2018 Director's Cup

[CrazyNotCrazie]

The latest rankings are out. Spring sports are our strength so we moved up from 13 to 9. Still remaining are track and baseball. We should get decent points for baseball, but I'm not sure if we will be able to move up much - hopefully we can stay in the top 10 with our best case, but unlikely scenario being fifth. We are currently the top team in the ACC, just ahead of FSU and NC State. The Tar Heels are 17. As usual, Stanford is #1.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/...7overallDI.pdf

Here is a summary of our rankings under Kevin White:

In White’s nine years at Duke, the Blue Devils placed 17th (2009), 10th (2010), fifth (2011), 16th (2012), 12th (2013), ninth (2014), 20th (2015), 24th (2016), and 32nd (2017) in the Directors’ Cup standings.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1480786

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Doesn't this metric weight every sport the same? I mean, do you think Alabama (football) and Villanova (basketball) are at all concerned with this?

[kmspeaks]

Doesn't this metric weight every sport the same? I mean, do you think Alabama (football) and Villanova (basketball) are at all concerned with this?

Do I think Nick Saban or the Alabama AD give a rat's behind? No, football is making them gobs of money and there probably aren't very many people who care if the Tide's volleyball team earns Director's Cup points. But it is a measuring stick for athletic departments as a whole and another bullet point to put on the letter/in the e-mail sent to ask for donations.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Do I think Nick Saban or the Alabama AD give a rat's behind? No, football is making them gobs of money and there probably aren't very many people who care if the Tide's volleyball team earns Director's Cup points. But it is a measuring stick for athletic departments as a whole and another bullet point to put on the letter/in the e-mail sent to ask for donations.

I think you missed my point. Any system that weights volleyball and football equally - which this metric does - is hardly a reliable or meaningful measuring stick. And if you're focusing on the money, you're again a tiny bit off kilter. The reason FB and BB generate the money is because that's what the fans are interested in.

[sagegrouse]

Doesn't this metric weight every sport the same? I mean, do you think Alabama (football) and Villanova (basketball) are at all concerned with this?

I think you missed my point. Any system that weights volleyball and football equally - which this metric does - is hardly a reliable or meaningful measuring stick. And if you're focusing on the money, you're again a tiny bit off kilter. The reason FB and BB generate the money is because that's what the fans are interested in.

I think Nick Saban is a team player, and if the other athletic teams at Alabama earn national honors, he would be pleased. In fact, Alabama was runner-up in both men's and women's golf.

The Director's Cup is designed to reward schools who do well in so-called "minor sports," which is why all sports are rated equally (as far as I know). Can't see why this is a bad thing.

[kmspeaks]

I think you missed my point. Any system that weights volleyball and football equally - which this metric does - is hardly a reliable or meaningful measuring stick. And if you're focusing on the money, you're again a tiny bit off kilter. The reason FB and BB generate the money is because that's what the fans are interested in.

You're right I don't understand. The Director's Cup is just one way, and really it's just for fun/bragging rights, to measure a school's overall athletic prowess. Why wouldn't all sports be weighted equally in that regard?

[YmoBeThere]

I think you missed my point. Any system that weights volleyball and football equally - which this metric does - is hardly a reliable or meaningful measuring stick. And if you're focusing on the money, you're again a tiny bit off kilter. The reason FB and BB generate the money is because that's what the fans are interested in.

A measuring stick of what? Revenue figures a couple years removed are acvailable for the public institutions. And despite not "winning" much in football or basketball it appears Texas A&M was winning as of 2016.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You're right I don't understand. The Director's Cup is just one way, and really it's just for fun/bragging rights, to measure a school's overall athletic prowess. Why wouldn't all sports be weighted equally in that regard?

It is a fun way to make a mathematical computation and award something...that is true. To me, it doesn't mean much however regarding prowess - a word you mentioned. A school's athletic prowess, 99% of it, is determined by football and men's basketball success. And of those two, unfortunately for Duke, FB is by far the dominant factor.

Great teams in tennis, soccer, fencing, softball, swimming, etc, will not make a lousy FB/BB school have any athletic prowess. Meanwhile, mediocre or failing minor sports won't tarnish a department that is winning in the big two.

[IrishDevil]

You're right I don't understand. The Director's Cup is just one way, and really it's just for fun/bragging rights, to measure a school's overall athletic prowess. Why wouldn't all sports be weighted equally in that regard?

It is a fun way to make a mathematical computation and award something...that is true. To me, it doesn't mean much however regarding prowess - a word you mentioned. A school's athletic prowess, 99% of it, is determined by football and men's basketball success. And of those two, unfortunately for Duke, FB is by far the dominant factor.

Great teams in tennis, soccer, fencing, softball, swimming, etc, will not make a lousy FB/BB school have any athletic prowess. Meanwhile, mediocre or failing minor sports won't tarnish a department that is winning in the big two.

Prowess here means extraordinary ability (second definition, as we are not discussing courage in battle ).

KM is stating that the Director's Cup measures the overall ability of a school's athletic teams collectively, which seems to agree with the Cup's stated purpose and scoring structure:

Program Philosophy
The committee adjusted the philosophy of the program to read as follows - A program that honors institutions maintaining a broad-based program, achieving success in many sports, both men's and women's, in which all sports that the NCAA, NAIA or NJCAA offers a championship, along with Division IA football, and all student-athletes that compete in those sports, are treated equally.

Value by Sport
Based on the adoption of the above philosophy, the committee reinstated all sports in which the NCAA or NAIA offers a championship, along with Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS, formerly I-A) football, to full scoring values. This means that for all sports that meet the above criteria, first place is worth 100 points. Scoring for the Junior/Community Colleges is determined using the NATYCAA Cup standings.

That speaks pretty directly to overall athletic prowess, IMO. But, HereBeforeCoachK, maybe you mean prominence or popularity, not prowess? For either of those metrics, I would agree, football and basketball success carry far more weight than, say, bowling.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Doesn't this metric weight every sport the same? I mean, do you think Alabama (football) and Villanova (basketball) are at all concerned with this?

I am certain they don't.

But I would point out that the vast majority of college athletes are not on those teams.

They give an Oscar for Best Animated Short, and I am sure Michael Bay doesn't care about that either, but some people sure do.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I am certain they don't.

But I would point out that the vast majority of college athletes are not on those teams.

.

This is true. But the vast majority of the interest, prestige, coverage is on those two...and there are reasons for that.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

This is true. But the vast majority of the interest, prestige, coverage is on those two...and there are reasons for that.

I don't disagree. But the point of this particular award is to recognize the rest of college sports, not just the ESPN ones.

[sagegrouse]

It is a fun way to make a mathematical computation and award something...that is true. To me, it doesn't mean much however regarding prowess - a word you mentioned. A school's athletic prowess, 99% of it, is determined by football and men's basketball success. And of those two, unfortunately for Duke, FB is by far the dominant factor.

Great teams in tennis, soccer, fencing, softball, swimming, etc, will not make a lousy FB/BB school have any athletic prowess. Meanwhile, mediocre or failing minor sports won't tarnish a department that is winning in the big two.

This is a tempest in a teapot. You are saying that "success" is 99 percent football (and you are saying it on the Duke BASKETBALL Report!). Absolutely true, except for an adjustment to recognize men's hoops.

But, but, but, someone put in place an award to recognize success across the broad spectrum of men's and women's college sports. It attracts one percent of the "notice" that football and hoops championships receive, but what, what, WHAT is wrong with having the Direcctor's Cup? And you can't say it's meaningless, when it is meticulously constructed to recognize success in each and every men's and women's sport.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

This is a tempest in a teapot. You are saying that "success" is 99 percent football (and you are saying it on the Duke BASKETBALL Report!). Absolutely true, except for an adjustment to recognize men's hoops.

But, but, but, someone put in place an award to recognize success across the broad spectrum of men's and women's college sports. It attracts one percent of the "notice" that football and hoops championships receive, but what, what, WHAT is wrong with having the Direcctor's Cup? And you can't say it's meaningless, when it is meticulously constructed to recognize success in each and every men's and women's sport.

For whatever reason, I am a close follower of the Director's Cup and take a lot of pride when Duke does well in it (which is why I started this thread). I think it is a great measure of the overall strength of an athletic department. I also think it is something of a measuring stick for Athletic Directors.

That being said, if a P5 school consistently finished top 5 in the Director's Cup but had horrible football and men's basketball teams that never qualified for bowls and the NCAA tournament, I'm not sure how much job security that AD would have.

All in all, I like the way the Director's Cup is right now and I look forward to seeing the final rankings.

[Acymetric]

I think you missed my point. Any system that weights volleyball and football equally - which this metric does - is hardly a reliable or meaningful measuring stick. And if you're focusing on the money, you're again a tiny bit off kilter. The reason FB and BB generate the money is because that's what the fans are interested in.

It is a reliable and meaningful measuring stick, it just isn't measuring what you seem to want it to measure for some reason. There are already measuring sticks for performance in the two major revenue sports (which seems to be what you want): March Madness and the College Football Playoffs (and other bowl games). You don't really need a system or award for determining who was the best in those two sports specifically.

This is intended to measure something else (performance in all sports for an athletic department), and does a fine job doing it.

I am certain they don't.

But I would point out that the vast majority of college athletes are not on those teams.

They give an Oscar for Best Animated Short, and I am sure Michael Bay doesn't care about that either, but some people sure do.

Pretty much a perfect way to put it.

[MCFinARL]

The latest rankings are out. Spring sports are our strength so we moved up from 13 to 9. Still remaining are track and baseball. We should get decent points for baseball, but I'm not sure if we will be able to move up much - hopefully we can stay in the top 10 with our best case, but unlikely scenario being fifth. We are currently the top team in the ACC, just ahead of FSU and NC State. The Tar Heels are 17. As usual, Stanford is #1.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/...7overallDI.pdf

Here is a summary of our rankings under Kevin White:

In White’s nine years at Duke, the Blue Devils placed 17th (2009), 10th (2010), fifth (2011), 16th (2012), 12th (2013), ninth (2014), 20th (2015), 24th (2016), and 32nd (2017) in the Directors’ Cup standings.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1480786

The good news is that softball has already been scored, and FSU, right on Duke's heels, has already received the 100 points for that. And both FSU and NCState (2 places behind) have already been eliminated from baseball so will receive fewer points than Duke.

The only other sport remaining to be scored is track and field. If I understand the scoring correctly (it's a bit Byzantine), Duke will receive at least the minimum 5 points each in both Men's and Women's track and field because they had athletes qualify to participate in the national championships, even though they will not score points in their events (sadly, 2 of Duke's three entrants, the women's 4 x 400 relay and men's 400 runner Steven Solomon, just missed qualifying for the finals in the heartbreak 9th place spot; they and Duke's 15th place finisher in the women's pole vault, Laura Marty, will receive second team All-America honors). Florida State, which currently ranks 16th in the women's competition, will do better there; the top 63 teams earn more Director's Cup points, and 64 and below earn 5.

[Wander]

Here's a ranking that strikes a nice balance between the football-only attitude and the "weight everything the same" Director's cup. It weights football the most, men's basketball at 80% of football, women's basketball at 40% of football, and each school's two best other sports at 40% of football. I think this is the best metric I've seen that captures what most of us intuitively think of as general college athletic success.

Duke ranks 5th, behind Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Michigan. Our friends in Chapel Hill are 35th.

[devildeac]

Here's a ranking that strikes a nice balance between the football-only attitude and the "weight everything the same" Director's cup. It weights football the most, men's basketball at 80% of football, women's basketball at 40% of football, and each school's two best other sports at 40% of football. I think this is the best metric I've seen that captures what most of us intuitively think of as general college athletic success.

Duke ranks 5th, behind Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Michigan. Our friends in Chapel Hill are 35th.

Their rank should be 9F. Always.

[yancem]

Here's a ranking that strikes a nice balance between the football-only attitude and the "weight everything the same" Director's cup. It weights football the most, men's basketball at 80% of football, women's basketball at 40% of football, and each school's two best other sports at 40% of football. I think this is the best metric I've seen that captures what most of us intuitively think of as general college athletic success.

Duke ranks 5th, behind Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Michigan. Our friends in Chapel Hill are 35th.

Not sure if I am missing something or what but shouldn't Villanova have at least 200 points for it ncaam basketball championship and Yale 100 points for their lacrosse championship? I don't see either team listed. I'm tired and have been looking at patents all day so maybe I missed them but the list doesn't seem to be 100% accurate.

[pfrduke]

Not sure if I am missing something or what but shouldn't Villanova have at least 200 points for it ncaam basketball championship and Yale 100 points for their lacrosse championship? I don't see either team listed. I'm tired and have been looking at patents all day so maybe I missed them but the list doesn't seem to be 100% accurate.

Looks like it's only FBS programs, which would omit both those schools.