John Swofford just brought it up yesterday during his welcome speech at Louisville. They don't even discuss the Capital One Cup or anything else. The twenty sport limit prevents a big department like Stanford or Ohio State, who field 30+ sports from running away with it, although it hasn't stopped Stanford yet. It also doesn't let a small department of 16 sports who might win one major sport National Championship win it either.

Yes if you're in women's bowling, fencing, or have a ski team, you can get points. That's part of it, but I had to go to the fourth page to even find Temple to see what you're worrying about. The issues you are complaining about are on the margin. They are not even a factor at the top. If you want to fight city hall, go ahead. But the Director's Cup is today's measurement of athletics department success nationally. It is not ignored.

The fact that Swofford mentioned Learfield provides zero additional credibility (it actually dilutes it). Also, based upon your comments, you don't appear to understand how points are awarded. What page Temple happens to appear on is irrelevant. I picked Temple randomly. I could have just have easily picked UNC on the first page to illustrate they placed even worse than Temple (among the worst in the nation in fact) yet still racked up 36 points. Additionally, I haven't even started to address how mickey mouse the actual rankings are within a sport. If people want to get a laugh, they should check out the rankings for Mens Basketball. The system is designed to create the illusion of athletic prowess. It's bogus.

 

[itgoeslike]

Football is one sport. It's the most popular no doubt, but you have to have a minimum of 15 sports to be classified Division I to compete in Division I football. A school can suck at everything else it does and win football championships if it wants to. That would be a football factory. Virginia Tech did that for years. They are now at least trying to compete in other stuff. To each his own.

Baseball has nearly 300 D-1 teams. It's ridiculous that a team that qualifies for the NCAA tournament gets less points than the worst team in other select sports. It's bogus.

 

[btstimpy]

Baseball has nearly 300 D-1 teams. It's ridiculous that a team that qualifies for the NCAA tournament gets less points than the worst team in other select sports. It's bogus.

The key is to have an athletics department that has at least 10 men's and 10 women's sports that it competes very well nationally in. The department can do so in whatever sports it wants. But have 20. That way there are no complaints that Stanford gets 100 points in water polo or Nebraska gets 100 points in bowling. Find other niches to do well in, or at least do well in 20 of something.

You have to qualify for NCAA postseason in any of the sports to get points. Baseball is no exception.

Or you can put all of your resources into football and go through the motions in everything else and claim no one cares about anything but football. You can drop everything you're doing in April and go to a spring game at the stadium that is totally meaningless. There are a lot of people running around the southeast doing just that.

 

[itgoeslike]

The key is to have an athletics department that has at least 10 men's and 10 women's sports that it competes very well nationally in. The department can do so in whatever sports it wants. But have 20. That way there are no complaints that Stanford gets 100 points in water polo or Nebraska gets 100 points in bowling. Find other niches to do well in, or at least do well in 20 of something.

You have to qualify for NCAA postseason in any of the sports to get points. Baseball is no exception.

Or you can put all of your resources into football and go through the motions in everything else and claim no one cares about anything but football. You can drop everything you're doing in April and go to a spring game at the stadium that is totally meaningless. There are a lot of people running around the southeast doing just that.

You're still not getting it. I don't have an issue with a team getting a 100 points for being a national champion in any sport, even water polo. I have an issue with a school accumulating points for being at the bottom of their respective sport, in part do to a lack of participation. I also have a problem with a team placing well behind the finalists in a given sport yet cultivating almost as many points. It unfairly props up teams that aren't competitive. It needs to be directly proportional to performance and participation. Currently, you can finish 20th out of 20 teams and benefit point wise the same as a team finishing 20th out of 300 teams. Both the ranking system and how Learfield delves out points are bogus. Its akin to the participation trophy that blurs the line between winners and losers. In this case, you can sponsor teams in obscure sports, fail to compete, yet still create the illusion that you're good athletically.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

Unlike some people out in yahoo country, we do value sports besides football. That is what has made the ACC such a great conference. People who care about a whole host of sports get the chance to participate. The other conference that comes close to this ideal is the PAC. The rest are either too focused on football (leaving them open to risks from concussion lawsuits, etc.) or aren't very strong in sports.

 

[Ldandy]

Unlike some people out in yahoo country, we do value sports besides football. That is what has made the ACC such a great conference. People who care about a whole host of sports get the chance to participate. The other conference that comes close to this ideal is the PAC. The rest are either too focused on football (leaving them open to risks from concussion lawsuits, etc.) or aren't very strong in sports.

Tell that to your conference mate posting up thread. He clearly only values 1 or 2 sports and assumes that everyone else should feel the same.