Not bad considering football was historically awful and basketball was just ok.
2019 Directors Cup Standings...
- Thread starter zipp
- Start date
- Status
Not bad considering football was historically awful and basketball was just ok.
I saw a story on WLKY-TV last nite about the DC standings for the area schools. I don't see the story posted on their website, or I'd link it. They even got a brief comment from "Vince" on the subject. (He looked a little haggard BTW, and I'm not sure the pressures of the job aren't starting to wear on him, poor guy!...)
Cowgill noted that U of L is ranked 41st nationally, and the evaluation year ends 6/30. That ranking sounded lower than I remembered, so I did a quick check...
The red bars are since "Vince" took over (2018 was a partial year), and the dotted line is the regression plot through the prior years shown. We're now where we were a decade ago on this metric.
"Thanks Vince!"
If only UC could have a great badminton team and a competitive ping pong team we could be like UL!
LOL!
Who is this guy?
The last out was just recorded in the CWS. And as promised, I'll look for the "significant" impact that complete baseball results will have on the final rankings. I expect it will involve a total remake of my chart!
So let me know how presenting the last decade of Directors Cup standings reveals my "agenda". Should I have stopped the chart when Jurich left?
You also get the same offer I made earlier... Don't like my data? Show me the data you like. Appears that P-Up has left the building.
While you're at it, find me the links were I also put my anti-Mack agenda on display. Just for more S&Gs...
Create the chart with 0 as the bottom of the vertical scale and something like 250 as the top (sínce there are roughly 250 FBS and FCS programs in D1). Alternately, the chart could have 350 as the top of the vertical scale, since there are roughly 350 D1 basketball programs.
The rest of the changes you should adjust for you already know about ... but once you use a less biased vertical scale, everyone will see just how big of a mountain you’re attempting to make out of this molehill.
No question, last year's performance and the trend look a lot better now. Not to mention "lowest ranking since 2011" sounds much better than "lowest ranking since 2010."
Priceless...
So 2013 was #38 without the adjustment for basketball and yet you claim this year was the worst since 2011. Weird.
“Fun with Graphs” - by “Zipp”.
News flash.. you might want to change your moniker unless you’re now Bruin Nippert..
Or I could run the vertical axis up to 295 to account for everyone in the D1 ranking. You know, so that all the bars are scrunched down to the bottom.
Whatever we can do to mask the year-to-year differences should be OK with "Vince" at this point...
I didn't think the mustache crowd liked the 2013 data point. I wish you guys would make up your mind because you had me convinced--I don't like it either.
So "Vince" can beat a number that includes all wins vacated in a major sport. Now THERE's a low bar I haven't heard before...
Well, the basketball program had wins also vacated in 2012, 2014, and 2015, in addition to just 2013. So, similar to what has been noted for 2013, the original graph had inaccurate data for three additional years followed by biased and flawed analysis. And then there's the fact that the poor graph was made before the baseball season concluded. After all is said and done, the only thing that can truly be gleaned out of this is that the athletic department has continued to do well recently. Seems like this thread was prematurely posted.
LOL... Let's blow up all the data we don't like. Hell, let's blow up Learfield!
If the numbers are biased in all of those years, the green bars would be LOWER (higher ranking) with the wins reinstated. And I don't need that benefit to draw my comparisons--they're compelling enough already.
There's nothing wrong with the data except that they don't show what you want. Tough...
Before the vacated wins, the ranking in 2013 was #38, which is a worse ranking than #35.
The vacated wins should be taken into account. I’m sure someone with your numbers crunching skills can make those adjustments. Regardless, your earlier statement saying that 2019 was “lowest ranking since 2011” is patently false.
There'a nothing wrong with Learfield's data, it's your use of that data that is flawed. You haven't adjusted the data by zeroing out the basketball scores for every year from 2012-2015 for the vacated wins. It's really a pretty simple concept.
Last edited:
Obviously it is a graph that has been water boarded. This thread is pure torture....I'll tell you anything just quit torturing me. How ironic considering.
On that chart it was the lowest since 2011. You guys said 2013 was a bad data point.
If the DC data have vacated wins removed, restoring those wins will IMPROVE the affected green bars. That makes the last two years' performance worse by comparison.
IOW the same conclusions...
Makes the green bars better and the red bars worse by comparison. Your point?
Do you need the graph explained? Looks pretty obvious to me...
But the DC data does not have vacated wins removed. We’ve established that. Not sure why this is hard for you to understand.
I understand completely, and it doesn't change the analysis. But let's make this a simpler debate since you can't accept that...
The 2017 data point is not biased in any way by "vacated wins". And in two years, there's been a noticeable drop and a marked deviation from what had been an improving trend. In fact, that trend now is down...
2017: 26th
2018: 30th
2019: 35th
And those are "Vince's" two years...
You are using the terms “analysis”, “deviation” and “trend” very loosely. I think you are smart enough to know this, but hey if you want to build a debate around 10 years of inaccurate data or raw data conclusions around three years of data that’s your prerogative.
Does that mean you're not trying to explain it, or you don't think it's a trend? It's one or the other...
I think at most anecdotal comments would be appropriate for the data set (or lack thereof).
We were 41st in 2010 and 38th in 2013, with our highest ever ranking as 26th in 2017. Our 35th place finish this year is the 11th best finish ever in the history of the program, and definitely NOT a cause for anyone other than those who dislike our current leadership to be concerned about the direction of the department.
Call me about a change in direction of the current athletic director when we are ranked in the 50’s or lower, as we were prior to 2007.
Call me about a change in direction of the current athletic director when we are ranked in the 50’s or lower, as we were prior to 2007.
Got it. So it's OK for "Vince" to slide all the way back down the mountain. Pretty low bar for a guy with no track record who's already paid $70K per month. And IIRC, "Vince" said in his opening presser that it was gonna be business as usual, no hiccup, words to that effect.
My favorite question that always goes unanswered by apologists... When does "Vince" get us back to where we were? The trendline on the chart has us around 12 spots better for 2019 than where we landed. Don't crowd each other answering...
Last edited:
This is your thread. Feel free to make anecdotal comments....just make sure you know how to handle “data” next time.
I’m excited about the direction of the men’s basketball, women’s softball and volleyball. Baseball and women’s basketball will continue their elite ways. I’m going to have to wait and see about football and soccer. I’m confident that Satterfield can build up a program but Petrino kind of scorched things last year. Losing Lolla hurt. It will be interesting how this young new coach handles things. I’m not sure about the other sports. I would guess having a coach in Women’s Lacrosse that is respected by the athletes is at least an upgrade.
You just don't like the numbers. I understand that. Tough.
2017: 26th
2018: 30th
2019: 35th
Great. Make some assessments of this big set of data. I’ve offered some anecdotal comments about the specific programs that I have knowledge of. Feel free to do the same.
Anecdotal evidence is fine when hard data are absent. Like the info or not, what we have with a Directors Cup result IS quantitative and provided by a third party with no obvious bias either way. IOW it's objective.
As long as you use info the right way, when you argue against objective, quantifiable info, you have another purpose in mind. And that has nothing to do with a true evaluation...
The damn data is inaccurate. Feel free to provide perspective on the individual programs that comprise our athletic department.
- Status
