Director\'s cup no more? - Printable Version

Director\'s cup no more? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Director\'s cup no more? (/thread-379.html)

Pages: 1 2

Director\'s cup no more? - Leftcoast - 09-01-2010

It looks like the Directors cup will be replaced by two new cups honoring excellence in mens and womens athletic programs separately.

According to Lisa Leslie that will help see renewed competition ....

Quote:"We know that when you separate them out that the Duke men and Stanford women probably would have won it last year," former Southern Cal and WNBA star Lisa Leslie said. "Now that we can separate them out, maybe we\'ll see some other schools getting in there."

I wonder if that\'s true? Would Stanford simply have tallied up different sports left on the sideline due to scoring rules and still won both?

If you can\'t beat \'em - change the rules.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - terry - 09-01-2010

These Capital One awards are new awards sponsored by the NCAA and Capital One. These awards apparently don\'t replace the Directors\' Cup, which is sponsored by NACDA (National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics), the professional association for athletics administrators. It appears that the Directors\' Cup will continue to be awarded. From a NACDA press release: "Our Association supports and will continue to administer the Directors Cup program, which has been in existence for 17 years, and is currently sponsored by Learfield Sports."

Link: http://www.nacda.com/sports/nacda/spec-rel/090110aaa.html

I found the scoring structure for the new Capital One awards. It seems apparent that these new awards are designed to allow someone other than Stanford to win the "best overall program" title.

There are separate men\'s and women\'s championships. Stanford is good in both, but better on the women\'s side. So this opens up chances for other schools on the men\'s side.

Points are awarded only for top 10 finishes. In comparison, the Directors\' Cup awards points for every team that qualifies for post-season play. The base amounts of points, which are adjusted as described below, are:

1st 20 points
2nd 12
3rd 10
4th 8
5th 6
6th 5
7th 4
8th 3
9th 2
10th 1

Perhaps the biggest anti-Stanford rule is that points are weighted toward the "major" sports. There are three "tiers" of sports. Sports in the first tier are worth three times the base amount, sports in the second tier are worth twice the base amount, and sports in the third tier are worth the base amount. So a softball championship (Tier 1) is worth three times as much as a tennis championship (Tier 3). The tiers:

Tier 1
Men -- Football, basketball, baseball
Women -- Volleyball, basketball, softball

Tier 2
Men and women -- Soccer, swimming, outdoor track & field, lacrosse

Tier 3
Men -- Cross-country, golf, tennis, indoor track & field, ice hockey, wrestling
Women -- Cross-country, golf, tennis, indoor track & field, field hockey, rowing

Note that some NCAA sports are not included in any of these tiers -- men\'s and women\'s water polo, men\'s volleyball, men\'s and women\'s gymnastics, fencing, women\'s ice hockey, skiing, etc. That will hurt Stanford.

Stanford always has more top 5 and top 10 finishes than anyone else, so we should do OK. But this scoring system puts a real premium on winning the championship. The 5th through 10th place finishes are worth very little under this system.

The weighting of sports would seem to favor the major sport "factory" schools, such as Texas and Florida. But I haven\'t had a chance to actually run the numbers to see how this system would operate. I\'ll try to do that if I have some time.

Link: http://www.capitalonecup.com/standings.html

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - Leftcoast - 09-01-2010

Interesting that the NCAA will actively say some of their sponsored sports are unimportant (ie below Tier 3). Â Â

How should you feel about this if you are a competitor in men\'s and women\'s water polo, men\'s volleyball, men\'s and women\'s gymnastics, fencing and so on? Â I don\'t like the idea that the NCAA is now deciding which sports are important and in what tier. Â

I\'m glad the Directors cup will still be offered but it\'s now going to feel a bit like modern day boxing where multiple championships, offered by multiple sanctioning bodies, has cheapened the offering.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - terry - 09-01-2010

The NCAA appears to be lending its support to these Capital One awards. The press release announcing the program was a joint release by Capital One and the NCAA, quoting officials from both organizations. The NCAA also participated in the formal announcement of the new awards.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100901+capital+one+cup+rls?pageDesign=old+news+releases+template

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5519577

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - Leftcoast - 09-01-2010

The NCAA\'s involvement looks pretty definitive to me.

Quote:On Wednesday, the NCAA and corporate sponsor Capital One announced they were joining forces to create the Capital One Cup, which will be awarded to best all-around men\'s and women\'s Division I programs.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5519577

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - fullmetal - 09-01-2010

I\'m with Leftcoast. If they couldn\'t beat us, they\'ll make us look gimmicky (just as crappy as their new scoring system).

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - terry - 09-01-2010

Quote:Interesting that the NCAA will actively say some of their sponsored sports are unimportant (ie below Tier 3).

How should you feel about this if you are a competitor in men\'s and women\'s water polo, men\'s volleyball, men\'s and women\'s gymnastics, fencing and so on? I don\'t like the idea that the NCAA is now deciding which sports are important and in what tier.

I think I know why certain sports are excluded from the Capital One awards. The sports that are included are the ones in which there are separate championship events for Division I, Division II, and Division III. The excluded sports (water polo, gymnastics, etc.) hold combined championship events that are open to teams from Divisions I, II, and III. That appears to be the reason for the distinction. Whether it\'s a good reason is another issue.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - needle - 09-01-2010

I think it would be interesting to award points only in sports where the vast majority of D1 colleges field a team. I could see a certain fairness argument made about that system.

Is that what the Capital One Cup tries to represent? Hones question.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - Farm93 - 09-01-2010

The system places a BIG premium on winning in national sports. The Sears Directors\' cup had a very similar "core" type structure in the first few years. The year North Carolina won they pulled off the trick even though Stanford had 4 NCAA team titles.

I would certainly anticipate that such a scenario could happen again. And getting different schools into the "best in the land" mix would be better for sponsors. So great.

But the tiers are really not in with the spirit of the NCAA. Once down that path it becomes hard to balance popularity, Title IX, participation, etc.

Football is tier 1 - who could argue really? But is Softball really at the same level? Really?

Women\'s Volleyball is Tier 1 - Ummm, OK. But Men\'s Volleyball does not even make the tiers at all? Talk about gender inequity! A touch inconsistent, IMHO.

Lacrosse is Tier 2 for both genders. Seriously?? Men\'s Lacrosse has live ESPN coverage from the quarters on up. While on the Women\'s side I can\'t even remember seeing championship game highlights on ESPNU. One could say, the same sport needs to be at the same level for both genders, but that rule was thrashed in the Volleyball example.

So in some aspects the program attempts to balance across genders despite popularity differences. In other sports gender equity is tossed aside.

Major USA Olympic sports are given no weight, dangerous given 2012 is just around the corner, while a non-Olympic and non-revenue sport with minimal crowd appeal (softball) is elevated to Tier 1.

Is softball really more important than soccer, swimming or track? Even on the women\'s side, I suspect those three major global sports are all as important as softball. Â That\'s the problem with picking core sports and tiers.

Can\'t wait for the day that the best football team wins track and tennis titles (Florida). But then loses to a team that merely wins women\'s basketball and volleyball while finishing in the top four in softball (Stanford).

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - terry - 09-01-2010

The number of Division I schools participating in women\'s gymnastics is about the same as, or slightly more than, the number of schools participating in men\'s lacrosse or men\'s ice hockey. Yet women\'s gymnastics gets left out in the cold.

More schools participate in cross-country than in any sport other than basketball. Yet cross-country is in Tier 3.

Significantly more schools participate in tennis and golf than in swimming and lacrosse. Yet swimming and lacrosse are in Tier 2, while tennis and golf are in Tier 3.

The tiers obviously don\'t reflect the number of participating schools.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - Spiny_Norman - 09-01-2010

Good Grief just filmed a commercial or two for Capital One. Â This is all his fault.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - needle - 09-01-2010

Thanks for the insight, Terry.

Yeah, I don\'t really get the "tier" thing at all.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - washingtonismoney - 09-01-2010

I could see the tier thing making sense if it were based on objective criteria rather than arbitrary ones: like, if it were based on the number of programs running the sport. Water polo, for example, is basically a west coast sport--so you can make the case that finishing first among, say, twenty schools is less impressive than finishing first among, say, 200.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - mark3k - 09-02-2010

You guys are spot-on with respect to the absurdity of this tiering. Like Farm, and despite its rapidly growing popularity among young kids, I thought posting lacrosse in Tier 2 was the most absurd example. Â I don\'t know if this is still the case, but a few years back, I recall reading that wrestling was the #3 participant sport among high school boys (in part, because it\'s relatively inexpensive and kids of all sizes can participate). Â Even after all the years/damage of Title IX induced program cuts, it still has to be way more prolific than lacrosse (which does get some TV exposure on the men\'s side at least, and is actually fun to watch). Â This strikes me as a blatant attempt to skew the results to the benefit of certain schools and/or geographies.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - terry - 09-02-2010

This new award puts a ridiculous emphasis on lacrosse. Lacrosse is a minor sport nationally, with a regional concentration in the east. In 2008-09, there were 86 Div. I women\'s lacrosse programs, and 57 Div. I men\'s programs. Those numbers are comparable to the numbers of Div. I programs in men\'s ice hockey, wrestling, field hockey, women\'s rowing, and women\'s gymnastics, all of which have between 58 and 87 Div. I schools participating. Yet lacrosse has been designated "Tier 2" while those other programs are in "Tier 3" -- except for women\'s gymnastics, which isn\'t included at all.

Meanwhile, there are over 240 Div. I programs in men\'s and women\'s cross-country, men\'s and women\'s tennis, and men\'s and women\'s golf. Those sports have far more participation than lacrosse, and significantly more participation than swimming for that matter. Yet those are all Tier 3 sports in this new scoring system.

Doesn\'t make a lot of sense to me.

The heavy weighting of "major" sports and the heavy weighting of finishing first or second mean that it probably will be possible for a school to win this new award with a couple of really good major sports, and not much else. If they\'re trying to reward broad-based athletic programs, I don\'t think this new system will do it. Rather, it will reward schools that are really good in a few major sports. It seems to me that there already are ample rewards for winning in the major sports. We don\'t really need a new award for the schools that are winning national championships in basketball and football. . .

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - Farm93 - 09-02-2010

It will enable Capital One to create a commercial with a mascot that has more street appeal than the Stanford Tree. And for the company to be affliated with a mascot and an AD that will almost certainly come from a school near I-95.

I can already see the UNC Ram, Duke Blue Devil or Florida Gator making an appearance at the opening of the trading day in NYC.

And that, in turn, will give the NCAA a few more dollars out of the deal.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - GoodGrief - 09-03-2010

Quote:Good Grief just filmed a commercial or two for Capital One. This is all his fault.

Yes, clearly after shooting me, they decided they had enough of Stanford.

Here\'s a pic from the shoot. GoodGrief is the one wearing glasses. Which is too bad, because if I were the one wearing battle armor, I\'d have a better chance at walking on the team as an Offensive Lineman.

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - Pastor - 09-03-2010

Good grief Good Grief...why are you consorting with an average Kal undergrad woman? Â ...at least their fashion sense has improved....

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - Leftcoast - 09-03-2010

Average? Â She\'s clearly at the far top end of the Cal gene pool!

Re: Director\'s cup no more? - fullmetal - 09-03-2010

and that\'s how they won the NCAA women\'s rowing championship this year...