Clarification for Maine, NU and Hartford fans -- America East Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:25:59 05/02/03 Fri
Author: Urban Barrister
Subject: Clarification for Maine, NU and Hartford fans
In reply to: Urban Barrister 's message, "Re: Commissioner's Cup Standings- Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics" on 01:21:23 05/02/03 Fri

At the end of my last message, I suggested that Maine, NU and Hartford lack comprehensiveness. What I did not suggest was that they necessarily lack quality. Obviously, their position in the scoring system I proposed is affected in part by the fact that they don't field as many teams as other schools in the league do. Where they do field teams, many are very good. But again, if the issue is "comprehensiveness", schools that field teams in more sports should somehow be rewarded for that, and I believe my proposed scoring system does that much more so than the existing system.

>A few comments back, animal made a comment to the
>effect that the current CC standings prove that Bing
>doesn't have a "comprehensive" sports program. A few
>observations to the contrary . . . .
>
>First, the current scoring system clearly favors
>success in sports that have round robin regular season
>competition and a conference championship, which
>essentially means that being the best in one sport may
>be worth a whole lot more than being the best in
>another. (For example, womens b-ball champ gets 36
>points, while the golf champ gets 8.) In addition,
>the current system also favors sports where the most
>teams play -- which has the odd affect of diminishing
>the value of being the best in a sport that other
>teams opt not to play. In other words, a school that
>fields a golf team doesn't get as much credit for
>doing so as a school that fields a b-ball team. Thus,
>I would argue that success in the CC's standings
>doesn't necessarily correlate to the overall
>"comprehensiveness" of a program.
>
>To prove my point, I first did some projections for
>the sports that have yet to wrap up. Where the sport
>had regular season round robin play, I ranked the
>teams based on their current standings. Where the
>sport did not (only outdoor track and field), I used
>last year's rankings. Thus, the projected results for
>this year's CC are as follows:
>
>1. BU -- 333
>2. UNH -- 303
>3. NU -- 278
>4. UVM -- 274
>5. SBU -- 264
>6. Maine -- 252
>7. Albany -- 222
>8. Hartford -- 211
>9. Bing -- 209
>
>THEN, I applied a different scoring system that
>weighed all sports equally -- if a team was ranked
>first, it got 9 points; if a team was ranked second,
>it got 8, and so on. If a school did not field a
>team, I ranked it in last. Where there were ties, the
>teams split the points for the applicable places
>(e.g., if three teams tied for last place, they each
>got 2 points -- 3 + 2 + 1= 6 points for seventh,
>eighth and ninth place, divided by 3 teams. If a
>school did not field a sport, I didn't give it any
>points, since the goal here is to judge
>"comprehensiveness". No team, no points. Needless to
>say, the results under this alternate scoring system
>were a bit different:
>
>1. BU -- 107
>2. UVM -- 95
>3. SBU -- 91
>4. Bing -- 87
>5T. UNH, Albany -- 85
>7. Maine -- 78
>8. NU -- 74
>9. Hart -- 74
>
>Two things stand out in my mind: First, Bing, SBU and
>Albany fare a lot better, a fact which, in my mind,
>more accurately reflects the "comprehensiveness" and
>quality of their programs as compared to the rest of
>the league. Second, NU, Maine and Hartford fare a lot
>worse, which, in my mind, more accurately reflects
>their LACK of comprehensiveness. As for quality, NU
>clearly deserves the kudos -- while they probably
>field the fewest number of teams, they are relatively
>more successful in those sports than everyone else,
>save perhaps BU. Then again, you have to wonder how
>much better some of the teams that field more sports
>would be if they could concentrate their resources on
>fewer sports.
>
>One last observation about Bing -- someone on the
>board accused Bing's lacrosse teams of being a
>disgrace. While we can argue over semantics, the
>truth is they were bad -- BUT, they are each in their
>second year of existence -- not just at the DI level,
>but at any level. Given the fact that Bing recruits
>so many students from areas in NY with really strong
>lacrosse (LI, Westchester, Rochester and Syracuse), I
>think it's reasonable to believe that within a couple
>of years, we'll have programs that are at least middle
>of the pack, if not toward the top. That potentially
>moves us up as high as third or even second under my
>proposed scoring system -- making it hard to contend
>that Bing's program isn't "comprehensive".
>
>Just some food for thought . . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>Commissioner's Cup Standings as of March 15, 2003
>>>>(latest update)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1. UNH 235
>>>>2. NU 230
>>>>3. BU 221
>>>>4. UVM 182
>>>>5. Maine 170
>>>>6. SBU 162
>>>>7. UHart 143
>>>>8. BingU 121
>>>>9. Albany 116
>>>>
>>>>NU has 4 championships, BU and UNH 2
>>>
>>>Just out of curiousity...how does this work. I am
>>>shocked that UA is so low (w/ the offsetting good
>>>teams of track, softball, soccer-men's, lax-men's,
>>>baseball (all w/in the top 5 of the league). Are the
>>>schools who dont participate in certain sports (ie.
>no
>>>swimming and golf at UA) punished in a sense in the
>>>cup standings. Don't get me wrong, I know UA is not
>>>great yet...but I am suprised w/ the last place
>>>rankings w/ those other sports.) Just curious.
>>Remember these standings are dated March 15, before
>>all the spring sports even started. If you take the
>>time you can probably get an idea of how much they'll
>>shake up in the next month.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification for Maine, NU and Hartford fans -- Josh, 07:38:17 05/02/03 Fri

Don't overlook that Maine and NU both offer football and hockey, which require a great deal of commitment and resources. The issue of comprehensiveness is clouded by those facts.

>At the end of my last message, I suggested that Maine,
>NU and Hartford lack comprehensiveness. What I did
>not suggest was that they necessarily lack quality.
>Obviously, their position in the scoring system I
>proposed is affected in part by the fact that they
>don't field as many teams as other schools in the
>league do. Where they do field teams, many are very
>good. But again, if the issue is "comprehensiveness",
>schools that field teams in more sports should somehow
>be rewarded for that, and I believe my proposed
>scoring system does that much more so than the
>existing system.
>
>

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]