SI Gets Silly


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

SI Gets Silly

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:08 pm

Hey, Sports Illustrated, keep you day job, cuz The Onion already has satire covered. In a home-page-linked article they tried to pick the NCAA's top sports program. Here is the exact quote to lead the article.

With 330 Division I schools in the U.S., picking the nation's top athletic program is a daunting task. For nearly two decades, the Collegiate Directors of Athletics have done so, using components like a "64-team non-bracket point system" to determine the Directors' Cup winner. (Stanford finished on top in '07-08 for the 14th consecutive year). But critics argue that its formula is extremely complicated. Moreover, Stanford will likely continue to dominate for years to come.
In an effort to be a little less complicated, we came up with a different scoring system, . . . The results are in and Arizona State is No. 1.


So, recapping,

* a very good system was already in place that picked Stanford
* we dumbed down the process
* we were looking for a different winner, because SU winning every year is getting boring
* we named ASU #1

Who says good satire is dead; New Yorker, are you taking notes? :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby dukehjsteve » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:08 pm

Of course, totally unbiased comments from Marlow !
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:18 pm

dukehjsteve wrote:Of course, totally unbiased comments from Marlow !

So tell me what you think of SI, who didn't rank Duke in the top 25, but the Director's Cup had them at #8!!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby dukehjsteve » Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:06 pm

Marlow wrote:
dukehjsteve wrote:Of course, totally unbiased comments from Marlow !

So tell me what you think of SI, who didn't rank Duke in the top 25, but the Director's Cup had them at #8!!!


ON SECOND THOUGHT, marlow is an incisive, non-biased observer... as am I. SI is a bunch of idiots !!!!!

After all, what's more important, women's golf or football ?
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby BillVol » Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:07 pm

I like the SI formula. Here's why. 16 men's sports and 19 women's sports. The NACDA Director's Cup only counts 10 sports each for men and women in their scoring formula -- the top ten sports for each gender. So if Stanford's water polo team is the tenth-best team at Stanford and football is eleventh, water polo is used in Stanford's overall score. Football would not even be scored!!! Football should be scored in any logical all-sports competition formula.

Most schools do not field so many teams. In the SEC, for example, Tennessee fields nine men's sports and the women eleven. I think this is a typical number of varsity sports for most major schools. Most schools do not have the pool of sports to choose from for the NACDA scoring formula. Stanford is going to win it every year.

The SI formula is much more applicable to the typical Division I school.

http://nacda.cstv.com/directorscup/nacd ... oring.html
BillVol
 
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Postby bambam » Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:32 pm

Marlow wrote:
dukehjsteve wrote:Of course, totally unbiased comments from Marlow !

So tell me what you think of SI, who didn't rank Duke in the top 25, but the Director's Cup had them at #8!!!


That's because our football and baseball teams are so bad. Unfortunate, because we are in the top 10 nationally in almost every other college sport, save track & field. But even there, the last decade has seen us really improve. The school is giving more scholarships, and more support to the sport, and we've had several good female distance runners (and Shannon Rowbury) and Jillian Schwartz in the vault.

But I am worried about that support. We have a new AD, Kevin White (from Notre Dame) and he has made it a priority to upgrade Wallace Wade Stadium - the football stadium, but also where numerous great track meets have been held - 70s US/African meets, 1987 National Sports Festivals, NCAAs in 1990 and also later in the 90s. With the upgrade, the rumor is that they will remove the track from the stadium. Not sure where they will put one, or even if they will. Years ago, TAFNews noted Wallace Wade was the permanent US stadium with the largest seating capacity in which all events could be held within the stadium, outside of LA. Perhaps no more.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Postby dukehjsteve » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:02 pm

hi bambam, good to hear from a brother Blue Devil.

I do not like to say it, but the current track configuration at Wade Stadium makes it a TERRIBLE place to watch a big track meet.... the open ends of the horseshoe are so bent inwards that you can't see the runners come off the last turn ! Has driven me nuts at the 2 NCAA meets I went to.
Last edited by dukehjsteve on Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:02 pm

BillVol wrote:I like the SI formula. Here's why.
In the SI formula my beloved Vols are #10. In that stinky Director's Cup standings they're only #16!!!

:twisted:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby tandfman » Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:21 pm

dukehjsteve wrote:hi bambam, good to hear from a brother Blue Devil.

I do not like to say it, but the current track configuration at Wade Stadium makes it a TERRIBLE place to watch a big track meet.... the open ends of the horseshoe are so bent inwards that you can't see the runners come off the last turn ! Has driven me nuts at the 2 NCAA meets I went to.

I've always sat on the backstretch at Wade. OK, a bit of the turn to your right is blocked, but if you stand up you don't miss much. And you see the entire home straight.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby BillVol » Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:13 pm

Marlow wrote:
BillVol wrote:I like the SI formula. Here's why.
In the SI formula my beloved Vols are #10. In that stinky Director's Cup standings they're only #16!!!

:twisted:


LOL. Jeez, I don't remember posting that. But seriously, should skiiing count more than football in an all-sports competition? In the NACDA formula, it could.

Didn't know you were a "tree," Marlow. I admire Stanford's program. I wish we could field all the sports you guys do.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Postby tandfman » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:02 am

BillVol wrote:Didn't know you were a "tree," Marlow. I admire Stanford's program. I wish we could field all the sports you guys do.

Why couldn't you, if you chose to? Isn't it just a question of how a school values intercollegiate athletics (other than revenue producers) and how it chooses to allocate its resources?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:22 am

tandfman wrote:Why couldn't you, if you chose to? Isn't it just a question of how a school values intercollegiate athletics (other than revenue producers) and how it chooses to allocate its resources?


I think Bill would. I'm not so sure Tennessee will, just on his say-so. :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:12 am

What I don't get is why LSU only gets credit for one national championship.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:19 am

tandfman wrote:
BillVol wrote:Didn't know you were a "tree," Marlow. I admire Stanford's program. I wish we could field all the sports you guys do.

Why couldn't you, if you chose to? Isn't it just a question of how a school values intercollegiate athletics (other than revenue producers) and how it chooses to allocate its resources?


If schools had salary caps, sure, but obviously the real world doesn't work that way. There are few schools in the soloar system that have the same "resources" as Stanford does.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Marlow » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:21 am

gh wrote:There are few schools in the soloar system that have the same "resources" as Stanford does.

gh may know better than I, but I think Stanford has a steady endowment in-stream from both HP (Hewlitt-Packard) and Google!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby RMc » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:01 am

Seems the scoring system should weight each sport by how many schools participate in each sport, e.g., I believe that basketball would be the most important sport. This would measure the true competitiveness in each sport. How to treat football may be a special case because it's so expensive.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:43 am

In the reality of our USA culture, Florida is/was #1, by virtue of its back-to-back NCAA Bball titles and concomitant football national championship.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby BillVol » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:33 pm

There was an article a year or so about Stanford's athletics budget. Their budget doesn't usually appear among the top colleges. But it pointed out the endowment someone was talking about in this thread. From it, Stanford has a lot of money available to use for sports, much more than we do. Hard to believe that our budget is approaching $100 M per year, but we are stretched thin. We have a lot of debt on our facilities. I don't think Tennessee could afford to add more than one men's sport to the program. They are talking men's soccer now, but they've been saying that for years.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Postby dukehjsteve » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:43 pm

Can someone answer this simple question ? How do schools justify paying for non-revenue baseball teams to travel around and play 60 games , but cannot pay for 5 or 6 track dual meets ?!
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby richxx87 » Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:38 am

Don't mean to be a "homer" but merely from an objective statistical point of view, if they'd included Water Polo, then UCLA would've won handily. It's a very arbitrary, and bizarre, methodology. I could think of 10 different variations and get 10 different champs if I wanted to be similarly arbitrary. The bottom line is, across the board, UCLA is the #1 sports school (regularly finishing in the top15 medal count in the Olympics). In essence, with such statistical methods, they are sending the message that schools that provide opportunities for women to play water polo (3 of whom will represent the USA in Beijing) etc. are somehow verboten??!!

The fact that some schools put a high priority on a wide variety of sports, as Stanford, UCLA, etc. do, should be celebrated and rewarded... not manipulated and marginalized so they don't count.

And on that note, ASU should have been automatically DQed because they friggin' DROPPED three "minor" sports this year, leaving several dozen athletes and coaches totally screwed.
richxx87
 
Posts: 1833
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Bali

Postby Marlow » Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:23 am

richxx87 wrote:The fact that some schools put a high priority on a wide variety of sports, as Stanford, UCLA, etc. do, should be celebrated and rewarded... not manipulated and marginalized so they don't count.


Even I realize that it really is important for a school to be Top 20 in both Football and Baseball. I love the fact that SU is so egalitarian, but I really wish Admissions could lighten up a little for some blue-chippers to get in. Trust me when I say that the classes at SU are not THAT hard and there's always some Basketweaving types. I had an 'A' in Badminton AND in SCUBA diving; I kid you not. :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby BillVol » Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:12 pm

rich: What is sad and hard to believe is that UCLA dropped men's swimming and diving a few years ago. Pretty sure that was a program that produced at least one national title for the Bruins.

Marlow: A Stanford women's basketball player said that the hardest thing about SU is getting admitted. After that, it's not that hard, she said.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Postby RMc » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:06 pm

BillVol wrote:Marlow: A Stanford women's basketball player said that the hardest thing about SU is getting admitted. After that, it's not that hard, she said.


We Cal grads have been saying that for decades. The ability to drop a course the last week of the quarter has always been a rich one... :wink:
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:10 pm

BillVol wrote:Marlow: A Stanford women's basketball player said that the hardest thing about SU is getting admitted. After that, it's not that hard, she said.

I agree. SU is very proud of its graduation rate, so it goes to great lengths to ensure that its students get through.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Marlow » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:13 pm

RMc wrote:
BillVol wrote:Marlow: A Stanford women's basketball player said that the hardest thing about SU is getting admitted. After that, it's not that hard, she said.


We Cal grads have been saying that for decades. The ability to drop a course the last week of the quarter has always been a rich one... :wink:


The difference is that Cal TRIES to flunk its freshmen (and does a pretty good job), because it is the state's primary public institution, so it overadmits. Stanford actually esteems those it admits and wants to see them succeed!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby RMc » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:18 pm

Marlow wrote:
RMc wrote:
BillVol wrote:Marlow: A Stanford women's basketball player said that the hardest thing about SU is getting admitted. After that, it's not that hard, she said.


We Cal grads have been saying that for decades. The ability to drop a course the last week of the quarter has always been a rich one... :wink:


The difference is that Cal TRIES to flunk its freshmen (and does a pretty good job), because it is the state's primary public institution, so it overadmits. Stanford actually esteems those it admits and wants to see them succeed!


Ahh, the coddling.... What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.... :wink:
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:07 pm

Story now linked on the front page here says Stanford may be cutting their athletic dept. budget.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:18 pm

tandfman wrote:Story now linked on the front page here says Stanford may be cutting their athletic dept. budget.

In 2008
Stanford had a $3.8 BILLION budget
From its $17 BILLION endowment, it gained ONE BILLION in income
It generated almost another BILLION in fundraising

And it wants to quibble over a $5 MILLION athletic shortfall?

I'm ashamed . . . :oops:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:00 pm

Well, you know how it is. $5 million here, $5 million there . . . pretty soon you're talking about real money. :)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:06 am

Local columnist says football isn't pulling its weight down on The Farm


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:34 am

gh wrote:Local columnist says football isn't pulling its weight down on The Farm


I was stewing over this predicament and it suddenly dawned on me what's going on. They're squawking so that some Sugar Daddy will cough up the 5 Mil to 'save' Farm Sports. It's a total bluff. If they cut any sports, they would would see far more than 5 Mil NOT being donated to the Annual Fund. Wait'll they get my nasty letter if they try! :twisted:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: SI Gets Silly

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:45 pm

Ho-hum . . . **YAWN** . . . Stanford just won the Director's Cup again, for about the 114th time in row . . .

The Directors' Cup is presented annually by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA), Learfield Sports and USA Today to the best overall collegiate athletics programs in the country. Stanford boasted an impressive 10 top-five finishes this season, taking home the men's volleyball and women's tennis championships, placing second in women's soccer, women's basketball, men's gymnastics and women's water polo, and third in women's swimming.

Stanford has won at least one national championship for 34 consecutive years, an ongoing NCAA record.
2010 Final Standings
1. Stanford 1,508.50
4. UCLA 1,124,00
9. California 1,013.50
13. USC 906.50
14. Oregon 878.50
22. Arizona State 792.50
24. Washington 770.75
30. Arizona 683.50
68. Oregon State 284.50
79. Washington State 217.50


I'm sure the Tree Farm Hatas out there are pooh-poohing the fact that only Football and Basketball should count in the standings, but I'm OK with SU as THE Renaissance School of nation. :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re:

Postby TN1965 » Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:26 pm

RMc wrote:Seems the scoring system should weight each sport by how many schools participate in each sport, e.g., I believe that basketball would be the most important sport. This would measure the true competitiveness in each sport. How to treat football may be a special case because it's so expensive.


Football should be weighted based on the number of schools in each subdivision. Schools in the Bowl subdivision and those in Championship subdivision do not compete for the same title.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re:

Postby TN1965 » Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:30 am

dukehjsteve wrote:After all, what's more important, women's golf or football ?


Women's golf by far. 235 D-I schools have women's golf team. Only 120 compete in the Bowl subvision of D-I football. Actually, that's way too generous for football because many of those 120 schools cannot compete for the national title even if they go undefeated.

If you add all the D-I schools, there are about as many football teams as women's golf teams. But they compete for TWO national titles in separate subdivisions, instead of one.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: SI Gets Silly

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:44 pm

How negligent of me to overlook this news from a couple of weeks ago:

Stanford captured its 19th straight Directors' Cup with 1261.25 total points, just 16.50 points ahead of second place Florida. The Cardinal captured the women’s tennis title. The Cardinal had four scores omitted due to the maximum 20 allowed for both women’s and men’s sports – women’s field hockey, women’s lacrosse, women’s rowing and softball.


Note to Mary Cain: we're keeping a light on for you, girlfren. :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: SI Gets Silly

Postby DrJay » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:10 pm

Shittiest website you could imagine. Almost impossible to find the top ten list on it:
1. Stanford 1261.25 pts
2. Florida 1244.75
3. UCLA 1227.25
4. Michigan 1138.25
5.Texas A&M 1131.50
6. Penn State 1100.00
7. Oklahoma 1078.25
8. North Carolina 1075.33
9. Notre Dame 1015.50
10. Georgia 1006.75

http://www.nacda.com/directorscup/nacda ... oring.html
Last edited by DrJay on Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: SI Gets Silly

Postby Marlow » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:49 pm

It's be very interesting to run this for past years.

1899 - Yale, Harvard?

1930 - Army, Notre Dame?

1960 - USC, UCLA?

Michigan a couple of years?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests