NESCAC

Started by LaPaz, September 11, 2011, 05:54:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Michel Bernstini

One more thing.  Something I like about this ranking system (that I don't like about a lot of others) is that (1) It's not someone's or someones' opinion, (2) it's 100% simple and understandable.  i.e. At the end of the season, when Clemson doesn't get to play in the CFB Semifinals or St. Lawrence is left out of the Tourney or whatever, the players, coaches, and otherwise can see exactly why.  And, as a consequence, Clemson will improve their Out-of-Course Strenth of schedule, etc., and (3) It's fair.  You move up or down based on your team's resume and your resume is based on your best and worst performances.  And that is fair.

YoungBuck

Quote from: Michel Bernstini on November 27, 2019, 01:06:18 PM
One more thing.  Something I like about this ranking system (that I don't like about a lot of others) is that (1) It's not someone's or someones' opinion, (2) it's 100% simple and understandable.  i.e. At the end of the season, when Clemson doesn't get to play in the CFB Semifinals or St. Lawrence is left out of the Tourney or whatever, the players, coaches, and otherwise can see exactly why.  And, as a consequence, Clemson will improve their Out-of-Course Strenth of schedule, etc., and (3) It's fair.  You move up or down based on your team's resume and your resume is based on your best and worst performances.  And that is fair.

I like stats, numbers, and analysis about as much as anyone, but you have to be willing to concede that they can't, don't, and won't capture the full picture of a team and where they belong with respect to other teams.  People's opinions matter, especially those opinions from people who are students of the game.  That's why this forum exists.  As hard as it is to justify when you're team gets left out on Selection Sunday/Monday, subjective opinion is an important part of soccer and sport in general, particularly the subjective opinion of the the people who know what they are talking about.  I doubt even the great Ken Massey would say his ranking system should be the only method upon which a teams value is placed.

By all means, keep refining your results and improving your model, but be aware that the subjectivity that it fails to capture could be the difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KriBQVhsgZk

Buck O.

Quote from: Michel Bernstini on November 27, 2019, 12:36:30 PM
Quote from: Buck O. on November 27, 2019, 10:46:39 AM
1.  What's magical about the number three?  Why is it that the best three wins and the worst three losses are all that matters?
2.  Similarly, what's magical about playoff games?  Why should they receive greater consideration in determining who should be ranked where?  UMBC beat UVA in the 2018 NCAA basketball tournament, but that didn't make them better than UVA.
3.  Why not use scores?  There's lots of valuable information there that you're discarding.  This is particularly true with respect to teams that may otherwise be hard to rank because of limited info.  For example, if a team with an excellent record, but which has played a pretty weak schedule, has played only one really good team, I'm going to look at them rather differently if they lost that game 5-0 than if they lost 2-1.  Now, one can go too far here--you shouldn't lean too far on one game in making assessments--but nevertheless focusing solely on W/L/T will reduce the accuracy of your assessments.
4.  There seems to be a significant bias in favor of teams with tough schedules inherent in your method.  To use an extreme example, suppose my schedule is exclusively against top-20 teams and I go 3-13.  If I understand your method correctly, you're going to conclude that I'm awesome because my best three wins are against top-20 teams and my worst three losses are also against top-20 teams.  I might very well be in the top 20.  But, at the end of the day, I did only win three times in 16 attempts against that level of competition.  I don't belong in the top 20.

1. Just a good number and we need to draw a line somewhere.  You can't do all Ws count because weaker schedules have a large disadvantage.  This is particularly true for HS teams in non-hotbed regions.  you can't do 1 win because 1 game is only 1 game.  So, the question is, How many games does a team need to win to prove that they're legit.  1, too few.  2, better.  And... 3 just seems to be a good number.  (Also, allows for wins to count 3x more than a tie.  i.e. One tie is counted.  Three wins and three losses are counted.  And the "3 Points for a Win, 1 Point for a Loss" formula is all but universal.)
2. UMBC is a unique example.  None the less, they earned the spot.  Bottomline, play-off games are not the same as regular season games.  they're later in the season and... They simply mean more.  The team that wins the National C'ship Tourney should be #1 (as long as they layed the top teams to win it all).
3. Just a philosophical difference.  Teams play to win, not to win by as many points as possible.  Especially teams who play 3 or so games per week.  Lots of teams pace themselves and they shouldn't be punished for doing so. 
4. I disagree.  If a team beats #18, #19, and #20 and loses to #1-#16, they should be the #17 team in the country.

Obviously, it's your model, and you can make whatever choices you make with regard to it, but if you're going to use it to support your assertions, you have to provide people with a reason to take it seriously.  With that in mind:

1. Choosing to focus on a certain fixed number of wins or losses is an arbritary distinction that will lead the model to produce unreasonable results, no matter whether you fix that number at three or some other figure.  For example, suppose Team 1 has wins over the teams ranked #1, #2 and #3 in the country, but all of its other wins are against teams in the 300s, while Team B has wins over teams ranked #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10.  Your model says that Team A has the more impressive slate of wins.  This is obviously wrong.  Similarly, by limiting its assessment to the three worst losses, your team may incorrectly conclude that Team C, with only three bad losses, has a less impressive slate of losses than Team D, even if Team D has a dozen losses to bad teams, just as long as the three worst losses aren't quite as bad.

And as a result of this, it appears that your model could rank a 3-13 team above a 13-3 team, even if they played the exact same schedule.  For example, suppose that Teams A and B both play Teams 1 through 16, with 1 being the best opponent and 16 being the worst.  If Team A has wins over 1, 2 and 4, and losses to everyone else, and Team B has wins over everyone except teams 14, 15 and 16, you'd rank A above B, because their worst three losses are the same and A's three best wins are better than B's.

Next, let's consider how you handle ties.  Suppose I have wins against teams #1, #2, #3 and I'm playing team #4 today.  My best tie is against team #300.  Under your system, I'll improve my ranking much more with a tie against #4 than with a win, because a win won't affect my slate of top three wins, but a tie will significantly improve my best tie.  Again, that doesn't make sense.

2.  Obviously NCAA tournament games are more important that non-tournament games because they determine who wins the NCAA tournament, but that does not mean that they are necessarily significantly more important for the purposes of determining which team is the best team.  Just because Conn beat Hopkins does not mean that Conn is better then Hopkins.  Upsets happen but that does not mean that a repeat matchup should be expected to lead to the same outcome.  And if the intent of your ranking system is to determine a relative ranking of teams, then the point should be to assess which team is better.  If you're simply trying to replicate the results of the tournament, then what's the point of even having a ranking system?

3.  It seems to me that the only "philosophy" that should matter is trying to produce the best set of rankings, rather than making arbitrary decisions as to which info to include or exclude without regard to whether including it or not improves the ability of your system to evaluate teams.  Close games could generally go either way and luck may be a significant factor in determining the winner, and a system that ignores that and pretends that a 2-1 win is the same as a 5-0 blowout is ignoring relevant information.

4.  Things don't work like that.  The better team doesn't always win.  If the best team in the country plays a schedule consisting wholly of top-20 teams (at neutral sites), it will be favored in each individual game, but that doesn't mean it is expected to get through that schedule undefeated.  Similarly, if the #20 team in the country plays a schedule wholly composed of other top-20 teams (again at neutral sites), it will be an underdog in each game, but it's almost certain that it will pick up several wins in the process even though it will probably have a losing record. 

More generally, you're missing the point.  If you rate teams based on their best three wins, teams with tough schedules have many more opportunities to rack up quality wins than do teams with weaker schedules.  Similarly, if you rate teams based on their worst three losses, teams with weak schedules have many more opportunities to accrue bad losses than do teams with strong schedules.  This, again, is a problem with ranking based on a certain fixed number of wins or losses. 

Michel Bernstini

Quote from: YoungBuck on November 27, 2019, 01:35:27 PMI doubt even the great Ken Massey would say his ranking system should be the only method upon which a teams value is placed.

By all means, keep refining your results and improving your model, but be aware that the subjectivity that it fails to capture could be the difference.

Of course.  And I'm one of those humans.  :)  Of course the Rankings aren't the be-all-end-all.  :)

Michel Bernstini

Quote from: Buck O. on November 28, 2019, 07:50:25 AM
Obviously, it's your model, and you can make whatever choices you make with regard to it, but if you're going to use it to support your assertions, you have to provide people with a reason to take it seriously.  With that in mind:

1. Choosing to focus on a certain fixed number of wins or losses is an arbritary distinction that will lead the model to produce unreasonable results, no matter whether you fix that number at three or some other figure.  For example, suppose Team 1 has wins over the teams ranked #1, #2 and #3 in the country, but all of its other wins are against teams in the 300s, while Team B has wins over teams ranked #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10.  Your model says that Team A has the more impressive slate of wins.  This is obviously wrong.  Similarly, by limiting its assessment to the three worst losses, your team may incorrectly conclude that Team C, with only three bad losses, has a less impressive slate of losses than Team D, even if Team D has a dozen losses to bad teams, just as long as the three worst losses aren't quite as bad.

And as a result of this, it appears that your model could rank a 3-13 team above a 13-3 team, even if they played the exact same schedule.  For example, suppose that Teams A and B both play Teams 1 through 16, with 1 being the best opponent and 16 being the worst.  If Team A has wins over 1, 2 and 4, and losses to everyone else, and Team B has wins over everyone except teams 14, 15 and 16, you'd rank A above B, because their worst three losses are the same and A's three best wins are better than B's.

Next, let's consider how you handle ties.  Suppose I have wins against teams #1, #2, #3 and I'm playing team #4 today.  My best tie is against team #300.  Under your system, I'll improve my ranking much more with a tie against #4 than with a win, because a win won't affect my slate of top three wins, but a tie will significantly improve my best tie.  Again, that doesn't make sense.

2.  Obviously NCAA tournament games are more important that non-tournament games because they determine who wins the NCAA tournament, but that does not mean that they are necessarily significantly more important for the purposes of determining which team is the best team.  Just because Conn beat Hopkins does not mean that Conn is better then Hopkins.  Upsets happen but that does not mean that a repeat matchup should be expected to lead to the same outcome.  And if the intent of your ranking system is to determine a relative ranking of teams, then the point should be to assess which team is better.  If you're simply trying to replicate the results of the tournament, then what's the point of even having a ranking system?

3.  It seems to me that the only "philosophy" that should matter is trying to produce the best set of rankings, rather than making arbitrary decisions as to which info to include or exclude without regard to whether including it or not improves the ability of your system to evaluate teams.  Close games could generally go either way and luck may be a significant factor in determining the winner, and a system that ignores that and pretends that a 2-1 win is the same as a 5-0 blowout is ignoring relevant information.

4.  Things don't work like that.  The better team doesn't always win.  If the best team in the country plays a schedule consisting wholly of top-20 teams (at neutral sites), it will be favored in each individual game, but that doesn't mean it is expected to get through that schedule undefeated.  Similarly, if the #20 team in the country plays a schedule wholly composed of other top-20 teams (again at neutral sites), it will be an underdog in each game, but it's almost certain that it will pick up several wins in the process even though it will probably have a losing record. 

More generally, you're missing the point.  If you rate teams based on their best three wins, teams with tough schedules have many more opportunities to rack up quality wins than do teams with weaker schedules.  Similarly, if you rate teams based on their worst three losses, teams with weak schedules have many more opportunities to accrue bad losses than do teams with strong schedules.  This, again, is a problem with ranking based on a certain fixed number of wins or losses.

1.
a. This is obviously wrong... I don't think it's so obviously wrong but, for the sake argument, let's say it's wrong.  Let's say that Team A has better wins but... Team B in Iowa traveled to the east coast play #1, #2, and #3 and, if they played #4, #5, and #6, they believe that they would've won those games, too, but... they can only travel so much.  Bottomline, based on what was put on their plate, Team B performed.  Which is (one of the reasons) why we need to draw a line somewhere.  We can't punish Team B just because they're based in, for example, Iowa.  D   
b. Similarly... 3 worst losses... Correct.  Team A could lose to teams #100, #99, and #98 and those are their only three losses while Team B loses to the same as well as #97, #96, etc. and, as long as they have the same Best Wins, though Team B should be ranked lower, they'll be ranked the same.  It's true.  I'm aware and, thus far, even with a gazillion HS games, this situation hasn't arisen.   
c. It appears that your model could rank a 3-13 team above a 13-3 team... It's true, but like b (above), it hasn't happened yet.  But you're right.  It's possible.

d. ties... I see "ties" and I smile.  With lacrosse, ties are basically a non-issue.  i needed to make a new system to include ties when I started using this system for soccer.  (Darn soccer!)  Ties aren't simple.  And what you're pointing out is one of the not-simples. :)  You're right.  And *that* does occur.

2.  "Just because Conn beat Hopkins does not mean that Conn is better then Hopkins... If you're simply trying to replicate the results of the tournament, then what's the point of even having a ranking system?"... First, It would be easy for me to adjust the system so play-off games are like any other game.  But... They're not.  (I want to come back to this.)  Second, I'm not trying to replicate the play-off system.  I'm trying to mirror a season.  But back to the first point.  Excuse for me reverting to lacrosse but it's a good example.  During the 2019 D2 Men's season, Merrimack had a good, not great season.  the, in the tourney, they beat the #6, #4, #2 ranked teams and then, in the finals, beat the #1 ranked undefeated Limestone.  So, the question is, Should Merrimack be ranked #2 or #1?  Based on their season, #2.  Based on their performance that season including when the stakes were higher, #1.  Personally, I think #1 is the correct answer.  but, make no mistake, then and now, i realize and realized that this is a very real question.  So let me ask a question. Let's say that Centre wins out.  They beat Amherst and then Tufts or Calvin.  And let's say, as a consequence, by the numbers, this makes them the #2 in the country.  Do you think they should be #2?  or #1?

3.  A 2-1 win is the same as a 5-0 blowout is ignoring relevant information... It's true.  And some systems look even beyond game scores into more details.  In theory, I should be doing that too.  But I don't.  I like ws and Ls.  But I hear you.  I just like Ws and Ls.

4.  Correct.  A tough (and an easy) schedule is a blessing and a curse.  And i believe that this system captures this duality.

TheAnonymousCommentator

15 selections from the NESCAC for all-new england. Nice!

Jump4Joy

Natural hattie has Amherst up, 3-0, in the semi vs. Centre. Go Mammoths!

oldonionbag

Kudos to Tufts and Amherst. A pity that Conn had to play the Jumbos this year in the Elite 8- I think in another quadrant they may have had a better chance of advancing. Still, a great year for the Camels as well. From top to bottom (well...maybe excluding Trinity at the moment) the NESCAC is an incredible conference. 5 of the last 6 national championships is quite a feat!

Mr.Right

Tufts match against Calvin was a browbeating. First 15 minutes, Calvin got 3 legit looks(two by #9) but could not finish any of them. If this looked familiar to anyone it kind of looked like what Conn did in the Elite 8 against Tufts. All their opponents had some looks but none could capitalize as Calvin, Conn and W&L all ended up raising the 2nd half white flag after valiant efforts but not for a full 90. However, the game did not turn until about 20 minutes into the game after a decent but stale start for Tufts starters(based on their own standards). Lane, Cano and Ratzan goals all happened once the key bench players came onto the field 1st Half. It was a burst of energy lift that propelled Tufts to 3 amazing goals in 15 minutes and in a blink the game was over. In fact, the second Rojas stepped off the field 1st Half, Lane scored. Shapiro looked just as happy sacking him in the 2nd Half after about 12 minutes of listless effort. This is where the kid Seigelstein shined hitting 2-3 perfect balls(granted under limited pressure) into the path of Tasker and Jacobs. Then Shapiro kept his key leaders on the field in different shifts with all his younger players so the rest of us can see the future of Tufts Mens Soccer. Tasker got a run in with the sheep and Lane took a run at RB for Daly. He would of made a sick wingback on a foot to the gas full frontal attacking team allowing unlimited overlapping.

Mr.Right

With Tufts winning another national championship I suppose we should take a random look at what is going on here. I think the Calvin press conference after the game  showed everything. The two players were almost in need of being picked up off the floor. They were dejected and pissed. The Head Coach was somewhat jovial which was odd but looking thru that smile he was shocked / stunned at what just happened. He just witnessed a Tufts team dominate his team and he had not seen that dominance on any prior video he was watching. I think he even said something to the point about not getting what they expected. Calvin had a few good looks but otherwise were to slow in transition to beat Tufts. I think they just assumed they could break them down like every other team they have played this season and were not to worried about Tufts and more focused on Calvin. I could be wrong.

Anyone notice the similarities between Georgetown and Tufts? The same compact defensive structure that hunts the ball, tons of solid depth that does not drop the level, wide guys on their opposite foot that cut in and most importantly a dangerous counterattacking outfit.  The one noticeable difference was Georgetown players wearing matching black gloves and most Tufts players w/o gloves.  A bunch of guys that fight for each other and use this word "family" a ton. So the best thing about family is they are a bit easier to hit up in a pinch for extra quick liquid cash.  These "family" cattle calls are incredibly important to help the program pay for all the extras. If say Shapiro wants to add an extra two days last minute to a planned Italy trip next year you might need "family" to help out. That is why it is important to build a long lasting program. Tufts has done amazing things the past 10 years but beyond that they have limited history and probably not a ton of support from players from long ago(at least not like Amherst / Williams). Serpone or Sullivan could pick up the phone tomorrow in an emergency and get alums to help for anything they needed and then if necessary hit them again a month later. Point----Without a long history Shapiro hopes most of these guys will go on to become successful Investment Bankers / Doctors / Lawyers or whatever and run around NYC for 10 years and then calm down and then give back to the program that helped them become so successful. IDK.... I usually ignore all that crap(can get very heavy at these institutions) because what I like is usually you can also find future Soccer Coaches with teams like Tufts because you have players that love the game and do not want their experience to end.  There has to be a couple of these guys that might want to go into Coaching and the two Tufts Captains look like the obvious choice. Maybe one of them will sit next to Shapiro and learn next season.

PaulNewman

My take on Calvin and the press conference....  First, Calvin played Tufts evenly in two finals that could have gone either way (although I suppose Tufts had a bit of an advantage in the second final).  In any event, meeting for a third time at the Final Four I'm guessing Calvin thought the percentages were in their favor.  In other words, Calvin was due, but Calvin, while still very good, was not quite as good as in the previous 2-3 years, and IMO Tufts has been better almost every year during their run, and including this year.  Calvin was very fortunate to get past North Park and also caught a favor avoiding OWU (who while not at the Calvin or Tufts level at the moment still has enough pedigree to challenge Calvin in an Elite 8 game).  Calvin also has caught some breaks in prior years to get to the Final Four.  I've suggested that Tufts is a little entitled and to be fair I think the same thing can be said about Calvin.  That's what I saw at the press conference...players and especially the coach thinking this just had to be the year, seeming to play evenly the first 20-25 minutes, and then, boom, the game was over.  If you watch Souders talk about the Tufts goals, he IMO comes just short of calling the goals 'lucky.'  He called them instead the most spectacular goals they had seen all season....in some ways the kind of goals Calvin is known for.  And they were spectacular.  Someone will correct me but I don't recall seeing Lane score like that kniving through 3 players in the box and then beating the GK, and then the next goal by Cano I don't think he'd replicate in another 200 games.  I'm blanking on the 3rd goal but I think that was a wonder goal as well.  The 4th by Tasker wasn't as special but just capped off a match that had been decided well before that.  Tufts has had their breaks and close calls during their run as well, but as much as I'd like to scream "Tufts is as lucky as Duke and the Patriots!" I just can't.  They've come through over and over and all I can do is tip my cap.  The Jumbos are just better than everyone else, plain and simple. 

Speaking of the Tufts style and defense, I don't know why other programs aren't copying Tufts.  Kenyon, along with Amherst, is known as a high pressing, suffocating team, but maybe the difference is that Tufts presses but not as high a press and mostly when they lose the ball.  Tufts also never seems to really lose its shape and rarely gives up large swaths of space on counters.  Kenyon gives up the latter early and often.  Of course the other difference is that Tufts (and seemingly more so each year) has a combination of size, speed, toughness and skill that at the moment no one else can match.  Instead of waiting for Tufts to falter at some point, other programs are just going to have to get better.  And Shapiro moving on wouldn't hurt.

Mr.Right

Quote from: PaulNewman on December 15, 2019, 10:37:44 AM
My take on Calvin and the press conference....  First, Calvin played Tufts evenly in two finals that could have gone either way (although I suppose Tufts had a bit of an advantage in the second final).  In any event, meeting for a third time at the Final Four I'm guessing Calvin thought the percentages were in their favor.  In other words, Calvin was due, but Calvin, while still very good, was not quite as good as in the previous 2-3 years, and IMO Tufts has been better almost every year during their run, and including this year.  Calvin was very fortunate to get past North Park and also caught a favor avoiding OWU (who while not at the Calvin or Tufts level at the moment still has enough pedigree to challenge Calvin in an Elite 8 game).  Calvin also has caught some breaks in prior years to get to the Final Four.  I've suggested that Tufts is a little entitled and to be fair I think the same thing can be said about Calvin.  That's what I saw at the press conference...players and especially the coach thinking this just had to be the year, seeming to play evenly the first 20-25 minutes, and then, boom, the game was over.  If you watch Souders talk about the Tufts goals, he IMO comes just short of calling the goals 'lucky.'  He called them instead the most spectacular goals they had seen all season....in some ways the kind of goals Calvin is known for.  And they were spectacular.  Someone will correct me but I don't recall seeing Lane score like that kniving through 3 players in the box and then beating the GK, and then the next goal by Cano I don't think he'd replicate in another 200 games.  I'm blanking on the 3rd goal but I think that was a wonder goal as well.  The 4th by Tasker wasn't as special but just capped off a match that had been decided well before that.  Tufts has had their breaks and close calls during their run as well, but as much as I'd like to scream "Tufts is as lucky as Duke and the Patriots!" I just can't.  They've come through over and over and all I can do is tip my cap.  The Jumbos are just better than everyone else, plain and simple. 

Speaking of the Tufts style and defense, I don't know why other programs aren't copying Tufts.  Kenyon, along with Amherst, is known as a high pressing, suffocating team, but maybe the difference is that Tufts presses but not as high a press and mostly when they lose the ball.  Tufts also never seems to really lose its shape and rarely gives up large swaths of space on counters.  Kenyon gives up the latter early and often.  Of course the other difference is that Tufts (and seemingly more so each year) has a combination of size, speed, toughness and skill that at the moment no one else can match.  Instead of waiting for Tufts to falter at some point, other programs are just going to have to get better.  And Shapiro moving on wouldn't hurt.


Yea I agree. I was also thinking after watching North Park v Calvin in the Sweet 16 that North Park was just as dangerous if not more so than Calvin in that game and might have posed a few more challenges for Tufts but who knows. The 2nd goal was Ratzan's which was a rocket but Calvin failed to close him and ole'd Ratzan a clean look. Cano's was unreal as that was 2 steps a touch and pop. I have seen Lane knife plenty over the years but this year he seems to be finishing better. He will be a HUGE piece to replace because Lane has the talent to create his own shot as does Tasker and these are just two huge losses to replace

Mr.Right

more random thoughts:

Looking ahead to the future for Tufts we saw an interesting lineup with about 10 minutes left against Calvin. Tufts had Cano and Traynor(Frosh) wide with Ratzan up top. Aroh was sitting with Enge and Seigelstein in the middle of the park. Enge is a workhorse and looks to be able to run all day. With Aroh and Enge, I see more troubles ahead next year for teams trying to break Tufts down thru the middle of the field.  I am not sure how Shapiro keeps Enge off the field which means Van Brewer and Seigelstein will battle it out for the other spot. Is Delaney injured? If he comes back into the mix healthy he will be another player battling for minutes. Cano wide left is an obvious choice but the move to try Ratzan up top was an interesting one. Jacobs is quick and skilled and while not the biggest kid he fights his weight but Ratzan has all that as well and maybe Shapiro sees Ratzan as another option to be a goal poacher up there? TBH I am not sure because Ratzan looks mighty comfortable out wide with space to run at guys. Some guys are just more comfortable and productive playing with tons of space in front of them while others have no problem playing in tight spaces. Ratzan looks the type of player to adapt to any new role asked of him. Now this is the great thing about Tufts because on most teams a veteran striker(like Jacobs) would assume over the Spring and Summer into next Fall that he will be the guy up top. This veteran striker might take that for granted and not be fully 100% invested in his offseason packet. This veteran might think as long as he can stay just fit enough in the offseason to put in a decent preseason 2 mile number and slide under the radar he will get fit throughout the first month of the year and his starting spot will be his no matter what.  Now I am not at all saying Jacobs is this type of player but sometimes these rising Seniors on other sides feel entitled to their "deserved"starting spot next Fall. Unfortunately,  the "rising Senior" in my example would come into camp not fit and still start because of his talent or the team's lack of depth to sack him. These type of situations can compound and ruin a sides morale especially a young team. With Tufts, the players know they cannot slack off because someone is waiting to grab their job if they do.  In Tufts system minutes can be hard to come by and then harder to keep. This competitiveness at every position is one of the secrets to Tufts success IMO. However, at some point especially at the D1 level(Georgetown) with so much talent it is impossible to keep everyone happy. If I am an opposing Head Coach in a recruiting war with Georgetown that is the FIRST thing I mention to the kid. Do you want to go to Georgetown and become a 55-60 minute player with all your talent...blah blah bah....If Wiese continues to win Championships using 19 guys with no drop off at that level I will be impressed. To keep all those players happy and 100% focused on a daily basis on the team's mission above your own is an incredibly hard task to ask of any Coaching staff. That game was incredible for D1 Soccer and the College game in general and credit to both teams but Georgetown deserved it and went and got it.

Tufts backline looks to be Daly, Paoletta, Raphael, and ?....Who replaces Drew Stern? Stern really showed well this year and played with a quiet aggressiveness that was fun to watch. He was the target of Calvin, Conn and most teams when attacking Tufts but he held his own and then some. Shapiro seemed to favor the Frosh Sinkowitz at LB but you can bet your life players know if there is one position up for grabs it will be LB. Have at it.....Not sure what Paoletta's injury is but one thing I noticed without him on the field Tufts looked to push the ball faster up the pitch. There was less of the swinging the ball from side to side in the back and more straightforward play with Jameson back there. Meaning it was way more entertaining for the neutral. The other kid used was Soph Aidan Welsh spelling Aroh from time to time. Aroh should be and basically is a 90 minute stud player who is the most important piece of Tufts spine. So where does that leave Welsh who would be starting on most Nescac squads? CB? IDK I suppose it is a good problem to have.

d4_Pace

Mr. Right for the most part I think you were pretty close with your predictions for how next season's squad will look. Inspired by timmy two wheel's and his excellent betting lines, I'm gonna wager that, while less known, the front three of Ratzen, Cano, and Jacobs outscore the more acclaimed Braun, Tasker, Lane trio. I think most people would be surprised to see how close it was this year. 18 goals for the starters versus 14 for the second group.   

All that being said, the Amherst group for next year is gonna to be incredible.  German was just named the second ever Sophomore to win National Player of the year. And while he will miss the service of Dane Lind there is little to suggest he won't put up big numbers again next year. I don't know what the career nescac goal record is, but I'm sure he will threaten it. Ada will continue to get better and is an incredibly talented player. Impossible to stop 1v1 and very clever at finding passing lanes. I imagine he will take over Lind's role as German's main provider. The loss of coleman will be important in terms of team identity, but Ignacio Cubbedau (thats definitely spelled wrong) is equally if not more talented and will make a big jump next year. 

So long story short, I think next year will probably play out pretty similar to this year with Tufts and Amherst a step above the rest of the NESCAC and the country. 

d4_Pace

Also must be mentioned Joe "the repo man" Braun was named national scholar player of the year. Affectionally known since his sophomore year as "the brain" Braun must have set the record for lowest GPA of any winner, eclipsing the bar set by fellow Jumbo Conor Coleman.  In Braun's defense at least he was good at soccer. I don't know how Coleman scammed his way into it.