Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

A report published on June 30th does not look so good for us. Here is the link:
http://mac-smack.blogspot.com/2009/06/m ... letic.html

Meaning?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not a damn thing!

Redwingtom wrote:Meaning?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not a damn thing!

well maybe its just me, but I would like for our sports to succeed...

I would like an ice cream bar....

BGSUVA wrote:

Redwingtom wrote:Meaning?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not a damn thing!

well maybe its just me, but I would like for our sports to succeed...

I think we all want our sports to succeed, but this is about the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this list and I still don't know what the hell we did to get a DNQ. Does anybody know what we failed to do to even qualify to be in this meaningless ranking system?

hammb wrote:

BGSUVA wrote:

Redwingtom wrote:Meaning?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not a damn thing!

well maybe its just me, but I would like for our sports to succeed...

I think we all want our sports to succeed, but this is about the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this list and I still don't know what the hell we did to get a DNQ. Does anybody know what we failed to do to even qualify to be in this meaningless ranking system?

I just don't think we scored any points. It's a pretty cool idea for about 15 schools in the country to compete for, but for the other 300-some schools, meh.

We won regular season titles in MBB, WBB, baseball (and was there another one or two?) but didn't advance to the national tournament, or get votes in the AP popularity contest, so we didn't score any points in this list.

hammb wrote:

BGSUVA wrote:

Redwingtom wrote:Meaning?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not a damn thing!

well maybe its just me, but I would like for our sports to succeed...

I think we all want our sports to succeed, but this is about the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this list and I still don't know what the hell we did to get a DNQ. Does anybody know what we failed to do to even qualify to be in this meaningless ranking system?

I tried to read through the criteria on their website and it is without a doubt the most complicated scoring system I have ever seen. It takes 10 mens sports and 10 womens sports and assigns points based on your finish and whether that particular sport has an associated NCAA championship also carries weight.

Bottom line, I don't think we finished high enough in any of the sports to get a point. I guess regular season titles mean nothing...only the stupid conference championships or our basketball teams would have at least gotten something. So actually, it's not that we did not qualify, we just did not get any points in their convoluted scoring system.

hammb wrote:

BGSUVA wrote:

Redwingtom wrote:Meaning?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not a damn thing!

well maybe its just me, but I would like for our sports to succeed...

I think we all want our sports to succeed, but this is about the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this list and I still don't know what the hell we did to get a DNQ. Does anybody know what we failed to do to even qualify to be in this meaningless ranking system?

DNQ means you finished below 271 in terms of all division one schools..

Bull_In_Exile wrote:

hammb wrote:

BGSUVA wrote:

Redwingtom wrote:Meaning?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not a damn thing!

well maybe its just me, but I would like for our sports to succeed...

I think we all want our sports to succeed, but this is about the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this list and I still don't know what the hell we did to get a DNQ. Does anybody know what we failed to do to even qualify to be in this meaningless ranking system?

DNQ means you finished below 271 in terms of all division one schools..

Makes sense.

It's wrong, but I suppose that makes sense.

We won regular season conference titles in both men's & women's hoops. We also were bowl eligible with a 1A football team. There is no denying the fact that these are far & away the 3 most important sports any university fields. With that level of performance you're telling me that we were more than 272nd in terms of D1 universities?

Cool...tells me these rankings are more worthless than I originally figured. Thanks for the clarification. At first I was willing to give the benefit that there was some loophole or something that prevented us from qualifying. Now that I know that it's pretty simple...I couldn't care less.

hammb wrote:

Bull_In_Exile wrote:

hammb wrote:

BGSUVA wrote:

Redwingtom wrote:Meaning?
.
.
Not a damn thing!

well maybe its just me, but I would like for our sports to succeed...

I think we all want our sports to succeed, but this is about the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this list and I still don't know what the hell we did to get a DNQ. Does anybody know what we failed to do to even qualify to be in this meaningless ranking system?

DNQ means you finished below 271 in terms of all division one schools..

Makes sense.

It's wrong, but I suppose that makes sense.

We won regular season conference titles in both men's & women's hoops. We also were bowl eligible with a 1A football team. There is no denying the fact that these are far & away the 3 most important sports any university fields. With that level of performance you're telling me that we were more than 272nd in terms of D1 universities?

Cool...tells me these rankings are more worthless than I originally figured. Thanks for the clarification. At first I was willing to give the benefit that there was some loophole or something that prevented us from qualifying. Now that I know that it's pretty simple...I couldn't care less.

Also, Stanford has won this mythical ranking for 15 years in a row now so that should tell you something about it. It must have been that women's rowing title that put them over the hump this year!

hammb wrote:
We won regular season conference titles in both men's & women's hoops. We also were bowl eligible with a 1A football team. There is no denying the fact that these are far & away the 3 most important sports any university fields. With that level of performance you're telling me that we were more than 272nd in terms of D1 universities?

We didn't make any NCAA tournaments. WNIT, bowl eligibility, and conference titles are not good enough to earn points for the Director's Cup. You have to play in a bowl game or be in an NCAA tournament for your respective sport (e.g. College World Series).

UK Peregrine wrote:

hammb wrote:
We won regular season conference titles in both men's & women's hoops. We also were bowl eligible with a 1A football team. There is no denying the fact that these are far & away the 3 most important sports any university fields. With that level of performance you're telling me that we were more than 272nd in terms of D1 universities?

We didn't make any NCAA tournaments. WNIT, bowl eligibility, and conference titles are not good enough to earn points for the Director's Cup. You have to play in a bowl game or be in an NCAA tournament for your respective sport (e.g. College World Series).

Yeah, I realize that now. My point is simple: if that alone is the criteria by which they're grading the athletic departments then I have no interest in these rankings.

There are a number of MAC teams that are ranked ahead of us in this system that I would not trade our athletic year for, not ever. Some of them must have made a tournament for mixed doubles badminton or something, but who cares? BG was middle of the MAC pack in football; won conference titles in both hoops, and didn't we win the MAC regular season baseball title as well? Yeah, I'm disappointed that we didn't make any of the tournaments, but in my mind it is foolish to rank schools like OU or UT or NIU ahead of us because they did make the tournament in some minor sport.

Just seems like a pretty foolish way to rank teams, IMO.

hammb wrote:Yeah, I'm disappointed that we didn't make any of the tournaments, but in my mind it is foolish to rank schools like OU or UT or NIU ahead of us because they did make the tournament in some minor sport.

Just seems like a pretty foolish way to rank teams, IMO.

Agree with the last sentence BUT UT made the NCAA in the most popular team sport in the world. Hardly minor.

h2oville rocket wrote:

hammb wrote:Yeah, I'm disappointed that we didn't make any of the tournaments, but in my mind it is foolish to rank schools like OU or UT or NIU ahead of us because they did make the tournament in some minor sport.

Just seems like a pretty foolish way to rank teams, IMO.

Agree with the last sentence BUT UT made the NCAA in the most popular team sport in the world. Hardly minor.

Are you talking about soccer?

Welcome to the United States.

Soccer is irrelevant.

Oops...looking closer looks like UT doesn't even have a men's soccer team.

So I'm guessing you're talking about track & field?

Yeah, I know your feelings on the sport, but I'll just go ahead and agree to disagree.