Teal's article says that over the last ten years a total of 255 championships were awarded as follows.

VIRGINIA (51):
FLORIDA STATE (44):
DUKE (33):
NORTH CAROLINA (27):
MARYLAND (26):
GEORGIA TECH (19):
VIRGINIA TECH (18):
CLEMSON (13):
NORTH CAROLINA STATE (8):
MIAMI (7):
WAKE FOREST (5):
NOTRE DAME (2): [1 yr]
BOSTON COLLEGE (1): [9 yrs]
SYRACUSE (1): [1 yr]

My sincerest apologies. It is hard to keep straight which Cuse fan says which ridiculous comment sometimes. Ditto for the UL folks.

I have already stated in here and elsewhere on several occasions that UL has a good athletic department. Nowhere in this thread have I said FSU will walk all over anybody. That is some random argument that multiple Cuse fans are making a straw argument out of.

If you think UL will be no worse than 5th in the ACC, and ND no worse than 4th, which school out of FSU, Duke, UVA and UNC are you suggesting gets knocked out? Based on the last 8 years of Director's Cup results, ND belongs with that group of 4. ND has the worst average finish of the 5, but they're close pretty close to the other 4.

UL, on the other hand, is NOT close to the top group. They are, however, 6th best of the 15 ACC schools. With that said, NC State, Miami, Clemson and VT (#7-10) are all closer to UL in average rank than UL is to 5th place ND.

UL will have more resources at its disposal in the ACC to improve and compete, but the road will also be harder.

(05-31-2014 01:12 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  My sincerest apologies. It is hard to keep straight which Cuse fan says which ridiculous comment sometimes. Ditto for the UL folks.

I have already stated in here and elsewhere on several occasions that UL has a good athletic department. Nowhere in this thread have I said FSU will walk all over anybody. That is some random argument that multiple Cuse fans are making a straw argument out of.

If you think UL will be no worse than 5th in the ACC, and ND no worse than 4th, which school out of FSU, Duke, UVA and UNC are you suggesting gets knocked out? Based on the last 8 years of Director's Cup results, ND belongs with that group of 4. ND has the worst average finish of the 5, but they're close pretty close to the other 4.

UL, on the other hand, is NOT close to the top group. They are, however, 6th best of the 15 ACC schools. With that said, NC State, Miami, Clemson and VT (#7-10) are all closer to UL in average rank than UL is to 5th place ND.

UL will have more resources at its disposal in the ACC to improve and compete, but the road will also be harder.

Speaking if ridiculous straw-man arguments, I never accused you of saying anything other than a misinformed (by your own admission) statement regarding my post. However, to answer your questions, I don't know which school(s) ND will displace. That said, ND is on the same tier as at least 3 of those schools as is, and their Olympic sports will become even more competitive in the ACC. Based on those facts/widely accepted beliefs alone, it is unlikely that they will finish last of the bunch.

As for UL, I would argue that they're currently very underrated, given that the directors cup weights all sports equally. Since UL fields very competitive major sports, and a top 25 football program > a top 25 women's indoor track program. That aside, ACC money and prestige will have a substantial positive impact on UL athletics, which you are discounting. Keep in mind that that they were in the CUSA 10 years ago.

ND is already finishing last of the bunch in terms of Director's Cup standings...

I don't care what you would argue. This what about UL competing at the top of the ACC for most conference titles. Now you're saying all sports shouldn't be weighted equally when comparing total number of conference titles?

I am not discounting anything. I literally said "UL will have more resources at its disposal in the ACC to improve and compete." Maybe "you should learn to read," eh?

(05-31-2014 11:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  ND is already finishing last of the bunch in terms of Director's Cup standings...

I don't care what you would argue. This what about UL competing at the top of the ACC for most conference titles. Now you're saying all sports shouldn't be weighted equally when comparing total number of conference titles?

I am not discounting anything. I literally said "UL will have more resources at its disposal in the ACC to improve and compete." Maybe "you should learn to read," eh?

"I am not discounting anything. I literally said 'UL will have more resources at its disposal in the ACC to improve and compete.' Maybe 'you should learn to read,' eh?"

Ahh yes, but reading, like many things in life, isn't *all* about how you begin. It's also where you finish. You ended that very statement by saying "but the road will also be harder," which, in the context of explaining why those new resources in addition to UL's current resources will lead to a 6th place finish is discounting (*gasp*) their effectiveness. Take your own advice and stick with the squigglies all the way through.

"I don't care what you would argue."

Then why did you ask me questions regarding how I would rank teams?

"This what about UL competing at the top of the ACC for most conference titles."

No. It was about my opinion as to who has a better athletic department, hence statements like "I don't think that UL will have the best athletic dept. in the ACC..." The words "I" and "think" indicate that I'm voicing my opinion, and the phrase "best athletic department" indicates that I am discussing athletics departments. Sure the director's cup is one way of measuring the strength of an athletic department. However, you will notice that I discounted (there's that word again) the effectiveness of using the Director's Cup system when I said that "I would argue that [Louisville is] currently very underrated, given that the Directors Cup weights all sports equally." Therefore, to the extent that we're talking about my opinion, which we are given that you're trying to argue with me based off a post that contained "I'll give you my opinion" at the end of the operative phrase in the post, the Director's Cup isn't the end-all be all.

"ND is already finishing last of the bunch in terms of Director's Cup standings..."

This statement exemplifies where reading would have come in handy. I said "...their Olympic sports will become even more competitive in the ACC." When a team in last place gets better, they often stop being in last place. So, if ND is in last place now, but gets better, is there not a chance that they would stop being in last place?

You can vendetta against UL and ND all you want, but it won't change the fact that they both have very good athletic departments, even if this year was underwhelming for the Irish.

This is getting good. (Carry on).

Marge is always stirring the stinky stuff just to smell the stink!

Shame on me. I have comments from certain dumb*sses blocked for a reason.

(06-01-2014 12:04 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shame on me. I have comments from certain dumb*sses blocked for a reason.

Marge i always enjoy reading your posts. You put a great deal of time and thought into your posting.
I think many UofL fans simply do not know how our Olympic sports will fare in the ACC. Most fans here follow football, basketball, and to a lessor extent baseball and we feel we can compete with the best the ACC has to offer in those three. As for the rest, we really don't know. Most of us believe the ACC has the best overall olympic sports of the P5 so we know it will be tough going in many sports.

I think UL will do very well in all sports. Just think that is a reflection of their AD. UL strives to do everything great it seems like.


I don't see the ACC as a great Olympic sport conference. I think the PAC 10 is likely the best in terms of national titles.....and the SEC is REALLY becoming extremely powerful.

UNC used to be a POWER and they just fell off for some reason. Duke should be Stanford east....and sometimes they look like it, but not as consistent or dominate. UVA....don't get it, they should be Stanford East as well.....but rarely make noise.

FSU doesn't win enough national titles outside of football...despite a solid athletic dept.

The ACC is LOADED with potential....but almost always unmet potential.

The ACC is trending down IMHO.

(06-02-2014 01:18 PM)Cody6003 Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 12:04 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Shame on me. I have comments from certain dumb*sses blocked for a reason.

Marge i always enjoy reading your posts. You put a great deal of time and thought into your posting.
I think many UofL fans simply do not know how our Olympic sports will fare in the ACC. Most fans here follow football, basketball, and to a lessor extent baseball and we feel we can compete with the best the ACC has to offer in those three. As for the rest, we really don't know. Most of us believe the ACC has the best overall olympic sports of the P5 so we know it will be tough going in many sports.

I don't know if the ACC is the best or not. The Pac 12 and SEC are quite good as well.

The thing I don't get is why Cuse fans are the ones taking exception to what I said about UL. I haven't even insulted UL in any way. I've said they've been, and expect them to continue to be better than roughly 2/3 of the ACC. They have a good athletic department. The ACC just has several schools that have all routinely been ranked in the top 10 nationally the last few years in terms of overall athletic departments.

I have no idea what else to say other than that.