Congratulations to Calvin on their highest ever Director's Cup finish!
I have some questions about the cup and the fairness of its calculation. Every source I found said the points were determined by the NCAA tourney finish: 100 points for the champ, 90 for the runner-up, etc. (Though Ithaca seems to have only been awarded 50 points for winning in rowing - NO other sport, regardless of participation, seemed to suffer that diminution, so that may have been a mis-print.)
But SHOULDN'T the points be pro-rated by number of teams involved? Only 42 d3 teams participate in women's rowing, compared to 425 in women's basketball - it is roughly 10 times as hard to finish first, second, or whatever in basketball. Someone (I forget who) received full credit for their finish in women's water polo - there are only 19 such teams! (Even if there is a single tournament across all divisions [I don't know], that's still only 61 teams, less than one-sixth those in, say, cross country, soccer, or softball.)
It would seem self-evident to me that finishing in the top 16 of, say, men's basketball (394 teams) is a vastly greater accomplishment than finishing in the top 16 of men's water polo (where there are 16 teams!) or even men's ice hockey (68 teams).
I'm very glad that dIII does not have 'major' and 'minor' sports in the same sense as dI (afterall, we have many schools who count their men's basketball attendance in the tens, rather than the thousands - by THOSE dI standards, we are ALL minor sports [Mt Union football, perhaps excepted!]). But we DO have 'major' and 'minor' sports in the sense that some are simply not played by many schools. To be the 'best' (or near best, thus still scoring Director's Cup points) is just not the same with 40 opponents as with 400 opponents; the scoring should reflect that.
[Note: as a practical matter, I have not attempted to compute what effect, if any, that would have had on current Director's Cup standings, especially since I am undecided on how such a pro-rata syspem should work.]