Pool C Amateur Predictions and Prizes

Started by PaulNewman, November 10, 2019, 09:45:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: susanc on November 11, 2019, 02:37:13 PM
Here's a pod that makes little sense:

North Park - Host
Pacific Lutheran (Washington)

Colorado College
Gustavus Adolphus (Minnesota)

Gustavus has been receiving votes on and off on D3 site rankings and is forced to play a mid 20's ranked team first round.

The d3soccer.com poll has absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon Pool C selections.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Shooter McGavin

Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 11, 2019, 02:34:01 PM
FW, to which specific West Region team do you allude when saying it got a Pool C berth that didn't deserve it, and whom do you feel that it knocked out? Are you alluding to Trinity (TX) or to Colorado College, or to both?

I'll admit that I'm surprised that they both got bids.

Quote from: FelixCloudy on November 11, 2019, 02:29:23 PMHowever, I am told it will become clear once the final rankings are released.  Hope so - cause right now I would say that teams that play very hard schedules will not be doing that in the future as much. 

That should be interesting reading, indeed.

I actually had Trinity getting in BUT I did not see them getting in over Williams or Otterbein and heck even though I had Loras and Lycoming in right after them I would have called all 3 of them to be equal. Even Brandeis as well but I am guessing Brandeis never even got a chance to come off the board. I also didn't expect Roanoke or Oglethorpe to get bids. I am not surprised by Oglethorpe as maybe I overlooked them due to the low SOS but to have both those teams get in is a shock to me. I think looking back and over the bracket that if 2/4 of Trinity, Colorado, Oglethorpe, and Roanoke got in no one blinks an eye but all 4 getting in certainly doesn't feel good to me.     

Gregory Sager

Yeah, I agree that there are a whole bunch of Pool C surprises this time around. But the geography rationale that is put forth to try to explain puzzling committee choices for Pool C doesn't hold water this year. As I said, the committee is springing for one more flight this year than usual. In other words, this is a bracket that costs extra money because of the Pool C choices that were made.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

blooter442

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 11, 2019, 02:48:02 PM
Even Brandeis as well but I am guessing Brandeis never even got a chance to come off the board.

Yeah, I'm a 'Deis booster but I never had them getting in. Too few ranked wins and too many blemishes. The ties killed them, as did that 0-2 UAA weekend (even if the Rochester loss was a bit unfortunate given the shot margin of 23-9 including two clearances off the line, but you have to finish).

Their UAA foe Yellowjackets, for their part, also had a high number of blemishes, but — unlike other years where they have questionably snuck in with records like 9-4-3 (2012) — I had them in this year; they had the ranked wins (and minimal ties). I don't see them getting to the Final 4 again, but I think (assuming both they and Kenyon get through Saturday) they'll give the Lords a very good game on Sunday.

PaulNewman

18/21 for me....I had a feeling about Roanoke, and I always knew Clarkson might not get in over Ithaca even though very similar profiles and a 2-0-0 H2H advantage imo should have been enough to overtake a careening Ithaca side.  North Central may have suffered just from few even knowing anything about them.  They were left out of the D3soccer predictions discussion totally and Domino put them in but in a different region.  Not much between those middle of the pack Central region squads.

And Trinity...wow!  And NOT Williams.  Did not see Williams getting left out at all.

Christan Shirk

NEW ENGLAND REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 11, 2019

Rank

School
. Div. III .
Record
. Div. III .
SOS

 . R-v-R .
. Overall .
Record
. Prev. .
Rank
1.
Amherst
14-1-2
0.585
4-1-2
14-1-2
1
2.
Tufts
14-2-2
0.610
8-2-0
14-2-2
2
3.
Connecticut College
10-3-3
0.604
3-3-3
10-3-3
3
4.
Babson
14-5-2
0.568
3-5-1
14-5-2
7
5.
WPI
12-3-4
0.584
2-2-3
12-3-4
5
6.
Middlebury
8-3-7
0.630
2-3-4
8-3-7
6
7.
Williams
8-4-5
0.590
3-4-2
8-4-5
4
8.
Brandeis
10-5-4
0.582
1-4-1
10-5-4
8
9.
Eastern Connecticut
17-3-0
0.518
3-2-0
17-3-0
11
10.
Keene State
15-6-0
0.554
1-3-0
15-6-0
12
11.
St. Joseph's (Maine)
16-2-3
0.514
1-1-0
16-2-3
--
12.
Endicott
12-6-2
0.555
1-4-0
12-6-2
9

EAST REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 11, 2019

Rank

School
. Div. III .
Record
. Div. III .
SOS

 . R-v-R .
. Overall .
Record
. Prev. .
Rank
1.
RPI
14-2-3
0.580
6-2-2
14-2-3
1
2.
Rochester
11-5-1
0.571
4-3-0
11-5-1
3
3.
Hobart
14-4-2
0.562
5-3-1
14-4-2
4
4.
Ithaca
12-5-2
0.564
3-3-1
12-5-2
2
5.
Oneonta State
17-2-0
0.557
4-1-0
17-2-0
6
6.
Vassar
9-6-2
0.582
2-3-0
9-7-2
5
7.
Clarkson
11-5-4
0.556
4-2-3
11-5-4
8
8.
Plattsburgh State
11-8-0
0.585
1-6-0
11-8-0
--

MID-ATLANTIC REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 11, 2019

Rank

School
. Div. III .
Record
. Div. III .
SOS

 . R-v-R .
. Overall .
Record
. Prev. .
Rank
1.
Johns Hopkins
16-2-1
0.627
6-2-1
16-2-1
1
2.
Franklin and Marshall
16-3-0
0.611
6-2-0
16-3-0
2
3.
Messiah
16-2-2
0.579
5-2-0
16-2-2
3
4.
Swarthmore
11-3-3
0.589
2-3-1
11-3-3
4
5.
Gettysburg
11-7-1
0.629
4-5-1
11-7-1
6
6.
Catholic
18-2-1
0.542
4-1-1
18-2-1
7
7.
Dickinson
10-8-0
0.631
4-7-0
10-8-0
8
8.
Haverford
9-6-3
0.621
2-4-2
9-6-3
5
9.
Lycoming
13-7-0
0.580
1-5-0
13-7-0
9
10.
Elizabethtown
11-6-2
0.582
1-5-0
11-6-2
10

SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 11, 2019

Rank

School
. Div. III .
Record
. Div. III .
SOS

 . R-v-R .
. Overall .
Record
. Prev. .
Rank
1.
Washington and Lee
15-2-3
0.594
4-1-2
15-2-3
1
2.
Mary Washington
13-3-4
0.636
2-2-3
13-3-4
3
3.
Christopher Newport
13-2-4
0.603
2-2-3
13-2-4
2
4.
Rowan
11-5-3
0.621
3-1-2
11-5-3
6
5.
Centre
16-3-1
0.577
3-3-0
16-3-1
4
6.
Roanoke
13-2-3
0.555
1-1-2
14-2-3
7
7.
Oglethorpe
14-4-0
0.567
2-3-0
14-4-0
8
8.
Ramapo
11-2-5
0.581
1-1-0
11-2-5
5
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

Christan Shirk

GREAT LAKES REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 11, 2019

Rank

School
. Div. III .
Record
. Div. III .
SOS

 . R-v-R .
. Overall .
Record
. Prev. .
Rank
1.
John Carroll
17-2-2
0.600
6-2-1
17-2-2
1
2.
Kenyon
15-1-2
0.573
4-1-1
17-1-2
2
3.
Ohio Wesleyan
13-5-3
0.596
5-4-2
13-5-3
3
4.
Ohio Northern
12-6-2
0.597
4-4-1
13-6-2
4
5.
Otterbein
13-7-0
0.578
3-6-0
13-7-0
6
6.
Hanover
12-6-2
0.542
2-3-0
12-5-2
7
7.
Mount Union
10-4-5
0.551
2-2-2
10-4-5
5
8.
Capital
8-5-5
0.560
1-3-3
8-5-5
8

CENTRAL REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 11, 2019

Rank

School
. Div. III .
Record
. Div. III .
SOS

 . R-v-R .
. Overall .
Record
. Prev. .
Rank
1.
Calvin
18-1-1
0.574
4-1-1
19-1-1
1
2.
Chicago
11-1-5
0.633
5-1-3
11-1-5
2
3.
North Park
15-4-1
0.605
2-3-1
15-4-1
3
4.
Hope
14-5-1
0.589
2-4-1
14-5-1
7
5.
Kalamazoo
10-4-2
0.573
3-3-0
11-4-2
4
6.
Wheaton (Ill.)
10-4-4
0.597
1-3-2
10-4-4
6
7.
North Central (Ill.)
11-5-3
0.577
2-2-0
11-5-3
5

NORTH REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 11, 2019

Rank

School
. Div. III .
Record
. Div. III .
SOS

 . R-v-R .
. Overall .
Record
. Prev. .
Rank
1.
Luther
15-4-1
0.602
4-2-0
16-4-1
1
2.
Central
14-3-2
0.569
3-1-1
14-3-2
2
3.
St. Thomas
12-4-3
0.598
0-4-2
12-4-3
3
4.
Loras
15-6-1
0.598
1-5-0
15-6-1
4
5.
Gustavus Adolphus
17-3-0
0.545
2-1-0
17-3-0
5
6.
St. Norbert
16-4-2
0.549
3-1-0
16-4-2
6
7.
Knox
15-4-2
0.543
1-3-1
15-4-2
7

WEST REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 11, 2019

Rank

School
. Div. III .
Record
. Div. III .
SOS

 . R-v-R .
. Overall .
Record
. Prev. .
Rank
1.
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
14-3-2
0.570
3-2-2
14-3-2
1
2.
Colorado College
10-6-0
0.576
3-4-0
14-6-0
2
3.
Trinity (Texas)
10-5-2
0.595
3-4-1
11-6-2
3
4.
Texas-Dallas
16-3-2
0.513
2-1-0
17-3-2
4
5.
Hardin-Simmons
12-3-2
0.503
2-1-0
14-3-2
5
6.
Texas Lutheran
12-5-0
0.525
3-3-0
15-5-0
--
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

Christan Shirk

I have gotten some insight into some of the surprising selections for pod hosts.

As has been mentioned/explained by others, the reason Amherst, Messiah, Chicago and Johns Hopkins are not hosting the pods in which they are the top seed is because their women's teams are also the top seed in their pods, and following the alternating hosting priority schedule, the women have hosting priority. No big news there.

In past years, as long as geography didn't point the committee in a different direction, the second seed in the pod would typically be chosen to host in these situations. This brought on consistent feedback that when the top two seeds advanced to the second round as expected, it was unfair that the top seed that had earned the right to host, not only didn't get to host, but now had to play at the home of a potentially very strong second round opponent. In other words, the strongest challenger to the top seed advancing to the Sweet 16 was being given the advantage it hadn't earned to use against the team that actually deserved it.

In response to this feedback, the committee this year selected the third seeds in these pod to host, thus making the likely second round match a neutral game.  That doesn't completely make up for the lost hosting advantage, but at least it doesn't hand that advantage to their more likely second round opponent.  This is why Keene State, Oneonta State, Hope and Catholic are hosting pods.


My initial thoughts/observations are as follows:
• In general and on first thought, this seems like a sensible thing to do.  It's nice to try not to penalize a team just because their women's team is also extremely good.
• The strongest challenger in a pod may not actually be who the NCAA's selection criteria says it is.  The third seed by their criteria might actual be the top seeds' biggest threat, so this approach might now always be the better for the top seed. For example, opinion may vary on whether third seed Oneonta State or second seed Babson is the better team and the team with the better chance to stop Messiah from advancing.
• In strong pods with three relatively strong teams, this doesn't make much or any difference for the top seed.  However, it now unfairly helps the third seed have a better chance against the second seed in round one.  Since this is about fairness, is it fair that Ohio Wesleyan has to play at host Hope to open the tournament?  Is it fair that Catholic's chances of advancing got such an unearned/undeserved boost?
Christan Shirk
Special Consultant and Advisor
D3soccer.com

PaulNewman

The hosting decisions are all perfectly understandable, but they do have an impact.

When I first looked at the draw I suggested that Chicago had a good one in part because of assuming they would be at home.  It is an interesting outcome, as well.  Chicago and Hope played at Hope this season, with Chicago narrowly winning 3-2.  Hope will obviously be comfortable.  And OWU ,at least as a program if not some of the current players, has experience and positive experience with the Hope soccer complex.  The video quality at Hope is great, too.

d4_Pace

What I don't understand is if a school has multiple fields why men and women can't both host. Amherst men and women play at home on the same weekend all the time with no issue. Each has there own field as well as an additional warmup field. The women hosting would have no impact on the men's games.

Middlebury Dad

The issue is logistics.  You would now need hotels and locker rooms for 6 visiting teams and not just 2.  Also, for many schools, the athletic department staff would be stretched too thin to accommodate hosting both men's and women's simultaneously.  Like many things with the NCAA, flexibility is now out the window in the name of consistent policy  ;-)

gustiefan04

I also suspect MOST D3 schools do not have separate fields for men's and women's soccer, like described at Amherst. In the Midwest it's pretty common that the two share the same game field.

Mid-Atlantic Fan

Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 11, 2019, 10:09:05 AM
MAF Pool C Projections
1. F&M
2. Amherst
3. RPI
4. Conn Coll
5. OWU
6. CNU
7. Rowan
8. ONU

9. Williams
10. Gettysburg
11. Central
12. Kalamazoo
13. Rochester
14. Middlebury
15. Swat
16. Hope
17. WPI

18. Loras
19. Otterbein
20. Colorado
21. Lycoming
-------------------------------
22. Brandeis
23. Ithaca/Clarkson (whoever is ahead of the other in region)
24. Ithaca/Clarkson (whoever is behind the other in region)
25. Haverford
26. North Central (Ill)
27. Oglethorpe
28. Wheaton (Ill)
29. Mt. Union
30. Trinity (Tx)
31. St. Thomas
32. Dickinson
33. Ramapo/Roanoke

Slots #18 thru #30 are a complete toss up as I can see any of those teams battling for the last 4 places of #18-#21.

17/21 (as mentioned 18-30 were toss ups  ;) )  Trinity getting to 3 ranked wins makes more sense now. Still perplexed that Otterbein got left out.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: d4_Pace on November 11, 2019, 11:03:19 PM
What I don't understand is if a school has multiple fields why men and women can't both host. Amherst men and women play at home on the same weekend all the time with no issue. Each has there own field as well as an additional warmup field. The women hosting would have no impact on the men's games.

Quote from: Middlebury Dad on November 12, 2019, 07:42:35 AM
The issue is logistics.  You would now need hotels and locker rooms for 6 visiting teams and not just 2.  Also, for many schools, the athletic department staff would be stretched too thin to accommodate hosting both men's and women's simultaneously.  Like many things with the NCAA, flexibility is now out the window in the name of consistent policy  ;-)

Plus, Chicago is also hosting a pod in the D3 women's volleyball tournament next weekend, and hosting a football game.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

d4_Pace

I understand in Chicago's situation that maybe they were stretched too thin. But just because some schools can't pull it off doesn't mean others should be punished. If Amherst felt capable of hosting both they should have been given that opportunity.