CSNbbs

WKU men and women won the track championships, but MT was 2nd in one, and 3rd in another, even picking up a point in softball over WKU.

No program can catch the Blue Raiders now.

MT has won the award 5 out of the last 7 years.

2004 Middle Tennessee
2005 Middle Tennessee
2006 Western Kentucky
2007 Middle Tennessee
2008 Western Kentucky
2009 Middle Tennessee
2010 Middle Tennessee

and all the negative talk about the trophy starting in 3... 2... 1...

(05-10-2010 03:02 PM)MT FAN Wrote: [ -> ]and all the negative talk about the trophy starting in 3... 2... 1...

Well , that trophy needs to be BIGGER !

That is so amazing. I am so jealous. EW, EW, EW...I wish it was ME!!!

Not really...

Football
Troy 31, Middle Tennessee 7
Basketball
Troy 70, Middle Tennessee 67
Troy 66, Middle Tennessee 62


I'm personally happier with those three outcomes than the stupid ass buba gump shrimp cup.

You could take all that as negative...but I would take it as respect.

Hot dang, we dood it again ! Us Muts is sumptin else !

(05-10-2010 03:02 PM)MT FAN Wrote: [ -> ]and all the negative talk about the trophy starting in 3... 2... 1...

Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

Of course I'd say this regardless of the fact that we do suck at track.

(05-11-2010 08:32 AM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

But would you guys not be happy if your team won the trophy?

(05-11-2010 08:32 AM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2010 03:02 PM)MT FAN Wrote: [ -> ]and all the negative talk about the trophy starting in 3... 2... 1...

Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

Of course I'd say this regardless of the fact that we do suck at track.

When ya don't win, there's always "reasons" it ain't right.

Congrats on winning it again.

(05-11-2010 10:54 AM)tyler90wm Wrote: [ -> ]But would you guys not be happy if your team won the trophy?

It'd be nice sure, but If I had to choose between winning the Bubas cups or having huge success in Football and Basketball I would take the latter.

Donors and Alumni care MUCH more about the latter then the former.

Hypothetically IF FAU were to go 13-0 in football, and come in last in every other sport the impact would be much bigger then winning hte award.

But in all seriousness congratulations, it IS an accomplishment and does show dedication all of your coachs and staff have shown to all of thier sports.

(05-11-2010 08:32 AM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

Of course I'd say this regardless of the fact that we do suck at track.

Indoor track and outdoor track are two different sports and should be viewed as such.

There are two sides to every argument, but the system in which points are scaled by the number of sponsoring schools is the way to do it. Sure right now Track and Field gets more points than football, but if you made all sports equal in scoring, the winner of Men's swim and dive, which only has four participants, would get the same number of points as the winner of football, which would be completely ridiculous. It would give a tremendous advantage to men's swimming schools as they could earn the same number of points by beating three other schools as another team could earn by beating eight other schools in football or eleven other schools in basketball.

Your problem is, you're trying to put more emphasis on certain sports because they're more popular, but that's completely counterintuitive to an "all-sport trophy". All sports are equally important and the only way points should vary is how they currently do which is by the number of sponsoring schools.

(05-10-2010 02:11 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote: [ -> ]WKU men and women won the track championships, but MT was 2nd in one, and 3rd in another, even picking up a point in softball over WKU.

No program can catch the Blue Raiders now.

MT has won the award 5 out of the last 7 years.

2004 Middle Tennessee
2005 Middle Tennessee
2006 Western Kentucky
2007 Middle Tennessee
2008 Western Kentucky
2009 Middle Tennessee
2010 Middle Tennessee

Congrats on winning again. MT and WKU have definitely demonstrated a strong commitment to all the sports sponsored by the schools.

(05-11-2010 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 08:32 AM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

Of course I'd say this regardless of the fact that we do suck at track.

Indoor track and outdoor track are two different sports and should be viewed as such.

There are two sides to every argument, but the system in which points are scaled by the number of sponsoring schools is the way to do it. Sure right now Track and Field gets more points than football, but if you made all sports equal in scoring, the winner of Men's swim and dive, which only has four participants, would get the same number of points as the winner of football, which would be completely ridiculous. It would give a tremendous advantage to men's swimming schools as they could earn the same number of points by beating three other schools as another team could earn by beating eight other schools in football or eleven other schools in basketball.

Your problem is, you're trying to put more emphasis on certain sports because they're more popular, but that's completely counterintuitive to an "all-sport trophy". All sports are equally important and the only way points should vary is how they currently do which is by the number of sponsoring schools.

Nope, sorry. If only 4 schools participate in a sport, then it shouldn't be included in the all sports trophy. What's the use of an all sports trophy if not all schools participate in all sports?

But congrats to MT for consistently figuring Buba out.

(05-11-2010 02:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 08:32 AM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

Of course I'd say this regardless of the fact that we do suck at track.

Indoor track and outdoor track are two different sports and should be viewed as such.

There are two sides to every argument, but the system in which points are scaled by the number of sponsoring schools is the way to do it. Sure right now Track and Field gets more points than football, but if you made all sports equal in scoring, the winner of Men's swim and dive, which only has four participants, would get the same number of points as the winner of football, which would be completely ridiculous. It would give a tremendous advantage to men's swimming schools as they could earn the same number of points by beating three other schools as another team could earn by beating eight other schools in football or eleven other schools in basketball.

Your problem is, you're trying to put more emphasis on certain sports because they're more popular, but that's completely counterintuitive to an "all-sport trophy". All sports are equally important and the only way points should vary is how they currently do which is by the number of sponsoring schools.

Nope, sorry. If only 4 schools participate in a sport, then it shouldn't be included in the all sports trophy. What's the use of an all sports trophy if not all schools participate in all sports?

But congrats to MT for consistently figuring Buba out.

I could see that argument for eliminating a school that is only sponsored by 4 schools long before I could see the argument for making all sports count equally. If we're going to eliminate sports from the all sports trophy, how many schools out of 12 members need to sponsor a sport for it to count towards the trophy? All 12? That eliminates football. How about more than half? In that case women's swim and dive which is only sponsored by 7 schools would count as much as football sponsored by 9 and basketball sponsored by all 12. So I can see the argument for eliminating sports that are sponsored by less than half the schools, but even if we do that, the system still needs to be scaled scoring to eliminate the advantage that would still exist for schools sponsoring sports that just barely qualify.

(05-11-2010 02:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 08:32 AM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

Of course I'd say this regardless of the fact that we do suck at track.

Indoor track and outdoor track are two different sports and should be viewed as such.

There are two sides to every argument, but the system in which points are scaled by the number of sponsoring schools is the way to do it. Sure right now Track and Field gets more points than football, but if you made all sports equal in scoring, the winner of Men's swim and dive, which only has four participants, would get the same number of points as the winner of football, which would be completely ridiculous. It would give a tremendous advantage to men's swimming schools as they could earn the same number of points by beating three other schools as another team could earn by beating eight other schools in football or eleven other schools in basketball.

Your problem is, you're trying to put more emphasis on certain sports because they're more popular, but that's completely counterintuitive to an "all-sport trophy". All sports are equally important and the only way points should vary is how they currently do which is by the number of sponsoring schools.

Nope, sorry. If only 4 schools participate in a sport, then it shouldn't be included in the all sports trophy. What's the use of an all sports trophy if not all schools participate in all sports?

But congrats to MT for consistently figuring Buba out.

Here's the thing:
Take away Middle's points for sports that the schools below them don't sponsor and we're still on top.

Weight football and basketball more and we're still on top.

Make track count once and we're still on top.

Take track out and we're still on top.

In a previous thread, someone posted about five different variations on the formula and one thing remained the same: MT on top.

We have the best top to bottom athletic program in the league, and outside of WKU, it's not even close.

[quote='tyler90wm' pid='5415255' dateline='1273593284']
But would you guys not be happy if your team won the trophy?
[/quote

i think it a great accomplishment, shows a well balanced athletic dept.
Congratulations !

(05-11-2010 03:38 PM)theboro Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 02:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 08:32 AM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

Of course I'd say this regardless of the fact that we do suck at track.

Indoor track and outdoor track are two different sports and should be viewed as such.

There are two sides to every argument, but the system in which points are scaled by the number of sponsoring schools is the way to do it. Sure right now Track and Field gets more points than football, but if you made all sports equal in scoring, the winner of Men's swim and dive, which only has four participants, would get the same number of points as the winner of football, which would be completely ridiculous. It would give a tremendous advantage to men's swimming schools as they could earn the same number of points by beating three other schools as another team could earn by beating eight other schools in football or eleven other schools in basketball.

Your problem is, you're trying to put more emphasis on certain sports because they're more popular, but that's completely counterintuitive to an "all-sport trophy". All sports are equally important and the only way points should vary is how they currently do which is by the number of sponsoring schools.

Nope, sorry. If only 4 schools participate in a sport, then it shouldn't be included in the all sports trophy. What's the use of an all sports trophy if not all schools participate in all sports?

But congrats to MT for consistently figuring Buba out.

Here's the thing:
Take away Middle's points for sports that the schools below them don't sponsor and we're still on top.

Weight football and basketball more and we're still on top.

Make track count once and we're still on top.

Take track out and we're still on top.

In a previous thread, someone posted about five different variations on the formula and one thing remained the same: MT on top.

We have the best top to bottom athletic program in the league, and outside of WKU, it's not even close.

Hey now...this year WKU will only beat us by a point or two! We are closing the gap on yall

(05-14-2010 02:55 PM)CMJ Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 03:38 PM)theboro Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 02:14 PM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2010 08:32 AM)AstroCajun Wrote: [ -> ]Well since you asked...

There's too much emphasis track and field and there's far too many points allotted to it. Indoor track and outdoor track should not be separate but worth half of a total composite for track.

Also each sport should be worth the same total point value regardless of number of participants. A first place win in track is worth more than a first place in football...really?

Of course I'd say this regardless of the fact that we do suck at track.

Indoor track and outdoor track are two different sports and should be viewed as such.

There are two sides to every argument, but the system in which points are scaled by the number of sponsoring schools is the way to do it. Sure right now Track and Field gets more points than football, but if you made all sports equal in scoring, the winner of Men's swim and dive, which only has four participants, would get the same number of points as the winner of football, which would be completely ridiculous. It would give a tremendous advantage to men's swimming schools as they could earn the same number of points by beating three other schools as another team could earn by beating eight other schools in football or eleven other schools in basketball.

Your problem is, you're trying to put more emphasis on certain sports because they're more popular, but that's completely counterintuitive to an "all-sport trophy". All sports are equally important and the only way points should vary is how they currently do which is by the number of sponsoring schools.

Nope, sorry. If only 4 schools participate in a sport, then it shouldn't be included in the all sports trophy. What's the use of an all sports trophy if not all schools participate in all sports?

But congrats to MT for consistently figuring Buba out.

Here's the thing:
Take away Middle's points for sports that the schools below them don't sponsor and we're still on top.

Weight football and basketball more and we're still on top.

Make track count once and we're still on top.

Take track out and we're still on top.

In a previous thread, someone posted about five different variations on the formula and one thing remained the same: MT on top.

We have the best top to bottom athletic program in the league, and outside of WKU, it's not even close.

Hey now...this year WKU will only beat us by a point or two! We are closing the gap on yall

Without any points from baseball.

Well yes, otherwise we probably would've gotten 2nd this season.