2014 D3 Season: National Perspective

Started by PaulNewman, August 24, 2014, 02:13:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lastguyoffthebench


Looking at his sheet, I only have two different picks:

Brockport St over Salisbury  (they tied during the year, Salisbury better win percentage, but Brockport St stronger SOS and win over SLU)

Kzoo over NPU (just a hunch here, even though Christan has NPU in the "Pretty Good Shape" slot and Kzoo off the grid.

Christan Shirk

Quote from: NCAC New England on November 10, 2014, 09:47:05 AM
Christan I am sure you will be VERY accurate as always.

I'm more than expecting one of these years to look silly and get a bunch wrong.  But it's always nice when I nail it pretty close and and it's good for the website  because the column grows in popularity and credibility, pushing up the hits and visits to the page and the site the next year.

One other likely difference in my outlook and some on here could stem from the whole updating of the record versus ranked teams.  For example, if I am correct in how this works (as I explained in earlier posts), John Carroll goes from an impressive 4-0-0 record vs. ranked last week to moderate 2-1-0 record.  That can be a huge difference when comparing teams, especially if the other team had a positive impact from who dropped out and who entered the most recent rankings.  I almost had John Carroll on the bubble because of that change.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

Ryan Harmanis

#917
To emphasize Christian's point, that takes JCU from 4-0-0 versus ranked to 2-1-0 versus ranked. It also bumps Ohio Wesleyan from 2-2-2 versus ranked to 4-2-2 versus ranked: Beat Depauw X2, Ohio Northern, Hope; lost to Calvin and Kenyon; tied Centre and Kenyon. That should almost certainly bump them ahead of JCU and put JCU much closer to the bubble.

So basically DePauw jumping back into the rankings and Capital dropping out cost JCU two ranked wins and added a ranked loss, while simultaneously adding two ranked wins to OWU's resume and removing a loss. Big difference.

dontshootthegoose

Well, I'm off to class. Once again I would like to thank you for everything Christan, I woke up randomly at 5:30 last night and you were still at work. I think I speak for  everyone here, your work is highly regarded and respected.

To the rest of my d3boarder's, I wish the best for all of our teams and it's been a pleasure! Good Luck!

PaulNewman

And yet they probably should still count as pretty good wins.  Assuming Heidelberg jumps into the last couple of Great Lakes slots in secret rankings they would pick up another win and another loss.  At any rate, 2-1 is still as good or better than some of the other teams on the bubble.

No question that OWU jumped them and just by "eye test" of schedule OWU's wins and close losses against ranked far more impressive.

And as another side note, when was the last time Heidelberg made the NCAA tournament?  Congrats to the Student Princes.

chelseafc30

Quote from: NCAC New England on November 10, 2014, 10:55:41 AM
And yet they probably should still count as pretty good wins.  Assuming Heidelberg jumps into the last couple of Great Lakes slots in secret rankings they would pick up another win and another loss. 

NCAC, who else do you think drops out/jumps into the final Great Lakes secret rankings?

PaulNewman

Quote from: chelseafc30 on November 10, 2014, 11:05:24 AM
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 10, 2014, 10:55:41 AM
And yet they probably should still count as pretty good wins.  Assuming Heidelberg jumps into the last couple of Great Lakes slots in secret rankings they would pick up another win and another loss. 

NCAC, who else do you think drops out/jumps into the final Great Lakes secret rankings?

I think it's a moot point because the only teams that are relevant are Kenyon, OWU and JCU. 

Just as with the Luther situation, I never understood Wabash not cracking the rankings and no reason to think they did here at the end.  IMHO Case and CMU were weak #4s and #5s compared to recent years, and seeing DePauw and Ohio Northern in there week after week with very mediocre records shows that it was a very weak year for Great Lakes overall.

I think it's possible Thomas More jumped to #4 (but they're an AQ so not really important).

PaulNewman

Which raises an interesting point.  IF teams do drop out of the last "secret" rankings, and IF the most recent rankings are the only thing that counts in computing record against ranked, then those records against ranked could change quite a bit.

Christan Shirk

Quote from: Ryan Harmanis on November 10, 2014, 10:41:22 AM
To emphasize Christian's point, that takes JCU from 4-0-0 versus ranked to 2-1-0 versus ranked. It also bumps Ohio Wesleyan from 2-2-2 versus ranked to 4-2-2 versus ranked: Beat Depauw X2, Ohio Northern, Hope; lost to Calvin and Kenyon; tied Centre and Kenyon. That should almost certainly bump them ahead of JCU and put JCU much closer to the bubble.

So basically DePauw jumping back into the rankings and Capital dropping out cost JCU two ranked wins and added a ranked loss, while simultaneously adding two ranked wins to OWU's resume and removing a loss. Big difference.

So you're saying I got the updated record vs. ranked wrong for OWU?  4-2-2 instead of 3-2-2?  Most have missed counting both wins vs. DePauw.  Makes me wonder how many others I got wrong!!!  :o  I need to build a bigger, better spreadsheet to do the work for me!  I was just manually doing it last night.

I looked back and the language in the manual changed for the 2013 season.  I don't remember if I really took note of that last season.  But without a once ranked, always ranked approach, it would make sense that the rankings become more fluid from week 2 to week 3 and again before the "secret" rankings.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

chelseafc30

Quote from: NCAC New England on November 10, 2014, 11:13:30 AM
Which raises an interesting point.  IF teams do drop out of the last "secret" rankings, and IF the most recent rankings are the only thing that counts in computing record against ranked, then those records against ranked could change quite a bit.

This was the reason I was asking. With the region being weak this year, I feel like alot of different teams could have dropped out or jumped into the final rankings, which could greatly alter the ranked record for Kenyon, OWU, and JC.

PaulNewman

So, let's say DePauw and Ohio Northern dropped out and Heidelberg came in to secret rankings, then JCU would be still be 2-1, LOL?!

PaulNewman

I am sure Christan has it right but the more I think about the more I think it should be the other way (if ranked any of the 3 weeks).  It should be closer to how the opponent was considered at the time you played them. 

There are lots of teams that would impact the Great Lakes records (and I'm sure in other regions too), as one can picture Ohio Northern and possibly DePauw falling out, Centre falling out, Heidelberg coming in (Kenyon played them but OWU didn't), Hope maybe dropping out, etc.

lastguyoffthebench


Domino1195

Quote from: NCAC New England on November 10, 2014, 10:55:41 AM
And yet they probably should still count as pretty good wins.  Assuming Heidelberg jumps into the last couple of Great Lakes slots in secret rankings they would pick up another win and another loss.  At any rate, 2-1 is still as good or better than some of the other teams on the bubble.

No question that OWU jumped them and just by "eye test" of schedule OWU's wins and close losses against ranked far more impressive.

And as another side note, when was the last time Heidelberg made the NCAA tournament?  Congrats to the Student Princes.

2007 - this year is also the last for their HC - 26 years as Heidelberg's HC.  Nice going away present the boys gave him . . .

Christan Shirk

One misconception I have sensed here and in some e-mails I've received is that the new "secret" rankings can change the record vs. ranked which could help or hurt one's team.  But that's not really possible if you think about it.  They need the data, like "record vs. ranked" in order to decide on the new rankings, so how can the "record vs. ranked" be based on the new rankings?  One has to come first, and that is the data.  So the "record vs. ranked" in the data sheets that were developed yesterday and provided to the committee were based on the teams ranked in the third weekly rankings.  If they immediately updated and reviewed the "record vs. ranked" again after they decided on the new "secret" rankings, would they reconsider their rankings?  If so, they'd be creating an infinite loop. 

So there's no need to try to project who might be ranked and how that would affect the "record vs. ranked".  We can know the "record vs. ranked" that was being used for making the final "secret" rankings that serve as the basis for the at-large selections by looking at the teams included in the third weekly rankings.  And that it what I went about doing when I updated the "record vs. ranked" shown in the tables of my column.
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com