(05-21-2014 08:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How's this? Champion of each sport gets:
11 points for football
5 points for men's and women's basketball
5 points for baseball
3 points for all other sports.

Runner up in any sport gets 1 less than half (i.e. 5 for football, 2 for basketball, 1 for olympic sports)
If you don't finish in the top 2 teams, you get polite applause.

Imo, you're really failing to grasp the "all-sports" aspect of this.

(05-21-2014 09:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 08:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How's this? Champion of each sport gets:
11 points for football
5 points for men's and women's basketball
5 points for baseball
3 points for all other sports.

Runner up in any sport gets 1 less than half (i.e. 5 for football, 2 for basketball, 1 for olympic sports)
If you don't finish in the top 2 teams, you get polite applause.

Imo, you're really failing to grasp the "all-sports" aspect of this.

Oh, I get it alright. I just don't want UVA to ever win it.

EDIT: Response to john...

1. Nobody is saying BC should do anything different with hockey. Nobody is saying Cuse should do anything different with baseball. NOBODY is saying ANYBODY should do ANYTHING different in regards to ANY of their sports.

2. This concept is about having an ACC All-Sports Award/Trophy. It only makes sense to include, you know, ACC-sponsored sports.

3. It won't work? That's nice but I don't agree with your opinion. If schools don't want to "compete" for the trophy, they don't have to. And if you think it's a stupid idea, you shouldn't mind if you don't win.

-----------------------

There are at least 3 other reasonable options:

• Have two trophies. One for the "method described earlier (or similar to that)". Another for the school that scored the highest percentage of its potential points.
  
  This recognizes both the most well-rounded and the most "efficient" athletic departments individually.
  

• Have one trophy. Have 50% of the methodology being the "method described earlier (or similar to that)". The other 50% can be the percentage of potential points.
  
  This recognizes the best combination of a well-rounded and efficient athletic department.
  

• Have one trophy. Use the percentage of potential points.
  
  This recognizes the most "efficient" athletic department only.
  

The method described earlier would recognize the most well-rounded athletic department only.

This is what I mean by "potential points":

* Duke will be adding softball in 2017-18 and will be at the full 106.99 for women's sports and 205.32 for all sports.

(05-21-2014 11:00 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  EDIT: Response to john...

1. Nobody is saying BC should do anything different with hockey. Nobody is saying Cuse should do anything different with baseball. NOBODY is saying ANYBODY should do ANYTHING different in regards to ANY of their sports.

2. This concept is about having an ACC All-Sports Award/Trophy. It only makes sense to include, you know, ACC-sponsored sports.

3. It won't work? That's nice but I don't agree with your opinion. If schools don't want to "compete" for the trophy, they don't have to. And if you think it's a stupid idea, you shouldn't mind if you don't win.

-----------------------

There are at least 3 other reasonable options:

• Have two trophies. One for the "method described earlier (or similar to that)". Another for the school that scored the highest percentage of its potential points.
  
  This recognizes both the most well-rounded and the most "efficient" athletic departments individually.
  

• Have one trophy. Have 50% of the methodology being the "method described earlier (or similar to that)". The other 50% can be the percentage of potential points.
  
  This recognizes the best combination of a well-rounded and efficient athletic department.
  

• Have one trophy. Use the percentage of potential points.
  
  This recognizes the most "efficient" athletic department only.
  

The method described earlier would recognize the most well-rounded athletic department only.

This is what I mean by "potential points":

* Duke will be adding softball in 2017-18 and will be at the full 106.99 for women's sports and 205.32 for all sports.

i'm sorry but it's an idea that is flawed at its core.

award points based on total teams that play X sport ==> cuse gets pissy cuz they don't play a sport that everyone does.

award points based on a tier system and cuse still gets pissy because they won the lax tourny and used up a significant amount of their resources in doing so. meanwhile another team gets more pts. because they won the track & field title in a low resource sport that has high participation.

it is a nice idea but impossible to come up with any real ranking system for it. if it was a good idea it would of been implemented a long time ago.

(05-22-2014 12:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  award points based on total teams that play X sport ==> cuse gets pissy cuz they don't play a sport that everyone does.

award points based on a tier system and cuse still gets pissy because they won the lax tourny and used up a significant amount of their resources in doing so. meanwhile another team gets more pts. because they won the track & field title in a low resource sport that has high participation.

I want to make sure I have your summary correct. Either way Cuse (or more so john01992) gets pissy, so thus it's a bad idea. Do I have that right?

If you are giving an overall all-sports award you don't make football and basketball 65% or 80% of the total. It's all sports by definition. This wouldn't be that big of a deal, and it's not as if UVA or others will be diverting football funds to lacrosse or swimming just to win a paper "all-sports" title. It would however recognize those who are at least trying in most sports and have actually turned good leadership and coaching across sports into positive results.

(05-22-2014 12:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i'm sorry but it's an idea that is flawed at its core.

award points based on total teams that play X sport ==> cuse gets pissy cuz they don't play a sport that everyone does.

award points based on a tier system and cuse still gets pissy because they won the lax tourny and used up a significant amount of their resources in doing so. meanwhile another team gets more pts. because they won the track & field title in a low resource sport that has high participation.

it is a nice idea but impossible to come up with any real ranking system for it. if it was a good idea it would of been implemented a long time ago.

You intentionally being ridiculous to try and prove this pissy Cuse fan theme of yours accurate?

You can have three separate trophies, one for revenue sports, one for non-revenue, one for women.


1. Football, Basketball, Baseball
2. All other male sports
3. Women's sports

This would reduce some of the disparity issues and prevent a school from winning a trophy on the back of non-revenue minor sports. Of course all of that is tweekable.

(05-22-2014 09:43 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You can have three separate trophies, one for revenue sports, one for non-revenue, one for women.


1. Football, Basketball, Baseball
2. All other male sports
3. Women's sports

This would reduce some of the disparity issues and prevent a school from winning a trophy on the back of non-revenue minor sports. Of course all of that is tweekable.

Not a bad idea. TBH, just splitting men's and women's might be enough.

I still have a problem with a 5-scholarship sport counting just as much as an 85-scholarship sport.

There should be a "battle of the birds" with Miami, BC, VT, and UL.

(05-22-2014 09:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:43 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You can have three separate trophies, one for revenue sports, one for non-revenue, one for women.


1. Football, Basketball, Baseball
2. All other male sports
3. Women's sports

This would reduce some of the disparity issues and prevent a school from winning a trophy on the back of non-revenue minor sports. Of course all of that is tweekable.

Not a bad idea. TBH, just splitting men's and women's might be enough.

I still have a problem with a 5-scholarship sport counting just as much as an 85-scholarship sport.

I have a problem with X-Country, Indoor track and Outdoor track counting as three different sports.

(05-22-2014 11:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:43 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You can have three separate trophies, one for revenue sports, one for non-revenue, one for women.


1. Football, Basketball, Baseball
2. All other male sports
3. Women's sports

This would reduce some of the disparity issues and prevent a school from winning a trophy on the back of non-revenue minor sports. Of course all of that is tweekable.

Not a bad idea. TBH, just splitting men's and women's might be enough.

I still have a problem with a 5-scholarship sport counting just as much as an 85-scholarship sport.

I have a problem with X-Country, Indoor track and Outdoor track counting as three different sports.

I believe for the national director's cup, a school only is able to use its best finish out of Indoor and Outdoor Track. XC is a pretty different sport, although obviously there is some athlete cross over.

The Big East had a Commissioner's Trophy. They just counted up the number of championships for each school and awarded it to the one that had the most. However, almost no one knew that it existed.

The reality is, if an ACC trophy was a real thing, it would likely operate the same way. It is wrong, especially for the athletic administrations that are supposed to be there to support athletes, to tell a tennis player, swimmer, or lax player that their sweat and blood is less valuable than football or basketball player's. Anything other than equivalent points for each sport would never find support within the actual athletic departments. And you also don't punish schools that sponsor more sports in the ACC by normalizing for those that sponsor less because the ideal situation is for every school to sponsor every ACC sport and that should be encouraged and rewarded.

Are you guys kidding me?

One of the suggestions I made involves calculating total possible points a school could potentially earn based on the sports they play (as if the school won EVERY sport they participated in). Then the team who achieves the highest percentage of their potential points would be awarded the winner.

So if UNC has 205.32 potential points, and leads the conference in total points at 140, that's 68.2%. However, Cuse might only earn 110 points and finish middle of the pack in the ACC. But since they only have 152.65 potential points, that's 72.1%, and could theoretically still lead the conference.

Does that not alleviate the pissy Cuse fan's pissy problems?

My only issue with that method is that, while it rewards athletic quality in the sports a school participates (FSU, VT,ND?) it doesn't reward sponsoring a wide breadth of ACC-sponsored sports (UNC, Duke, UVA?). So while making it fair for "pissy fan", it actually benefits "pissy fan" because the schools with the least sponsored sports (ie, lowest potential points) have less sports they need to spread their resources amongst.

That's why I also suggested using the method I just described as just 50% of the total methodology. The remaining 50% could be some weighted measure based on the number of teams in sponsoring the sport. This would reward schools that sponsor a wide breadth of ACC sports. It's an All-Sport trophy I inquired about, not an All-Scholarship trophy. The idea doesn't work (for me) if you are going to make football substantially more influential than (almost) every other sport. And this is from a fan of a school who would benefit from that "provision" more than probably anyone.

(05-22-2014 01:53 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Are you guys kidding me?

One of the suggestions I made involves calculating total possible points a school could potentially earn based on the sports they play (as if the school won EVERY sport they participated in). Then the team who achieves the highest percentage of their potential points would be awarded the winner.

So if UNC has 205.32 potential points, and leads the conference in total points at 140, that's 68.2%. However, Cuse might only earn 110 points and finish middle of the pack in the ACC. But since they only have 152.65 potential points, that's 72.1%, and could theoretically still lead the conference.

Does that not alleviate the pissy Cuse fan's pissy problems?

My only issue with that method is that, while it rewards athletic quality in the sports a school participates (FSU, VT,ND?) it doesn't reward sponsoring a wide breadth of ACC-sponsored sports (UNC, Duke, UVA?). So while making it fair for "pissy fan", it actually benefits "pissy fan" because the schools with the least sponsored sports (ie, lowest potential points) have less sports they need to spread their resources amongst.

That's why I also suggested using the method I just described as just 50% of the total methodology. The remaining 50% could be some weighted measure based on the number of teams in sponsoring the sport. This would reward schools that sponsor a wide breadth of ACC sports. It's an All-Sport trophy I inquired about, not an All-Scholarship trophy. The idea doesn't work (for me) if you are going to make football substantially more influential than (almost) every other sport. And this is from a fan of a school who would benefit from that "provision" more than probably anyone.

I would actually prefer a straight up point total. If UNC and FSU are willing to sponsor more sports, then they should have a higher point ceiling.

Or if you wanna win stop being babies and field teams in more sports. Problem solved! ?

So, about an ACC All-Sports Trophy...WhyTF does the ACC not offer one?