I think coaches nominate their own payers for USC All-Region honors and are limited to 4 field players.  Trinity has four field players on the teams, so that means that Knutson wasn't one of the four field players that Coach McGinley nominated.

I wonder if the lack of St. Thomas players has to do with no one at St. Thomas submitting nominations?

Quote from: Freddyfud on November 15, 2023, 03:48:54 pm

Another obvious constraint is budget which generally might be less of a challenge for UAAs and NESCACs when compared to other institutions.  Son is heading to MLS Next Fest in Phoenix 3 weeks from now.  For institutions attending this event clearly budget and effort are required especially as the post season isn't finished yet for some.  While I can't find a list yet of colleges attending here is a list for last year's event:

https://latdpelite.com/over-200-coaches-at-mls-next-fest/

You can see most of the NESCACs and a bunch of the UAAs including Emory attended plus a few others from other conferences. 

Edit:  and how could I forget to mention budget and effort on the part of parents 

List of colleges for next week's Phoenix event is out now:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J48IhuTffXj82qXlTXDcPXufJiuZiTOdKZy4zMbY8Y8/edit?usp=sharing

Out of 191 confirmed, 39 are D3. UAA and NESCAC leading the way but also see some from regions VIII, IX and X.

FYI - On a quick pass, you can also add Clarkson, Hobart, UT-Dallas and WashU as D3's.  Were you able to confirm that the Univ. of St. Thomas is the Texas institution instead of the Minnesota one that just recently moved to Division I?

I have a math phobia, and this is slightly off-topic, but my sense is that some schools are masters at perennially scheduling one of the top two out of the weakest conferences as a way to boost or mitigate SoS...but the schedules of those teams that include the 2-15 teams in their conference also figures in.  I do know that a couple of 1-16 or 3-14 teams on the schedule can do a lot of SoS damage.  And sometimes you just don't know.  You could have Centre the year the make the Final Four or a subsequent season where they are below .500.

Any bubble team needs to weed their schedule of the 2-15-0 and 3-14-1 teams in their non-conference schedule to give themselves a fighting change.  Those opponents kill, kill, KILL one's SOS.  In my opinion, unfairly so.

If the current SOS computation is to remain in place versus undergoing a major overhaul, that I still strongly believe in and propose a modification to place a floor on the OWP.  Any opponents' record below .400 (or .425 or .450) for SOS computational purposes should be taken as .400 (or .425 or .450).  Bad teams are bad teams, and after a certain point, the difference in the probability of a win/risk of a loss is irrelevant for teams deserving of consideration for an at-large tournament berth.  What the threshold should be would require some parametric studies and experimentation applied to past seasons.  But I think that would be a huge improvement in the current SOS computations.  Who knows, maybe Western Connecticut gets in last year with such a threshold in place.  Imagine if non-conference opponents John Jay 5-11-2 (.333), Westfield St. 3-10-5 (.306), Pratt 1-12-3 (.156), and Trinity-CT 1-11-3 (.167) were all treated as .400 teams for SOS.  Those teams killed a SOS that already started low due to their conference affiliation.  But should a win over GNAC's Rivier 6-8-3 (.441) speak any more to a team's qualification to participate in the NCAA Tournament than beating Pratt? For me those games are irrelevant and distinction between them shouldn't be made.  Or take Middlebury's opener in 2022, Skyline midtable Mount St. Mary 8-6-4 (.555).  Did that game prove that Middlebury was more worthy of a tournament berth than Western Conn?  The Pratt game alone was approximately a 13 pt. drain on West Conn's SOS.

     West Conn GP = 22, West Conn's SOS = .518, Pratt win pct = .156, Pratt OWP = .436
     Average contribution to West Conn's SOS  =  SOS / GP  =  .518 / 22  =  .024
     Pratt contribution to West Conn's SOS  =  1/GP [2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP]  =  1/22 [2/3(.156) + 1/3(.436)]  =  .011
     .024 - .011 = 0.013 diff.

If a .400 bottom threshold was applied, Pratt's adjusted contribution to West Conn's SOS would have been .020 or a mere 0.006 drain on their SOS instead of 0.013.  That would have lifted West Conn's SOS from .518 to .523.  Apply this to all their sub-.400 opponents and maybe their SOS climbs into the mid-.540's or higher which combined with their pristine 20-0-2 record might have gotten them in.

Now, that doesn't mean teams shouldn't schedule intelligently and challenge themselves more if they want to become tournament participants, but this would mitigate the impact of the horrible teams' in your own conference and any non-conference opponents that do even worse than expected.

Whether a similar cap on the high end would be beneficial or not, I've never decided.  For example, any win pct. over .900 (or .875 or .850) is treated as .900 (or .875 or .850) for computing SOS.  I would want to play around with the impact of that more before campaigning for such a change.

PN, I've wondered the same thing often, but never did a deep dive to try to develop a theory.  And I won't be doing it at this moment either.  What I will say . . .

(1) It's hard to compare the Liberty League to the UAA because of how the UAA is spread across so many regions.  Not to mention, the UAA has simply been a stronger conference in recent memory.

(2) The NESCAC over the past decade or so has become the strongest conference in the nation and far ahead of all but the UAA (and maybe the Centennial in some years).  That in and of itself makes a comparison between the two conferences less insightful, but another big/significant difference is that the NESCAC dominates their region while the LL has to share Region III honors with the SUNYAC and Rochester with their perpetual tournament berth.  This simply means that there are fewer teams genuinely fighting for a spot in the rankings and at-large berths in Region I and it's dominated by NESCACs.  What this means is that the NESCAC schools can pick up more wins and ties versus ranked opponents and can do it just be playing their conference schedule (and playoffs).  With the SUNYAC in their region, LL teams have much fewer chances for these crucial wins/ties against ranked teams unless they schedule SUNYAC schools and besides Oneonta and Cortland, who knows which other SUNYACs will be ranked in a given year (just like how would you know which LL teams would be most beneficial to have on your schedule ahead of time).  I imagine if you took the top 7 teams that missed getting ranked in Region III, they would be on the whole better than the next seven in Region I, but for Region III and LL teams, having a deeper region (even if not as strong at the top) provides no benefit to their RvR, but it does add additional risk of picking up blemishes.

(3) I think the better comparisons/contrasts to look into are with the Centennial, MIAC, SUNYAC, also the NCAC (and this year the OAC).

Sometimes I wonder if it's a matter of too much parity within the league each year instead of just over time.  In other words, would it be better if just 2-4 LL teams rose to the top in any given season.  It's great that from year to year different programs can be successful, but if too many are good but not great in a given year and beat up on each other, it hurts your chances in a region shared with the SUNYAC.  Without actually studying data, I have the sense that most of these other conferences (1) don't typically have as many teams in the mix year-in, year-out and (2) don't have as much or as quick turnover of who the top teams are from year to year.

If someone did a deep dive, you'd need to look at out-of-conference scheduling league-wide versus those other conferences.  The Region III schools have less scheduling options (with no schools to the north or west) than Region IV and V schools, but Region VIII schools (home of the MIAC) has the issue of distance.

Well, I don't have the time or energy to really dig into it even though it has fascinated and perplexed me over the years.  Well, I'm just rambling and talking off the top of my head FWIW.

So @PaulNewman and I got together to run through the brackets... and give shout outs to some folks on the boards...

The New Show - The Frigid Bracketology Episode

Hope you enjoy.  All meant in fun.

SC.

[poor man's Gregory Sager]

The UW-Platteville Pioneers logo has mining picks because one of the schools that merged to form the school had originally been called the Wisconsin Mining Trade School.

SUNY Poly (short for SUNY Polytechnical Institute) used to be know as SUNYIT or SUNY Tech (short for SUNY Institute of Technology) before merging with another school in 2014.

The Alfred State mascot is an ox, not a bull (i.e, he's been castrated!).  In a 2018 rebranding of the athletic department, the ox, later named "Big Blue" was selected over a bear and a dog to be the new animal mascot to replace human characters Orvis the Pioneer and previously Pioneer Pete.

[/poor man's Gregory Sager]


It is interesting how the mascot for the Lake Forest Foresters is not a Forester but rather a black bear named "Boomer", but not dissimilar to Alfred State with the Pioneer name/Ox Mascot.

Tufts will like their draw and if each wins a couple the drumbeat for finally getting Messiah vs Tufts will grow louder.  Would that match happen in Grantham or is there a conflict with the women? 

Being an odd-numbered year, the women have hosting priority for the 1st/2nd Round weekend, which is why Messiah men are on the road to Lynchburg this coming weekend.  However, that mean's that the men have hosting priority for the Sectional weekend and Messiah would surely host their Sectional if they advance. 

So I'm kind of happy about the way that worked out, as I probably wouldn't have been able to get to games this weekend anyways because of my kids' games.  However, the following weekend should be wide open (I say hesitantly, knowing I am probably forgetting something or just don't know about something quite yet!).  Besides, which game would I rather see in person?  Messiah vs. Baruch or a Top 25 game?

Quote from: Bucket on October 30, 2023, 11:25:53 am

Quote from: Kuiper on October 30, 2023, 11:13:27 am

Quote from: College Soccer Observer on October 30, 2023, 10:30:50 am

Regarding strength of schedule, it is very challenging for Bowdoin, Bates, Colby, and Midd to get quality non-conference games.  Due to the NESCAC schedule, they are looking at weekday games, and their remote locations limits the options somewhat.  They often wind up with games against GNAC or NAC teams who are in geographic proximity.  Not really feasible to expect these teams to hit the road for every non-conference game.  Bowdoin did travel to Wheaton and Midd went to Vassar for games this year.  Bates traveled to Emerson and Colby had a game at Coast Guard Academy that was canceled. As others have noted, the Massachusetts and Connecticut schools and even Hamilton have easier access to quality non conference opponents.

I have no reason to doubt this, but it is interesting how different perspectives are about how far things are away from each other in the Northeast than in Region X.  The distance from Bowdoin to Boston for a weekday game is pretty modest compared to some of the distances teams in Region X travel routinely on weekdays.  I always assumed the reason some NESCAC teams schedule weaker non-conference opponents is because they believe they won't need the SoS bump given the NESCAC conference schedule. After all, Bowdoin's SoS of .555 (as of last Wednesday) would be one of the higher numbers in Region X.

I'm sure I will get blasted for being elitist, but I can promise you that NESCAC schools do not think about SOS implications when scheduling mid-week out-of-conference games.

The primary considerations are—and always will be—missed class time, time away from campus, and budget.

And yes, I agree that it is ludicrous for (many) schools with billion (!)-dollar endowments to be crying about budgets, but it's a factor when trustees limit endowment draws to fund annual operating costs. At Middlebury, since the start of the pandemic, we have been dealing with 20-50 percent cuts to departmental operating budgets pegged to 2019 levels, this at a time with corresponding inflation pressures. It's a double whammy.

And while I am not privy to the athletics department budget numbers, I feel confident in stating that they have not been exempt and that travel budgets have been impacted, just like everything else.

This isn’t elitist but it’s flat out wrong. When I was on the staff our number one goal was to make the NCAA tournament and creating a schedule that would maximize our chance to do that was a huge consideration. The main way to do that was to make a schedule that we thought we maximized our SOS and winning percentage. Obviously we weren’t going to drive 8 hours on a Tuesday, but SOS was a big factor.

Back before everyone figured out the SOS puzzle, it sure seemed like Justin Serpone was one step ahead on knowing how to schedule to maximize SOS while limiting risk of picking up losses.  When the home and away multipliers were still being used, Amherst scheduled more away games than homes games finding the risk-reward sweet spot as an away game against a mediocre team (very minimal risk of a loss) could help your SOS more than a home game against a good opponent (considerably higher risk, even if moderate, of a tie or loss).  I don't say that as a knock on Amherst, but just to reinforce d4_Pace's assertion that some NESCAC schools very much do consider SOS when doing their non-conference scheduling.

Yes, conference tournament results are considered.  Per the selection criteria, they are not given more weight for being conference tournament games. From the NCAA's viewpoint, they are just additional regular season contests. And there is no penalty for missing your conference tournament (IIRC, RPI was selected one year despite not making the Liberty League playoffs).  Beyond the chance of winning an automatic berth to the NCAA Tournament, making your conference tournament can also have the benefit of providing a chance to increase your SOS and pick up some wins against regional ranked teams.  Of course, the opposite can happen as well.  Depending on your conference and/or who you get paired with, it can lower your SOS.  And unless you win the conference tournament and AQ (in which case selection criteria is irrelevant), you will probably be lowering your winning pct. and might pick up a loss (or tie) to a ranked team. So unless you go on and win your conference tournament, your at-large resume is probably worse for having participated in the conference tournament, but the same will be true for most other teams needing an at-large berth.

Whether the scenario you laid out could actually happen, it's theoretically possible even if the odds are rather low.  With the more at-large berths this year, the possibility does increase.  It would require the region to be considered strong and deep and for the previously ranked teams, at least the ones in the bottom half of the rankings, to be closely clustered with little separation from the previously unranked teams (including the team of interest) that just missed the previous ranking.  And the team would need to defeat one or more regionally ranked teams in their conference tournament run.