WKU is competing in CUSA this year with track and field so we won't get those points this year

(01-23-2014 12:26 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  WKU is competing in CUSA this year with track and field so we won't get those points this year

I didn't know that. I knew our Swimming and Diving was in C-USA this year but didn't know T&F was too. Are you sure? I just looked it up and T&F are competing in SBC Championships this year.

WKU is an all-sports SBC member. As long as the SBC sponsors it, WKU is in the SBC. Swimming and diving are no longer SBC sports, so they go to C-USA.

(01-23-2014 10:55 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 10:45 AM)warhawk09 Wrote:  The Bubas Cup is flawed for so many reasons; it really is a poor way to determine an all-sports champion.

Edit: And no that's not because ULM is last, we all know what that is. So you can save the school insults.

Why, in your opinion, is it flawed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For one, all sports are lumped into one pool when not every school has each sport. Secondly, points are awarded at different levels for different sports. More points are given for winning say women's outdoor track & field than football.

So some how the athletes are inferior if they don't play football?

No, it's different because of the number of teams competing in each of the sports. Your anti-football agenda is cute though.

Anti-football? You brought it up, not me. When you say More points are given for winning say women's outdoor track & field than football you are saying football is more important. The point of a commissioners cup is to award the best athletic program in the conference, not the most popular. So when you imply that more points for one aren't as deserving as more points for another, you give one more credence. I understand that a tiered-funding structure is what ULM employs, giving priority to some sports over others, but that is an institutional choice.

FYI I am merely playing devils advocate. No one will ever like the point structure completely. For example, if you award first place a total of the number of teams in the conference, in this case, ten for football when eight teams are playing, last place gets three. But, women's soccer and golf don't have full members, and they would be weighted over basketball. Is that fair?

After a while, the SLC tried to address those concerns too, so they weighted certain sports with double points. Winning basketball netted 22 points, while women's tennis got 11. Does that mean football is more important? Most on this board would say so, but go to the tennis players and tell them they don't matter and see how that works out.

Some conferences average regular season and tournament finish. Some people like it since it combines the success of both. Others say a seventh place seed that wins the tournament wasn't clearly the better team and diminishes the work of the regular season.

As a department that has always offered less than the conference max of sports offered, I always see the flaws in the scoring. Another example, UALR doesn't offer two sports, but does offer one the conference doesn't. Does that mean they are a lower athletic program? In the WAC, Denver only had ten of 19 sports the WAC had, but they finished middle of the pack. My guess is that they were far better than the winners, UTSA, but just didn't have the sports the conference did.

Bottom line, no one has invented a scoring system that everyone likes. But the SBC has a certain scoring system in place and I hope that my U competes the best way possible, because I have always rooted for every team at UTA to win. To me, regardless of scoring, the better the finish, the better the program.

I'm not going to read all of that but will address your first point.

I'm not saying that at all, what I'm saying is the women's track champion shouldn't get more points than the football champion simply because there are more schools that participate in track.

I addressed what you said, so whatever.

(01-23-2014 12:30 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 12:26 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  WKU is competing in CUSA this year with track and field so we won't get those points this year

I didn't know that. I knew our Swimming and Diving was in C-USA this year but didn't know T&F was too. Are you sure? I just looked it up and T&F are competing in SBC Championships this year.

I think you are correct. It's water sports

(01-23-2014 07:30 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I addressed what you said, so whatever.

Fantastic

I'm liking the T&F scoring. As of right now, our indoor teams have done very well in the 2 meets they've been in. Bring on the SBC championships.

I wonder if the last few years will hold this year too.

Indoor track, men
2011 UTA 2nd, TXST 8th
2012 UTA 2nd, TXST 5th
2013 UTA 2nd, TXST 4th
Indoor, women
2011 UTA 2nd, TXST 4th
2012 UTA 2nd, TXST 3rd
2013 TXST 1st, UTA 5th
Outdoor, men
2011 UTA 3rd, TXST 7th
2012 TXST 2nd, UTA 6th
2013 TXST 1st, UTA 3rd
Outdoor, women
2011 TXST 4th, UTA 5th
2012 TXST 3rd, UTA 5th
2013 TXST 1st, UTA 2nd

(01-23-2014 10:35 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I wonder if the last few years will hold this year too.

Indoor track, men
2011 UTA 2nd, TXST 8th
2012 UTA 2nd, TXST 5th
2013 UTA 2nd, TXST 4th
Indoor, women
2011 UTA 2nd, TXST 4th
2012 UTA 2nd, TXST 3rd
2013 TXST 1st, UTA 5th
Outdoor, men
2011 UTA 3rd, TXST 7th
2012 TXST 2nd, UTA 6th
2013 TXST 1st, UTA 3rd
Outdoor, women
2011 TXST 4th, UTA 5th
2012 TXST 3rd, UTA 5th
2013 TXST 1st, UTA 2nd

Coach Boone has worked some magic with the track & field program since coming on in 2012.

When I was a student, it was usually us or you guys. Good to see ya back.

(01-23-2014 07:29 PM)warhawk09 Wrote:  I'm not going to read all of that but will address your first point.

I'm not saying that at all, what I'm saying is the women's track champion shouldn't get more points than the football champion simply because there are more schools that participate in track.

If each sport had the same weight then it would further punish the teams that don't sponsor a sport. Besides, there still wouldn't be much difference:

2013 with equal weights (not counting swimming and diving):
156.5 - MTSU
140.5 - USA (up 1 spot)
138.5 - UNT (down 1 spot)
135 - WKU
123 - ASU
104.5 - UL-L
97.5 - FIU
95 - Troy (up 1 spot)
86 -UALR (down 1 spot)
72.5 - GSU**
67.5 - FAU
66.5 - ULM (was tied with FAU for last in actual standings but now dead last with weighted)

If you added swimming and diving it benefits 5 teams and hurts 7. WKU, FIU, and FAU all move up 1, 1, and 2 positions respectively, and USA, UL-L, ULM, and GSU all lose one spot... on a sport that only 5 members participated in (for you non-math peeps that's less than half).

** Note: GSU only participated in 8 sports last year, so this isn't a great reflection on how they will fare in the future.

So far this year we have :
36.5 - WKU
32 - ASU
30 - USA
27 - UL-L
25 - UTA
22.5 - TXST
19.5 - UALR
17 - Troy
13.5 - GSU
13 - ULM

2014 with equal weights:
39.5 - WKU (same)
35 - ASU (same)
33 - USA (same)
30 - UL-L (same)
26 - UTA (same)
25.5 - TXST (same)
21.5 - UALR (same)
20 - Troy (same)
17 - ULM (up 1)
15.5 - GSU (down 1)

The more sports you sponsor the better weighted sports would be. The less sports you sponsor the more it would hurt. Now that swimming and diving is no longer sponsored by the SBC, USA participates in every sport. So it would benefit USA. However, I don't think it's the fairest system. The current method is the more fair method of the two for calculating the Bubas Cup.

That might be too long for him to read...