ouch! What happened? Didn't we used to be up a lot higher? Oh well. Baseball should move us up in the final standings.

<a href="http://graphics.fansonly.com/confs/nacda/graphics/0102D1FinalWinterStand.PDF" target="_blank">http://graphics.fansonly.com/confs/nacda/graphics/0102D1FinalWinterStand.PDF</a>

You can thank Title IX for that. Because of that glorious law, we have no wrestling team, no lacrosse, etc. But, I have long maintained that there should only be three sports: football, MEN'S basketball, and baseball. Title IX licks my nads.

Is dook behind Clemson? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

-JD

did we used to have lacrosse or wrestling?

what women's sports would we have to add to get them? my vote is for a gymnastics and stripping team.

There is no way Wake can compete on a level field with the other schools in this thing. It is amazing that we can finish in the top 50 the way it is done. We pretty much include every sport in which we compete, but other schools who participate in 40 sports can pick their top sports for that year. Also, Wake does not even have enough sports to fill up the slots available.

Maryland is 28th and they went to a BCS bowl and won the national championship in bball. UNC is second b/c they can probably drop men's bball from their list. What a croc of **** .

<small>[ May 03, 2002, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Cake or Death ]</small>

Hey, we play a lot of sports... and we're good at a lot of them. Isn't that what the Sear's Cup rewards?

-JD

Hey dipsh*t, read what I said. Bigger schools have an advantage b/c they can drop the sports at which they suck i.e. UNC in bball this year. Wake does not have that ability. The Sears Cup should not be based on rewarding you in the number of sports you play; it should be about how well you compete in athletics. I wish they would have a set list of sports they measure and that we were not hurt by the size of the school combined with equal scholarships BS that eliminates some potential teams for us.

<img border="0" alt="[NoNo]" title="" src="graemlins/nono.gif" /> Please try to disguise the profanity a little better next time.

<small>[ May 07, 2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Liquid Karma ]</small>

Cake - your entire theory is blown up by the annual performance of Stanford.

IMO, the Sear's Cup should be about who plays the best in the most amount of sports.

This is an extreme example, but suppose a rinky-dink college in Montana plays two sports and wins the national title in both. They don't deserve the Sear's Cup just because they were good in those two sports.

The way it's set up now is best. You have to have a minimum cut-off point with # of sports to allow validity -- but you also don't want to exclude those schools which don't have that number of sports, but which are good at what they have.

Pretend for a moment that Wake and UNC have the same amount of sports, except UNC has one more.... and, both schools are exactly even in all the sports they share. However, UNC's one extra team is bad (a la UNC basketball this past year) or mediocre in that sport that Wake doesn't have.

Who should be ranked higher because of that? Wake, because their teams are better per-capita (for lack of a better word)? Or UNC because they fielded an extra team, but it wasn't a good one.

I believe neither team should get the advantage from that. The team with more should only be helped if they have a good team.

Well -- when you think about it -- that's how it's set up now. UNC only gains an advantage if they field good teams. Turns out that most of our teams are good.

-JD

<small>[ May 07, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: JD Heel ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JD Heel:
Well -- when you think about it -- that's how it's set up now. UNC only gains an advantage if they field good teams. Turns out that most of our teams are good.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, just not football & basketball. <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laughing.gif" />

Um, we were good in football -- unless third place in the ACC constitutes "bad".

-JD

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JD Heel:
Um, we were good in football -- unless third place in the ACC constitutes "bad".

-JD</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So sorry. I was still smiling about Wake's sweep of UNC in the major sports in 2001-02. <img border="0" alt="[angel]" title="" src="graemlins/angel.gif" />

As you should be, Lucy -- but don't belittle your own accomplishments. It sounds better to say that you beat a good team than a bad one. JMO, of course.

-JD

LK, usually the auto edit picks it up.

Anyway, Stanford has a lot more teams than Wake does - see M & W swimming, crew, fencing, W & M gymnastics, M & W diving, sailing, lacrosse, syncronized swimming, wrestling, and M & W water polo as examples. That fact helps Stanford to finish in the top 3 every year. They have every sport possible, so they actually prove my point.

JD, I see your point and understand. There is not a way to perfectly measure this. Wake will never finish in the top ten in the Sear's Cup b/c we cannot field enough teams to do so. It is a shame b/c we have a very good athletic department and are very competitive in most of the teams we field.

Guys, I know an easy way to settle this argument. Why don't we just all agree that there should be no Sears Cup. It should be called the Sports Cup because it would deal with actual sports: football, MEN'S basketball, and baseball. These are the only three that should be played at the collegiate level. Think of all the scholarship money that could be saved for sports if we didn't have all that other sh*t. <img border="0" alt="[Cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/cheers.gif" />

Look here Little Pimp - you are forgetting golf.

And your point is?