2018 Season - National Perspective

Started by Flying Weasel, March 26, 2018, 10:13:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulNewman

#285
Shooter, even with 2 straight losses? I figured 1 loss deserved a drop to #5 and the second at least down to #8.

And I forgot to slot Claremont-Mudd-Scripps and Redlands somewhere in the RV category.  I'm sure I missed a couple of other notables as well.

PaulNewman

Falconer, I must confess that even as a Great Lakes person I haven't seen Gordon play much.  For whatever reason, Capital and Kenyon have not played each other in a few years.  I assume you are correct that he is somewhat of a poacher but I do not know for sure.  Domino1195, a Capital guy and Great Lakes aficionado, said he positions himself well and also has some nice moves/runs without being especially flashy.

I doubt we'll see Capital facing Messiah in the Final Four, but who knows.  I personally would guess that Gordon gets to 28-29 goals while West counting what likely will be a very deep NCAA run will get to 35/35+.

PaulNewman

And speaking of Chicago, are fans/followers of the Maroons concerned about the two losses, or are the losses viewed as helpful in terms of getting the squad focused down the stretch?  They clearly are already in the tournament, even if they should falter further in the last three UAA tilts.

I mentioned a week or two ago that I thought they might be going too conservative in some games, absorbing too much pressure with a one goal lead against, iirc, Calvin and more recently CMU.

I would not fancy their chances in a rematch with Calvin, as I think the Calvin coach after two looks at Chicago would have a pretty solid plan for Lopez and Koh.  Also would not favor Chicago at this point versus Messiah or Tufts.  And I would guess North Park wouldn't mind another crack, although North Park and Chicago might well end up in different sectionals.

Christan Shirk

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 22, 2018, 10:26:50 AMThis may be in one of Shirk's articles about the process, but has SoS always played such a big role in rankings, like 15-20 years ago, or just over the past 8-10 years?

The current Strength-of-Schedule formula (SOS = 2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP) was instituted in 2007.  If you want to be more precise, you can break the SOS era into two periods: from 2007 to 2015, the OWP and OOWP was based on average winning percentages, and from 2015 to present based on cumulative winning percentages.

Previously, from 2003 to 2006, a Quality-of-Wins Index was used.  That was not a strength of schedule calculation.  It was just trying to give different value to wins and losses based on the "quality" of the opponent.  Here's how it worked

QuoteQuality-of-Wins-Index (only contests versus regional competition)

Win on the road versus a team at or above .667  15 points
Win at home versus a team at or above .667  14 points
Win on the road versus a team at or above .500, but below .667  13 points
Win at home versus a team at or above .500, but below .667  12 points
Win on the road versus a team at or above .333, but below .500  11 points
Win at home versus a team at or above .333, but below .500  10 points
Win on the road versus a team below .333    9 points
Win at home versus a team below .333    8 points
Loss on the road versus a team at or above .667    7 points
Loss at home versus a team at or above .667    6 points
Loss on the road versus a team at or above .500, but below .667    5 points
Loss at home versus a team at or above .500, but below .667    4 points
Loss on the road versus a team at or above .333, but below .500    3 points
Loss at home versus a team at or above .333, but below .500    2 points
Loss on the road versus a team below .333    1 point
Loss at home versus a team below .333    0 points

• Points for tied contests are calculated by taking the points which would have been
awarded with a win, adding the points which would have been awarded with a loss and
dividing by two.
• The Quality-of-Wins-Index is calculated by adding the total number of points and
dividing by the number of games.
• A neutral game is defined as being in neither team's locale and, as such, is awarded
as if it were an away game.
• The Quality-of-Wins-Index is calculated for ratings at the time of the ranking calls and
using final results for selection purposes.

Priro to 2003, the primary criteria included this:
Quote• Strength of schedule as demonstrated by in-region oppo-
nents' winning percentage;
with no provided formaula or calculation.

The regional rankings began in 2003 together with the introduction of the Quality-of-Win Index.  In theory, doing regional rankings does not change at-large selections, but rather only makes them more predictable (eliminates surprises).  They only started releasing the data sheets in 2009, so prior to that it was much harder to get any feel for which criteria seemed to carry more weight without readily accessible data to review and compare.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

Gregory Sager

Quote from: WUPHF on October 22, 2018, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 22, 2018, 12:01:49 PM
Getting back to the Bears, it actually looks wide open for Wash U to get ranked and then rapidly climb the Central Region ladder if the Bears can finish with a flourish. They take their annual East Coast road trip this weekend, playing at Brandeis on Friday and at NYU on Sunday; [...]

After traveling for the last month, Washington University will play their final three games in the Francis Olympic Stadium.

... named for that great civic father of St. Louis, the legendary Francis Olympic. :D

(My bad on misreading the Bears' schedule.)
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

WUPHF

Absolutely not a problem.

By the way, they have changed the name to Francis Olympic Stadium.

I prefer Francis Field.

There is way too much history that does not involve the Olympics.

Mr.Right

I forgot the quality of Wins Index but after lookin at it I might like to go back to it....

Flying Weasel

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 22, 2018, 07:31:21 PM
I forgot the quality of Wins Index but after lookin at it I might like to go back to it....

That system, which wasn't trying to gauge how tough one's schedule was but rather provide a score for a team's results, would give Messiah 10 points for tying Top 15 Cortland St. (14-1-2) at home and 10 points for beating Albright (4-9-2) at home.  And defeating still-winless Hartwick (0-11-0) is worth more (8 points) than a potential overtime loss to Top 25 Lycoming in the conference final (6 points).  That type of scoring is very out of balance with how I would weigh those results and what they said to me about Messiah's quality.  The system highly rewards wins against tough opposition, but ties and losses against tough opponents are undervalued in comparison to wins against poor to pathetic adversaries.

Mr.Right

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 22, 2018, 11:49:01 PM
Quote from: Mr.Right on October 22, 2018, 07:31:21 PM
I forgot the quality of Wins Index but after lookin at it I might like to go back to it....

That system, which wasn't trying to gauge how tough one's schedule was but rather provide a score for a team's results, would give Messiah 10 points for tying Top 15 Cortland St. (14-1-2) at home and 10 points for beating Albright (4-9-2) at home.  And defeating still-winless Hartwick (0-11-0) is worth more (8 points) than a potential overtime loss to Top 25 Lycoming in the conference final (6 points).  That type of scoring is very out of balance with how I would weigh those results and what they said to me about Messiah's quality.  The system highly rewards wins against tough opposition, but ties and losses against tough opponents are undervalued in comparison to wins against poor to pathetic adversaries.


Easy easy fix....Just re-work quality of Wins Index Point totals....including having negative point totals...Loss to a team above .667 could be bumped up especially on the Road and loss to a team below .333 at Home could be -4. The one thing I do not like is bunching up neutral field Wins/Losses to basically a Road game of which it is not. My point being this system could be re-worked with the point totals rather easily. Now maybe they could keep SOS but also add this Quality of Win Index as another primary criteria. So it would just give the committee more data to look at. I would be willing to guess we could see some teams with high SOS and a rather average WIP. Just a thought.....

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

QOWI was instituted to get rid of the "old boys network" in a lot of sports. The problems with it ... were NUMEROUS. We are in such a better place now that it is gone, however it allowed everyone to transition to information and data about teams rather than "my man so-and-so has a damn good team, they should be in the tournament" system.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Christan Shirk

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 22, 2018, 10:26:50 AMI am curious about Wash U....not ranked last week, but this week will 6-6-1, with a SoS over .650, and I think a RvR of 2-3-1.  Does that get them ranked?  And is it conceivable that Wash U could get a bid if they end up 7-8-1 or 7-7-2 with a SoS north of .670 and RvR of something like 3-4-2/3-3-3?  Has a team ever gotten a Pool C with a record or .500 or below?

I think the lowest winning percentages of teams receiving Pool C at-large berths in recent times (last 8 years) are Emory (10-6-2 / .611) in 2012, Rochester (9-5-3 / .618) in 2014 and Capital (12-7-2 / .619) in 2017.  In a relatively quick scan of the tournament brackets, I couldn't find any winning pcts. lower than that in the 2005 to 2010 time frame.  And prior to 2005, the tournament field size was much smaller and there were only 4 or 5 Pool C at-large berths, so no one was getting in with winning percentages that low.  So, not only has no one received a Pool C at-large berth with a .500 winning pct. or lower, it appears that no team with a winning pct. .600 or lower has either.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

Mr.Right

Well if Emory got in at 10-6-2 in 2012 than Brandeis fan have a glimmer of hope as they sit 7-6-2 with 3 games left and I am sure relatively comparable SOS.

PaulNewman

Quote from: Christan Shirk on October 23, 2018, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on October 22, 2018, 10:26:50 AMI am curious about Wash U....not ranked last week, but this week will 6-6-1, with a SoS over .650, and I think a RvR of 2-3-1.  Does that get them ranked?  And is it conceivable that Wash U could get a bid if they end up 7-8-1 or 7-7-2 with a SoS north of .670 and RvR of something like 3-4-2/3-3-3?  Has a team ever gotten a Pool C with a record or .500 or below?

I think the lowest winning percentages of teams receiving Pool C at-large berths in recent times (last 8 years) are Emory (10-6-2 / .611) in 2012, Rochester (9-5-3 / .618) in 2014 and Capital (12-7-2 / .619) in 2017.  In a relatively quick scan of the tournament brackets, I couldn't find any winning pcts. lower than that in the 2005 to 2010 time frame.  And prior to 2005, the tournament field size was much smaller and there were only 4 or 5 Pool C at-large berths, so no one was getting in with winning percentages that low.  So, not only has no one received a Pool C at-large berth with a .500 winning pct. or lower, it appears that no team with a winning pct. .600 or lower has either.

I think Wheaton (MA) 2 years ago might be another example....a record just like or very similar to Capital.  The different variable might be a SoS much higher than those cited, like in the .670+ range when all is said and done.

Christan Shirk

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 23, 2018, 04:07:12 PM
Quote from: Christan Shirk on October 23, 2018, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on October 22, 2018, 10:26:50 AMI am curious about Wash U....not ranked last week, but this week will 6-6-1, with a SoS over .650, and I think a RvR of 2-3-1.  Does that get them ranked?  And is it conceivable that Wash U could get a bid if they end up 7-8-1 or 7-7-2 with a SoS north of .670 and RvR of something like 3-4-2/3-3-3?  Has a team ever gotten a Pool C with a record or .500 or below?

I think the lowest winning percentages of teams receiving Pool C at-large berths in recent times (last 8 years) are Emory (10-6-2 / .611) in 2012, Rochester (9-5-3 / .618) in 2014 and Capital (12-7-2 / .619) in 2017.  In a relatively quick scan of the tournament brackets, I couldn't find any winning pcts. lower than that in the 2005 to 2010 time frame.  And prior to 2005, the tournament field size was much smaller and there were only 4 or 5 Pool C at-large berths, so no one was getting in with winning percentages that low.  So, not only has no one received a Pool C at-large berth with a .500 winning pct. or lower, it appears that no team with a winning pct. .600 or lower has either.

I think Wheaton (MA) 2 years ago might be another example....a record just like or very similar to Capital.  The different variable might be a SoS much higher than those cited, like in the .670+ range when all is said and done.
The last time Wheaton (Mass.) received an at-large berth (and I think their only at-large berth in the last 10 years) was 2014 when they had a 16-3-2 record or .810 win pct.  So maybe you are thinking of some other team.

And to clarify, I cited the winning percentages, not SOS values, in my previous post because you were asking if a team with a .500 or lower win pct. ever got selected for a Pool C at-large berth.

Certainly, WashU and Brandeis will have much higher SOS than the three teams I cited who had SOS's around .600, .630 and .610 respectively.

I personally wouldn't imagine that the committee would go for a near-.500 win pct. just because the SOS is around .670 instead of something closer to .600.

Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

PaulNewman

Quote from: Christan Shirk on October 24, 2018, 12:20:09 AM
Quote from: PaulNewman on October 23, 2018, 04:07:12 PM
Quote from: Christan Shirk on October 23, 2018, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on October 22, 2018, 10:26:50 AMI am curious about Wash U....not ranked last week, but this week will 6-6-1, with a SoS over .650, and I think a RvR of 2-3-1.  Does that get them ranked?  And is it conceivable that Wash U could get a bid if they end up 7-8-1 or 7-7-2 with a SoS north of .670 and RvR of something like 3-4-2/3-3-3?  Has a team ever gotten a Pool C with a record or .500 or below?

I think the lowest winning percentages of teams receiving Pool C at-large berths in recent times (last 8 years) are Emory (10-6-2 / .611) in 2012, Rochester (9-5-3 / .618) in 2014 and Capital (12-7-2 / .619) in 2017.  In a relatively quick scan of the tournament brackets, I couldn't find any winning pcts. lower than that in the 2005 to 2010 time frame.  And prior to 2005, the tournament field size was much smaller and there were only 4 or 5 Pool C at-large berths, so no one was getting in with winning percentages that low.  So, not only has no one received a Pool C at-large berth with a .500 winning pct. or lower, it appears that no team with a winning pct. .600 or lower has either.

I think Wheaton (MA) 2 years ago might be another example....a record just like or very similar to Capital.  The different variable might be a SoS much higher than those cited, like in the .670+ range when all is said and done.
The last time Wheaton (Mass.) received an at-large berth (and I think their only at-large berth in the last 10 years) was 2014 when they had a 16-3-2 record or .810 win pct.  So maybe you are thinking of some other team.

And to clarify, I cited the winning percentages, not SOS values, in my previous post because you were asking if a team with a .500 or lower win pct. ever got selected for a Pool C at-large berth.

Certainly, WashU and Brandeis will have much higher SOS than the three teams I cited who had SOS's around .600, .630 and .610 respectively.

I personally wouldn't imagine that the committee would go for a near-.500 win pct. just because the SOS is around .670 instead of something closer to .600.

You were right, and I figured out why I was thinking of Wheaton (MA).  In 2016 we talked about Wheaton quite a bit and Ryan predicted Wheaton to get a bid but they did not...

From Ryan's "what I missed" column....

"(1) New England: Wheaton (Mass.), Williams, Middlebury. This miss was part me, part NCAA-selection process. I predicted—correctly—that Wheaton (Mass.) would jump in the final New England rankings. They did, all the way from 12th up to 6th. What I did not predict, however, is that the committee would not give Wheaton an at-large bid. I thought four ranked wins and a very high strength-of-schedule (SOS) would be enough, but it wasn't. I'd guess that Wheaton's seven losses and nine blemishes (and the resulting low winning percentage) were too much to overcome. And while the record-versus-ranked was great, it also means Wheaton lost five games to unranked teams. Considering only one Pool C team had more than five losses total, that poor record may have been the difference.

Then comes the NCAA selection process. The committee only considers the top team in each region as "on the board" for discussion. In other words, the 5th-ranked team in a region is not even considered for a Pool C bid until the 4th-ranked team has one. So while Williams and Middlebury had profiles that matched up favorably with many Pool C teams that got in—they have similar profiles to OWU, Washington U., etc.—they never even had a chance."

So otherwise sounds like you are saying there likely is a point of diminishing value.  That higher and higher SoS's only are determinative up to a certain level of won-lost record, presuming, for the sake of argument, a decent to good RvR of 3-3-1, 3-4-2, etc., such that, if a team is 7-7-1 and even had a SoS of .700+ they wouldn't get in.