MVC all sports award

[valleychamp]

But those two sports aren't MVC-sanctioned sports. When you don't have at least the majority of your core members participating in a sport, they're likely not gonna count it. Sorry.

Uh yeah, I understand how the award works.

With that said, UNI not winning this particular award doesn't necessarily speak to the success/failure of our athletic department as a whole. Because we have been extremely successful across the board.

That is my point.

[BEELINE]

Always interesting to see all the differing perspectives on a topic. A few of my own.
I think you always want to succeed at whatever you do, so if WSU hangs on and wins another "All Sports Trophy", then you have to give them their due. That said, I've always questioned how you can call it "All Sports" when clearly it's not. I enjoyed watching ISU and MSU trade off winning the thing yearly in the mid 90's , especially because MSU was sponsoring something like 20+ sports at the time and it seemed to be a more accurate phrasing then. But anything that excludes football, and then also lets you avoid sports you'd rather not participate in despite the fact the Valley sponsors them , can hardly be called "ALL". To me if you chose
[ which each University should have the right to do] to not participate in a Valley sponsored sport, then that is a last place finish when you go to try to assess a true reflection of "all sports". I'm sure every school has their own reasoning for not including various sports in their offerings to their students; but not competing is not competing, it shouldn't give you an adavntage towards an award.

I always find it odd also that while I recognize the fact most people on this board and the old Valley talk give little concern to most women's sports, it's fairly clear that this title is usually won by the school who succeeds in the most women's sports. I also find it interesting that some continue to persist in trying to frame MVC baseball as a top two sport interest wise when clearly it ranks behind football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and I wouldn't be surprised if you ran the numbers if it's not pretty neck and neck between it and Volleyball [ which makes perfect sense to me, since how much better of a spectator sport could you hope for than a court full of long legged pony-tailed college girls in tight short-shorts jumping and diving and sprawling all over the floor while they try to smash the ball in each others face]. But I digress....

Congrats to WSU if they win, it's a worthwhile goal; but one that's hard to take too seriously as the reflection of it's title given the inconsistencies in how it's measured.

[2livewu]

Well, to directly answer the question, I believe that it is between UNI and CU (this is based on the bigger sports that I personally think "matter"). If CU wins the baseball title, then CU should win the award this year. I realize that this is a very controversial topic but I am sick of people arguing the topic instead of simply answering.

This should be interesting to hear you define your own personal formula. Exactly how are you figuring that CU and UNI are battling for the top spot? What sports "matter"?

Soccer and women's basketball?

[2livewu]

Always interesting to see all the differing perspectives on a topic. A few of my own.
I think you always want to succeed at whatever you do, so if WSU hangs on and wins another "All Sports Trophy", then you have to give them their due. That said, I've always questioned how you can call it "All Sports" when clearly it's not. I enjoyed watching ISU and MSU trade off winning the thing yearly in the mid 90's , especially because MSU was sponsoring something like 20+ sports at the time and it seemed to be a more accurate phrasing then. But anything that excludes football, and then also lets you avoid sports you'd rather not participate in despite the fact the Valley sponsors them , can hardly be called "ALL". To me if you chose
[ which each University should have the right to do] to not participate in a Valley sponsored sport, then that is a last place finish when you go to try to assess a true reflection of "all sports". I'm sure every school has their own reasoning for not including various sports in their offerings to their students; but not competing is not competing, it shouldn't give you an adavntage towards an award.

I always find it odd also that while I recognize the fact most people on this board and the old Valley talk give little concern to most women's sports, it's fairly clear that this title is usually won by the school who succeeds in the most women's sports. I also find it interesting that some continue to persist in trying to frame MVC baseball as a top two sport interest wise when clearly it ranks behind football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and I wouldn't be surprised if you ran the numbers if it's not pretty neck and neck between it and Volleyball [ which makes perfect sense to me, since how much better of a spectator sport could you hope for than a court full of long legged pony-tailed college girls in tight short-shorts jumping and diving and sprawling all over the floor while they try to smash the ball in each others face]. But I digress....

Congrats to WSU if they win, it's a worthwhile goal; but one that's hard to take too seriously as the reflection of it's title given the inconsistencies in how it's measured.

Some good points here. I think there should be a penalty (for the purposes of the All Sports Award) for not competing in a particular sport. For instance, UNI drops baseball because they don't have the support. They can't benefit from that. On the other hand, should a totally obscure sport, such as swimming and diving, that only half the schools participate in, and NONE take seriously more than a club level, count the same as men's basketball? Even worse would be to penalize a school (like WSU for instance) for not playing this borderline sport, while rewarding a MSU who competes in it just to balance their title IX requirements.

And don't even start to put 1AA football on the same level as basketball. Let's all remember that it was the VALLEY that abandoned WSU, and essentially drove the final nail into the coffin of football in Wichita. I'm not (at all) trying to act like the Shocks were a powerhouse or even competitive in the sport, but they were attempting to compete at the top level, and as usual, were hung out to dry by this God forsaken conference.

I expect WSU to act like it matters if they put on a uniform. If anything becomes a TitleIX balancing act, it should be dropped immediately.

Btw, maybe baseball ranks behind women's basketball in Springfield and Knoxville, but it deserves it's place somewhere near the top. And I can't believe there's one MSU fan that would say if you could only have one of the 2 instances, you'd give up your CWS season to keep the Final 4 run in women's basketball.

[Duan]

Well, to directly answer the question, I believe that it is between UNI and CU (this is based on the bigger sports that I personally think "matter"). If CU wins the baseball title, then CU should win the award this year. I realize that this is a very controversial topic but I am sick of people arguing the topic instead of simply answering.

This should be interesting to hear you define your own personal formula. Exactly how are you figuring that CU and UNI are battling for the top spot? What sports "matter"?

Soccer and women's basketball?

That is just the thing...it is my own opinion. The sports that I personally think of when I think of college sports. The thread starter didn't ask people to explain their answers....just to answer it! Why aren't people doing that? BTW I think the "big" sports are the sports that most high schools offer around my neck of the woods and that the most people follow: football (but doesn't count in this case), volleyball, basketball (mens and womens), baseball, softball, and soccer.....mostly team sports. JMO but I wish more would join in on answering also.

[iSASO]

Well, to directly answer the question, I believe that it is between UNI and CU (this is based on the bigger sports that I personally think "matter"). If CU wins the baseball title, then CU should win the award this year. I realize that this is a very controversial topic but I am sick of people arguing the topic instead of simply answering.

This should be interesting to hear you define your own personal formula. Exactly how are you figuring that CU and UNI are battling for the top spot? What sports "matter"?

Soccer and women's basketball?

That is just the thing...it is my own opinion. The sports that I personally think of when I think of college sports. The thread starter didn't ask people to explain their answers....just to answer it! Why aren't people doing that? BTW I think the "big" sports are the sports that most high schools offer around my neck of the woods and that the most people follow: football (but doesn't count in this case), volleyball, basketball (mens and womens), baseball, softball, and soccer.....mostly team sports. JMO but I wish more would join in on answering also.

I'll answer the question. WSU will probably win another All-Sports Trophy. With upper-division finishes in basketball, volleyball, baseball, track and golf, that pretty much cinches it. The Excellence created by Jim Schaus lives on.

[CaseyGarrisonforPrez]

Always interesting to see all the differing perspectives on a topic. A few of my own.
I think you always want to succeed at whatever you do, so if WSU hangs on and wins another "All Sports Trophy", then you have to give them their due. That said, I've always questioned how you can call it "All Sports" when clearly it's not. I enjoyed watching ISU and MSU trade off winning the thing yearly in the mid 90's , especially because MSU was sponsoring something like 20+ sports at the time and it seemed to be a more accurate phrasing then. But anything that excludes football, and then also lets you avoid sports you'd rather not participate in despite the fact the Valley sponsors them , can hardly be called "ALL". To me if you chose
[ which each University should have the right to do] to not participate in a Valley sponsored sport, then that is a last place finish when you go to try to assess a true reflection of "all sports". I'm sure every school has their own reasoning for not including various sports in their offerings to their students; but not competing is not competing, it shouldn't give you an adavntage towards an award.

I always find it odd also that while I recognize the fact most people on this board and the old Valley talk give little concern to most women's sports, it's fairly clear that this title is usually won by the school who succeeds in the most women's sports. I also find it interesting that some continue to persist in trying to frame MVC baseball as a top two sport interest wise when clearly it ranks behind football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and I wouldn't be surprised if you ran the numbers if it's not pretty neck and neck between it and Volleyball [ which makes perfect sense to me, since how much better of a spectator sport could you hope for than a court full of long legged pony-tailed college girls in tight short-shorts jumping and diving and sprawling all over the floor while they try to smash the ball in each others face]. But I digress....

Congrats to WSU if they win, it's a worthwhile goal; but one that's hard to take too seriously as the reflection of it's title given the inconsistencies in how it's measured.

Some good points here. I think there should be a penalty (for the purposes of the All Sports Award) for not competing in a particular sport. For instance, UNI drops baseball because they don't have the support. They can't benefit from that. On the other hand, should a totally obscure sport, such as swimming and diving, that only half the schools participate in, and NONE take seriously more than a club level, count the same as men's basketball? Even worse would be to penalize a school (like WSU for instance) for not playing this borderline sport, while rewarding a MSU who competes in it just to balance their title IX requirements.

And don't even start to put 1AA football on the same level as basketball. Let's all remember that it was the VALLEY that abandoned WSU, and essentially drove the final nail into the coffin of football in Wichita. I'm not (at all) trying to act like the Shocks were a powerhouse or even competitive in the sport, but they were attempting to compete at the top level, and as usual, were hung out to dry by this God forsaken conference.

I expect WSU to act like it matters if they put on a uniform. If anything becomes a TitleIX balancing act, it should be dropped immediately.

Btw, maybe baseball ranks behind women's basketball in Springfield and Knoxville, but it deserves it's place somewhere near the top. And I can't believe there's one MSU fan that would say if you could only have one of the 2 instances, you'd give up your CWS season to keep the Final 4 run in women's basketball.

I think if you look at how ESPN covers women's basketball it is clear that it is WAY in front of college baseball on the national landscape. I think collgege baseball matters in places like Wichita and Baton Rouge but nationally women's basketball is much, much bigger. Look at attendance to further my point. College baseball is okay but it is full of guys that aren't good enough for the MLB. If they were that good they would go out of high school. Women's basketball has the best athletes. Compare Brittney Griner to some 5'7" 140 lbs middle infielder who is a D1 "athlete."

[SubGod22]

Britney also throws a better punch than that middle infielder.

[2livewu]

I think if you look at how ESPN covers women's basketball it is clear that it is WAY in front of college baseball on the national landscape. I think collgege baseball matters in places like Wichita and Baton Rouge but nationally women's basketball is much, much bigger. Look at attendance to further my point. College baseball is okay but it is full of guys that aren't good enough for the MLB. If they were that good they would go out of high school. Women's basketball has the best athletes. Compare Brittney Griner to some 5'7" 140 lbs middle infielder who is a D1 "athlete."

That's fine, and your point is defensible, to a point. WAY more people are going to attend the College Baseball World Series than did the women's final 4. The NCAA baseball tourney gets plenty of run on ESPN as well. MAYBE not as much as women's basketball, but it's close.

Much much bigger is an exaggeration. Just the comment that you think women's basketball has better athletes than men's baseball proves without question you are in need of a checkup from the neck up and need to stop inbreeding in central Missouri.

[CaseyGarrisonforPrez]

I think if you look at how ESPN covers women's basketball it is clear that it is WAY in front of college baseball on the national landscape. I think collgege baseball matters in places like Wichita and Baton Rouge but nationally women's basketball is much, much bigger. Look at attendance to further my point. College baseball is okay but it is full of guys that aren't good enough for the MLB. If they were that good they would go out of high school. Women's basketball has the best athletes. Compare Brittney Griner to some 5'7" 140 lbs middle infielder who is a D1 "athlete."

That's fine, and your point is defensible, to a point. WAY more people are going to attend the College Baseball World Series than did the women's final 4. The NCAA baseball tourney gets plenty of run on ESPN as well. MAYBE not as much as women's basketball, but it's close.

Much much bigger is an exaggeration. Just the comment that you think women's basketball has better athletes than men's baseball proves without question you are in need of a checkup from the neck up and need to stop inbreeding in central Missouri.

I had not reread my post until I saw your response. My comparison about athletes was meant to compare the best girls playing women's basketball while the best baseball players are in class A or Rookie League somewhere. I did not mean to compare women athletically to men, even though I sometimes wonder if a good women's team could be maybe a lower level D1 team. But that was not really my initial point. As for your tone, I do not appreciate it and hope you will rescind your earlier comments as you can now see that they make no sense anymore.