Author Topic: New England Soccer Discussion  (Read 316002 times)

Offline PaulNewman

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 3346
  • Karma: +199/-124
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #780 on: October 19, 2016, 03:49:53 pm »
I'm not saying that I think this will happen, but if Brandeis can win out against against Clark (#3 in New England), Lasell, Emory (#6 in South Atlantic), Rochester (#1 in East), and NYU, they will end the season at 11-4-3 overall, a potential 5-1-3 against regionally ranked opponents, and one of the highest SOS in the country.

Is there a chance that will be enough for a Pool C birth? Asking for a friend :-\

YES, but that also presumes teams like Clark and Emory STAY regionally ranked into the 3rd and 4th weeks.

Offline Off Pitch

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
  • Karma: +23/-16
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #781 on: October 19, 2016, 05:49:35 pm »
REAL rankings for New England 10/19/2016
                                  W-L       SOS  W%*SOS
1.   Amherst                11-1-1      .577        .510
2.   UMass Boston        12-1-1      .549        .490
3.   Clark (MA)             12-2-0      .544        .466
4.   Middlebury             8-1-3      .564        .447
5.   Rhode Island         10-3-1      .594        .446
6.   Williams                 7-2-3      .582        .412
7.   Babson                  8-4-3      .606        .384
8.   Tufts                     7-3-2     .596        .397
9.   WPI                       7-2-4     .584        .404
10.   Conn                   8-4-0     .554        .369
11.   Coast Guard        8-3-2     .545        .377
12.   Bowdoin              7-3-3     .555        .363


No Springfield with their .499 SOS.   Also missing is Wentworth  (9-2-4, .502,  .368) and Brandeis (6-4-3, .628,  .362)

Multiplying the  winning % by the SOS comes close to reproducing the first rankings.   I suspect this will be less true going forward as RvR is introduced and head to head and R v Common opponents are more carefully considered.

Offline NEsoccerfan

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +16/-5
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #782 on: October 19, 2016, 08:16:32 pm »
Fun game so far between Brandeis and Clark. Deis is really taking it to them, but as has been the theme all year they are lacking creativity in the offensive 3rd and just CANNOT finish. Clark is working very hard and putting up a strong defensive front.

Offline NEsoccerfan

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +16/-5
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #783 on: October 19, 2016, 08:31:14 pm »
1-0 Brandeis on a pretty questionable PK, miss, and then follow up.

Offline blooter442

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2508
  • Karma: +102/-14
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #784 on: October 19, 2016, 08:32:41 pm »
1-0 Brandeis on a pretty questionable PK, miss, and then follow up.

Tuned in about 30 seconds prior to the PK award. Good timing on my part, I guess. :)

Offline blooter442

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2508
  • Karma: +102/-14
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #785 on: October 21, 2016, 06:20:04 pm »
Trying to figure out how Babson is ahead of Tufts in the RRs. They are 6-0-2 in their last 8 which is impressive but they are 1-3-2 vs. ranked teams, the best result of which was a 1-1 with NE #2 UMB. They also downed Brandeis but while a good win they are not ranked. Tufts meanwhile has a 3-0 RvR with wins over NE #1 and NE #4. Sure they dropped a couple of games at the start of the year but they are 5-0-1 in the last 6.

I will say that Babson plays the toughest non-conference schedule of the NEWMACs IMHO but their conference opposition is not nearly as difficult, illustrating the NESCACs superiority to other NE conferences (I'm not a NESCAC supporter - just stating facts.) The funny thing is that I think they are more likely to win the NEWMAC if they are on the road rather than hosting, as they've won the last two times they've traveled (2014 @ Wheaton and 2015 @ MIT) while losing at home in 2011 and 2012.

Offline Flying Weasel

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
  • Karma: +78/-12
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #786 on: October 21, 2016, 08:31:07 pm »
RvR is not a criteria for the first week of Regional Rankings (no previous rankings = no ranked opponents).  Something to keep in mind when looking at this first week of rankings and trying to think through why teams are ordered as they are.

Offline 1970s NESCAC Player

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
  • Karma: +32/-11
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #787 on: October 21, 2016, 08:39:14 pm »
Bloots nevertheless raises a good point.  Yes, the regional committee is not looking at RvR in Week 1, but Tufts' recent performances alone would suggest that they belong ahead of Babson . . .

Offline Flying Weasel

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
  • Karma: +78/-12
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #788 on: October 22, 2016, 10:40:41 am »
You guys mention "recent performance", but that is not a criteria by default.  The manual says:
Quote
"Should a committee find that evaluation of a teamís won-lost percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee."
I don't know if men's soccer committee has requested and gotten approval for looking at the last 25% of the season.  And even if they have approval for this, I'm not sure if it can be construed to mean the last 25% at the season to date, versus the plain interpretation of it being the last 25% of the full season at the time of at-large selections (i.e. at the time of the final rankings).

So RvR didn't factor in and I don't think recent performance factored in either.  I know that my impression from following this stuff for the last decade plus is that recent performance is not given extra weight, at least not significantly so.  Of course, my impression may be wrong.

Now I'm not arguing who is better or deserves to be ranked higher, just trying to say that given the criteria the committee does and does not use, Babson being ahead of Tufts might be "correct".  The introduction of RvR criteria next week could very well change that.

Offline blooter442

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 2508
  • Karma: +102/-14
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #789 on: October 22, 2016, 11:12:02 am »
Now I'm not arguing who is better or deserves to be ranked higher, just trying to say that given the criteria the committee does and does not use, Babson being ahead of Tufts might be "correct".  The introduction of RvR criteria next week could very well change that.

Certainly I don't know the criteria exactly, and they may well have been "correct" for whatever reason - Babson does have more wins than Tufts at this moment. All I'm saying is that I found it to be a bit counterintuitive (to me personally) that a team with high-quality wins over nationally ranked opponents (one home and one away) was ranked below a team whose "best" result this year versus a nationally ranked team was a draw at home.

Offline Flying Weasel

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
  • Karma: +78/-12
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #790 on: October 22, 2016, 12:04:44 pm »
In the eyes of the NCAA committee, there are no nationally ranked teams, because other polls and rankings are not taken into consideration.  So forget about wins over nationally ranked opponents if you want to understand the NCAA regional rankings.

Here are the primary criteria from page 22 of the 2016 Division III Soccer Pre-Championships Manual:
Quote
● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents
● Division III head-to-head competition
● Results versus common Division III opponents
● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection
● Division III strength of schedule (SOS = 2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP)

Going through that list:
● Tufts had a better winning pct. .667 to .633
● Tufts and Babson did not play head-to-head
● They had two common opponents: Brandeis and Endicott.  Both defeated Brandeis 1-0, but Babson defeated Endicott 1-0 while Tufts lost to Endicott 0-1. (Now Tuft's games were both away while both were home games for Babson, but nothing in the criteria says that gets taken into consideration.)
● As already mentioned, results versus ranked teams (RvR) isn't in play for the first weekly rankings. 
● Babson had a slightly better SOS, .606 to .596

Since recent performance isn't a criterion, it comes down to winning pct. (advantage Tufts), results vs. common opponents (advantage Babson), and SOS (slight advantage Babson).
« Last Edit: October 22, 2016, 12:06:49 pm by Flying Weasel »

Offline Flying Weasel

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
  • Karma: +78/-12
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #791 on: October 22, 2016, 12:28:15 pm »
The NCAA committee publishes their criteria in each year's Pre-Championship Manual, D3soccer.com shares that criteria each year here and here.  So if you want to understand the NCAA regional rankings, the most important thing to do is familiarize yourself with the criteria that the committee is charged with applying. My impression is that the committee applies the criteria rather literally and strictly, avoiding subjectivity/discernment as much as possible so that they have an iron-clad objective justification for their rankings and at-large selections. So, if you want to understand their regional rankings and eventual at-large selections, you really need to put out of mind all other factors that are not listed as primary criteria (recent performance, national rank in the D3soccer.com and NSCAA polls, results versus teams ranked nationally by D3soccer.com or NSCAA, etc.,).

We all to one degree or another probably disagree with the criteria being used and/or how it seems like SOS and wins vs. ranked teams are too heavily weighted.  And so we will all have disagreements with the committee about who should be ranked and where, about who we think is most deserving of a shot at the NCAA tournament, etc.  I'm right there with you all.  But if you know and understand the criteria being used by the committee, on the whole, it's usually not too difficult to see how their rankings come out as they do.

Offline Mr.Right

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4481
  • Karma: +209/-135
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #792 on: October 22, 2016, 12:37:20 pm »
I agree with all this but am I correct in saying that the Week 2 RR usually see some big changes because of the RVR?

Offline 1970s NESCAC Player

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
  • Karma: +32/-11
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #793 on: October 22, 2016, 01:31:28 pm »
The NCAA committee publishes their criteria in each year's Pre-Championship Manual, D3soccer.com shares that criteria each year here and here.  So if you want to understand the NCAA regional rankings, the most important thing to do is familiarize yourself with the criteria that the committee is charged with applying. My impression is that the committee applies the criteria rather literally and strictly, avoiding subjectivity/discernment as much as possible so that they have an iron-clad objective justification for their rankings and at-large selections. So, if you want to understand their regional rankings and eventual at-large selections, you really need to put out of mind all other factors that are not listed as primary criteria (recent performance, national rank in the D3soccer.com and NSCAA polls, results versus teams ranked nationally by D3soccer.com or NSCAA, etc.,).

We all to one degree or another probably disagree with the criteria being used and/or how it seems like SOS and wins vs. ranked teams are too heavily weighted.  And so we will all have disagreements with the committee about who should be ranked and where, about who we think is most deserving of a shot at the NCAA tournament, etc.  I'm right there with you all.  But if you know and understand the criteria being used by the committee, on the whole, it's usually not too difficult to see how their rankings come out as they do.

FW, no one here is arguing with you or suggesting that the NCAA is misapplying their own criteria.  We only suggest based on personal observation that Tufts appears to be a better team than Babson.

Offline Flying Weasel

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 924
  • Karma: +78/-12
    • View Profile
Re: New England Soccer Discussion
« Reply #794 on: October 22, 2016, 04:47:43 pm »
My apologies if that was the intended suggestion.  When blooter442 wrote that he is "trying to figure out how Babson is ahead of Tufts in the RRs" combined with throwing out RvR's (that don't yet exist), I took as (1) a question about how the committee arrived at the relative ranking of the two teams, and (2) potentially less than a full understanding of the criteria being used by the committee. I would probably also opine that Tufts is better than Babson at the moment, and if I had understood that to be the ascertain I wouldn't have had anything to interject here.