If the CAA awards an “all sports” trophy, I haven’t found anything about it. I’ve put this together and here is football to show my methodology…

VILL 7-1 14pts
ALB 7-1 14pts
RICH 7-1 14pts
DEL 6-2 11.5pts/15 teams = .767
ELON 6-2 11.5pts/15= .767
URI 4-4 8pts
W&M 4-4 8pts/15= .533
UNH 4-4 8pts
CAM 4-4 8pts/15= .533
TOW 4-4 8pts/15= .533
HAMP 3-5 4.5pts/15= .300
MON 3.5 4.5pts/15= .300
MAINE 1-7 3pts
A&T 0-8 1.5pts/15= .100
SBU 0-8 1.5pts/15= .100

Disregarded any sports’ conference tournament results.

Standings thru fall sports (MCC, WCC, WSOC, FH, MSOC, VB, FB) with each school’s number of participated sports and best sport finish…

.753 Monmouth 6 (FH 1.000)
.694 Stony Brook 6 (MCC 1.000)
.644 Delaware 6 (VB .917)
.625 Northeastern 6 (MCC .909)
.611 Towson 5 (WSOC,VB 1.000)
.605 Drexel 3 (FH .786)
.594 William & Mary 7 (MCC .818)
.534 Hofstra 6 (MSOC .955)
.530 Elon 6 (WCC 1.000)
.465 Charleston 5 (VB .708)
.438 Campbell 6 (VB .833)
.420 UNCW 5 (VB .542)
.152 N.C. A&T 4 (VB .250)
.126 Hampton 5 (FB .300)

Will update with winter sports after women’s basketball is set this weekend.

This method might have flaws, but least this is something and it’s better than nothing.

(03-07-2024 08:40 AM)OrangeCamel Wrote:  If the CAA awards an “all sports” trophy, I haven’t found anything about it. I’ve put this together and here is football to show my methodology…

VILL 7-1 14pts
ALB 7-1 14pts
RICH 7-1 14pts
DEL 6-2 11.5pts/15 teams = .767
ELON 6-2 11.5pts/15= .767
URI 4-4 8pts
W&M 4-4 8pts/15= .533
UNH 4-4 8pts
CAM 4-4 8pts/15= .533
TOW 4-4 8pts/15= .533
HAMP 3-5 4.5pts/15= .300
MON 3.5 4.5pts/15= .300
MAINE 1-7 3pts
A&T 0-8 1.5pts/15= .100
SBU 0-8 1.5pts/15= .100

Disregarded any sports’ conference tournament results.

Standings thru fall sports (MCC, WCC, WSOC, FH, MSOC, VB, FB) with each school’s number of participated sports and best sport finish…

.753 Monmouth 6 (FH 1.000)
.694 Stony Brook 6 (MCC 1.000)
.679 William & Mary 7 (MCC .818)
.644 Delaware 6 (VB .917)
.625 Northeastern 6 (MCC .909)
.611 Towson 5 (WSOC,VB 1.000)
.605 Drexel 3 (FH .786)
.534 Hofstra 6 (MSOC .955)
.482 Elon 5 (WCC 1.000)
.465 Charleston 5 (VB .708)
.438 Campbell 6 (VB .833)
.420 UNCW 5 (VB .542)
.152 N.C. A&T 4 (VB .250)
.126 Hampton 5 (FB .300)

Will update with winter sports after women’s basketball is set this weekend.

This method might have flaws, but least this is something and it’s better than nothing.

I disagree with your not taking conference tournaments into account. That is what decides the conference champion, not the regular season. For example, William and Mary won the Field Hockey tournament and should get more credit for that than Monmouth does for winning the regular season (in fact, W&M beat Monmouth in the tournament). Another thing is that some sports (Women's Tennis, for example) have very few matches in conference UNTIL the tournament. Historically, W&M might play only one or two matches against conference foes in the regular season ....but almost always wins the CAA tournament...and should get full credit for that.

Appreciate the input, Zorch. You’ve sold me on this and I’ll adjust and re-post. Will use the average of regular season standings and tournament results for applicable sports. Looking forward to seeing the difference….shouldn’t be too much. The extreme would be a dominant team losing on opening day.

I corrected a couple errors above for Elon and W&M.

Here are the adjusted standings that include tournament play…

Standings thru fall sports (MCC, WCC, WSOC, FH, MSOC, VB, FB) with each school’s number of participated sports and best sport finish…

.744 Monmouth 6 (MSOC.932)
.685 Stony Brook 6 (MCC 1.000)
.656 Delaware 6 (VB .959)
.634 Northeastern 6 (MCC .909)
.617 William & Mary 7 (FH .893)
.603 Towson 5 (WSOC 1.000)
.588 Hofstra 6 (MSOC .978)
.566 Drexel 3 (FH .714)
.549 Elon 6 (WCC 1.000)
.457 Charleston 5 (VB .667)
.434 Campbell 6 (VB .813)
.420 UNCW 5 (VB .542)
.152 N.C. A&T 4 (VB .250)
.126 Hampton 5 (FB .300)

Stony Brook in second even with the 0-for in football. Thank god we hired Billy Cosh.

(03-09-2024 01:09 AM)WolfCrashpad Wrote:  Stony Brook in second even with the 0-for in football. Thank god we hired Billy Cosh.

Big numbers everywhere else!

SBU
MCC 1.000, WCC .923, WSOC .634, MSOC .705, VB .750, FB .100

Thru MITF, WITF, MSWM, WSWM

.719 Northeastern 9 (MITF 1.000, WITF 1.000)
.646 Delaware 9 (VB .959)
.626 Towson 8 (WSOC 1.000)
.602 Elon 7 (WCC 1.000)
.596 Monmouth 10 (MSOC .932)
.588 William & Mary 11 (FH .893)
.557 Stony Brook 9 (MCC 1.000)
.542 UNCW 8 (MSWM 1.000, WSWM 1.000)
.528 Drexel 5 (FH .714)
.490 Campbell 9 (WITF .846)
.467 Hofstra 8 (MSOC .978)
.445 Charleston 6 (VB .667)
.349 N.C. A&T 6 (MITF .875)
.224 Hampton 7 (WITF .692)

Next to be added: Men’s Basketball

(Northeastern only has basketball, outdoor T&F, rowing, and baseball left for the remainder of the year.)

Thru MBB

.681 Northeastern 10 (MITF 1.000, WITF 1.000)
.642 Towson 9 (WSOC 1.000)
.640 Delaware 10 (VB .959)
.595 Monmouth 11 (MSOC .932)
.577 Stony Brook 10 (MCC 1.000)
.568 Drexel 6 (MBB .768)
.561 UNCW 9 (MSWM 1.000, WSWM 1.000)
.558 William & Mary 12 (FH .893)
.552 Elon 8 (WCC 1.000)
.524 Charleston 7 (MBB 1.000)
.506 Hofstra 9 (MSOC .978)
.478 Campbell 10 (WITF .846)
.322 N.C. A&T 7 (MITF .875)
.221 Hampton 8 (WITF .692)

Next to be added: Women’s Basketball

Thru WBB

.651 Towson 10 (WSOC 1.000)
.647 Northeastern 11 (MITF 1.000, WITF 1.000)
.614 Delaware 11 (VB .959)
.612 Stony Brook 11 (MCC 1.000)
.609 Monmouth 12 (MSOC .932)
.599 Drexel 7 (WBB .786)
.555 William & Mary 13 (FH .893)
.548 Charleston 8 (MBB 1.000)
.530 Elon 9 (WCC 1.000)
.517 UNCW 10 (MSWM 1.000, WSWM 1.000)
.493 Hofstra 10 (MSOC .978)
.485 Campbell 11 (WITF .846)
.385 N.C. A&T 8 (MITF .875)
.210 Hampton 9 (WITF .692)

Next to be added: Women’s Golf

Thru WGOLF

.647 Northeastern 11 (MITF 1.000, WITF 1.000)
.634 Delaware 12 (VB .959)
.632 Towson 11 (WSOC 1.000)
.612 Stony Brook 11 (MCC 1.000)
.599 Drexel 7 (WBB .786)
.590 Charleston 9 (MBB 1.000)
.574 Monmouth 13 (MSOC .932)
.548 William & Mary 14 (FH .893)
.545 UNCW 11 (MSWM 1.000, WSWM 1.000)
.537 Elon 10 (WCC 1.000)
.516 Campbell 12 (WGOLF .850)
.462 Hofstra 11 (MSOC .978)
.375 N. C. A&T 9 (MITF .875)
.210 Hampton 9 (WITF .692)

Next to be added: Men’s Tennis

Edited women’s golf addition to the average of tourney seed and tourney result (vs just the tourney result). This dinged Delaware a tad and moved W&M over UNCW by a little.

thru MTEN

.650 Delaware 13 (VB .959)
.647 Northeastern 11 (MITF, WITF 1.000)
.632 Towson 11 (WSOC 1.000)
.612 Stony Brook 11 (MCC 1.000)
.584 Drexel 8 (WBB .786)
.584 Monmouth 14 (MSOC .932)
.583 UNCW 12 (MSWM, WSWM, MTEN 1.000)
.574 Charleston 10 (MBB 1.000)
.567 Elon 11 (WCC 1.000)
.558 William & Mary 15 (FH .893)
.516 Campbell 13 (WGOLF .850)
.438 Hofstra 12 (MSOC .978)
.361 N. C. A&T 10 (MITF .875)
.203 Hampton 10 (WITF .692)

Next to be added: Men’s Golf

Thru MGOLF

.647 Northeastern 11 (MITF, WITF 1.000)
.646 Delaware 14 (VB .959)
.614 Towson 12 (WSOC 1.000)
.613 Charleston 11 (MBB, MGOLF 1.000)
.612 Stony Brook 11 (MCC 1.000)
.605 UNCW 13 (MSWM, WSWM, MTEN 1.000)
.591 Elon 12 (WCC 1.000)
.590 Drexel 9 (WBB .776)
.563 Monmouth 15 (MSOC .932)
.549 William & Mary 16 (FH .893)
.528 Campbell 14 (WGOLF .850)
.412 Hofstra 13 (MSOC .978)
.344 N.C. A&T 11 (MITF .875)
.203 Hampton 10 (WITF .692)

Next to be added: Women’s Tennis

I am a little bit surprised at how low Hofstra is. It's also interesting to me how clumped together the top end of the conference is. Campbell might not be in the top half, but they're doing well in their transitional year.

Thru WTEN

.666 Delaware 15 (VB, WTEN .959)
.647 Northeastern 11 (MITF, WITF 1.000)
.619 Charleston 12 (MBB, MGOLF 1.000)
.609 UNCW 14 (MSWM, WSWM, MTEN 1.000)
.606 Drexel 10 (WBB .776)
.602 Towson 13 (WSOC 1.000)
.592 Elon 13 (WCC 1.000)
.577 Stony Brook 12 (MCC 1.000)
.573 William & Mary 17 (WTEN .959)
.537 Monmouth 16 (MSOC .932)
.528 Campbell 15 (WGOLF .850)
.402 Hofstra 14 (MSOC .978)
.344 N.C. A&T 11 (MITF .875)
.228 Hampton 11 (WITF .692)

Next to be added: Women’s and Men’s Lacrosse

Still trying to figure out what the numbers in parentheses are. Why is W&M Women's Tennis only .959 and not 1.000? I suspect that it is because they were seeded second in the CAAT? If so, that is a crock. W&M was undefeated in CAA play because their 4-3 loss to Delaware was thrown out as a No Contest because Delaware cheated on the placement order of their athletes. For some bizarro reason, the league went ahead and seeded Delaware first anyway (presumably because they "beat" W&M.....ha ha, the Tribe showed how ludicrous that was by crushing Delaware 4-0 in the tournament).

So why not just award each team a point for each championship won and the team that wins the most championships at the end of the year is the winner.

EDIT: looking more closely, I see that you credited Delaware Women's Tennis with a .959 also (again, presumably because they finished "first" in the seeding)....so I am even more appalled. Look back to post #2 to see why regular season finish means nothing. It is all about the conference tournament. Also, Delaware did not finish ahead of W&M in the standings (in fact, the CAA website does not even show standings for Women's Tennis). UD finished 5-0 but W&M finished 6-0...so if there were standings then W&M would have been first and should have been seeded first. So obviously the jerks on the CAA seeding committee chose to count the Delaware "win" against W&M even though the sport's governing body agreed that Delaware had violated the rules. (Again, ha ha, when the players are ranked correctly according to ability, the Tribe stomped Delaware 4-0). At the bottom of this post is the official announcement.

Anyway, UD should not get any credit for a supposed first place regular season finish and W&M should get full credit for a 1.000 in Women's Tennis. Also, why isn't the W&M Field Hockey first place tournament victory shown anymore?

Here is the tennis announcement:
On April 15, 2024, the ITA National Ranking Committee ruled that Delaware violated ITA Rule I.D.3, Players must play in order of ability. As a result, the match between William & Mary and Delaware will be nullified, and there will be no winner of the dual match. Since all individual matches were played in good faith, individual results will stand.

(Yesterday 10:01 AM)Zorch Wrote:  So why not just award each team a point for each championship won and the team that wins the most championships at the end of the year is the winner.

That seems like an interesting analysis that you can do! Seems more constructive than doing nothing but criticize someone for doing something interesting that a) doesn't ultimately impact anything, and b) is self-proclaimed as "Very Unofficial".

(Yesterday 10:43 AM)jcohen42 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:01 AM)Zorch Wrote:  So why not just award each team a point for each championship won and the team that wins the most championships at the end of the year is the winner.

That seems like an interesting analysis that you can do! Seems more constructive than doing nothing but criticize someone for doing something interesting that a) doesn't ultimately impact anything, and b) is self-proclaimed as "Very Unofficial".

Well, it's just that if you are going to do it then do it right.

(Yesterday 10:46 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:43 AM)jcohen42 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:01 AM)Zorch Wrote:  So why not just award each team a point for each championship won and the team that wins the most championships at the end of the year is the winner.

That seems like an interesting analysis that you can do! Seems more constructive than doing nothing but criticize someone for doing something interesting that a) doesn't ultimately impact anything, and b) is self-proclaimed as "Very Unofficial".

Well, it's just that if you are going to do it then do it right.

It's a message board post, not a published article. It's not that serious.

Each school’s sport with the highest computation used is shown in parentheses. For W&M, WTEN’s .959 overtook FH’s .893.

I see how it might be a little bit of a nit with that Delaware WTEN issue. I assume the league decided beforehand to seed according to the ITA rankings (found on Masseyratings) and stuck to that.

I believe using the average of the regular season finish and the tournament finish might be close to the elusive perfect method. Seems like the Big South only used regular season results, but later amended it to include tourney results (the average of the two). And, it seems like they further amended it to include NCAA post-season participation/results, somehow. Not sure how the Atlantic Sun does it. Brings up the question of how many other conferences do this (and how). The CAA might need to be commended for not officially doing it because holes can be punched in every method.

I see the flaws. It irks me that a school gets dinged for sponsoring a sport and finishing low, while another school sits idle and goes unscathed.

While looking back for the ITA-rank seeding info today, I discovered A&T opted out if the WTEN tournament due to injuries. Since they weren’t seeded, I didn’t consider their regular season or that they even had a team. Looking at the current ITA rankings, I’m pretty sure they would have been next to the bottom (12th of 13) a week ago. The tricky part is establishing a tournament “result” for them. Give them the lowest value or don’t average a tourney result for them and just use their reg season value? (I think averaging their reg season value with the lowest value is the way to go…..fortunately, it won’t make much difference either way.) Will adjust. This is an example of how tricky and imperfect this can be.

Thanks for the deeper explanation.

Even if you count Delaware as the regular season first place team in Women's Tennis (which, as explained above, is completely bogus; just as bogus as going by ITA rankings instead of won-loss records), I still don't buy that their percentage should be the same as the team that won the tournament. You should find a way to give higher weight to tournament results....at least twice as much weight as the (meaningless) regular season results.