|
Post by NebraskaVBfan93 on Aug 21, 2014 20:42:48 GMT -5
Yea, I dont want to start something, but REALLY? Considering Stanford has won the Director's Cup for the last 19 years... maybe throw them in the conversation? True, BUT "names" in college athletics are not determined by successful in volleyball, track or even women's basketball. It's determined by football, football, men's basketball and football. Disagree. The question was regarding collegiate athletics and I would bet most people who consider themselves real fans of college sports in general are aware of Stanford's overall success across a multitude of sports.
|
|
BoilerOn
Freshman
Boiler Up and Fight On!!
Posts: 71
|
Post by BoilerOn on Aug 22, 2014 9:34:40 GMT -5
No one cares about the Director's cup, and the Director's cup counts the following sports... Baseball, W and M Golf, W and M Lacrosse, Women's Rowing, Softball, W and M Tennis, W and M Track and Field, Men's Volleyball and Women's Water Polo. That's what you're gunna base Stanford's athletic power on? In director's cup rankings, Virginia is higher than USC. Do you honestly think Virginia has a bigger and better athletic program than USC? Stanford's athletic program doesn't have the facilities, profit, or alumni power Ohio State does. It's not close. I'm not a buckeye fan but there's no way you can count Stanford in the same class as OSU, especially considering that Stanford has only become a name in athletics since their football team beat USC with Jim Harbaugh. More people wear Stanford gear for the academic reputation, not the athletic one. Do you want it based on only the sports Ohio State is good at? And you forgot football, basketball. Swimming, etc. The point of listing the other sports that are counted is to show that the Director's Cup isn't by any means a means of gauging athletic prowess. I don't care about Ohio State, you must have missed that point. The point was that OSU is one of the biggest names in college athletics and Stanford isn't close to them. And just because OSU has a huge athletic program doesn't mean they can't be a dark horse.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 22, 2014 12:10:22 GMT -5
Do you want it based on only the sports Ohio State is good at? And you forgot football, basketball. Swimming, etc. The point of listing the other sports that are counted is to show that the Director's Cup isn't by any means a means of gauging athletic prowess. I don't care about Ohio State, you must have missed that point. The point was that OSU is one of the biggest names in college athletics and Stanford isn't close to them. And just because OSU has a huge athletic program doesn't mean they can't be a dark horse. There wouldn't be a director's cup if no one cared about it. I think we all gauge success of an athletic program by wins and losses and not by size and profit. If that wasn't the case, Mac Brown would still be coaching at Texas and Ohio State wouldn't care about corruption. Oh wait, they don't. Seriously, Ohio State may have a big name, but they aren't the biggest (Texas, Wisconsin, in that order) nor the best (Stanford, Florida). OSU isn't even the biggest in expenditure, revenue or profit in the Big Ten (Wisconsin). Maybe you're referring to how Ohio State views themselves, not where they are in reality? Size/Profit: www.thekeyplay.com/content/2014/january/20/college-football-arms-race-examining-athletic-department-revenues (secondary source) Director's Cup: grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/june26stand.pdf
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 22, 2014 12:38:15 GMT -5
Do you want it based on only the sports Ohio State is good at? And you forgot football, basketball. Swimming, etc. The point of listing the other sports that are counted is to show that the Director's Cup isn't by any means a means of gauging athletic prowess. I don't care about Ohio State, you must have missed that point. The point was that OSU is one of the biggest names in college athletics and Stanford isn't close to them. And just because OSU has a huge athletic program doesn't mean they can't be a dark horse. like all comparisons, its about the criteria you choose in which to measure them. Ohio St's athletic department is in another league in terms of "magnitude" Top to bottom, Stanford's teams perform better. You could make the argument that because Stanford's athletic department isn't embroiled in scandals, NCAA violations, they are the better athletic department. I do agree that any team can be a darkhorse regardless of how great their department is, or what their past history is. If the 2014 OSU team isn't supposed to be great, they are indeed a darkhorse to excel in the Big Ten.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 22, 2014 13:11:40 GMT -5
The point of listing the other sports that are counted is to show that the Director's Cup isn't by any means a means of gauging athletic prowess. I don't care about Ohio State, you must have missed that point. The point was that OSU is one of the biggest names in college athletics and Stanford isn't close to them. And just because OSU has a huge athletic program doesn't mean they can't be a dark horse. like all comparisons, its about the criteria you choose in which to measure them. Ohio St's athletic department is in another league in terms of "magnitude" Top to bottom, Stanford's teams perform better. You could make the argument that because Stanford's athletic department isn't embroiled in scandals, NCAA violations, they are the better athletic department. I do agree that any team can be a darkhorse regardless of how great their department is, or what their past history is. If the 2014 OSU team isn't supposed to be great, they are indeed a darkhorse to excel in the Big Ten. What do you mean, magnitude? It's not the largest. It's not the most profitable. It's not even the most successful...in the Big Ten. Explain.
|
|
BoilerOn
Freshman
Boiler Up and Fight On!!
Posts: 71
|
Post by BoilerOn on Aug 22, 2014 13:39:17 GMT -5
The point of listing the other sports that are counted is to show that the Director's Cup isn't by any means a means of gauging athletic prowess. I don't care about Ohio State, you must have missed that point. The point was that OSU is one of the biggest names in college athletics and Stanford isn't close to them. And just because OSU has a huge athletic program doesn't mean they can't be a dark horse. There wouldn't be a director's cup if no one cared about it. I think we all gauge success of an athletic program by wins and losses and not by size and profit. If that wasn't the case, Mac Brown would still be coaching at Texas and Ohio State wouldn't care about corruption. Oh wait, they don't. Seriously, Ohio State may have a big name, but they aren't the biggest (Texas, Wisconsin, in that order) nor the best (Stanford, Florida). OSU isn't even the biggest in expenditure, revenue or profit in the Big Ten (Wisconsin) and 11th nationally. Maybe you're referring to how Ohio State views themselves, not where they are in reality? Size/Profit: www.thekeyplay.com/content/2014/january/20/college-football-arms-race-examining-athletic-department-revenues (secondary source) Director's Cup: grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/june26stand.pdf I know this thread isn't about athletic depts so this will be my final point on this. Your stats were from 2012-2013 alone. If you look at 2011-2012 Ohio State was the biggest in the Big Ten and they are on par with Texas year by year and top 3 normally. The only reason Wisconsin was higher was because they made it to the Rose Bowl that year, the previous year they were 4th in the Big Ten and 11th nationally. So sure they're athletic program brought in a lot one year but they aren't one of the biggest names in college sports. And just because they give the Director's Cup out, doesn't mean people care. Do you know when it is give out? Who gives it out? Who sponsors it? Do you even know what NACDA stands for without looking it up? I'm not attacking you but I'm saying that 19 out of 20 people don't even know what the Director's cup is. Until a poster said Stanford won it for 16 20 years straight, you probably couldn't even name who won it the last 3 years. I was viewing athletic prowess by means as a national name and average revenue, because programs don't become national brands unless they win in the big sports. i.e. Florida, USC, OSU, Notre Dame, etc. Basically if they sell their sweatshirts in a store across the country. Stanford does things the right way with no violations or anything, they are much more focused on academics then athletics. Stanford has the second most championships all time and probably the least infractions. So yes as they do well in both areas and in that aspect, they may be the best. But in regard to the big sports (men's and women's basketball, football) that bring in revenue and brand name, they don't do well. And if i was speaking about how OSU views themselves, well no one would ever come close to their success
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 22, 2014 13:59:36 GMT -5
like all comparisons, its about the criteria you choose in which to measure them. Ohio St's athletic department is in another league in terms of "magnitude" Top to bottom, Stanford's teams perform better. You could make the argument that because Stanford's athletic department isn't embroiled in scandals, NCAA violations, they are the better athletic department. I do agree that any team can be a darkhorse regardless of how great their department is, or what their past history is. If the 2014 OSU team isn't supposed to be great, they are indeed a darkhorse to excel in the Big Ten. What do you mean, magnitude? It's not the largest. It's not the most profitable. It's not even the most successful...in the Big Ten. Explain. I would be happy to explain, although if you read my post you would see I never said it was the largest, I never said it was the most profitable, or the most successful, I also never compared it in any way to anyone in the Big Ten. The comparison I specifically commented on was measuring Stanford vs Ohio St. "Magnitude" in this case means money, popularity, national exposure etc..... Hope that helps
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Aug 22, 2014 14:01:21 GMT -5
Can you guys go over and start a new thread on the most successful athletics department rather than continuing to invade this one?
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 22, 2014 14:02:57 GMT -5
What do you mean, magnitude? It's not the largest. It's not the most profitable. It's not even the most successful...in the Big Ten. Explain. I would be happy to explain, although if you read my post you would see I never said it was the largest, I never said it was the most profitable, or the most successful, I also never compared it in any way to anyone in the Big Ten. The comparison I specifically commented on was measuring Stanford vs Ohio St. "Magnitude" in this case means money, popularity, national exposure etc..... Hope that helps Ok...so revenue = money. I guess I wasn't that far off. I would also say that you don't have revenue unless you're popular. Again, one of the measures of "magnitude" I suggested. Pick away, dorothy. How else was I wrong and were you correct? And yes, I'd be happy to carry on this conversation somewhere else if you have something more pertinent to say, gobucky.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 22, 2014 14:04:08 GMT -5
Can you guys go over and start a new thread on the most successful athletics department rather than continuing to invade this one? If invading is one post, and then answer a direct question, than I am guilty as charged. Can you point out ANY thread in the history of vtalk that doesn't wander?
|
|
|
Post by vbcoachsouth on Aug 22, 2014 14:04:49 GMT -5
anyone know when the ACC poll comes out?
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 22, 2014 14:15:58 GMT -5
I would be happy to explain, although if you read my post you would see I never said it was the largest, I never said it was the most profitable, or the most successful, I also never compared it in any way to anyone in the Big Ten. The comparison I specifically commented on was measuring Stanford vs Ohio St. "Magnitude" in this case means money, popularity, national exposure etc..... Hope that helps Ok...so revenue = money. I guess I wasn't that far off. I would also say that you don't have revenue unless you're popular. Again, one of the measures of "magnitude" I suggested. Pick away, dorothy. How else was I wrong and were you correct? And yes, I'd be happy to carry on this conversation somewhere else if you have something more pertinent to say, gobucky. I never in any way suggested I was right or you were wrong. In fact I stated comparing is all based on what each person thinks is the right way to measure, there is no wrong. You challenged me on something I didn't say or in any way insinuate, and then you asked me to explain. My response was to inform you that I didn't say anything whatsoever about it being the largest, most profitable or its relevance to the Big Ten. I than proceeded to answer your direct question which was to explain what I meant by magnitude. I would suggest that if there is anything you are doing wrong, its that you aren't reading what I posted.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 23, 2014 11:18:15 GMT -5
Ok...so revenue = money. I guess I wasn't that far off. I would also say that you don't have revenue unless you're popular. Again, one of the measures of "magnitude" I suggested. Pick away, dorothy. How else was I wrong and were you correct? And yes, I'd be happy to carry on this conversation somewhere else if you have something more pertinent to say, gobucky. I never in any way suggested I was right or you were wrong. In fact I stated comparing is all based on what each person thinks is the right way to measure, there is no wrong. You challenged me on something I didn't say or in any way insinuate, and then you asked me to explain. My response was to inform you that I didn't say anything whatsoever about it being the largest, most profitable or its relevance to the Big Ten. I than proceeded to answer your direct question which was to explain what I meant by magnitude. I would suggest that if there is anything you are doing wrong, its that you aren't reading what I posted. You are tiresome. Magnitude was left undefined. I offered some commonly used definitions that would be contextually appropriate. You stated something contradictory, per usual, without factual support. In fact, without and basis at all. When I offered factual support you contradicted me and said "popular" was the definition. In my opinion, you just hate to be wrong when fact contradict what you say and try to craft a different meaning/argument around your statement. I also don't think you completely understand the concepts of inference and insinuation, both of which you employed in gently asserting/correcting your perspective as the correct one.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Aug 23, 2014 14:06:23 GMT -5
I never in any way suggested I was right or you were wrong. In fact I stated comparing is all based on what each person thinks is the right way to measure, there is no wrong. You challenged me on something I didn't say or in any way insinuate, and then you asked me to explain. My response was to inform you that I didn't say anything whatsoever about it being the largest, most profitable or its relevance to the Big Ten. I than proceeded to answer your direct question which was to explain what I meant by magnitude. I would suggest that if there is anything you are doing wrong, its that you aren't reading what I posted. You are tiresome. Magnitude was left undefined. I offered some commonly used definitions that would be contextually appropriate. You stated something contradictory, per usual, without factual support. In fact, without and basis at all. When I offered factual support you contradicted me and said "popular" was the definition. In my opinion, you just hate to be wrong when fact contradict what you say and try to craft a different meaning/argument around your statement. I also don't think you completely understand the concepts of inference and insinuation, both of which you employed in gently asserting/correcting your perspective as the correct one. Allow me to respond to each point, and I BEG YOU to actually read. I did in fact leave "magnitude" undefined, I assumed people would understand the point. When you asked me to define it, I did. You are now saying I didn't give any factual support and said it was because they were more "popular" That is either a complete lie on your part or a very calculated omission of me saying "more profitable" which IS A FACT. So lets rehash, I did define Magnitude, I did provide fact. Your factual support was that OSU wasn't the most profitable in the Big Ten. That isn't factual support in comparing Stanford and OSU. Nobody at any time was comparing them to anyone in the Big Ten. That AGAIN would be you NOT READING what I posted. Now about hating being wrong, allow me to quote myself " I never in any way suggested I was right or you were wrong. In fact I stated comparing is all based on what each person thinks is the right way to measure, there is no wrong."
So given WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN how am I trying to prove I am right and you are wrong? AGAIN, you literally are not reading what I posted. Do me a favor, go back and read what I actually posted and then come back on here and say, I didn't define Magnitude, didn't provide fact, wanted to prove you wrong. If you want to discuss this in PM or call me and we can read together what was actually posted, I'd be happy to do that, if not, let's get back to the thread.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 23, 2014 17:56:02 GMT -5
You are tiresome. Magnitude was left undefined. I offered some commonly used definitions that would be contextually appropriate. You stated something contradictory, per usual, without factual support. In fact, without and basis at all. When I offered factual support you contradicted me and said "popular" was the definition. In my opinion, you just hate to be wrong when fact contradict what you say and try to craft a different meaning/argument around your statement. I also don't think you completely understand the concepts of inference and insinuation, both of which you employed in gently asserting/correcting your perspective as the correct one. Allow me to respond to each point, and I BEG YOU to actually read. I did in fact leave "magnitude" undefined, I assumed people would understand the point. When you asked me to define it, I did. You are now saying I didn't give any factual support and said it was because they were more "popular" That is either a complete lie on your part or a very calculated omission of me saying "more profitable" which IS A FACT. So lets rehash, I did define Magnitude, I did provide fact. Your factual support was that OSU wasn't the most profitable in the Big Ten. That isn't factual support in comparing Stanford and OSU. Nobody at any time was comparing them to anyone in the Big Ten. That AGAIN would be you NOT READING what I posted. Now about hating being wrong, allow me to quote myself " I never in any way suggested I was right or you were wrong. In fact I stated comparing is all based on what each person thinks is the right way to measure, there is no wrong."
So given WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN how am I trying to prove I am right and you are wrong? AGAIN, you literally are not reading what I posted. Do me a favor, go back and read what I actually posted and then come back on here and say, I didn't define Magnitude, didn't provide fact, wanted to prove you wrong. If you want to discuss this in PM or call me and we can read together what was actually posted, I'd be happy to do that, if not, let's get back to the thread. I read and understand what you wrote. You clearly refuse to read what I wrote, or don't possess the intellectual ability to understand what I said. If you're to define "popular," it's pure conjecture that OSU is more popular than Stanford or anyone else, much less "on another level." I couldn't care less about you or this conversation enough to PM you. If others want to go back to the conversation, they are more than welcome. I, however, will not let you condescend and be plain wrong, and because it's you, I prefer to point it out in public because f your propensity to do the same.
|
|