MBB: University Athletic Association

[Gregory Sager]

I don't think much of the methodology behind the Learfield Directors' Cup. They award 100 points across the board for every national championship team, regardless of the size of the national tournament/meet field. That makes no sense, because the number of participating schools -- and, thus, the size of the national tournament/meet fields -- varies widely from sport to sport. If you're going to measure schools by all-sports performances, then you ought to value the sports proportionally. It's a bigger accomplishment to win the bracket of 64 teams in the men's or women's basketball tournaments, which represent total fields of well over 400 participating schools apiece, than it is to win the bracket of 10 teams in the men's volleyball tournament, which represents a total field of only 82 participating schools, or the bracket of eight teams in the women's ice hockey tournament, which represents a total field of a mere 60 participating schools. And yet men's hoops champion Babson and women's hoops titlist Amherst received the same number of points in the Directors' Cup standings for those achievements as Springfield won for men's volleyball and Plattsburgh State won for women's ice hockey.

I would score each sport by the size of the national tournament/meet, halving the number of points awarded down the bracket on a place-by-place basis to a minimum of one point per team. The men's basketball championship, in other words, should be worth 64 points for Babson, while the runner-up (Augustana) would get 32 points, the two third-place teams (Whitman and Williams) would get 16 points apiece, the four fifth-place teams (Rochester, Keene State, Middlebury, and Hanover) would get eight points apiece, the eight ninth-place teams (Hardin-Simmons, Marietta, Christopher Newport, Tufts, Endicott, Susquehanna, Wartburg, and Hope) would each receive four points, the 16 teams that won the tourney opener and then lost the next night would get two points apiece, and the 32 teams that made the tourney but lost on the first night would each get a point. By contrast, the men's volleyball championship should be worth only 10 points for Springfield.

However, recognizing that there is a special stand-alone value in winning the Walnut & Bronze, I'd award three extra points to each champion. That way, the football champion (Mary Hardin-Baylor) scores a little better (35 points) for its title than Augustana gets for finishing second in the men's basketball tournament (32 points). That seems fair to me, although others may disagree. Likewise, Springfield would see its point total raised to 13 for winning the men's volleyball title, and women's ice hockey champion Plattsburgh State would get 11 points rather than eight.

The meet sports (men's and women's cross-country, swimming/diving, indoor track & field, outdoor track & field, and golf, the women-only sport of rowing, and the men-only sport of wrestling) score team totals by individual finishes, so they need to be scored differently by this system. I would use the 6.5:1 participation ratio for D3 national championships to determine the point value of each of those sports' champions. Thus, the women's cross-country national championship team would get the maximum 64-point value (the NCAA caps D3 tournament sizes at 64 teams per sport), men's indoor track & field would get 43, and so on down to wrestling (15 points) and rowing (six points). Teams that score lower than the sport's point value (e.g., the 44th place team in the men's indoor track & field meet) would get a fraction of a single point.

These would be the point values per D3 championship sport:

men's cross-country	62	women's cross-country	64
football	32	field hockey	24
men's soccer	62	women's soccer	64
men's volleyball	10	women's volleyball	64
men's basketball	64	women's basketball	64
men's ice hockey	12	women's ice hockey	8
men's swimming & diving	34	women's swimming & diving	38
men's indoor track & field	43	women's indoor track & field	44
wrestling	15	rowing	6
baseball	56	softball	62
men's golf	46	women's golf	32
men's lacrosse	32	women's lacrosse	40
men's tennis	43	women's tennis	49
men's outdoor track & field	47	women's outdoor track & field	48

For the sports that have point values that don't follow the exponential pattern of two (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64), the totals would have to be adjusted on a sport-by-sport basis to reach the one-point minimum for each team. The Directors' Cup actually does this already, to a degree, but it doesn't break it down fully. For instance, for women's tennis I'd break it down thus:

First place	49 (+3 = 52 pts)
Second place	29.5
Third place	14.75
Fifth place	7.38
Ninth place	3.69
Seventeenth place	1.7
Eliminated in first round	1

This system would still favor the schools that sponsor a very large number of sports and thus annually dominate the Directors' Cup standings (e.g., the UAA and NESCAC schools), but it would put each sport in its proper perspective in terms of how many D3 schools actually compete in that sport.

[ronk]

 Any arguments against the proposal? Let the calculators hum!!!

[WUPHF]

I would score each sport by the size of the national tournament/meet, halving the number of points awarded down the bracket on a place-by-place basis to a minimum of one point per team.

This was a great post...thanks for raising the issue and sharing your thoughts.

You mentioned the overall number of teams competing in basketball.  I think that may need to be factored in to the equation.  I would have to think about this more, but I feel as though we could look at participation in football, for example, and argue that it should not be penalized by the fact that it is a challenge to offer a larger field.  Correct me if I am wrong here: is there a reason for the football programs to believe they are being penalized?

If you excluded skiing on purpose, I would agree.  There are simply not enough programs (> 30) to include skiing in the Director's Cup rankings and yet Williams earned 54 points for skiing this season.

Overall, I do think you are on to something...

Minor, minor quibble: as far as who has an advantage now and who would with these changes, it is true that the UAA schools have structural advantages that many other schools do not and that I must temper my frustration when I talk about Williams as a 30 team juggernaut, but the UAA schools are offering no more programs on average than the best CCIW or WIAC programs.

[Gregory Sager]

I would score each sport by the size of the national tournament/meet, halving the number of points awarded down the bracket on a place-by-place basis to a minimum of one point per team.

This was a great post...thanks for raising the issue and sharing your thoughts.

You mentioned the overall number of teams competing in basketball.  I think that may need to be factored in to the equation.  I would have to think about this more, but I feel as though we could look at participation in football, for example, and argue that it should not be penalized by the fact that it is a challenge to offer a larger field.  Correct me if I am wrong here: is there a reason for the football programs to believe they are being penalized?

I don't think so. There isn't necessarily a correspondence between institutional wealth and sponsorship of football. There are a number of comparatively wealthy schools that don't offer football (Calvin, NYU, Brandeis, and Caltech all come to mind; I'm sure that there's more), while there are a lot of low-endowment, tuition-driven schools that have football programs.

Football is actually a growing sport in intercollegiate athletics in terms of the number of schools that offer it. While fielding a football program does constitute an initial challenge, at least, whether that challenge is insuperable is a matter of debate for a lot of schools. The start-up costs can be considerable, of course, and securing a stadium (or the footprint to build one) can be difficult for urban schools. But the flip side of that is the fact that a football program can put anywhere from 80 to 130 or more student-athletes on campus that wouldn't otherwise be there, which is a strong incentive for a tuition-driven school, and in an era in which the female:male student ratios of small liberal arts colleges are often 2:1 or more, adding a football program can be a significant contributor to correcting that imbalance.

The bottom line for me is that I think an all-sports trophy should be scored upon the same basis of equity that drives D3's philosophy in general. Football is one of the two most high-profile sports on this level, as it is on every level of intercollegiate sports, but the people in charge of D3 try hard to ensure that it doesn't get any special advantages. The same philosophy should hold true for scoring an all-sports trophy.

If you excluded skiing on purpose, I would agree.  There are simply not enough programs (> 30) to include skiing in the Director's Cup rankings and yet Williams earned 54 points for skiing this season.

I included only sports that have D3 championships. Some sports (skiing, rifle, equestrian, men's water polo, women's water polo, etc.) are transdivisional, and have generic NCAA championships. That's because, as you alluded, relatively few schools from any of the three divisions offer the sport. F'rinstance, only 14 D3 schools have skiing programs (all 14 have them for both men and women).

Overall, I do think you are on to something...

Thanks. I've actually been thinking about this for a few years now. Your discussion here set me to finally looking at the numbers to see how it would work.

Minor, minor quibble: as far as who has an advantage now and who would with these changes, it is true that the UAA schools have structural advantages that many other schools do not and that I must temper my frustration when I talk about Williams as a 30 team juggernaut, but the UAA schools are offering no more programs on average than the best CCIW or WIAC programs.

I had been looking at Rochester's site the other day -- the U of R sponsors 21 varsity sports -- and I know that NYU has a very large number of programs as well. But by and large you're right about UAA schools not having outsized menus in terms of athletics offerings, so I shouldn't put your league's schools in the same yacht as the we'd-sponsor-croquet-squash-and-ballroom-dancing-as-well-if-the-NCAA-would-give-us-trophies-for-them swells from the NESCAC.

[WUPHF]

There isn't necessarily a correspondence between institutional wealth and sponsorship of football. There are a number of comparatively wealthy schools that don't offer football (Calvin, NYU, Brandeis, and Caltech all come to mind; I'm sure that there's more), while there are a lot of low-endowment, tuition-driven schools that have football programs.

I was thinking only along the lines of the fact that Basketball, Soccer and other are worth 100% more points considering the overall profile of football.  I was also thinking about whether or not the football tournament field is smaller given the constraints of playing multiple football games over multiple weekends, but I am guessing that this is not a consideration.  The point about the Division III philosophy is well taken.

Incidentally, it is a shame that NYU no longer offers football given the role NYU plays in the history of the game.

Football is actually a growing sport in intercollegiate athletics in terms of the number of schools that offer it. While fielding a football program does constitute an initial challenge, at least, whether that challenge is insuperable is a matter of debate for a lot of schools. The start-up costs can be considerable, of course, and securing a stadium (or the footprint to build one) can be difficult for urban schools. But the flip side of that is the fact that a football program can put anywhere from 80 to 130 or more student-athletes on campus that wouldn't otherwise be there, which is a strong incentive for a tuition-driven school, and in an era in which the female:male student ratios of small liberal arts colleges are often 2:1 or more, adding a football program can be a significant contributor to correcting that imbalance.

I have no way to test this theory, but I have long wondered how the presence of football, men's basketball and such affects non-athlete student recruitment and retention (and alumni donations), especially in the rural institutions.

For example, cancel the football program and the five percent of the overall student population (and great percentage of males) and transfer them to Illinois State.  What does that school look like?  Does having varsity football contribute to the overall ethos of the institutions in a way that goes beyond the program?  I am not sure, but I think there may be something to that.

[WUPHF]

Just a random thought on the Director's Cup...

Division II Northwest Missouri State University won both the football and basketball national championships this season but still only finished 47th in the Director's Cup.

[Gregory Sager]

What makes that even weirder is that D2 schools don't tend to be as athletically diverse as their D3 counterparts. In D3, athletics is often viewed as a revenue driver with regard to tuition income at smaller private schools where the annual budget is at least partially tuition-driven, so a lot of small schools offer a surprisingly large number of sports. That's less of an issue in D2, which has a significantly higher percentage of public schools. Likewise, D2 lacks the large cluster of tony northeastern colleges that sponsor every sport that the NCAA deems fit to throw a trophy at. You'd think, then, that two national titles would go a longer way in the Directors' Cup standings on the D2 level than they would in D3. I guess that they don't.

Realistically, though, unless you're a Bearcats coach or player in one of the so-called non-revenue sports (or a family member or significant other of one of those coaches or players), my gut instinct tells me that the Northwest Missouri State faithful would much, much rather be simultaneous champions in football and men's basketball than to be sitting in Grand Valley State's shoes as the Directors' Cup champion.

[gordonmann]

...so I shouldn't put your league's schools in the same yacht as the we'd-sponsor-croquet-squash-and-ballroom-dancing-as-well-if-the-NCAA-would-give-us-trophies-for-them swells from the NESCAC.

The squash-flavored chicken croquet at my alma mater's ballroom dancing events is divine.

Division II Northwest Missouri State University won both the football and basketball national championships this season but still only finished 47th in the Director's Cup.

Whitewater won the football, men's basketball and baseball championships a couple years ago and still didn't win the Learfield Cup. No offense to my friends at Williams, but that's when I realized this isn't the best measure of overall athletic program strength.

[Gregory Sager]

Whitewater won the football, men's basketball and baseball championships a couple years ago and still didn't win the Learfield Cup. No offense to my friends at Williams, but that's when I realized this isn't the best measure of overall athletic program strength.

Well, then, what do you think of my proposal, Gordon?

(Not that I'm looking for some official blessing, or for d3sports.com to get into the all-sports-award business, but your input would certainly be valuable and welcome.)

[WUPHF]

Realistically, though, unless you're a Bearcats coach or player in one of the so-called non-revenue sports (or a family member or significant other of one of those coaches or players), my gut instinct tells me that the Northwest Missouri State faithful would much, much rather be simultaneous champions in football and men's basketball than to be sitting in Grand Valley State's shoes as the Directors' Cup champion.

No question about that.

Whitewater won the football, men's basketball and baseball championships a couple years ago and still didn't win the Learfield Cup. No offense to my friends at Williams, but that's when I realized this isn't the best measure of overall athletic program strength.

I had no idea Whitewater won all three, but by any standard, that is an incredible feat.

[gordonmann]

Well, then, what do you think of my proposal, Gordon?

I like it. It appeals to my quantitative side and I like how it accounts for the number of teams participating in the sport as a proxy for the difficulty of winning a title in that sport.

[Ralph Turner]

About 5 years ago, I ran a model of the Leerfield Cup that proportioned the points awarded by a ratio of the number of school sponsoring a team in that sport to the total number of schools in D3.  As a result, the number of points earned by the Stagg Bowl championship was cut down to 60 points and proportionately cut down the list of 32 schools who made the post season.

There was very little change in the outcome in the ranking of the teams in the Leerfield.

[Gregory Sager]

Yeah, next year I think that I'm going to run my own model and see how it compares to the Learfield model. As I said in the OP, I don't think it'll change the outcome much, but I think it'll be a more honest assessment.

[WUPHF]

Yeah, next year I think that I'm going to run my own model and see how it compares to the Learfield model. As I said in the OP, I don't think it'll change the outcome much, but I think it'll be a more honest assessment.

I hope you do!

[WUPHF]

Carnegie Mellon has released their 2017-2018 recruits.

The 2017-2018 Tartans are going to be so much smaller than they were a season ago.

Matt Carson (6-4 Guard, Downingtown West High School, PA)

2016-17 Stats: 16 PPG, 7 RPG, 3 APG

Athletic Achievements:  Matt was a part of the most accomplished graduating class in Downingtown West history. During his three years of playing varsity basketball, Downingtown West won 75 games, qualified for District 1 playoffs all three years, qualified for the PIAA State Tournament two times, and qualified for Ches-mont Final Four twice and won it in 2015. Matt finished his senior season as captain while being named 2nd team All-Ches-Mont, All-Area Honorable Mention for Chester County DLN, MVP of Octorara Basketball Tournament and named to the Valor Bowl Sr All-Star Game.

Ethan Miller (6-6 Forward, Upper Merion High School, PA)

2016-17 Stats: 15 PPG, 10 RPG, 2 BPG

Athletic Achievements: Ethan was a member of one of the best teams ever his senior year at Upper Merion where they finished District Runner-Up and made a deep run into the State Playoffs. Ethan was captain his senior year where he was 1st team All-PAC. He capped off a great high school career by being one of only seven players in Upper Merion Basketball history to score more than 1,000 points.

Zach Watson (6-1 Guard, Dublin Jerome High School, OH)

2016-17 Stats: 18 PPG, 4 APG, 3 RPG

Athletic Achievements: Zach was a part of the winningest season in Dublin Jerome history during his junior season with a record of 24-3 and a district championship. During his four years of playing varsity basketball, Dublin Jerome was 73-15. Zach was a two-time team captain and achieved numerous honors this past year. During his senior year he was named All-Ohio Capital Conference - Cardinal Division First Team, All-Central District Division 1 Honorable Mention, AP All-Central District All Star, and was named to This Week's News Super 12 Boys Basketball Team.

Dan Weiss (6-6 Forward, Marlboro High School, NJ)

2016-17 Stats: 11 PPG, 7 RPG, 4 APG

Athletic Achievements: Junior year Dan was 2nd team all-league and 2nd team all-district. Dan was named captain during his senior season and was named 1st team all-league, 1st team all-district. He was also placed on the 1st team All-Shore Conference tournament team for his play in the post season.