Michigan vs. Stanford: Director's Cup
This is how it would turn out if Stanford only scored in the sports Michigan scored in this season. They would still beat us, but it would be close. Note that Stanford did not actually count its scores in Women's Lacrosse or Softball because they scored higher in other sports that we did not score in, but I included their hypothetical scores in those sports for comparison. This is why they have an advantage by having more chances through more programs to score more points. It's great to be a Michigan Wolverine even if it does mean eternally finishing second to a school like Stanford in the Director's Cup.
In addition to not actually counting their softball or women's lacrosse totals in favor of higher scores, they obviously also replace their 0 scores for M-Basketball and Field Hockey with other high scores in sports we did not score in-- pushing their lead in the actual final standings to the ultimate insurmountable gap.
Actually, basketball has to be included as one of the 19 scores:
19 total teams can be scored for the final standings (Four of which MUST BE M-W Basketball Baseball and Volleyball)
Seems like Michigan needs to step up their track game to beat Stanford (in a head to head - there’s no way to actually beat them for the cup)
Yeah, that was my takeaway too. Strangely, the Cross Country team seems to fare much better than the track team. So probably, without a deep dive into our scoring, we are probably weak in the field events and better in the distance.
Girls XC was 4th in the nation & has the 7th best recruiting class this year. They're really good. Rockford's VanderLende is a potential All-American this fall in her first season.
We are actually very strong in the men's field events, as well as women's distance events. But everything else, especially sprints, sucks.
Both golf programs could use an upgrade.
I guess I don't understand the point system. It seems like some sports gets more points. I need to do more googling to understand why we are not in on some of the sports if that is the case
Looks like they are all out of 100 regardless of the sport. A first place finish gets 100, a second place finish gets 90, a third place finish gets 85, and 4th place finish gets 80....
Could be. I am seeing a 9th place finish got us two different points. That is why I wondered.
Correct for the most part. It is all based on the NCAA tournament finish (except football).... so it depends on how many teams are invited, how the bracket is set up, etc.
Exactly. In sports like football, every school finishes in a unique place. But in most other sports, many schools tie for the same place (i.e. 8 Sweet Sixteen losers finish in 9th place). So the math gets a little wonky.
5 national titles is impressive. They definitely earned it this year.
What sports are they competing in that Michigan is not? Fencing? Polo? Men's Volleyball?
And Sailing. Aunt Becky's favorite sport after rowing.
I think you forgot about golf. Stanford also won the championship in men's golf. Michigan's men were 4th in the Big Ten, the women were 7th in the Big Ten.
Michigan was not invited to the NCAA tournament in golf and therefore didnt score any points. This is why Stanford beat us overall by a wide margin. This chart is what would happen if Stanford only scored in the sports we scored in. I did this because people seem to think its rigged. Stanford just has an amazing athletic department that is willing to fund every single sport and excel in nearly all of them. Casual fans don't understand how this is possible because historically their football and men's basketball team are among their only programs that don't achieve at the same level as nearly all of their other sports.
If Michigan decided to have sports with much smaller tournaments- like Rifle, Mens Volleyball, Mens Water Polo, etc-- and excelled, we would likely get to pad our total as well by knocking off low scores in favor of higher ones, like Stanford is able to do.
We need a women's hockey team, where it would be easy to score points, due to the small number of entries. Also, fencing and riflery could be added with no need for major facility upgrades. We could then finish a closer second. (And if cheer/dance/whatever it's called were added, we would be unstoppable.)
Hooray for Stanford: giving kids who hit a triple in the privilege and wealth department an opportunity to slide into home.
Served with a splash of bitters.
And a side of twatwaffles.
We beat them in football, basketball, hockey and baseball.
They suck at Wrestling and Football. This is clearly a women’s sports award.
What would it look like if it were just Men’s sports?
Michigan's women's sports perform better than the men's.
So do Stanford's, and by a much wider margin.
Am I reading this right, that a national championship on football yields the same “points” as a national championship in women’s golf?
if so, the director’s cup is very stupid and people should stop talking about it.
To bolster the point, there are equal points for a championship in basketball (with 300+ d1 teams) as there are for fencing (with 26 d1 teams).
Good point. You need to vary weights for it to make sense.
Maybe like a point for every team you were better than.
Of course, this has cons as well such as basketball having 350+ teams and other sports only having 50 teams. So the basketball champ would have 350 points while the hockey champ would have only 60 points.
I wonder if that would significantly change the results though because Stanford would still get 200 points in basketball.
Who are the Director's that devised this system ?
Sounds like you would prefer the Capital One Cup, which doesn't include all sports and heavily weights the most popular ones like football, basketball and baseball. Men's and Women's are separated. Unfortunately, we almost never finish in the top 20, Stanford still crushes it every year, and Michigan State can finish 10th this year.
https://www.capitalonecup.com/
It's not perfect, but the Director's Cup is a far better representation of athletic departments as a whole.
Its amazing how successful our athletic department is. Stanford and most of the IVY league schools have 6-10 more sports than other schools which will always give them an advantage. I think they should change it to an average score of all team sports instead of just a total score.
It would be interesting to look at a metric of total directors cup points divided by total sponsored varsity programs at the school.
IVY league schools have 6-10 more sports than other schools which will always give them an advantage.
Except Ivies don't have athletic scholarships... so M has a HUGE advantage in that regard.
It would be interesting to add even the most minimal amount of weighting to the individual sports to accomodate how difficult it is to win a championship or place in the top x nationally.
Placing 2nd in the NCAA basketball tournament shouldn't be equal to water polo in points.
It wouldn't take very many mods to the formula to make Michigan a regular winner.
See: https://www.capitalonecup.com/
Weighted scoring = terrible results for Michigan every year. But it is great for State!
Hmm...interesting. How does Stanford stay at, or close to, the top on those lists and we completely drop out?
If you tweaked Director's results for just a few sports that clearly matter more nationally than others, we coukd challenge them. Right now it is just geared for what they do best, all sports, all sports top or fairly well, no difference between sports.
Citibank probably ranks all sports differently, but hard to believe we don't rank at all.
Why do people care about this every year. Schools that do well in sports and participate in more sports obviously score higher. Stanford participated in more sports than anyone and does well across the board....which is why they win the Director’s Cup every year.
Always great to be a Michigan Wolverine! It even says so on some of my shirts!
What was the score?
The Capital One Cup gives greater weight to the major intercollegiate sports for men (soccer, football, basketball, lacrosse, and baseball) and women (soccer, volleyball, basketball, lacrosse, and softball). Unfortunately, Michigan didn’t fare as well in those standings this year as it did in the Learfield IMG Directors Cup. LINK
As of June 11, Michigan was in (a) 36th place in the Capital One Cup men’s standings with only 16 points (behind schools like North Dakota State, Akron, Eastern Washington, Northern Arizona, Kennesaw State, Minnesota-Duluth and Maine), well behind national leader Virginia with 127 points, and (b) 15th place in the women’s standings with 42 points, well behind national leader Stanford with 183 points. LINK
Thanks to the second place finish in baseball, Michigan should move closer to the top ten in the men’s Capital One Cup standings.
We never perform well in the Capital One Cup. Our best Men's showing was 7th, next best was 16th. As soon as you start tweaking weights or excluding sports, it becomes (even more of) an exercise in false precision.