Middlebury wins the 2011-12 Learfield Sports Directors' Cup.
Once again, I wish that the scoring involved the concept of the Participant Ratio (PR), the number or participating schools in a sport versus the number of full members in good standing in D-III.
RIT gets 100 pts for beating 48 other women's Ice Hockey teams.
UWW gets 100 points for beatin 410+ other women's teams in women's basketball.
A PR would multiply the awarded Directors' Cup point total per sport by the participant ratio in that sport to make scoring more representative of how many opponents you defeated to win the national championship.
Link (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/june7dIII.pdf?KEY=VLQVYGMSBHYTDAL.20120606231654)
Correction: UWW won MEN's basketball. Don't you go stealing my Titans' win in women's basketball! ;)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 10, 2012, 05:10:04 PM
Middlebury wins the 2011-12 Learfield Sports Directors' Cup.
Once again, I wish that the scoring involved the concept of the Participant Ratio (PR), the number or participating schools in a sport versus the number of full members in good standing in D-III.
RIT gets 100 pts for beating 48 other women's Ice Hockey teams.
UWW IWU gets 100 points for beatin 410+ other women's teams in women's basketball.
A PR would multiply the awarded Directors' Cup point total per sport by the participant ratio in that sport to make scoring more representative of how many opponents you defeated to win the national championship.
Link (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/june7dIII.pdf?KEY=VLQVYGMSBHYTDAL.20120606231654)
My bad!
I was distracted by the misspellings.
The following institutions captured spring national titles: baseball - Marietta (Ohio); women's track & field
- Wartburg (Iowa);
Men's outdoor track & field - McMurray (Tex.); women's rowing - Williams (Mass.);
men's lacrosse - Salisbury (Md.); men's tennis - Emory (Ga.); women's tennis - Williams (Mass.);
women's golf - Methodist (N.C.); men's golf -
Ogelthorpe (Ga.); women's lacrosse - Trinity (Conn.);
softball - Pacific Lutheran (Wash.); men's volleyball - Springfield (Mass.).
It would be an interesting exercise to redo the calculations to see what the change would be if the number of participants was factored in ... but I wouldn't want to start the process without a spreadsheet already loaded with the placements for all of the sports already preloaded. ;)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 10, 2012, 05:10:04 PM
Middlebury wins the 2011-12 Learfield Sports Directors' Cup.
Once again, I wish that the scoring involved the concept of the Participant Ratio (PR), the number or participating schools in a sport versus the number of full members in good standing in D-III.
RIT gets 100 pts for beating 48 other women's Ice Hockey teams.
UWW gets 100 points for beatin 410+ other women's teams in women's basketball.
A PR would multiply the awarded Directors' Cup point total per sport by the participant ratio in that sport to make scoring more representative of how many opponents you defeated to win the national championship.
Link (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/june7dIII.pdf?KEY=VLQVYGMSBHYTDAL.20120606231654)
I don't think I like the idea of valuing certain championships higher than others. What might help, however, is starting with that fixed 100 point value, but then use the number of participating teams to scale down from 100. For example, in a sport with 400 teams, the runner-up would receive more points than a the runner-up in a sport with 100 - and that differential would be determined with the same formula through all places that are awarded points. The number of points award for second through 10 in a sport with 100 teams, for example, would decline more rapidly than those same spots in a 400-team sport. This way, you aren't devaluing any champions - you are using them as the baseline for maximum points awarded and then using the number of participants to determine the value of the also-rans.
I don't see a PR adjustment as demeaning a 'sport'; just recognizing the reality that beating out 400 other schools is considerably more impressive than beating out 40 other schools.
I can see this for individual conferences, but it seems to be a useless exercise on a national basis.
Quote from: sunny on June 11, 2012, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 10, 2012, 05:10:04 PM
Middlebury wins the 2011-12 Learfield Sports Directors' Cup.
Once again, I wish that the scoring involved the concept of the Participant Ratio (PR), the number or participating schools in a sport versus the number of full members in good standing in D-III.
RIT gets 100 pts for beating 48 other women's Ice Hockey teams.
UWW gets 100 points for beatin 410+ other women's teams in women's basketball.
A PR would multiply the awarded Directors' Cup point total per sport by the participant ratio in that sport to make scoring more representative of how many opponents you defeated to win the national championship.
Link (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/june7dIII.pdf?KEY=VLQVYGMSBHYTDAL.20120606231654)
I don't think I like the idea of valuing certain championships higher than others. What might help, however, is starting with that fixed 100 point value, but then use the number of participating teams to scale down from 100. For example, in a sport with 400 teams, the runner-up would receive more points than a the runner-up in a sport with 100 - and that differential would be determined with the same formula through all places that are awarded points. The number of points award for second through 10 in a sport with 100 teams, for example, would decline more rapidly than those same spots in a 400-team sport. This way, you aren't devaluing any champions - you are using them as the baseline for maximum points awarded and then using the number of participants to determine the value of the also-rans.
Respectfully, I think that you are unfamiliar with the point allocation for the Directors' Cup. Please go to one of the links and look at how many points that the second place teams get for their performances in those sports. The second place team in Women's Basketball gets about the same number of points of the runner-up in Women's Ice Hockey. The second place team in Women's Ice Hockey beat 47 other teams. The Runner-up in women's basketball was still better than 410+ other schools. 340 schools in women's basketball did not get a single point. You must score in the National playoffs to get a Directors' Cup point.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 11, 2012, 08:39:45 PM
Quote from: sunny on June 11, 2012, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 10, 2012, 05:10:04 PM
Middlebury wins the 2011-12 Learfield Sports Directors' Cup.
Once again, I wish that the scoring involved the concept of the Participant Ratio (PR), the number or participating schools in a sport versus the number of full members in good standing in D-III.
RIT gets 100 pts for beating 48 other women's Ice Hockey teams.
UWW gets 100 points for beatin 410+ other women's teams in women's basketball.
A PR would multiply the awarded Directors' Cup point total per sport by the participant ratio in that sport to make scoring more representative of how many opponents you defeated to win the national championship.
Link (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/june7dIII.pdf?KEY=VLQVYGMSBHYTDAL.20120606231654)
I don't think I like the idea of valuing certain championships higher than others. What might help, however, is starting with that fixed 100 point value, but then use the number of participating teams to scale down from 100. For example, in a sport with 400 teams, the runner-up would receive more points than a the runner-up in a sport with 100 - and that differential would be determined with the same formula through all places that are awarded points. The number of points award for second through 10 in a sport with 100 teams, for example, would decline more rapidly than those same spots in a 400-team sport. This way, you aren't devaluing any champions - you are using them as the baseline for maximum points awarded and then using the number of participants to determine the value of the also-rans.
Respectfully, I think that you are unfamiliar with the point allocation for the Directors' Cup. Please go to one of the links and look at how many points that the second place teams get for their performances in those sports. The second place team in Women's Basketball gets about the same number of points of the runner-up in Women's Ice Hockey. The second place team in Women's Ice Hockey beat 47 other teams. The Runner-up in women's basketball was still better than 410+ other schools. 340 schools in women's basketball did not get a single point. You must score in the National playoffs to get a Directors' Cup point.
I'm not sure what you think I'm missing. I'm essentially agreeing with you, with the exception of NOT changing the points awarded for a championship-winning team. To me, a national champion is a national champion, but if you want to start weighting sports based on participating teams, then weight them beginning with the runner up. I understand what you have to do to get a point. My examples were theoretical to get across the basic point.
To be honest, I think, while inherently flawed, the system is fine the way it is. No system would be perfect and the thought of placing a higher value on some national championships over others just does not sit well with me.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 11, 2012, 06:34:03 PM
I don't see a PR adjustment as demeaning a 'sport'; just recognizing the reality that beating out 400 other schools is considerably more impressive than beating out 40 other schools.
Is it always? You're making statistical assumptions here, but the world doesn't always reflect statistics. While you can certainly make the argument that beating 400 will always be better than 40, what about 350 v. 200? Isn't the only number that matters (if you're assessing degree of difficulty) the number of truly excellent teams? True contenders if you will? Do the bottom 280 out of that 350 even have a prayer of truly competing for the national championship? There are more women's basketball teams than men's, but the prevailing opinion would be that the men's tournament is usually more wide open (arguable) and that the women have more bottom-feeding teams (less arguable). If we're going to try to judge what the harder accomplishment is, couldn't the case be made that winning the men's title is the harder accomplishment? What about sports like track and swimming where there are only a handful of teams who even have a real mathematical chance of winning the title because they have larger numbers of individual national qualifiers? Aren't those fields trimmed way, way down - realistically - before the season ever starts? I bring up these points not to slight women's basketball or track or swimming, but to point out the slippery slope of trying to determine which championship is the better accomplishment.
Thanks for the elaboration. :)
Quote from: sunny on June 11, 2012, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 11, 2012, 06:34:03 PM
I don't see a PR adjustment as demeaning a 'sport'; just recognizing the reality that beating out 400 other schools is considerably more impressive than beating out 40 other schools.
Is it always? You're making statistical assumptions here, but the world doesn't always reflect statistics. While you can certainly make the argument that beating 400 will always be better than 40, what about 350 v. 200? Isn't the only number that matters (if you're assessing degree of difficulty) the number of truly excellent teams? True contenders if you will? Do the bottom 280 out of that 350 even have a prayer of truly competing for the national championship? There are more women's basketball teams than men's, but the prevailing opinion would be that the men's tournament is usually more wide open (arguable) and that the women have more bottom-feeding teams (less arguable). If we're going to try to judge what the harder accomplishment is, couldn't the case be made that winning the men's title is the harder accomplishment? What about sports like track and swimming where there are only a handful of teams who even have a real mathematical chance of winning the title because they have larger numbers of individual national qualifiers? Aren't those fields trimmed way, way down - realistically - before the season ever starts? I bring up these points not to slight women's basketball or track or swimming, but to point out the slippery slope of trying to determine which championship is the better accomplishment.
I'm pretty sure I understand the point you are making, and somewhat agree with it. Total number of participants is in no way a stand in for number of 'real' contenders. (If it were 'true contenders', the Stagg Bowl winner would receive about 1 point in a PR system, since there are lately only TWO! :P) But we have no way of measuring 'true contenders'; we do have an easy way of measuring participants.
There IS no perfect system, nationwide. Many conferences have an all-sports trophy for the sports they sponsor - that is pretty clear-cut and fair. A national system which includes sports that most schools do not offer is grossly unfair to those who cannot afford them. Many d3 schools don't even HAVE 9 sports per gender; those who can afford 16-18 have a HUGE advantage, since any 'oops' teams are dropped. Counting sports with 30-50 schools participating the same as sports with 400+ participating just ups the disparity, since it is the 'rich' schools that have teams in the 'smaller' sports.
The Directors' Cup is interesting (what else do we have to talk about in mid-June ;)), but it is a totally flawed formula which guarantees a NESCAC winner (and, this year, a UAA runner-up). The rest of us can aspire to a top ten finish in a
really exceptional year.
Quote from: sunny on June 11, 2012, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 11, 2012, 06:34:03 PM
I don't see a PR adjustment as demeaning a 'sport'; just recognizing the reality that beating out 400 other schools is considerably more impressive than beating out 40 other schools.
Is it always? You're making statistical assumptions here, but the world doesn't always reflect statistics. While you can certainly make the argument that beating 400 will always be better than 40, what about 350 v. 200? Isn't the only number that matters (if you're assessing degree of difficulty) the number of truly excellent teams? True contenders if you will? Do the bottom 280 out of that 350 even have a prayer of truly competing for the national championship? There are more women's basketball teams than men's, but the prevailing opinion would be that the men's tournament is usually more wide open (arguable) and that the women have more bottom-feeding teams (less arguable). If we're going to try to judge what the harder accomplishment is, couldn't the case be made that winning the men's title is the harder accomplishment? What about sports like track and swimming where there are only a handful of teams who even have a real mathematical chance of winning the title because they have larger numbers of individual national qualifiers? Aren't those fields trimmed way, way down - realistically - before the season ever starts? I bring up these points not to slight women's basketball or track or swimming, but to point out the slippery slope of trying to determine which championship is the better accomplishment.
I don't think, from what I've read, that "better" is the right word here. More "challenging", perhaps would be a better qualifier. RIT, the women's hockey champion had to win three playoff games to win the title. The women's basketball winner had to win six. More teams qualify for the playoffs in women's basketball than there are in women's ice hockey, or rowing, or field hockey. There's just more competition.
It's sort of the problem I have with wrestling. By the time you get to the national championships, there's maybe five teams who can win the thing because they've got seven, eight, nine guys wrestling for points, and other teams only have two or three.
I think the central question becomes, "What are we trying to measure with these standings?" Which athletic departments achieved the most success? Even if we adjusted the point totals for certain sports, there are still issues. Not all non-playoff teams are created equal, even though they're all given zero points. An 0-10 football team is not the same as an 8-2 one. An 18-9 basketball team is not the same as a 3-22 one. So even forgetting the whole "which championships are tougher?" argument, the system is flawed because it only gives value to playoff teams. (I'm fully aware that assigning every single team in a sport points is a practical impossibility, so I'm not advocating for it, mind you)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 11, 2012, 11:10:05 PM
A national system which includes sports that most schools do not offer is grossly unfair to those who cannot afford them. Many d3 schools don't even HAVE 9 sports per gender; those who can afford 16-18 have a HUGE advantage, since any 'oops' teams are dropped.
I don't entirely disagree with this point, but, instead of weighting championships, why not use a factor to weight athletic programs? Some sort of system to account for the notion that a 16-sport program with 10 NCAA qualifying teams and three National Champions would seem to be more "top-heavy successful" (that's essentially what the Director's Cup is measuring, since all teams who miss the NCAA Tournament are treated as equal) than a 24-sport program with 12 qualifying teams and four champions.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 12, 2012, 08:38:23 AM
I think the central question becomes, "What are we trying to measure with these standings?" Which athletic departments achieved the most success? Even if we adjusted the point totals for certain sports, there are still issues. Not all non-playoff teams are created equal, even though they're all given zero points. An 0-10 football team is not the same as an 8-2 one. An 18-9 basketball team is not the same as a 3-22 one. So even forgetting the whole "which championships are tougher?" argument, the system is flawed because it only gives value to playoff teams. (I'm fully aware that assigning every single team in a sport points is a practical impossibility, so I'm not advocating for it, mind you)
My inclination is to think that this is one of the reasons why the system is set up the way it is. Once you go about "fixing" some "flaws" that benefit certain schools or programs, someone else points out more flaws to be fixed ... etc., etc.
Quote from: sunny on June 12, 2012, 09:11:07 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 11, 2012, 11:10:05 PM
A national system which includes sports that most schools do not offer is grossly unfair to those who cannot afford them. Many d3 schools don't even HAVE 9 sports per gender; those who can afford 16-18 have a HUGE advantage, since any 'oops' teams are dropped.
I don't entirely disagree with this point, but, instead of weighting championships, why not use a factor to weight athletic programs? Some sort of system to account for the notion that a 16-sport program with 10 NCAA qualifying teams and three National Champions would seem to be more "top-heavy successful" (that's essentially what the Director's Cup is measuring, since all teams who miss the NCAA Tournament are treated as equal) than a 24-sport program with 12 qualifying teams and four champions.
Co-sign. Why should we put every school, all of which have different challenges and advantages, and all of which prioritize athletics differently, in the same boat?
Your post got me thinking. Take your "16-sport program with 10 NCAA qualifying teams and three National Champions" athletic program in Year 1. Then suppose they added five new teams the next season (this is all hypothetical, so let's suppose they can immediately compete for appearances in the NCAA's.)
If those original 16 teams finished in the exact same spot in Year 2, the school would earn the same number of Director's Cup points as they did the year before. But if those five new teams all went winless that season, obviously, the athletic program isn't as strong in Year 2. Those winless teams are irrelevant to the Director's Cup point totals, but they're not irrelevant to the athletic department
Now let's go to Year 3. The original 16 teams do the same "10 NCAA qualifying teams and three National Champions" routine (hey, they're consistent like that.) But the five winless teams suddenly improve to the point where they're each one of the last four teams left out of the NCAA's.
Again, there's no change in the point value the team got from Year 2 to Year 3. But again, the athletic program has changed significantly, this time for the better (You could even argue they improved from Year 1 to Year 3)
Three seasons, each with a drastically different athletic department, each viewed the exact same way by the standings.
For an athletic department, while you'd want to do well in the DC standings, you're probably best served identifying a handful of schools that are similar to you in terms of offerings, budgets, overall profile, and saying "How do we compare to them?" Or just comparing your point totals year in year out (provided you keep the number of offerings roughly the same)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 11, 2012, 11:10:05 PMThe Directors' Cup is interesting (what else do we have to talk about in mid-June ;)), but it is a totally flawed formula which guarantees a NESCAC winner (and, this year, a UAA runner-up). The rest of us can aspire to a top ten finish in a really exceptional year.
While the Cup winner does invariably seem to come from the NESCAC, it's not the only league that's disproportionally successful in the Cup standings. The WIAC had five schools among the top 31 this year, and four among the top 14 two years ago.
Considering that the WIAC is the traditional d3boards.com whipping boy in terms of D3 athletics inequities, this would seem to buttress the argument that the Cup criteria are inherently unfair. But, in fact, it doesn't. The WIAC schools don't participate in a lot of minor sports (which for Cup purposes I'd define as sports that have fewer than 200 participating schools at the D3 level). Five schools participate in men's ice hockey, which the WIAC sponsors as an official conference sport, and four schools have women's ice hockey teams, although the WIAC doesn't sponsor that sport. Both men's and women's ice hockey have fewer than 100 participating schools at the D3 level. There's also four WIAC schools that have women's gymnastics teams, but that sport is so rare among D3 schools that the division doesn't even offer a tournament for it -- so it therefore doesn't count in the Cup standings.
WIAC participation rates are therefore not particularly high:
| school | men's | women's | total |
| UWEC | 10 | 12 | 22 |
| UWL | 9 | 10 | 19 |
| UWO | 10 | 11 | 21 |
| UWP | 8 | 8 | 16 |
| UWRF | 7 | 11 | 18 |
| UWSP | 9 | 11 | 20 |
| UWSt | 8 | 11 | 19 |
| UWSup | 7 | 8 | 15 |
| UWW | 10 | 12 | 22 |
There are D3 leagues in which member schools all hover at or slightly above the six-sport minimum per gender, and which therefore don't come close to the WIAC's participation rate. But the WIAC's average participation rate is well below that of it's rival to the south, the CCIW, and of course it's dramatically lower than the NESCAC's.
The WIAC doesn't succeed in the Cup standings because it has lots of minor-sport teams that can pick up cheap points. It succeeds because it's so dominant in the sports in which it
does participate -- which takes us back to the old inequities argument, which I see no point in rehashing for the umpteenth time, especially since that argument is not germane to the subject of the Cup's criteria flaws.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 12, 2012, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: sunny on June 11, 2012, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 11, 2012, 06:34:03 PM
I don't see a PR adjustment as demeaning a 'sport'; just recognizing the reality that beating out 400 other schools is considerably more impressive than beating out 40 other schools.
Is it always? You're making statistical assumptions here, but the world doesn't always reflect statistics. While you can certainly make the argument that beating 400 will always be better than 40, what about 350 v. 200? Isn't the only number that matters (if you're assessing degree of difficulty) the number of truly excellent teams? True contenders if you will? Do the bottom 280 out of that 350 even have a prayer of truly competing for the national championship? There are more women's basketball teams than men's, but the prevailing opinion would be that the men's tournament is usually more wide open (arguable) and that the women have more bottom-feeding teams (less arguable). If we're going to try to judge what the harder accomplishment is, couldn't the case be made that winning the men's title is the harder accomplishment? What about sports like track and swimming where there are only a handful of teams who even have a real mathematical chance of winning the title because they have larger numbers of individual national qualifiers? Aren't those fields trimmed way, way down - realistically - before the season ever starts? I bring up these points not to slight women's basketball or track or swimming, but to point out the slippery slope of trying to determine which championship is the better accomplishment.
I don't think, from what I've read, that "better" is the right word here. More "challenging", perhaps would be a better qualifier. RIT, the women's hockey champion had to win three playoff games to win the title. The women's basketball winner had to win six. More teams qualify for the playoffs in women's basketball than there are in women's ice hockey, or rowing, or field hockey. There's just more competition.
It's sort of the problem I have with wrestling. By the time you get to the national championships, there's maybe five teams who can win the thing because they've got seven, eight, nine guys wrestling for points, and other teams only have two or three.
I think the central question becomes, "What are we trying to measure with these standings?" Which athletic departments achieved the most success? Even if we adjusted the point totals for certain sports, there are still issues. Not all non-playoff teams are created equal, even though they're all given zero points. An 0-10 football team is not the same as an 8-2 one. An 18-9 basketball team is not the same as a 3-22 one. So even forgetting the whole "which championships are tougher?" argument, the system is flawed because it only gives value to playoff teams. (I'm fully aware that assigning every single team in a sport points is a practical impossibility, so I'm not advocating for it, mind you)
Please correct me, but did RIT earn a conference AQ or did they get a Pool B bid?
In Women's basketball, teams that are not in the UAA or Pool B must win 2 or 3 conference tournament games to get the Pool A bid, and then 6 to win the National Championship. 8-9 games versus 3 games is much more indicative of the challenge.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 12, 2012, 02:44:41 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 12, 2012, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: sunny on June 11, 2012, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 11, 2012, 06:34:03 PM
I don't see a PR adjustment as demeaning a 'sport'; just recognizing the reality that beating out 400 other schools is considerably more impressive than beating out 40 other schools.
Is it always? You're making statistical assumptions here, but the world doesn't always reflect statistics. While you can certainly make the argument that beating 400 will always be better than 40, what about 350 v. 200? Isn't the only number that matters (if you're assessing degree of difficulty) the number of truly excellent teams? True contenders if you will? Do the bottom 280 out of that 350 even have a prayer of truly competing for the national championship? There are more women's basketball teams than men's, but the prevailing opinion would be that the men's tournament is usually more wide open (arguable) and that the women have more bottom-feeding teams (less arguable). If we're going to try to judge what the harder accomplishment is, couldn't the case be made that winning the men's title is the harder accomplishment? What about sports like track and swimming where there are only a handful of teams who even have a real mathematical chance of winning the title because they have larger numbers of individual national qualifiers? Aren't those fields trimmed way, way down - realistically - before the season ever starts? I bring up these points not to slight women's basketball or track or swimming, but to point out the slippery slope of trying to determine which championship is the better accomplishment.
I don't think, from what I've read, that "better" is the right word here. More "challenging", perhaps would be a better qualifier. RIT, the women's hockey champion had to win three playoff games to win the title. The women's basketball winner had to win six. More teams qualify for the playoffs in women's basketball than there are in women's ice hockey, or rowing, or field hockey. There's just more competition.
It's sort of the problem I have with wrestling. By the time you get to the national championships, there's maybe five teams who can win the thing because they've got seven, eight, nine guys wrestling for points, and other teams only have two or three.
I think the central question becomes, "What are we trying to measure with these standings?" Which athletic departments achieved the most success? Even if we adjusted the point totals for certain sports, there are still issues. Not all non-playoff teams are created equal, even though they're all given zero points. An 0-10 football team is not the same as an 8-2 one. An 18-9 basketball team is not the same as a 3-22 one. So even forgetting the whole "which championships are tougher?" argument, the system is flawed because it only gives value to playoff teams. (I'm fully aware that assigning every single team in a sport points is a practical impossibility, so I'm not advocating for it, mind you)
Please correct me, but did RIT earn a conference AQ or did they get a Pool B bid?
In Women's basketball, teams that are not in the UAA or Pool B must win 2 or 3 conference tournament games to get the Pool A bid, and then 6 to win the National Championship. 8-9 games versus 3 games is much more indicative of the challenge.
Thanks for the correction. I figured I might be wrong, but yes, the general point stands (although since you don't
have to win your conference tournament to win the national title, I think 8-9 wins might be overselling it a tad.)
I just want to point out, in case it isn't inherently clear, that nothing I say about the Director's Cup should be construed as me being critical of the teams who win/do well in it. Colleges should put on whatever sports they can support, and they don't control the point system. As they say, "don't hate the player, hate the game."
In the stronger conferences, there may be a Pool C team that loses in one of the 2-3 games in the conference tourney and gets a do-over, but we are talking at least a tough conference championship game and the last 5 games in the NCAA's as being tough. (You always gotta be careful for that first round knock-out, too.)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 12, 2012, 03:56:02 PM
In the stronger conferences, there may be a Pool C team that loses in one of the 2-3 games in the conference tourney and gets a do-over, but we are talking at least a tough conference championship game and the last 5 games in the NCAA's as being tough. (You always gotta be careful for that first round knock-out, too.)
I agree. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying it happens
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 12, 2012, 03:56:02 PM
In the stronger conferences, there may be a Pool C team that loses in one of the 2-3 games in the conference tourney and gets a do-over, but we are talking at least a tough conference championship game and the last 5 games in the NCAA's as being tough. (You always gotta be careful for that first round knock-out, too.)
But the conference tournament argument is a moot point. A few conferences don't have tournaments in some sports ... and then .. some let eight teams in .. some four, some six ... and the "minor" sports may also have conference tournaments to determine their AQ - so those additional games regardless of whether it's basketball or field hockey. If you're going to try to make that argument, you can extrapolate that further and say that programs who come from conferences where you have to finish in the top four or five or six just to MAKE the conference tournament have a tougher road than a team from an eight-school conference with an eight-team conference tournament. In theory (though obviously incredibly unlikely), that team could go winless in the regular season, win three straight conference tournament games and BOOM, Director's Cup points. Meanwhile, teams that have to qualify for their conference tournaments (or, shoot, those who don't have a conference tournament), are playing games all season that effect their access to the AQ.
Quote from: sunny on June 12, 2012, 05:00:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 12, 2012, 03:56:02 PM
In the stronger conferences, there may be a Pool C team that loses in one of the 2-3 games in the conference tourney and gets a do-over, but we are talking at least a tough conference championship game and the last 5 games in the NCAA's as being tough. (You always gotta be careful for that first round knock-out, too.)
But the conference tournament argument is a moot point. A few conferences don't have tournaments in some sports ... and then .. some let eight teams in .. some four, some six ... and the "minor" sports may also have conference tournaments to determine their AQ
The minor sports are less likely to have conference tournaments than the major sports, because oftentimes they don't represent the full membership of the league.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 12, 2012, 05:13:55 PM
Quote from: sunny on June 12, 2012, 05:00:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 12, 2012, 03:56:02 PM
In the stronger conferences, there may be a Pool C team that loses in one of the 2-3 games in the conference tourney and gets a do-over, but we are talking at least a tough conference championship game and the last 5 games in the NCAA's as being tough. (You always gotta be careful for that first round knock-out, too.)
But the conference tournament argument is a moot point. A few conferences don't have tournaments in some sports ... and then .. some let eight teams in .. some four, some six ... and the "minor" sports may also have conference tournaments to determine their AQ
The minor sports are less likely to have conference tournaments than the major sports, because oftentimes they don't represent the full membership of the league.
But then we are talking Pool B ... a whole different animal. I'm simply talking about Pool A qualifiers. And there are a good number of Pool A minor-sport qualifiers in the conference generating a lot of this discussion (NESCAC).
The Directors Cup is merely a "paper" championship in that it conducts no athletic events but merely keeps score by its own system with respect to certain NCAA sponsored events. None of us are prevented from establishing our own championship, say the XYZ Cup, which uses our own different scoring system, whether or not based, at our discretion, on NCAA events.
Quote from: frank uible on June 12, 2012, 08:23:21 PM
The Directors Cup is merely a "paper" championship in that it conducts no athletic events but merely keeps score by its own system with respect to certain NCAA sponsored events. None of us are prevented from establishing our own championship, say the XYZ Cup, which uses our own different scoring system, whether or not based, at our discretion, on NCAA events.
Could the room come to a consensus on a methodology and run this year's results?
I vote for Ralph's participation ratio.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 12, 2012, 09:56:57 PM
Quote from: frank uible on June 12, 2012, 08:23:21 PM
The Directors Cup is merely a "paper" championship in that it conducts no athletic events but merely keeps score by its own system with respect to certain NCAA sponsored events. None of us are prevented from establishing our own championship, say the XYZ Cup, which uses our own different scoring system, whether or not based, at our discretion, on NCAA events.
Could the room come to a consensus on a methodology and run this year's results?
If I didn't have a day job, I would love to run the Directors' Cup with the Participant Ratio (PR), which I think is the simplest modification.
(How does one load the tables found on the Learfield pdf into Excel and then apply the PR calculation? I think that the WIAC would look even stronger.)
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 12, 2012, 10:30:54 PM
I vote for Ralph's participation ratio.
Thanks Gregory. (I wonder how IWU would fare with the PR. ;) )
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 12, 2012, 10:34:02 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 12, 2012, 10:30:54 PM
I vote for Ralph's participation ratio.
Thanks Gregory. (I wonder how IWU would fare with the PR. ;) )
I don't care about IWU, but I know that a participation ratio would help out NPU a bit. Not that that enters into my reasoning. I just think it's the fairest and simplest way to make the Cup more equitable.
1. compare the same sports, using participation rates for each gender. For example, the men's list might include: football, basketball, baseball, cross-country, indoor track, outdoor track, soccer, etc. 2. Determine the top nine sports for women. 3. Develop a scoring system (or use the one already in place). It just seems to make more sense to compare the same sports for all schools.
You don't want to cut down on the number of sports to count?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 12, 2012, 11:20:17 PM
You don't want to cut down on the number of sports to count?
You could go top five as long as you only compare the same sports for each gender across the board.
I don't know about that -- I'd like to have some flexibility for field hockey or ice hockey or lacrosse or sports that aren't quite national. Cut it down to seven per gender?
I haven't thought this through for possible downsides, but how about kind of a Pool A/Pool C compromise: the 7? highest participation sports automatically are counted plus 2? additional 'at large' sports (whatever scores highest for a given school). Combined with a PR for scoring, this reduces (though doesn't eliminate) the advantage of schools who can drop 6-8 'oops' teams over schools who simply can't afford to offer 16-18 sports per gender.
I would rather see us include every sport, and just divide the schools into different groups based on the size of the athletic department. If we're adjusting point totals for participant ratio, why shouldn't we take into account every sport? That way, we get a clearer picture of each school's entire department, but still separate a school that offers 25-30 sports from one that offers 12
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 13, 2012, 01:29:18 PM
I haven't thought this through for possible downsides, but how about kind of a Pool A/Pool C compromise: the 7? highest participation sports automatically are counted plus 2? additional 'at large' sports (whatever scores highest for a given school). Combined with a PR for scoring, this reduces (though doesn't eliminate) the advantage of schools who can drop 6-8 'oops' teams over schools who simply can't afford to offer 16-18 sports per gender.
That seems like a good compromise.
Now that the scoring methodology has been determined, who's going to keep score? It is not too late to declare a 2011-12 champ.
The PR modulates much of the emphasis/impact from the minor sports. Taking the "top 9" gives most teams excellent coverage. The sports that have less than 100 sports only get 25 or so point for a national champion. At that point, Williams first round losing women's soccer team would get 25 points after the PR was applied. The final four women's ice hockey team would 7 points under the PR system. Before the "PR", Williams might have the Final Four women's Ice Hockey team getting 75 points and use that team as their 9th team in the calculations.
The PR will help with some of the "minor" sports like Lacrosse. How many play lacrosse? 150 schools? About 3/8ths of D-III. Giving the Lacrosse winner 37 points as the 8th or 9th sport in fair IMHO.
Football has about 60% participation. We cannot be accused of over-weighting that sport by the "anti-football" crowd.
The most common 4-5 sports are M/W Hoops, M/W soccer, M/W Cross Country, M/W baseball/softball and W volleyball, all greater than 85% of D-III competing. M/W Tennis is another popular sport.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I would rather see us include every sport, and just divide the schools into different groups based on the size of the athletic department. If we're adjusting point totals for participant ratio, why shouldn't we take into account every sport? That way, we get a clearer picture of each school's entire department, but still separate a school that offers 25-30 sports from one that offers 12
We'd be subdividing Division III ...
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 13, 2012, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I would rather see us include every sport, and just divide the schools into different groups based on the size of the athletic department. If we're adjusting point totals for participant ratio, why shouldn't we take into account every sport? That way, we get a clearer picture of each school's entire department, but still separate a school that offers 25-30 sports from one that offers 12
We'd be subdividing Division III ...
Exactly; and we've been down that road before. :P
I'll try to take up Frank U's challenge if someone can tell me the total number of d3 schools (and the single-gender schools, since they would have effectively zero chance at an overall title, but I'll also divide it by gender). Will I find all the necessary info on the NCAA site (number of participating schools; entries into the tourney; final finishes)?
Unlike Frank U, I'm not certain we have 'settled' on a procedure, but I'll do it by my post (or something close to that). (And if football turns out to be a 'required' sport for the men's total, it would be good to 'stick it' to the NESCAC teams! Their choice of non-participation in d3 football obviously works well for the Directors' Cup; we'll see how it affects the 'Ypsi Cup'! 8-))
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 13, 2012, 08:41:19 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 13, 2012, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I would rather see us include every sport, and just divide the schools into different groups based on the size of the athletic department. If we're adjusting point totals for participant ratio, why shouldn't we take into account every sport? That way, we get a clearer picture of each school's entire department, but still separate a school that offers 25-30 sports from one that offers 12
We'd be subdividing Division III ...
Exactly; and we've been down that road before. :P
I'll try to take up Frank U's challenge if someone can tell me the total number of d3 schools (and the single-gender schools, since they would have effectively zero chance at an overall title, but I'll also divide it by gender). Will I find all the necessary info on the NCAA site (number of participating schools; entries into the tourney; final finishes)?
Unlike Frank U, I'm not certain we have 'settled' on a procedure, but I'll do it by my post (or something close to that). (And if football turns out to be a 'required' sport for the men's total, it would be good to 'stick it' to the NESCAC teams! Their choice of non-participation in d3 football obviously works well for the Directors' Cup; we'll see how it affects the 'Ypsi Cup'! 8-))
I have not been able to navigate the ncaa.org website since they revised it about 2 years ago. But this is what I have found
so far (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are/differences+among+the+divisions/division++iii/about+division+iii). 436 active members as of 03/05/2012
Men Championship Sports (14) Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country, Football, Golf, Ice Hockey, Lacrosse, Soccer, Swimming and Diving, Tennis, Indoor Track and Field, Outdoor Track and Field, Volleyball*, Wrestling
Women Championship Sports (14) Basketball, Cross Country, Field Hockey, Golf, Ice Hockey, Lacrosse, Rowing, Soccer, Softball, Swimming and Diving, Tennis, Indoor Track and Field, Outdoor Track and Field, Volleyball
National Collegiate Championships (10) Men - Gymnastics, Water Polo; Women - Bowling, Gymnastics, Water Polo; Men and Women - Fencing, Rifle, Skiing
Does the denominator for women equal (436 minus Wabash & Hampden-Sydney & Hobart =) 433?
I have not found the central table for the number of participants, so I have counted 159 schools for Field Hockey.
159 divided by 433 = 36.7% (36.7 points for the field hockey champion is not bad.)
Men's Soccer 399 teams divided by (436 minus how many women's schools)...
IF I can find the relevant data, I'm leaning towards 100 (and participation number for denominator of ratio) = highest participation number of sport for each gender. (My gut hunch is that that will turn out to be either basketball or soccer for both genders.) I plan to do each gender separately (and report for each gender) then simply add the totals for the overall title.
Commentary on whether to do the top 7 for each gender, then the two other best scores, or whether to just do all sports and count on the PR sufficiently reducing the advantage of the 'rich' schools? [Even with the PR, I'm concerned that schools that can afford to go 'oops' for 7-8 sports per gender have too much advantage over schools that just can't afford more than the bare minimum.]
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 13, 2012, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I would rather see us include every sport, and just divide the schools into different groups based on the size of the athletic department. If we're adjusting point totals for participant ratio, why shouldn't we take into account every sport? That way, we get a clearer picture of each school's entire department, but still separate a school that offers 25-30 sports from one that offers 12
We'd be subdividing Division III ...
I think the athletic departments naturally subdivide themselves, we're just allowing for that and not directly comparing one school to another that has an athletic department twice the size, or penalizing schools that have depth in but lack elite teams by removing numerous quality teams from the equation. I think there's a lot of value in recognizing the schools that manage to have lots of competitive teams and not just the ones that are outstanding in a few sports, but non-competitive in others. But hey, no methodology is perfect, and it takes different strokes to move the world. I'm excited to see what Ypsi comes up with regardless, because I think it will be an improvement over the current system.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 13, 2012, 09:50:05 PM
IF I can find the relevant data, I'm leaning towards 100 (and participation number for denominator of ratio) = highest participation number of sport for each gender. (My gut hunch is that that will turn out to be either basketball or soccer for both genders.) I plan to do each gender separately (and report for each gender) then simply add the totals for the overall title.
Commentary on whether to do the top 7 for each gender, then the two other best scores, or whether to just do all sports and count on the PR sufficiently reducing the advantage of the 'rich' schools? [Even with the PR, I'm concerned that schools that can afford to go 'oops' for 7-8 sports per gender have too much advantage over schools that just can't afford more than the bare minimum.]
Thanks for taking the time to do this. Looking forward to the "Ypsi Cup" wimmer.
This is a fascinating idea -- sort of a D3sports.com recognition with a different methodology from that used by the Directors Cup people. What about having separate awards for men's sports and women's sports, instead of a combined award? Women don't play football or have wrestling (or do they?), men don't play field hockey -- perhaps there are some other sports that are gender specific that I don't know about. I know some schools have an equestrian program, for example. Does that include both genders?
Just tossing out some thoughts.
Quote from: y_jack_lok on June 14, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
This is a fascinating idea -- sort of a D3sports.com recognition with a different methodology from that used by the Directors Cup people. What about having separate awards for men's sports and women's sports, instead of a combined award? Women don't play football or have wrestling (or do they?), men don't play field hockey -- perhaps there are some other sports that are gender specific that I don't know about. I know some schools have an equestrian program, for example. Does that include both genders?
Just tossing out some thoughts.
Actually, this is a great idea. It is already done with cc, indoor and outdoor track. The men's award is the Al B. Carius award, forgot what they call the women's. In some high school's girls wreslte on the boy's team, but not sure if any college sponsors a women's team.
The average number of men's sports offered in D-III is 8.2; women's is 8.9.
There is a justification for including 9 sports.
I'm having more trouble getting started than I had anticipated. I've located the school-by-school, sport-by-sport DC numbers for spring sports, but (aside from articles listing some of the top finishing schools) cannot find anything for fall or winter. Also, getting precise participation numbers is proving harder than expected.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. ;D
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2012, 09:11:44 PM
I'm having more trouble getting started than I had anticipated. I've located the school-by-school, sport-by-sport DC numbers for spring sports, but (aside from articles listing some of the top finishing schools) cannot find anything for fall or winter. Also, getting precise participation numbers is proving harder than expected.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. ;D
I'm useless-I have no internet at home. If I get to the library tomorrow, I'll try to find some information for you.
How about this, if a conference does not participate in all the NCAA championships for the sports that they sponsor they are ineligible for the Directors Cup. Not that it really matters because the Directors cup is a meaningless paper championship that really has not impact on the real world. Just my stupid opinion of course.
Under the old format at ncaa.org, there was a page on which the numbers of participants in each sport was listed.
I cannot find that page.
I will try later on today.
I've been using this pdf file from the NCAA website for the Directors' cup discussion on CCIW Chat (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2012.pdf), but it only goes up to 2010-11.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 16, 2012, 04:26:59 PM
I've been using this pdf file from the NCAA website for the Directors' cup discussion on CCIW Chat (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2012.pdf), but it only goes up to 2010-11.
Thanks Greg, I'll use those numbers if no one comes up with 2011-2012.
My other labor-saving request would be DC school-by-school and sport-by sport results for fall and winter - I found spring, but can only find school totals for the other seasons.
Using the above 2010-2011 tallies (if anyone knows of a sport where 2011-2012 would be significantly different, let me know and I'll adjust, but these should be very close), here are the Participation Ratios I calculated: (NOTE: for the denominator, I used the basketball totals, which were highest for each gender - thus they are 1.000; others are participating schools divided by 435 [women] or 412 [men]. Also note, I omitted sports with fewer than 40 schools; the PR would be too tiny to matter much for at least any of the top schools.)
WOMEN'S SPORTS: basketball 1.000, soccer .982, volleyball .979, cross country .943, softball .936, tennis .867, outdoor track .639 swimming/diving .559, indoor track .545, lax .474, golf .384, field hockey .366, ice hockey .113, rowing .092.
MEN'S SPORTS: basketball 1.000, soccer .978, cross country .942, baseball .908, tennis .794, golf .711, outdoor track .663, indoor track .561, football .553 (NOTE: since scoring for the DC is by national tourney placement, I subtracted the 10 NESCAC schools from the numerator), swimming/diving .498, wrestling .214, ice hockey .172, volleyball .136.
I can quite easily calculate the spring sports, but unless someone can point me to the fall and winter sports' DC scores, fall and winter will be a total pain! (Rather than reinvent the wheel for relative scoring, I plan to simply use the DC points times the PR.)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 16, 2012, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 16, 2012, 04:26:59 PM
I've been using this pdf file from the NCAA website for the Directors' cup discussion on CCIW Chat (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2012.pdf), but it only goes up to 2010-11.
Thanks Greg, I'll use those numbers if no one comes up with 2011-2012.
My other labor-saving request would be DC school-by-school and sport-by sport results for fall and winter - I found spring, but can only find school totals for the other seasons.
Let's try this...
http://www.nacda.com/directorscup/nacda-directorscup-current-scoring.html
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 16, 2012, 07:55:54 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 16, 2012, 05:10:20 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 16, 2012, 04:26:59 PM
I've been using this pdf file from the NCAA website for the Directors' cup discussion on CCIW Chat (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2012.pdf), but it only goes up to 2010-11.
Thanks Greg, I'll use those numbers if no one comes up with 2011-2012.
My other labor-saving request would be DC school-by-school and sport-by sport results for fall and winter - I found spring, but can only find school totals for the other seasons.
Let's try this...
http://www.nacda.com/directorscup/nacda-directorscup-current-scoring.html
Yeah, that is where I'm finding the spring sports' breakdown (and the school totals for fall and winter), but I can't get it to show the sport-by-sport for fall and winter (except for the leaders and the champions). Am I missing something?
Click "Final Fall Standings" and "Final Winter Standings" to see sport by sport breakdown for each season.
Quote from: Just Bill on June 16, 2012, 11:15:33 PM
Click "Final Fall Standings" and "Final Winter Standings" to see sport by sport breakdown for each season.
Yes, and sorry that I did not elaborate.
I ran a quick test on McMurry. We made the 2nd round in football, the first round in men's hoops and scored points in indoor and outdoor men's and women's track. The difference was 326.50 down to 207.131.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 16, 2012, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on June 16, 2012, 11:15:33 PM
Click "Final Fall Standings" and "Final Winter Standings" to see sport by sport breakdown for each season.
Yes, and sorry that I did not elaborate.
I ran a quick test on McMurry. We made the 2nd round in football, the first round in men's hoops and scored points in indoor and outdoor men's and women's track. The difference was 326.50 down to 207.131.
Just Bill and Ralph, I have done that repeatedly, and all I get is spring all over again. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Aha, finally found it! Assuming I can still remember how to find the standings tomorrow, I should have a Top 20 up by tomorrow nite or Monday. (I just did WashU for fall, just to convince myself it was all real!)
This is a bigger job than I anticipated - at least for someone with my primitive computing skill who has to tabulate by hand. I'm finding it taking about 15 minutes per school per season! But I AM making progress - just don't look for results before midweek! :P
Wabash and Hampden-Sydney are the only all-male schools - correct? Who are the all-female schools? (Since single-gender schools will inevitably slide way down the DC list, I'll take a special look at each of them to see if they would score high on the single-gender lists; otherwise, I figure if I take the top 30 or so schools, I'm unlikely to miss any high scorers on either list.)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 16, 2012, 06:23:26 PM
Using the above 2010-2011 tallies (if anyone knows of a sport where 2011-2012 would be significantly different, let me know and I'll adjust, but these should be very close), here are the Participation Ratios I calculated: (NOTE: for the denominator, I used the basketball totals, which were highest for each gender - thus they are 1.000; others are participating schools divided by 435 [women] or 412 [men]. Also note, I omitted sports with fewer than 40 schools; the PR would be too tiny to matter much for at least any of the top schools.)
WOMEN'S SPORTS: basketball 1.000, soccer .982, volleyball .979, cross country .943, softball .936, tennis .867, outdoor track .639 swimming/diving .559, indoor track .545, lax .474, golf .384, field hockey .366, ice hockey .113, rowing .092.
MEN'S SPORTS: basketball 1.000, soccer .978, cross country .942, baseball .908, tennis .794, golf .711, outdoor track .663, indoor track .561, football .553 (NOTE: since scoring for the DC is by national tourney placement, I subtracted the 10 NESCAC schools from the numerator), swimming/diving .498, wrestling .214, ice hockey .172, volleyball .136.
I can quite easily calculate the spring sports, but unless someone can point me to the fall and winter sports' DC scores, fall and winter will be a total pain! (Rather than reinvent the wheel for relative scoring, I plan to simply use the DC points times the PR.)
Where is men's lacrosse??
Thanks for the update. What are the trends so far?
What is the average "discount" that you are finding?
Quote from: sunny on June 17, 2012, 10:51:11 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 16, 2012, 06:23:26 PM
Using the above 2010-2011 tallies (if anyone knows of a sport where 2011-2012 would be significantly different, let me know and I'll adjust, but these should be very close), here are the Participation Ratios I calculated: (NOTE: for the denominator, I used the basketball totals, which were highest for each gender - thus they are 1.000; others are participating schools divided by 435 [women] or 412 [men]. Also note, I omitted sports with fewer than 40 schools; the PR would be too tiny to matter much for at least any of the top schools.)
WOMEN'S SPORTS: basketball 1.000, soccer .982, volleyball .979, cross country .943, softball .936, tennis .867, outdoor track .639 swimming/diving .559, indoor track .545, lax .474, golf .384, field hockey .366, ice hockey .113, rowing .092.
MEN'S SPORTS: basketball 1.000, soccer .978, cross country .942, baseball .908, tennis .794, golf .711, outdoor track .663, indoor track .561, football .553 (NOTE: since scoring for the DC is by national tourney placement, I subtracted the 10 NESCAC schools from the numerator), swimming/diving .498, wrestling .214, ice hockey .172, volleyball .136.
I can quite easily calculate the spring sports, but unless someone can point me to the fall and winter sports' DC scores, fall and winter will be a total pain! (Rather than reinvent the wheel for relative scoring, I plan to simply use the DC points times the PR.)
Where is men's lacrosse??
Thanks for catching that! Men's lacrosse was played at 179 schools in 2010-2011, for a PR of .434.
(An especially embarassing omission, since my older son helped found the lax team at his high school, and was the first captain and leading scorer! ::))
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 17, 2012, 10:55:37 PM
Thanks for the update. What are the trends so far?
What is the average "discount" that you are finding?
Too early to comment - I'm still on the fall sports and have done 16 schools so far! :P
Another request for assistance - I'm compiling (and will report) each gender separately (then adding them together for the overall standings), and primarily working with the DC overall standings to select schools to tabulate. Even with the PR, this should work adequately well for getting the top schools overall, but it risks missing schools that are very good in one gender but not the other. If anyone can think of schools which may be only barely top 50-60 overall, but where DC points may have come almost entirely from only one gender, please let me know and I will tabulate them.
I find this very interesting +1 to Mr. Ypsi for all the hard work.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWabash and Hampden-Sydney are the only all-male schools - correct?
St. John's, as well.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWho are the all-female schools?
Too many of 'em for me to name them all off of the top of my head.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 18, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWabash and Hampden-Sydney are the only all-male schools - correct?
St. John's, as well.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWho are the all-female schools?
Too many of 'em for me to name them all off of the top of my head.
With the aid of Wikipedia, here's the list I came up with for women's Div. III. Apologies if I missed any.
Mills
St. Joseph's (CT)
Trinity Washington aka Trinity (DC)
Agnes Scott
Spelman
Wesleyan (GA)
St. Mary's (IN)
Notre Dame (MD)
Bay Path
Mount Holyoke
Pine Manor
Simmons
Smith
Wellesley
St. Benedict
St. Catherine
St. Elizabeth
New Rochelle
Meredith
Peace (now William Peace and co-ed, but no men's sports last year)
Bryn Mawr
Cedar Crest
Chatham
Wilson
Hollins
Mary Baldwin
Sweet Briar
Alverno
Mount Mary
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 18, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWabash and Hampden-Sydney are the only all-male schools - correct?
St. John's, as well.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWho are the all-female schools?
Too many of 'em for me to name them all off of the top of my head.
Thanks, Greg and Sunny. Don't know how I forgot about the Johnnies - I'll check but don't think they had a year anywhere near the top ten. None of those women's schools strike me as top ten material on the women's side - any I'm overlooking and should check out? (I'm planning a top ten for each gender, plus a top 15, perhaps even 20, for overall.)
Some good news - like most any activity it gets more efficient with practice! I'm down to probably 6-7 minutes per school per sport, and have completed fall and winter seasons for 31 schools. I should have lists by at least Tuesday night, at which point people can suggest who I may have overlooked and need to tabulate!
Quote from: sunny on June 18, 2012, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 18, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWabash and Hampden-Sydney are the only all-male schools - correct?
St. John's, as well.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWho are the all-female schools?
Too many of 'em for me to name them all off of the top of my head.
With the aid of Wikipedia, here's the list I came up with for women's Div. III. Apologies if I missed any.
Mills
St. Joseph's (CT)
Trinity Washington aka Trinity (DC)
Agnes Scott
Spelman
Wesleyan (GA)
St. Mary's (IN)
Notre Dame (MD)
Bay Path
Mount Holyoke
Pine Manor
Simmons
Smith
Wellesley
St. Benedict
St. Catherine
St. Elizabeth
New Rochelle
Meredith
Peace (now William Peace and co-ed, but no men's sports last year)
Bryn Mawr
Cedar Crest
Chatham
Wilson
Hollins
Mary Baldwin
Sweet Briar
Alverno
Mount Mary
Great job Sunny, the only one I would add is
Salem College+1
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on June 18, 2012, 03:51:56 PM
Quote from: sunny on June 18, 2012, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 18, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWabash and Hampden-Sydney are the only all-male schools - correct?
St. John's, as well.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PMWho are the all-female schools?
Too many of 'em for me to name them all off of the top of my head.
With the aid of Wikipedia, here's the list I came up with for women's Div. III. Apologies if I missed any.
Mills
St. Joseph's (CT)
Trinity Washington aka Trinity (DC)
Agnes Scott
Spelman
Wesleyan (GA)
St. Mary's (IN)
Notre Dame (MD)
Bay Path
Mount Holyoke
Pine Manor
Simmons
Smith
Wellesley
St. Benedict
St. Catherine
St. Elizabeth
New Rochelle
Meredith
Peace (now William Peace and co-ed, but no men's sports last year)
Bryn Mawr
Cedar Crest
Chatham
Wilson
Hollins
Mary Baldwin
Sweet Briar
Alverno
Mount Mary
Great job Sunny, the only one I would add is Salem College
+1
Thanks! Forgot to type them in somehow, even though I spotted them on the Wikipedia list I was pulling from. Doh!
Earlier than I feared, here is the first (annual?):
YPSI CUP
WOMEN
1. WashU 461.9
2. Amherst 445.8
3. Williams 408.3
4. Midd 402.9
5. Tufts 379.1
6. Emory 361.5
7. JHU 319.7
8. IWU 308.9
9. Ithaca 305.8
10 UWEC 271.3
11 Cortland 271.2
12 Wartburg 250.8
t13 St. Thomas 246.6
t13 Salisbury 246/6
15 CMS 242.5
16 New Jersey 225.9
17 UWW 223.2
t18 Messiah 219.3
t18 MIT 219.3
20 Bowdoin 214.9
MEN
1. UWW 374.1
2. WashU 317.9
3. NCC 308.1
4. Midd 294.7
5. St. Thomas 291.7
6. Amherst 242.9
7. CMS 227.1
8. Bowdoin 219
9. Calvin 214.7
10 MIT 211
11 CNU 210.9
12 UWOsh 210.5
13 UWLaX 209.1
14 IWU 191.3
15 Emory 184.9
16 Cortland 182.8
17 Williams 176.6
18 JHU 164.8
19 Salisbury 164.7
20 Wabash 161.2
TOTAL
1. WashU 779.8
2. Midd 697.6
3. Amherst 688.7
4. UWW 597.3
5. Williams 585
6. Emory 546.4
7. St. Thomas 538.3
8. Tufts 531.8
9. IWU 500.2
10 JHU 484.5
11 CMS 469.6
12 Cortland 454
13 Bowdoin 433.9
14 MIT 430.3
15 Calvin 413.2
16 Ithaca 412.7
17 Salisbury 411.3
18 UWEC 390.9
19 CNU 383.2
20 OWOsh 366.2
21 NCC 359.1
22 Messiah 350.4
23 Wartburg 342.1
24 Rowan 340.8
25 New Jersey 313.4
26 UMU 306.3
27 Springfield 303.9
NOTE that I did NOT tabulate anywhere near all the schools. In my judgement, it is highly unlikely that any other school would place higher than 16th or 17th in each gender, or higher than 24th overall, but if anyone has any likely candidates, let me know and I'll check them out.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 18, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Earlier than I feared, here is the first (annual?):
YPSI CUP
WOMEN
1. WashU 461.9
2. Amherst 445.8
3. Williams 408.3
4. Midd 402.9
5. Tufts 379.1
6. Emory 361.5
7. JHU 319.7
8. IWU 308.9
9. Ithaca 305.8
10 UWEC 271.3
11 Cortland 271.2
12 Wartburg 250.8
t13 St. Thomas 246.6
t13 Salisbury 246/6
15 CMS 242.5
16 New Jersey 225.9
17 UWW 223.2
t18 Messiah 219.3
t18 MIT 219.3
20 Bowdoin 214.9
MEN
1. UWW 374.1
2. WashU 317.9
3. NCC 308.1
4. Midd 294.7
5. St. Thomas 291.7
6. Amherst 242.9
7. CMS 227.1
8. Bowdoin 219
9. Calvin 214.7
10 MIT 211
11 CNU 210.9
12 UWOsh 210.5
13 UWLaX 209.1
14 IWU 191.3
15 Emory 184.9
16 Cortland 182.8
17 Williams 176.6
18 JHU 164.8
19 Salisbury 164.7
20 Wabash 161.2
TOTAL
1. WashU 779.8
2. Midd 697.6
3. Amherst 688.7
4. UWW 597.3
5. Williams 585
6. Emory 546.4
7. St. Thomas 538.3
8. Tufts 531.8
9. IWU 500.2
10 JHU 484.5
11 CMS 469.6
12 Cortland 454
13 Bowdoin 433.9
14 MIT 430.3
15 Calvin 413.2
16 Ithaca 412.7
17 Salisbury 411.3
18 UWEC 390.9
19 CNU 383.2
20 OWOsh 366.2
21 NCC 359.1
22 Messiah 350.4
23 Wartburg 342.1
24 Rowan 340.8
25 New Jersey 313.4
26 UMU 306.3
27 Springfield 303.9
Rank Conference Institution Final
1 NESCAC Middlebury (Vt.) 1040.75
2 UAA Washington University (Mo.) 980.25
3 NESCAC Williams (Mass.) 964.50
4 NESCAC Amherst (Mass.) 950.75
5 WIAC Wisconsin Whitewater 815.50
6 UAA Emory (Ga.) 727.00
7 NESCAC Tufts (Mass.) 724.75
8 MIAC St. Thomas (Minn.) 720.25
9 Centennial Johns Hopkins (Md.) 714.25
10 SUNYAC Cortland State (N.Y.) 673.50
11 NEWMAC Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. 659.25
12 CCIW Illinois Wesleyan 651.25
13 Capital Athletic Conference Salisbury (Md.) 643.00
14 SCIAC Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (Calif.) 610.50
15 WIAC Wisconsin Eau Claire 605.75
16 NESCAC Bowdoin (Maine) 594.00
17 WIAC Wisconsin Oshkosh 583.50
18 IIAC Wartburg (Iowa) 576.75
19 Empire 8 Ithaca (N.Y.) 570.00
20 NJAC New Jersey, College of 555.00
21 NEWMAC Springfield (Mass.) 547.25
22 CCIW North Central (Ill.) 523.00
23 USA South Christopher Newport (Va.) 485.00
24 MIAA Calvin (Mich.) 483.50
25 OAC Mount Union (Ohio) 480.25
26 NJAC Rowan (N.J.) 471.50
27 Middle Atlantic Conferences Messiah (Pa.) 466.00
28 WIAC Wisconsin La Crosse 461.25
29 OAC Ohio Northern 456.00
30 CCIW Carthage (Wis.) 447.75
31 WIAC Wisconsin Stevens Point 443.25
32 IIAC Coe (Iowa) 441.50
33 North Coast Denison (Ohio) 435.50
34 SCAC Trinity (Tex.) 422.00
35 SCIAC Redlands (Calif.) 417.00
36 Liberty League Skidmore (N.Y.) 409.50
37 USA South Methodist (N.C.) 406.50
38 UAA Chicago (Ill.) 405.00
39 MIAC Gustavus Adolphus (Minn.) 395.75
40 Empire 8 Stevens Institute of Tech. (N.J.) 384.50
41 MIAC St. Olaf (Minn.) 382.50
Thanks for the work. It is interesting.
Yes, thank-you! I like the NCC men's rank. :):) The women need to pick it up. If I remember correctly the only contributers on the women's side are the cc and two track teams. Hope you enjoyed doing this. +K
Thanks, Chuck.
I was not as interested in what transpired at the top as much as what happened in the middle. Specifically, I wanted to see if North Park improved from a three-way tie for 229th, as I suspected that NPU's berth in the tourneys of two high-participant sports (men's soccer and baseball) as two of its' three points sources might lead to an improvement in the Ypsi Cup over what the Park had achieved in the Directors' Cup. Secondly, I wanted to see how the Ypsi Cup scoring broke up the massive sixteen-school logjam for 196th place that was one of the biggest ties in the Directors' Cup standings.
Here's how it came out, with the Directors' Cup standing, school name, and points total listed first, and the Ypsi Cup relative rank, school name, and points total listed second. Note that I don't actually have places for the Ypsi Cup, as that would entail calculating the scores of all of the schools above and below the schools listed:
| DC Rank | School | DCPts | School | Ypsi Pts |
| 196 | Alma | 75.00 | William Paterson | 75.00 |
| 196 | Aurora | 75.00 | Maryville | 74.48 |
| 196 | Chapman | 75.00 | Randolph-Macon | 73.95 |
| 196 | Concordia TX | 75.00 | Hardin-Simmons | 73.58 |
| 196 | Drew | 75.00 | Chapman | 73.40 |
| 196 | Elms | 75.00 | Emanuel | 73.00 |
| 196 | Gwynedd-Mercy | 75.00 | Mount St. Mary | 71.68 |
| 196 | Hardin-Simmons | 75.00 | Alma | 71.35 |
| 196 | LaRoche | 75.00 | Concordia TX | 70.40 |
| 196 | Maryville | 75.00 | LaRoche | 70.40 |
| 196 | Mt. St. Mary | 75.00 | Aurora | 69.95 |
| 196 | New England | 75.00 | Shenandoah | 69.95 |
| 196 | Puget Sound | 75.00 | Randolph | 62.59 |
| 196 | Randolph-Macon | 75.00 | Drew | 62.40 |
| 196 | Shenandoah | 75.00 | New England | 59.25 |
| 196 | William Paterson | 75.00 | Brockport State | 58.65 |
| 212 | Emanuel | 73.00 | Manhattanville | 56.45 |
| 213 | Brockport State | 70.50 | Gwynedd-Marcy | 55.83 |
| 214 | Manhattanville | 70.00 | Elms | 52.95 |
| 215 | Sewanee | 69.50 | Rochester | 51.66 |
| 216 | Olivet | 68.00 | Puget Sound | 50.94 |
| 217 | Lehman | 64.00 | North Carolina Wesleyan | 50.82 |
| 217 | North Carolina Wesleyan | 64.00 | North Park | 50.47 |
| 217 | Randolph | 64.00 | Roger Williams | 49.03 |
| 220 | Greensboro | 63.75 | Simpson | 48.77 |
| 221 | Simpson | 62.00 | Lehman | 47.16 |
| 222 | Hamilton | 61.50 | Greensboro | 45.33 |
| 223 | Cornell | 60.50 | PSU-Harrisburg | 38.34 |
| 224 | Elmira | 60.00 | LaGrange | 36.97 |
| 224 | Wentworth | 60.00 | Sewanee | 36.62 |
| 226 | Colby-Sawyer | 59.00 | Hamilton | 34.35 |
| 227 | Concordia WI | 58.00 | Cornell | 32.07 |
| 227 | Plymouth State | 58.00 | Buena Vista | 30.46 |
| 229 | North Park | 55.00 | Concordia WI | 26.91 |
| 229 | Rochester | 55.00 | Colby-Sawyer | 24.48 |
| 229 | Roger Williams | 55.00 | Goucher | 23.00 |
| 232 | Goucher | 53.00 | Olivet | 21.79 |
| 233 | LaGrange | 52.00 | Elmira | 10.32 |
| 234 | PSU-Harrisburg | 51.00 | Wentworth | 10.32 |
| 235 | Buena Vista | 50.50 | Plymouth State | 9.98 |
In all likelihood, NPU would jump 11 places to 218th.
Greg, I'm impressed! (Fortunately you had a lot fewer scores to work with - the schools at the top had generally placed in at least 10-12 sports across all 3 seasons. Though I was surprised to find - at least with having dropped all sports with fewer than 40 participating schools - that the Amherst women were the ONLY group where I had to drop a sport to keep to the maximum of 9 [wouldn't have changed any rankings; they lost 2.8 points for women's ice hockey].)
Greg, thanks for your work as well.
I want to propose that we would see compression of the standings at this point. Your logjam at 196 might actually move higher in the standings. We saw Plymouth St drop dramatically. The "Participation Ratio" discount at this level is not as dramatic for the schools in this level. They are earning the points in the big 4-5(Hoops/Soccer/ XC/ WVB/SB-BB) and adding a few more points from the FB/Tennis/Golf/T&F/LAX/Swim&Diving middle range group of 5-6 sports.
I think that there will be several schools that fall below the "196 group" in the Directors Cup standings, just because they may have racked up points in the "minor sports".
There was very little re-arranging of the deck chairs overall, but I like the outcome even better.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Greg, thanks for your work as well.
I want to propose that we would see compression of the standings at this point. Your logjam at 196 might actually move higher in the standings. We saw Plymouth St drop dramatically. The "Participation Ratio" discount at this level is not as dramatic for the schools in this level. They are earning the points in the big 4-5(Hoops/Soccer/ XC/ WVB/SB-BB) and adding a few more points from the FB/Tennis/Golf/T&F/LAX/Swim&Diving middle range group of 5-6 sports.
I think that there will be several schools that fall below the "196 group" in the Directors Cup standings, just because they may have racked up points in the "minor sports".
There was very little re-arranging of the deck chairs overall, but I like the outcome even better.
Ditto.
North Park is an example of a school that stands to gain every year from the switch to a Participation Ratio, because nine of NPU's 17 varsity sports have a PR over .9, and only one of the 17 (women's rowing) is below .5 -- and women's rowing is a sport in which it's unlikely that NPU will ever be nationally successful, given the northeastern-dominant nature of the sport.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 19, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Greg, thanks for your work as well.
I want to propose that we would see compression of the standings at this point. Your logjam at 196 might actually move higher in the standings. We saw Plymouth St drop dramatically. The "Participation Ratio" discount at this level is not as dramatic for the schools in this level. They are earning the points in the big 4-5(Hoops/Soccer/ XC/ WVB/SB-BB) and adding a few more points from the FB/Tennis/Golf/T&F/LAX/Swim&Diving middle range group of 5-6 sports.
I think that there will be several schools that fall below the "196 group" in the Directors Cup standings, just because they may have racked up points in the "minor sports".
There was very little re-arranging of the deck chairs overall, but I like the outcome even better.
Ditto.
North Park is an example of a school that stands to gain every year from the switch to a Participation Ratio, because nine of NPU's 17 varsity sports have a PR over .9, and only one of the 17 (women's rowing) is below .5 -- and women's rowing is a sport in which it's unlikely that NPU will ever be nationally successful, given the northeastern-dominant nature of the sport.
Well, for rowing purposes, North Park is a Mid-Atlantic school -- as is Marietta, who repped the Mid-Atlantic at NCAAs this year. But your point is still valid. ;D
Quote from: sunny on June 19, 2012, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 19, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Greg, thanks for your work as well.
I want to propose that we would see compression of the standings at this point. Your logjam at 196 might actually move higher in the standings. We saw Plymouth St drop dramatically. The "Participation Ratio" discount at this level is not as dramatic for the schools in this level. They are earning the points in the big 4-5(Hoops/Soccer/ XC/ WVB/SB-BB) and adding a few more points from the FB/Tennis/Golf/T&F/LAX/Swim&Diving middle range group of 5-6 sports.
I think that there will be several schools that fall below the "196 group" in the Directors Cup standings, just because they may have racked up points in the "minor sports".
There was very little re-arranging of the deck chairs overall, but I like the outcome even better.
Ditto.
North Park is an example of a school that stands to gain every year from the switch to a Participation Ratio, because nine of NPU's 17 varsity sports have a PR over .9, and only one of the 17 (women's rowing) is below .5 -- and women's rowing is a sport in which it's unlikely that NPU will ever be nationally successful, given the northeastern-dominant nature of the sport.
Well, for rowing purposes, North Park is a Mid-Atlantic school -- as is Marietta, who repped the Mid-Atlantic at NCAAs this year. But your point is still valid. ;D
In the CCIW, we sometimes jokingly refer to Augustana as the River (or West) Vikings, and North Park as the Lake (or East) Vikings - should Lake be changed to Ocean?! ;D
I ran four more schools; slight changes:
REVISED YPSI CUP
WOMEN
1. WashU 461.9
2. Amherst 445.8
3. Williams 408.3
4. Midd 402.9
5. Tufts 379.1
6. Emory 361.5
7. JHU 319.7
8. IWU 308.9
9. Ithaca 305.8
10 UWEC 271.3
11 Cortland 271.2
12 Wartburg 250.8
t13 St. Thomas 246.6
t13 Salisbury 246/6
15 CMS 242.5
16 ONU 233.9
17 New Jersey 225.9
18 UWW 223.2
19 Carthage 220.1
t20 Messiah 219.3
t20 MIT 219.3
MEN
1. UWW 374.1
2. WashU 317.9
3. NCC 308.1
4. Midd 294.7
5. St. Thomas 291.7
6. Amherst 242.9
7. CMS 227.1
8. Bowdoin 219
9. Calvin 214.7
10 MIT 211
11 CNU 210.9
12 UWOsh 210.5
13 UWLaX 209.1
14 IWU 191.3
15 Emory 184.9
16 Cortland 182.8
17 Williams 176.6
18 JHU 164.8
19 Salisbury 164.7
20 Wabash 161.2
TOTAL
1. WashU 779.8
2. Midd 697.6
3. Amherst 688.7
4. UWW 597.3
5. Williams 585
6. Emory 546.4
7. St. Thomas 538.3
8. Tufts 531.8
9. IWU 500.2
10 JHU 484.5
11 CMS 469.6
12 Cortland 454
13 Bowdoin 433.9
14 MIT 430.3
15 Calvin 413.2
16 Ithaca 412.7
17 Salisbury 411.3
18 UWEC 390.9
19 CNU 383.2
20 OWOsh 366.2
21 NCC 359.1
22 Messiah 350.4
23 Wartburg 342.1
24 Rowan 340.8
25 ONU 340.6
I have shortened the lists slightly, and am now reasonably confident they do reflect the top finishers in each category.
(An aside: I commented earlier that the Amherst women were the only category that had a sport cut due to the maximum 9 sports per gender. It didn't cost them here, since women's ice hockey only got them 2.8 PR points. But, unless someone scored on the <40 schools sports than I omitted, it DID cost them third place in the DC to arch-rival Williams, since non-PR it was 25 points!)
Lest anyone pull out their hair looking for the changes: for the women, ONU enters at 16th and Carthage at 19th; no change for the men; ONU enters at 25th for overall.
I also checked out UWSP and Coe, but neither came particularly close to entering the lists. Going any further down the DC overall list seemed pointless, unless someone is pretty sure a school not too much further down received nearly all their points from only one gender.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 19, 2012, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: sunny on June 19, 2012, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 19, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Greg, thanks for your work as well.
I want to propose that we would see compression of the standings at this point. Your logjam at 196 might actually move higher in the standings. We saw Plymouth St drop dramatically. The "Participation Ratio" discount at this level is not as dramatic for the schools in this level. They are earning the points in the big 4-5(Hoops/Soccer/ XC/ WVB/SB-BB) and adding a few more points from the FB/Tennis/Golf/T&F/LAX/Swim&Diving middle range group of 5-6 sports.
I think that there will be several schools that fall below the "196 group" in the Directors Cup standings, just because they may have racked up points in the "minor sports".
There was very little re-arranging of the deck chairs overall, but I like the outcome even better.
Ditto.
North Park is an example of a school that stands to gain every year from the switch to a Participation Ratio, because nine of NPU's 17 varsity sports have a PR over .9, and only one of the 17 (women's rowing) is below .5 -- and women's rowing is a sport in which it's unlikely that NPU will ever be nationally successful, given the northeastern-dominant nature of the sport.
Well, for rowing purposes, North Park is a Mid-Atlantic school -- as is Marietta, who repped the Mid-Atlantic at NCAAs this year. But your point is still valid. ;D
In the CCIW, we sometimes jokingly refer to Augustana as the River (or West) Vikings, and North Park as the Lake (or East) Vikings - should Lake be changed to Ocean?! ;D
You keep saying that Augustana is the River Vikings, yet Augustana doesn't have a river running through its' campus, and North Park does.
(OK, so the North Branch of the Chicago River is a sorry excuse for a river ... but it still counts. ;))
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 19, 2012, 09:55:56 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 19, 2012, 07:09:28 PM
Quote from: sunny on June 19, 2012, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 19, 2012, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Greg, thanks for your work as well.
I want to propose that we would see compression of the standings at this point. Your logjam at 196 might actually move higher in the standings. We saw Plymouth St drop dramatically. The "Participation Ratio" discount at this level is not as dramatic for the schools in this level. They are earning the points in the big 4-5(Hoops/Soccer/ XC/ WVB/SB-BB) and adding a few more points from the FB/Tennis/Golf/T&F/LAX/Swim&Diving middle range group of 5-6 sports.
I think that there will be several schools that fall below the "196 group" in the Directors Cup standings, just because they may have racked up points in the "minor sports".
There was very little re-arranging of the deck chairs overall, but I like the outcome even better.
Ditto.
North Park is an example of a school that stands to gain every year from the switch to a Participation Ratio, because nine of NPU's 17 varsity sports have a PR over .9, and only one of the 17 (women's rowing) is below .5 -- and women's rowing is a sport in which it's unlikely that NPU will ever be nationally successful, given the northeastern-dominant nature of the sport.
Well, for rowing purposes, North Park is a Mid-Atlantic school -- as is Marietta, who repped the Mid-Atlantic at NCAAs this year. But your point is still valid. ;D
In the CCIW, we sometimes jokingly refer to Augustana as the River (or West) Vikings, and North Park as the Lake (or East) Vikings - should Lake be changed to Ocean?! ;D
You keep saying that Augustana is the River Vikings, yet Augustana doesn't have a river running through its' campus, and North Park does.
(OK, so the North Branch of the Chicago River is a sorry excuse for a river ... but it still counts. ;))
True, but Augie is
near the 'Mighty Mississip' and North Park is
near the largest lake entirely within the US.
Still, since NPU is on a river and Augie isn't, it's just easier to call North Park the Good Vikings and Augustana the Evil Vikings.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 20, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
Still, since NPU is on a river and Augie isn't, it's just easier to call North Park the Good Vikings and Augustana the Evil Vikings.
No way am I going there - you and dansand can fight it out! ;D
Though I will add (as a Titan): Augie is the Evil Vikings, but NPU (in most sports, alas) is still the bad Vikings. ;)
Those Middle Ages Europeans were right: there's no such thing as 'good' Vikings! 8-)
Chuck, you really don't want to know what adjective I put in front of "Titans." ;)
But the rest of usz do:):):)....and however you describe the Cards as well:)
Quote from: newcardfan on June 21, 2012, 03:53:07 PM
But the rest of usz do:):):)....and however you describe the Cards as well:)
Just a hunch, but Greg might get himself banned if he typed in the word! ;D
don't tease!!