ECRL vs GA

[Unregistered]

I'm discussing college sports. College sports are impacted by policies enforced by colleges in general. For example, if Stanford (the college) restricted freshmen and sophomores from coming to campus but Stony Brook (the college) didn't, then you could conclude that Stanford's soccer teams were disadvantaged from half their team not being present on campus to attend practices while Stony Brook did not have that disadvantage. The fact that colleges handled the pandemic in vastly different ways across the country should make it very obvious that college athletic programs would be impacted in vastly different ways across the country. And because of it, it would be a bad idea to try to measure the quality of those athletic programs overall based on the results of this one year.

Now certainly it's possible that, because of this one year, some colleges will make fundamental changes to their athletic programs (eg. some colleges turned a number of their varsity sports into club sports, etc). And we will see over the next few years how that impacts their programs. But in terms of a program like Stanford Women's Soccer -- a perennial Top 10 program -- the fact that they lost 6 games and didn't make it to the NCAA tournament is not proof at all that Stony Brook has somehow become the better program.

I know for sure that sports programs were treated differently even when there were no students allowed on campuses yet athletes were exempt and were there training and playing matches. I do not know at Stanford if those same rules applied to students and athletes. Following other colleges you would think freshman and sophomore athletes were exempt and were there on campus to train and play with the team if the team as a whole were allowed to play. There is no way Stanford would hold training only for Juniors and Seniors.

[Unregistered]

The point is that some schools dealt with more issues than others, so using this year's results as a metric of a school's program overall is pointless. The fact that Stanford lost 6 games this season compared to losing 7 games in the last 5 seasons combined should be a pretty good indicator that this year was an outlier for them.

And you know this how? Do you have insight into every school? Or just what you read? Im betting the latter. Maybe its an indicator that that the TEAM is not as good as it was. Maybe an indicator that some players once drafted, let down. Could be ANYTHING. the fact you choose to use it as a way to discredit others achievements says a lot about you.

[Unregistered]

I know for sure that sports programs were treated differently even when there were no students allowed on campuses yet athletes were exempt and were there training and playing matches. I do not know at Stanford if those same rules applied to students and athletes. Following other colleges you would think freshman and sophomore athletes were exempt and were there on campus to train and play with the team if the team as a whole were allowed to play. There is no way Stanford would hold training only for Juniors and Seniors.

https://gostanford.com/news/2020/11/...ns-soccer.aspx

"IN THIS STRANGEST of seasons, the Stanford women's soccer team still is six weeks away from full-scale training while in other parts of the country teams have finished their regular seasons and conference tournaments.

Assuming that Stanford's season will begin Feb. 3 and the NCAA will hold a mid-May College Cup, as planned, the Cardinal will have some catching up to do. Half the squad are on campus and taking part in limited workouts, and the entire team should report after Christmas and begin full training the first week of January after a quarantine period. "

[Unregistered]

And you know this how? Do you have insight into every school? Or just what you read? Im betting the latter. Maybe its an indicator that that the TEAM is not as good as it was. Maybe an indicator that some players once drafted, let down. Could be ANYTHING. the fact you choose to use it as a way to discredit others achievements says a lot about you.

Ok, so you believe Stony Brook has overtaken Stanford as a women's soccer powerhouse. Sure.

[Unregistered]

And you know this how? Do you have insight into every school? Or just what you read? Im betting the latter. Maybe its an indicator that that the TEAM is not as good as it was. Maybe an indicator that some players once drafted, let down. Could be ANYTHING. the fact you choose to use it as a way to discredit others achievements says a lot about you.

Are you saying that you think every school handled the pandemic the same? Am pretty sure that was not the case.

[Unregistered]

And you know this how? Do you have insight into every school? Or just what you read? Im betting the latter. Maybe its an indicator that that the TEAM is not as good as it was. Maybe an indicator that some players once drafted, let down. Could be ANYTHING. the fact you choose to use it as a way to discredit others achievements says a lot about you.

I don't know about Stanford specifics but many athletes deferred or red shirted this year because of Covid shutdowns, finances etc. I wouldn't read too much into any team's record this year. Lots of **** in the record books this year. Even then some teams just have off years due to a few key injuries or other factors. Stamford will be just fine over time

[Unregistered]

I know for sure that sports programs were treated differently even when there were no students allowed on campuses yet athletes were exempt and were there training and playing matches. I do not know at Stanford if those same rules applied to students and athletes. Following other colleges you would think freshman and sophomore athletes were exempt and were there on campus to train and play with the team if the team as a whole were allowed to play. There is no way Stanford would hold training only for Juniors and Seniors.

My non athlete kid was looking at CA schools this spring and all campuses were closed or close to it - both private and state schools. Not sure what the actual CA rules were but something was going on. Empty empty empty. About the only students we would see were athletes, nursing and med students. No tours needless to say, just walk around and look at the buildings.

[Unregistered]

And you know this how? Do you have insight into every school? Or just what you read? Im betting the latter. Maybe its an indicator that that the TEAM is not as good as it was. Maybe an indicator that some players once drafted, let down. Could be ANYTHING. the fact you choose to use it as a way to discredit others achievements says a lot about you.

Yes, this year's college soccer was perfectly normal. Lol!

[Unregistered]

Yes, this year's college soccer was perfectly normal. Lol!

who said that? It was abnormal in DIFFERENT ways for everyone. My point is it did not create any systemic advantages for any particular conference or team. They all had issues to overcome. Some did, some did not.

[Unregistered]

who said that? It was abnormal in DIFFERENT ways for everyone. My point is it did not create any systemic advantages for any particular conference or team. They all had issues to overcome. Some did, some did not.

Who said anything about systemic advantages? I agree that it was abnormal for everyone...that it was factors OUTSIDE of the system (ie. not-systemic) that caused the results to be abnormal. That was my entire point; that looking at this year's results as any kind of indication of the general quality of these programs is meaningless because of the abnormal issues that every program had to deal with. It *might* be an indication that a school like Stony Brook prioritized athletics over public health whereas Stanford did not, and if you want to use that to conclude Stony Brook's soccer program is therefore superior is up to you.

[Unregistered]

🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝