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, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
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 ]
[> [> [> [>
Sponsor hockey and scholarship football and then we'll talk... -- animal, 09:41:37 05/02/03 Fri
Big deal. Anyone could probably make up some sort of system where their school fared better than it does in the current standings.
Also, keep in mind that some schools sponsor more sports outside of AE than others. While Binghamton and Hartford have NO sports not under the league banner, and Albany and Stony Brook have one (football), the other schools sponsor quite a few sports outside the league. UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and NU have hockey (with four of them having women's hockey as well), while UNH, Maine and NU also have scholarship football (more of an expense than non-scholy). UVM and UNH have ski teams that are pretty competitive, while UNH also has a gymnastics team that won its conference.
So while you brag that under "your" system the SUNY's would do better, remember that three schools in this league (UNH, Maine, BU) are fielding hockey teams that compete on a national level. It's basically like comparing apples to oranges, but I would argue that UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and NU are stronger than ANY of the SUNY's.
>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.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Get the facts straight. -- Urban Barrister, 12:55:38 05/02/03 Fri
Animal:
First of all, Binghamton does sponsor a non-AE sport -- wrestling (for which we're an affiliate member of the CAA, incidentally).
Second of all, non-AE sports really aren't the issue -- my primary point was that if you're trying to evaluate the "comprehensive" quality of member programs, based on their performance in AE sports, the current scoring system for the Commish's Cup doesn't make a whole lot of sense. My proposed system does a better job -- its a matter of logic, not an attempt to devise a system under which Bing or the other SUNY's fare better.
>Big deal. Anyone could probably make up some sort of
>system where their school fared better than it does in
>the current standings.
>
>Also, keep in mind that some schools sponsor more
>sports outside of AE than others. While Binghamton
>and Hartford have NO sports not under the league
>banner, and Albany and Stony Brook have one
>(football), the other schools sponsor quite a few
>sports outside the league. UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and NU
>have hockey (with four of them having women's hockey
>as well), while UNH, Maine and NU also have
>scholarship football (more of an expense than
>non-scholy). UVM and UNH have ski teams that are
>pretty competitive, while UNH also has a gymnastics
>team that won its conference.
>
>So while you brag that under "your" system the SUNY's
>would do better, remember that three schools in this
>league (UNH, Maine, BU) are fielding hockey teams that
>compete on a national level. It's basically like
>comparing apples to oranges, but I would argue that
>UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and NU are stronger than ANY of
>the SUNY's.
>
>>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.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
So having hockey or football has NO impact? -- animal, 13:38:24 05/02/03 Fri
So you're saying that the tennis champion, who has to win three matches in a three-day period, should count the same as a regular-season basketball championship that a team has to play 16 (now 18) games to win? Yeah, that's logical.
Also, while non-AE sports shouldn't figure into this debate per se, it does have an impact. If schools that currently sponsor hockey, football, etc. didn't, don't you think they could put more resources into A) more teams or B) supporting the ones they have better. For instance, UNH or BU could have baseball, UVM volleyball or Maine lacrosse.
So while it's admirable to defend the SUNY's to the death, just remember that none of them have scholy football or hockey, thus can devote more resources to AE sports.
My bad on the BingU wrestling...
>Animal:
>
>First of all, Binghamton does sponsor a non-AE sport
>-- wrestling (for which we're an affiliate member of
>the CAA, incidentally).
>
>Second of all, non-AE sports really aren't the issue
>-- my primary point was that if you're trying to
>evaluate the "comprehensive" quality of member
>programs, based on their performance in AE sports, the
>current scoring system for the Commish's Cup doesn't
>make a whole lot of sense. My proposed system does a
>better job -- its a matter of logic, not an attempt to
>devise a system under which Bing or the other SUNY's
>fare better.
>
>
>
>
>>Big deal. Anyone could probably make up some sort of
>>system where their school fared better than it does in
>>the current standings.
>>
>>Also, keep in mind that some schools sponsor more
>>sports outside of AE than others. While Binghamton
>>and Hartford have NO sports not under the league
>>banner, and Albany and Stony Brook have one
>>(football), the other schools sponsor quite a few
>>sports outside the league. UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and NU
>>have hockey (with four of them having women's hockey
>>as well), while UNH, Maine and NU also have
>>scholarship football (more of an expense than
>>non-scholy). UVM and UNH have ski teams that are
>>pretty competitive, while UNH also has a gymnastics
>>team that won its conference.
>>
>>So while you brag that under "your" system the SUNY's
>>would do better, remember that three schools in this
>>league (UNH, Maine, BU) are fielding hockey teams that
>>compete on a national level. It's basically like
>>comparing apples to oranges, but I would argue that
>>UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and NU are stronger than ANY of
>>the SUNY's.
>>
>>>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.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: So having hockey or football has NO impact? -- -- Urban Barrister, 15:21:30 05/02/03 Fri
Of course, by that logic, sports where teams only play each other only once, such as lacrosse (5 AE games total for men) or soccer (8 AE games total for me), shouldn't count as much as sports where teams play each other twice, such as b-ball (18 AE games total for men), which, in turn, shouldn't count as much as baseball, where teams play each other four times (24 AE games total). Plus, if BU and UVM were ever good enough to get invited to the same tournaments that Bing and Hartford were invited to during the regular season, AE teams could wind up playing each other as many as SIX times or more in a season, for a total of 18 AE matches total. (Bing and Hartford played in six of the same tourneys this year; Bing beat them 5 times and tied them once.) So, based on your argument, Bing's championship in golf should be worth more than three times as much as the mens lacrosse championship. Now where's your logic??
Anyhow, that point aside, I agree with you on the impact that funding non-AE sports can have, especially for football. Obviously, any school that dropped football would have much more money to devote to other sports and, thus, likely do better in at least some of those other sports.
>So you're saying that the tennis champion, who has to
>win three matches in a three-day period, should count
>the same as a regular-season basketball championship
>that a team has to play 16 (now 18) games to win?
>Yeah, that's logical.
>
>Also, while non-AE sports shouldn't figure into this
>debate per se, it does have an impact. If schools
>that currently sponsor hockey, football, etc. didn't,
>don't you think they could put more resources into A)
>more teams or B) supporting the ones they have better.
> For instance, UNH or BU could have baseball, UVM
>volleyball or Maine lacrosse.
>
>So while it's admirable to defend the SUNY's to the
>death, just remember that none of them have scholy
>football or hockey, thus can devote more resources to
>AE sports.
>
>My bad on the BingU wrestling...
>
>>Animal:
>>
>>First of all, Binghamton does sponsor a non-AE sport
>>-- wrestling (for which we're an affiliate member of
>>the CAA, incidentally).
>>
>>Second of all, non-AE sports really aren't the issue
>>-- my primary point was that if you're trying to
>>evaluate the "comprehensive" quality of member
>>programs, based on their performance in AE sports, the
>>current scoring system for the Commish's Cup doesn't
>>make a whole lot of sense. My proposed system does a
>>better job -- its a matter of logic, not an attempt to
>>devise a system under which Bing or the other SUNY's
>>fare better.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Big deal. Anyone could probably make up some sort of
>>>system where their school fared better than it does
>in
>>>the current standings.
>>>
>>>Also, keep in mind that some schools sponsor more
>>>sports outside of AE than others. While Binghamton
>>>and Hartford have NO sports not under the league
>>>banner, and Albany and Stony Brook have one
>>>(football), the other schools sponsor quite a few
>>>sports outside the league. UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and
>NU
>>>have hockey (with four of them having women's hockey
>>>as well), while UNH, Maine and NU also have
>>>scholarship football (more of an expense than
>>>non-scholy). UVM and UNH have ski teams that are
>>>pretty competitive, while UNH also has a gymnastics
>>>team that won its conference.
>>>
>>>So while you brag that under "your" system the SUNY's
>>>would do better, remember that three schools in this
>>>league (UNH, Maine, BU) are fielding hockey teams
>that
>>>compete on a national level. It's basically like
>>>comparing apples to oranges, but I would argue that
>>>UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and NU are stronger than ANY of
>>>the SUNY's.
>>>
>>>>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.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: So having hockey or football has NO impact? -- -- animal, 15:36:20 05/02/03 Fri
What are you talking about? AE has no round-robin competition in golf, tennis, track etc. You're saying that just because Hartford and Binghamton meet in the same golf tournament it should count?
Basically, the Commissioner's Cup is supposed to tell who had the best year in AE sports overall, not just won a few tennis titles and then bombed at all the other sports. Plus, it should measure the best overall athletics program, and by you're system the SUNY's are among the best. Outside of Albany, Stony Brook or Binghamton, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone think those school's athletics programs are better than the "Original 5" (UVM, UNH, Maine, BU, NU)
>Of course, by that logic, sports where teams only play
>each other only once, such as lacrosse (5 AE games
>total for men) or soccer (8 AE games total for me),
>shouldn't count as much as sports where teams play
>each other twice, such as b-ball (18 AE games total
>for men), which, in turn, shouldn't count as much as
>baseball, where teams play each other four times (24
>AE games total). Plus, if BU and UVM were ever good
>enough to get invited to the same tournaments that
>Bing and Hartford were invited to during the regular
>season, AE teams could wind up playing each other as
>many as SIX times or more in a season, for a total of
>18 AE matches total. (Bing and Hartford played in six
>of the same tourneys this year; Bing beat them 5 times
>and tied them once.) So, based on your argument,
>Bing's championship in golf should be worth more than
>three times as much as the mens lacrosse championship.
> Now where's your logic??
>
>Anyhow, that point aside, I agree with you on the
>impact that funding non-AE sports can have, especially
>for football. Obviously, any school that dropped
>football would have much more money to devote to other
>sports and, thus, likely do better in at least some of
>those other sports.
>
>
>
>
>
>>So you're saying that the tennis champion, who has to
>>win three matches in a three-day period, should count
>>the same as a regular-season basketball championship
>>that a team has to play 16 (now 18) games to win?
>>Yeah, that's logical.
>>
>>Also, while non-AE sports shouldn't figure into this
>>debate per se, it does have an impact. If schools
>>that currently sponsor hockey, football, etc. didn't,
>>don't you think they could put more resources into A)
>>more teams or B) supporting the ones they have better.
>> For instance, UNH or BU could have baseball, UVM
>>volleyball or Maine lacrosse.
>>
>>So while it's admirable to defend the SUNY's to the
>>death, just remember that none of them have scholy
>>football or hockey, thus can devote more resources to
>>AE sports.
>>
>>My bad on the BingU wrestling...
>>
>>>Animal:
>>>
>>>First of all, Binghamton does sponsor a non-AE sport
>>>-- wrestling (for which we're an affiliate member of
>>>the CAA, incidentally).
>>>
>>>Second of all, non-AE sports really aren't the issue
>>>-- my primary point was that if you're trying to
>>>evaluate the "comprehensive" quality of member
>>>programs, based on their performance in AE sports,
>the
>>>current scoring system for the Commish's Cup doesn't
>>>make a whole lot of sense. My proposed system does a
>>>better job -- its a matter of logic, not an attempt
>to
>>>devise a system under which Bing or the other SUNY's
>>>fare better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Big deal. Anyone could probably make up some sort
>of
>>>>system where their school fared better than it does
>>in
>>>>the current standings.
>>>>
>>>>Also, keep in mind that some schools sponsor more
>>>>sports outside of AE than others. While Binghamton
>>>>and Hartford have NO sports not under the league
>>>>banner, and Albany and Stony Brook have one
>>>>(football), the other schools sponsor quite a few
>>>>sports outside the league. UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and
>>NU
>>>>have hockey (with four of them having women's hockey
>>>>as well), while UNH, Maine and NU also have
>>>>scholarship football (more of an expense than
>>>>non-scholy). UVM and UNH have ski teams that are
>>>>pretty competitive, while UNH also has a gymnastics
>>>>team that won its conference.
>>>>
>>>>So while you brag that under "your" system the
>SUNY's
>>>>would do better, remember that three schools in this
>>>>league (UNH, Maine, BU) are fielding hockey teams
>>that
>>>>compete on a national level. It's basically like
>>>>comparing apples to oranges, but I would argue that
>>>>UVM, UNH, Maine, BU and NU are stronger than ANY of
>>>>the SUNY's.
>>>>
>>>>>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.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: Commissioner's Cup Standings- Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics -- NU Hoop Fan, 20:54:46 05/02/03 Fri
One other fact that hasn't been mentioned yet is that NU and BU both compete at the highest levels in the NCAA (for women) and IRA (for men) in Crew.
Crew, without a doubt costs more per captia than almost any sport offered in the NCAA, when you take into account the cost of maintaining a boathouse year-round, shells which cost about $30K per, and practically year-round training.
I know NU's Crew alumni are the most generous in terms of per capita donations, and I'm sure BU's are equally as generous.
NU did offer tennis and golf years back and as someon has properly pointed out, NU made the decision it was better to be good at a few sports than average at a ton. I believe NU competes in the fewest AE sports of all member institutions.
The Northeastern News has run a great (for a student newspaper) series on NU's "olympic sports" which are traditionally the most successful, and have the least funding.
Personally, I think NU should offer men's and women's lacrosse to reflect the changing demographics of its student body. When the new on-campus facility is announced, I think you'll see some news from NU regarding the potential addition of a sport or two.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: C C Standings- Developing DI SUNY Programs -- Patch, 23:15:48 05/03/03 Sat
Comprehensive programs are programs which are solid through out. Using figures as of March are ridiculous. I'm sure Albany very new to DI will improve its position as will Binghamton and the Brook.
For example Albany with a Men's Lacrosse Championship, the Softball Team just moved into first place and Men's Track is currently in 2nd place in the Conference meet after its first day, are proof that the SUNY's will be competitive across the board.
It's my belief that the SUNY's are making a solid effort to have well rounded athletic programs and only need some time to for them to develop before it will almost be impossible to tell who is old and who is new school.
>One other fact that hasn't been mentioned yet is that
>NU and BU both compete at the highest levels in the
>NCAA (for women) and IRA (for men) in Crew.
>
>Crew, without a doubt costs more per captia than
>almost any sport offered in the NCAA, when you take
>into account the cost of maintaining a boathouse
>year-round, shells which cost about $30K per, and
>practically year-round training.
>
>I know NU's Crew alumni are the most generous in terms
>of per capita donations, and I'm sure BU's are equally
>as generous.
>
>NU did offer tennis and golf years back and as someon
>has properly pointed out, NU made the decision it was
>better to be good at a few sports than average at a
>ton. I believe NU competes in the fewest AE sports of
>all member institutions.
>
>The Northeastern News has run a great (for a student
>newspaper) series on NU's "olympic sports" which are
>traditionally the most successful, and have the least
>funding.
>
>Personally, I think NU should offer men's and women's
>lacrosse to reflect the changing demographics of its
>student body. When the new on-campus facility is
>announced, I think you'll see some news from NU
>regarding the potential addition of a sport or two.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]