Usually the folks that argue the most about an ALL SPORTS cup are those from schools that just concentrated on a minimum number of sports and basically say the hell with the rest.

I don't find anything wrong with an ALL SPORTS trophy and the way it is configured at all. A conference offers a numbers of sports and each school competes in "x" amount of sports...as important or unimportant as anyone might want to argue.....and they rank each school in terms of where they ended up. It is what it is, and it measures exactly what it is intended to measure. Nothing more and nothing less. At least it is based on some factual information on where each team ended up in the summatory of all sports participating.

Of course, most fans of each school (or at least some), will start to rationalize why their schools should be rated higher...or not lower....and use some other measurements or combination.... to prove their point.

I don't see what the fuss is about. If the league sponsors the sport then it should count. If you think every member must participate in order for a sport to count then you are crazy. By those qualifications football wouldn't count and neither would baseball. The 'all-sports' trophy would consist of men's basketball, women's basketball, soccer, volleyball, and women's tennis.

There might be a way to require a sport to have a minimum participation level in order to count for Bubas' Cup standings. Otherwise we have to live with what we got.

(04-29-2011 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  ASU has one of the top bowling teams in the nation and for how long was Denver dominate in sports the league doesn't offer. The cup standings cannot accurately measure a program when not all sports at a school are included. To me it is just a tool, not the final arbiter.
I'm fine with it as it is, because I don't think anyone sells more tickets or gets more donations when they win it. I'd be fine with awarding it based on average points per sport (that provides more reward for sports many play that have more competition vs sports few play while accounting for not everyone playing a sport). I'd be fine with awarding it based on percentage of theoritcal maximum points. That rewards consistently finishing toward the top in the sports you do play.
The league presidents have taken the position that they want to emphasize schools playing sports the league offers and doing well in them. Any measure is flawed but the presidents have chosen their emphasis point and its not significant enough of an issue for me to sweat it.
As to women's cross country being worth more than football. Again that goes back to the emphasis point. Do you really want to defend a title IX suit and the plaintiff bring in as evidence that a female sport where you have to defeat 11 teams is worth more than a mal
e sport where you have to defeat 8? Do you want to go through the NCAA certification process weighting sports when that isn't consistent with the NCAA Division I Philosophy Statement?
The cup standings are a tool and nothing more. Like I said previously, I would be happier with two columns added to the standings so that it provides more useful information.

So your philosophy is to be politically correct and ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room; that's fine. It's not mine...I'll take one football championship over 10 Bubba's any day.

So would most of us.

Personally if FAU could win 2 out of the "big 3" (Football, Mens Basketball, Baseball) I could care less how the other sports do.

They certainly serve a purpose and allow athletes the chance to attend college while playing the sport they love, but in terms of perception I dont think that one can argue that winning in the big 3 does more for a University from a a "front porch" perspecitve.

I ask the MTSU/WKU faithful (Since they seem to be the one's duking it out most years)

What would do more to improve your programs perception on a national level?

A.) Win 2 out 3 of the "big 3"
or
B.) Not win those but take home the Bubas cup.

(04-29-2011 02:27 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  So would most of us.

Personally if FAU could win 2 out of the "big 3" (Football, Mens Basketball, Baseball) I could care less how the other sports do.

They certainly serve a purpose and allow athletes the chance to attend college while playing the sport they love, but in terms of perception I dont think that one can argue that winning in the big 3 does more for a University from a a "front porch" perspecitve.

I ask the MTSU/WKU faithful (Since they seem to be the one's duking it out most years)

What would do more to improve your programs perception on a national level?

A.) Win 2 out 3 of the "big 3"
or
B.) Not win those but take home the Bubas cup.

If that question is asked to me, most likely I would say, win 2 out of 3, I would agree....

However, that's not what the Bubas Cup is all about, and not what it is intended to measure either. Of course, I would like even more to win 3 of the 3, and then win the rest of the sports as well and be nationally ranked in each of the sports and reach deep into the NCAA's on each and every one of them, thus winning the Bubas Cup by definition.

(04-29-2011 01:27 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  ASU has one of the top bowling teams in the nation and for how long was Denver dominate in sports the league doesn't offer. The cup standings cannot accurately measure a program when not all sports at a school are included. To me it is just a tool, not the final arbiter.
I'm fine with it as it is, because I don't think anyone sells more tickets or gets more donations when they win it. I'd be fine with awarding it based on average points per sport (that provides more reward for sports many play that have more competition vs sports few play while accounting for not everyone playing a sport). I'd be fine with awarding it based on percentage of theoritcal maximum points. That rewards consistently finishing toward the top in the sports you do play.
The league presidents have taken the position that they want to emphasize schools playing sports the league offers and doing well in them. Any measure is flawed but the presidents have chosen their emphasis point and its not significant enough of an issue for me to sweat it.
As to women's cross country being worth more than football. Again that goes back to the emphasis point. Do you really want to defend a title IX suit and the plaintiff bring in as evidence that a female sport where you have to defeat 11 teams is worth more than a mal
e sport where you have to defeat 8? Do you want to go through the NCAA certification process weighting sports when that isn't consistent with the NCAA Division I Philosophy Statement?
The cup standings are a tool and nothing more. Like I said previously, I would be happier with two columns added to the standings so that it provides more useful information.

So your philosophy is to be politically correct and ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room; that's fine. It's not mine...I'll take one football championship over 10 Bubba's any day.

Politically correct??? HOW THE HELL DO YOU COME UP WITH SUCH BIZARRE RESPONSES?

Damn, that defines crazy.

It's an ALL SPORTS trophy. In weirdo land there is apparently one sport and last time I checked it has a trophy if you don't care about the ALL-SPORTS trophy.... IGNORE it.

Do you even know what politcally correct means???

(04-29-2011 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Politically correct??? HOW THE HELL DO YOU COME UP WITH SUCH BIZARRE RESPONSES?
Damn, that defines crazy.
It's an ALL SPORTS trophy. In weirdo land there is apparently one sport and last time I checked it has a trophy if you don't care about the ALL-SPORTS trophy.... IGNORE it.
Do you even know what politcally correct means???

Looks like I struck a nerve.

Here's the intent of the expression (obviously using it in the most general sense of the word...wasn't aware that my words would be so critically scrutinized); It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone. So as it fits here, you find it fair and equitable to assign a heavier weight to Women's XC (as an example) than to the football program with its 85 scholarships, millions in operating costs and supremely higher profile for its university. Really? 7 women riding a bus to a handful of XC meets (don't mean to pick on XC, just staying on theme here). Sounds PC to me.

(04-29-2011 01:20 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I don't see what the fuss is about. If the league sponsors the sport then it should count. If you think every member must participate in order for a sport to count then you are crazy. By those qualifications football wouldn't count and neither would baseball. The 'all-sports' trophy would consist of men's basketball, women's basketball, soccer, volleyball, and women's tennis.

There might be a way to require a sport to have a minimum participation level in order to count for Bubas' Cup standings. Otherwise we have to live with what we got.

And my only issue is that Track and Field counts for two sports when it's really only one sport. I don't care about a distinction between indoor and outdoor track. Running a mile is still 5280 feet whether it is run indoors or outdoors.

And yes, my objection would go away if I could use that double dip to my advantage.

(04-29-2011 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It's an ALL SPORTS trophy. In weirdo land there is apparently one sport and last time I checked it has a trophy if you don't care about the ALL-SPORTS trophy.... IGNORE it.

Let me preface this by saying I do see both sides of the issue. You all have produced some very valid points. While the buba's cup format does in fact shine on those who have more well rounded athletic departments, it's my opinion that the three big sports are more important than the rest. Winning the buba's cup is nice, but I would rather have strong programs in football, basketball, and baseball, than to have mediocre football, basketball, and baseball with strong track and field and other various sports and have that win the buba's cup, based on the current format. The Buba's Cup is a cool little trophy if you truly care about all sports evenly. Again, nothing wrong with that, as many of you have some real solid points. I think both mindsets are valid, depending on which you choose.

However, I tend to look at it like this. The United States is an ALL STATES country. Yet, Rhode Island's votes don't count as much as Texas's votes. Imagine what would happen if Rhode Island had as much clout as Texas or California. That wouldn't make much sense. Now just replace Texas with football, and Rhode Island with Track and Field. They're just not on the same level. Imagine if Tennis truly had as much financial backing and human contribution as football, or if cross country title had as much influence as a football title when conferences evaluate athletic departments. At this point, I'm not arguing how the buba's cup should be set up, but rather to just illustrate that the smaller sports don't hold as much value as the bigger sports. The Bub's Cup is a nice trophy for those who believe in equilibrium, nothing wrong with that.

Most of you love having great secondary sports, and there's nothing wrong with that. I doo too. But to me, they're a dish that just can't compare to the main course. If the main course sucks, but the side dishes are amazing, I'm probably not going to eat there again, wherever it is.

(04-29-2011 07:36 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It's an ALL SPORTS trophy. In weirdo land there is apparently one sport and last time I checked it has a trophy if you don't care about the ALL-SPORTS trophy.... IGNORE it.

However, I tend to look at it like this. The United States is an ALL STATES country. Yet, Rhode Island's votes don't count as much as Texas's votes. Imagine what would happen if Rhode Island had as much clout as Texas or California. That wouldn't make much sense. Now just replace Texas with football, and Rhode Island with Track and Field. They're just not on the same level. Imagine if Tennis truly had as much financial backing and human contribution as football, or if cross country title had as much influence as a football title when conferences evaluate athletic departments. At this point, I'm not arguing how the buba's cup should be set up, but rather to just illustrate that the smaller sports don't hold as much value as the bigger sports. The Bub's Cup is a nice trophy for those who believe in equilibrium, nothing wrong with that.

In the U.S. Senate, Rhode Island has the same number of votes as Texas.

For those advocating putting more emphasis on football ranking, what is the weight you put on football? Does the 1st place team get 500,000 points so that way whoever wins football should win the ALL-SPORTS trophy???

(04-30-2011 12:25 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 07:36 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It's an ALL SPORTS trophy. In weirdo land there is apparently one sport and last time I checked it has a trophy if you don't care about the ALL-SPORTS trophy.... IGNORE it.

However, I tend to look at it like this. The United States is an ALL STATES country. Yet, Rhode Island's votes don't count as much as Texas's votes. Imagine what would happen if Rhode Island had as much clout as Texas or California. That wouldn't make much sense. Now just replace Texas with football, and Rhode Island with Track and Field. They're just not on the same level. Imagine if Tennis truly had as much financial backing and human contribution as football, or if cross country title had as much influence as a football title when conferences evaluate athletic departments. At this point, I'm not arguing how the buba's cup should be set up, but rather to just illustrate that the smaller sports don't hold as much value as the bigger sports. The Bub's Cup is a nice trophy for those who believe in equilibrium, nothing wrong with that.

In the U.S. Senate, Rhode Island has the same number of votes as Texas.

I'm not talking about the U.S. Senate. When Barack Obama was elected, Texas had 1,362,476 of the Democratic Popular Vote and Rhode Island had 75,316. I don't think the huge discrepancy was because everyone in Rhode Island was a Republican. Also, the number of state reps in the House of Representatives are significantly different based on state populations.

(04-30-2011 12:26 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  For those advocating putting more emphasis on football ranking, what is the weight you put on football? Does the 1st place team get 500,000 points so that way whoever wins football should win the ALL-SPORTS trophy???

My ranking would be:

Football 80
Basketball 50
Baseball 30
Everything Else 10 per sport.

You can still lose even if you win football. And here, Basketball and Baseball also carry some added weight too. Obviously I'm not arguing this for Troy, because Troy hasn't always been on top in all three, especially basketball. This is just how I honestly feel. Again, at this point, I don't mind if the Buba's Cup is scored that way, because some people do think Track and Field is equal to football in value. Nothing wrong with that, I won't hate. This trophy shines light on those how choose to make the rest of their sports better. And that's good thing. But because it's not weighted, it's place in the world means much, much less. It's more of a novelty. "Hey we won the Buba's Cup, whooooo!!" And that's about it.

Pride in all your sports is great, that's what makes you a true fan of your school. Though, I still believe having great top three sports, and mediocre everything else, is better than having great everything else and mediocre top three sports, and subsequently winning the Buba's Cup. A lot of people argue that the Buba's Cup is the end all when it comes to crowing a champion in terms of athletic departments. It can't be if sports that don't bring in as much value to the university are getting as much credit as those that are bring home the bacon both financially and then in terms of the universities public image. If Troy wins football, a lot more people know than if they win a tennis title.

Many of you had some great points and have changed my mind to a degree. It's great for what it is, but it's nothing more than something to brag about on a message board, and have a little pride in "all" of your sports.

(04-30-2011 10:36 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 12:25 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 07:36 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It's an ALL SPORTS trophy. In weirdo land there is apparently one sport and last time I checked it has a trophy if you don't care about the ALL-SPORTS trophy.... IGNORE it.

However, I tend to look at it like this. The United States is an ALL STATES country. Yet, Rhode Island's votes don't count as much as Texas's votes. Imagine what would happen if Rhode Island had as much clout as Texas or California. That wouldn't make much sense. Now just replace Texas with football, and Rhode Island with Track and Field. They're just not on the same level. Imagine if Tennis truly had as much financial backing and human contribution as football, or if cross country title had as much influence as a football title when conferences evaluate athletic departments. At this point, I'm not arguing how the buba's cup should be set up, but rather to just illustrate that the smaller sports don't hold as much value as the bigger sports. The Bub's Cup is a nice trophy for those who believe in equilibrium, nothing wrong with that.

In the U.S. Senate, Rhode Island has the same number of votes as Texas.

I'm not talking about the U.S. Senate. When Barack Obama was elected, Texas had 1,362,476 of the Democratic Popular Vote and Rhode Island had 75,316. I don't think the huge discrepancy was because everyone in Rhode Island was a Republican. Also, the number of state reps in the House of Representatives are significantly different based on state populations.

You only mentioned that Rhode Island and Texas didn't have the same number of votes. I corrected you in that they do...in the U.S. Senate.

(04-30-2011 11:14 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 10:36 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 12:25 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 07:36 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 03:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It's an ALL SPORTS trophy. In weirdo land there is apparently one sport and last time I checked it has a trophy if you don't care about the ALL-SPORTS trophy.... IGNORE it.

However, I tend to look at it like this. The United States is an ALL STATES country. Yet, Rhode Island's votes don't count as much as Texas's votes. Imagine what would happen if Rhode Island had as much clout as Texas or California. That wouldn't make much sense. Now just replace Texas with football, and Rhode Island with Track and Field. They're just not on the same level. Imagine if Tennis truly had as much financial backing and human contribution as football, or if cross country title had as much influence as a football title when conferences evaluate athletic departments. At this point, I'm not arguing how the buba's cup should be set up, but rather to just illustrate that the smaller sports don't hold as much value as the bigger sports. The Bub's Cup is a nice trophy for those who believe in equilibrium, nothing wrong with that.

In the U.S. Senate, Rhode Island has the same number of votes as Texas.

I'm not talking about the U.S. Senate. When Barack Obama was elected, Texas had 1,362,476 of the Democratic Popular Vote and Rhode Island had 75,316. I don't think the huge discrepancy was because everyone in Rhode Island was a Republican. Also, the number of state reps in the House of Representatives are significantly different based on state populations.

You only mentioned that Rhode Island and Texas didn't have the same number of votes. I corrected you in that they do...in the U.S. Senate.

You know, sometimes people do make mistakes. If I wasn't clear on what I meant, I apologize. Now you know. And I believe I mentioned their votes don't count as much, not that Rhode Island and Texas didn't have the same number of votes. There is somewhat of a difference in the wording. And I'd be right as 1,362,476 counts more than 75,316. Again, my clarity could have been better, cajun.

If you don't care about the Bubas Cup, THEN STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.

(04-30-2011 11:34 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  If you don't care about the Bubas Cup, THEN STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.

Just because something is of little value to me (it has some value, though not much) doesn't mean I can't have a debate about it. If it bothers you that much, then stop reading this thread, which about wrapped up anyway. No one's making you read any of this.

(04-30-2011 11:28 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 11:14 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 10:36 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 12:25 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 07:36 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  However, I tend to look at it like this. The United States is an ALL STATES country. Yet, Rhode Island's votes don't count as much as Texas's votes. Imagine what would happen if Rhode Island had as much clout as Texas or California. That wouldn't make much sense. Now just replace Texas with football, and Rhode Island with Track and Field. They're just not on the same level. Imagine if Tennis truly had as much financial backing and human contribution as football, or if cross country title had as much influence as a football title when conferences evaluate athletic departments. At this point, I'm not arguing how the buba's cup should be set up, but rather to just illustrate that the smaller sports don't hold as much value as the bigger sports. The Bub's Cup is a nice trophy for those who believe in equilibrium, nothing wrong with that.

In the U.S. Senate, Rhode Island has the same number of votes as Texas.

I'm not talking about the U.S. Senate. When Barack Obama was elected, Texas had 1,362,476 of the Democratic Popular Vote and Rhode Island had 75,316. I don't think the huge discrepancy was because everyone in Rhode Island was a Republican. Also, the number of state reps in the House of Representatives are significantly different based on state populations.

You only mentioned that Rhode Island and Texas didn't have the same number of votes. I corrected you in that they do...in the U.S. Senate.

You know, sometimes people do make mistakes. If I wasn't clear on what I meant, I apologize. Now you know. And I believe I mentioned their votes don't count as much, not that Rhode Island and Texas didn't have the same number of votes. There is somewhat of a difference in the wording. And I'd be right as 1,362,476 counts more than 75,316. Again, my clarity could have been better, cajun.

Actually, in a presidential election, the popular vote does not matter. It's the vote of the Electoral College, which is weighted based on population. Hence, Texas has more weight than Rhode Island in the Electoral College. As of the 2008 election, Texas has 34 votes (32 reps and 2 senators); Rhode Island has 4 votes (2 reps and 2 senators).

(04-30-2011 11:58 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 11:28 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 11:14 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 10:36 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 12:25 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  In the U.S. Senate, Rhode Island has the same number of votes as Texas.

I'm not talking about the U.S. Senate. When Barack Obama was elected, Texas had 1,362,476 of the Democratic Popular Vote and Rhode Island had 75,316. I don't think the huge discrepancy was because everyone in Rhode Island was a Republican. Also, the number of state reps in the House of Representatives are significantly different based on state populations.

You only mentioned that Rhode Island and Texas didn't have the same number of votes. I corrected you in that they do...in the U.S. Senate.

You know, sometimes people do make mistakes. If I wasn't clear on what I meant, I apologize. Now you know. And I believe I mentioned their votes don't count as much, not that Rhode Island and Texas didn't have the same number of votes. There is somewhat of a difference in the wording. And I'd be right as 1,362,476 counts more than 75,316. Again, my clarity could have been better, cajun.

Actually, in a presidential election, the popular vote does not matter. It's the vote of the Electoral College, which is weighted based on population. Hence, Texas has more weight than Rhode Island in the Electoral College. As of the 2008 election, Texas has 34 votes (32 reps and 2 senators); Rhode Island has 4 votes (2 reps and 2 senators).

So I've heard, some 90% is electoral college right? I'm not too stout on all of that. I think both sides of the thread topic have been beaten to death so I won't keep pushing my point. I see both sides to a degree.