Capital One Cup

[dukebluelemur]

The Capital One Cup (http://www.capitalonecup.com/about-the-cup.html) sounds a bit like a national Carlyle Cup competition. Thoughts? Are the tiers fair? Does Duke have even a remote chance with no points likely from football or baseball?

[loran16]

The Capital One Cup (http://www.capitalonecup.com/about-the-cup.html) sounds a bit like a national Carlyle Cup competition. Thoughts? Are the tiers fair? Does Duke have even a remote chance with no points likely from football or baseball?

It sounds like they just ripped off the Director's Cup, which does this already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director's_Cup). The only difference is that the Directors' doesn't split up mens and womens teams.

Stanford comes in first every year. Duke, with two Nat'l titles last year (MBB and MLaX), came in 10th.

[Bluedog]

It sounds like they just ripped off the Director's Cup, which does this already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director's_Cup). The only difference is that the Directors' doesn't split up mens and womens teams.

Stanford comes in first every year. Duke, with two Nat'l titles last year (MBB and MLaX), came in 10th.

The Director's Cup also weights each sport evenly and gives points for any NCAA place (or, at least, certainly more than 10). The "Capital One Cup" only gives points to top ten finishes and supposedly weights sports based on how much people care (e.g. football and basketball are worth a lot more). For what it's worth, Duke won the "Capital One Best College Men's Athletic Program" at the 2010 ESPY Awards Show. Not sure if they used the same scoring system or not (probably not), but it was the same sponsor and Duke was selected as #1.

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=204968312

[4decadedukie]

I, too, feel that the Capital One Cup largely replicates the long-standing Sear’s Directors Cup.

However, I am also concerned that – once again – NO credit is given, nor emphasis placed, on any academic performance by the NCAA’s (and the universities) “student-athletes.” The fact is, a college could have an abysmal graduation rate and truly poor scholarship by its athletes (especially GPAs), and this would not (as far as I can ascertain) preclude either award. Naturally, this begs two key questions: What are our values and what behaviors are we incentivizing?

[Bluedog]

I, too, feel that the Capital One Cup largely replicates the long-standing Sear’s Directors Cup.

However, I am also concerned that – once again – NO credit is given, nor emphasis placed, on any academic performance by the NCAA’s (and the universities) “student-athletes.” The fact is, a college could have an abysmal graduation rate and truly poor scholarship by its athletes (especially GPAs), and this would not (as far as I can ascertain) preclude either award. Naturally, this begs two key questions: What are our values and what behaviors are we incentivizing?

Check out the (not as highly publicized) National Collegiate Scouting Association Power Rankings. Duke = #1 in 2005, 2006, and 2007. ;) Damn Stanford beat us in 2008 (and 2009 as well as Princeton who annually does respectfully at the Director's Cup, the best in the Ivy League)...

[SCMatt33]

I, too, feel that the Capital One Cup largely replicates the long-standing Sear’s Directors Cup.

However, I am also concerned that – once again – NO credit is given, nor emphasis placed, on any academic performance by the NCAA’s (and the universities) “student-athletes.” The fact is, a college could have an abysmal graduation rate and truly poor scholarship by its athletes (especially GPAs), and this would not (as far as I can ascertain) preclude either award. Naturally, this begs two key questions: What are our values and what behaviors are we incentivizing?

I disagree that no credit is given to academics. There are academic all-American, all-district and all-conference awards. There are awards that combine academics with athletics such as the senior CLASS award. The NCAA officially recognized high graduation rates and APR scores and punishes schools and athletes who fail to meet the minimum standards. Some might feel that the minimum NCAA academic standards aren't enough, but the last time I checked, the NCAA isn't punishing schools for poor athletic performance (Duke football would be in big trouble if they did).

I kind of like the idea of the Capital One Cup alongside the Directors Cup. I like that there is an award that recognizes all sports equally, but let's face it, Stanford dominates that every year by winning in a bunch of regional sports that most college fans don't even know about, let alone follow. I like that there will be an award where basketball and football mean more than water polo. It's kind of like the US Senate and House, one where all states are equal and one based on population.

Last year, Duke's Women' Swimming and Diving team finished 28th in the NCAA's and scored 45.5 Directors cup points. The Men's Swimming and Diving team finished 18th and scored 56 points for a combined total of 101.5 points. The Men's Basketball team earned 100 directors cup points for winning the national title. Are the combined accomplishments of the swimming and diving teams really greater than the singular accomplishment of the basketball team? I don't know, but I like that we will have two different ways of looking at it now.

I love the directors cup and follow it very closely. I paid close attention to fall championships already conducted and will be following the volleyball team's performance this weekend. I also like the fact that there will be a new award to go after.

BTW, the current sponsor of the academic All-American awards is...wait for it...ESPN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_All-America). Do they market it as much as the athletic stuff, absolutely not, but that is because of public interest.

[4decadedukie]

I disagree that no credit is given to academics.

I suspect you understood that I was referring -- only and specially -- to the Director's and the Capital One Cups (please note my "preclude either award" statement); my point was -- and is -- ALL awards for annual, aggregate-performance, intercollegiate athletics should, in my opinion, have a strong academic component.

[4decadedukie]

Last year, Duke's Women' Swimming and Diving team finished 28th in the NCAA's and scored 45.5 Directors cup points. The Men's Swimming and Diving team finished 18th and scored 56 points for a combined total of 101.5 points. The Men's Basketball team earned 100 directors cup points for winning the national title. Are the combined accomplishments of the swimming and diving teams really greater than the singular accomplishment of the basketball team?


Obviously, the conventional and "easy" answer is certainly not.

However, I respectfully suggest that such questions can be evaluated in other ways that are quite relevant. Specifically:
1) Is the purpose of intercollegiate athletics glory for the specific team, its players/coaches and the university?
2) Or is it adding further, critical, life-long attributes to the undergraduate student-athletes' lives, so they can succeed more readily, achieve greater enduring satisfaction, make larger societal contributions, be more self-disciplined and selfless, be better leaders and teammates, be enhanced citizens, and so forth?

I humbly suggest that the latter (#2) doesn't create ESPN highlight reels, sell commercials or NCAA sanctioned tickets and equipment, initiate professional athletic careers, command large national television audiences, and so forth. However -- since there are quite literally hundreds of Division II and III as well as Division I non-revenue student-athletes, for every competitor in a "big time" Division I Men's Football or Basketball program -- the truly right answer is the latter (#2). In fact, it is correct for the individual, for the university, for intercollegiate athletics, and for our nation.

[SCMatt33]

Obviously, the conventional and "easy" answer is certainly not.

However, I respectfully suggest that such questions can be evaluated in other ways that are quite relevant. Specifically:
1) Is the purpose of intercollegiate athletics glory for the specific team, its players/coaches and the university?
2) Or is it adding further, critical, life-long attributes to the undergraduate student-athletes' lives, so they can succeed more readily, achieve greater enduring satisfaction, make larger societal contributions, be more self-disciplined and selfless, be better leaders and teammates, be enhanced citizens, and so forth?

I humbly suggest that the latter (#2) doesn't create ESPN highlight reels, sell commercials or NCAA sanctioned tickets and equipment, initiate professional athletic careers, command large national television audiences, and so forth. However -- since there are quite literally hundreds of Division II and III as well as Division I non-revenue student-athletes, for every competitor in a "big time" Division I Men's Football or Basketball program -- the truly right answer is the latter (#2). In fact, it is correct for the individual, for the university, for intercollegiate athletics, and for our nation.

Why can't they both co-exist and be equal? Why does #2 have to above #1? Just because an award has been created that values basketball over swimming does not mean that there is an award that reflect current popular interest created by an entity that relies on popular interest to survive. Likewise, there is an award that values all sports equally. This award is presented by the Athletics Directors Association, which makes sense since AD theoretically value all of their programs equally.

If I'm correct in interpreting your previous remark, you seem to be saying that the most important thing for a young man should be academics, citizenship, morality, etc. and not competition. I tend to agree that those things are more important in life. What I don't get is why the existence of an award that recognizes something else can't be compatible with that notion. There is a Nobel Prize for literature but not one for music or other arts. This doesn't have to mean that Nobel devalued music or that society's accepting of the Nobel prize devalues music. It simply means that literature was of greater interest to him personally. Likewise, administering athletics competition is of greater interest to athletics directors, so their award reflects that. There are other organizations for whom academics is a more integral part, and they present awards in kind.

If they were trying to replace academic awards, or cut out academics from an award of which it was an established part, it would be a bigger deal, but I just don't see how adding a new award devalues it.

[4decadedukie]

Why can't they both co-exist and be equal?

Your point is excellent; of course they (#1 and #2) can -- and should -- coexist. However, my often articulated concern is that frequently they are mutually exclusive rather than synergistic, frequently the balance between the scholastic and the athletic, between revenue and non-revenue sports, and between prominent Division I programs and those in Divisions III, II and I that are essentially obscure is badly skewed toward selfishness, public acclaim, celebrity and greed, rather than oriented toward making undergraduate student-athletes even better (and more successful) adults for life's long-haul.