Directors Cup

[Ralph Turner]

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

[Mr. Ypsi]

Correction: UWW won MEN's basketball.  Don't you go stealing my Titans' win in women's basketball!

[Ralph Turner]

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

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.).

[Ron Boerger]

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.   

[sunny]

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

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.

[Mr. Ypsi]

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.

[Gray Fox]

I can see this for individual conferences, but it seems to be a useless exercise on a national basis.

[Ralph Turner]

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

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.

[sunny]

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

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.

[sunny]

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.

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks for the elaboration.   

[Mr. Ypsi]

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! )  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.

[Bombers798891]

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)

[sunny]

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.

[sunny]

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.