D3boards.com

First post for the 2010 season.  My last season, unless daughter #3 ends up going to a NESCAC school 4 years from now . . .

Number of 2010 home league games by team (key factor since home field advantage is worth about a 1 goal swing at least in NESCAC women's games):

Colby - 6
Conn - 5
Tufts - 5
Wesleyan - 5
Amherst - 4
Bates - 4
Bowdoin - 4
Middlebury - 4
Williams - 4
Trinity - 4

Does this translate into the usual suspects.  Williams, Amherst, M-bury?

2xfaux - I haven't finished my full analysis yet, but Williams and Amherst look like the top 2 again.  I always seem to underestimate Middlebury, but they look like they are losing too many starters from last year to be a sound pre-season pick.

Re number of home/away games:

- All the top contenders seem to have the same number of games (4), so no advantage/disadvantage as far as home/away goes at the top of the table.

- Toward the bottom of the table, Colby, Conn, and Wes all have an advantage over Bates in number of home games, which puts Bates at a disadvantage for making the tournament.

- Fact that the weaker teams generally have more home games than the stronger teams should tighten up some of the scores, but may not change the final league table.

Number of starters that each team has lost to graduation:

6 - Middlebury
5 - Conn
5 - Tufts
4 - Colby
3 - Wes
2 - Amherst
2 - Bowdoin
2 - Trinity
2 - Williams
1 - Bates

Losing more talent than you can replace is obviously a bad thing, but as Tufts proved last year (when its league record declined slightly even though it returned every starter), having all or almost all your starters return doesn't necessarily give you an advantage.  If, on average, a team gets 3-4 new starter-quality freshmen a year, that would suggest that Middlebury, Conn and Tufts may have a hard time filling all their holes with players of the same quality as their departing seniors.

Percent of goal scoring that each team has lost to graduation:

64% Tufts (eg, Hardy, Cadigan, Maxwell, Gemal)
33% Middlebury (eg, Cabonargi, Owen, Walker, Ford)
29% Conn (eg, Katz, Davey)
20% Williams (eg, Walmsley, Wolfson)
16% Amherst (eg Murphy)
16% Trinity (eg Olsen)
15% Bowdoin (eg, Riker)
11% Wes (eg, Kenworthy, Parl)
10% Colby (eg, Edwards)
0% Bates

Tufts is clearly the team whose scoring is most likely to be impacted by graduation.  Middlebury's losses may be felt most on defense, where it is losing 3 starters.  Tufts, Conn and Williams are each losing their starting keepers.  Williams, Amherst and Bowdoin are all losing top offensive players, but have enough other weapons that the departures should not have a significant impact.

Since there is still a lot of time before the season starts, instead of doing all of my 2010 preseason team evaluations in a single post (as per 2009), I've decided to serialize them and post them on a team by team basis in alphabetical order and then follow up with power rankings and final league table predictions.  As per last year, I am not going to try to factor in the impact of incoming freshmen.  Although the quality of incoming freshmen can clearly have a huge impact on a team, it is very hard to assess before they actually play against league competition.  First up, Amherst.


Amherst

2009 League Results: 7-1-1 (2); GF: 18 (2), GA: 4 (2), GD: +14 (2)
2008 League Results: 7-0-2 (2); GF: 34 (1), GA: 9 (3), GD: +25 (1)
2007 League Results: 5-2-2 (3); GF: 14 (4), GA: 6 (3), GD: +8 (2)
2006 League Results: 7-0-1 (1); GF: 20 (2), GA: 7 (1), GD: +13 (1)
2005 League Results: 6-2-1 (1); GF: 16 (4), GA: 8 (2), GD: +8 (3)

Note: The win-loss-draw records and GF, GA and GD stats above are for conference games only.  The numbers in parentheses are the rankings in the applicable category in NESCAC.

Amherst has pretty consistently ranked in the top 2 or 3 teams in the league for each of the last 3 years in terms of results, GF, GA and GD, despite huge swings in GF and GA during the period.

Amherst put together very solid 2d place seasons in 2008 and 2009.  The 2008 team was a goal-scoring powerhouse, led by Meg Murphy (13 goals in all games), Kyla Woodhouse (8 goals) and Jackie Hirsch (8 goals).  With all 3 returning, but 3 starting midfielders and 3 starting defenders graduating, the expectation was that scoring would continue to be strong but that the defense would be weaker.  Instead, in 2009, scoring was down significantly and the defense improved significantly (perhaps as a result of an increased focus on defense to compensate for the loss of all those defensive starters).  A still-decent offense, complemented by a very stingy defense, resulted in another fine season and a second straight NCAA tournament bid.

This year, Amherst will be losing only 3 players to graduation, and only 2 starters:  perennial 1st team all-NESCAC player and leading scorer, midfielder Meg Murphy, and defender Kathy Nolan.  Offensively, losing Murphy will be a bit of a blow.  However, the departing graduates only collectively represented 16% of Amherst's scoring last year. Returning players should be able to provide Amherst with plenty of offensive production from varied sources.  Hirsch and Woodhouse will be back, as will Cooper, Little and Nathan, three freshmen from last year who each scored at least 5 goals.

Summary:  Amherst should be stronger in 2010 than they were in 2009.  They are losing only 2 starters (1 M, 1 D) and only 16% of total scoring.

Thanks for doing this. It's really interesting and I find your comments very insightful. Will you be doing them in alphabetical order? Then I have to wait a week or so...

Yes, in alphabetical order.  But not necessarily a week apart.

I was assuming a day apart, hence 9 days for me.

But I'm not trying to rush you, of course.

Bates

2009 League Results: 2-7-0 (9); GF: 6 (8), GA: 17 (9), GD: -11 (8)
2008 League Results: 2-7-0 (9); GF: 6 (8), GA: 20 (9), GD: -14 (8)
2007 League Results: 1-8-0 (9); GF: 4 (10), GA: 23 (9). GD: -19 (10)
2006 League Results: 4-4-0 (6); GF: 11 (6), GA: 16 (6), GD: -5 (7)
2005 League Results: 5-3-1 (4); GF: 25 (1), GA: 11 (5), GD: +14 (1)

Bates has been stuck in 9th place in the league for the last 3 years running, after being in the middle of the pack in the prior couple of years.  GF, GA and GD have all fallen to near the bottom of the league, although GA and GD have both improved slightly in the last 2 years.

The prediction for 2009 had been for moderate improvement over 2008, since only 3 starters were graduating, a freshman-heavy 2008 team would have one more year under its belt, and the team would have 5 home games in 2009 versus only 3 in 2008.  However, while defensively the 2009 team improved slightly over the 2008 team, overall improvement was minimal statistically and the team remained near the bottom of the league in both offense and defense.

This year, Bates will be losing only 4 players to graduation, and only 1 starter: defender Avery Pierce.  Since none of the seniors scored a goal last year, Bates is losing no offensive production through graduation.  The key for improvement, however, may be the strength of the incoming class.  Last year, no freshman started more than 6 games (out of 14 games played).  To significantly improve over the past few seasons, they need to get a bigger boost than that from the new incoming class.

Summary:  Bates should be stronger in 2010 than they were in 2009.  They are only losing 1 starter (1 D) and 0% of total scoring.  With a reasonably decent freshman class, they should improve over 2009.

Almost  confused the following link with the UNC womens program... pretty brash compared to the understated NESCAC websites which just put up the '10 schedules!





http://www.vassarathletics.com/news/2010/4/30/WSOC_0430102244.aspx

Yes.  Someone on the soccerhead.com (CT premier soccer) discussion board had previusly pointed out this Vassar team page.  I would say that whoever is responsible for it (Vassar AD, SID and/or coach) are either coming from D1 (and not familiar with how things are done in D3) or are D1 wannabees.  Pretty inappropriate for a D3 team page IMHO.  What's particularly out of line is listing the colleges that the recruits supposedly rejected in favor of Vassar.  Very unusual even on D1 pages.  No way of knowing how interested the other schools actually were in the players or whether the player could have gotten into those schools.  In any event, taking this kind of public dig at the competition seems to violate the norms of how colleges (at least elite colleges) are supposed to behave toward one another.

Good grief,

It is called capitalism.  Vassar wants the Williams kid's money.  What am I missing here.  "Elite" colleges are competing for your money in tough times.  I am not sure if the references to other colleges are "digs" or just to point out that this kid had some other choices and chose Vassar, maybe because of the soccer opportunities.  Perhaps, "understated" isn't the way to go in the 21st century.

Having said this, I must admit I thought Vassar closed in 1968 and I pick Wesleyan to win the D-3 Championship this year!   

"Perhaps, 'understated' isn't the way to go in the 21st century."
Forunately some schools still have higher standards. (Sniffing with nose up in the air.) :P

"I pick Wesleyan to win the D-3 Championship this year!"
Clearly you have lost all touch with reality, 2faux!  :o

I appreciate high standards and I admire the elite academics and atheletics of all the NESCAC schools.  My Connecticut relatives disagree with me strongly when I suggest that elite can become effete in the blink of an eye.  That is why I have been exiled to Pennsylvania.

I checked with my wife and she agrees that I have lost touch with reality.  She claims that it dates back to the last Newport Folk Festival in July of 1969.  Who am I to argue.  Several years ago when we took our youngest daughter to Middletown and New London to look at schools I opted out of the side trip to Newport.  How long is the statute of limitations in Rhode Island?

So, if not Wesleyan, then ???

I look forward to the rest of your NESCAC analysis.

2xfaux

Bowdoin

2009 League Results: 4-5-0 (6); GF: 11 (5), GA: 12 (6), GD: -1 (6)
2008 League Results: 4-3-2 (4); GF: 15 (3), GA: 12 (5), GD: +3 (4)
2007 League Results: 6-3-0 (3); GF: 19 (3), GA: 12 (6), GD: +7 (3)
2006 League Results: 4-4-1 (6); GF: 21 (1), GA: 18 (8), GD: +3 (5)
2005 League Results: 6-3-0 (3); GF: 20 (2), GA: 10 (4), GD: +10 (2)

Bowdoin's league results, GF and GD have all declined significantly over the last 3 years.  GA has remained constant; the culprit has been GF.

The prediction for 2009 had been for both GF and GA to go up a bit since they were graduating only 4% of their scoring, but losing 1M and 2D starters.  However, that was assuming Rebecca Silva (who had been responsible for 16% of 2008 scoring) would be playing.  As it happened, Silva went to Germany to study for the fall and the offense experienced a moderate drop off.  Even though the defense stayed steady, the decline in offense resulted in Bowdoin falling to 6th place in the league table, their worst result ever. (Although to put that in context, 6th place was Wesleyan's best result ever.)

This year, Bowdoin will be losing only 2 players to graduation, both starters: midfielder (and first team all-NESCAC) Dana Riker and defender Larkin Brown.  Bowdoin will only be losing 15% of overall scoring, but the big bonus will be that Silva will be back.  The combination of few graduating seniors and getting Silva back should make Bowdoin a stronger team than in 2009.

Summary:  Bowdoin should be stronger in 2010 than they were in 2009.  They are only losing 2 starters (1 M and 1D) and 15% of total scoring, and will be getting Rebecca Silva back.

Becks - just want to say I'm glad your back and posting.  I really appreciate all your information.  Looking forward to fall!

Where has all the scoring gone?

Average goals per game in NESCAC league games:

2009    2.58
2008    2.82
2007    2.82
2006    3.19
2005    3.11
2004    2.80
2003    3.13
2002    3.58
2001    3.42
2000    3.33

Prior to 2007, there was only one year (2004) where goals per game was below 3.00. Starting with 2007, goals per game has been below 3.00 every year.

2009 was the lowest scoring year ever in NESCAC's short history of league play.

More parity, so fewer blowouts?  More defensive style of play?  Global warming?  I'm guessing it's the first.

The drop-off in overall scoring over the last 3 years has paralleled a dramatic power outage among upperclassmen.

In the last 3 years, only 1 of the 16 players (6%) who scored 4 or more goals in league play was a senior and only 5 of those 16 players (31%) were upperclassmen (junior or senior).  Contrast that with the prior 3 years, when 9 of the 27 players (33%) who scored 4 or more goals were seniors and 17 of those 27 players (63%) were upperclassmen.

Colby

2009 League Results: 2-6-1 (8); GF: 3 (9), GA: 14 (8), GD: -11 (8)
2008 League Results: 2-6-1 (8); GF: 2 (10), GA: 16 (8), GD: -14 (8)
2007 League Results: 0-7-2 (9); GF: 5 (9), GA: 19 (8), GD: -14 (8)
2006 League Results: 3-2-3 (5); GF: 10 (7), GA: 8 (3), GD: +2 (6)
2005 League Results: 3-2-4 (6); GF: 17 (3), GA: 11 (5), GD: +6 (6)

Colby, like its NESCAC neighbor Bates, has stuck near the bottom of the league for the last three years, after being more of a mid-table team in the prior couple of years.  GA has actually improved somewhat during the last 2 seasonss, but GF has only totaled 5 goals. Colby lost every game in 2008 and 2009 in which the other team scored.  That's too much pressure on the defense.

The prediction for 2009 had been for an improved team, since only 2 starters were graduating and they were losing no scoring.  However, a tough season was expected because they only had 3 home games. To their credit, Colby was able to achieve the same record as in 2008 and improved GF, GA and GD all slightly.  Most notably, they managed to beat Bowdoin for the first time ever.

This year, Colby will be losing 4 players to graduation, all starters: midfielder Meaghan Edwards, midfielder Meghan Gray, defender Lexi Bohonnon and defender Hannah Holbrook.  The good news is that the departing players only contributed 10% of Colby's goals last year, the bad news is that Colby survives on defense and will have some holes to fill in that area.  Like Bates, Colby needs to get more out of its next recruiting class, as only one 2009 freshmen started more than 5 games last year.

Summary:  Colby may be slightly weaker than last year, since they are losing a slightly larger than average number of starters.  The incoming freshmen class will need to produce a lot more than the 1 starter that the 2009 freshmen class produced if Colby is going to be a stronger team than last year.

Who got the biggest contribution last year from their freshmen class?

These stats could be a sign of who had good recruiting classes or maybe just which coaches are willing to start/play frosh and which aren't.

# of frosh who started at least ½ of the games; # of total games started by frosh; % of goals scored by frosh

Wesleyan – 4; 54; 57%
Amherst – 2; 38; 42%
Bowdoin – 2; 29; 19%
Trinity – 2; 19; 8%
Colby – 1; 19; 19%
Middlebury – 0; 15; 33%
Bates – 0; 14; 8%
Williams – 0; 8; 14%
Conn – 0; 9; 6%
Tufts – 0; 1; 0%

Clearly, Wesleyan had a good freshmen class and the coach was willing to start them. Wes' 4 frosh starters did not even include FOY Laura Kurash, who missed half the season with an injury.  Amherst also had some good freshmen who generated a lot of offense. Bowdoin frosh also started a fair number of games. The coaches in the rest of the league, however, only found one frosh among them that they were willing to start on a regular basis. Perhaps I was off base suggesting that Colby and Bates had weak frosh classes last year.  Maybe their coaches, like apparently the majority of the coaches in the league, just don't like starting frosh.  Middlebury and Tufts bear special mention.  The fact that the Middlebury frosh scored 33% of their goals suggests that they indeed included some good offensive talent.  Apparently, however, Coach Kim just doesn't like starting freshman.  The Tufts lineup was no doubt tough to crack for an incoming freshman, since all 2008 starters returned for 2009.  Still, only 1 start combined for all frosh and 0 goals?

Let's look at the freshman contribution from a slightly different angle.

Cumulative Post Season Appearances - Freshman 2009 NESCAC

Williams - 31
Midd - 27 with 7 starts, 4 goals, 1 assist and does not include stats from perhaps their best freshman who went down for the season after just 7 games.  Think Nathan from Amherst for a good comparison.
Amherst - at least 16
Tufts - 1
Wesleyan - ? - Becks you can fill in the ?
Bowdoin - ?
Colby - ?
Trinity - ?
Conn - 0
Bates - 0

How this experience (for the Williams 2009 freshman the gap will only grow over time) plays out down the road should be interesting.   Williams will graduate 9 this year, Midd 8 - after losing 8 last year.  Williams has 4 seniors in 2011 - Midd will only have 2.   
Enjoy the season !!!!   

Absolute numbers of post-season games played/started and post-season goals scored, shows post-season experience, which one could argue is of value to a team going forward.  But I don't think it really says much about relative contribution of frosh to their teams, since it is highly dependent on number of post-season games the teams played.

Rather looking at  just post-season games, it might be useful to look at frosh contributions in the last 4 meaningful games played by each team (eg, probably league games and post-season games; most non-league regular season games are relatively meaningless).  This would show which teams were getting contributions from their frosh at the end of their respective seasons.  Many coaches may not start frosh at the beginning of the season, but make them earn their starting postion, so comparing end of the season contribution would probably be more meaningful.  Also at lot more work to get those numbers than the season-long numbers, however, since you have to look at all the individual game reports rather than just looking at the season-long stats table.

Absolute numbers of post-season games played/started and post-season goals scored, shows post-season experience, which one could argue is of value to a team going forward.

Which one could argue ??

Try these numbers

Going into senior season - number of games played by Williams' rising juniors 59,51,59,56,50,57,55,59

and compare to same stats for Wesleyan rising juniors - 43,31,16,31,42

it is a tremendous cumulative advantage and why Williams continues to dominate - the saying goes that by the end of your freshman year you should be playing like a sophomore - Williams does it better than anyone.

I would agree that playing more games probably helps some.

# of total games played 1996-1996:

Williams -- 59
Amherst -- 53
Middlebury -- 52
Bowdoin -- 49
Tufts -- 48
Colby -- 44
Trinity -- 44
Wesleyan -- 43
Bates -- 42
Conn -- 42

So during that period, Williams players played 40% more games than Bates and Conn players and their playing and practice season probably lasted almost a month longer each year.  That is significant.

However, I would suggest that an additional 3-4 week of playing time probably doesn't matter as much as what the players do in the 36 weeks between the end of one season and the start of the next season.

It's my perception that, on average, female NESCAC players do not improve a lot over their 4 years.  Some definitely improve dramatically, but I think almost an equal number get worse.

In high school, most female players improve a lot over their 4 years because (i) they are still physically maturing and (ii) they are playing year-round at a high level.  In college, physical development is less (although most do get stronger, some put on extra weight) and, in D3 and particularly in NESCAC, off-season training is more inconsistent, less structured, and involves playing a lot fewer games.

On the other hand, I think more D3 men probably continue to improve due to greater improvement in physical maturity.  I also think D1 women players probably continue to improve because of more consistent and structured off-season training.

I'd be curious to see if their are marked differences in what the women at the different NESCAC schools do in the offseason.  Given NESCAC rules, however, that is probably a delicate subject to discuss on a public forum.

Re Williams' rising seniors -- In many ways, the 2011's have been Williams' golden class.   Started with 9 on the roster as frosh; 3 were regular starters as frosh (started more than 1/2 of the games); they started a total of 52 games as frosh, far more than any other Williams frosh class; 8 players remained from that class last year, 6 were starters; all 8 have been sufficiently injury free during the last couple of years to be able to play in almost every game.

Williams frosh regular starters and total games started by frosh from 2004-2009:
2004 - 1; 18
2005 - 2; 22
2006 - 2; 19
2007 - 3; 52
2008 - 1; 25
2009 - 0; 8

Williams was only a decent NESCAC team before the class of 2011 arrived in fall 2007.  In 2006, they were 4-2-2 in the league, finished in 4th, and lost in the first round of the NESCAC tournament.  Coincidence that Williams' great run started when the 2011's arrived and played tons as frosh?  Based on this, I'm willing to guess that Williams will be great again this year, but there is a good chance they will fall back to the pack next year.

Conn

2009 League Results: 0-9-0 (10); GF: 1 (10), GA: 32 (10), GD: -31 (10)
2008 League Results: 0-8-1 (10); GF: 5 (9), GA: 20 (9), GD: -15 (10)
2007 League Results: 2-6-1 (7); GF: 9 (6), GA: 27 (10), GD: -18 (9)
2006 League Results: 0-8-1 (9); GF: 10 (8), GA: 24 (9), GD: -14 (9)
2005 League Results: 2-7-0 (8); GF: 10 (9), GA: 24 (9), GD: -14 (9)

Conn has struggled for most of the last 5 years and hit rock bottom last year, when it set the NESCAC record for worst GF (replacing Colby's record of only 2 set in 2008), tied the NESCAC record for 2d worst GA (one short of the 33 allowed by Wes in 2003), and set the NESCAC record for worst GD (replacing Wes's record of –29 set in 2003).

The prediction for 2009 had been for a slightly improved team, since only 2 starters were graduating, and they were only losing 17% of scoring.  Instead both offense and defense went from bad to worse.

This year, Conn will be losing 7 players to graduation, including 6 starters: forwards Sharon Katz and Olivia Gerde, midfielders Erin Davey and Molly McRoskey, defender Jessica Roeder, and keeper Jenna Ross.  6 graduating starters ties Middlebury for most in the league this year and is a lot to replace. The good news is that 71% of the overall scoring remains.  Still, on balance, the loss of all those starters would lead one to expect that the team will be even weaker this year than last.  The only real reason to expect the team to do better this year is that it would be hard for it to do worse.  Conn probably needs a really good frosh class to improve significantly. I hate to say it, but looking at Conn's league record over the last 4 years (2-31-3 in league play), a shake-up in the form of a coaching change may be in order.

Summary:  Conn may be even weaker this year than last, since they are losing 6 starters to graduation.  Only the fact that, when you are on the floor, it is harder to go down than up, offers much hope for significant improvement.

I've been compariing how many games players start as freshman against how many games the same players start as seniors at different NESCAC schools and found some marked differences.  For example, at Middlebury the incoming players from 2004-2006 were, as a group, likely to start about 3 times as many games as seniors as they started as freshmen and, while only 1 or 2 would start as freshmen, most of the recruiting class would start as seniors.  On the other hand, at Wesleyan, the incoming players from 2004-2006 were, as a group, likely to start only about the same number of games as seniors as they started as freshmen and 2-4 would start as freshmen and the same number (and usually the same players) would start as seniors.

A couple of possible explanations:
1 - Differences in depth of talent within each recruiting class - Wes' typical recruiting class may have less depth of talent than Middlebury's.  Wes may only get 2-4 starter quality players a year, so they play right away and the other players in a recruiting class are never of the caliber to beat out later year's incoming top players.  Middlebury, on the other hand, may get 4-8 starter quality players every year.  This means that not all incoming starter quality players can starter as frosh and they must wait their turn.
2 - Differences in coaching style - The Wes coach may become enamored of a couple of players as freshmen, and give them starts right away and play them all the way through their years.  (But woe to a freshman who is not getting a lot of starts, because chances are it won't change much.)  The Middlebury coach on the other hand may play more of a seniority system -- the longer you're there the greater your chances of playing. (Of course, any differences in coaching style may be driven by the depth of talent -- if you only get a couple of starter-quality players a year, you need to play them right away and can't afford to wait.)
3 - Differences in development - Perhaps differences in in-season or off-season training allow Middlebury players to improve over their years (and thus allow non-starter frosh to improve and beat out later year incoming talent), while Wes players don't improve as much over the years and thus are more apt to get beaten out by incoming players.  (But, of course, the greater  disparity in talent within a given recruiting class, the more difficult it would be for a weaker player to improve enough to beat out incoming starter-quality players from later classes.)

Great posts, Becks!

Becks, regarding your last couple of posts... Conn Conn graduates 7 including their best player,  maybe now's the time to throw caution to the wind and play the frosh in 2010. Hope they had strong recruiting class.

From what I've noticed of womens D3 in general, there are impact players who start all four years. Then there are frosh who get into a minimum of 7-8 games, which mostly develop into starters or have significant roles later on. Most of the attrition is the with the kids who get into a couple of games, then are gone by junior year.

yes just blow Conn up and start anew - perhaps Conn can take a page out of the books of Amherst and Midd

2008 Amherst team loses 6 to graduation including 3 mid and 3 defenders - 2009 Amherst - 13-4-1, second place NESCAC, semi-final NESCAC tournament, second round of NCAA tournament - ranked no. 19

2008 Midd - loses 7 starters - including entire front line - 3 mid and 1 defender
2009 - Midd 14-4-2, NESCAC tournament final, 3rd round of NCAA tournament, ranked no. 11 - goes from scoring 18 goals in 2008 to 46 goals in 2009 - 6 all NESCAC players, 1 All-American

Tufts doesn't lose anybody and can only manage 4th place in the regular season and semi-final loss in NESCAC tournament

perhaps Becks is correct - most NESCAC players don't improve over their four years so the only way a team can progress is to turnover its roster   


For the Camels anything is possible !!!!!!

After looking at some of the data, I've started to doubt some of my original beliefs:

1 - Graduating a lot of starters is a bad thing; returning a lot of starters is a good thing - Per machine's examples, this is a gross generality at best.

2 - Having a lot of frosh start is a sign of a strong recruiting class - Differences between programs seem to be a big factor.

I'll keep plugging along anyway, pretending that this stuff is meaningful . . .

BTW, machine -- How did you get a -2 karma?  I'm not sure how it's determined, but I would guess a negative karma is a bad thing.

How many players are on the most NESCAC womens rosters? I have been checking out D3 programs in the northeast and many have as many as 28, that's a looong bench.

2009 roster sizes:

Bates - 26
Bowdoin - 26
Middlebury - 25
Colby - 24
Williams - 23
Amherst - 23
Conn - 23
Wesleyan - 22
Trinity - 21
Tufts - 21

Which indisputably proves that northern latitudes cause larger roster sizes. ;D ???

Thank goodness after 10 PM on a Friday even NESCAC folks have spelling issues.   ;D.

Think I fixed it.  In defense of NESCAC, I'm only a NESCAC person by relation.  :-\

Middlebury

2009 League Results: 7-2-0 (3); GF: 18 (2), GA: 9 (5), GD: +9 (3)
2008 League Results: 6-3-0 (3); GF: 14 (4), GA: 8 (2), GD: +6 (3)
2007 League Results: 4-4-1 (6); GF: 22 (2), GA: 15 (7), GD: +7 (3)
2006 League Results: 6-2-1 (3); GF: 17 (3), GA: 7 (1), GD: +10 (2)
2005 League Results: 4-3-2 (6); GF: 11 (6), GA: 13 (7), GD: -2 (7)

Middlebury's final league standings have been a bit up and down over the last 5 years, but it's GD has been a sold +6 to +10 for the past 4 years.

The prediction for 2009 had been for a slight decline in performance since the team was losing a slightly higher-than-average number of starters (4), including the 2d highest percentage of league goals and 2 starting defenders. Instead, Middlebury had a slight improvement in GF and GD and league results.

This year, Middlebury is losing 8 players to graduation, including 6 starters: forwards Paola Cabonargi and Margaret Owen (NESCAC 2d team), midfielder Lindsay Walker (NESCAC 2d team), and defenders Jenny Galgano (NESCAC 2d team), Anjuli Demers (NESCAC 1st team) and Valerie Christy. The graduating players contributed 33% of the team's scoring (2d highest for all teams). Even though Middlebury tends to bring along players a little more slowly than other teams, have more senior starters than most other NESCAC teams, and thus regularly graduate more starters than most NESCAC teams, that's a lot of talent to lose.  In fact, the stats suggest that the class of 2010 may have been Middlebury's deepest recruiting class in the last 6 years: They had more than double the starts as frosh as any other class in that time period.

Number of Mid frosh starters/total starts by Mid frosh:
Class of 2008: 1/14
Class of 2009: start stats no available
Class of 2010: 2/39
Class of 2011: 1/15
Class of 2012: 0/2
Class of 2013: 0/15

As a result, I think Middlebury did, in fact, lose a particularly strong class and so will more-likely-than-not be somewhat weaker this coming season.

Summary:  Middlebury will probably be somewhat weaker this year than last, since they graduated perhaps their deepest class in the last 6 years (and 6 starters and 33% of scoring) to graduation.  

Becks, you are not only a great fan, the premier analyst of the NESCAC but you are also indesputably a good sport as well. :)  I wonder if the big turn over at Middlebury will change their style of play.  I remember all the fouls from last year.  I will be curious to see what happens this year.

Trinity

2009 League Results: 3-3-3 (4); GF: 10 (6), GA: 8 (4), GD: +2 (5)
2008 League Results: 4-5-0 (6); GF: 12 (6), GA: 13 (6), GD: -1 (6)
2007 League Results: 5-3-1 (5); GF: 6 (8), GA: 5 (2), GD: +1 (6)
2006 League Results: 0-8-1 (9); GF: 7 (10), GA: 24 (9), GD: -17 (10)
2005 League Results: 1-8-0 (10); GF: 8 (9), GA: 27 (10), GD: -19 (10)

Trinity's last 3 years were a dramatic improvement over the prior 2.  A moderate improvement in GF was coupled with a dramatic improvement in GA.  The 16-goal improvement in GA from 2006 to 2007 was probably the best defensive improvement in league history.

The prediction for 2009 had been for no significant change in team strength from 2008, with perhaps an improvement in O but a drop off in D.  Instead, the O slipped a little but the D tightened up substantially, allowing Trinity to move up one spot in the final league standings.

This year, Trinity is losing only 3 players to graduation and only 2 starters: midfielder Lauren Olsen and defender Caitlin Prendergast. Two starters and 16% of scoring should not be difficult to replace. So as long as their leading goal scorer Howard (40% of team goals) stays healthy, Trinity should be stronger in 2010 than they were in 2009.

Summary:  Trinity should be somewhat stronger this year than last, since they are only losing 2 starters to graduation.

Certainly not up to Beck's standards...just wondering about home and away games.

The big threee (Amherst, Midd, Williams) have an interesting Home/Away schedule that may impact the standings this year.

Amherst - 8 home/6 away (Nescac 4 home/5 away).  Tough away matches at Williams and Midd
Midd - 6 home/8 away (nescac 4 home/5 away).  Away at Williams, home at Amherst.
Williams - 5 home/9 away (nescac 4 home/5 away). Home to Midd and Amherst.

I'd have to say this seems to make life tough on Amherst.

Good point, onetouch.  Schedule is tough on Amherst and favors (cue up Darth Vadar theme) Williams.

Tufts

2009 League Results: 4-4-1 (4); GF: 12 (4), GA: 6 (3), GD: +6 (4)
2008 League Results: 5-4-0 (4); GF: 13 (5), GA: 10 (4), GD: +3 (4)
2007 League Results: 7-2-0 (2); GF: 14 (4), GA: 7 (4), GD: +7 (3)
2006 League Results: 6-1-2 (2); GF: 16 (4), GA: 9 (5), GD: +7 (4)
2005 League Results: 6-2-1 (1); GF: 15 (5), GA: 7 (1), GD: +8 (3)

Tufts has been consistently a top 4 team over the last 5 years.  However, their place in the final standings has slipped a bit in the past 2 years, despite the fact that their GF, GA and GD ranking has remained relatively steady.

The prediction for 2009 had been for a significantly improved team, since they graduated only 1 senior and no starters, Cadigan would be back from her 2008-season-ending acl, and they were unlikely to suffer the same keeper injury problems that troubled them in 2008.  While their defense did improve to a very impressive 6 goals, their offense slipped a bit and their league record ended up essentially the same as in 2008.  All-in-all, Tufts' 2009 season was a disappointment and stands as suggestive evidence that NESCAC players do not improve significantly from year to year and that therefore NESCAC team improvement comes most often from having incoming players that are better than departing or returning players.  Tufts got essentially no boost from its incoming players last year.  There were only 3 frosh on the roster, they played in a total of only 17 games, had 1 start amongst them, and had 0 pts.

This year, Tufts is losing 6 players to graduation, including 5 starters: forwards Whitney Hardy and Cara Cadigan, midfielders Ali Maxwell and Fanna Gamal (NESCAC 1st team), and keeper Kate Minnehan.  Five starter slots is a lot to fill.  Worse still, the departing players represented a whopping 64% of team scoring.  Hard to tell from the stats, but some of the starter slots may get filled by players who were injured last year (the 3 frosh and some of the older players (eg, Rowse) had numbers suggesting they might have been injured).  However, the team will probably need a very good incoming class to prevent a decline from 2009.

Summary:  Tufts should be somewhat weaker than last year, since they graduated 5 starters and a league-high 64% of scoring.

"However, I would suggest that an additional 3-4 week of playing time probably doesn't matter as much as what the players do in the 36 weeks between the end of one season and the start of the next season."

"It's my perception that, on average, female NESCAC players do not improve a lot over their 4 years.  Some definitely improve dramatically, but I think almost an equal number get worse."

Becks, Maybe NESCAC players, indeed most d3 players, regardless of team, make similar progress throughout their four college years. College isn't really about individual development, just results?

Regarding out of season play, do many d3 players rejoin their club or WPSL team in late Spring and summer?

Re rejoining club or WPSL in late spring and summer -- I am aware of 3 Wes girls who played at least some WPSL games this summer, and there may have been others that played WPSL or club, but I would guess that most did not.  I suspect the situation is similar at other D3 schools. I heard that at least some D1 schools supposedly require their players to play D1 in the summer.  However, the fact that there are a lot more D1 teams than WPSL teams suggests that many D1 players do not play WPSL.

Wesleyan

2009 League Results: 4-5-0 (6); GF: 9 (7), GA: 12 (6), GD: -3 (7)
2008 League Results: 3-5-1 (7); GF: 7 (7), GA: 15 (7), GD: -8 (7)
2007 League Results: 2-6-1 (7); GF: 8 (7), GA: 11 (5), GD: -3 (7)
2006 League Results: 3-6-0 (8); GF: 9 (9), GA: 16 (6), GD: -7 (8)
2005 League Results: 2-6-2 (8); GF: 7 (10), GA: 21 (8), GD: -14 (9)

Wesleyan's league record has gradually improved over the last 5 years, although last year's GD was identical to that of the hard-luck team of 2007 which lost each of its 6 league losses by 1 goal.

The prediction for 2009 had been for a slight drop off in performance, as the team was losing 3 starters, 43% of league scoring and 24% of overall scoring.  Instead GF went up slightly, GA went down slightly and the team finished with its best league record and highest placement in NESCAC's 10 year history (which just shows how bad Wesleyan was for much of the last decade).  Much of the improvement can be attributed to a strong frosh class that contributed 4 starters, 54 combined starts (more than any other class) and 57% of team goals.  And that was with NESCAC rookie of the year, Laura Kurash missing half the season with an injury.

This year, Wesleyan will be losing 4 players to graduation, including 3 starters: midfielders Taylor Stevenson (NESCAC 2d team) and Beth Kenworthy and defender Alisha Neptune.  The good news for Wes is that the departing players only contributed 11% of team scoring.  The bad news is that Wes has to replace both starting center-mids.  Overall, based on number and quality of the players Wes is losing, the team show be roughly the same strength as in 2009.

Summary:  Wes should be about the same strength as last year, since they are losing an average number of players.  The fact that they won't be losing much scoring is offset by the need to replace both center mids.

Williams

2009 League Results: 9-0-0 (1); GF: 28 (1), GA: 2 (1), GD: +26 (1)
2008 League Results: 8-0-1 (1); GF: 19 (2), GA: 4 (1), GD: +15 (2)
2007 League Results: 9-0-0 (1); GF: 26 (1), GA: 2 (1), GD: +24 (1)
2006 League Results: 4-2-2 (4); GF: 16 (4), GA: 8 (3), GD: +8 (3)
2005 League Results: 5-3-1 (4); GF: 11 (6), GA: 8 (2), GD: +3 (6)

Williams went from a relatively middle of the pack team in the 2005 and 2006 seasons to having 3 of the best seasons ever in the last 3 seasons.

The prediction for 2009 had been for a strong season and #1 finish, as the team was losing only a moderate portion of their talent and had plenty coming back. In fact, Williams put together the best NESCAC season ever, breaking the GA and GD records that they set in their 2007 season.  Not a lot of it due to the frosh, however, as they contributed 0 starters, 8 starts, and 14% of scoring.

This year, Williams will be losing 4 players to graduation, including 2 starters (midfielders Brianna Wolfson (NESCAC POY) and Lauren Sinnenberg (NESCAC 2d team), as well as super sub Sarah Walmsley (NESCAC 2d team).  Williams returns plenty of talent, however, including 80% of their scoring.  Overall, based on number and quality of the players Williams is returning, the team should be as good this year as last.

Summary:  Williams should be just as strong this year as last, since they are losing only 2 starters and 20% of scoring.

2010 Preseason Power Rankings:

Putting all the preseason team analysis together, I'm going to guestimate how 2010 team GD's will change over last year, based largely on how many starters they are losing and how much of their offense.

Bates +4 (1, 0%)
Bowdoin +4 (2, 15%, + getting Silva back)
Amherst + 2 (2, 16%)
Trinity + 2 (2, 16%)
Williams +2 (2, 20%)
Wesleyan 0 (3, 11%)
Colby -2 (4, 10%)
Conn -4 (6, 29%)
Middlebury -4 (6, 33%)
Tufts -4 (5, 64%)

Now, adding those numbers to last year's GD, I get my preseason power rankings.  Note that this is not a prediction of final league standings because it does not take into account game schedules (eg, home field advantage/disadvantage in close games).

1.  Williams +26 + 2 = +28
2.  Amherst +14 + 2 = +16
3.  Middlebury +9 - 4 = +5
4.  Trinity +2 + 2 = +4
5.  Bowdoin -1 + 4 = +3
6.  Tufts +6 -4 = +2
7.  Wesleyan -3 + 0 = -3
8.  Bates -11 + 4 = -7
9.  Colby -11 - 2 = -13
10.  Conn -31 - 4 = -35

The rankings suggest that Williams will remain clearly the stongest team in the division with Amherst clearly #2.  There is then a big drop down to #3 (suggesting maybe only 2 NCAA picks this year).  #3-6 (Middlebury, Trinity, Bowdoin, Tufts) are all very close -- any game between them would be a toss-up, with home field advantage being important.

Now for a total leap into fantasy, based on the power rankings (more precisely, predicted per game GDs) and figuring in home field advantage (home v away is worth about a 1 goal swing), here are the predicted 2010 league final league standings and records.

1. Williams 9-0-0
@ Wes - W
@ Conn - W
v. Colby - W
v. Amherst - W
@ Bates - W
@ Trinity - W
v. Bowdoin - W
@ Tufts - W
v. Middlebury - W

2. Amherst 8-1-0
@ Bowdoin - W
@ Bates - W
v. Tufts - W
v. Conn - W
@ Williams - L
@ Middlebury - W (close)
v. Colby - W
@ Welseyan - W
v. Trinity - W

3. Middlebury 5-2-2
@ Tufts - T
v. Trinity - W (close)
v. Bowdoin - W (close)
@ Colby - W
v. Amherst - L (close)
@ Conn - W
@ Wesleyan - T
v. Bates - W
@ Williams - L

4 (Tie). Bowdoin 4-3-2
v. Amherst - L
@ Bates - W (close)
@ Colby - W
@ Middlebury - L (close)
v. Conn - W
v. Wesleyan - W
@ Williams - L
v. Trinity - T
v. Tufts - T

4 (Tie). Trinity 4-3-2
v. Colby - W
@ Middlebury - L (close)
v. Bates - W
@ Wesleyan - T
@ Conn - W
v. Williams - L
v. Tufts - W (close)
@ Bowdoin - T
@ Amherst - L

4 (Tie). Tufts 4-3-2
v. Middlebury - T
@ Amherst - L
v. Wesleyan - W
v. Bates - W
@ Colby - W
@ Trinity - L (close)
@ Conn - W
v. Williams - L
v. Bowdoin - T

7. Wesleyan 2-4-3
v. Williams - L
@ Colby - W (close)
@ Tufts - L
v. Trinity - T
@ Bowdoin - L
@ Bates - T
v. Middlebury - T
v. Amherst - L
v. Conn - W

8. Bates 1-6-2
@ Conn - W
v. Amherst - L
v. Bowdoin - L (close)
@ Trinity - L
@ Tufts - L
v. Williams - L
v. Wesleyan - T
@ Middlebury - L
@ Colby - T

9. Colby 1-7-1
@ Trinity - L
v. Wesleyan - L (close)
v. Bowdoin - L
@ Williams - L
v. Middlebury - L
v. Tufts - L
@ Amherst - L
v. Conn - W
v. Bates - T

10. Conn 0-9-0
v. Bates - L
v. Williams - L
@ Amherst - L
@ Bowdoin - L
v. Trinity - L
v. Middlebury - L
v. Tufts - L
@ Colby - L
@ Wesleyan - L

Of course lots of this will not happen:  incoming frosh, injuries, team chemistry, player improvements/fall-offs, lucky/bad bounces, bad calls, weather, etc. will all make a huge difference.

Wesleyan coach preseason interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYAM9hFAHDE

Couldn't find any on youtube for the other schools.

Riddle me this - Midd lost 8 seniors to graduation - or did they - currently the roster has 6 rising juniors but the Midd opening day 2010 roster will have 8 seniors - those additions combined with the return of two potential 2010 starters who were lost for the season after eight games last season (including perhaps their top freshman)   could make for an interesting season - however Midd must get through a brutal first week of the season - 5 games in 8 days including Tufts, Trinity and two 2009 NCAA teams in Wheaton and Skidmore - key will be how quickly the new back line comes together- having the best goalie in the league will certainly help (although the Colby goalie is quite good ) 

Re Midd 2010 having 8 seniors -- Are the 2 "additions" transfers (would be kind of odd to transfer in for just senior year), juniors from last year who did not play varsity (perhaps G C-Z but who else?), 5th year seniors?

Re Midd having best keeper -- Midd keeper was last year's NESCAC 1st team keeper.  But based on last year's league stats, I'd have to rank at least William's Julia Schreiber (best goals against average and best save percentage), Trinity's Lily Pepper (3d best goals against average and 2d best saves percentage) and Amherst's Allie Horwitz (2d best goals against average and 3d best saves percentage) ahead of the Midd keeper among returning keepers.  The Midd keeper tied for most shutouts, but only ranked 6th in goals against average and her save percentage was not even in the top 10.  She faced one of the fewest (or fewest) number of  shots on goal (based on saves per game), suggesting that her shutouts and good goals against average were largely due to having a good D that prevented shots on goal.  (Of course it's possible that the Midd home stats keeper was just more conservative on calling something a shot on goal, which would skew the saves per game and saves percentage stats against the Midd keeper. That's one problem with stats -- only as good as the data. :-\)

Hey Becks -- great posts...very informative.

Looking at the home/away schedule for all teams...it would seem the Ephs have the most onerous early schedule challenge as well as the toughest non-conference opponents during that period.

Viewpoint: i) Their first 6 games are on the road; and ii) In that period they play 3 historically difficult non-conference teams...WestConn, William Smith-2009 NCAA 2nd Round with 10/11 starters returning and Oneonta State-2009 NCAA 2nd Round with 9/11 starters returning.

I've not found a team in the NESCAC women's soccer history books that are starting a season in this manner.  What a way to challenge and prepare a team for the post-season! We'll learn alot about them fairly early on.

I'll be interested to see how WesConn is this year.  In year's past, they have been a good team and highly ranked but seem to have slipped a bit in the past couple of years.

Agree WestConn should be an interesting team...after appearing in the NCAA tournament in 2005 and 2006, they went to the Final Four in 2007 then followed-up with a 2nd round appearance in 2008.

They suffered a bit to graduation last year as they had 11 Frosh on the 2009 team that finished 10-10-1...clearly an off year for them and apparently a rebuilding one.

The Amherst season preview is now posted on the college website.  There are nine new players coming in that has captured the notice of national recruiting Div 3 rating groups.  It is preseason and a time to be hopeful.

"national recruiting Div 3 rating groups"

Are there such things? Could you share a link or group name? I've only seen recruiting ratings for D1 (eg those done by the belated soccerbuzz website).

By "national recruiting Div 3 rating groups", I think he means "parents".   ;D

To clarify my previous post.  For women's div3 soccer  there is not clearcut recruiting rating service on line that I can find. My posting wrt soccer was in error by an poster that is getting senile...me.  Background:  In my reading of all the Fall Amherst teams' previews that appeared on 8/31/10, I confused the rating service for tennis with soccer.   During my reading of the women's tennis team, there was a pointer to a rating of recruiting class by schools for Div3.  I went to the pointed site and my computer crashed before I could read it fully.  When I went to the Amherst website again there was no reference to the recruiting site in all the write-ups.  I tried to find it on my own and could not.  I went to the Amherst SID and asked for help.  He pointed out that there was a reference to the first year players by a tennis rating site.  He had to remove the site in the write-up by request from the coach.  

This rule change should favor offensive teams, and I imagine will make teams more aggressive in general / less content to play for a tie:

http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2010-11/news/Standings_090210

Here's my post from last year on the 2-1-0 v 3-1-0 topic:

The 2-1-0 systems was the original system.  The 3-1-0 system was apparently adopted in England in 1981 to try to encourage teams to go for a win instead of playing for a tie, in order to make games more entertaining for spectators.  The 3-1-0 system did not become commonplace worldwide until after it was for the World Cup in 1994 and was not adopted by MLS until 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_points_for_a_win

Personally, I think the 2-1-0 system does a much better job of ranking teams based on their relative strengths.  It seems pretty obvious that a tie is halfway between a win and a loss, and it is odd to not treat it as such. I would say that a team that ties all of its games is better than a team that loses 2/3ds of its games, but with a 3-1-0 system they are viewed as the same.

The inequity of a 3-1-0 system really comes up when teams play unequal numbers of games and you have to use winning percentage rather than points to rank teams.  For example, with a 3-1-0 system, Team A that goes 4-6-0 would be ranked above Team B that goes 4-6-1, when common sense would suggest that a tie would be a better-than-average result for Team A.  Perhaps for this reason, when comparing teams that play an unequal number of games and winning percentages are used, the 2-1-0 system is generally still used.  From what I can tell, the NCAA still uses 2-1-0 in determining winning percentages when calculating the RPIs that are used to selected teams for the tournament.  Also note that even leagues that use a 3-1-0 pts system, still seem to use 2-1-0 in calculating the winning percentages in the league tables (which seems kind of odd).  See, eg, the Big East table, where UConn is 5-5-1, 16 pts, but a .500 win percentage (with a 3-1-0 system, it would have a .485 winning percentage).

Note that NESCAC ranks by winning percentage rather than points. One reason may be that the league does not seem to require that teams play their full schedule if, because of bad weather or other problems, it would be difficult to do so.  Thus some teams may end up playing a different number of games than others.  This happened back in 2006, when the last league games of the season were scheduled for the day before the first day of the league playoffs (bad idea). There was heavy rain on Saturday and 2 of the games (Williams-Amherst and Colby-Bates) were cancelled. That meant Bowdoin finished 4-4-1 and Bates finished 4-4-0.  In a 3-1-0 system, Bates would have been the 6th seed and Bowdoin the 7th seed.  However, since the 2-1-0 system was used, they both finished with a 500 winning percentage, which meant that Bowdoin was seeded 6th and Bates 7th as a result of Bowdoin's head to head win over Bates. (Turned out not to help Bowdoin, however, as they lost to Middlebury in the 1st round, while Bates upset Tufts.)

According to the Wiki article on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_points_for_a_win (amazing what people write wiki articles about), the evidence is less than pursuasive that going to 3-1-0 has any effect on play:

"The number of matches finishing in a draw has not been affected in England by the change to three-points-for-a-win."

I think the rule change will have little (if any) effect on how NESCAC teams play.  Under both systems, the team that thinks it is better is going to keep pushing for the win and will not be happy with a tie, and the team that thinks it is weaker is going to play defensively, try to hold on, hope for a goal off of a quick counterattack (but without risking pushing too many players forward), but be willing to settle for the tie.  Even if a team were inclined to and able to adjust their play based on the scoring system, a top NESCAC team is still not going to change the way it plays, since NCAA selections are still based on 2-1-0.

Per my prior post, I personally think the 3-1-0 is a less equitable scoring system than the 2-1-0. (Is a team that beats team A and loses to team B really better than a team that ties both team A and team B? Should be ranked the same in my book.)  As the NESCAC release indicates, the change is just about conforming to the scoring system that most other soccer leagues use.  Chock one up for conformity.

Predictions for Sat, Sept 11 – Sun, Sept 12 games:

The season gets off to a fast start with Amherst, Bates, Williams and Conn all playing back-to-back league games on Saturday and Sunday, and Middlebury playing a home game on Saturday followed by a tough road game at Wheaton on Sunday.

Sat, Sept 11

Colby @ Trinity – Preseason power ranking #9 @ #4.  Last year, Colby and Trinity tied 0-0 at Colby.  This year, Trinity should be a bit better and Colby a bit worse, plus game is at Trinity.  Predicted result:  Trinity 2-0 Colby.

Bates @ Conn – Preseason power ranking #8 @ #10.  Last year, Bates beat Conn 3-1 at Bates.  This year, Bates should be better and Conn worse, but game is at Conn.  A big first game for both teams for making it to the NESCAC tournament.  Predicted result:  Bates 3-1 Conn.

Amherst @ Bowdoin – Preseason power ranking #2 @ #5 – Last year, Amherst beat Bowdoin 3-0 at Amherst.  This year, Amherst should be a bit better but Bowdoin may have improved more.  Plus game is at Bowdoin.  Should be a competitive game, but I expect Amherst to pull it out.  Predicted result:  Amherst 2-1 Bowdoin.

Williams @ Wesleyan – Preseason power ranking #1 @ #7.  Last year, Williams beat Wesleyan 5-0 at Williams.  This year, Williams should be a bit better and Wesleyan about the same, but game is at Wesleyan.  In recent years, Williams has come out of the gates firing.  In 2009, Williams scored 3 or more in each of their first 8 games and let in only 1 goal.  Predicted result:  Williams 3-0 Wesleyan.

Middlebury @ Tufts – Preseason power ranking #3 @ #6.  Last year, Middlebury beat Tufts 2-1 at Middlebury.  This year, both Middlebury and Tufts should be weaker but the game is at Tufts.  Should be a good competitive game.  Predicted result: Middlebury 1-1 Tufts.

Sun, Sept 13

Amherst @ Bates – Preseason power ranking #2 @ #8.  Last year, Amherst beat Bates 2-0 at Amherst.  This year, Amherst should be a bit better but Bates may have improved more.  Plus game is at Bates.  Both teams are playing back-to-back games:  Amherst two in a row on the road in Maine and Bates away at Conn and then home.  If Amherst is overnighting in Maine, they have the easier travel for the Sunday game but Bates still has the home advantage.  Predicted result:  Amherst 2-0 Bates.

Williams @ Conn – Preseason power ranking #1 @ #10.  Last year, Williams beat Conn 5-0 at Williams.  This year, Williams should be a bit better and Conn worse.  But game is at Conn. Williams is playing back-to-back away games in Connecticut, while Conn is playing back-to-back home games.  I think both teams may have a hard time getting up for this one.  Predicted Result:  Williams 3-0 Conn.

Middlebury @ Wheaton – A big game for early season regional rankings.  Last year, Middlebury beat Wheaton 2-1 at Middlebury.  Box score indicated a very even game with few shots by either team.  This year, Middlebury lost 6 starters, while Wheaton lost only 2.  Plus game is at Wheaton, and Wheaton will have already played 4 games to Middlebury's 1.  Predicted result: Wheaton 2-1 Middlebury.

Becks,
your writeups/assessements/predictions have been most informative.  Your top dog selection has its 2010 preview on the Williams website as of today.

Bowdoin's updated 2010 roster shows some interesting changes from their preliminary 2010 roster that I based by pre-season evaluation on:

Two 2009 starters who would be juniors this year are not on the roster.  That means Bowdoin has lost 4 starters rather than 2.  In addition, Silva is not listed.  Together, that changes my expected change in GD from last year from +4 to -2 and, pending review of the final 2010 rosters for other teams, drops them from #5 in the preseason power rankings to a tie with Wesleyan at #7.

Middlebury's 2010 roster shows, per machine's comment, that 2 players have returned as seniors who were starters in 2008 but did not play in 2009 (Gabriella Curbelo-Zeidman and Nora Tomlinson-Weintraub).  (Apparently Coach Kim rescinded his one-year ban on players with multicultural, hyphenated last names. ;)) Obviously a plus for Middlebury, but hard to tell whether they should be treated as returning starters after a year off.  I'll give them half credit, which changes my expected change in GD from last year for Middlebury from -4 to -3 but does not change their #3 ranking in the preseason power rankings.

Conn Coll  posted their 2010 roster, 24 players...11 frosh... Becks you'll just have to dig deeper and find out HS and Club performances so you can establish who are the impact rookies amongst  the NESCAC programs!

QuoteBecks you'll just have to dig deeper and find out HS and Club performances so you can establish who are the impact rookies amongst  the NESCAC programs!

Thanks for the suggestion, pcc!  :P  Actually I'd be tempted to do it if all the schools listed their frosh recruits earlier in the summer.  Not enough time now with the games starting, and in a few days we'll start to get an idea who the impact players are from actual game performance anyway.

Folks, enjoy the season, and glad to see the board is active, and Becks you are still providing valuable and fun posts!

Becks,

If you were really tempted to do that analysis on the potential impact of First Years before Saturday, perhaps you could start with Amherst and Williams. 

They are the only programs to identify player club teams which may yield higher quality perspective than the high school affiliations. And only 14 frosh between them.

QuoteIf you were really tempted

I think I'll pass, but feel free to jump in.  ;D

No temptations here...thanks. 

Hey, I know Becks is the maestro, but I spotted this nice preview of Wes in my hometown paper...

to the Press

MIDDLETOWN — After posting a solid 8-6-1 mark in 2009, a season which included a best-ever 4-5 record vs. NESCAC foes, Wesleyan women's soccer has 16 of the 22 players who saw action a year ago back for the 2010 season.

Led by co-captains Cora Lautze and Kaitlin Ashley, this experienced squad will be looking to reach the coveted 10-win plateau for the first time since 1994. In that year, Wesleyan posted a program-best 12-4-1 record.

Wesleyan had a lot to be proud of on the women's soccer pitch in 2009 as the Cards set a school record for shutouts in a season with seven.

Wesleyan held four other opponents to a lone goal as the team's goals-against average for the year was an outstanding 0.98.

Wesleyan outscored its opponents by a 28-15 margin. It was the first time since '94 that the Cards put more balls in the back of the net than its rivals and the goal-against mark also was a standard over the last 15 years.

Among the Cardinals' top returnees is NESCAC Rookie of the Year and second-team all-NESCAC choice Laura Kurash.

Despite playing just eight games in 2009 due to illness, Kurash led the squad in scoring with six goals and three assists for 15 points.

She established a school record for points in a game with 10 (four goals, two assists) in a 7-0 win at Smith. Also among the team's top scorers back from a year ago are Dasha Battelle (5-4-14), Kat Ellis-Ferrara (6-1-13) and Kaylin Berger (2-3-7).

Back after starting all 15 games a year ago are Lautze, Anna Crystal, Emma Nitzberg and Jen Brewer.

Mikaela Curtin started eight of 15 contests a year ago while others who saw action consistently in the field include Hannah Stuckey, Maddy Harrington, Hillary Biggs, and Gemma Doll-Grossman.

The Cardinals have both goalies back who handled all the team's minutes in 2009. Clare Colton started all seven games she played before being sidelined by injury.

Kate Connolly-Smithwick, who played in five of the opening seven games, started the final eight contests. Both had solid numbers as Colton went 3-2 with a 0.89 GAA and .778 save percentage. Connolly-Smithwick was 5-4-1 behind a 1.02 GAA and .880 save percentage.

Wesleyan also welcomes 10 newcomers to the squad. With six freshmen contributing so diligently to the Cardinals' fortunes in 2009, similar support is expected from the new batch of players in 2010.

Wesleyan has the enviable task of opening the year at home Saturday against Little Three rival Williams.

The Ephs, who captured the NESCAC tournament title last season, lost just one game in 2009, that in the NCAA Division III tournament sectional semi-finals. Williams handed the Cardinals a 5-0 setback in 2009 and have gone undefeated vs. Wesleyan the last 27 contests (26-0-1).

Twelve of those 26 defeats vs. Williams have come by just one goal, most recently in 2007, the last time the teams met in Middletown

The Tufts Daily's season preview is now up at http://www.tuftsdaily.com/sports/women-s-soccer-season-preview-aspirations-high-for-nescac-championship-1.2323521.

The Jumbos brought in 10 freshmen, several of whom are expected to start, including in goal.

Becks was wrong abot the Wes score today! He must be happy!

Quote from: pcc on September 11, 2010, 05:15:28 PM
Becks was wrong abot the Wes score today! He must be happy!

I'm sure he is: Wesleyan played very well today.

  ;D

Great job by Wesleyan.  This shakes things up in NESCAC.  How do you think Williams responds to what must have been a shock to the Ephs.

Comments on Sat, Sept 11 games:

Trinity 0-0 Colby
- Prediction: Trinity 2-0 Colby
- Stats indicate that Trinity should have won 2-1.  Trinity-Colby stats: shots 25-14, shots on goal 18-10, corners (one stat that Colby dominated) 1-8.
- Missing expected starters:  Trinity: Heather Lynn (D); Colby: Julie Denison (F).
- Frosh starters/scorers: Trinity: none (only 1 frosh played as sub); Colby: None (although 3 frosh played as subs and 2 frosh (Alex Yorke and Julie Blumenstyk) tied for most shots on the team).

Bates 1-0 Conn
– Prediction: Bates 3-1 Conn
- Stats indicate a close game and reflect the score.  Bate-Conn stats: shots 12-7, shots on goal 8-3, corners 4-4.
- Missing expected starters: Bates: Kim Suvak (D)(not on roster), Jacqui Easton (D); Conn: none.
- Frosh starters/scorers: Bates: Annie Burns (Goalie), Julia Rafferty (D), Jaimie Cappucci (F) (3 other frosh played as subs); Conn: Julia Byrne (M) (3 other frosh played as subs)

Amherst 2-1 Bowdoin
– Prediction Amherst 2-1 Bowdoin (nailed it)
- Stats indicate that Bowdoin created more opportunities and should have perhaps won 2-1. Amherst-Bowdoin stats: shots: 11-21; shots on goal: 9-13; corners 6-5.
- Missing expected starters: Amherst: Hannah Cooper (F) (#2 returning scorer), Emily Little (D) (#3 returning scorer), Kyla Woodhouse (F) (#5 returning scorer), Jess Wall (M); Bowdoin: Katharine Farrar (D), Rebecca Silva (M/F)(not on roster)
- Frosh starters/scorers: Amherst: Kate Sisk (M), Amanda Brisco (F)(scored off the bench), Sarah Duffy (F/M); Shannon Usher (D) (3 other frosh played as subs); Bowdoin: Molly Popolizio (M), Caroline Logan (D), Becky Stoneman (D/M) (3 more frosh played as subs)

Williams 2-2 Wesleyan
- Prediction: Williams 3-0 Wesleyan
- Stats indicate that Williams should have won 2-1 or 2-0. Williams-Wesleyan stats: shots: 22-8; shots on goal 12-6; corners: 6-0.

Tufts 3-0 Middlebury
- Prediction: Tufts 1-1 Middlebury
- Stats indicate a much closer game than the score.  Tufts-Williams stats: shots: 11-10; shots on goal: 7-3; corners: 3-6.

QuoteHow do you think Williams responds to what must have been a shock to the Ephs.

Can't tell too much from one game, but Williams did not look convincing as a team that was going to dominate the league.  I'll be interested to see how they do today against Conn.  Victory should not be an issue, but do they respond with a dominating performance to show that the tie against Wes was a fluke?

Based on the results of their first two games, I think Amherst is struggling without 4 expected starters (including 3 of their 5 top returning scorers) in the lineup.  Early season injury problems?

Quote from: 2xfaux on September 12, 2010, 10:18:44 AM
Great job by Wesleyan.  This shakes things up in NESCAC.  How do you think Williams responds to what must have been a shock to the Ephs.

Seems like everyone including Williams is suffering from early days and not enough time yet on the practice field together.

Having said that, Wes took it to Williams and played their best game against the Ephs in recent memory. The Wes star could be rising...unfortunately teams like Salve will not be an appropriate test for them.

While it is very early, we may be seeing that things with Williams will be more competitive.  The good news is that Williams is still strong and several other teams (Amherst, Mid, Tufts, and now WES) have improved.  The result of the past few years of Williams dominance is that other teams have raised their games.  Great news for the fans.

Quote from: Becks on September 12, 2010, 11:16:14 AM
Comments on Sat, Sept 11 games:

Trinity 0-0 Colby
- Prediction: Trinity 2-0 Colby
- Stats indicate that Colby should have won 2-1.  Trinity-Colby stats: shots 25-14, shots on goal 18-10, corners (one stat that Colby dominated) 1-8.
- Missing expected starters:  Trinity: Heather Lynn (D); Colby: Julie Denison (F).
- Frosh starters/scorers: Trinity: none (only 1 frosh played as sub); Colby: None (although 3 frosh played as subs and 2 frosh (Alex Yorke and Julie Blumenstyk) tied for most shots on the team).

Becks... I think you got the stats for corners reversed for this game.  Trinity dominated play but once again, had difficulty finishing.  Colby relied on strong defense, some very good goalkeeper play, and some counter-attacking.  A frustrating start for what looks to be an improved Trinity team...  Colby did have the best chance of the game with Trinity's senior goalkeeper, Emily Weedon, coming up huge on a breakaway towards the end of the first half.

Lobo - The stats on both the Trinity and Colby websites say Colby out-cornered Trinity 8-1, but it was definitely a typo that I had said that the stats indicate that Colby should have won 2-1.  Should have said that the stats indicated that Trinity should have won 2-1.  I have fixed the typo.

QuoteThe Wes star could be rising...unfortunately teams like Salve will not be an appropriate test for them.

You were right Dfense1.  Salve was apparently too strong to be a good test.  Salve 3-1 Wesleyan  :-[

Quote from: Becks on September 13, 2010, 06:49:30 PM

QuoteThe Wes star could be rising...unfortunately teams like Salve will not be an appropriate test for them.

You were right Dfense1.  Salve was apparently too strong to be a good test.  Salve 3-1 Wesleyan  :-[

Can never underestimate that powerful Commonwealth Coast Conference it seems.

Earth to Becks.  Are you still with us.  Seven days and nothing to read from you.  Should I get a job to keep me amused?  I have a Maynard G. Kreb's "Work" aversion.  Please help!!

Been quite busy at work.  Crunch time at the end of the fiscal quarter and all that.  Should have more time soon. For now, a few off-the-cuff observations, without the support of any stats.

Overall theme so far is parity.

Williams, despite returning most of their starters, has not come out of the gates as strong as expected.

Ditto for Amherst, although in their case, it may be due to injuries.

Middlebury is doing fine out of conference, but has had a rough start to the season in conference.

On the other hand, some lower ranked teams are doing a bit better than expected, including Tufts, Trinity, Bates and Colby.

Would agree about the overall parity as some of the weaker programs in the conference seem to be getting stronger. 

Went to see Bowdoin and Bates last weekend and Bates looks to be stronger than they have been the last couple of years.  Good defensively, but not much offense.  Same can be said about Bowdoin I guess.  Bowdoin has a very experienced back line and at least one good offensive player up front.  The rest of the team is young with lots of fresh and soph playing and it is still not clear just how good the team is going to be. 

Bates probably had the better of the play Sat from a territorial prospective, but Bowdoin had a little better scoring opportunities and thus the 2 to 1 OT victory.

GUBFL.....good observations and points.  Though it is still early in the season, Amherst had a tough time with both Bowdin and Bates in back to back road games.  Amherst had to rally to beat the polar bears and Bates held them to a tie.  Amherst was fortunate in both games.

Well, they moved up two spots in the poll today - No. 18 from No. 20.  If they lose a few of those close ones, then I'm certain they'll slide.  But more importantly, they can stay near the top of the standings if they keep their losses to two or less.

No box scores up yet but some interesting results.

Amherst 1-1 Conn at Amherst.  Biggest upset of the day. Amherst not as good as expected so far this season and Conn not as bad? First point for Conn in league play since October 18, 2008!

Wes 1-1 Tufts at Tufts - Slight upset as I would have expected a narrow win for Tufts.

Middlebury 2-1 Bowdoin (OT)  at Middlebury.  Suggests that Middlebury and Bowdoin are about the same this year and both mid-pack teams.  But who isn't?

Trinity 3-0 Bates - Home win was expected but Bates had been playing well, so decisive victory for Trinity suggests they could finish in the top 4.

Williams 4-0 Colby - Williams getting their mojo back?

Comments on Sat, Sept 25 league games:


Trinity 3-0 Bates – An expected win but margin of victory a bit larger than expected. Trinity-Colby stats: shots 16-6, shots on goal 15-6, corners 2-1. No way the teams put 31 of 32 shots on goal. Either the shots or saves stat is wrong. Leigh Howard scored 2 of Trinity's 3 and has scored 5 of Trinity's 7 on the season.  Currently best scorer in NESCAC?  Is Trinity too dependent on one player for goals?

Williams 4-0 Colby – Williams first home game after 6(!) on the road.  Stats suggest a Williams 3-0 win would have been a fair result. Williams-Colby stats: shots 23-4; shots on goal: 12-2; corners 5-3.  This win could be the start of a strong Williams run for the rest of the season. We'll see.

Middlebury 2-1 Bowdoin (OT) – Close home win in game between 2 teams struggling to stay near top of the league.  Stats suggest a Middlebury 1-0 win would have been more likely result. Middlebury-Bowdoin stats: shots 11-4; shots on goal 6-4; corners 4-2.  So far, both teams look to be behind Williams, Tufts and Trinity.

Amherst 1-1 Conn – Definite disappointment for Amherst and nice pt on the road for Conn.  Shots suggest that Amherst was unlucky and should have won, maybe 2-0.  Amherst-Conn stats: shots: 19-6; shots on goals 12-4; corners 8-6.

Tufts 1-1 Wesleyan – Nice road tie for Wesleyan against a Tufts team that could finish top 4. Tufts-Wesleyan stats: shots: 22-12; shots on goal 5-7; corners 2-4; fouls: 18-16(!).  Tufts took a lot more shots, but a lot were from outside and not on frame.  Wes actually generated more real scoring opportunities than Tufts (shots on goal + corners = 12 to 8 in favor of Wes). A lot of fouls called, but reports from the field suggest that was due to a ref that believed soccer is a non-contact sport rather than an unusually physical game.

Becks - One edit to your stats on Tufts-Wesleyan game: shots on goal favored Wes, not Tufts, by 7 to 5.

Quote from: Gerrs on September 27, 2010, 09:36:29 AM
Becks - One edit to your stats on Tufts-Wesleyan game: shots on goal favored Wes, not Tufts, by 7 to 5.

Thanks, Gerrs.  You are right.  I guess I couldn't believe that one team could outshoot another by 10 but put fewer on goal.  I have corrected my summary.

Preview of the Williams-Amherst game this Sat. on the Amherst website.

Interesting week for Amherst.  They lose to Skidmore at home with the return of two starters and beat Williams away...the first time any team members had accomplish that feat!   Line up is still being shifted around.

I thought that the Amherst win over Willams was impressive.  Especially after that loss to Skidmore.  Amherst really has the chance to make some headway in conference play - the win over Williams should give them both momentum and confidence.

Interesting season now that Williams no longer possesses that air of invincibility - still very dangerous but seem to lack that tremendous goal scorer of past glory years that would always seem to bail them out at the end of close games (Woodson, Wolfson, Walmsley)

Amherst is tied by Bates and Conn then loses to Skidmore but finds a way to beat Williams - crazy !!  getting back injured players ?  more set rotation ?  is Amherst ready to roll and actually host NESCAC tournament ?  excellent freshman class from a year ago - 

another good one this coming weekend Amherst at Midd - though Amherst seems to have Midd's number during the regular season at least - still Midd playing a bit better after shaky start and a number of season ending injuries 

Funny year in the NESCAC, much more parity, much closer scores, much less predictable results.  I'm not sure anyone is ready to run away with the conference this year including Amherst.  The only thing that is becoming clearer at this point is who may be hosting the 4 home games in the first round of the tournament.

Have seen a couple more Bowdoin games and they might be better than I first expected.  The team is very young with around 5 Freshman and 5 Sophomores playing on a regular basis and they seem to be getting better as the season is going on.  Last weekend might not be the best indicator of the teams strength as they were playing weaker opponents, but they are improving with a good scorer and decent defense.  This weekend's game with Wesleyan is an important game for Bowdoin, they are home and need the points before taking on Williams at Williams.

Thank goodness I am not a betting person...............Is it global warming?  Who wins this thing?  Is Becks on the space station??? or still in jail??  Very odd season not only in NESCAC but all over.

A few thoughts:

Williams - Funny, and satisfying, to see them 5th in the standings.  But looking at the stats, they are still perhaps the best team in the league.  However, their luck has just run out on them in NESCAC games.  (They have never been particularly lucky in NCAA games.)  Even if you are the better team, you are still going to lose a few now and then.  Based on stats, Williams deserved to beat both Amherst and, certainly, Bates, but Amherst and Bates got lucky.  I love the description of the first Bates goal -- shot from 30-35 yards away near the sideline.  Sounds like a bad cross to me.  If you are very lucky sometimes those go in.

Trinity -- I thought they might be the best or second best team in the league and then they get outplayed by Conn and were lucky to get a 0-0 tie.  Outshot by Conn 24-9???

Bowdoin - A minor upset losing to Wes at Bowdoin.  Stats indicated Wes deserved the win.  Looking at Bowdoin's remaining schedule, they could end up with only 2 league wins on the season.

I guess those voters who picked Wes's Laura Kurash as ROY knew what they were doing.  She's currently leading most of the league offensive stats categories.

Just looked at the Amherst-Middlebury stats and game report.  Amherst up 3-0 with 9 minutes left and they lose 4-3 in OT? Wow. A crushing loss for Amherst and an amazing comeback win for Middlebury.

re: Midd/Amherst - by far the most amazing comeback I have seen in 27 years of watching my daughters play soccer - Midd loses one of their top players to injury in the first minute of play, Midd had numerous chances to score but was unable to convert and found themselves down 3-0 with less than 10 to play when the comeback started.

the freshman who scored the hat trick played every minute of that game - she's a beast - all three freshman field players for Midd are excellent.   

big assist to Amherst coach (and she is an excellent coach) - she pulled her starters and starting goalie with about 15 minutes to go thinking of course that the game was over - (as we all did)  then the comeback started with about 9 to play - after the second Midd goal and all the momentum had shifted she put her starting goalie back in and a lot of her front line players but by then it was too late and Midd scored the equalizer on a rocket from 30 yards out - Amherst had no chance in OT.   She and her assistant coach did not move off the bench for at least 45 minutes after the game.   

I wasn't at the game, but heard the same thing -- that loss was a result of a big momentum swing when Amherst coach put all the subs in.

Machine - thanks for the info on the game and what happened -- must have been amazing to witness!

The next time we all sigh and scratch our heads at a 7-0 or 9-0 score, we need to remember this one.  It really must have been something to see!!

Williams 2-1 Trinity (OT) -- Interesting stats.  Looks like Williams totally dominated the first half, but did not score.  Took 8 shots, 4 on goal, while holding Trinity without a shot.  Second half looks like it was totally different and very even.  Williams scores early in the half and Trinity scores to tie in the last minute of regulation, but Williams gets winner 3 minutes into OT.  Strangest stat may have been that Leigh Howard started but did not take a single shot all game.  Just good team defense? Man-marked? Injured?

Eastern Connecticut beat Amherst 2-1 at Amherst last night.  NESCAC parity this year means no real outstanding teams.  I wouldn't be surprised if the only NESCAC team to get an NCAA bid is the NESCAC tournament winner.

I'm not sure about that.  The second place NESCAC team always ends up with a fairly competitive strength of schedule stat.  Next week's NCAA regional rankings will shed some light on my theory.

Quote from: Becks on October 14, 2010, 10:23:34 AM
Eastern Connecticut beat Amherst 2-1 at Amherst last night.  NESCAC parity this year means no real outstanding teams.  I wouldn't be surprised if the only NESCAC team to get an NCAA bid is the NESCAC tournament winner.

Note: ECSU women's soccer are undefeated so far this year, with a very young starting 11.  They will be causing problems for a lot of teams this year and through 2012 season.

I'd be stunned if Williams doesn't make it in even if they don't win the NESCAC tourney (and don't sleep on the Ephs, the bounces haven't gone their way this year but they are still a very deep and talented team with a lot of post season experience), so long as they get at least one more win and one additional non-loss in their next three (or likely more) games.  They must have played, easily, the toughest schedule in D-III this  year, eight out of twelve games so far on the road, with very good wins over regionally ranked teams Springfield, Keene State, Oneonta State, and Trinity.  Two of their three losses have been to very solid teams in Amherst and William Smith (the latter a top-ten caliber team), and then they've had one flukey loss to Bates in a game they dominated. 

A lot of talk about parity this year, and so far the stats support that conclusion.  Set forth below is a measure of league parity based on league best and worst goal differential:

2009
Best +26
Worst -31
Spread 57

2008
Best +25
Worst -15
Spread 40

2007
Best +24
Worst -19
Spread 43

2006
Best +23
Worst -17
Spread 40

2005
Best +14
Worst -19
Spread 33

2004
Best +13
Worst -22
Spread 35

2003
Best +14
Worst -29
Spread 43

2002
Best +14
Worst -23
Spread 37

2001
Best +17
Worst -20
Spread 37

2000
Best +17
Worst -26
Spread 43

So far this year:
Best +8
Worst -9
Spread 17

Projected based on current per game rates:
Best +10
Worst -12
Spread 22

So, based on results to date, the 2010 league season has in fact shown substantially more parity than any prior NESCAC season and is on track to set a record for parity.  Perhaps the biggest surprise is that (i) this comes on the heals of a 2009 league season which showed the least amount of parity among the teams, as records were set for both best and worst goal differentials, and (ii) the team setting the record for best goal differential was losing relatively few starters from last year, while the team setting the record for the worst goal differential was losing a very large number of starters from last year.  I think what this really demonstrates is "regression toward the mean" -- ie a really outstanding result one time-- either good or bad -- is most likely going to be followed by a less outstanding result the next time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean However, while it was always likely that there would be significantly more parity this year than last year, it is still surprising to set a record for most parity the year after setting a record for least parity.

4 goals againt Amherst, 4 goals against Keene St. - Midd poised to take NESCAC lead with two winnable games against a much improved Conn squad (at least defensively) and a tough Wesleyan team - but comes away with two somewhat disappointing 0-0 ties on the road -  bad timing as their best sniper is out with an injury -  interesting matchups as we head down the stretch - 

Just came back from the Midd-Wes game.  Overall a fairly even contest with both sides having a few good chances to score.  I thought Wes created more opportunities in the first half.  Midd started to control more of the play as the second half wore on and in the first OT period, as Wes resorted more and more to hopeful long balls to its forwards.  Best Wes opportunities were scrambles in the box, including one where Midd keeper did well for deflect a ball up onto the crossbar.  Midd's best opportunity probably came in first OT, as a Midd player turned in the box and had a clear left footed shot from the six but shanked it wide.

With the tie, Wes now has 4 ties in league play, which ties the NESCAC all-time league record for ties in a season.  Wes is also certain to set its team record for fewest losses in a NESCAC season.  The most they could lose now is 3, while their prior fewest number of losses was (shockingly) 5.  Wes's tie with Midd is only the 2d time since 1995 that they have not lost to Middlebury (they also tied in 2005).

The number of ties this season has blown away the old NESCAC record for most ties in a season.  Rather ironic since the main argument (albeit largely unsupported by evidence) for adopting a 3-1-0 pt system is to reduce the number of ties.

Ties per season:
2010 - 10 (to date, with 11 matches to go)
2009 - 3
2008 - 4
2007 - 4
2006 - 6
2005 - 6
2004 - 7
2003 - 3
2002 - 6
2001 - 3
2000 - 2

With Tufts beating Conn 2-1 at Conn today, Middlebury, Trinity and Wesleyan join Tufts, Amherst and Williams as teams that have clinched spots in the NESCAC tournament.  Bates and Bowdoin are in the drivers seats for the final 2 spots, but Colby or Conn (but not both, since they play each other) could technically catch one of them.  If Colby or Conn win their last 2 games, they definitely have a shot at getting a playoff spot.  Bates plays at Middlebury and at Colby for its last 2 games, while Bowdoin plays Trinity at home and then Tufts away.  Colby's chances look a bit better, as they play Conn and Bates at home, while Conn plays Colby and Wes on the road.

Amherst, Tufts and Williams look likely for 3 of the 4 home field spots.  The 4th spot is between Trinity, Middlebury and Wes.  All currently have the same winning percentage, but Wes is a point back due to the pointless adoption of 3-1-0 scoring this year.  (At least the 2d tie breaker (after head-to-head) is winning percentage.)  Trinity has the advantage of owning the first tie breaker over Middlebury and Wes, as Trinity beat both.

The first NCAA regional rankings (not to be confused with the NSCAA rankings) are out:

New England Region:

1. Eastern Connecticut State
2. Williams
3. Brandeis
4. Wheaton (Massachusetts)
5. Tufts
6. Middlebury
7. Roger Williams
8. Springfield
9. Keene State
10. Amherst
11. Western Connecticut State
12. Trinity (Connecticut)

The rankings are used to pick the Pool C bids for the NCAA tournament (after all the automatic bids are handed out). Looks like Williams is currently in pretty good shape to get a bid even if they don't win the tournament, but I'm not sure about anybody else.  Not sure how far down they go in handing out Pool C bids, and a lot depends on which teams win their tournaments and how teams do in their last couple of games.

A scary stat this year is the number of yellow cards garnered by Conn College. With today's yellow versus Tufts, their total stands at 10 after 11 games. For some perspective, last year NESCAC teams played a total of 161 games and incurred 15 yellow cards. In 2008 there were just 10 yellows in 158 games.

I wonder if NESCAC officials keep an eye on this stat. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a discussion with Conn's coach. There seems to be something wrong there.

Here's a question for Becks -- has any team ever done so well INSIDE NESCAC but so poorly OUTSIDE the conference as Amherst (I realize the opposite is fairly commonplace)?  Amherst could well win the NESCAC regular season crown, but is highly unlikely it seems to make the tourney absent a NESCAC tourney championship. 

Quote from: nescac1 on October 21, 2010, 09:56:46 AM
Here's a question for Becks -- has any team ever done so well INSIDE NESCAC but so poorly OUTSIDE the conference as Amherst (I realize the opposite is fairly commonplace)?  Amherst could well win the NESCAC regular season crown, but is highly unlikely it seems to make the tourney absent a NESCAC tourney championship. 

Looking back at league records, it's not unusual for a NESCAC team to have a better winning percentage in league play than overall.  What is unusual is the magnitude of the gap for this year's Amherst team.  Their league winning percentage is .714 while their overall winning percentage is 0.500, a gap of 0.214.  The record for the largest end-of-season gap for a NESCAC team finishing in the top 4 in the league, is 0.200 by Amherst in 2007 (0.667 league winning percentage and .467 overall winning percentage).  It's all in who you schedule, although this year NESCAC's out of league performances in general, and Amherst's in particular, have been unusually weak.

Quote from: Gerrs on October 20, 2010, 09:54:02 PM
A scary stat this year is the number of yellow cards garnered by Conn College. With today's yellow versus Tufts, their total stands at 10 after 11 games. For some perspective, last year NESCAC teams played a total of 161 games and incurred 15 yellow cards. In 2008 there were just 10 yellows in 158 games.

I wonder if NESCAC officials keep an eye on this stat. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a discussion with Conn's coach. There seems to be something wrong there.

Gerrs - Good observation.  The league's year-end stats don't seem to include number of cards before 2008, but in 2008 and 2009 the most yellow cards garnered by a NESCAC team in all games was 4 and the most in league games was 1.  So quite possible that Conn is setting some kind of record for most unsportsmanlike play by a NESCAC team, since they already have 10 in all games and 4 in league play.  Probably not too early to hand out this year's NESCAC Elizabeth Lambert award to a certain Conn soph F/M who has 3 yellows overall and 2 in league play (which as an individual is more than the total for 8 of the 10 NESCAC teams). I wonder if NESCAC has a rule like the EPL, where if you get more than X yellows you have to sit out the next game.

Conn is also tops in the league in fouls per league game so far this season (about 0.5 fouls per game ahead of Williams), and led the league in fouls per league game last year. (Although Williams topped the league the prior year.)

The Lady Byng trophy currently looks like it will go to Trinity, with slightly more than 1/2 the fouls per game as Conn.  Which shows that you don't need to foul people to play good defense.

I've been reading this board and I just wanted to answer the question about yellow card accumulation.  

The NCAA soccer rules have a provision about yellow card accumulation--

If a player picks up 5 yellow card cautions over the course of the season, he/she must sit out the next game following the game in which he/she picked up the 5th yellow card of the season.

After the first suspension for yellow card accumulation, if the same player picks up 3 additional yellow card cautions for a total of 8 yellow cards for the season, he/she must sit out the next 2 games following the game in which he/she picked up the 8th yellow card of the season.  (1 game for the first 5, the additional for the next 3 games)

After 8 yellows, for each 2 additional yellow cards a player picks up, that player must sit out an additional 1 game suspension-- for example-- after the 10th yellow, the player must sit out the next 3 games, for the 12th yellow, the player must sit out the next 4 games, etc.  (Note: clarification of reading the NCAA soccer rules) 

--more--

If the game in which the player picked up the 5th, 8th, 10th yellow, etc. happened to be the final game of the regular season for the team, then the player must sit out the following game-- whether it be a postseason tournament game or the first regular season game of next season.   Scrimmages do not count for suspension purposes-- the suspension must be served during a regular season or postseason contest.

Naturally, if a player picks up a red card (thereby being sent off by the referee), he/she is automatically suspended for the next contest under NCAA rules.  For each additional red card received, the match ban increases by an additional game.

Example set by the NCAA:  Player A has picked up 4 yellows and a red card for the season in an NCAA soccer match.   Player A serves the mandatory 1 game suspension for the red card.  After the suspension, player A returns and picks up a red card for being cautioned twice in the same match.  (Recorded in the book as 1 yellow and 1 red)   Player A now has 5 yellows and 2 red cards for the season.   As a result, player A must sit out the next 3 matches-- 1 match for picking up his/her 5th yellow of the season, and the additional 2 matches for the 2 red cards accumulated.

5 is ridiculously generous.  That's the same as in the EPL, a 38-game season.  Shorter competitions - eg Champions league or World Cup - generally provide for suspension for a game if you accumulate 2 yellow cards.  Since NESCAC only has a 9 game regular season, a one game suspension after accumulating 2 or 3 yellows would seem appropriate.  5 in 9 games would be equivalent to 20 yellows in an EPL season.

If NESCAC doesn't already have its own yellow card accumulation rule, it should consider adopting one.

i know this isn't my "region." i'm a Great lakes "dad." but let me tell you what i did last year after the Elizabeth LAmbert incident. i wrote to a d3 soccer board member on the rules committee, a well-respected coach from a top team who had recruited my daughter--(she didn't attend that school, but the coach remembered her and me.) I described a series of events last year with referees in my daughter's games that i thought were indicative of the way referees called women's soccer games...two incidents were clear red cards, and so many were yellow cards it was laughable...my daughter's team had a total of -- guess how many -- ZERO yellow cards for the entire season, and only three called on their opponents. That is simply not possible. Women's collegiate referees don't call things like pushing down from behind, even late tackles...this coach acknowledged several things--refs don't like to call yellow cards because they are dependent on home coaches for their getting called to games, and at some level, there is a basic sexist attitude--girls can't be that rough because they are girls. The coach told me that it was topic of high importance for the committee before the 2010 season...so maybe what you're seeing isn't just a rougher than normal team, but calls being made that should have been made for years. hell, my daughter is a 5.8 and weighs more than 150 pounds...that's the size of small school football halfback...she can hurt people at full speed...i've seen more yellow cards in her conference this year too, and more than one on her own team...as it should be...i've still seen a couple of games where the referee allowed way too much, and in each case it led to a very rough finish to the contest...hey, why not, if you're not get carded for excessive physicality why not do it...so it really may be a case of a 'new world' in refereeing at the women's collegiate soccer level...that would be the good news...no ever really blamed the ref for the Elizabeth Lambert situation...she would have been gone from an English Premier league game, or even a D1 men's soccer game, long before it reached the point it did..so, if a player gets suspended after five yellows...yes...that would be great news.

freekick - Thanks for the good information. It seems to me that referees of women's soccer games have always been a bit reluctant to hand out yellow/red cards, and this sometimes leads to further dangerous play.

However, you may have somewhat misinterpreted two points in the preceding discussion thread. First, the refs of games played by NESCAC teams do not seem to have become more liberal in the handing out of cards in 2010. 8 of the 10 teams have 2 or fewer yellow cards, and 3 have none. Conn College has 10. (No team has a red card.)

Second, a 5-card accumulation rule for the suspension of an individual player is too high when the regular schedule is only 14 games.

All of this weekend's games are big games:

Conn at Colby - Loser is out of the NESCAC tournament.  Winner (particularly if the winner is Colby) is very much alive.

Bates at Middlebury - Middlebury probably needs to win to have a chance of getting home field for the first round of the NESCAC tournament.  Bates may need to win to avoid a last day, do-or-die game against arch rivals Colby.

Amherst at Welseyan - A win for Amherst would probably lock a home field for the first round of the NESCAC tournament.  A win by Wesleyan keeps their hopes of a home field spot alive.

Williams at Tufts - The game of the week.  This year's top team (so far) against the team that has won each of the last three years.  Also best defense in the league (Tufts) against best offense in the league (Williams). A win by Tufts would go far to give them the top seed in the NESCAC tournament and help their NCAA bid chances in case they don't win the tournament.  A win by Williams probably locks up a home field spot and may allow them to sneak into one of the top 2 seeds.  A loss might significantly damage their Pool C NCAA bid chances.

Trinity at Bowdoin - A win by Trinity takes them one step closer to locking up a home field for the first round of the NESCAC tournament.  A win by Bowdoin would ensure them of a NESCAC tournament spot.  A loss by Bowdoin may require them to get points in their final game at Tufts in order to make the tournament (although several plausible scenarios have them making it even if they lose both games).

You're right...I missed those points of distinction...happy to just to have an opportunity to weigh in on women's soccer referees. And, I agree five is too high a limit...two is probably too low, but three certainly falls within a "pattern of behavior" that would warrant a suspension for a game...I'd just be happy to know that an out-of-control studs up tackle would bring out the cards...seen it happen too many times with not even a whistle.

Gerrs--

Regarding Tufts's disciplinary record-- it is erroneously stated that Tufts has 2 yellow cards for the season and no reds.

Tufts has a red card on the season-- but it was erroneously recorded by the Trinity (CT) scorekeeper as a 2nd yellow against the same player where it should have been recorded as a yellow and a red on the player.   Therefore, Tufts's season disciplinary record should be 1 yellow and 1 red, not 2 yellows.

In the Tufts v Trinity (CT) match last Saturday, the Tufts senior co-captain (a defender) picked up a red card (as a result of getting 2 consecutive yellows in the same match) and was sent off by the referee in the 80th minute-- Tufts had to play with 10 players for the final 10 minutes of the match-- and the Jumbos were able to preserve the 1-0 victory against the Bantams.

The Tufts senior co-captain had picked up her first yellow in the 50th minute of the match vs Trinity (CT) and got her 2nd booking 30 minutes later.  

She served her mandatory 1 game suspension on Wednesday vs Conn College and will be available for the match vs Williams.

Quote from: deiscanton on October 22, 2010, 01:18:58 PM
Gerrs--

Regarding Tufts's disciplinary record-- it is erroneously stated that Tufts has 2 yellow cards for the season and no reds.

Tufts has a red card on the season-- but it was erroneously recorded by the Trinity (CT) scorekeeper as a 2nd yellow against the same player where it should have been recorded as a yellow and a red on the player.   Therefore, Tufts's season disciplinary record should be 1 yellow and 1 red, not 2 yellows.

Don't refs show the 2d yellow and then show the red? So shouldn't that mean that Tufts' record should show 2 yellows and 1 red?  Unfortunately, from a stats standpoint, that would make it impossible to distinguish from 2 yellow card fouls with the 2d resulting in dismissal (ie 2 instances of bad conduct) and 2 yellow card fouls (ie by different players or in different games) and a separate red card foul (ie 3 instances of bad conduct).

Re yellow/red cards -- I want to note that, while getting yellows and reds generally indicates viscious conduct (my term, not FIFA's), a player can also pick up yellows or reds for entirely non-viscious conduct that is nontheless consider unsportsmanlike - eg shirt pulling, unintentional trip by the last defender, or objecting excessively to a ref's call/non-call.  Heck, two players on my son's U13 team picked up reds this fall for preventing goals with their hands (neither, unfortunately, was the keeper).  :-\  They must have seen how well it worked for Uruguay in the World Cup.   ;)

Going to Conn vs Wesleyan a week from now. Wonder if they will add to their impressive yellow card total...

Becks--

NCAA Soccer Rule 5.5.3 covers this situation-- Multiple cards to the same player.

Rule 5.5.3 does indeed state that if the same player has a 2nd cautionable offense in the same match, the referee must first show the 2nd yellow card and then the red.

However, Rule 5.5.3 also states in the note that it is not possible for the same player in the same game to be charged with 2 cautionable offenses as the 2nd cautionable offense in the same match automatically carries a red card penalty.  Therefore, Rule 5.5.3 states that it is to be recorded on the player's accumulation record as 1 yellow and 1 red card for the match-- not 2 yellows and 1 red or 2 yellows.

Thanks, diescanton.  Do you have a link to the rulebook?  I've always had a hard time tracking it down in the past.  Is this from the stats manual or the regular rules manual?

Quote from: Becks on October 22, 2010, 01:57:34 PM
Thanks, diescanton.  Do you have a link to the rulebook?  I've always had a hard time tracking it down in the past.  Is this from the stats manual or the regular rules manual?

Sure thing.

The 2010-2011 NCAA Soccer Rules Handbook can be found at:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4187-2010-2011-soccer-rules-2-year-publication.aspx

It is from the soccer rules manual how the incident should be recorded, BTW.

The rules on accumulated cards are clear, but what warrants a yellow is up to the ref.  Do you think a player or a team that has a couple yellows draws more scrutiny from refs and then more yellows etc. etc?  I have seen a handfull of D-2 games this year and it is pretty scary.  Are games officiated differently at different levels?   

I don't believe the Ephs sneak into anything...they work hard for everything they get.

The first team in NESCAC history to win back-to-back titles in 2007/2008, then set history again with their 3-peat in 2009 have been case-hardened after a brutal schedule in 2010.

I look for Williams to be tournament ready and a force to be reckoned with.

2xfaux - You raise an interesting question as to whether a player or a team that has a couple yellows draws more scrutiny from refs. I have always thought that refs did not much attention to the teams' stats, but perhaps that's not the case. It would be good if a couple of refs could weigh in on this point.

Gerrs I read your rebuke of my earlier post. :o

"Impressive total" was sarcasm. ::)

I am not a Conn Coll fan nor do I have/had any connection to that team. My kid expressed interest a while back in the program,and soon moved on.

Conn Coll's approach this year to the game is pretty cynical. >:(

I live minutes from Wesleyan and have attended many games there over the last 20 years, so I guess I'm a Cardinal fan. :)

hope to be at the Amh-Wes game on Sat.  Should be a critical game for both teams. 

Quote from: pcc on October 22, 2010, 08:30:23 PM
Gerrs I read your rebuke of my earlier post. :o

"Impressive total" was sarcasm. ::)

I am not a Conn Coll fan nor do I have/had any connection to that team. My kid expressed interest a while back in the program,and soon moved on.

Conn Coll's approach this year to the game is pretty cynical. >:(

I live minutes from Wesleyan and have attended many games there over the last 20 years, so I guess I'm a Cardinal fan. :)

pcc -Yes, I did mistake you for a parent of a CC player but decided in any case to delete my post after only a couple minutes. I guess I was mislead by your earlier posts that went into some detail about this year's Conn College roster but did not mention any other team's roster. I also must have a bad ear for sarcasm. My bad. :-\

Some early results today from NESCAC--  (Home team reported first)

Wesleyan 0  Amherst 2 Final   2 goals from Amherst rookie forward in first half sealed match for the Jeffs.

Tufts 0   Williams 0   Final/2 OT

Tufts and Amherst now tied for lead in NESCAC with 17 pts each--  5-1-2  in NESCAC games

Amherst holds head-to-head tiebreaker over Tufts for the #1 seed and can clinch NESCAC's top seed with a victory against Trinity (CT) on Friday.

Williams has 14 pts in NESCAC play--  4-2-2 in NESCAC games.

Current standings, with tiebreakers figured in:

1. Amherst 17 pts (beat Tufts) - play Trinity at home
2. Tufts 17 pts - play Bowdoin at home
3. Middlebury 14 pts - play at Williams
3. Williams 14 pts - play Middlebury at home
5. Trinity 11 pts - play at Amherst
6. Wesleyan 10 pts (beat Bowdoin) - play Conn at home
7. Bowdoin 10 pts - play at Tufts
8. Bates - 7 pts - play at Colby
9. Conn - 6 pts - play at Wesleyan
10. Colby - 3 pts- play Bates at home.

With their win today, Bowdoin has locked up a NESCAC tourney spot; and with their loss, Colby has been eliminated.  The final spot will go to either Bates or Conn.  If Bates beats Colby, Bates is in.  If Bates losses to or ties with Colby and Conn beats Wesleyan, Conn is in.

Tufts 0-0 Williams - Stats indicate that Williams had the better of the play and that a 2-0 Williams win might have been a fair result. Williams just not getting lucky this year so far -- seem to have outplayed the competition in most of their ties/losses.

Bowdoin 3-0 Trinity - Stats were actually pretty even, but Bowdoin was able to score on 3 of their 9 shots.   Trinity has now gone scoreless in each of their last 3 games.  Not coincidentally, Leigh Howard, Trinity's main offensive weapon, did not play in either the Bowdoin game or Trinity's midweek game.  They'll need her back and healthy in order to go anywhere in the NESCAC tournament. They'll also need to prevent their opponents from scoring on 1/3 of their shots.  Somewhat curiously, Trinity only used 2 subs all game despite being 3 down before 70 minutes in.

Middlebury 2-0 Bates - Middlebury took a ton more shots than Bates (26-6), but less than 1/4 of Midd's shots were on frame (with 1/2 being more typical), suggesting Midd was taking a lot of outside shots.  They obviously did a good job, however, limiting Bates' chances (only 6 shots, 3 on frame, and no corners).

Conn 2-1 Colby - Stats indicate a pretty even game.  Of note, each team was only called for 5 fouls and no cards were issued.

Amherst 2-0 Wesleyan - Stats indicate a deserved win for Amherst, although perhaps a one goal differential might have been more fair. Shots were pretty close (13-11), but Amherst put more on goal (10-5). Amherst's biggest advantage was in corners (10-3). They scored on a scramble off the first corner and were dangerous all day on them.

Attended the Tufts-Williams game....Williams definitely had several scoring chances carrying the play and wore the Tufts defense down as the game with on with fresh legs.

However, hand it to the Tufts defense....they never wilted under pressure and the goalie had a strong game.

Just seconds before selecting the winners of the Amherst/Trinity  and Midd/Williams games, Paul, the psychic octopus, passed away.

Should be quite the weekend - Midd can finish anywhere from 2 through 5.

Becks - is there both an offensive and defensive ROY ?  I realize offensive players get more pub but strong consideration to Midd defender L. Kingston - Midd lost their entire back line to graduation,  then 2/3 of their starting  '10 back line for the season prior to and during their first game v. Tufts (I know - don't cry for me Argentina/Spain/South Africa, etc) - she's a heck of a player -       

also - with the addition of Hamilton next year to NESCAC soccer - does anyone know if NESCAC is staying with 14 game schedule or going to 15 regular season games - thanks !!

Quote from: machine54 on October 26, 2010, 04:29:04 PMBecks - is there both an offensive and defensive ROY ?  I realize offensive players get more pub but strong consideration to Midd defender L. Kingston - Midd lost their entire back line to graduation,  then 2/3 of their starting  '10 back line for the season prior to and during their first game v. Tufts (I know - don't cry for me Argentina/Spain/South Africa, etc) - she's a heck of a player -

Only one ROY.  You're right about offensive players generally getting the top honors.  So, right now, I'd put my money on one of the following top frosh goalscorers for ROY.  Each has 4 league goals: Scarlett Kirk-MID, Maeve Stewart-TUF, Amanda Brisco-AMH

Conn 1-3 Coast Guard.  First time ever (at least in last 10 years) that Conn has lost to the Coast Guard.  Usually an easy win for them.  I checked the box score and it doesn't look like they lost because they were resting the starters either.  Kind of similar to Wes losing to Salve Regina earlier in the season.  Both were surprisingly bad performances and upset losses to weak non-conference teams in mid-week games right after a good performance in a tough conference game (beating Colby in the case of Conn and tying Williams in the case of Wes).

Re: ROY

I believe the ROY will go to whichever First Year offensive NESCAC POW whose team finishes highest in final conference rankings.

Only real surprise of the last round of league games was Trinity's 2-1 win over Amherst.  Game was at Amherst and Trinity was without the services of their leading offensive threat, Leigh Howard.  If Amherst had won, they would have been the #1 seed and avoided Williams until the finals.  As it is, they will meet in the semis, if form holds.  If Trinity had lost, Middlebury would have been the #4 seed, Wesleyan #5 and Trinity #6. Rumor has it that LH is out for the season with an ACL.

Comments on NESCAC first round games:

Bates 0-0 Tufts (Bates advance on pks) - Stats indicate that Tufts was unlucky not to win. Tufts outshot Bates 20-6; had more shots on goal 8-4; and out-cornered Bates 10-1. That's soccer.

Amherst 3-2 Bowdoin - Stats indicate a deserved win by Amherst and suggest that the game was not as close as the score.  Bowdoin took only 5 shots all game and scored on 2 of them.  Amherst outshot Bowdoin 20-5; had more shots on goal 8-4; and out-cornered Bowdoin 9-0.

Williams 4-1 Wesleyan - Stats indicate a deserved win for Williams, although suggest a somewhat closer game than the score.  Williams outshot Wes 17-7; had more shots on goal 9-3; and out-cornered Wes 6-2. Since I was at the game, I'll add a little color.  The first half was well-played by both teams, although Williams definitely looked the stronger of the two.  Half ended 2-1 Williams.  In 2d half, Wes went for a more offensive formation (3-5-2, I think) and paid the price with Williams taking advantage of the extra space in the back line to score 2.  2d half in general was messier and, I think, not quite up to the standards of the first half.  Williams looked very good, however -- back to their old selves.  As an extra bonus, I got to meet Mathman!

Middlebury 2-0 Trinity - Stats indicate a very even game, much closer than the score.  Midd-Trin stats:  shots: 13-9; shots on goal: 5-4; corners: 1-0.  Midd did well to score on 2 of their 5 shots on goal.

Tufts loss is a great break for Midd.  Midd will be favored to make the finals.  But winner of the Amherst-Williams game should be favored to win the tournament.

Quote from: Becks on October 31, 2010, 09:07:12 PM


Tufts loss is a great break for Midd.  Midd will be favored to make the finals.  But winner of the Amherst-Williams game should be favored to win the tournament.

Just a correction to make.

The Tufts loss is a great break for Williams and their supporters, as they don't have to travel to the Boston area for the semis and title game.

You had the semifinal matchups mixed up.    Had Tufts won yesterday, Tufts would have played Midd and Amherst would have played Williams in Saturday's semis and the games would have been at Kraft Field on the Tufts campus.

With Bates advancing to the semis on PKs yesterday, the semifinal schedule is as follows:

Lowest remaining seed plays highest remaining seed in the first semifinal match.

(Amherst would not play Williams until Sunday's title game).

Semifinals-- Saturday, Nov 6, 2010-- at Hitchcock Field, Amherst, MA

11 AM  EDT--  #8 seed Bates at #2 seed Amherst

Approx 1:30 PM EDT--  #5 seed Middlebury vs #3 seed Williams

Championship game-- Sunday Nov 7, 2010-- Noon EST-- at Hitchcock Field, Amherst, MA.

Thanks for correction, diescanton. I had forgotten that the NESCAC tournament doesn't have a normal fixed bracket.  The reward for the lowest ranked team beating the highest ranked team in the first round, is having to play the highest ranked remaining team in the 2d round.  This kind of system rewards regular season results more than a fixed bracket would.

Bates' win over Tufts is the first time the #8 seed has beaten the #1 seed in the women's NESCAC tournament.  But then again, up until 2008, only 7 teams made the tournament and the #1 seed got a first round bye.  Before 2008, however, the lowest seeded team beat the highest seeded team in the first round of  the NESCAC tournament 4 times: in 2004 #7 Conn upset #2 Amherst, in 2005 #7 Colby upset #2 Amherst, and in 2006 #7 Bates upset #2 Tufts.

Notable Performances for POW Consideration:

1)  Briscoe of Amherst...goal winner vs. Bowdoin sending Amherst into NESCAC Semi's.

2)  Burns of Bates...8 saves (including 3 PK rejections) leading to Bates upset appearance in NESCAC Semi's.

3)  Simmons of Colby...game winning "playing for pride" goal vs. Bates to end their regular season.

4)  Tomlinson-Weintraub of Middlebury...game winning goal vs. Trinity sending Mid to NESCAC Semi's.

5)  Washburne of Trinity...goal winner vs. Amherst sending Trinity into Nescac Quarters.

6)  Wild of Williams...1 goal/4 assist performance vs. Mid and Wes sending Williams into NESCAC Semi's.

7)  Eisenhart of Williams...hat trick and winning goal vs. Wes sending Williams into NESCAC Semi's.

And the winner is...Wild of Williams.

thoughts/opinions on NCAA bids

1. is Tufts done
2. if Amherst makes it to the finals do they get a bid
3. if Midd makes it to the finals do they get a bid
4. if Williams loses to Midd does Williams get a bid

My thoughts on NESCAC NCAA bids:

--Tufts is done. There are 7 teams ranked ahead of them in the region.

--Amherst is not ranked in the region. The only way they receive a bid is via the automatic bid if they win NESCAC.

--Midd is on the bubble if they make it to the NESCAC finals as they are the 4th ranked team in the region. However, unlikely they will advance as they will not beat Williams in the semi's.

--Should Williams lose to Midd they will most likely still receive an NCAA bid based on their #2 region ranking and strength of schedule.  However, not even Vegas is taking bets on this one as Williams is the overwhelming favorite to win that contest. As well, they are primed to win their 4th consective NESCAC Championship as they are playing some of their finest soccer of the season and also have a huge psychological advantage as they advance in the tournament.

Quote from: Dfense1 on November 02, 2010, 09:56:10 PM
However, not even Vegas is taking bets on this one as Williams is the overwhelming favorite to win that contest.

Dfense1 - You are just the kind of "homer" that Vegas loves.  ;) I will say that Wesleyan would have preferred to have faced any of the other top 4 seeds in the first round instead of Williams.  Williams is still the team to beat and was very impressive last weekend.

Becks...thanks for the earlier correction...I was inadvertently looking at NSCAA vs. NCAA regional rankings.  In any event, looks like with the NCAA release today the two rankings position Midd, Amherst, Tufts and Williams about the same.  But of course, NCAA rules for the tournament.

The Nov 4th NCAA DIII rankings:

1. Eastern Connecticut State 15-0-3 15-0-3
2. Williams 10-2-2 10-3-2
3. Brandeis 13-4-1 13-4-1
4. Wheaton (Massachusetts) 15-3-2 15-3-2
5. Middlebury 8-4-3 8-4-3
6. Springfield 13-4-0 13-4-0
7. Western Connecticut State 13-3-1 13-4-1
8. Tufts 8-2-4 8-2-4
9. Roger Williams 15-4-0 15-4-0
10. Keene State 13-4-1 13-5-2
11. Amherst 7-6-2 7-6-2
12. Endicott 14-5-1 14-5-1

Williams unchanged at #2. I think they probably are in good shape even if they lose to Middlebury or to Amherst or Bates in the finals (although look what getting tied by Bates did to Tufts).

Middlebury moved up 1 spot from #6 to #5 thanks to Tufts dropping. Losing to Williams shouldn't hurt them.  I would guess that they have a pretty good change of getting a Pool C bid even if they lose to Williams or to Amherst or Bates in the finals, so long there aren't too many upsets in the various conference championships.

Tufts getting tied by Bates (with Bates advancing on pks) dropped them just enough (from #5 to #8) to probably put them out of the running.

Amherst stayed at #11 despite losing to unranked Trinity, but have no hope unless they win the championship.  Beating Bates in the semis should give them little (if any) bump in the rankings.

For at-large (Pool C) bids, it also depends on which teams from this list (and the national list, and the lists for the other regions) get an AQ from winning their conference tournament. Eastern Conn (ranked #8 nationally) lost on PKs in the semifinals of the Little East tournament tonight, so they will need to get a Pool C bid to make the tournament (which, though they may drop in the final NE rankings, will almost surely happen). One other team ranked in the NCAA national top-25 (Cal Lutheran, #17) lost in the semifinals of the SCIAC (no other SCIAC teams were ranked in the top 25), and this might make it harder for a NESCAC non-champion to get a Pool C bid, since there are only 20 Pool C bids available.

Regarding NCAA bids and the New England Region...if I understand the process:

-- National rankings do not play directly into the NCAA selection bid process...bids are based on automatic qualifiers and the final regional rankings which come out next week.
-- There are 6 NE Region conferences that will automatically qualify for a bid including NESCAC, NEWMAC, Commonwealth Coast, LEC, NAC and MASCAC.
--Brandeis who are currently ranked 3rd in the Region belongs to the University Athletic Association (UAA) whose members are out-of-region.  If Brandeis wins its conference title, I'm not sure if they would qualify for an AQ under the New England Region or if there is another consideration for a bid.  Anyone have an insight on this?
--In 2009 New England had 6 conference champion bids and 3 Pool C bids. The Pool C bids went to the 2nd (Midd), 3rd (Amherst) and 4th (Wheaton) ranked region teams who did not win their conference championship. 
--Despite not winning the LEC, I would expect Easter Conn to receive a Pool C bid based on their current #1 region ranking which they may or may not retain after this weekends slate of games.
--So if form holds in 2010, thats 1 Pool C bid down and 2 to go. 

Chicago won the UAA title last Sunday with their 2-0 victory over Brandeis at Stagg Field in Chicago, IL   Brandeis came into the match off a 2-0 upset victory over Wash U at Francis Field in St. Louis, Missouri last Friday night, but conceded 2 goals to Chicago in the first 7 minutes of last Sunday's match.   From then on, Chicago put the defensive clamps on the Judges to win the UAA's Pool A automatic bid with 1 matchday remaining.  The UAA does not have a conference tournament.

University Athletic Association is a multi-region conference--  All conference play counts as in-region games for the respective teams for purposes of NCAA tournament consideration.

Chicago leads the UAA women's conference with 15 pts, (5-1 in UAA play) and currently has a 4 pt lead over 2nd place teams Wash U and Emory with 1 matchday remaining  (Both are currently at 3-1-2 in UAA play).  Brandeis currently stands at 4th place in the UAA at 3-3 in UAA play (9 pts), and Rochester is in 5th place in the UAA currently with 8 pts  (2-2-2 in UAA play).

Emory is currently at #1 in the South Atlantic Region,  Rochester is at #3 in the East, Wash U is at #4 in the Central, and Brandeis is at #3 in the New England Regional rankings.   Out of those 4 teams looking for Pool C bids, I only see Wash U in the most danger of not getting one--  Wash U needs to defeat Chicago this weekend to improve their Pool C chances.

Should Brandeis defeat NYU tomorrow at Gaelic Park (Manhattan College) in the Bronx, then the Judges assure themselves of a Pool C bid, as they are #3 in the New England rankings.   Brandeis has won the last 5 matches in the series against NYU (2 of those wins coming in the New York metro area), and will be aiming for at least their 3rd straight away win in the Brandeis-NYU series tomorrow.

A Pool C bid would mean that the Brandeis women's soccer team would be making their first NCAA tournament appearance since 1988, although Brandeis has won the ECAC New England title two of the past three years, only losing last year's ECAC New England Championship game to Keene State on penalty kicks.  In 1988, Brandeis played Ithaca in the NCAA tournament and lost 1-0.   Back in 1988, the NCAA DIII Women's Soccer Tournament only had 16 teams in the field.

Brandeis's Pool C resume--

#3 in New England rankings this week.

In-region record is 13-4-1  (.750 in-region winning percentage)

In-region Strength of schedule ranking is .618  (Highest among New England DIII teams through Oct. 31)

In-region record vs reg ranked teams is 4-3-1  as of Oct 31

Wins vs.   Springfield (#6-- New England),  Roger Williams  (#9--New England), Bowdoin (once ranked, always ranked), and Wash U- St Louis  (#4 Central-- UAA conference game)

Losses vs Chicago  (#6-Central-- UAA conference game),  Rochester (#3--East, UAA conference game), and Emory (#1--S. Atlantic,  UAA conference game)

Tie vs  William Paterson  (#4-- South Atlantic)  (New Jersey-- Same administrative region).

(Unfortunately, the bad weather on matchday cancelled the annual Brandeis-Tufts regular season soccer match this year-- it would have been very interesting.)

Dfense1--

This year, there are 8 New England conferences who officially have automatic bids.  (Of course, Brandeis is the New England representative in the UAA and would have gotten the UAA's automatic bid had the Judges won at Chicago last Sunday and at NYU tomorrow-- however, Chicago's victory over Brandeis last Sunday ended Brandeis's hopes for qualifying automatically.)   Nationally, there are 42 Pool A automatic bids, 1 Pool B bid, and 20 Pool C at-large bids for a field of 63 teams.  

The 8 leagues from New England who officially qualify for automatic bids this season are as follows:

1.)  NESCAC  (Williams, Middlebury, and Amherst still alive for that bid)

Semifinals and title game at Amherst, MA Saturday and Sunday

2.)  NEWMAC  (Springfield, MIT, and Babson still alive for that bid)

Semifinals and title game at Springfield, MA Saturday and Sunday.

3.)  Little East Conference  (UMass-Boston and Western Conn still alive for that bid-- Title game on Sunday in Danbury, CT  as WestConn defeated Keene State in Friday's semifinal 1-0.)

4.)  MASCAC (Bridgewater State and Worcester State still alive for that bid-- title game today at Worcester, MA)

5.)  The Commonwealth Coast Conference  (Roger Williams and Endicott still alive for that bid-- title game today at Roger Williams in Bristol, RI)-- this is the final year of existence for TCCC as I understand it as most of the TCCC members will be forming a new conference next season with the other TCCC teams being absorbed into other New England conferences.)

6.)  Great Northeast Athletic Conference   (Lasell defeated Norwich, 1-0 in title game.)

7.)  North Atlantic Conference (Castleton State and Husson still alive for that bid-- title game today at Castleton, VT)

8.)  New England Collegiate Conference--  (Lesley and Mitchell still alive for that bid-- title game today at Lesley in Cambridge, MA-- Game played at Buckingham, Browne, and Nichols School) (NECC's automatic bid is new this year as the NECC has officially started its third year of existence this season thereby making it an official conference for purposes of automatically qualifying its champions to the NCAA DIII tournaments.)

(Updated to indicate Saturday Nov. 6 results as of 2:10 PM ET)

Quote from: deiscanton on November 05, 2010, 09:46:33 AM
Dfense1--

This year, there are 8 New England conferences who officially have automatic bids.  (Of course, Brandeis is the New England representative in the UAA and would have gotten the UAA's automatic bid had the Judges won at Chicago last Sunday and at NYU tomorrow-- however, Chicago's victory over Brandeis last Sunday ended Brandeis's hopes for qualifying automatically.)   Nationally, there are 42 Pool A automatic bids, 1 Pool B bid, and 20 Pool C at-large bids for a field of 63 teams.  

The 8 leagues from New England who officially qualify for automatic bids this season are as follows:

1.)  NESCAC  (Williams, Middlebury, Amherst and Bates still alive for that bid)

Semifinals and title game at Amherst, MA Saturday and Sunday

2.)  NEWMAC  (Springfield, MIT, Babson, and Wheaton (MA) still alive for that bid)

Semifinals and title game at Springfield, MA Saturday and Sunday.

3.)  Little East Conference  (UMass-Boston, Western Conn, and Keene State still alive for that bid-- Western Conn and Keene State play their semifinal today-- it was postponed from yesterday due to bad weather thereby postponing the Little East's title game to Sunday-- Winner of today's Western Conn/Keene State match will host UMass-Boston on Sunday.)

4.)  MASCAC (Bridgewater State and Worcester State still alive for that bid-- title game tomorrow at Worcester, MA)

5.)  The Commonwealth Coast Conference  (Roger Williams and Endicott still alive for that bid-- title game tomorrow at Roger Williams in Bristol, RI)-- this is the final year of existence for TCCC as I understand it as most of the TCCC members will be forming a new conference next season with the other TCCC teams being absorbed into other New England conferences.)

6.)  Great Northeast Athletic Conference   (Lasell and Norwich still alive for that bid-- title game tomorrow at Lasell in Newton, MA)

7.)  North Atlantic Conference (Castleton State and Husson still alive for that bid-- title game tomorrow at Castleton, VT)

8.)  New England Collegiate Conference--  (Lesley and Mitchell still alive for that bid-- title game tomorrow at Lesley in Cambridge, MA-- Game played at Buckingham, Browne, and Nichols School) (NECC's automatic bid is new this year as the NECC has officially started its third year of existence this season thereby making it an official conference for purposes of automatically qualifying its champions to the NCAA DIII tournaments.)

Dei,

Nice review of current status of Conference tourneys!! +K

ECSU embarrassed last night by UMB on PKs :-[

Quote from: ECSUalum on November 05, 2010, 12:31:59 PM
Dei,

Nice review of current status of Conference tourneys!! +K

ECSU embarrassed last night by UMB on PKs :-[

Great season by ECSU, though. Their program has come a long way in just a few years. Move over WCSU.

Deiscanton,

Thanks for the terrific update and insights...very helpful. 

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground."

Look out, machine.  I don't think Dfense1 is going to like you calling his purple cows "Philistines."  ;D

Quote from: Becks on November 05, 2010, 05:01:32 PM
Look out, machine.  I don't think Dfense1 is going to like you calling his purple cows "Philistines."  ;D

Far be it from me to quote from scripture.

I will say however that there is not a snowball's chance in that very hot place that Midd can pull off an upset tomorrow!

Quote from: deiscanton on November 05, 2010, 08:20:10 AM
Brandeis's Pool C resume--

#3 in New England rankings this week.

In-region record is 13-4-1  (.750 in-region winning percentage)

In-region Strength of schedule ranking is .618  (Highest among New England DIII teams through Oct. 31)

(snip)

Where did you get the strength of schedule percentage? Did you calculate it? Or is it published somewhere? Is that this weighted average of OWP and OOWP the NCAA DIII Championship manual refers to? Or are you referring to the Massey ratings? Or something else?

Do you know how the SOS gets folded in to the regional rankings?

Sorry for all the questions, but you seem knowledgeable about these matters, and I would like to be also.

Quote from: Dfense1 on November 05, 2010, 07:34:42 PM

Quote from: Becks on November 05, 2010, 05:01:32 PM
Look out, machine.  I don't think Dfense1 is going to like you calling his purple cows "Philistines."  ;D

Far be it from me to quote from scripture.

I will say however that there is not a snowball's chance in that very hot place that Midd can pull off an upset tomorrow!

I think that any team that can put up 3 goals on Amherst in 9 minutes should not be taken lightly, irrespective of the score of a previous game.

Not taking anybody lightly...just confidence that the team is peaking at just the right time to finish the NESCAC season with yet another championship.

Johnboy,

You can find  strength of schedule at http://www.ncaa.com/sports/w-soccer/spec-rel/110410aaa.html

Quote from: jellybelly on November 05, 2010, 11:55:03 PM
Johnboy,

You can find  strength of schedule at http://www.ncaa.com/sports/w-soccer/spec-rel/110410aaa.html

Ahhh.....so that's what those blue things were: links. Duh.

Final-- NESCAC Semifinal Match #1  from Amherst, MA

Amherst 4:1  Bates

Final in from the University Athletic Association-- from Gaelic Park in Bronx, NY-- (Home side mentioned first)

NYU  0:2  Brandeis

Brandeis's victory over NYU today closes Brandeis's regular season with a 14-4-1 mark in in-region play  (.763 in-region winning percentage).

Eastern Conn State and Brandeis will most likely get Pool C bids on Monday.  We will have to see how many other New England teams will join them.

Update: Final--  NESCAC Semifinal #2  from Amherst, MA  (Higher seed mentioned first)

Williams 2:0  Middlebury

Amherst vs Williams for the NESCAC title tomorrow at Noon EST

New England teams in to the NCAAs by virtue of automatic bids--

GNAC-- Lasell   (defeated Norwich, 1-0,  in title game.)

North Atlantic Conference-- Castleton State  (defeated Husson, 3-0, in title game.)

MASCAC--  Worcester State  (defeated Bridgewater State, 1-0, in title game.)

TCCC-- Roger Williams  (Title game ended in a 2-2 draw vs. Endicott after 110 minutes,  Roger Williams wins the Commonwealth Coast Conference automatic bid on penalty kicks, 4-2.)

NECC-- Mitchell  (defeated Lesley, 2-1, in title game.)

Sunday updates

NESCAC--  Williams  (defeated Amherst, 1-0, in title game.)  Congrats to Williams on repeating as NESCAC tourney champions once again.

Little East-- Western Connecticut  (defeated UMass-Boston, 1-0, in title game.)

NEWMAC--  Springfield  (defeated Babson, 1-0, in title game.)

Sunday's New England title games are set:

NESCAC--  Amherst v Williams--  Amherst, MA

NEWMAC--  Springfield v Babson-- Springfield, MA

(In the NEWMAC semis today,   Springfield defeated Wheaton (MA) by a score of 2-1, and the MIT v Babson game ended in a 0-0 draw after 110 minutes.   Babson advanced to the final on penalty kicks, 4-3.)

Little East--  Western Connecticut v UMass-Boston-- Danbury, CT

My pick for POW...Sara Wild of Williams...led the Ephs to their 4th consecutive NESCAC championship with game winners over both Midd and Amherst.

I would not be surprised to see Wild win POY.

Seems like a no-brainer, she's already been POW twice (and probably will be again), leads NESCAC in assists, is second in scoring overall, was first-team all conference the last two years, and is the top player on the championship squad.  Plus, she's a senior to boot. 

Congrats to the Ephs on an incredible fourth straight championship!  This must easily be the most accomplished group of seniors in NESCAC history.  Seems like the Ephs are rolling now, and hopefully it will carry through into the NCAAs. 

Quote from: Becks on November 08, 2010, 10:31:50 AM
I would not be surprised to see Wild win POY.

Agree...Wild has had a monster year for them.  And, if she wins POW today, it will be the first time since 2000 that one player has won the recogition 3 times in a NESCAC season.

Quote from: nescac1 on November 08, 2010, 10:41:04 AM
Seems like a no-brainer, she's already been POW twice (and probably will be again), leads NESCAC in assists, is second in scoring overall, was first-team all conference the last two years, and is the top player on the championship squad.  Plus, she's a senior to boot. 

Congrats to the Ephs on an incredible fourth straight championship!  This must easily be the most accomplished group of seniors in NESCAC history.  Seems like the Ephs are rolling now, and hopefully it will carry through into the NCAAs. 

Quoted from the Williams website--"this year's seniors – Burke, Danhakl, Duggan, Annie Neil, Jacqueline Russo, Rainer, Schreiber, Snyder, and Wild – have won a NESCAC championship in all of four of their years at Williams.  They hold an all-time record of 67-6-3 and a regular season NESCAC record of 31-2-3.  They are 11-0 in NESCAC tournament games."

Bracket is out:

http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/w-soccer/auto_pdf/2010d3wsoccerbracket2

Williams is the only NESCAC representative, ouch.  Ephs face a very tough road ahead with, it seems, no home games and some tough teams in their quarter of the bracket.  But at least they won't have the pressure this year of being an overwhelming favorite to make it to the Final Four. 

Perhaps they are peaking at the right time this year, or will have better luck.  It seemed like each of the last 3 years they got knocked out in a game where they lost even though they were arguably the better team.

I'm looking forward to this weekend's action at Brandeis-- in particular, a potential second round match at Gordon Field in Waltham, MA  involving the Judges and the Ephs.   I went to the Tufts-Williams match a few weeks ago, and from my observations, the potential second round match between Brandeis and Williams will be very interesting, assuming that both teams win their first round games.

Brandeis has to defeat Castleton and Williams will have to defeat Lasell first in order for that second round match to take place.

Wow, only one Nescac team...seems crazy.  I guess out of conference by Amherst really hurt them.  

Having seen all the teams, I think Tufts was second best but early season losses to Wheaton and Amherst hurt.  Also, the emergence of Brandeis is one of the stories of the year.  They will pose a stiff test for Williams.

Quote from: onetouch on November 08, 2010, 11:09:19 AM
Wow, only one Nescac team...seems crazy.  I guess out of conference by Amherst really hurt them.  

Having seen all the teams, I think Tufts was second best but early season losses to Wheaton and Amherst hurt.  Also, the emergence of Brandeis is one of the stories of the year.  They will pose a stiff test for Williams.

Actually, not that surprising that the only NESCAC team to receive an NCAA bid was Williams based on receiving an Automatic Qualifier for winning the conference.  Since regional rankings are used as a basis for selection, no other NESCAC school was ranked high enough, i.e. Midd was ranked 5th, Tufts 8th and Amherst 11th in last weeks poll to be included in the Pool C at-large bids.

So 3 "at large" (Pool C) bids for New England?  Definitely hurt that 3 of the top 4 ranked teams didn't win their tourneys and so used up the bids.  Amherst had no hope with 7 losses and ties with Bates and Conn.  I think Tufts was a bit hard-done by.  Only 2 losses on the season.  I would have ranked them ahead of Midd (who they beat 3-0 and who had 5 losses), but apparently even that wouldn't have gotten them in.  First time in a number of years that NESCAC has only had 1 tourney entry.

Quote from: Becks on November 08, 2010, 11:38:39 AM
So 3 "at large" (Pool C) bids for New England?  Definitely hurt that 3 of the top 4 ranked teams didn't win their tourneys and so used up the bids.  Amherst had no hope with 7 losses and ties with Bates and Conn.  I think Tufts was a bit hard-done by.  Only 2 losses on the season.  I would have ranked them ahead of Midd (who they beat 3-0 and who had 5 losses), but apparently even that wouldn't have gotten them in.  First time in a number of years that NESCAC has only had 1 tourney entry.

Very true...and it appears the 3 Pool C selections followed the same form as they did in 2009 based on the regional rankings.  That is, the #1 ranked team (Eastern Conn), #3 (Brandeis) and #4 (Wheaton) all received Pool C bids. Williams at #2 won its conference and received an AQ as did the other New England schools that qualified.

The seeming moral of the story...either win your conference to receive an AQ and/or stay on top of the regional power rankings.

Quote from: nescac1 on November 08, 2010, 10:51:47 AM
Bracket is out:

http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/w-soccer/auto_pdf/2010d3wsoccerbracket2

Williams is the only NESCAC representative, ouch.  Ephs face a very tough road ahead with, it seems, no home games and some tough teams in their quarter of the bracket.  But at least they won't have the pressure this year of being an overwhelming favorite to make it to the Final Four. 

Interesting footnote to the Williams 2010 season is they have played 11 of 17 games on the road, including this past weekends conference championship at Amherst.

So they would appear to be a battle-tested team who know how to win on the road and what it takes to win come tournament time, i.e., their senior class has been to the NCAA Sweet 16 twice and Final Four once. 

Should be an interesting run!

Quote from: Becks on October 14, 2010, 10:23:34 AMNESCAC parity this year means no real outstanding teams.  I wouldn't be surprised if the only NESCAC team to get an NCAA bid is the NESCAC tournament winner.

At least loyal readers should not have been surprised that there was only 1 NESCAC bid.  ;)

While rational, it still seems odd!

Quote from: nescac1 on November 08, 2010, 10:51:47 AM
Bracket is out:

http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/w-soccer/auto_pdf/2010d3wsoccerbracket2

Williams is the only NESCAC representative, ouch.  Ephs face a very tough road ahead with, it seems, no home games and some tough teams in their quarter of the bracket.  But at least they won't have the pressure this year of being an overwhelming favorite to make it to the Final Four. 

Just wondering who you would consider to be the tough teams in their quarter to get past...

I found the NCAA Regional Score Reporting Form

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=WSO&region=25&division=3  

appearing on Page 3 of the latest NCAA New England Regional Rankings to be helpful in better understanding how these "power" rankings are derived, and in turn how the Pool C bids may have been determined.

Five key In-Region factors being evaluated for each of 75 teams under consideration by the NCAA in New England include:
-- W/L %
-- Avg Opp W/L %
-- Avg Opp Opp W/L %
-- SOS
-- Results vs. Ranked Teams

What would be helpful is to understand the "weighting" each factor carries in determining the final Region ranking. 

Can anyone shed some further light?

Here is some clarification of the primary criteria-

Primary criteria for regional rankings is as follows (Not in priority order-- each of these factors is to be taken as a whole in determining the rankings.)

(1)  In-region win/loss percentage

(2)  In-region head-to-head

(3)  In-region results vs common opponents on team schedules

(4)-- In-region strength of schedule ranking  (2/3 of it is composed of avg opponents winning percentage, 1/3 of it is composed of avg opponents' opponents winning percentage).

(5)  In-region results vs regionally ranked opponents.

The regional rankings by the regional advisory committees are important because for Pool C consideration in each region-- the regional ranking determines the "pecking order" in each region in which teams come up for consideration by the national selection committee-- the members of which are the chairs of each of the regional advisory committees.

When the bids are awarded on a national basis, each of the 8 evaluation regions always has one team on the national table for consideration at a time-- and these 8 are then evaluated as a group. When the best team of those 8 teams gets awarded a Pool C bid, the next available team from that region then goes onto the national table for consideration.   The process is repeated until all 20 Pool C bids are awarded. These 20 teams are deemed to be the "best" 20 teams nationally who did not win their respective automatic qualifying bids.

The bids are to be awarded nationally based on the primary in-region selection criteria, however, if the national committee cannot reach a selection decision based on that criteria, then out-of-region secondary criteria may be added to help reach a final decision.

There are no minimum or maximum number of bids which are required to be given to any particular region, however, this year, the national selection process had each region ending up with at least 1 Pool C bid--  with the South Atlantic and East regions each being awarded with 4 Pool C teams, the Central, North, and New England Regions each getting 3 Pool C bids, and the remaining 3 Pool C bids being awarded to the Great Lakes, West, and Mid-Atlantic regions  (1 Pool C team each).   

For the New England regional selection process-- the pecking order for Pool C selection was Eastern Conn State being first on the table, followed by Brandeis, then Wheaton (MA), with Keene State being the team left on the national table when the final Pool C selection was awarded.    Tufts, being ranked #9 in New England in the final rankings which were released Monday afternoon after the bracket was announced, never got to the national table for Pool C consideration.

As to why Keene State was ranked ahead of Tufts,  it seems to me to be a close call--  Tufts and Keene State tied in the head-to head, and it seemed close in the results with common opponents Williams, Middlebury, and Amherst-- Tufts went 1-1-1 vs those teams, and Keene State went 1-2 vs those teams.

Both Keene State and Tufts had high enough strength of schedules to be worthy of being regionally ranked-- Keene State's SOS as of 10/31 was .548, while Tufts had a .596 SOS as of 10/31.

Looking at the schedule of the Jumbos,  Tufts did not have a significant in-region win outside of the NESCAC to seem to be worthy of a Pool C pick in my opinion--   Tufts lost to Wheaton (MA), and tied with Keene State.   The only non-conference wins of note for Tufts were wins over Babson and Endicott, neither of those two teams won their conference automatic bids to the NCAA tournament.   A chance for the Jumbos to make a statement vs Brandeis got cancelled by bad weather, so Tufts basically had to prove themselves exclusively in NESCAC competition.   Tufts seemed to make a statement with their tie against Williams and their victory against Bowdoin to get the #1 seed in the NESCAC tournament, but being unable to win in regulation vs Bates in the first round of the NESCAC tournament really cost Tufts in the end.

In the end,  Keene State's better in-region winning percentage may have been the deciding factor in a close-call vs those teams. 

I'm a Great Lakes follower. Was told SOS was a huge factor in the regional rankings this year...straight from the committee itself. But you gotta wonder how that distort things. WashU is the clear outlier in the regional picks, and was probably the last pool C bid in the Central/Great Lakes area, which seem to have some overlap in the selection process. Great strength of schedule (.694) but out of 10 games against ranked teams (which clearly builds a strength of schedule) they only won 3) and, they end up with a bid...but that's the way it works...also it's very difficult (i'm told) to move across regions...there are geographic considerations in building the bracket which is probably why Hamilton got in, for instance, even it's strenght of schedule wasn't all that great and they were 0-2 against ranked teams.

On other other side of the coin and in support of the importance of SOS, look at Thomas More in the Great Lakes ... undefeated 14-0-4...but a .494 SOS and they only played one ranked team which they beat...no bid...go figure.

Of particular interest to me in the Great Lakes was Wooster...they dropped one spot in the regional rankings last week (from 3rd to 4th) even though they tied a ranked team in tournament (Lost in PKs)and only lost one of it's last eight games...Centre which lost three of tis last four games, rose up to 3, from I believe it was 6th...but still no bid for Centre either, by all accounts, a really good team.

There's always going to be folks who are upset by the process of selection (look at hte BCS mess) but it seems there are other factors, perhaps political, that come into play.

Deiscanton & Freekick,

Thanks for the perspectives...it really sheds some light.

As you might guess, when I reviewed the New England Score Reporting Form I referenced earlier, I got a little excited because it seemed there really was a quantitative and objective basis out there for ranking teams.

Both of your perspectives however, seem to point to some degree of subjectivity (including politics) that still (unfortunately) exists in the selection process (okay...call me naive).

Hamilton was actually 0-0-2 vs regionally ranked teams, not 0-2.   Hamilton tied with William Smith and Oneonta State (the top two teams in Hamilton's region), both of those teams won their respective automatic bids from their leagues.    Had Hamilton lost to those teams, they probably would not be in the NCAAs.

As to why Hamilton got a Pool C bid ahead of Keene State, the national committee probably used secondary criteria to award that bid.    Keene State played Cortland out-of-region and only got a tie in that match, while Hamilton defeated Cortland in-region.   That probably was the factor in getting Hamilton a Pool C bid ahead of Keene State.

Hamilton had a good-enough regional winning percentage and strength of schedule to be worthy of Pool C consideration despite being ranked only #7 in the East.

Of note, Hamilton is scheduled to join NESCAC for soccer and basketball next season, if I recall correctly, and that will make the NESCAC a multi-region league. (as well as getting Hamilton full NESCAC membership in all sports.)

Sorry...you're right. I misread that.

On the other hand, Vassar had a better record and a better SOS but no quality wins with one quality tie...should they have been in over Hamilton???

Quote from: Becks on November 08, 2010, 10:31:50 AM
I would not be surprised to see Wild win POY.

Good call Becks...following site lists the NESCAC All-Conference selections released today.

http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2010-11/honors/allconference

Quote from: Dfense1 on October 28, 2010, 07:15:15 PM
Re: ROY

I believe the ROY will go to whichever First Year offensive NESCAC POW whose team finishes highest in final conference rankings.

I should have said...will go to the First Year offensive POW whose team finishes highest in the NESCAC tournament.

Congrats to Amanda Brisco of Amherst...they lost in finals to Williams.

http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2010-11/honors/allconference

I haven't gone through the NESCAC all-conference awards, but at first blush, they make sense to me.  I definitely agree with the 2 Wesleyan picks.  I would have picked them that way myself.  Kurash has the highest work rate of pretty much any player I've ever seen and is a great finisher.  Battelle was a total rock in midfield (amazingly strong; I loved watching players bounce off her), with ball skills to match (queen of the step over).

I thought Kurash's first team honors was a first for a Wes player.  But after checking the archives, I found that Wes had a first team keeper back in 2001 -- pretty amazing since Wes had by far the worst GA stats in the league that year.

Definitely takes away a lot of the NCAA tournament buzz on this thread, having only 1 NESCAC representative this year, as opposed to 3 last year.  Dfense1 and Johnboy have reason to be excited; the rest of us, not so much.

Quote from: Becks on November 12, 2010, 10:54:21 AM
Definitely takes away a lot of the NCAA tournament buzz on this thread, having only 1 NESCAC representative this year, as opposed to 3 last year.  Dfense1 and Johnboy have reason to be excited; the rest of us, not so much.

Ahhh...you guys (and gals) like good soccer whoever plays it.  I think we'll see the Ephs give a great accounting of themselves in the tournament and on behalf of NESCAC.

That 3-0 win is a good start.

Quote from: Jim Matson on November 13, 2010, 11:50:40 PM
That 3-0 win is a good start.

Agree...Lasell really packed the box in the first half until Williams broke them down in the 2nd half.  In the next game, Brandeis also played a similar defensive scheme against Caselton with 8 players behind the 18 most times.  Expect a tough contest today and low scoring game.

NCAA NE Regional Womens Soccer Tournament at Mansfield Sports Complex:

ECSU women over Wheaton 0-0 on PKs

Next up Williams College

Quote from: Dfense1 on November 14, 2010, 09:16:12 AM

Quote from: Jim Matson on November 13, 2010, 11:50:40 PM
That 3-0 win is a good start.

Agree...Lasell really packed the box in the first half until Williams broke them down in the 2nd half.  In the next game, Brandeis also played a similar defensive scheme against Caselton with 8 players behind the 18 most times.  Expect a tough contest today and low scoring game.

Always learning in this sport...Williams 6 Brandeis 0.

Hey, at least that learning was a positive experience!?

Quote from: Jim Matson on November 15, 2010, 12:04:31 AM
Hey, at least that learning was a positive experience!?

No doubt...the Judges decided to run with the Ephs and completely changed tactics vs. their game with Castleton. 

Can anyone explain the thinking behind why Williams and ECSU will travel to William Smith for the Sweet 16? 

Since Williams ranks 1st in the NE region and their men's team is out of the tournament, they could have certainly hosted the 3rd round.

Assume one reason might be because William Smith also finished first in their region and qualify to host based on some type of yearly alternating between regions, i.e., Williams hosted Sectionals in 2009.

Any thoughts?

Willimantic Ct to Geneva NY 330 miles!!

Who has the better soccer facility William-Smith or Williams??

Becks -  I seem to recall one of your earlier posts that noted this was your last season as moderator of this chat board. If that is the case, I would like to compliment you on the magnificent job you have done over the past few years. Your posts are always thorough, thoughtful and thought-provoking. I am doubtful that anyone can fill your shoes, and this board will be much poorer for your loss. Well done!   :)

Quote from: ECSUalum on November 15, 2010, 01:44:26 PM
Willimantic Ct to Geneva NY 330 miles!!

Who has the better soccer facility William-Smith or Williams??

The Williams field might be a little larger but both are good facilities for the game with different local attractions, e.g. Berkshires vs. Finger Lakes.  Since the die is cast, enjoy the scenic ride up to NY State!

Quote from: Gerrs on November 15, 2010, 02:08:15 PM
Becks -  I seem to recall one of your earlier posts that noted this was your last season as moderator of this chat board. If that is the case, I would like to compliment you on the magnificent job you have done over the past few years. Your posts are always thorough, thoughtful and thought-provoking. I am doubtful that anyone can fill your shoes, and this board will be much poorer for your loss. Well done!   :)

Thanks, Gerrs.  Yes, daughter #1 has finished her college career.  :'(  It's been a labor of love.  I'll probably post some post-season comments based on final league stats, but after that, it'll just be guest appearances.  At least unless daughter #3 (HS frosh) ends up playing at a NESCAC school.  ;D

I think that William Smith as a host was based on an overall ranking that put them on top of the remaining group.  Last year, the NCAA posted their final rankings so we could have seen this.  But this year, those rankings were not released - at least not yet.

Thanks Jim,

As Dfense stated, it'll be a nice ride to the finger lake region, ladies can catch up on some sleep over the 5.5 hr trip ;)

Willimantic to San Antonio...1980.16 miles....Go for it!!!!!

Quote from: 2xfaux on November 15, 2010, 05:29:31 PM
Willimantic to San Antonio...1980.16 miles....Go for it!!!!!

Not sure I'd be worrying about the Willimantic to San Antonio ride unless you were thinking of going as a spectator.

Those Eph broads are on fire!

William Smith did beat Williams earlier in the year, which may have factored into the hosting decision.  Williams has also played Oneonta, a game it won.  If the Ephs can get back Eastern Conn, they will face a stern test vs. either, although I do think the experience playing at William Smith will help, and also, the Ephs are playing MUCH better than they did earlier in the season. 

NESCAC player of the year Sarah Wild has been particularly on fire with 8 goals and 4 assists in her last six games (as compared to 4 goals and 5 assists in the previous 13 games).  Ephs 8-0-1 with only four goals allowed in last nine, after starting a pedestrian 6-3-1. 

Quote from: nescac1 on November 16, 2010, 11:37:49 AM
William Smith did beat Williams earlier in the year, which may have factored into the hosting decision.  Williams has also played Oneonta, a game it won.  If the Ephs can get back Eastern Conn, they will face a stern test vs. either, although I do think the experience playing at William Smith will help, and also, the Ephs are playing MUCH better than they did earlier in the season. 

NESCAC player of the year Sarah Wild has been particularly on fire with 8 goals and 4 assists in her last six games (as compared to 4 goals and 5 assists in the previous 13 games).  Ephs 8-0-1 with only four goals allowed in last nine, after starting a pedestrian 6-3-1. 

nescac1,

Yes, I also noticed how well Williams College women have played the last third of the season.  Some time a team gets hot and can steamroll through the NCAA Tourney.  Sometimes a key player,( team leader) returns from injury and ignites the team into playing much better.  The 4 teams will just have to slug it out to see who makes the 2000 mile ride to San Antonio. ;D  Good Luck to all!!

Quote from: 2xfaux on November 15, 2010, 05:29:31 PM
Willimantic to San Antonio...1980.16 miles....Go for it!!!!!

Hell yeah!!!!!!   Lets see if the ECSU ladies can match or exceed the performance of their softball sisters who ended #3 in the country this past spring. 8-)

Quote from: nescac1 on November 16, 2010, 11:37:49 AM
William Smith did beat Williams earlier in the year, which may have factored into the hosting decision.  Williams has also played Oneonta, a game it won.  If the Ephs can get back Eastern Conn, they will face a stern test vs. either, although I do think the experience playing at William Smith will help, and also, the Ephs are playing MUCH better than they did earlier in the season. 

NESCAC player of the year Sarah Wild has been particularly on fire with 8 goals and 4 assists in her last six games (as compared to 4 goals and 5 assists in the previous 13 games).  Ephs 8-0-1 with only four goals allowed in last nine, after starting a pedestrian 6-3-1. 

Interesting to note Williams has played 13/19 games (68%) away so far this year...they should be road-tough by now and raring to go.

ECSU is not far behind with 11/21 games (52%) on the road. In this match-up, they have shared 5 common opponents in WConn, Keene, Wesleyan, Amherst and Trinity.

ECSU went 4-0-1 while Williams went 5-1-1 (played Amherst and Wes twice) with 4 of their games on the road vs. 2 on the road for ECSU.

Info on this weekends NCAA Women's Soccer Tournament at Hobart-William Smith including team comparisons:

http://www.hwsathletics.com/news/2010/11/15/WSSC_1115103546.aspx

Live stats and audio streams for your entertainment.

This should be an amazing weekend of D-3 women's soccer.  Every time I see a reference to coach Wilber's record I am awed.  Have fun everyone.

Women's Sweet 16 preview on the front page.

A well-written article on the Sweet 16.

Definitely intriguing match-ups across the country...great soccer weekend!

From the Williams website on this weekends games:

http://williams.prestosports.com/sports/wsoc/2010-11/releases/2010111834gr45 

DOMINATING performance by Williams College ladies soccer over ECSU lady Warrior

Good experience for a young ECSU squad!

Job well done to Williams College, and Good Luck for remainder of NCAA Tournament!!!!

The real match is tomorrow for the Ephs.  William Smith looked very good today against Oneonta State.  The WS pitch is in good shape and the video feed is excellent.  Should be good.

My congrats as well to the steadily improving women's program at Eastern Connecticut. 

Quote from: Jim Matson on November 20, 2010, 05:19:47 PM
The real match is tomorrow for the Ephs.  William Smith looked very good today against Oneonta State.  The WS pitch is in good shape and the video feed is excellent.  Should be good.

My congrats as well to the steadily improving women's program at Eastern Connecticut. 

Jim, Thanks!!!!!

Quote from: Jim Matson on November 20, 2010, 05:19:47 PM
The real match is tomorrow for the Ephs.  William Smith looked very good today against Oneonta State.  The WS pitch is in good shape and the video feed is excellent.  Should be good.

My congrats as well to the steadily improving women's program at Eastern Connecticut. 

This has all the makings of a terrific match-up today. Williams is peaking at just the right time and hopefully will find quite a different team than the one they faced in September.

It was.  Williams had their chances, but keeping Heron #9 quiet is almost impossible.

Good season for the Ephs.  The 2008 Final Four seems far away, but these women were there.  Great four year run for the seniors.

In the not-so-surprising news department:

QuoteEdmed Steps Down as Women's Soccer Head Coach at Connecticut College

Courtesy Connecticut College Sports Information

NEW LONDON, Conn. – Connecticut College women's soccer coach Winnie Edmed is stepping down after five seasons with the program. Edmed will relinquish her duties as soccer coach effective July 1, 2011, and will remain on staff as an instructor and administrator in the physical education department for the 2011-2012 year.

Fran Shields, the Katherine Wenk Christoffers '45 Director of Athletics and Chair of the Physical Education Department at Connecticut College commended Edmed for her contributions to the athletic program.

"We want to thank Winnie for her dedication and commitment to our student-athletes," Shields said. "We look forward to working with Winnie as her career takes a new direction."

In the classroom, Edmed's players have performed at the highest level. Since Edmed's first coaching season, 23 women's soccer players have been named to the NESCAC All-Academic Team.

Shields will conduct a national search for a replacement head coach.

Conn had a record of 3-36-6 in league play in her five seasons at the helm, after making the NESCAC semis in 2 of the 4 preceding years.

Becks, are you done?

Pretty much. My kid graduated this past spring, so my interest level is way down. Might check in from time to time, but don't think I'll be spending any time doing team evaluations, game predictions, etc. Good luck to all, and have fun making those road trips to Hamilton!

Becks--

Just wanted to say how thoroughly I've enjoyed your posts over the last 4 years.  My daughter's NESCAC soccer career parallelled your daughter's at Wes, and the amount of analysis you brought to bear on the matchups was uniquely deep and rigorous--food for thought, always.  Your predictions were insightful, but gentle, in cases where blowouts were likely.

Nicely done.  Thank you.

Becks, I did very much enjoy your predictions, postings, and musings.  But completely understandable about your moving on now that your daughter has moved on--my daughter is out two years now and my interest has changed and diminished, and there is always the fear that people will want to know about the stalker coming to the games ;).

Becks, I'll miss your posts

Thanks, guys. You're making me all teary eyed.  Naw, just kidding.  But thanks. Hopefully someone will start a NESCAC 2011 thread. I'm concentrating on HS soccer this fall. I got a kid who is a soph. Maybe I'll start posting here again in 2014.  ;)

Can you at least post a blowout special from time to time for machine!

While Becks is on sabbitical does anyone else have thoughts on whether Williams is still the team to beat?