(07-03-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 12:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2021 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2021 01:36 PM)Ranger Wrote:  First time since the early 1990s that Stanford did not win. If the grumbling on the Cardboard is correct, NACDA changed the scoring rules so someone else Texas could win for s change.

Changing rules so TexasU could win? Really? Now, that's never happened, has it?

Truthfully, it is always a two horse race. I would be very happy if we could improve our sports, especially the men’s sports, to where we were perennial top 30 on this list.

That is a laudable goal but how about 3 cheers for our athletic dpeartment (and AD) for finishing highest in C-USA? We all wish baseball was better (and that is coming, I am sure), but excellence spread throughout the program is terrific.

(07-04-2021 08:09 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 12:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2021 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2021 01:36 PM)Ranger Wrote:  First time since the early 1990s that Stanford did not win. If the grumbling on the Cardboard is correct, NACDA changed the scoring rules so someone else Texas could win for s change.

Changing rules so TexasU could win? Really? Now, that's never happened, has it?

Truthfully, it is always a two horse race. I would be very happy if we could improve our sports, especially the men’s sports, to where we were perennial top 30 on this list.

That is a laudable goal but how about 3 cheers for our athletic dpeartment (and AD) for finishing highest in C-USA? We all wish baseball was better (and that is coming, I am sure), but excellence spread throughout the program is terrific.

Hurray. Hurray. Hurray.

Now do better.

(07-04-2021 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-04-2021 08:09 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 12:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2021 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Changing rules so TexasU could win? Really? Now, that's never happened, has it?

Truthfully, it is always a two horse race. I would be very happy if we could improve our sports, especially the men’s sports, to where we were perennial top 30 on this list.

That is a laudable goal but how about 3 cheers for our athletic dpeartment (and AD) for finishing highest in C-USA? We all wish baseball was better (and that is coming, I am sure), but excellence spread throughout the program is terrific.

Hurray. Hurray. Hurray.

Now do better.

In 6 words, you have perfectly captured the essence of college sports fans.

(07-04-2021 10:13 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(07-04-2021 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-04-2021 08:09 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-03-2021 12:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Changing rules so TexasU could win? Really? Now, that's never happened, has it?

Truthfully, it is always a two horse race. I would be very happy if we could improve our sports, especially the men’s sports, to where we were perennial top 30 on this list.

That is a laudable goal but how about 3 cheers for our athletic dpeartment (and AD) for finishing highest in C-USA? We all wish baseball was better (and that is coming, I am sure), but excellence spread throughout the program is terrific.

Hurray. Hurray. Hurray.

Now do better.

In 6 words, you have perfectly captured the essence of college sports fans.

Probably all sports fans. It’s their nature.

It always amuses me when somebody says our goal in football should be to exceed .500 and go to a bowl. Of course, if we get to that level, nobody will be satisfied to stay there. And if we get to higher level, everybody will want to do better. I bet there are plenty of Alabama and Clemson fans who want their teams to do better.

And I am no different. If we got to top 30 standing in the all-sports standings, I would want top 20. Then top ten. And so forth.

(07-02-2021 12:33 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(07-02-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tech SHSU and UH being higher than us is a disappointment. SHSU clearly buoyed by their FCS championship, but still. UH and Tech??

Does anyone remember how we scored in 2003 when we won an NC in baseball?? Maybe such things are just all but impossible for other schools to overcome??

Houston was in the Final Four in men's basketball.

This is of course why I asked the question. I wanted an idea of how much that was worth. Our NC in baseball is surely worth the same number of points and likely more than a final 4 trip, but loss... and certainly more than an FCS, not FBS NC. Sam can only win the NC in the league they are in and that is admirable, but they aren't in the 'top' league. Being behind UH is disappointing because they're in our same town. I didn't say it specifically, but that's what I meant by 'maybe such things are just all but impossible...' Have one team make the final 4 or win a lower league and you're going to be tough to beat, no matter the league/level. Would being in the women's volleyball final 4 be worth as much? By measure of fairness, it SHOULD be.

(07-02-2021 02:11 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(07-02-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Does anyone remember how we scored in 2003 when we won an NC in baseball??

This wasn't as easy to find as I'd hoped.

The NACDA's 2002-03 results were released on June 26, 2003. But their current website for that announcement (https://nacda.com/sports/2018/7/17/direc...-html.aspx) does not include the pdf of full results (or a link to it).

It's also not on the Internet Archives' Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://na...-html.aspx

And it was not mentioned in any of the Thresher issues I searched or the two Rice Sallyport magazines published after we won the NC: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...sAllowed=y ... and ... https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...sAllowed=y

There IS a copy of the final 2002-03 standings in the Woodson (Folder 24 here: https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/ricew...860.html).

I was on the verge of asking Melissa Kean (or a non-retired archives colleague) to retrieve a copy for me ... when Google pointed me to this, in the July 9, 2003, issue of the Summer Kent Stater:

Quote:Kent State athletics program finished its season 72nd in the 2002-03 Sears Director’s Cup ... (with) 223.5 points ... one point ahead of the University of New Hampshire and 7.5 points behind Rice University, who earned more points for winning the baseball championship.

(Source: https://dks.library.kent.edu/?a=d&d=sks20030709-01.2.15)

>> So in the 2002-03 ranking, we were 71st, with 231 points. <<

BTW, this 2015 Rice news release (https://riceowls.com/news/2015/6/25/Owls..._Standings) said that year's result -- 84th with 233 points -- was the Owls' "best result since they finished 64th with 326 points during the 2008-09 academic year."

Also, this Aug. 20, 2004, Thresher (https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...sAllowed=y) features excellent articles by two Parliamentarians: Amber Obermeyer mentioned that Rice finished 89th in the 2003-04 Director's Cup standings (in an entertaining column about why she's happy she chose Rice over Duke) ... and next to it, Jonathan Yardley reported on our Big Three pitchers being drafted in the Top 8 of the 2004 MLB draft.

OUTSTANDING research. THANK you.

So 08-09, we scored 20 places higher than when we won the NC. I remember us losing in the supers to LSU that year... but were in the Texas bowl. Women's basketball and soccer were 'down' as I recall. Volleyball was good but didn't go anywhere.

That somewhat implies that having more than one top 30-40 programs is worth more than one winner, even if they are BIG winners?? What if we could combine the two? I guess that's how Stanford and UT do it. I'd be good with that. Top 8 finishes in (as an example) women's basketball, volleyball or soccer... top 20 in baseball... top 30 in track, CC, women's sports and top 50 in football. Throw in another women's sport with lower participation like bowling, shooting, rowing, sailing, fencing, table tennis etc and you're 'in'.

(07-06-2021 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That somewhat implies that having more than one top 30-40 programs is worth more than one winner, even if they are BIG winners??

For some further evidence to this, Marshall was ranked below us with 125 points even after a national championship in men's soccer. They earned all their points with fall sports: the soccer title was worth 100, and a #37 finish in FBS (which I think is just "played and lost a bowl without AP ranking") was worth 25.

I looked around the women's volleyball tournament results and found this pattern:

• First round loss: 25 points
• Second round loss: 50 points
• Third round loss: 64 points
• Regional final loss: 73 points
• Final 4 loss: 83 points
• Runner-up: 90 points
• Champion: 100 points
  

I think it's a lot more achievable to have four team sports qualify into national tournaments than to win the whole thing. The first round win or bye is worth as much as qualifying, but marginal rewards diminish aggressively after that. This is how the P5 dominates this cup: a lot of the NCAA tournament at large bids are given to P5 teams, so even if the few dozen national titles are spread out thinly across the group, the five conferences accumulate a huge portion of these 25- and 50-point guarantees. In Marshall's men's soccer tournament, 12 of the 36 bids went to P5 teams. Those 7 P5 at-large bids, which all got first-round byes, were worth 50 points each.

E: I'll also add that Rice already competes in the maximum number of sports that can contribute to these rankings, 19, but since you get to choose beside the four required sports of baseball, basketball (2x), and women's volleyball, adding fully-funded sports could only improve our position by giving us more chances. I think this has been a significant source of Texas's and Stanford's success: they compete in nearly everything that can score except hockey. Disappointingly, Houston beat us this year with fewer teams.