Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Christan Shirk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:06:18 am »
It has been asked how the number of overtime games and PK's this season compare historically.  Well, here you go:


YEAR
TOTAL
GAMES
OT
GAMES

PK's
1974
16
5 (31%)
0 (0%)
1975
16
3 (19%)
0 (0%)
1976
16
5 (31%)
1 (6%)
1977
16
1 (6%)
2 (13%)
1978
16
3 (19%)
1 (6%)
1979
16
4 (25%)
0 (0%)
1980
24
9 (38%)
0 (0%)
1981
24
7 (29%)
1 (4%)
1982
23
5 (22%)
1 (4%)
1983
23
3 (13%)
2 (9%)
1984
23
6 (26%)
3 (13%)
1985
23
6 (26%)
2 (9%)
1986
23
5 (22%)
2 (9%)
1987
23
9 (39%)
7 (30%)
1988
23
7 (30%)
7 (30%)
1989
23
7 (30%)
3 (13%)
1990
31
9 (29%)
4 (13%)
1991
31
8 (26%)
4 (13%)
1992
31
8 (26%)
4 (13%)
1993
31
7 (23%)
4 (13%)
1994
31
10 (32%)
7 (23%)
1995
31
7 (23%)
4 (13%)
1996
31
8 (26%)
4 (13%)
1997
39
8 (21%)
4 (10%)
1998
39
11 (28%)
3 (8%)
1999
43
8 (19%)
3 (7%)
2000
43
4 (9%)
1 (2%)
2001
43
14 (33%)
4 (9%)
2002
43
12 (28%)
6 (14%)
2003
43
12 (28%)
8 (19%)
2004
43
9 (21%)
6 (14%)
2005
56
10 (18%)
5 (9%)
2006
56
12 (21%)
10 (18%)
2007
56
14 (25%)
7 (13%)
2008
57
16 (28%)
8 (14%)
2009
58
12 (21%)
11 (19%)
2010
59
17 (29%)
5 (8%)
2011
60
11 (18%)
5 (8%)
2012
61
15 (25%)
9 (15%)
2013
60
12 (20%)
3 (5%)
All-Time
1404
339 (24%)
161 (11%)
Last 10 Yrs.
566
128 (23%)
69 (12%)
2014
45
12 (27%)
8 (18%)

We've had 12 overtime games this year out of 45 total games.  That's 27% which is on the high side, but the rate was even higher as recently as 2010 (29%) and 2008 (28%). 

Eight games this year have required a penalty shootout.  That's 18% of all games and 67% of overtime games. Again, high, but not unusually so.

If instead of looking at the fluctuations of individual years, 5-year averages are considered, the percentage of overtimes games in the past decade and a half has stayed between 22 and 25%.  The percentage of overtime games that are subsequently decided by penalty kicks had been less steady.

2
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 12, 2014, 12:22:46 pm »
Can someone explain to me how a team with 3 losses (Wheaton, IL) gets one of only three byes in the tourney?  The other two teams with byes were undefeated and there are numerous teams between undefeated and 3 losses.
I'm still perplexed that the NCAA can't add 3 more teams to make it a full 64 team field....
So the decision to awards byes is beyond baffling to me.
NCAA has a formula they use, based on number of participating teams in a sport, that determines how many playoff bids are awarded ... plus three more teams would cost them that much more money and the AA is never known for freely spending money on D3.

As presented in D3soccer.com's introduction to the tournament and my earlier column on the AQ's and Pool B and C at-large berths, the NCAA has prescribed an approximate 6.5 to 1 access ratio for most Division III team sports.  That is, 1 tournament spot for every 6.5 tournament eligible teams.  Division III men's soccer has 399 eligible team this season.  399 / 6.5  = 61.4, thus a 61-team field for the men's tournament.  The women have a full 64-team field because they have 427 eligible teams (427 / 6.5 = 65.7 > 64, use max. of 64).

3
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 11, 2014, 05:08:45 pm »
A good poll would be pick the best potential 2nd round game out of these blockbusters....

Rochester/Salisbury vs F&M

Amherst vs SLU

Dickinson/Tufts vs Wheaton

OWU vs Calvin

Emory vs Whitworth

Montclair vs CNU

For me the most titanic are OWU/Calvin, Amherst/SLU and Montclair/CNU

This tournament is going to be great!

I might use that!  And the rest of this year and next year, if you ever have suggestions, let me know. I'd love to change the pools more quickly, but to be perfectly honest, it's not the highest priority and sometimes I just am plumb out of ideas.  So I'm always open to suggestions.

4
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:46:43 pm »
Looks almost impossible...go by numbers (Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2, etc or by name of top seed...Messiah Bracket, etc)...OR

New England/New York
Northeast
Mideast or Midwest/Southeast
West or West/North
For the women...

Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Mideast
Northeast (or New England)


An alternative to the using names of top seeds suggestion would be to use the region of the top seeds as the name...

Back in the old days the NCAA bball tournament used to be East, Mideast, Midwest and West Regionals (and maybe it's still like that)
Mideast? Mmmm.  Might have to use that.  I used "Transcontinental" one year to cover a quadrant that had a broad geographic mix.

Here is what I was coming up with before looking at the responses here . . .

MEN
Oneonta-F&M-Brandeis-St. Lawrence (top left): ATLANTIC or NORTHEAST
Wheaton (Ill.)-Wartburg-Loras-Trinity (bottom left): MIDWEST or CENTRAL
Messiah-Cortland-Wheaton (Mass.)-Muhlenberg (top right): NORTHEAST OR ATLANTIC
Kenyon-Calvin-Emory-Chris. Newport (bottom right): ??????

WOMEN
Messiah-Nazareth-Lynchburg-Montclair St. (top left): MID-ATLANTIC or EAST
Wheaton (Ill.)-Chicago-Washington U-Lake Forest (bottom left): MIDWEST or CENTRAL
Carnegie Mellon-Johns Hopkins-Trinity (tx.)-Thomas More (top right): ??????
Williams-MIT-William Smith-Misericordia (bottom right): NORTHEAST OR NEW ENGLAND

5
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 11, 2014, 04:41:57 pm »
Oneonta St bracket-------Pool C Paradise
Messiah bracket----------14v1
Kenyon bracket-----------Who is my #1 seed?
Wheaton bracket----------How did I get placed here and why am I playing this team

Very well done.  I like it . . . a lot!  But may be a little too "unconventional" to use on the website.

6
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 11, 2014, 10:22:25 am »
Looking for suggestions for naming the four quadrants of the brackets for use on D3soccer.com's HTML brackets (see last year's here).

MEN
Oneonta-F&M-Brandeis-St. Lawrence (top left): _________________
Wheaton (Ill.)-Wartburg-Loras-Trinity (bottom left): _________________
Messiah-Cortland-Wheaton (Mass.)-Muhlenberg (top right): _________________
Kenyon-Calvin-Emory-Chris. Newport (bottom right): _________________  <--- this may require some creativity

WOMEN
Messiah-Nazareth-Lynchburg-Montclair St. (top left): _________________
Wheaton (Ill.)-Chicago-Washington U-Lake Forest (bottom left): _________________
Carnegie Mellon-Johns Hopkins-Trinity (tx.)-Thomas More (top right): _________________  <--- this may require some creativity
Williams-MIT-William Smith-Misericordia (bottom right): _________________

7
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:00:08 pm »
Texas-Dallas is just really shocking!  4 losses and 7 total blemishes playing a .516 SOS and only getting a single win vs. ranked!  Doesn't make sense because it's inconsistent with what the committee typical rewards.

So I wrongly predicted John Carroll, Haverford, and UW-Oshkosh instead of the selected Dominican, Brockport State, and Texas-Dallas.

Brockport State was always right in the mix and included in my bubble.  No surprise we them getting in. 

Dominican isn't as shocking as Texas-Dallas, but still hard to figure.  Their win over North Park must have convinced the committee.  UW-Oshkosh, for example, had the exact same W-L-T record, a little better SOS, and a little better record versus ranked teams (1-2-2 vs. 1-3-0), yet Dominican gets it over them.  But Dominican beat North Park while Oshkosh lost to them.  So that record versus common opponents must have swung it over to Dominican apparently.

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts later, but that's the first of them.

8
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 01:45:18 pm »
Did Salisbury get in?  I missed one name and I think it may have been them.

9
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 12:55:47 pm »
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.

10
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 11:22:37 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.

11
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 10:37:23 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.

12
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 10:12:39 am »
- I believe Tufts is a definite bubble team due to their quarterfinal defeat and possibly one of the last ones in or out.

My distinct impression for a decade of closely following and analyzing the rankings and at-large selections is that no heed is given to whether a game was a conference tournament game or simply a regular season game.  Thus the only penalty for losing a quarterfinal game is the direct hit to the W-L-T record (and the record vs. ranked, if applicable).  In other words, I've seen no evidence that it's an extra strike against a team to exit early from a conference tournament.  And quite frankly it shouldn't.  So one team gets upset in a non-conference game or even a conference game, but another team has their encounter with the mischievousness of the soccer gods in a conference quarterfinal and that should be held against them more than the other team's loss?  Now, indirectly it could cost a team the chance to pick up a win vs. ranked in the semifinals depending on who they would have met.  But the bottom line for me is that conference tournament games seem to be treated as just another game between two teams, nothing more, nothing less.

13
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:58:11 am »
Per Christan's sheet:

School (w/Record)                   SOS 
Brandeis (17-2-0)                   0.633
Rochester (9-5-3)                   0.627
Case Western (8-6-4)    0.607
Dickinson (11-5-2)                  0.604
Haverford (11-7-1)                   0.604
Emory (13-3-2)                   0.603
Wesleyan (8-5-3)                   0.6
North Park (13-5-1)                   0.597
Wheaton (Mass.) (16-3-2)    0.597
Centre (8-4-6)                   0.591
UC Santa Cruz (11-6-1)    0.589
Amherst (13-1-4)                   0.587
Carnegie Mellon (8-5-3)    0.586
Coast Guard (13-2-3)    0.58
RPI (12-4-3)                   0.58
Tufts (10-2-4)                   0.576
Loras (15-2-2)                   0.575
Franklin & Marshall (15-1-2)    0.573
DePauw (10-8-1)                   0.57
Brockport State (10-3-6)    0.568
Johns Hopkins (9-7-2)    0.567
Carleton (10-7-2)                   0.566
UW-Oshkosh (14-5-2)    0.56
Rutgers-Newark (15-5-0)    0.557
Ohio Wesleyan (15-4-2)    0.556
Salisbury (12-2-5)                   0.556
UW-Whitewater (13-4-4)    0.552
St. Olaf (12-5-2)                   0.55
Hope (13-7-1)                   0.548
Cortland State (14-4-1)    0.547
Dominican (14-5-2)     0.545
Gordon (14-5-2)                  0.545
Ohio Northern (12-8-1)    0.537
John Carroll (17-4-0)   0.535
Middlebury (9-3-5)                  0.533
WPI (14-5-0)                  0.533
Occidental (13-6-1)                  0.52
Texas-Dallas (13-4-3)   0.516
Lycoming (15-3-3)                  0.504
------------------------------------------------
  Just to be clear, I did NOT compute updated SOS numbers. Those are the ones from the 3rd weekly data sheets.  I only updated the W-L-T records and record versus ranked teams.  SOS is too much to compute for so many teams, so I just assume that as this point, one week doesn't make too much a difference and by now we have the gist of where teams' SOS stack up.

14
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 08:52:51 am »
Great job and analysis as always Christan.

A few teams prominently discussed in the thread that didn't make your bubble group....RPI, Camden, Kzoo,  Why Haverford but not Camden?  What if Kzoo had cracked the last regional ranking?  And on Colorado, I guess there is no such thing as good losses....3 one goal losses to one of the top 4 teams in the country (at least by polls).

I guess I just keep going back to the assumption that has served my predictions well in past years that the rankings do indeed very accurately foreshadow the eventual at-large selections.  If the committee throws out a bunch of curve balls this year, I may have to re-think my approach.  Based on previous seasons' selections, I just don't see Camden and Kalamazoo coming out of no where to snag a berth, but who knows.  Colorado was ranked until the final week, but selecting them would still buck history and the combination of a very low .500 SOS and no wins versus ranked teams (the two stats the committee seems to weigh most heavily), why would they move back into and far enough up the West rankings to be in the conversation? And what's the argument for RPI to climb ahead of Brockport (or it the thinking that both get invited?)?

Personally, I get the arguments in favor of some of these teams, but I'm trying to predict what the NCAA committee will do, not who I think is most deserving.  And I've had a pretty good track record (or luck?) in recent years with my prediction, but maybe this is the year I'm off the mark. We'll see soon enough.

15
Men's soccer / Re: 2014 D3 Season: National Perspective
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:19:08 am »
OK, I've done more spot-checking and I have concluded that the record for ranked does not typically include results against teams previously but not currently ranked.  That is, my spot-checking suggests that a once ranked, always ranked appraoch is NOT being used.  Here are four examples:

Messiah
2nd Weekly Data Sheet:  3-0-0 record vs. ranked (wins over Dickinson, Montclair St., Lycoming)
3rd Weekly Data Sheet:  3-0-0 record vs. ranked (wins over Dickinson, Montclair St., Catholic)
If the once ranked, always ranked appraoch was being used, the win over Lycoming (no longer ranked in second week) would not come off, but it must have as the previous win versus the newly ranked Catholic would have been added yet the total wins stayed at 3.

Rochester
2nd Weekly Data Sheet:  2-2-1 record vs. ranked (wins over Brandeis, St. Lawrence, losses to Lycoming, Chicago, tie with Oneonta)
3rd Weekly Data Sheet: 3-2-1 record vs. ranked (wins over Brandeis, St. Lawrence, Carnegie Mellon, losses to Chicago, Emory, tie with Oneonta)
If the once ranked, always ranked appraoch was being used, the previous loss to Lycoming (no longer ranked in second week) would not come off, but it must have as the new loss versus Emory  would have been added yet the total losses stayed at 2.

Ohio Wesleyan
2nd Weekly Data Sheet:   2-2-2 record vs. ranked (wins over Hope, DePauw, losses to Calvin, Capital, ties with Centre, Kenyon)
3rd Weekly Data Sheet:   2-2-2 record vs. ranked (wins over Hope, Ohio Northern, losses to Calvin, Capital, ties with Centre, Kenyon)
If the once ranked, always ranked appraoch was being used, the previous win over DePauw (no longer ranked in second week) would not come off, but it must have as the previous win versus the newly ranked Ohio Northern would have been added yet the total wins stayed at 2.

Connecticut
2nd Weekly Data Sheet:   1-4-0 record vs. ranked (win over Williams, losses to Middlebury, Amherst, Coast Guard, Tufts)
3rd Weekly Data Sheet:   2-5-0 record vs. ranked (wins over Williams, Tufts, losses to Middlebury, Amherst, Coast Guard, Tufts, Eastern Connecticut)
If the once ranked, always ranked appraoch was being used, the new loss to previously ranked Wesleyan would have been added bringing the total losses to 6, but only the previous loss to newly ranked Eastern Connecticut could have been added to reach a total of only 5 losses.

These examples are consistent with a plain understanding of the Manual which makes no mention any more of a once ranked, always ranked approach.  So, I think there was a clerical error in the case of UW-Whitewater and that the win over North Central (Ill.) should have been removed in the 3rd Weekly data sheet.  The updated records versus ranked in my prediction column will remain as I originally adjusted them to remove results against teams that fell out of the rankings.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8