Jump to content

nozatx

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

43 Excellent
  1. Stanford was still in it right up to the W5000m. They got 6 pts for one runner finishing 3rd, but they had a second runner in the race (finished 17th). If they had gotten 3 more points from those 2 runners, they would have finished in 4th in the team race and would have won the DC. Crazy close.
  2. That's true! Just wow.
  3. Anybody know how common it is for draft-eligible guys to bother with portal and then sign with MLB? I'm never sure how to really assess baseball recruiting due to potential loss of players to draft.
  4. If Texas had just 1 less point, they would have dropped to a tie with Tech for 11/12th and would have finished behind USC for DC. Kenondra Davis came through in 200m in 6th for 3 pts and that was the ultimate difference. Whew!
  5. Going into final event, USC 2nd, Stanford 6th, UT tied for 9th. Arkansas takes 2nd into 4x400 to knock UT to tie for 10th. If I've done my math right, UT wins DC at 1255.25, USC at 1253.75, Stanford at 1251. Let's see what DC Updates says though.
  6. Not that people are likely to care, but I found my earlier gaffe - I had assigned USC's W SOC result to M SOC, and that threw the countable sports off even though the raw totals matched the published Learfield updates. Having said that, going into W T&F tonight, I have Stanford still at 1237.5, UT at 1224, and USC at 1163.75. USC will get to add full results of their W T&F score since they have not maxed out on number of countable sports. Stanford W T&F has to finish better than 15th to start adding any points to their score, UT W have to finish better than tied for 38th to start counting. My totals agree with DC Updates' latest assessment in that UT has only a virtual 24.75 point lead on USC because UT will have to drop the 35.5 points for W indoor TF from their final score. I think that UT women have to finish 25th or better just to catch Stanford's current total. Best chance for UT is colossal failure from USC women tonight along with fantastic results in the 4 events left for UT women (along with Stanford women not finishing higher than 15th, which they certainly could). Tough, but not impossible.
  7. Confirmed. That's embarrassing - oh, well. Yep, USC still in it. Sorry about that.
  8. DC Updates has an error in calculating USC's max score. He overstates it by 40 points because starting this year, women's soccer *has* to be counted, and USC gets zero points there instead of the 40 he was counting for men's golf as the final counted score of the max 14 optional sports. They can't count a full 200 points from sweeping T&F - they get a max of 160. Adding 160 to USC's current score of 1068.75 leaves them at 1228.75, which is short of Stanford's current score, so they're out. The remaining schools mathematically in contention are Stanford at 1237.5 (max 1352.5), Texas at 1211 (max 1348.5), UCLA at 1130.5 (max 1319), and North Carolina at 1178.75 (max 1310.25). UNC has very small and weak T&F teams at natls, so they're eliminated for all practical purposes. UCLA has a very small and weak men's team, so they really need to win both CWS and women's track to just barely pass Stanford's current score, so their chances are razor thin, since it's not going to be that hard for Stanford to improve their score through the women's track team (small, but with some highly ranked runners and jumpers). Men's basketball only bringing in 5 points is to me the obvious disappointment, though it does get us out of the RT purgatory. On the positive side, I sure wasn't expecting to get 60 points out of the beach volleyball team. C'mon track (especially the men's hurdlers)!
  9. Okay, more succinctly, DC Updates overstates USC's total score potential by 40 points due to a technical error with women's soccer and USC cannot catch Stanford's current 1237.5. UT T&F has to do place high enough to catch and stay ahead of Stanford. So, watch results for UT M&W as well as Stanford W. Despite Stanford's relatively low track ranking, it only takes a couple of really high finishes to move way up the T&F team standings.
  10. My swag at UCLA and North Carolina shows North Carolina out of contention due to their small chances of scoring in T&F at a level for those scores to count (I have their 18th and 19th point scoring teams at 40.5 and 28.5, and their participant list for T&F is small and weak on both sides). UCLA, on the other hand, gets at least 73 from baseball after taking out UTSA and advancing to MCWS and could get 27 more which would bring their total to 1129.5 (I'm off by 4 points from DC Updates 34/37 total somewhere but I'm not going to debug it), and they will likely score some points in women's T&F (not men so much). Their 18th and 19th placed teams I currently have at 21.5 and 17 points, so that's not much of a bar for improvement via T&F. They're probably out of it, but if they win baseball, it would get a bit tighter, and they'll almost certainly pass UNC in the standings.
  11. Oops, accidentally posted that before I was finished. Here's the full post: Okay, I nerded out and tried to score out all of the LC sports for Stanford, UT, and USC to see exactly where things land. I think that DC Updates has one big error in his calculations which will affect USC's potential total score, but I'll get to that later. The number of sports which count are 5 required countable sports and then the next 14 highest scoring team points. My calculated scores through 34 events matches those from the Directors' Cup top 10 post above except for I'm off by 0.5 points on USC which I haven't debugged yet, but it's close enough. After throwing in the 50 points each for USC and UT in baseball, I calculated the countable scores as Stanford 1237.5, UT 1211, and USC 1069.25 (that's off by 0.5 points from above as I mentioned). After 35 events, Stanford and Texas already have points from 14 optional sports and USC has 13. That means that the scores from the two track and field events have to be higher than the scores from the 13th and 14th optional score in order to affect the overall score. For Stanford, their current 13th and 14th event scores are women's indoor T&F at 63 pts and women's beach volleyball at 60. If Stanford somehow swept the T&F titles, they wouldn't add 200 points to the current score since you would have to also subtract out the 123 points from W ITF and BVB, since those would no longer count towareds their top 14 optional sports. In terms of O T&F, Stanford has to finish higher than 15th to add any points at all to their current total (easily doable on the women's side). For UT, the sports that would drop off are W I T&F (35.5) and M CC (27), so you have to subtract out those points before you count the points for the T&F teams. The threshold to start adding points for UT in O T&F are 38th place and 46th place. USC has men's golf at 40.5 points and everything else at 0 to subtract so that would give them a slight advantage since they will lose fewer points from the equation, but there's where I think DC Updates has an error. Beginning in 2024-2025, women's soccer is one of the required countable sports, so you have to count the score from that sport regardless of what the score in that sport might be. USC did not score any points in women's soccer, so you *have* to count that score. Without that scoring change, USC would be able to count the full score for T&F and not have to subtract out the men's golf score. That's how he got a max of 1268.75 for USC - he didn't account for the required women's soccer score. Assuming that the correct current USC score is 1068.75, that puts their max at 1068.75+200-40.5 = 1225.25, which is just barely above UT's current 1211 score. Maybe somebody with an active account on X could message DC Updates and ask if he was taking into account that women's soccer score is now mandatory. (From https://nacda.com/sports/2018/7/17/directorscup-nacda-directorscup-scoring-html.aspx, "Division I: Count 19 sports with the following breakdowns (decreased by 1, 19.1 avg.)- Five of which must be Baseball and Men's Basketball, Women's Basketball, Women's Volleyball and Women's Soccer") I didn't go through and do the same calculations for UNC and UCLA, but I should do that for completeness. (One nuance in the scoring that surprised me was that teams which do not advance to nationals in golf still score points if they participated in one of the regionals)
  12. Okay, I nerded out and tried to score out all of the LC sports for Stanford, UT, and USC to see exactly where things land. I think that DC Updates has one big error in his calculations which will affect USC's potential total score, but I'll get to that later. The number of sports which count are 5 required countable sports and then the next 14 highest scoring team points. My calculated scores through 34 events matches those from the Directors' Cup top 10 post above except for I'm off by 0.5 points on USC which I haven't debugged yet, but it's close enough. After throwing in the 50 points each for USC and UT in baseball, I calculated the countable scores as Stanford 1237.5, UT 1211, and USC 1019.2
  13. Mostly it comes down to how well Texas T&F performs. Everybody is focusing on USC, but T&F needs to score some points in T&F to pass Stanford. I don't have the breakdown in points to know Stanford's projected final score. There is a limit to the number of sports that can go to the DC total, so i can't tell how many points (if any) Stanford will gain from baseball. Adding in the 50 points Texas will get from baseball, Texas needs to score at least 27 points to pass Stanford's total after 35 sports counted. The track and field point totals for T&F seems to come from the 64-team category of https://nacda.com/documents/2023/11/22/ScoringUpdate2023.pdf. In a 64-team event, a team would gotten 27 points in 2024 by finishing 47th, which would have required a team to score either 4 (men) or 5.3 (women) points in the 2024 T&F championships (https://flashresults.ncaa.com/Outdoor/2024/scores.htm), which translates to a 5th (M) or 3rd place (W) finish in just a single event. Given that Texas has runners seeded first or second in a few events (M 100 hurdles, M 400 hurdles, W 400 hurdles), this does not seem to be a high bar, which is presumably why nobody is talking about it. Winning a single event gives a team 10 points in T&F, and that would have translated to either 27th (M) or 32nd (W), which would have translated to 47 or 42 DC points. I'm assuming that Texas doesn't have other low-performing sports that are currently included in the overall count that would no longer be included in the score (though they have highly seeded jumpers on the women's side and should place fairly highly). believe that last year women's cross-country was included in the total before T&F, but those points were eventually excluded because UT passed the threshold for number of sports included in the score). I'm also assuming that Stanford is not expected to score enough points in T&F for their scores to be counted above other sports that are already included (though they have . Something doesn't add up once I add in baseball total and track projections to the totals posted above after 34/37 sports included, so we may have some low-scoring sport that gets the points thrown out after T&F. Given all of that, USC currently trails Texas by 132.75 points. They would get 135 points if their teams both finished 10th. The pivotal events for USC are the sprints (M &W 100m, M&W 200m, and M&W 4x100 relays) where they have a lot of entries (though several are on the fringe for scoring points (below 8th gets 0 points). From the seedings on the men's side (https://www.rtspt.com/ncaa/d1outdoor25/men_qualifiers.htm), Texas would by my unofficial count actually finish ahead of USC on the men's side (34 pts to 31 pts), though that would require wins in both of the hurdle events. USC men have also qualified in 4x400 and single participants in both hurdles, all 3 jumps, and shot put. Texas women do not look so good based on seedings, with only three events seeded to score (Garrett in 400 hurdles (2nd seed) and the 4x100 relay (5th seed), along with an 8th seed in shot put (1 pt), so that total is thinner. Seedings don't map to rankings, so mileage may vary. So the short answer is that there is really no short answer. Texas has to do well enough in T&F to pass Stanford's total and stay ahead of USC's total, and that's a pretty fluid picture. I would really like to know if Texas has a sport total that is expected to fall off the total after T&F and would like to know the same for Stanford. That's apparently not in play for USC.
  14. One way that the NCAA T&F championships would seem to potentially poorly reflect the rankings is that the NCAA scoring system is very top-heavy; depth doesn't come into play as much as it does in swimming, and the rankings do reflect depth that is not projected to score at nationals. You can make the finals in an event and *still* not score any points for your team (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1). The ratings reflect a lot of depth in the sprints for USC but they aren't all seeded that highly (though for the most part the 100m spread in seedings is exceedingly tight). Looking at the seedings (available at https://www.rtspt.com/ncaa/d1outdoor25/), USC actually looks to me to be a bit better positioned to win on the women's side than on the men's side. We really need our hurdlers to come through on the men's side and for some (hurdlers again) on the women's side to far exceed their seedings.
  15. Rowing got absolutely thumped by Stanford in Austin and barely squeaked by Tennessee in the SEC championships, so it will be interesting to see if they can hold the #2 spot at nationals. Will still get plenty of points but could drop a few there.
×
×
  • Create New...