Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2020 13:33:36 GMT -5
Last year they ncaa.com says they finished at 10, that would make them one of the top teams. Men’s ncaa tournament is very different than every other sport considering not even 10 teams make the tourney. Not making a tournament of 6/7 total teams, imo, does not mean you aren’t one of the top teams. In women’s vb, essentially everyone in the top 25 makes the tournament, including 37 other teams. So I think it’s a bit unfair the say Stanford men’s vb isn’t a top program cause they haven’t made their very small NCAA tourney Here is our record in mens volleyball over the last five years: 6-11 15-11 6-20 13-13 19-6 That is not very good. Particularly for a sport that only has only 4 other power-5 conference teams. I was about to point out that you mean five, with Ohio St and Penn St, and then obviously all the California teams would have it ....... except that Cal does not have a varsity team. How silly is that? But they do have Men's Gymnastics.
So is this basically nothing more than trying to match sports offerings with Cal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2020 16:06:52 GMT -5
I understand that there are not nearly as many men’s teams, but to say a team ranked #10 at the end of a season is not a top team just isn’t something I would agree with. Especially if since 2014 that team has beaten Pepperdine, UCLA, usc, penn state, some multiple times. And those wins aren’t necessarily shocking. If you’re beating teams consistently in the top 10 over the course a few years, I would consider that a top team in my book but if you wanna base it off a 6 team tournament then that’s how u feel Mathematically, being 10th out of 23 D1 men's teams is equivalent to being about 130th in an approximately 300 team D1 women's field. By your standards over half of womens teams should get axed as well. 90 percent of the stanford mens schedule is against ranked opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 6, 2020 16:22:57 GMT -5
Mathematically, being 10th out of 23 D1 men's teams is equivalent to being about 130th in an approximately 300 team D1 women's field. By your standards over half of womens teams should get axed as well. 90 percent of the stanford mens schedule is against ranked opponents. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? There is no statement in any of my posts that was advocating that the program should be axed. I was just disagreeing with the premise that being ranked #10 indicated that they were a top program when there are so few men's volleyball programs. It is your school, if Stanford is your school, that is cutting the program. I don't care if they cut it or not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2020 17:15:40 GMT -5
I follow men’s NCAA as much as women’s, and from my “eye test” or “intuition” or whatever, I wouldn’t label Stanford men as a “top program” unless I were considering a team like Auburn to be a “top program” on the women’s side.
Sure, they’re somewhere around the top 1/3 of all teams they compete against, and statistically that could be argued that it fits a definition of “top” but I don’t consider all teams in the top 1/3 of the organization to be “top teams” in everyday conversation and “top” doesn’t really mean anything without context. Top what?
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 6, 2020 17:22:17 GMT -5
I follow men’s NCAA as much as women’s, and from my “eye test” or “intuition” or whatever, I wouldn’t label Stanford men as a “top program” unless I were considering a team like Auburn to be a “top program” on the women’s side. Sure, they’re somewhere around the top 1/3 of all teams they compete against, and statistically that could be argued that it fits a definition of “top” but I don’t consider all teams in the top 1/3 of the organization to be “top teams” in everyday conversation and “top” doesn’t really mean anything without context. Top what? But they've won a title in the last decade. |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 6, 2020 17:42:48 GMT -5
Last year they ncaa.com says they finished at 10, that would make them one of the top teams. Men’s ncaa tournament is very different than every other sport considering not even 10 teams make the tourney. Not making a tournament of 6/7 total teams, imo, does not mean you aren’t one of the top teams. In women’s vb, essentially everyone in the top 25 makes the tournament, including 37 other teams. So I think it’s a bit unfair the say Stanford men’s vb isn’t a top program cause they haven’t made their very small NCAA tourney According to a list I just saw, there are only 23 men's D1 volleyball teams. So actually the men's tournament of 6/7 teams out of 23 (slightly over 25%) has a relatively bigger field than the women's D1 tournament which has 64 teams out of approximately 300 or slightly over 20%. Also being 10th out of 23 is more like average than a top team. It's a joint D-I/D-II tournament. They have the same scholarship limitations (4.5 equivalent) so that's not as big a deal. A D-II team even won the whole thing once, although the title was vacated. There used to be a single NCAA men's VB tournament until the NCAA started a D-III tournament. It's gotten really weird over the years before the D-III tournament. There was talk of the City University of New York Athletic Conference (with only D-III programs) where they wanted an auto bid to the top NCAA Tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Oct 6, 2020 17:59:15 GMT -5
I don't know if the numbers would work out close to evenly, but why would Stanford choose to keep men's gymnastics over men's volleyball??? The AD pretty much said, men's vball was pretty much chosen for lack of diversity. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 6, 2020 18:08:11 GMT -5
I don't know if the numbers would work out close to evenly, but why would Stanford choose to keep men's gymnastics over men's volleyball??? The AD pretty much said, men's vball was pretty much chosen for lack of diversity. A little surprised that men's gymnastics would be significantly more diverse. |
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Oct 6, 2020 18:14:16 GMT -5
Somebody explain to me why "lack of diversity" (whatever that means) isn't a racist statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Oct 6, 2020 20:11:33 GMT -5
Somebody explain to me why "lack of diversity" (whatever that means) isn't a racist statement. That was probably not the best approach. When I think of Stanford the word meritocracy comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 7, 2020 10:30:35 GMT -5
Somebody explain to me why "lack of diversity" (whatever that means) isn't a racist statement. It's a racial statement in that it relates to matters of race, but it's not racist. If you're allocating extra resources (and more importantly, preferential admissions for very exclusive seats in Stanford's class) to sports that barely anyone plays, most of whom are well-to-do whites, and that have very high financial barriers to entry at a competitive level in this country, then that does raise issues of socioeconomic and racial equity. (On a similar vein, I can see issues with how for a lot of American universities who are using athletics recruiting as part of their diversity and inclusion strategy, they're selecting for people who are really good at football and basketball - and not academic potential). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 10:45:41 GMT -5
gostanford.com/sports/mens-volleyball/rostergostanford.com/sports/mens-gymnastics/rosterHere is my (likely imperfect) assessment of the two rosters. Men's volleyball: total players listed: 18 - 12 with pictures (non-freshmen) total coaches listed: 3 total whites: 8 (7 players, 1 coach) total non-whites: 7 (5 players, 2 coaches) Men's gymnastics: total players listed: 18 - 15 with pictures (non-freshmen) total coaches listed: 3 total whites: 13 (11 players, 2 coaches) total non-whites: 5 (4 players, 1 coach) Sorry, but the diversity angle doesn't do it for me. Volleyball also has the only African-American on either roster (no pictures for freshmen, though). And Volleyball has two foreigners (one Canadian, one Brazilian).
|
|
|
|
Post by ct94010 on Oct 14, 2020 16:23:37 GMT -5
Somebody explain to me why "lack of diversity" (whatever that means) isn't a racist statement. Diversity doesn't just mean race. . . It could mean geographic diversity - seems like the majority of the VB team is from SoCal, and the gymnastics team for instance comes from a number of states. Stanford as a "national" institution may prefer it fields teams that draws a recruiting pool from all parts of the country. Im not up on the relevant stats, but just my observation about boy's volleyball on the HS level is that it is indeed concentrated in the So Cal and Hawaii areas, with a growing presence in the Bay Area, but other than that a few pockets in the Midwest. Gymnastics, though its probably a smaller pool of athletes, doesn't seem to be a geographical concentrated in terms of where the elite athletes come from. . . but Im not a follower of boy's gymnastics. . Just my impression. |
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Oct 14, 2020 16:27:59 GMT -5
Without my computer glasses, I read the title of this thread as "Steve Sanford..." and I'm thinking, Who's Steve Sanford?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Oct 14, 2020 16:48:49 GMT -5
I don't think cutting volleyball had anything to do with race. You had to cut one of volleyball, gymnastics and water polo. We just won national titles in gymnastics and water polo. The volleyball team has generally had a losing record despite a couple of titles over the years. It was that simple.
|
|
