D3boards.com

Well, daughter #3 is following in the footsteps of daughter #1, so I'm looking forward to what will hopefully be another 4 years of NESCAC women's soccer. Lots of time before the first game for me to catch up on what's been happening in the league since daughter #1's last season in 2010 and to provide all sorts of (probably meaningless) pre-season analysis.

College soccer team roster sizes typically range from the low 20s to the mid 30s. Here's where the NESCAC's stand.

Rank. School - 4-year average (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010):

1. Amherst - 28 (28, 28, 28, 28)
2. Colby - 26.5 (27, 26, 25, 27)
3. Conn - 25.75 (28, 27, 24, 24)
4. Bowdoin - 25.25 (25, 25, 25, 26)
4. Williams - 25.25 (27, 27, 23, 24)
6. Bates - 25 (24, 23, 27, 26)
6. Middlebury - 25 (28, 25, 24, 23)
8. Hamilton - 24.25 (25, 21, 25, 27)
9. Tufts - 24 (23, 24, 24, 25)
9. Wes - 24 (26, 22, 23, 25)
11. Trinity - 22.25 (25, 22, 24, 18)

Observations:
1. There does not appear to be much correlation between team success over the years and roster size.
2. Could be just chance due to the small sample size, but the only team that seems to have a fixed roster size is Amherst.
3. Although the roster sizes of the other teams bounce around a bit, they generally stay within a limited range.
4. No team has had a roster of more than 28 players.
5. There was only 2 occurrences of a roster of fewer than 22 players.

Possible factors affecting roster sizes:
1. Coach preference. Some coaches may like to have lots of players on their roster (i) to make sure they have enough for 11v11 drills/scrimmages even if there are lot of injuries or other attrition and/or (ii) to increase competition for playing time. Other coaches may like smaller roster sizes so they don't have to choose between (i) having a lot of players on the bench that are unhappy with their playing time and (ii) giving playing time to a lot of weaker players.
2. Talent pool. A team that has a deeper pool of talent show up at tryouts is probably more likely to keep a larger roster because they will feel confident that they can play everyone on the roster without a large drop-off in talent.
3. AD issues. On the one hand, there is a marginal cost to the school for each additional player; on the other hand, more girls on the team helps balance out the football numbers a bit for Title IX purposes.
4. NESCAC rules? I'm not sure, but there may be a NESCAC rule that limit the number of players on the team (or the number that travels) to 28.
5. Bus size? Teams may not want to take more girls on the roster than the buses can take. Perhaps the bus limit is 28?

Consequences of roster size. As every player or parent knows, the biggest issue with larger roster sizes is playing time. The larger the roster, inevitably, the more players who are going to get minimal playing time.

For comparison, here are the 2013 roster sizes at a sampling of other D1 and D3 schools.

D1:
North Carolina - 36
Colgate - 29
Stanford - 28
Notre Dame - 28
UNH - 27
Elon - 27
Wake Forest - 27
Bucknell - 26
Dartmouth - 25
Yale - 25
Ohio State - 25
Holy Cross - 23
Florida State - 22

D3:
MIT - 32
Brandeis - 30
Union - 30
Claremont - Mudd - Scripps - 30
William Smith - 29
Gettysburg - 28
Swarthmore - 27
Pomona-Pitzer - 26

Based on this very unscientific sampling, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. UNC - 36), most D1 schools seem to have roster sizes that are in the range of NESCAC roster sizes, although perhaps averaging slightly larger than the NESCAC average. On the other hand, a lot of top non-NESCAC D3 schools have larger roster sizes than any of the NESCACs.

Roster size is largely a function of (i) the size of the incoming class and (ii) attrition rate. Here are the size of the incoming freshman classes for the last 7 years.

Rank.School - 7-yr ave (roster for fall of '13, '12, '11, '10, '9, '8, '7) (NA means the roster info was not available.)

1. Conn - 11.0 (9, 12, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA)
2. Trinity - 9.7 (9, 11, 9, NA, NA, NA, NA)
3. Bates - 8.3 (8, 6, 6, 11, 8, 12, 7)
4. Bowdoin - 8.1 (9, 9, 8, 7, 10, 7, 7)
5. Amherst - 7.1 (7, 6, 8, 10, 6, 7, 6)
5. Colby - 7.1 (7, 5, 8, 9, 5, 8, 8)
5. Wes - 7.1 (7, 7, 8, 10, 7, 6, 5)
5. Williams - 7.1 (8, 8, 9, 4, 7, 4, 10)
9. Hamilton - 7.0 (7, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA)
10. Tufts - 6.4 (8, 4, 6, 10, 4, 8, 5)
11. Middlebury - 6.1 (11, 3, 7, 5, 9, 2, 6)

Observations:
1. Some coaches (Bowdoin, Amherst, Colby) seem to like to have pretty much the same size frosh class every year. Something in the 5-9 or 6-10 range. Other coaches (e.g. PK at Middlebury) seem to be happy to let the size of the class fluctuate wildly (2-11).
2. The sweet spot for most schools seems to be a class size that averages 7-8.
3. Larger class sizes can be offset by smaller prior or subsequent class sizes, more attrition, and fewer lateral additions; smaller classes sizes can be offset by larger prior or subsequent class sizes, lower attrition, and more lateral additions.

The other major factor determining roster size is attrition rate or, its flipside, retention rate.

Here are the retention averages for the NESCAC teams for the last 4 senior classes. Retention was calculated based on the number of frosh on the roster that were still on the roster as seniors. So for example, if there was a frosh class of 8 and 4 of those were on the roster as seniors, the retention rate was 50%. I couldn’t calculate retention rates for Conn, Hamilton or Trinity because their old rosters don’t seem to be available on their websites.

Rank. School – retention average (class of ’14, class of ’13, class of ’12, class of ’11)

1. Middlebury – 95% (5/5, 9/9, 1/2, 5/5)
2. Williams – 84% (2/4, 7/7, 3/4, 9/10)
3. Amherst – 76% (6/10, 6/6, 6/7, 4/6)
4. Tufts – 67% (6/10, 3/4, 6/8, 3/5)
5. Colby – 63% (7/9, 3/5, 4/8, 5/8)
6. Wes – 54% (3/6, 4/7, 4/10, 4/5)
7. Bowdoin – 42% (3/7, 3/10, 3/7, 4/7)
8. Bates – 37% (5/11, 3/8, 5/12, 1/7)

Retention rates are affected by coaches cutting players and players quitting.

Cutting players:
1. Coaches' roster management philosophy. Some coaches may intentionally take larger recruiting classes, give everyone a long look, and then weed out the players they conclude will not be able to contribute. Others may like to take smaller recruiting classes, with the expectation that they will keep almost all of them on the team until graduation.
2. Depth of recruiting class talent. A coach who believes that his/her recruiting class is solid throughout, with little drop off in talent, may be less inclined to cut players than a coach who believes there is a noticeable drop off in talent within his/her recruiting classes. This could explain why the more successful teams have higher retention rates -- more depth in recruiting class and fewer marginal players to cut.
3. Coaching changes. A new coach generally has less loyalty to existing players and vice versa. Bowdoin and Bates are the only schools list above that have had coaching changes in the past 4 years and also have the lowest retention rate. Then again, maybe the coach leaving reflected a general lack of success and/or unhappiness on the team, so actually both the coaching change and the lower retention rates were the result of the same problems.

Players quitting:
1. Playing time. Lack of playing time is the #1 reason that players quit a team. Any player who is not either a starter or a regular sub may question whether what they are getting out of being on the team is worth what they are putting into it. Teams who have rosters with fewer players who are only occasional subs (either because the team has a smaller roster or because the coach regularly uses more subs in games) are likely to have higher retention rates.
2. Player assurance of more playing time with seniority. Players who are not happy with their playing time well decide not to come back the following year unless they believe their playing time will improve substantially the following year. As a result, players on teams who have assurance (based on what the coach or players say or what they see) that their playing time will increase in future years will probably be less likely to quit due to lack of playing time than players on teams who have no assurance of increased playing time in future years.
3. Other factors affecting player happiness on team. While playing time is perhaps the biggest factor affecting player happiness, any other factor affecting player happiness with their experience on the team (eg team success and team chemistry) will also affect the likelihood that players will want to stay on the team.

Even though the time periods for the recruiting class figures and retention rates in the two posts above are not identical, there is a fair amount of consistency between them. For example, Middlebury, which has the highest retention rate also has the smallest average recruiting class size, while Bowdoin and Bates, which have the lowest retention rates also have among the largest recruiting class sizes.

Very hard to say whether retention rates drive recruiting class size or recruiting class size drives retention rates. High retention rates can cause a coach to take smaller recruiting classes, while low retention rates can cause a coach to take larger recruiting classes. On the other hand, large recruiting classes can cause/allow a coach to cut players (to free up room for the next recruiting class) and lower retention rates, while smaller recruiting classes can cause/allow a coach to keep everyone and raise retention rates.

Here are the retention rates so far for the classes of '15 and '16. No Hamilton because only the 2013 roster is available.

Rank. School – retention average (class of ’16, class of ’15)
1. Amherst - 100% (5/5, 7/7)
2. Wes - 93% (6/7, 8/8)
3. Williams - 89% (7/8, 9/10)
4. Conn - 83% (10/12, NA)
5. Colby - 77% (3/5, 7/8)
6. Bowdoin - 76% (7/9, 6/8)
7. Bates - 75% (5/6, 9/12)
7. Trinity - 75% (10/11, 15/20)
9. Middlebury - 70% (2/3, 5/7)
10. Tufts - 60% (3/4, 3/6)

A smaller and less complete set of data than the prior retention figures, but still interesting. The retention percentages are higher than the prior data set, but that would be expected since this data set does not follow the players all the way through their senior year. Perhaps most significantly, there is not a lot of consistency with the prior rankings. This may show that retention rates for schools vary from class to class based on the characteristics of that class, circumstances of the team, or just plain random factors, rather than holding consistent for particular coaches or schools. Or maybe it just shows the problems of small sample size.

Amazing.  Good luck to daughter #3!

FYI.....Amherst's has just brought in a new assistant...div 1 player from same college as the Head Coach.  Info can be found on Amherst website.
  The cycle continues as the Class of '18 will be finalized very soon. HS Spring break is on and the main quad has groups of potential applicants on tour.  Amherst  applicant  pool has again exceeded well over 8,000 and continues to lead the conference in the lowest admit percentage.  Target class size is in the low 400.

See from the tables provided in the Beck posts that Amherst's squad numbers are average for the conference, while enrollment is in the lower have.  Amherst seeks to be competitive in all sports.

Quote from: 2xfaux on April 16, 2014, 07:04:49 PM
Amazing.  Good luck to daughter #3!

Thanks, 2xfaux.

A partial and tentative 2014 game schedule is available (kind of) at http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule . The schedule is clearly not complete (eg the Wes v Tufts and Wes v Trinity games are not on the schedule) and has not been officially "published" on the NESCAC website yet, but I suspect that most of what is there is correct.

Since I have an HS son as well, I took a look at NESCAC men's and women's soccer stats to see what the similarities and differences were.

Many of the key stats are surprisingly similar.

Median team goals per game average (conf games only) - 2013, 2012, 2011
M - 1.1, 1.2, 0.9
W - 1.3, 1.2, 1.3
The women actually scored slightly more per game, but, given the small sample size, the difference may not be significant.

Median team shots per game average (conf games only) - 2013, 2012, 2011
M - 12.6, 12.3, 11.8
W - 12.4, 11.4, 13.5
Very similar for men's and women's teams.

Saves percentage of #6 (approx median) ranked keeper (conf games only) - 2013, 2012, 2011
M - 0.800, 0.814, 0.791
W - 0.802, 0.821, 0.836
Fairly similar, but surprisingly (to me) the median women's keeper had a slightly higher saves percentage.


Some stats, however, do show differences.

Median corner kicks per game (conf only) - 2013, 2012, 2011
M - 4.4, 5.0, 4.4
W - 3.8, 3.9, 3.7
I think this difference is real. One possible theory is that women are not coached to seek corner kicks as much because women are generally weaker headers of the ball, so corner kicks are less valuable in the women's game than the men's game.


The biggest statistical difference that I found, however, was in fouls.

Median team fouls per game (conf only) - 2012, 2011, 2010 (I included 2010 because I could not find 2013 stats)
M - 12.2, 12.2, 10.5
W - 7.9, 8.5, 8.6
So a typical NESCAC women's game has only about 2/3 the number of fouls called as a typical NESCAC men's game, which, subjectively, seems about right to me.

Median team yellow cards per season (conf only) - 2013, 2012, 2011
M - 13, 8, 9
W - 0, 1, 2
This is a huge difference. There were an average of about 2 yellow cards handed out in each men's game, while a women's team might see 2 all year.  Under FIFA rules, this would mean that NESCAC men commit about 10x as many "reckless", "unsporting" or "deliberate" fouls as NESCAC women.  I suspect men do commit more of these fouls, but I think part of it is also a general reluctance on the part of refs to hand out cards in women's games even when the conduct deserves it.

D3 recruiting class information is always spotty, but here's what I've found so far for the incoming recruiting classes:

College - Name - Home Town - Club Team - Position

Amherst - Delancey King   - Braintree, MA   - Scorpions SC ECNL U18   - MF
Bates - Sarah McCarthy - ? - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary’s Sabres U18 - GK
Tufts   - Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Katherine Sands - Rye, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - DM
Williams - Jacqueline Simeone   - Milton, MA - IMG Soccer Academy - D

The information is obviously very incomplete, but I do think the fact that I located 4 Williams recruits suggests that Williams's recruiting class may be strong relative to other NESCACs. The argument is that it is probably somewhat likelier that D3 recruits on ECNL teams or other high level teams will have lots of D1 teammates and will not want to feel left out when their D1 teammates have their commitments posted.

I know Wes has an incoming class of 8-10 (depending on whether recruits who were accepted regular decision decide to come and whether wait-listed recruits get in), but I don't want to post any names until they otherwise become public, probably when the preseason roster comes out in August.

Looks like there has been a general league-wide increase in roster sizes over the past 8 years.

School (alphabetically) - roster size in '13, '12, '11, '10, '9, '8, '7, '6
Amherst - 28, 28, 28, 28, 23, 25, 21, 22
Bates - 24, 23, 27, 26, 26, 24, 24, 23
Bowdoin - 25, 25, 25, 26, 26, 25, 23, 23
Colby - 27, 26, 25, 27, 24, 25, 24, 24
Conn - 28, 27, 24, 24, 23, 22, 24, 22
Hamilton - 25, 21, 25, 27, 25, 26, 26, 27
Middlebury - 28, 25, 24, 23, 25, 24, 26, 27
Trinity - 25, 22, 24, 18, 19, 19, 19, 19, 17
Tufts - 23, 24, 24, 25, 19, 23, 20, 19
Wesleyan - 26, 22, 23, 25, 22, 22, 25, 24
Williams - 27, 27, 23, 24, 24, 23, 25, 22

Median roster size by year:
2013 - 26
2012 - 25
2011 - 24
2010 - 25
2009 - 24
2008 - 24
2007 - 24
2006 - 23

In 2006, only 2 of 11 NESCAC teams had more than 24 girls on their roster. By 2013, 9 of 11 NESCAC teams had more than 24 girls on their roster.

I think the most likely reason for the increase in roster sizes is that the number of solid female soccer players seeking to be recruited and play in college has been steadily increasing. Back in the mid-2000's, at some NESCAC schools, the end of the roster contained a good number of players who had not played club soccer and may not have actively sought to be recruited for soccer. I think those types of players are harder to find on NESCAC rosters now. With a larger number of solid players available, coaches feel more comfortable keeping more players on the roster. Coaches probably also have a harder time cutting players who have actively sought to be recruited, have communicated with the coach for an extended time, and are obviously very committed to playing soccer in college.

Updated list below. New addition in bold.

Amherst - Delancey King   - Braintree, MA   - Scorpions SC ECNL U18   - MF
Bates - Sarah McCarthy - ? - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary’s Sabres U18 - GK
Trinity - Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Tufts   - Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Katherine Sands - Rye, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - DM
Williams - Jacqueline Simeone   - Milton, MA - IMG Soccer Academy - D

Becks.....nice info on this board.  Been following your post, though my attention are elsewhere this Spring.  Plus K for the up to date charts.
I have been following both men's and women's soccer teams at Amherst in recent years...past 5-6 years really.  Have gone to Amherst's post season games at Messiah, York recently and even In Va. Years ago in a Final 4 match.
My interest is primarily due to following Amherst players from the D.C  area...two seniors on the women's team this year.  Been following the men's team due to a star on the men's team that played on the basketball team...has graduated.  The men's team has had family members on the women's team...hope you get the picture.  When I go to football games in Middletown Ct....I  often watch the soccer games before and after the football games....same case for Little Three matches up at Amherst.
I gather from your knowledge of recent recruits that your daughters have and will play on the Wesleyan teams.  If so, may bump into you this Fall :).
Your charts have intrigued me and I have made some connections...that may or may not have any true bases....such as when two or three conference teams have large recruiting classes such as Middlebury and Amherst, Williams has a smaller number of recruits.  Not always related to the number of graduates, etc. or to the number of players that go away during junior year.  There are reasons that talented players are often recruited by other Nescac  schools.
Oh well, just some rambling thoughts.   Will post more when Fall comes.

Quote from: amh63 on May 06, 2014, 12:11:29 PMYour charts have intrigued me and I have made some connections...that may or may not have any true bases....such as when two or three conference teams have large recruiting classes such as Middlebury and Amherst, Williams has a smaller number of recruits.  Not always relate to the number of graduates, etc. Or the number of players that go away during junior year.  There are reason that talented players are often recruited by other Nescac  schools.

Interesting. So are you suggesting that there is a fairly limited pool of NESCAC recruits, so that if one school gets a particularly large recruiting class, that takes recruits away from the recruiting classes at other schools and results in them having relatively smaller recruiting classes? Certainly sounds plausible.

BTW, what did you do to get 232 smites?

That reminds me...forgot to give you your deserving point.
I do most of my posting on the men's basketball board.  There has been a great deal of chatting going on  between Williams, Amherst and Middlebury...the top teams for the past 4-5 years or more between posters with strong opinions.  In any case, it seems that there was a person who decided to smite posters from the top teams consistently...over a period of a year...for about 150 plus smites.  The person was discovered and action was taken by several of us that for now stopped the foolishness.
That explains part of the total.  The remaining is that I seem to irritate some others from time to time over several boards...concerning conference matters.  I am a very strong supporter of Amherst sports...being a graduate and a father of three graduates...two boys and one girl.

Yes, it takes a special student- athlete to compete in the conference...national ranked teams in all sports.  Add the high academic rankings of the schools, etc....the talent pool of players becomes somewhat limited...even when conference schools "recruit" players around the world and from all states.

A partial 2014 schedule for Wesleyan has been posted on their website: http://www.wesleyan.edu/athletics/wsoccer/scheduleresults.html.  Only 5 games posted so far. Interesting that Wes is playing UMass-Boston, Babson and Vassar in non-league games. They played Babson last year (0-0 tie), but haven't played Vassar since 1992 and have never played UMass-Boston before.

Hamilton's 2014 schedule is also now posted: http://www.hamilton.edu/athletics/womens-soccer/schedule-results This looks like their complete regular season schedule. 3 of 4 non-conference games are the same as 2013: SUNY Oswego, SUNY Canto, and Utica College, but they have replaced SUNY Cortland with SUNY IT.

Both schedules contain games that are not yet on the 2014 schedule on the NESCAC website (http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule). The schedules on the school's websites are consistent with the schedules on the NESCAC website to the extent they overlap except that the NESCAC website has Hamilton playing Williams on Oct 29, while the Hamilton website has Hamilton playing Williams on Oct 28.

Trinity's 2014 schedule is available on their website at http://athletics.trincoll.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule 2 of 4 non-league games are the same as last year: Manhattanville and Albertus Magnus. But St Joes (ME) and Wheaton (MA) have replaced Westfield St and Eastern Connecticut State as the other 2. The schedule is consistent with the schedule that is now on the NESCAC website: http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule.

Colby's 2014 schedule is now available on their website at http://www.colby.edu/athletics_cs/womens_soccer/index.cfm?content=schedule Curiously, there are 5 non-league games listed, giving Colby a 15-game regular season schedule. Isn't the limit 14? 4 of the 5 non-league games are the same as last year: U of New England, Southern Maine, Maine-Farmington, and Husson. The 5th is against Thomas. The league schedule is consistent with the league schedule that is now on the NESCAC website: http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule, but none of Colby's non-league games are on the NESCAC website schedule yet.

Article from Trinity website about release of 2014 schedule.

QuoteMay 21, 2014
Trinity Women's Soccer Releases 2014 Schedule


Hartford, Conn. – The Trinity College women's soccer team, coached by Michael Smith (15th season), has announced its 2014 schedule. In total, the Bantams will take to the pitch 15 times, highlighted by nine matches in front of their home crowd on campus. Trinity will have a pair of three-match homestands as it looks to build on the success of last season. In 2013, the team finished the year ranked No. 23 nationally after posting its best-ever record at 13-4-1 record, while qualifying for the NCAA Division III Championship Tournament for the first time.

In the upcoming fall, Trinity will open the year with a home contest against crosstown rival St. Joe's on September 3. Following that game, the Bantams have a non-conference home game against Manhattanville (9/9) sandwiched around New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) road tilts at Hamilton (9/6) and Williams (9/13). After facing the Ephs in the Bay State, Trinity will return home for four straight home games against Wheaton (9/19), Colby (9/20), Albertus Magnus (9/24) and Bates (9/27).

In October, the Bantams will travel to Brunswick, Maine to square off with Bowdoin in NESCAC action before returning to Hartford for a three-game homestand that will bring Middlebury (10/11), Tufts (10/12) and Western Connecticut State (10/15) to campus. To end the regular season, Trinity will have road games at Wesleyan (10/21) and Amherst (10/28), while facing Connecticut College (10/25) at home.

In 2014, Trinity will face a pair of opponents that ended last season ranked in the top-25 in the NSCAA Coaches' Poll as Middlebury and Williams were ranked No. 3 and No. 15, respectively, while Amherst received votes in the final poll on December 10.

Apparently the St Joes game is against Univ of St Joes in West Hartford, CT. Both the Trinity website schedule and the NESCAC website schedule still mistakenly shows it as St Joes (Me).  Also, the article mentions a 10/15 game against Western Connecticut State. This game is not on either NESCAC website schedule or the Trinity website schedule. The addition of the WesConn game gives Trinity a 15-game regular season schedule. They only played 14 games in 2013.

Seems like NESCAC must have changed its rules to allow schools to play a 15-game regular season schedule, with 5 non-league games. Last year, all the schools played a 14-game regular season schedule, with only 4 non-league games. So far, both Colby and Trinity have come out with 15-game schedules for this year.

Updated list below. New addition in bold.

Amherst - Delancey King - Braintree, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Bates - Sarah McCarthy - ? - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary’s Sabres U18 - GK
Conn - Aimee Manderlink - Ridgefield, CT - Yankee Utd U18
Conn - Michelle Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Conn - Nicole Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Trinity - Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Tufts  - Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Katherine Sands - Rye, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - DM
Williams - Jacqueline Simeone - Milton, MA - IMG Soccer Academy - D

Updated list below. New addition in bold.

Amherst - Delancey King - Braintree, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Bates - Sarah McCarthy - ? - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary's Sabres U18 - GK
Conn - Aimee Manderlink - Ridgefield, CT - Yankee Utd U18
Conn - Michelle Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Conn - Nicole Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Trinity - Alexa Barbaresi - CA - West Coast FC - D
Trinity - Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Tufts  - Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Katherine Sands - Rye, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - DM
Williams - Jacqueline Simeone - Milton, MA - IMG Soccer Academy - D

Wesleyan now has their full schedule posted, except that it is missing the Middlebury game (@ Middlebury on Oct 25). http://www.wesleyan.edu/athletics/wsoccer/scheduleresults.html. Their full schedule (with the Middlebury game) is now available on the NESCAC webiste at http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule. In addition to previously posted nonleague games against UMass Boston, Vassar and Babson, they have added games against Eastern Connecticut and Elms, thus joining the ranks of NESCAC teams with a 15-game regular season schedule.

Williams now has their full schedule posted at http://ephsports.williams.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule and on the NESCAC webiste at http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule. Williams has also gone to a 15-game regular season schedule, with 5 non-league games against Wheaton, MIT, Castleton State, Springfield and New England College. Last year, Williams had a 14-game regular season schedule, with 4 non-league games against Wheaton, Oneonta State, Springfield and Farmingdale State.

2014 home and away game schedule advantage.

When I ran the stats several years ago, home field was worth, on average, about a goal in NESCAC women's games. Every NESCAC team plays 5 games at home and 5 away, but the key is which games you play at home and which you play away. You want to play as many close games - games likely to be decided by a goal or less - at home, and play the less close games - games likely to be decided by more than a goal - away.

Last year, the league fell into two tiers: the top 6 teams (Middlebury, Williams, Bowdoin, Trinity, Amherst and Tufts) had 5 or more league wins, and bottom 5 teams (Wesleyan, Colby, Conn, Hamilton, Bates) all had only 1 league win. If we assume that the league will continue to have a similar power split and that the closest games will be between teams in the same tier, each team in the top 6 would rather play other top 6 teams at home and feel good about its chances away at the weaker 5, while each team in the bottom 5 would probably prefer to play other weaker 5 teams at home to pick up a couple more wins and take whatever it can get away at the top 6.

Here's how the 2014 schedule breaks down:

The top 6's 2014 home games against other top 6 teams:
Bowdoin - 3
Middlebury - 3
Williams - 3
Amherst - 2
Trinity - 2
Tufts - 2
So advantage to Bowdoin, Middlebury and Williams.

The bottom 5's 2014 home games against other bottom 5 teams:
Bates - 4
Colby - 2
Wesleyan - 2
Conn - 1
Hamilton - 1
So a significant advantage to Bates, and a bit of a disadvantage for Conn and Hamilton.

Bowdoin now has their full(?) schedule posted at http://athletics.bowdoin.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule and on the NESCAC webiste at http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule. So far, Bowdoin appears to be bucking the trend and sticking with a 14-game regular season schedule, with 4 non-league games against Me-Farmington, U of New England, Brandeis and Southern Me. Last year, Bowdoin also had a 14-game regular season schedule, with the same 4 non-league games.

Updated list below. New additions in bold.

Amherst - Delancey King - Braintree, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Bates - Sarah McCarthy - ? - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary’s Sabres U18 - GK
Conn - Aimee Manderlink - Ridgefield, CT - Yankee Utd U18
Conn - Michelle Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Conn - Nicole Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Trinity - Alexa Barbaresi - CA - West Coast FC - D
Trinity - Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Tufts  - Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Wesleyan - Samantha Ashley - CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18
Wesleyan - Ellie Dempsey - Stamford, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Williams - Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Katherine Sands - Rye, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - DM
Williams - Jacqueline Simeone - Milton, MA - IMG Soccer Academy - D

Conn's press release re their 2014-15 schedule: http://camelathletics.com/sports/wsoc/2013-14/releases/20140606pwh9e2 . 15-game regular season schedule, with non-league games against Albertus Magnus, Johnson & Wales, St Joseph (CT), Coast Guard, and Eastern Connecticut. Last year, Conn played a 14-game regular season schedule, with the same non-league opponents except they played UMass-Dartmouth and did not play Johnson & Wales or St Joes.

Amherst's full schedule is now on the NESCAC website at http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule?team=Amherst . 15-game regular season schedule, with non-league games against Mt Holyoke, Springfield, Lasell, Eastern Connecticut, and Keene State. Last year, Amherst played a 14-game regular season schedule, with the same non-league games except they did not play Lasell. (I had mistakenly thought Amherst had played a 15-game regular season schedule last year, because a rescheduled game on their schedule was listed twice.)

Tufts' full schedule is now on the NESCAC website at http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule?team=Tufts . 15-game regular season schedule, with non-league games against MIT, Suffolk, Lesley, Endicott, and UMass-Boston. Last year, Amherst played a 14-game regular season schedule, with the same non-league games except they played Wheaton and did not play Lesley or UMass-Boston.

Bates' schedule http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule?team=Bates and Middlebury's schedule http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/schedule?team=Middlebury on the NESCAC website both still seem incomplete. Bates only has 2 non-league games listed so far: U of New England and Maine Maritime. MIddlebury only has 3 non-league games listed so far: Castleton St, Keene St, and Plattsburg St.  Both played 4 non-league games last year and will probably play 5 non-league games this year.

Recommended site with interesting ranking info on all college soccer teams, including D3 women's teams: http://bennettranking.com/women/d3 I think this site is a new and improved version of a similar site (collegesoccerranking.com?) that died a few years ago, and I suspect that its rankings are similarly based on the Elo rating algorithm that was originally developed to rate chess players based on match results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

A look at last year's conference-only offensive stats.

Number of shots taken

There is an old soccer adage that "you can't score if you don't shoot".

1 - Williams 174
2 - Amherst 167
3 - Hamilton 151
4 - Middlebury 146
5 - Tufts 133
6 - Bowdoin 124
7 - Bates 122
7 - Conn 122
9 - Trinity 119
10 - Colby 112
11 - Wesleyan 91

Based on NESCAC league stats from 2005 through 2013, the correlation coefficient between a team's number of shots and their number of goals = 0.66, which is a strong positive relationship.

Shots on Goal

Taking a lot of shots suggests that a player is getting sufficiently close to the penalty area that taking a shot seems reasonable. However, not all shooting opportunities are equally likely to succeed. Scoring percentages drop off dramatically as distance increases. According to the ESPN 538 site, professional players score on 38.2% percent of shots from inside the goal area. 13.1% of shots from outside the goal area but inside the penalty area, and only 3.1% of shots from outside the goal area. A shot from outside the goal area is a long shot in both senses.

Percentage of shots taken that were on goal
1 - Wesleyan 54%
2 - Middlebury 52%
3 - Bowdoin 51%
4 - Colby 49%
4 - Hamilton 49%
6 - Tufts 48%
7 - Conn 46%
7 - Williams 46%
9 - Bates 44%
9 - Trinity 44%
11 - Amherst 37%

League average = 47%

Number shots on goal
1 - Williams 80
2 - Middlebury 76
3 - Hamilton 74
4 - Tufts 64
5 - Bowdoin 63
6 - Amherst 62
7 - Conn 56
8 - Colby 55
9 - Bates 54
10 - Trinity 52
11 - Wesleyan 49

Based on NESCAC league stats from 2005 through 2013, the correlation coefficient between a team's number of shots on goal and number of goals scored = 0.77, which is a very strong positive relationship and significantly stronger than the relationship of shots to goals. Not surprising, the key to scoring goals is more getting a lot of shots on goal than merely taking a lot of shots.

[Note that I recalculated that stats above after discovering that the league's stats for total team SOG were inaccurate because for some games no SOG were reported. Instead, the recalculated stats were based on SOG = goals for + opponents saves.]

Corner Kicks

Corner kicks are usually thought of as prime goal-scoring opportunities, so one would think that a team that gets more corner kicks would get more goals.

Number of corner kicks (league only, as usual)
1 - Amherst 73
2 - Conn 51
3 - Hamilton 46
4 - Williams 43
5 - Wesleyan 41
6 - Bowdoin 38
7 - Tufts 37
8 - Middlebury 31
9 - Bates 29
10 - Colby 28
11 - Trinity 28

Even at first glance, the ranking seems surprising, with some low scoring teams (eg Hamilton with 5 goals) near the top and some high scoring teams (eg Trinity with 15 goals) near the bottom. And, in fact, the correlation coefficient between corner kicks and goals for last year's NESCAC women's teams was only 0.14, which is so low that it is considered "no or negligible relationship". In other words, there was no significant relationship last year between the number of corner kicks a team took and the number of goals it scored.

A number of factors may be involved here:

(1) The number of corner kicks a team gets may reflect a team's style of play more than a team's offensive strength. One way a team gets lots of corner kicks is by having wide players who get the ball to the end line. If, however, a team plays with inverted wingers (ie, a right footer on the left and a left footer on the right), their wide players are more likely to cut in and take shots than take the ball to the line and get a corner.

(2) Corner kicks can reflect offensive weakness, as well as offensive strength. While it is good to be able to get to the opponent's end-line, it is better to be able to penetrate up the middle. Weaker teams may be forced to play wide because they are unable to penetrate centrally, whereas better teams are able to penetrate centrally and have no need to go wide.

(3) A corner is generally the result of a blocked cross or a deflected shot. Better to make a successful cross or get a shot on goal.

(4) Girls are generally not very good finishers of aerial crosses, such as corner kicks. Some evidence that this may be a significant factor comes from the fact that, last year, the correlation coefficient between corners and goals for the NESCAC men's teams was 0.46, which indicates a strong positive relationship. For the boys, more corners did generally mean more goals.

Probably some combination of the above factors is involved.

A look at some of last year's conference-only defensive stats.

Shots Allowed and SOG Allowed

Number of shots allowed
1 - Middlebury 74
2 - Williams 86
3 - Trinity 96
4 - Amherst 114
5 - Hamilton 119
6 - Conn 125
7 - Bowdoin 130
8 - Tufts 143
9 - Bates 182
10 - Wesleyan 186
11 - Colby 206

Based on NESCAC league stats from 2005 through 2013, the correlation coefficient between the number of opponent shots taken and number of goals allowed = 0.66, which is a strong positive relationship and the same degree of correlation as between shots take and goals scored

Number of SOG allowed
1 - Williams 39
2 - Trinity 40
3 - Middlebury 44
4 - Amherst 45
5 - Hamilton 55
6 - Bowdoin 60
7 - Tufts 62
8 - Bates 72
9 - Conn 78
10 - Wesleyan 86
11 - Colby 104

Based on NESCAC league stats from 2005 through 2013, the correlation coefficient between the number of opponent shots on goal and number of goals allowed = 0.76, which is a very strong positive relationship and significantly stronger than the relationship of opponents' shots taken to goals allowed.

[Note that I recalculated that stats above after discovering that the league's stats for total team SOG allowed were inaccurate because for some games no SOG allowed were reported. Instead, the recalculated stats were based on SOG allowed = goals against + saves.]

Been following the posts.  The numbers and analyses are intriguing but I have been wondering if the "numbers" are only primarily applicable to women players' game.
My random thoughts on the above point.
In earlier posts, there were numbers related to corner attempts to goals made and where SOGs were attempted.  Even a noted difference between the stats from men's games and women's games. 
In the case of Amherst's games I have watched in the present men's era, a high number of goals are made off of corner attempts.  Seems at times the SOGs are to get the corner kicks attempts.  Amherst has had and have tall men players..in the 6'4" or better range.  They are used to score goals from "headers"....as well as from rebounds, etc. resulting from corner kicks.
The women's game, IMO, does not have the players with the skill level to score from headers at this time...in the conference......therefore the offense attacks/set ups are not used.
I saw a ESPN show recently where they featured an USA team star...woman player...that had the "unique" ability to score off of headers.  The player had the athletic talents and the skill to head the ball with both force and accuracy.  The player worked at it.
At this time, it is my belief that the game of soccer in the conference is played "differently" between men and women and the stats often reflect that.  Such differences are also seen in ice hockey and Lacrosse...and the equipment and rules reflect the differences.

Amh63 - There are definitely differences between the men's game and the women's game, but I have actually been kind of surprised how similar NESCAC men's and women's soccer is from a stats standpoint. Back up in reply #11 I posted some of the men's and women's stats similarities and differences. Goals per game, shots per game, and saves percentage are all almost identical. Corners are one of the few significant statistical differences.

Just looking at 2013 season stats, here are some of the comparisons:

Total goals per team
Men: average 11.9,  most 21, least 5
Women:  average 11.1, most 18, least 5
Difference in M/F averages = 7.2%

Total shots per team
Men: average 128.4, most 172, least 84
Women: average 132.8, most 174, least 91
Difference in M/F averages = 3.4%

Total SOG per team
Men: average 43.9, most 67, least 22
Women: average 50.1, most 76, least 33
Difference in M/F averages = 14.1%

SOG% (% of shots taken that are on goal)
Men: average 34.0. highest 45.0, lowest 20.6
Women: average 37.9, highest 52.1, lowest 25.0
Difference in M/F averages = 11.4%

Total corner kicks per team
Men: average 45.9, most 66, least 31
Women: average 40.5, most 73, least 28
Difference in M/F averages = 13.3%

SOG to G% (percentage of SOG that result in goals)
Men: average 27.7, highest 36.4, lowest 18.8
Women: average 22.5, highest 35.7, lowest 12.2
Difference in M/F averages = 23%

To attempt to summarize, total goals and shots were pretty similar for men and women. Women get a higher percentage of shots of goal, but a lower percentage of the SOGs result in goals, and they take fewer corners. I think the differences may all be related to men's better heading ability. If men are better headers, crosses and corners are more useful. It is harder to get headed or volleyed shots off of crosses and corners on goal, than to get straight on kicks on goal, but when they are on goal a high percentage of them result in goals.

Among, basketball, lacrosse, hockey and soccer, I'd say the differences between the men's and women's games are smallest in soccer. Lax and hockey have different rules for men and women. However, I don't think the differences in the rules reflect differences between men and women, but rather society's different attitudes about men and women - eg that women shouldn't engage in violent contact. The greater differences in basketball are all about height and jumping ability. If men couldn't dunk, I think the games would be about as similar as men's and women's soccer.

I'll be interested to see how Williams' rising sophomore class develops.  College athletes usually make the biggest leap from their frosh to their sophomore years, and last year's Williams class promised to be one of the best in school history, with two state players-of-the-year and several other heralded recruits coming in.  And indeed, three of Williams' top four goal scorers were frosh: the extremely quick Audrey Thomas (who started nearly every game as a frosh), Katie Wardlaw, and the most heralded of the three, Kristi Kirshe, who led the team in shots but had trouble finding the net early on as she adjusted to the college game and then suffered a concussion, but exploded late in the season, finishing with 6 goals and 2 assists in her last 12 games.  Williams also had three other frosh who each were major contributors, playing in between 18 and 20 games each.  I would expect that those six players will see a lot more playing time and contribute a lot more as sophomores, and that Kirshe, Thomas, and Wardlaw could easily leap from 17 goals combined to around 30, if they all stay healthy.  With Williams losing only three goals to graduation, and with the five top goal-scorers last year all frosh or sophomores, the Ephs' offense should grow increasingly potent over the next two years. 

The Ephs do lose two all-conference defensive-minded players to graduation, but the Ephs still have an elite goalie returning and four players who all saw time as starters in the back, including Lilly Wellenbach who should be back to being an elite defender now that she is more than a full year removed from a serious knee injury. 

Quote from: nescac1 on July 20, 2014, 09:53:04 AMCollege athletes usually make the biggest leap from their frosh to their sophomore years

I think this varies a lot from person to person, depending on injuries, relationship with the coach, and dedication during the off-season. However, for Williams women soccer players, the stats I looked at definitely support your statement. Here's the average number of starts and average season points, for the Williams' last 4 graduating classes ('11, '12, '13, '14):

Average Number of Starts
Frosh year 4.2
Soph year 9.8
Junior year 12.2
Senior year 12.3

Average number of starts more than doubled from frosh year to soph year, climbed a bit more from soph year to junior year and plateaued.

Average Number of Points
Frosh year 2.9
Soph year 5.8
Junior year 5.7
Senior year 5.2

Average number of points doubled from frosh year to soph year and then declined slightly.

nescac1 - Have to agree that the coming season is full of promise for Williams. Based on conference-only stats, they are losing 0 conference goals to graduation and, as you point out, only 2 starters overall.

And that’s from a team that was already #1 or #2 in the league in most of the meaningful statistically categories last year:
- offensively, #3 in goals, #1 in SOG, and #1 in Bennett Ranking.
- defensively, #2 in goals against, #1 in SOGA, and #2 in Bennett Ranking.
- overall, #2 in goal differential, #1 in SOG-SOGA, and #2 in Bennett Ranking.

There is every reason to believe that Williams will be very good this coming year and have a good chance of winning the league.

A few more observations about Williams' offensive stats: Last year Williams had an average SOG%, an average % of assisted goals, and the 3d highest shots/corner kicks ratio. The last stat suggests that Williams generated most of their scoring opportunities up the middle rather than going wide and trying to cross it in. Those stats stand in stark contrast to arch-foe Amherst despite the fact that they ended up with the same number of league goals. Amherst had a below average SOG%, a below average % of assisted goals, took by far the most corner kicks in the league, and had the 2d lowest shots/corner kicks ratio, which suggests that they put a premium on going wide and crossing it in or getting CKs.

Interesting that Williams and Amherst are the only two NESCAC women's teams that post the clubs their players came from. None of the NESCAC men's teams do.

Becks....do not have a clear/ definitive answer on your question of club associations on the women's soccer team at Amherst...and not on the men's side.  Only speculation.  I notice the club posting on the women's hockey team awhile back.  Having seen the women's hockey team in its early days when there were not enough players...only one goalie....to its rise to win two national titles, I believe it is a sign of affiliation to indicate the level of experience of the player.  In the D.C. Area, there are few schools with women hockey teams and few men's teams even.  Players have to join clubs to learn the game, etc.  Same situation lacrosse teams in the public HS.  Need to join AUU type teams and clubs.
Believe it is up to the coaches.  Some women players do not even want to give their height...tennis team...unless the coach insist.

Do want to point out that the Amherst team has added a new assistant coach...a former goalie star from Colgate.  Interesting in that the other assistant is also one with experience with goalies.  To top it off, one of Amherst's top player returning is the FY goalie...a CT player.

I just discovered that at least some of the stats on the NESCAC site -- SOG and SOG% -- are garbage. It appears that the stats keepers for some of the schools - eg Colby - don't bother to put SOG stats on their score sheets. In and of itself, this wouldn't be a problem because SOG = goals + saves, so SOG can always be calculated. However, no one either at the school or at NESCAC seems to have bothered to do this, so the stats get entered in the NESCAC site database as 0 SOG.

Becks.....need some info.  Been awhile since one of my children reported to college.
Suddenly struck by the fact that students arrive "early" this year.  At Amherst, classes start the  2nd of Sept.  FY students arrive by 24th of August!  In the D.C area, the FY students sent-off reception is the 3rd of August.
Anyway...straight to the point.  At Wesleyan, when does your daughter report for orientation?  Is she allowed to start soccer practice during the period of orientation?   At Amherst, my understanding is athletic practices are not to interfere with FY orientation sessions. 
My question is due in part that you cited that there is an additional game scheduled this year....and I notice that the first soccer game is early in Sept.

For Wes, player move-in date is August 25, pre-season starts with AM fitness testing on August 26, freshman orientation starts on August 27, scrimmage on August 31, classes start on Sept 1; first game is at UMass Boston on Sept 3. My guess is that frosh orientation doesn't take all day so there is time to get practices in during orientation.

Interesting that, with the additional game, Wes actually starts its season (first game) before Yale does and has only 1 less regular fall season game. The travel is roughly comparable too - depending on whether Wes plays away at Hamilton or Yale plays away at Cornell.

All-time best/worst in NESCAC women's soccer (2000-2013)

Best/Worst Teams:
Best - tie- 2011 Amherst - 10-0-0 in league (GF/GA 27/3), NESCAC champion, NCAA quarterfinals, 20-1-0 overall
Best - tie - 2009 Williams - 9-0-0 in league (GF/GA 28/2), NESCAC champion, NCAA sectionals, 19-1-0 overall
Worst - 2009 Conn - 0-9-0 in league (GF/GA 1/32)

Best/Worst Offense:
Best - 2009 Amherst - 34 goals in league play
Worst - 2009 Conn - 1 goal in league play

Best/Worst Defense:
Best - tie - 2009 Williams - 2 GA in league play
Best - tie - 2007 Williams - 2 GA in league play
Worst - 2003 - Wesleyan - 33 GA in league play

Dirtiest/Cleanest Teams (2008-2013; no foul stats available <2008)
Dirtiest - tie - 2008 Williams - 11.4 fouls per game (most ever), 0 cards
Dirtiest - tie - 2011 Conn - 11.2 fouls per game (tied for 2d most ever), 5 cards (tied for most ever)
Cleanest - tie - 2009 Bowdoin - 4.2 fouls per game (fewest ever), 1 card
Cleanest - tie - 2008 Bowdoin - 5.1 fould per game (2d fewest ever), 0 cards

League-wide average fouls per team per league game (2008-2013)
2013 - 6.9
2012 - 7.4
2011 - 8.2
2010 - 8.1
2009 - 6.6
2008 - 6.6

Fouls per team per league game jumped up in 2010 and 2011 but have slid back since then. It's not clear whether changes in the fouls per game number reflect actual changes in the physicality/dirtiness of the play or just changes in the way the refs call the games.

Team average fouls per league game 2008-2013
1 - Williams 9.5 (Williams has been above average in fouls per game every year, although last year they essentially hit the league average. Peak year was 2011, when they averaged 11.2 fouls per game; lowest year was last year, when they averaged 7 fouls per game.)

2 - Amherst 9.4 (Like Williams, Amherst has been above average in fouls per game every year. Peak year was also 2011, with 11.2 fouls per game; lowest year was also last year, with 7.7 fouls per game.)

3 - Conn 9.3 (Shows you don't have to have good teams to foul a lot. Like Williams and Amherst, Conn has had an above average number of fouls every year. Their peak year was 2010, with 11.2 fouls per game. Their fouls have tapered off in the past 3 years and last year were close to the league average at 7 fouls per game.)

4 - Wesleyan 8.6 (Wesleyan was actually below the league average in 2008 (only 5.3 fouls per game) and only slightly above it in 2009 and 2010. They've made up for it recently, however, and have led the league in fouls per game in each of the last 2 seasons (11 in 2012, 10.4 in 2013).)

5 - Middlebury 8.3 (Middlebury has been counter-cyclical. Their fouls per game have been highest when the league average is lowest and vice versa. Their low was 6.8 fouls per game in foul-plagued 2011. Their high was 9.4 fouls per game in relatively foul-free 2008.)

6 - Bates 7.9 (Bates has tracked just a bit above the league average most years. Their spike was in 2011, when they averaged 10.6 fouls per game; their low was in 2009, when they averaged 6.6 fouls per game.)

7 - Tufts 7.7 (Another team that tracks just slightly above the league average. Tufts maxed at 10 fouls per game in 2010, and had a low of 5.8 fouls per game in 2009.)

8 - Colby 7.6 (Colby has generally averaged fewer fouls per game than the league average, but spiked at 9.1 fouls per game last year.)

9 - Hamilton 7.5 (Hamilton has been around the league average in each of its 3 seasons in the league.)

10 - Trinity 6.5 (Trinity has been below the league average every year, except one where they were just slightly above. The peak was 8 fouls per game in 2012 and their low was 5.2 fouls per game in 2008.)

11 - Bowdoin 6.0 (Winners of the NESCAC Lady Byng. Bowdoin had had a lower average fouls per game than the league every year. Their peak was 7.3 fouls per game in 2010 and their low was 4.2 fouls per game in 2009.)

The correlation coefficient between a team's average fouls per game in a season and its winning % in a season is only 0.13, which qualifies as a negligible or weak correlation. Good teams may be aggressive, but so may bad teams.

A few years of above- or below-average fouling stats may just reflect the natural tendencies of the members of that particular team. However, in other cases, particularly where the fouling average is consistently above or below league average, it may reflect how much the coach values aggressive play by his/her players.

Average League Finish

All-Time (13, 12, 11, 10, 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00)
1 – Amherst 2.36 (5, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4)
2 – Williams 2.43 (2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 6, 2, 1, 1, 6)
3 – Middlebury 3.14 (1, 1, 2, 4, 3, 3, 6, 3, 6, 1, 6, 5, 2, 1)
4 – Tufts 3.86 (6, 10, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 3, 7, 1, 6, 3)
5 – Bowdoin 3.93 (2, 4, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 6, 3, 5, 1, 1, 3, 2)
6 – Hamilton 6.33 (8, 5, 6)
7 – Trinity 6.64 (4, 7, 9, 4, 4, 6, 5, 9, 10, 7, 5, 7, 7, 9)
8 – Bates 7.00 (11, 11, 9, 8, 9, 9, 9, 6, 4, 4, 2, 8, 3, 5)
9 – Colby 7.43 (8, 6, 7, 9, 8, 8, 9, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 8, 6)
10 – Wesleyan 7.93 (7, 7, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10)
11 – Conn 8.36 (8, 7, 11, 9, 10, 10, 7, 9, 8, 7, 9, 5, 9, 8)

Last 5 years (13, 12, 11, 10, 09)
1 – Williams 1.60 (2, 1, 2, 2, 1)
2 – Amherst 2.20 (5, 1, 1, 2, 2)
2 – Middlebury 2.20 (1, 1, 2, 4, 3)
4 – Tufts 4.40 (6, 10, 4, 1, 4)
5 – Bowdoin 5.40 (2, 4, 8, 7, 6)
6 – Trinity 5.60 (4, 7, 9, 4, 4)
7 – Wesleyan 6.20 (7, 7, 5, 6, 6)
8 – Hamilton 6.33 (8, 5, 6)
9 – Colby 7.60 (8, 6, 7, 9, 8)
10 – Conn 9.00 (8, 7, 11, 9, 10)
11 – Bates 9.60 (11, 11, 9, 8, 9)

Probably the most remarkable aspect of the standings is that, although they bounce around from year to year, they have been pretty consistent over time. In the past 5 years, Williams has jumped into the #1 spot (largely as a result of Amherst's #5 finish last year), Middlebury has closed the gap on Amherst and Williams to form a very competitive top 3, and Tufts and Bowdoin have dropped back a little bit. One other noticeable difference is that, while Wesleyan ranks 10th in the history of the league, it has moved up into 7th for the last 5 years. On the flip side, while Bates ranks 8th in the history of the league, it ranks last for the last 5.

Based on the teams' rankings history, it seems that each team has an expected mean ranking based on the school and the coach and that most changes in ranking are just variation around the team's mean as a result of luck, injuries, particularly good or bad recruiting classes, etc. The biggest changes in a team's expected mean happen when there are coaching changes.

Histogram of how much teams move up or down in the standings from one year to the next

+6 *
+5 ***
+4 ******
+3 ******
+2 ***************
+1 *******************
+0 *******************************
-1 *******************
-2 *************
-3 *********
-4 *****
-5 ***
-6 **

A pretty nice normal distribution curve.

Updated incoming frosh list. New additions are in bold. New additions are from Wes roster page which now has a 2014 pre-season roster.

Amherst - Delancey King - Braintree, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Bates - Sarah McCarthy - ? - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary’s Sabres U18 - GK
Conn - Aimee Manderlink - Ridgefield, CT - Yankee Utd U18
Conn - Michelle Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Conn - Nicole Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Trinity - Alexa Barbaresi - CA - West Coast FC - D
Trinity - Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Tufts  - Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Wesleyan - Samantha Ashley - New Canaan, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Wesleyan -  Meghan Cunningham - Washington, DC - formerly on VSA Heat Blue U17 - M
Wesleyan - Ellie Dempsey - Stamford, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Wesleyan - Meghan Hanan - Sammamish, WA - ISC/Arsenal? Crossfire? - GK
Wesleyan - Emma Seaman - Pacific Palisades, CA - Real So Cal ECNL U17 - F/M
Wesleyan - Elise Waller - Dallas, TX - Dallas Texans Red North '96 - M
Williams - Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Katherine Sands - Rye, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - DM
Williams - Jacqueline Simeone - Milton, MA - IMG Soccer Academy - D

Time to start rolling out preseason team evaluations. We've already discussed Williams some, but I'll go in alphabetical order and start with Amherst.  I am not going to try to factor in the impact of incoming freshmen both because I only know the names of a faction of them and because it is hard to evaluate their impact before they actually play against league competition. All stats are NESCAC league only.

AMHERST

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 5-2-3 (5), GF: 14 (3), GA: 4 (1), GD: +10 (1), Coach: Hughes
2012 – 8-1-1 (1–tied), GF: 22 (1), GA: 6 (2), GD: +16 (1), Coach: Hughes
2011 - 10-0-0 (1), GF: 27 (1), GA: 3 (1), GD: +24 (1), Coach: Hughes
2010 - 5-2-2 (2), GF: 14 (2), GA: 10 (4), GD: +4 (3), Coach: Hughes
2009 - 7-1-1 (2), GF: 18 (2), GA: 4 (2), GD: +14 (2), Coach: Hughes
2008 - 7-0-2 (2), GF: 34 (1), GA: 9 (3), GD: +25 (1), Coach: Hughes
2007 - 5-2-2 (3), GF: 14 (4), GA: 6 (3), GD: +8 (2), Coach: Hughes
2006 - 7-0-1 (1), GF: 20 (2), GA: 7 (1), GD: +13 (1), Coach: Hughes
2005 - 6-2-1 (1), GF: 16 (4), GA: 8 (2), GD: +8 (3), Coach: Hughes
2004 – 6-0-3 (2), GF: 17 (1), GA: 5 (2), GD: +12 (2), Coach: Hughes
2003 – 5-2-2 (2), GF: 17 (3), GA: 8 (1), GD: +9 (2), Coach: Morgan
2002 – 5-2-2 (4), GF: 14 (8), GA: 8 (2), GD: +6 (5), Coach: Morgan
2001 – 5-3-1 (3), GF: 12 (6), GA: 9 (1), GD: +3 (5), Coach: Morgan
2000 – 5-3-1 (4), GF: 10 (7), GA: 7 (2), GD: +3 (5), Coach: Morgan

Jen Hughes took an Amherst team whose average league finish was a very respectable 3.25 and raised it a notch so that, under her, its average league finish has been 2.0, and that's including a worst ever league finish of 5th last year. The improvement was mainly on offense. Prior to Hughes, the Amherst offense had not ranked in the top 2 in the league. Under Hughes, the Amherst offense has ranked 1st or 2d 7 times. The defense has continued to be strong, ranking out of the top 2 only 3 years.

2013 League Season

2013 was a strange league season for Amherst. If you looked at their season-long stats without looking at their record, you might have predicted that they finished tops in the league, certainly not worse than top 3. Offensively they ranked 3d, defensively they were the best in the league, and they had the league's best goal differential. They were not as good as in the 2012 team or the exceptional 2011 team, but better than their 5th place league finish suggests. The problem was lack of clutch scoring – in their 5 ties/losses combined, they only scored 1 goal.

Who Graduated/Who's Returning

Amherst is losing 7 seniors, including 5 regular starters and 1 regular sub, from last year's team. The departing players contributed 8 of the team's 14 league goals (57%) and include Sarah Duffy (3 goals, 3 assists) and Amanda Briscoe (2 goals), as well as regular starters Kate Sisk, Hannah Cooper, Chloe McKenzie and Sarah Abrahams. However, none of the departing players were first or second team all-conference. 8 players return who were regular starters last year: Holly Burwick (2d team all-conf keeper), Maya Jackson-Gibson (2d team all conf), Mel Stier, Ariana Twomey, Saray Zuckerman, Jessy Hale, Maggie Belhap, and Megan Kim.

2014 Forecast

Amherst is losing a lot of their offense, but seems to be returning the spine of their league-best defense. They'll have to pick up some additional offense from somewhere, but given their consistent finishes in the top 2 of the league under Jen Hughes, odds are they will find it and bounce back up into the top 2 or 3. A warning to the rest of the league: each of the prior years under Hughes where they finished with a similar record to 2013 (the statistically weaker 2007 and 2010 seasons), Amherst at least tripled its goal differential the following year and were undefeated in league play.

BATES

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 1-7-2 (11), GF: 6 (9), GA: 17 (10), GD: -11 (10), Coach: Ross
2012 – 1-8-1 (11), GF: 4 (11), GA: 20 (11), GD: -16 (1), Coach: Ross
2011 – 2-6-2 (9), GF: 5 (10), GA: 11 (5), GD: -6 (8), Coach: Ross
2010 – 2-6-1 (8), GF: 7 (9), GA: 14 (7), GD: -7 (8), Coach: Murphy
2009 – 2-7-0 (9), GF: 6 (8), GA: 17 (9), GD: -11 (8), Coach: Murphy/Flaherty
2008 – 2-7-0 (9), GF: 6 (8), GA: 20 (9), GD: -14 (8), Coach: Flaherty
2007 – 1-8-0 (9), GF: 4 (10), GA: 23 (9), GD: -19 (10), Coach: Murphy
2006 – 4-4-0 (6), GF: 11 (6), GA: 16 (6), GD: -5 (7), Coach: Murphy
2005 – 5-3-1 (4), GF: 25 (1), GA: 11 (5), GD: +14 (1), Coach: Murphy
2004 – 4-3-2 (4), GF: 15 (3), GA: 10 (3), GD: +5 (3), Coach: Murphy
2003 – 5-2-2 (2), GF: 18 (2), GA: 9 (2), GD: +9 (2), Coach: Murphy
2002 – 3-6-0 (8), GF: 16 (4), GA: 22 (8), GD: -6 (8), Coach: Murphy
2001 – 5-3-1 (3), GF: 18 (4), GA: 14 (5), GD: +4 (4), Coach: Murphy
2000 – 5-4-0 (5), GF: 16 (4), GA: 14 (6), GD: +2 (6), Coach: Murphy


Bates bounced around in the league standings from 2000-2006, but averaged a respectable 4.6. Under the same coach, however, from 2007-10, Bates dropped significantly down to an 8.75 average finish. No surprise that they made a coaching change. However, the team’s fortunes since then have not improved and, in fact, have slipped a bit farther, with an average finish from 2011-2013 of 10.33.

2013 League Season

Bates’ 2013 season was a modest improvement from their 2012 season, when they finished last in the standings and ranked last in both GF and GA. Despite some improvement in both GF and GA, they still finished next to last in both categories and tied for last in GD with -11. Given the bunching at the end of the table, however, they were only 1 tie-breaking goal away from finishing in 8th and making the NESCAC tournament.

Who Graduated/Who’s Returning

Bates is losing 6 seniors, all of whom were regular starters. The departing players contributed 2 of the team’s 6 league goals (33%), and include Anabel Schmelz (keeper), Kara Stefaniak (forward, 1 goal), Julia Rafferty (mid, 1 goal), Jaimie Cappucci (mid), Abby Alexander (defender), and Chelsea Thompson (defender). None of the departing players were first or second team all-conference. 8 players return who were regular starters last year: Leah Humes (forward and the team’s leading league scorer with 3 goals), Caitrin Griffin (defender), Nicki Brill (mid), Hannah Graves (defender), and Kyla Rabe (defender).

2014 Forecast

Bates is losing a lot of starters, including their keeper, but, on the plus side, are returning their leading scorer. Given their performance in the last 7 years, including the last 3 under their current coach, there is no reason to expect a huge improvement in performance. However, considering how close the bottom teams were last year, a finish anywhere from 7-11 would be within reasonable expectations.

BOWDOIN

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 7-2-1 (2), GF: 18 (1), GA: 10 (5), GD: +8 (3), Coach: Weaver
2012 – 6-3-1 (4), GF: 14 (5), GA: 10 (3), GD: +4 (4), Coach: Weaver
2011 – 2-5-3 (8), GF: 14 (4), GA: 17 (9), GD: -3 (5), Coach: Rojas
2010 – 3-5-1 (7), GF: 14 (3), GA: 14 (7), GD: +0 (6), Coach: Rojas
2009 – 4-5-0 (6), GF: 11 (5), GA: 12 (6), GD: -1 (6), Coach: Rojas
2008 – 4-3-2 (4), GF: 15 (3), GA: 12 (5), GD: +3 (4), Coach: Rojas
2007 – 6-3-0 (3), GF: 19 (3), GA: 12 (6), GD: +7 (3), Coach: Rojas
2006 – 4-4-1 (6), GF: 21 (1), GA: 18 (8), GD: +3 (5), Coach: Sheridan
2005 – 6-3-0 (3), GF: 20 (2), GA: 10 (4), GD: +10 (2), Coach: Sheridan
2004 – 4-4-1 (5), GF: 12 (6), GA: 10 (3), GD: +2 (5), Coach: Cullen
2003 – 7-2-0 (1), GF: 17 (3), GA: 9 (2), GD: +8 (3), Coach: Cullen
2002 – 6-2-1 (1-tied), GF: 22 (2), GA: 8 (2), GD: +14 (1-tied), Coach: Cullen
2001 – 5-3-1 (3), GF: 19 (3), GA: 10 (2), GD: +9 (2), Coach: Cullen
2000 – 7-1-1 (2), GF: 27 (1), GA: 10 (4), GD: +17 (2), Coach: Cullen


Bowdoin had excellent records for most of John Cullen's 20-year tenure as coach, including a league-best average finish of 1.75 from 2000-2003. They slipped to 5 in his final year. They had middling results in his immediate replacement's short 2-year terms, with an average finish of 4.5, and then entered into a steady period of decline under Maren Rojas. They league finish dropped each year of her term and bottomed out with their 8th place finish in 2010. So far, it appears that Coach Weaver has engineered a sharp turnaround and, last year, managed the team to its best finish since John Cullen.

2013 League Season

Bowdoin's 2013 season was a significant improvement over their 2012 season. In 2012, Coach Weaver improved on they abysmal 2011 team by tightening the defense. In 2013, it was the offense's turn. The defense allowed the same number of goals as in 2012, but the offense increased its scoring tally by 4 and went from being the #5 offense in 2012 to the #1 offense in 2013.

Who Graduated/Who's Returning

Bowdoin is losing 3 seniors, including 2 starters. The departing players contributed 2 of the team's 18 league goals (11%), and include Molly Popolizio (mid, 2 goals, 2d team all-NESCAC) and Becky Stoneman (defender, 1st team all-NESCAC). 9 players return who were regular starters last year: Bridget McCarthy (keeper), Kaley Nelson (defender), Jamie Hofstetter (forward, 2d team all-NESCAC), Sarah Wallace (defender), Jenne DiCicco (mid), Abby Einwag (mid), Kathleen Smith (defender), Maya Norman (mid), and Kiersten Turner (forward, 1st team all-NESCAC).

2014 Forecast

Bowdoin is losing a couple of quality players, but only a couple. With 9 starters returning and a coach that has the team playing winning soccer again, expectations should be high for the upcoming season. A finish anywhere from 1-4 is probable.

COLBY

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 1-6-3 (8), GF: 6 (9), GA: 14 (8), GD: -8 (8), Coach: Holsten
2012 – 4-6-0 (6), GF: 10 (7), GA: 18 (10), GD: -8 (10), Coach: Holsten
2011 – 3-6-1 (7), GF: 8 (10), GA: 20 (11), GD: -12 (10), Coach: Holsten
2010 – 1-5-3 (9), GF: 8 (8), GA: 17 (10), GD: -9 (9), Coach: Holsten
2009 – 2-6-1 (8), GF: 3 (9), GA: 14 (8), GD: -11 (8), Coach: Holsten
2008 – 2-6-1 (8), GF: 2 (10), GA: 16 (8), GD: -14 (8), Coach: Holsten
2007 – 0-7-2 (9), GF: 5 (9), GA: 19 (8), GD: -14 (8), Coach: Holsten
2006 – 3-2-3 (5), GF: 10 (6), GA: 8 (3), GD: +2 (6), Coach: Holsten
2005 – 3-2-4 (6), GF: 17 (3), GA: 11 (5), GD: +6 (5), Coach: Holsten
2004 – 2-5-2 (7), GF: 11 (7), GA: 16 (8), GD: -5 (8), Coach: Holsten
2003 – 3-5-1 (8), GF: 11 (8), GA: 16 (8), GD: -5 (8), Coach: Holsten
2002 – 1-8-0 (9), GF: 9 (10), GA: 32 (10), GD: -23 (10), Coach: Holsten
2001 – 2-6-1 (8), GF: 12 (6), GA: 17 (7), GD: -5 (7), Coach: Holsten
2000 – 4-5-0 (6), GF: 16 (4), GA: 20 (8), GD: -4 (7), Coach: Holsten

Colby has had the same coach for its entire league history and has bounced around the bottom half of league, with an average league finish of 7.43. Colby’s best seasons were 2005 and 2006, when they had winning records in league play and positive GDs.

2013 League Season

Colby’s 2013 season was a slight drop off from their 2012 season. Their defense tightened up a bit, but that was offset by a drop-off in offensive production, leaving their GD unchanged at -8. A few balls bounced the wrong way, 3 wins turned into 3 ties, and a 4-6-0 season in 2012 turned into a 1-6-3 season in 2013. They still managed to slip into the NESCAC tournament as the 8th seed, however, by virtue of a tie-breaker Hamilton and Conn.

Who Graduated/Who’s Returning

Colby is losing 8 seniors, including 6 regular starters. The departing players contributed all 6 of the team’s league goals, and include Annie Papadellis (forward, 4 goals), Carly Dee, Grace Dickinson (defender), Amelia Barnett (defender, 2 goals), Crysti Tsujiura and Alex Yorke. Only 5 returning players were regular starters last year: Emily Brook (keeper), Maddie Tight, Nora Mabie (defender), Aliza Van Leesten (defender), and Emilie Klein (defender). Neither any of the departing players nor any of the returning players were first or second team all-NESCAC.

2014 Forecast

Colby is losing a lot of players and all their league goal production from last year, which could make it challenging for them to improve over last year. In the past, however, Colby has managed to improve 1 or 2 spots every year after they have posted a 1-win season, so a move up is certainly possible. A finish anywhere from 7-11 is most likely.

CONNECTICUT COLLEGE

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 1-6-3 (8), GF: 10 (7), GA: 21 (11), GD: -11 (10), Coach: Riker
2012 – 3-7-0 (7), GF: 12 (6), GA: 17 (8), GD: -5 (8), Coach: Riker
2011 – 1-8-1 (11), GF: 5 (10), GA: 18 (10), GD: -13 (11), Coach: Riker
2010 – 1-5-3 (9), GF: 5 (10), GA: 14 (9), GD: -9 (9), Coach: Edmed
2009 – 0-9-0 (10), GF: 1 (10), GA: 32 (10), GD: -31 (10), Coach: Edmed
2008 – 0-8-1 (10), GF: 5 (9), GA: 20 (9), GD: -15 (10), Coach: Edmed
2007 – 2-6-1 (7), GF: 9 (6), GA: 27 (9), GD: -18 (9), Coach: Edmed
2006 – 0-8-1 (9), GF: 10 (8), GA: 24 (9), GD: -14 (9), Coach: Edmed
2005 – 2-7-0 (8), GF: 10 (8), GA: 24 (9), GD: -14 (8), Coach: Kline
2004 – 3-6-0 (7), GF: 9 (9), GA: 13 (7), GD: -4 (7), Coach: Kline
2003 – 2-7-0 (9), GF: 10 (9), GA: 20 (9), GD: -10 (9), Coach: Kline
2002 – 5-3-1 (5), GF: 16 (4), GA: 12 (5), GD: +4 (6), Coach: Kline
2001 – 1-6-2 (9), GF: 10 (9), GA: 19 (9), GD: -9 (9), Coach: Kline
2000 – 2-7-0 (8), GF: 7 (9), GA: 17 (7), GD: -10 (8), Coach: Kline

With the exception of one Black Swan season in 2002, when Conn had a winning record in the league and a positive GD, Conn has consistency languished in the bottom 4 of the league, with an overall average league finish of Colby has had the same coach for its entire league history and has bounced around the bottom half of league, with a league-low average league finish of 8.36. The team's results under current coach Riker seem to have improved modestly over those under former Coach Edmed, but still average only 8.67 (albeit in a 11 team league).

2013 League Season

Conn's 2013 season was a bit of a drop off from their 2012 season. Their goals production dropped from 12 to 10, while their GA increased from 17 to 21. The combination dropped them to 10th in the league in GD, with a -10. Given how tightly bunched the record of the bottom 5 teams were, however, they only missed the NESCAC tournament by virtue of losing a tiebreaker with Colby.

Who Graduated/Who's Returning

Colby is losing only 4 seniors, of whom only 1 was a regular starter and 2 others regulars subs. The departing players contributed 4 of the team's 10 league goals (40%), and include Aina Torres (3 goals, 2d team all-NESCAC), Rebecca Raymond (1 goal), and Julia Byrne. 10 returning players were regular starters last year: Natalie Signor (keeper), Amanda Onofrio, Abby Fagan (1 goal), Katelyn Murray, Nicole Dellapasqua, Astrid Kempainen, Lily Cannon, Amanda Proulx, Morgan Cowie-Haskell (1 goal), and Annie Higgens (1 goal). None of the returning players were first or second team all-NESCAC.

2014 Forecast

Conn returns 10 starters from last year's team, but loses its leading scorer and only all-NESCAC player. Based on the past performance, a finish anywhere from 7-11 is possible.

HAMILTON

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 1-6-3 (8), GF: 5 (11), GA: 13 (7), GD: -8 (9), Coach: Gilligan
2012 – 5-4-1 (5), GF: 9 (8), GA: 10 (3), GD: -1 (5), Coach: Gilligan
2011 – 4-5-1 (6), GF: 9 (7), GA: 13 (6), GD: -4 (7), Coach: Gilligan

In Hamilton’s 3 seasons in the league, they’ve had 2 solid mid-table finishes, followed by one bottom 3 finish. Overall, their average finish has been 6.33.

2013 League Season

Hamilton’s 2013 season was clearly the worst of their 3 in NESCAC. The defense continued to be respectable, but their offensive production dropped from an OK 9 goals, to a league-worst 5 goals. As a result, they fell into 3-way tie for 8th and missed the NESCAC tournament by virtue of losing a tiebreaker with Colby.

Who Graduated/Who’s Returning

Hamilton is losing 4 seniors, 3 of whom were regular starters. The departing players contributed none of the team’s 5 league goals, and include Liz Gergenti (keeper), Lauren Brady, and Jacqueline Winter. 8 returning players were regular starters last year: Victoria Freeman (1 goal), Becca Reese (1 goal), Hannah Withiam, Bea Blackwell, Emily Foley, Kendall Daley (3 goals), Meg Alexander, and Halle Becker. Neither any of the departing players nor any of the returning players were first or second team all-NESCAC.

2014 Forecast

Hamilton returns 8 starters from last year’s team, including all of their offense, creating a good chance that their offensive production will rebound from last year’s league-low. Top 5 is probably a bit much to ask for. A finish in the 6-8 range is most likely.

MIDDLEBURY

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 8-1-1 (1), GF: 13 (6), GA: 5 (2), GD: +8 (3), Coach: Kim
2012 – 8-1-1 (1-tie), GF: 17 (3), GA: 4 (1), GD: +13 (2), Coach: Kim
2011 – 7-2-1 (2), GF: 16 (2), GA: 9 (4), GD: +7 (3), Coach: Kim
2010 – 4-3-2 (4), GF: 10 (6), GA: 12 (6), GD: -2 (7), Coach: Kim
2009 – 7-2-0 (3), GF: 18 (2), GA: 9 (5), GD: +9 (3), Coach: Kim
2008 – 6-3-0 (3), GF: 14 (4), GA: 8 (2), GD: +6 (3), Coach: Kim
2007 – 4-4-1 (6), GF: 22 (2), GA: 15 (7), GD: +7 (3), Coach: Kim
2006 – 6-2-1 (3), GF: 17 (3), GA: 7 (1), GD: +10 (2), Coach: Kim
2005 – 4-3-2 (6), GF: 11 (6), GA: 13 (6), GD: -2 (7), Coach: Kim
2004 – 7-0-2 (1), GF: 17 (1), GA: 4 (1), GD: +13 (1), Coach: Kim
2003 – 5-4-0 (6), GF: 15 (5), GA: 11 (5), GD: +4 (5), Coach: Boettcher
2002 – 4-2-3 (5), GF: 25 (1), GA: 15 (6), GD: +10 (3), Coach: Boettcher
2001 – 6-3-0 (2), GF: 22 (2), GA: 15 (6), GD: +7 (3), Coach: Boettcher
2000 – 8-1-0 (1), GF: 22 (2), GA: 3 (1), GD: +19 (1), Coach: Boettcher

Middlebury won the inaugural NESCAC season under Coach Boettcher and then declined a bit in her final 3 seasons. Coach Kim had immediate success in his debut season, but was unable to return to the top 2 for the next 6 seasons, as Midd bounced around between #3 and #6. In the past 3, however, Kim has brought Middlebury their most successful series of seasons, including #1 finishes in each of the past 2 years.

2013 League Season

Although Middlebury finished alone atop the league standings in 2013, stats-wise their season was a bit weaker then their 2012 season. The offense fell from #1 to #3, while the defense fell from #1 to #2. Their league-best record was a tribute to how well they did in 1-goal games (7 wins, 1 loss).

Who Graduated/Who's Returning

Middlebury is losing 6 seniors, 5 of whom were regular starters and the other a regular sub. The departing players contributed 6 of the team's 13 league goals (46%), and include Elizabeth Foody (keeper, 1st team all-NESCAC), Lindsay Kingston, Scarlett Kirk (2 goals, 1st team all-NESCAC), Julia Favorito (4 goals, NESCAC POY), Sarah Noble, and Melissa Garrett. 7 returning players were regular starters last year: Molly Parizeau, Sophia Kligler (1 goal), Moria Sloan (1 goal), Hannah Robinson (1 goal, 1st team all-NESCAC), Ali Omsberg, Carter Talgo, and Jamie Soroka (1 goal).

2014 Forecast

Middlebury is losing a lot of their top talent, including NESCAC POY Favorito, all-NESCAC first team keeper Foody, and 3-time all-NESCAC first team forward Kirk. They are sure to have some good players ready to step in, but losing that much talent will make it difficult for them to top the league for the 3d consecutive year. A finish anywhere from 1-6 is possible.

TRINITY

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 7-3-0 (4), GF: 15 (2), GA: 10 (5), GD: +5 (5), Coach: Smith
2012 – 3-7-0 (7), GF: 15 (4), GA: 17 (8), GD: -2 (6), Coach: Smith
2011 – 2-6-2 (9), GF: 9 (7), GA: 14 (7), GD: -5 (8), Coach: Smith
2010 – 4-3-2 (4), GF: 10 (6), GA: 8 (2), GD: +2 (4), Coach: Smith
2009 – 3-3-3 (4), GF: 10 (6), GA: 8 (4), GD: +2 (5), Coach: Smith
2008 – 4-5-0 (6), GF: 12 (6), GA: 13 (5), GD: -1 (3), Coach: Smith
2007 – 5-3-1 (6), GF: 6 (8), GA: 5 (2), GD: +1 (6), Coach: Smith
2006 – 0-8-1 (9), GF: 7 (10), GA: 24 (9), GD: -17 (10), Coach: Smith
2005 – 1-8-0 (10), GF: 8 (9), GA: 27 (10), GD: -19 (10), Coach: Smith
2004 – 3-6-0 (7), GF: 10 (8), GA: 18 (9), GD: -8 (9), Coach: Smith
2003 – 5-3-1 (5), GF: 13 (6), GA: 11 (5), GD: +2 (5), Coach: Smith
2002 – 3-4-2 (7), GF: 15 (6), GA: 19 (7), GD: -4 (7), Coach: Smith
2001 – 3-6-0 (7), GF: 10 (8), GA: 18 (8), GD: -8 (8), Coach: Smith
2000 – 1-7-1 (9), GF: 10 (7), GA: 27 (9), GD: -17 (9), Coach: Smith

Trinity’s NESCAC history is a bit a sine wave: starting near the league bottom, rising to 5th in 2003, then dropping back down to a new low of 10th in 2005, back up to 4th in 2009 and 2010, back down to 9th in 2011, and rebounding back to 4th last season. Probably more variability than any other team.

2013 League Season

2013 was Trinity’s best season ever in the league and a significant improvement over their 2012 season. The improvement was all about the defense, which improved from 17 GA to 10 GA.

Who Graduated/Who’s Returning

Trinity is remarkably only losing 1 senior (where did all the rest go?). And that senior did not score any goals in league play. All 11 starting players are returning, including Andi Nicholson (4 goals), Abby Lake (4 goals, 2d team all-NESCAC), Elise Dolan (3 goals, 3 assists, 1st team all-NESCAC) and Maggie Crowe (2d team all-NESCAC).

2014 Forecast

With all league starters and goal scorers (including 3 all-NESCAC players) returning, it is tempting to predict that Trinity will be even better next year. However, they were at their historical high last year and I have seen situations before where a team that returned all 11 starters were worse the following year. I’d be surprised if they are able to improve over their #4 league finish from last year, and would not be surprised if they dropped a spot or 2. A finish from 4-6 is most likely.

Updated incoming class list. New additions are in bold. New additions are from Amherst's roster page which now has added the incoming players, and also from the Global Premier Soccer (GPS) club site.

Amherst - So - Kim Greenberg - Wilmette, IL - FC United Select (not sure if she is a transfer or, if so, where from)
Amherst - Fr - Hannah Guzzi - Southborough, MA - GPS-Massachusetts (formerly MPS Renegades)
Amherst - Fr -Delancey King - Braintree, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Amherst - Fr -Meredith Manley - Potttown, PA - Penn Fusion ECNL U18 - M
Amherst - Fr - Alison Neveu - Thousand Oaks, CA - Real So Cal ECNL U18 - M
Bates - Fr - Sarah McCarthy - ? - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Fr - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary’s Sabres U18 - GK
Conn - Fr - Aimee Manderlink - Ridgefield, CT - Yankee Utd U18
Conn - Fr - Michelle Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Conn - Fr-  Nicole Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Trinity - Fr- Alexa Barbaresi - CA - West Coast FC - D
Trinity - Fr- Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Tufts  - Fr- Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Tufts - Fr- Emily Wilson - GPS-Milan (formerly Milan Boston)
Wesleyan - Fr- Samantha Ashley - New Canaan, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Wesleyan - Fr-  Meghan Cunningham - Washington, DC - formerly on VSA Heat Blue U17 - M
Wesleyan - Fr- Ellie Dempsey - Stamford, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Wesleyan - Fr- Meghan Hanan - Sammamish, WA - ISC/Arsenal? Crossfire? - GK
Wesleyan - Fr- Emma Seaman - Pacific Palisades, CA - Real So Cal ECNL U17 - F/M
Wesleyan - Fr- Elise Waller - Dallas, TX - Dallas Texans Red North '96 - M
Williams - Fr- Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Fr- Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Fr- Katherine Sands - Rye, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - DM
Williams - Fr- Jacqueline Simeone - Milton, MA - IMG Soccer Academy - D

TUFTS

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 5-5-0 (6), GF: 14 (3), GA: 14 (8), GD: +0 (6), Coach: Whiting
2012 – 2-6-2 (10), GF: 9 (8), GA: 13 (6), GD: -4 (7), Coach: Whiting
2011 – 5-3-2 (4), GF: 14 (4), GA: 8 (3), GD: +6 (4), Coach: Whiting
2010 – 6-1-2 (1), GF: 12 (5), GA: 4 (1), GD: +8 (2), Coach: Whiting
2009 – 4-4-1 (4), GF: 12 (4), GA: 6 (3), GD: +6 (5), Coach: Whiting
2008 – 5-4-0 (4), GF: 13 (5), GA: 10 (4), GD: +3 (4), Coach: Whiting
2007 – 7-2-0 (2), GF: 14 (4), GA: 7 (4), GD: +7 (2), Coach: Whiting
2006 – 6-1-2 (2), GF: 16 (4), GA: 9 (5), GD: +7 (4), Coach: Whiting
2005 – 6-2-1 (1-tie), GF: 15 (5), GA: 7 (1), GD: +8 (3), Coach: Whiting
2004 – 5-1-3 (3), GF: 15 (3), GA: 10 (3), GD: +5 (3), Coach: Whiting
2003 – 4-5-0 (7), GF: 13 (6), GA: 15 (7), GD: -2 (7), Coach: Whiting
2002 – 6-2-1 (1-tie), GF: 15 (6), GA: 8 (2), GD: +7 (3), Coach: Whiting
2001 – 5-4-0 (6), GF: 15 (5), GA: 13 (4), GD: +2 (5), Coach: Whiting
2000 – 7-2-0 (3), GF: 16 (4), GA: 9 (3), GD: +7 (4), Coach: Whiting

Tufts has consistently produced good, but not great teams. Despite the fact that they have topped the league table 3 times, they have never had a team that has won more than 7 league games, never had a team that ranked in the top 2 in goals scored, and never had the best GD in the league. Their consistency of offensive production has been particularly noteworthy: they have scored from 12-16 goals every year, with the exception of their 2012 season. Their defense has been more variable, ranging from 4-15 GA, and that’s what has determined whether they have a good season or not. Every year that their GA has been less than 13, they have finished 4th or better in the league; every year their GA has been 13 or higher, they have finished 6th or lower.

2013 League Season

2013 was a so-so season for Tufts. It was a significant rebound from their worst ever 2012 season, but still left them with their 3d lowest finish in the league. The offense picked up nicely to 14 GF, but the defense remained a problem and ranked only 8th in the league.

Who Graduated/Who’s Returning

Tufts graduated 6 players, including 3 regular starters and 1 regular sub. The departing players contributed 4 league goals (29%) and include Kristin Wright (starting keeper), Anya Kaufman (leading scorer with 4 goals, 2d team all-NESCAC), and Blair Brady (defender). 9 regular starters are returning, including Nikki Blank, Robin Estus (2 goals), Jess Capone, Alex Ferris (2 goals), Carla Kruyff (3 goals, 2d team all-NESCAC), Victoria Stoj, Nicole Campellone, Catharine Greer (1st team all-NESCAC) and Alexa Plus.

2014 Forecast

Tufts is losing their starting keeper as well as their leading scorer from last year, but return a lot of starters and 70% of their scoring. Last year was the first time Tufts had been out of the top 4 for 2 years in a row; they have a chance to get back there this year. A finish from 4-6 is most likely.

Becks.....have to thank you for your efforts.  Plus K!  Season approaching soon enough.   Amherst meets Middlebury in its first game !

Thanks, amh63. I'm definitely looking forward to finishing off my pre-season evaluations and getting into the playing season.

WESLEYAN

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 1-4-5 (7), GF: 7 (8), GA: 9 (4), GD: -2 (7), Coach: Meredith
2012 – 3-7-0 (7), GF: 9 (8), GA: 14 (6), GD: -5 (7), Coach: Meredith
2011 – 5-5-0 (5), GF: 13 (6), GA: 16 (8), GD: -3 (5), Coach: Meredith
2010 – 3-2-4 (6), GF: 13 (4), GA: 11 (5), GD: +2 (4), Coach: Meredith
2009 – 4-5-0 (6), GF: 9 (7), GA: 12 (6), GD: -3 (7), Coach: Meredith
2008 – 3-5-1 (7), GF: 7 (7), GA: 15 (7), GD: -8 (7), Coach: Meredith
2007 – 2-6-1 (7), GF: 8 (8), GA: 11 (5), GD: -3 (7), Coach: Meredith
2006 – 3-6-0 (8), GF: 9 (9), GA: 16 (6), GD: -7 (8), Coach: Meredith
2005 – 1-6-2 (8), GF: 7 (10), GA: 21 (8), GD: -14 (8), Coach: Meredith
2004 – 1-8-0 (10), GF: 6 (10), GA: 28 (10), GD: -22 (10), Coach: Meredith
2003 – 0-9-0 (10), GF: 4 (10), GA: 33 (10), GD: -29 (10), Coach: Wheeler
2002 – 0-8-1 (10), GF: 10 (9), GA: 32 (9), GD: -22 (9), Coach: Wheeler
2001 – 1-8-0 (10), GF: 8 (10), GA: 28 (10), GD: -20 (10), Coach: Wheeler
2000 – 0-8-1 (10), GF: 6 (10), GA: 32 (10), GD: -26 (10), Coach: Wheeler

Wes was the worst team in the league for its first 5 years. After a last place finish in Coach Meredith’s inaugural campaign in 2004, however, the team gradually rose to a certain measure of respectability, from 8th in 2005 and 2006, to 7th in 2007 and 2008, to 6th in 2009 and 2010, before topping out at 5th in 2011. Since then they have fallen back slightly, with two consecutive 7th place finishes. Statistically, their best 2 seasons were 2010 and 2011, when they finished with the 4th and 5th best GDs in the league, respectively. Overall, however, for the past 7 years, a 7th place finish is pretty much the average for them and, in fact, they have had the 7th best GD in 5 of those 7 years.

2013 League Season

2013 was a strange season for Wes. They had their fewest wins since 2005, but also their 2d fewest losses ever, and set a league record with 5 ties. The offense dropped off a bit, which is not surprising given the graduation of POY forward Laura Kurash, but the defense was Wes’s best ever.

Who Graduated/Who’s Returning

Wes graduated 4 players, including 2 regular starters. The graduating players did not contribute any goals but include the only players who started all 10 league games: Kerry Doyle (defender, 2d team all-FCIAC) and Hannah Knudson (defender). Wes’s pre-season roster also shows that 2 rising juniors are not playing this fall: Isabel Clements (a regular starter) and Victoria Matthew (2 goals). So, altogether, Wes is losing 3 starters and 2 goals (29%) from last year’s team. 10 regular starters are returning: Brynn Hansson, T. Daggett-Edenholm (1 goal), Katy Hardt, Clare Ashforth, Madeline Keane (1 goal), Carly Swenson, Hannah Stone, Sarah Sylla (2 goals), C. Gonzalez-Gandolfi, and Jessica Tollman (keeper).

2014 Forecast

Wes returns a lot of regular starters, but will need to plug holes in defense caused by the graduation of 2 starting defenders and will also need to find some way to generate at least a few more goals. Given Wes’s consistency in GD over the years and lack of huge roster changes, I don’t see their GD swinging wildly from last year, but a couple of goals either way could see them either moving up to 6th or dropping all the way down to 11.

WILLIAMS

Team History

The following is conference-only; league ranking in parens.
2013 – 7-2-1 (2), GF: 14 (3), GA: 5 (2), GD: +9 (1), Coach: Pinard
2012 – 8-1-1 (1-tie), GF: 18 (2), GA: 10 (3), GD: +8 (3), Coach: Pinard
2011 – 7-2-1 (2), GF: 15 (3), GA: 6 (2), GD: +9 (2), Coach: Pinard
2010 – 5-2-2 (2), GF: 19 (1), GA: 8 (2), GD: +11 (1), Coach: Pinard
2009 – 9-0-0 (1), GF: 28 (1), GA: 2 (1), GD: +26 (1), Coach: Pinard
2008 – 8-0-1 (1), GF: 19 (2), GA: 4 (1), GD: +15 (2), Coach: Pinard
2007 – 9-0-0 (1), GF: 26 (1), GA: 2 (1), GD: +24 (1), Coach: Pinard
2006 – 4-2-2 (4), GF: 16 (4), GA: 8 (3), GD: +8 (3), Coach: Pinard
2005 – 5-3-1 (4), GF: 11 (6), GA: 8 (2), GD: +3 (5), Coach: Pinard
2004 – 3-5-1 (6), GF: 14 (5), GA: 12 (6), GD: +2 (5), Coach: Pinard
2003 – 6-3-0 (2), GF: 23 (1), GA: 9 (2), GD: +14 (1), Coach: Pinard
2002 – 6-2-1 (1-tie), GF: 19 (3), GA: 5 (1), GD: +14 (1), Coach: Pinard
2001 – 9-0-0 (1), GF: 28 (1), GA: 11 (3), GD: +17 (1), Coach: Melendy
2000 – 4-5-0 (6), GF: 20 (3), GA: 11 (5), GD: +9 (3), Coach: Melendy

Williams was up and down in the first 7 years of the league. Winning the league in 2001 and 2002 but finishing in 6th in 2000 and 2004 and 4th in 2005 and 2006. Since 2007, however, they have consistently finished 1st or 2d in the league.

2013 League Season

Williams had a solid year in 2012. Their offensive production was off a bit – they scored their lowest number of goals since 2005 – but it was still respectably 3d best in the league. And their defense was excellent, allowing a mere 5 goals in 10 games.

Who Graduated/Who’s Returning

Williams graduated only 3 players, including 2 regular starters and 1 regular sub. The departing players did not contribute any goals but included starting defenders Hayley Cook (2d team all-NESCAC) and Carla Nicasio (1st team all-NESCAC). 9 regular starters are returning: Hannah Van Wetter (keeper), Crystal Lewin (2 goals), Alex McInturf, Hana Tomomzawa (1 goal), Audrey Thomas (leading scorer with 4 goals), Alison Magruder (1 goal), Mai Mtisuyama (1st team all-NESCAC), Lilly Wellenbach, and Hannah Levin.

2014 Forecast

Williams is one of the pre-season favorites to win the league this year. The loss of 2 all-NESCAC defenders may make it difficult for them to repeat their 5 GA 2013 season, but the return of all their league goal scorers suggests that any weakening in defense may be made up by increased offense. A finish anywhere from 1-4 is possible, but top 2 is most likely.

Bates Season Preview: http://athletics.bates.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/releases/201408210rftis

Wesleyan Season Preview: http://www.wesleyan.edu/athletics/news/2014/08/wsoccerpreview081314.html

Bennettrank.com's pre-season NESCAC rankings

NESCAC Rank (National D3 Rank) - School

1 (4) - Middlebury
2 (7) - Williams
3 (8) - Amherst
4 (21) - Bowdoin
5 (29) - Trinity
6 (36) - Tufts
7 (57) - Wesleyan
8 (59) - Hamilton
9 (91) - Colby
10 (128) - Bates
11 (131) - Conn

I think Bennettrank's pre-season rankings are based purely on the teams' performances over the last several years and do not consider how much talent the teams graduated. The only change I would necessarily make, however, is that I would put Williams over Middlebury.

Becks ....I agree with your pre-season thoughts....but have to state that preseason rankings are for fans hopes and sales, IMO.  I enjoy surprises and upsets.....and breakout performances of new players.
Better still, the discussions of pundits as they try to explain the mid season standings.

Becks, great to see you back in full force!

Thanks, Giggsy. Between my daughter's 'CAC games and my son's HS games, it's going to be a busy fall.

Nice job with your season previews, Becks!  Very objective -- I know you are a parent, but impossible to tell which school your daughter is affiliated with. 

I see that Williams has 32 players on its pre-season roster.  That has to be some sort of record, wow.  I'm sure that will be culled down a bit with a few playing JV, but even still, there is going to be a big fight for playing time in Billsville this year. 

Thanks, nescac1. Yeah, I was going to say something about that Williams roster size. It is not unheard of for schools to have rosters that big, but it would definitely set a record for a NESCAC women's roster. Checking back on the Williams site, the roster link now shows the 2013 roster. You can see the pre-season roster only if you change the dates in the roster url to 2014-15. I can't recall if that was what I had to do yesterday to see the pre-season roster.

Does Williams have a JV? I know that Middlebury does, but I didn't think any other NESCAC's had women's JV teams anymore.

Keeping this among the "little three" teams for now....Amherst has 24 members listed in the pre-season roster.
I did note that between the FY players on the Wes and Williams rosters....from the "Gold Coast " section of CT and NY....that the recruits are from the same CT based Club team.   Interesting...that the players are "past teammates".  Amherst's FYs show no members from that club team.  Guess the LJ got shut-out :)

Quote from: amh63 on August 27, 2014, 11:15:02 AM
Keeping this among the "little three" teams for now....Amherst has 24 members listed in the pre-season roster.
I did note that between the FY players on the Wes and Williams rosters....from the "Gold Coast " section of CT and NY....that the recruits are from the same CT based Club team.   Interesting...that the players are "past teammates".  Amherst's FYs show no members from that club team.  Guess the LJ got shut-out :)

I think Amherst's and Wesleyan's pre-season rosters do not include walk-ons, but I suspect that Wiliams's (not yet intended to be public) 32-player pre-season roster does, so Amherst's and Wes's rosters might grow by a couple and Williams's might go down. I had noticed that no NESCAC women's team has ever had more than 28 players, which might be a firm cap for some reason, so I would guess that Williams's roster will drop from 32 down at least to 28.

Re CFC United players - There are a fair number of them playing at a variety of NESCAC schools (including 2 others at Wes). Although Amherst didn't pick one up this year, they do have one from a prior year - keeper Holly Burwick (who also went to the same public HS as 2 of the Wes players and 1 of the Hamilton players). This past year's CFC United ECNL U18 team had a lot of players going to top academic schools - 2 Dartmouth, 1 Yale, 2 Williams, 2 Wesleyan. And you are right that a lot of it has to do with CFC United drawing players from the "Gold Coast" section of CT and NY.

Top Returning Goal Scorers

Goals - Player - Grade this year - School - Shots/SOG (league only)
8 - Kiersten Turner - Jr - Bowdoin - 33/10 - 2x as many goals as next highest, but 8 goals on only 10 SOG is probably not repeatable
4 - Jamie Hofstetter - Jr - Bowdoin - 18/8
4 - Abby Lake - Jr - Trinity - 34/18
4 - Andi Nicholson - So - Trinity - 7/4 - 4 goals on only 7 shots?!?! Every SOG a goal!?!?
4 - Audrey Thomas - So - Williams - 26/12
3 - Kendall Daly - So - Hamilton - 22/4
3 - Elise Dolan - Sr - Trinity - 19/6
3 - Leah Humers - Jr - Bates - 19/7
3 - Megan Kim - Jr - Amherst - 7/5
3 - Kristi Kirsche - So - Williams - 34/15
3 - Carla Kruyff - Sr - Tufts - 23/7

Only 2 of the 11 top returning scorers are seniors; none are from Middlebury and only 1 from Amherst.

Yes, Holly Burwick is a very talented goalie....an all conference player.  There is a player...Hester...from my area... that I'm hoping will have a breakout season...this her second year.  She was the top player in the D.C. Region ...a Gatorade POY.   She does have the potential.

The Amherst men's soccer team has its preview up and roster up.  With a big incoming class, including a soph...the roster is presently 29.   
You may have something here about soccer roster size...around 28...Becks!

Quote from: amh63 on August 28, 2014, 03:13:17 PM
The Amherst men's soccer team has its preview up and roster up.  With a big incoming class, including a soph...the roster is presently 29.   
You may have something here about soccer roster size...around 28...Beck!

Well, if I'm right, at least one of those guys won't be on the final roster.

Returning Scoring


#1 Bowdoin 16/18 (goals scored last year by returning players/total goals scored last year)
(returning multi-goal scorers)
8 – Kiersten Turner – 33/19 (shots/SOG)
4 – Jamie Hofstetter – 18/8
2 – Abby Hammerl – 5/1 (not sure how you get 2 goals on 1 SOG, another example of how messed up NESCAC’s SOG stats are)

#2 Trinity 15/15
4 – Abby Lake – 34/10
4 – Andi Nicholson – 7/4
3 – Elisa Dolan – 19/6

#3 Williams 14/14
4 – Audrey Thomas – 26/12
3 – Kristi Kirshe – 34/15
2 – Crystal Lewin – 10/7
2 – Katie Wardlaw – 8/5

#4 Tufts 10/14
3 – Carla Kruyff – 23/7
2 – Robin Estus – 16/4
2 – Alex Farris – 11/6
2 – Victoria Stoj – 6/5

#5 Middlebury 7/13
-

#6 Amherst 6/14
3 – Megan Kim – 19/5
2 – Maggie Belnap – 12/2

#6 Conn 6/10
2 – LibbyThomas – 10/3

#8 Wesleyan 5/7
2 – Sarah Sylla – 12/8

#8 Hamilton 5/5
3 - Kendall Daley - 22/4

#10 Bates 4/6
3 – Leah Humes – 19/7

#11 Colby 0/6
-

On paper, Bowdoin, Tufts and Williams look to return the most potent offenses in the league, while Middlebury, Amherst and Colby each have to replace 6+ goals.

Quote from: nescac1 on August 26, 2014, 05:39:43 PMI see that Williams has 32 players on its pre-season roster.  That has to be some sort of record, wow.  I'm sure that will be culled down a bit with a few playing JV, but even still, there is going to be a big fight for playing time in Billsville this year.

Williams pre-season roster now down to 30. A rising soph back-up keeper and rising junior field player who didn't get a ton of playing time are no longer listed. Probably a few more to go. Still 9 frosh on the roster. With a 2013 roster of 27 and only 3 graduating seniors, Pinard was always going to have to choose between going with a small incoming class or cutting existing players. So far she has gone with the latter.

Amherst had a scrimmage against Smith College the other day.  Pics found on the Amherst website.  Pics show players with T- shirts but no numbers.  Expect it was only played without FY players.

Conn played Wes today in a full game scrimmage on a crappy grass field at Yale. Ended Wes 2-0 Conn, but looked pretty even. If anything, I think Conn may have played a bit better. Conn then played Univ of Bridgeport in a 45-minute scrimmage on the turf at Yale and looked good but lost 0-1. Wes then played Yale in a 45-minute scrimmage on the turf and also lost 0-1, but I didn't think they were able to play the same quality of possession soccer as Conn was, but could have been due to the difference in opponents.

Wesleyan final roster and team pics are up on their website: http://www.wesleyan.edu/athletics/wsoccer/roster/index.html One recruited freshmen apparently decided not to play soccer this fall, so a smallish incoming class of 5 frosh.

Looks like the Hamilton final roster has been posted: http://www.hamilton.edu/athletics/womens-soccer/roster . A relatively large incoming class of 8 frosh. Only 2 keepers on the roster, both frosh. The backup keeper from last year (would be a rising junior this year) is not on the roster. Also not on the roster are: a player who would be a rising junior and who got little playing time last year and 3 players who would rising sophomores (one who didn't play in a single game (quit? injured), another who played in only 2 games, and, most surprisingly, Kendall Daly, who was Hamilton's leading scorer overall and in league play last year). Perhaps to make up for KD's departure, 5 of Hamilton's frosh are forwards.

Incoming players. Updated for Wesleyan and Hamilton's final roster.

Amherst - So - Kim Greenberg - Wilmette, IL - FC United Select
Amherst - Fr - Hannah Guzzi - Southborough, MA - GPS-Massachusetts (formerly MPS Renegades)
Amherst - Fr -Delancey King - Braintree, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Amherst - Fr -Meredith Manley - Potttown, PA - Penn Fusion ECNL U18 - M
Amherst - Fr - Alison Neveu - Thousand Oaks, CA - Real So Cal ECNL U18 - M
Bates - Fr - Sarah McCarthy - ? - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Fr - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary's Sabres U18 - GK
Conn - Fr - Aimee Manderlink - Ridgefield, CT - Yankee Utd U18
Conn - Fr - Michelle Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Conn - Fr-  Nicole Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Hamilton - Fr - Amanda Becker - Chappaqua, NY - New York Rush Patriots 96 - F
Hamilton - Fr - Rosalie Campbell - New York, NY - ISA - D
Hamilton - Fr - Rachel Cooley - Branchburg, NJ - ? - GK
Hamilton - Fr - Emily Dumont - N Andover, MA - ? - GK
Hamilton - Fr - Katja Dunlap - Arlington, MA - Fusion FC - F/M
Hamilton - Fr - Katie Kreider - Boxford, MA - Aztec - F
Hamilton - Fr - Darby Philbrick - Alexandria, VA - Alexandria SA Freedom - F
Hamilton - Fr - Kate Whiston - Rye, NY - FC Westchester Elite 96 - F
Trinity - Fr- Alexa Barbaresi - CA - West Coast FC - D
Trinity - Fr- Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Tufts  - Fr- Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Tufts - Fr- Emily Wilson - GPS-Milan (formerly Milan Boston)
Wesleyan - Fr- Samantha Ashley - New Canaan, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Wesleyan - Fr-  Meghan Cunningham - Washington, DC - formerly on VSA Heat Blue U17 - M
Wesleyan - Fr- Ellie Dempsey - Stamford, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Wesleyan - Fr- Meghan Hanan - Sammamish, WA - ISC/Arsenal? Crossfire? - GK
Wesleyan - Fr- Elise Waller - Dallas, TX - Dallas Texans Red North '96 - M
Williams - Fr- Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Fr- Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Fr- Katherine Sands - Rye, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - DM
Williams - Fr- Jacqueline Simeone - Milton, MA - IMG Soccer Academy - D

Williams has posted its season preview.  In addition to the two upperclass players who, as Becks noted, have apparently left the program, the preview notes that two other players (both solid contributors in the past) are out with injuries this season, and I assume then won't be on the final roster.  If one or two frosh end up not making the varsity squad, that puts the roster down to a more manageable size, although there will still be some tough battles for playing time, particularly at the attacking positions (most of the players who graduated or will not be on the roster this season are defensive players). 

Quote from: nescac1 on September 02, 2014, 07:35:47 AM
Williams has posted its season preview.  In addition to the two upperclass players who, as Becks noted, have apparently left the program, the preview notes that two other players (both solid contributors in the past) are out with injuries this season, and I assume then won't be on the final roster.  If one or two frosh end up not making the varsity squad, that puts the roster down to a more manageable size, although there will still be some tough battles for playing time, particularly at the attacking positions (most of the players who graduated or will not be on the roster this season are defensive players).

Williams "final" roster has also been posted. http://ephsports.williams.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster Still 30 players listed, but if (as the season preview article suggests) Levin and Morss are out for the season, Williams might continue to list them on the website roster but not include them on their official NESCAC/NCAA roster, so even though they list 30 players, only 28 are eligible to play this year. The big question -- will poor Dani Sim ever get a number? Of course, since she is a Sim, maybe she is just a virtual team member? ;)

Middlebury's roster is posted at http://athletics.middlebury.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster. However, the roster is not yet connected to the roster link on their home page, so not really official yet. 25 players listed, including all expected returning players. Newcomers consist of 5 frosh and 1 senior (presumably moving up from the B team).

Almost forgot that actual games are starting this week. Here are my picks for this week's games. All but one of the NESCAC teams are at home and should win anywhere from fairly comfortably (Conn) to blowout potential (Bates, Trinity, Middlebury). The one challenging matchup is Wesleyan at UMass-Boston, which should be very close, with an edge to UMass.

Tue, Sept 2:
Bates v St Joe's Maine (@ Bates) - Bates last played St Joes in 2010. They only beat them 2-1 but outshot them 36-7. Bates' preseason Bennett Rank is 126, while St Joes is 272. With Bates at home, Bennettrank predicts that Bates will win by 4. That may be a bit much, but should be a comfortable win for Bates.

Wed, Sept 3:
Wesleyan v UMass Boston (@ UMass Boston) - The teams have never played each other. Wesleyan's Bennett Rank is 59 and UMass-Boston's is 74. With the game at Boston, Bennettrank makes Wesleyan a 1-goal underdog. That makes some sense. Should be very evenly matched, with a tie or 1-goal by either team win likely. Edge to UMass Boston since they are playing at home and have already played a game (0-0 tie with Babson).

Trinity v St Joe's CT (@ Trinity) - If these teams have played each other before, it was a long time ago. Trinity's Bennettrank is 24, while St Joes is 202. Bennettrank makes St Joes a 4-goal underdog. Should be an easy win for Trinity.

Thu, Sept 4:
Middlebury v Castleton State (@ Middlebury) - These teams last met in the first round of the 2012 NCAA tournament. Middlebury won 3-1 and outshot Castleton 23-7. Bennettrank has this game about as lopsided as they come, with Middlebury ranked 6 and Castleton 232 and a 4-goal underdog. Should be an easy win for Middlebury.

Fri, Sept 5:
Conn v Albertus Magnus(@ Conn) - Fat Albert tied Conn 0-0 last year, although Conn outshot them 14-8. Bennettrank has Conn at 129 and Albertus Magnus at 209, with Conn favored to win by 2 goals at home. That sounds about right. A win but tighter than for Bates, Trinity and Middlebury.

Looks like today is the day for posting rosters:

Bates: http://athletics.bates.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster Roster of 29(!). 3 expected returning players are not listed: 1 backup keeper and 2 regular subs. New players consist of 11 frosh(!), as well as a new soph and a new senior. 4 keepers on the roster.

Colby: http://www.colby.edu/athletics/sport/womens-soccer/?view=roster Roster of 24. 3 expected returning players are not listed: 1 regular sub and 2 players who didn't get much playing time. New players consist of 7 frosh and a junior.

Conn: http://camelathletics.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster Roster of 26. 10(!) expected returning players are not listed: both keepers from last year, 1 regular starter, 2 regular subs, and 5 players who didn't get much playing time. New players consist of 9 frosh and a soph keeper (the only keeper on the roster(!)).

Trinity: http://athletics.trincoll.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster Roster of 28. 7 expected returning players are not listed: 2 backup keepers, 1 regular sub, 3 player who didn't get much playing time and, most shockingly, Abby Lake, their top league goal scorer(!). New players consist of 10 frosh and 1 soph defender transfer from Union.

Trinity has posted their season preview: http://athletics.trincoll.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/releases/Women-s_Soccer_21415

QuoteWilliams "final" roster has also been posted. http://ephsports.williams.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster Still 30 players listed, but if (as the season preview article suggests) Levin and Morss are out for the season, Williams might continue to list them on the website roster but not include them on their official NESCAC/NCAA roster, so even though they list 30 players, only 28 are eligible to play this year. The big question -- will poor Dani Sim ever get a number? Of course, since she is a Sim, maybe she is just a virtual team member? ;)

Apparently that wasn't Williams' final roster after all. A new final roster has been posted that is down to 26 players: http://ephsports.williams.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster Levin is not listed but Morss is, the number of frosh has gone from 9 down to 5, and Sim has a roster number (21).

Amherst, Bowdoin and Tufts are the only 3 who don't seem to have posted their final their rosters yet.

Result from Tues, Sept 2:

Bates 2-0 St Joe's Maine - Bates win comfortably, as expected, but by less than the 4-goal margin that Bennettrank predicted. Bates outshot SJ by 13-5, but the result suggests that there has been no dramatic increase so far in the potency of the rather anemic Bates offense. In their last encounter in 2010, Bates had outshot SJ by 36-6 and SJ had lost its first 2 games this year by 4-1 to U of NE (outshot 19/6) and 5-0 to Wheaton (MA) (outshot 26-11).

I'm going back to making this a frosh-only incoming class list. Now updated for Bates' and Williams' final rosters. I couldn't find a club affiliation for a number of the Bates frosh. Interesting that 2 players who had been listed as Williams recruits did not end up on the final roster.

Amherst - Hannah Guzzi - Southborough, MA - GPS-Massachusetts (formerly MPS Renegades)
Amherst - Delancey King - Braintree, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Amherst - Meredith Manley - Potttown, PA - Penn Fusion ECNL U18 - M
Amherst - Alison Neveu - Thousand Oaks, CA - Real So Cal ECNL U18 - M
Bates - Caroline Andy - Concord, NH - Seacoast Express United U18 - M
Bates - Hannah Behringer - Old Lyme, CT - Southeast SC U18 - D/M
Bates - Emma Goff - Winchester, MA - GPS/MPS Lady Knights U18? - D
Bates - Ainsley Jamieson - Scarborough, MA - [? possibly none; lax player] - D/M
Bates - Lindsey Landwehrle - Stowe, VT - ? - F
Bates - Libby Malasky - Dedham, MA - ? - F
Bates - Sarah McCarthy - Rockville Center, NY - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Bates - Amanda Paine - Moultonborough, NH - ? - GK
Bates - Brigid Quinn - Santa Fe, NM - ? - M
Bates - Julia Rosen - Springfield, MA - ? - F
Bates -  Allegra Sacco - Medway, MA - New England FC Elite U18 - GK
Bowdoin - Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary’s Sabres U18 - GK
Conn - Aimee Manderlink - Ridgefield, CT - Yankee Utd U18
Conn - Michelle Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Conn - Nicole Medina - CT - Oakwood SC U18
Hamilton - Amanda Becker - Chappaqua, NY - New York Rush Patriots 96 - F
Hamilton - Rosalie Campbell - New York, NY - ISA - D
Hamilton - Rachel Cooley - Branchburg, NJ - ? - GK
Hamilton - Emily Dumont - N Andover, MA - ? - GK
Hamilton - Katja Dunlap - Arlington, MA - Fusion FC - F/M
Hamilton - Katie Kreider - Boxford, MA - Aztec - F
Hamilton - Darby Philbrick - Alexandria, VA - Alexandria SA Freedom - F
Hamilton - Kate Whiston - Rye, NY - FC Westchester Elite 96 - F[/b]
Trinity - Alexa Barbaresi - CA - West Coast FC - D
Trinity - Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Tufts  - Chandler Quintin - MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - MF
Tufts - Emily Wilson - GPS-Milan (formerly Milan Boston)
Wesleyan - Samantha Ashley - New Canaan, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Wesleyan - Meghan Cunningham - Washington, DC - formerly on VSA Heat Blue U17 - M
Wesleyan - Ellie Dempsey - Stamford, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Wesleyan - Meghan Hanan - Sammamish, WA - ISC/Arsenal? Crossfire? - GK
Wesleyan - Elise Waller - Dallas, TX - Dallas Texans Red North '96 - M
Williams - Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Williams - Evan Gancedo - Pasenda, CA - LA Premier FC U18 - M
Williams - Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Williams - Lucy Putnam - Los Angeles, CA - Real SoCal ECNLU17 - M
Williams - Dani Sim - Bel Air, MD - Seacoast United U18 - B

If every conference had a Becks there would peace in the world.  Absolutely amazing stuff.  I think Wes wins it all this year.  Good luck.

Results from Wed, Sept 3:

Wesleyan 0-1 UMass Boston - Close game as expected. UMB narrowly outshot Wes 11-9. Difference was sun in the eyes of the Wes defenders in the 2d half and UMB's Krista Lebin (2x Little East POY and 32-goal scorer in 2013).

Trinity 5-0 St Joe's CT - Easy win for Trinity as expected. Trinity totally dominated and outshot SJ 28-2.

Bowdoin has finally posted a 2014 roster that includes frosh. http://athletics.bowdoin.edu/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster 25 on the roster. 4 expected returning players are not listed: Krausse (a backup keeper who started 3 league games), Phillips (a forward who was a regular sub and scored 1 league goal), Norman (a regular starter in midfield), and Tidona (who played in only 2 games). New players consist of 7 frosh.

Result from Thu, Sept 4:

Middlebury 3-0 Castleton - Easy win for Mid as expected. Curiously, they outshot Castleton 23-7, exactly like the last time they played them 2 years ago.

Amherst preview is up.  Senior led team.  Preseason roster is posted.  Seems to be some changes coming...all new players have numbers except for one.

Quote from: amh63 on September 05, 2014, 07:37:42 AM
Amherst preview is up.  Senior led team.  Preseason roster is posted.  Seems to be some changes coming...all new players have numbers except for one.

The player without a number now has one. Looks like the Amherst roster looks set. https://www.amherst.edu/athletics/teams/fall/soccer-w/roster 23 on the roster, down from 28 last year. 3 expected returning players not listed: Atkins and Kelty (who both got minimal playing time last year) and Maggie Belnap (7 league starts and 2 league goals last year). New players consist of 4 frosh and 1 soph.

Tufts season preview has been posted: http://www.gotuftsjumbos.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/releases/Preview

And the 2014 roster has also been posted: http://www.gotuftsjumbos.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/roster Only 19 on the roster, down from 23 last year. 3 expected returning players are not listed: Brandman and Safai (who both got minimal playing time last year) and Katie Coyle (who had played in all 10 league games and started 2 of them). New players consist of 4 frosh and 1 soph keeper.

2014 Roster Sizes
1. Bates - 29 (24, 23, 27, 26)
2. Trinity - 28 (25, 22, 24, 18)
3. Conn - 26 (28, 27, 24, 24)
3. Williams -  26 (27, 27, 23, 24)
5. Bowdoin - 25 (25, 25, 25, 26)
5. Middlebury -  25 (28, 25, 24, 23)
5. Hamilton -  25 (25, 21, 25, 27)
8. Colby - 24 (27, 26, 25, 27)
8. Wes -  24 (26, 22, 23, 25)
10. Amherst - 23 (28, 28, 28, 28)
11 Tufts - 19 (23, 24, 24, 25)

What a difference a year can make. Bates went from having the 2d smallest roster in the league (24) to the biggest ever NESCAC women's roster (29), while Amherst went from having the biggest roster in the league for the past 4 years (28) to having the 2d smallest roster (23). Meanwhile, Tufts continues to shrink, going from the smallest roster in the league last year (23) to the 2d smallest roster of any women's NESCAC team in the last 5 years (19). Better hope those girls stay healthy, Martha. Median roster sized dropped from an all-time high of 26 last year to 25 this year.

Frosh Class Size
1 - Bates - 11
2 - Trinity - 10
3 - Conn - 9
4 - Hamilton - 8
5- Bowdoin - 7
5 - Colby - 7
7 - Middlebury - 5
7 - Wesleyan - 5
7 - Williams - 5
10 - Amherst - 4
10 - Tufts - 4

Bates, Trinity and Conn continue to have extraordinarily large recruiting classes (see Reply #3 on page 1 for detail). Such consistently large class sizes either results in unusually large rosters (Bates with a record 29 this year) or results in (or, less likely, is a response to) large amounts of attrition (Conn with 10 non-returning players, Trinity with 7 non-returning players).

Number of Expected Returning Players not on 2014 Roster
Conn - 10
Trinity - 7
Bowdoin - 4
Hamilton - 4
Amherst - 3
Bates - 3
Colby - 3
Tufts - 3
Wesleyan - 3
Williams - 3
Middlebury - 0

To me, the number of non-returning players for Conn and Trinity raises a red flag. If the attrition is because players leave voluntarily, that's a lot of unhappy players; if the attrition is because players are cut, that's a lot of players who should be nervous.

In most cases, the non-returning players got little playing time in meaningful games. There were, however, a number of exceptions where strong contributors have not come back (eg due to injury, transferring to another school, fall semester abroad, academic problems, health issues).
Amherst - Maggie Belnapp - 7 league starts, 2 league goals
Bowdoin - Audrey Phillips - 10 league games, 1 league goal
Bowdoin - Maya Norman - 7 league starts
Conn - Katelyn Murray - 6 league starts
Hamilton - Kendall Daly - 9 league starts, 3 league goals
Trinity - Abby Lake - 10 league starts, 4 league goals
Tufts - Katie Coyle - 10 league games, 2 league starts
Wesleyan - Victoria Matthews - 8 league games, 4 league starts, 2 league goals
Wesleyan - Isabel Clements - 10 league games, 6 league starts
Williams - Hannah Levin - 10 league games, 5 league starts

Games for Sat, Sept 6:

Colby @ Williams - Last year Williams beat Colby 2-1 at Colby, outshooting them 19-11. Bennettrank has Williams as a 2-goal favorite. I think it might be more than that. Williams is coming back loaded is playing at home and Colby lost all their league scoring (including Papadellis). I'll say Williams 3-0 Colby.

Trinity @ Hamilton - Last year Trinity beat Hamilton 2-0 at Trinity, outshooting them by only 12-10. Bennettrank has Trinity as a 1-goal favorite. These are 2 teams that were supposed to return a lot of their starters and scoring, but both, surprisingly, lost their leading league scorers (Abby Lake and Kendall Daly). Trinity still have more weapons left, however. A 1-goal win by Trinity away at Hamilton sounds about right. My guess Trinity 2-1 Hamilton.

Bates @ Tufts - Last year Bates upset Tufts 2-1 at Bates for their only win of the league season, despite being outshot by Tufts 20-13. Bennettrank has Tufts as whopping 3-goal favorites. It could happen, but I'll be a little more conservative: Tufts 2-0 Bates.

Bowdoin @ Wesleyan - Last year Bowdoin beat Wes by only 2-1 at Bowdoin, but outshot them 19-6. Bad news for Wes is that Bowdoin is returning all their league-leading offense, while Wes lacks a true forward. Good news for Wes is that it's at home. Bennettrank has Bowdoin as 1-goal favorites. That's probably about right. Bowdoin 1-0 Wes.

Games for Sun, Sept 7:

Wheaton @ Williams - Last year these teams tied 2-2 at Wheaton, although Williams outshot them 22-12. Both teams will be playing back to back games, but Wheaton has the disadvantage of having to drive up to Williams. Bennettrank has Williams as a 2-goal favorite. I say Williams 3-1 Wheaton.

Amherst @ Middlebury - The game of the week between 2 teams with top of the league ambitions. Last year Amherst beat Middlebury 1-0 at Amherst in OT, outshooting them 12-9. Both teams lost a lot of talent from last year but always seem to reload. Bennettrank has Middlebury as a 1-goal favorite at home. I agree. Middlebury 1-0 Amherst.

Johnson & Wales @ Conn - I'm not sure what the last time J&W played Conn, but it's been a while. Both teams are playing Fri-Sun games. Conn beat Albertus Magnus 3-1, but J&W lost 0-3 to ECSU. Bennettrank has Conn as 3-goal favorites. I have nothing really to base this on. I'll guess Conn 3-1 J&W.

New to this forum.  Got a daughter in NESCAC so will be following along this season and posting when I have something to add.  Thanks Becks for all the tidbits of info.  Williams looks to be awfully deep (my kid not on Williams).

Welcome aboard, Rudy.

Fri, Sept 5 result:

Conn 3-1 Albertus Magnus - A promising start for Conn. They outshot AM by 30-7, which is a huge improvement over last year's 14-8 in their 2-1.

Quote from: Becks on September 05, 2014, 02:38:42 PM


Number of Expected Returning Players not on 2014 Roster
Conn - 10
Trinity - 7
Hamilton - 7
Bowdoin - 4
Amherst - 3

I see only 4 from last year's Hamilton roster not back on the roster this season.

Quote from: MHS on September 05, 2014, 11:39:18 PM

Quote from: Becks on September 05, 2014, 02:38:42 PM


Number of Expected Returning Players not on 2014 Roster
Conn - 10
Trinity - 7
Hamilton - 7
Bowdoin - 4
Amherst - 3

I see only 4 from last year's Hamilton roster not back on the roster this season.

Good catch. I misread my earlier post about Hamilton's roster (Reply #87). I have corrected Reply #105 accordingly.

Quote from: Becks on September 05, 2014, 09:12:01 PM
Welcome aboard, Rudy.

Glad to be aboard (-:
Well I just returned from first game of the season.  Not sure if it is indicative of how Tufts will play the rest of the year but they put up a lot of goals today with 5 different goal scorers (6-0).   They beat Merrimack in scrimmage last week 5-0 so maybe they will be scoring more this year.  We'll see if the trend continues.  Nice start to the season but a LONG way to go.   I see Hamilton beat Trinity which based on last year's standings seems to be a bit of a surprise. I would have expected Williams to beat Colby by a larger margin but a win is a win.   

Comments on games on Sat, Sept 6:

Williams 2-0 Colby - Bennetttrack had predicted a Williams 2-goal win (spot on), while I had predicted Williams 3-0. Williams outshot Colby 26-6 (compared to 19-11 last year).

Hamilton 3-2 Trinity- Both Bennetttrack and I had predicted a 1-goal win for Trinity. Stats show it was a well-deserved win for Hamilton, as they outshot Trinity 19-9. A bit of a surprise, particularly the shot differential.

Tufts 6-0 Bates - Bennettrank had predicted a Tufts 3-goal win, while I had predicted Tufts 2-0. Actually score line suggests a blowout, but the shots stats suggest a far closer game -- Tufts only outshot Bates by 19-13, which would be more consistent with a 1 goal win. 6 goals in only 19 shots is pretty unusual.

Bowdoin 2-1 Wesleyan (2OT) - Both Bennettrank and I had predicted a 1-goal Bowdoin win. Bowdoin outshot Wes 26-8 (compared to 19-6 last year), which suggests maybe a 2-goal Bowdoin win. From watching the game, I'd say Wes was lucky to have made it out of regulation tied and would happily have taken the point. Bowdoin created a lot of chances and was unlucky to have only converted 1 of them in the first 90.

I earlier predicted that Williams' dynamic sophomore scorers "Kirshe, Thomas, and Wardlaw could easily leap from 17 goals combined to around 30, if they all stay healthy."  I'm feeling more confident about that prediction after Kirshe and Thomas combined to score all 5 of the Ephs' goals in the first two games!  (Alas, I don't think they will keep up a pace which would result in 75 combined goals on the season).  Sophomore Maddie Swarr added two assists.  Thomas and Kirshe are going to pile on a LOT of goals before they are finished as Ephs, unsurprising considering that both were state POYs in high school.  Two different styles of players, both very hard to contain, and early returns suggest, based on number of shots both have taken in each contest, that the Eph offense is going to less balanced than last year, and more focused on feeding the top scoring threats. 

Also saw the Bowdoin/Wesleyan game yesterday. Tough day to play soccer with the heat and humidity. Haven't seem mandatory water breaks for awhile!  As the shots indicate Bowdoin controlled the majority of the play and would have won by a larger margin in regulation if not for a couple of great saves by the Wesleyan goalie.  Wouldn't read too much into one game good or bad, but Wesleyan did not show much offensive ability as the Bowdoin goalie was not credited with a single save.

Quote from: GUBFL on September 07, 2014, 04:35:39 PM
Also saw the Bowdoin/Wesleyan game yesterday. Tough day to play soccer with the heat and humidity. Haven't seem mandatory water breaks for awhile!  As the shots indicate Bowdoin controlled the majority of the play and would have won by a larger margin in regulation if not for a couple of great saves by the Wesleyan goalie.  Wouldn't read too much into one game good or bad, but Wesleyan did not show much offensive ability as the Bowdoin goalie was not credited with a single save.

Fair assessment. Wes struggled for goals last year and lost a lot of 1 goal games as a result. Doesn't look like much has changed so far this season.

Comments on games for Sun, Sept 7:

Williams 3-1 Wheaton - Bennettrank had Williams as a 2-goal favorite, while I picked Williams 3-1 (spot on). Williams outshot Wheaton 19-11, compared to 22-12 last year.

Amherst 1-0 Middlebury - Bennettrank had Middlebury as a 1-goal favorite at home, while I had Middlebury winning 1-0. Amherst won on an OG. Stats suggest that Middlebury was the better team and was unlucky not to have won by a goal or 2. Middlebury had an 18-6 shots advantage (compared to a 12-9 shot advantage last year).

Conn 6-1 Johnson & Wales - Bennettrank had Conn as only 3-goal favorites, but I don't know if they ever go above 3. No stats available yet.

Watched the Colby game yesterday. Score should have been much higher on the Williams side...maybe +2-3 goals based on crossbar hits and open net misses. Typical first game shaking off the cobwebs.

Watched the Amherst game in the second half mainly....since there were two other matches going on with Panther teams.  What I saw...maybe bias a bit....neither team dominated.  Amherst was outshot 18-6,; however the LJs had more corner kicks....6-2 and appear to have the better goalie.  This was the 4th straight game that Amherst has shut out Middlebury (3-0-1)!  Not a bad defensive game against the 3rd ranked Panthers!   
Have to admit that Panthers men's team took the higher ranked Amherst team to 2OT and a tie. :)

Quote from: amh63 on September 07, 2014, 08:51:54 PM
Watched the Amherst game in the second half mainly....since there were two other matches going on with Panther teams.  What I saw...maybe bias a bit....neither team dominated.  Amherst was outshot 18-6,; however the LJs had more corner kicks....6-2 and appear to have the better goalie.  This was the 4th straight game that Amherst has shut out Middlebury (3-0-1)!  Not a bad defensive game against the 3rd ranked Panthers!   
Have to admit that Panthers men's team took the higher ranked Amherst team to 2OT and a tie. :)

Funny about the corner kicks. One stat that has always stood out for Amherst women's teams is that they almost always lead the league in cornerkicks. I think it must be a style-of-play thing.

Frosh list updated for final rosters. "Unknown" indicates that I tried to search for the player's club affiliation but couldn't find one.

Amherst - 4
Hannah Guzzi - Southborough, MA - GPS-Massachusetts (formerly MPS Renegades) - F
Delancey King - Braintree, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - M
Meredith Manley - Potttown, PA - Penn Fusion ECNL U18 - M
Alison Neveu - Thousand Oaks, CA - Real So Cal ECNL U18 - M/D/F

Bates - 11
Caroline Andy - Concord, NH - Seacoast Express United U18 - M
Hannah Behringer - Old Lyme, CT - Southeast SC U18 - D/M
Emma Goff - Winchester, MA - GPS/MPS Lady Knights U18? - D
Ainsley Jamieson - Scarborough, MA - unknown (possibly none; lax player) - D/M
Lindsey Landwehrle - Stowe, VT - unknown - F
Libby Malasky - Dedham, MA - unknown - F
Sarah McCarthy - Rockville Center, NY - East Meadow SC Dynamite NPL U18 - GK
Amanda Paine - Moultonborough, NH - unknown - GK
Brigid Quinn - Santa Fe, NM - unknown - M
Julia Rosen - Springfield, MA - unknown - F
Allegra Sacco - Medway, MA - NEFC Elite U18 - GK

Bowdoin - 7
Brigit Bergin - Natick, MA - NEFC Elite - D
Emily Nitzan - Sao Paulo, Brazil - unknown - F
Jill Rathke - Burlington, VT - Capital SC - D
Rachel Stout - Lakeville, MN - Shattuck-St Mary’s Sabres U18 - GK
Elizabeth Weathers - Newport, RI - unknown - D
Nikki Wilson - Shrewsbury, MA - GPS-MA (formerly MPS Renegades) - M
Ellie Zak - Grosse Point, MI - unknown - M/F

Colby - 7
Laura  Arnold - Dallas, TX - Dallas Sting '96 (Brown) - F
Michelle Duarte - Palos Verdes, CA - FRAM SC - F
Nora Hanson - San Francisco, CA - unknown - GK
Jess Horick - Minneapolis, MN - unknown - D
Ally Ingraham - Morris Plains, NJ - unknown - D
Emily Martin - Bethesda, MD - unknown - D
Sami Turbeville - Pukalani, HI - unknown - M

Conn - 9
Livi Block - New York, NY - unknown - M
Alex Bukovac - Winnetka, IL - Academy United 95/96 - D
Kristina Caradonna - Lynnfield, MA - Aztecs FC - D
Haley Keegan - Wrentham, MA - Tidal Wave FC Sting - M
Caroline Kelleher - Worcester, MA - unknown - M
Mackenzie Kingston - Charlotte, VT - Far Post - F
Michelle Medina - Hartford, CT - Oakwood SC U18 - F
Nicole Medina - Hartford, CT - Oakwood SC U18 - M
Alexa Tribelli - Cranston, RI - Bayside FC Bolts 95/96 - M

Hamilton - 8
Amanda Becker - Chappaqua, NY - New York Rush Patriots 96 - F
Rosalie Campbell - New York, NY - ISA - D
Rachel Cooley - Branchburg, NJ - unknown - GK
Emily Dumont - N Andover, MA - unknown - GK
Katja Dunlap - Arlington, MA - Fusion FC - F/M
Katie Kreider - Boxford, MA - Aztec - F
Darby Philbrick - Alexandria, VA - Alexandria SA Freedom - F
Kate Whiston - Rye, NY - FC Westchester Elite 96 - F

Trinity - 10
Stephanie Allieri - Boonton, NJ - Jersey United Spartans 95/96 - GK
Alexa Barbaresi - Newport Beach, CA - West Coast FC U18 United - D
Sarah Connors - Winnetka, IL - FC United Select - D
Julia Pitino - Littleton, MA - unknown - GK
Lorig Purutyan - Concord, MA - unknown - M
Jillian Ramsay - Glastonbury, CT - unknown (Oakwood back in the day) - M
Carrie Shaw - Lawrenceville, NJ - unknown (seems to be primarily a lax player) - M/D
Maddie Snyder - Montclair, NJ - Match Fit ECNL U18 - M
Annabel Stanley - Bedford, NY - FC Westchester Elite - M/D/F

Tufts - 4
Mariah Harvey-Brown - Mill Valley, CA - Marin FC - F
Chandler Quintin - North Attleborough, MA - Scorpions SC ECNL U18 - M/D
Emily Wilson - Andover, MA - GPS-Milan (formerly Milan Boston) - GK
Margaret Zahrah - Chicago, IL - FC United Select 95/96 - M

Wesleyan - 5
Samantha Ashley - New Canaan, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Meghan Cunningham - Washington, DC - formerly on VSA Heat Blue U17 - M
Ellie Dempsey - Stamford, CT - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - M
Meghan Hanan - Sammamish, WA - ISC/Arsenal? Crossfire? - GK
Elise Waller - Dallas, TX - Dallas Texans Red North '96 - M

Williams - 5
Natasha Albaneze - Northport, NY - East Meadow SC ECNL U18 - F
Evan Gancedo - Pasenda, CA - LA Premier FC U18 - M
Hanna Kaeser - Pelham, NY - Connecticut FC ECNL U18 - MF
Lucy Putnam - Los Angeles, CA - Real SoCal ECNLU17 - M
Dani Sim - Bel Air, MD - Seacoast United U18 - B

FYI for Tufts:

Margaret Zahrah - Chicago, IL - M => FC United Select 95/96 (IL)
Mariah Harvey-Brown Mill Valley CA  =>  Marin FC

Quote from: rudy on September 08, 2014, 05:27:31 PM
FYI for Tufts:

Margaret Zahrah - Chicago, IL - M => FC United Select 95/96 (IL)
Mariah Harvey-Brown Mill Valley CA  =>  Marin FC

Thanks, rudy. I have updated the list.

Becks,
Thanks for the varied and specific information!
I would like to correct one data point, if I may: Amherst beat Midd in OT last year, not the other way around. In fact, in the four years since the debacle in 2010 (A was winning 3-0; M came back to tie it up in regulation and win in OT), the Jeffs have kept the Panthers scoreless.
Keep the info and analysis coming. Should be fun.

Quote from: Jump4Joy on September 08, 2014, 08:30:19 PM
Becks,
Thanks for the varied and specific information!
I would like to correct one data point, if I may: Amherst beat Midd in OT last year, not the other way around. In fact, in the four years since the debacle in 2010 (A was winning 3-0; M came back to tie it up in regulation and win in OT), the Jeffs have kept the Panthers scoreless.
Keep the info and analysis coming. Should be fun.

Thanks, jump. I've gone back and corrected my mis-post. I remember that 2010 game well. Didn't see it, but I remember there was some second-guessing of the Amherst coach. Risky to base too much on 1 game, but probably no way this year's Amherst team would give up 3 goals late in a game. Similar to last year, so far it looks like Amherst is going to rely primarily on defense/keeping rather than an potent offense like they had several years ago.

Lots of blowouts this week as most NESCAC teams beat up on weak non-league opponents. Two best games are Tufts v MIT and Wesleyan v Vassar, both of which are toss-ups.

Games scheduled for Tuesday, Sept 9:

Trinity v Manhattanville (@ Trinity) - Last year, Trinity clobbered Manhattanville 6-1, outshooting them by 30-3(!). Bennettrank has Trinity ranked at 28 and Manhattanville at 278. I wasn't sure Bennettranking favored teams by more than 3 goals, but it seems they do -- they have Trinity favored by 4. Perhaps conservative. I'll say Trinity 5-0.

Bates v Southern Maine (@ Bates) - Last year, Bates only beat SoMe 1-0, but they outshot them 19-2. Bennettrank has Bates at 133 and SoMe at 297 and once again predicts a 4-0 blowout. Based on Bates's travails at Tufts last weekend, I'll go Bates 4-1.

Games scheduled for Wednesday, Sept 10:

Middlebury v Keene State (@ Middlebury) - Last year, Middlebury tied Keene State 1-1, although they outshot them 10-5. Keene State is ranked 93 by Bennettrank and makes Middlebury only 2 goal favorites. Sounds about right. Middlebury 2-0.

Colby v Thomas (@ Colby) - The teams didn't play last year. Bennettrank ranks Thomas way down at 397 (the lowest I've seen for a NESCAC opponent) and favors Colby by 4. Sure, why not? Colby 4-0.

Tufts v MIT (@ MIT) - Now THIS is a legitimate game. MIT beat Tufts 2-1 last year and outshot them by 29-20. Curiously, Bennettrank has Tufts ranked at 29 but MIT only at 50, which seems low, and has Tufts as a 1-goal favorite. Probably not a lot of home field advantage here since the campuses are about 3 miles apart. I say 2-2 tie.

Wesleyan v Vassar (@ Wesleyan) - Another decent contest. Wes hasn't played Vassar since 1992. Bennettrank has the teams ranked 61 and 60 respectively, but makes Wes 1-goal favorites, presumably because they are playing at home. Wes seems to love OT games, so a 1-1 2OT tie.

Amherst v Mt Holyoke (@ Amherst) - Last year, Amherst beat Mt Holyoke 4-0, outshooting them by 34-5. Bennettrank has Mt Holyoke ranked at only 287 and makes Amherst a 4-goal favorite. Sounds right. Amherst 4-0.

Hamilton v SUNYIT (@ SUNYIT) - Last year, Hamilton played 2 SUNY's but not IT. Bennettrank has SUNYIT at 370 and makes this a 4-goal blowout. Why not? Hamilton 4-0.

First NESCAC weekly soccer release has been posted: http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/reports/NESCAC_WSOC_090814.pdf POW is Amherst's keeper, Holly Burwick. Seems like a decent choice to me. A 9-save shutout game against the defending champs is a good performance. My complaint in the past with regards to POW awards to keepers is that they sometimes get them for shut-outs when they only had to make 1 or 2 saves in a game.

Another deserving candidate was Tuft's freshman Mariah Harvey-Brown who had 3 assists in Tuft's game against Bates. 3 assists in a league game is a freakish accomplishment. To put it in context, that's as many assists as any NESCAC player had in the entire 2013 league regular season and more assists than Hamilton had as a team all last year in league play.

I'll say Tufts 3-1 over MIT.  But I'm biased.  It will be a very good test to see if Tufts offense can put in goals against a very solid MIT team.

Comments on Tuesday, Sept 9 game results

Trinity 4-0 Manhattanville (@ Trinity) - Bennettranking favored Trinity by 4 goals (they nailed it), while I had Trinity 5-0. Trinity outshot Manhattanville 28-1, compared to 30-3 last year.


Bates 4-0 Southern Maine (@ Bates) - Bennettrank predicted a 4-0 Bates blowout, while I had Bates 4-1, so once again Bennettrack was spot on. Bates outshot SoMe by 38-4, compared to 19-2 last year. That's a promising stat for Bates, but fact that they led only 1-0 at the half is not.

Frankly not sure why NESCAC teams schedule opponents ranked 150+ places below them (250+ in the case of Trinity v Manhattanville). Improve team W-L and stats? I guess the Maine and VT teams have more of an excuse because I doubt there are that many decent D3 teams nearby, but still . . . Anyway, that's why I generally ignore non-league stats and results when evaluating NESCAC teams.

Non-League Strength of Schedule

Amherst (BR 9)
(Opp, Opp BR rank, BR rank differential)
Mt Holyoke 287 (+278)
Springfield 78 (+69)
Lasell 145 (+136)
Eastern Connecticut 165 (+156)
Keene State 93 (+84)
Opponent average BR: 152 (+143)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 0
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 2
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 1
Cream-puffs (>+150): 2

Bates (BR 126)
St Joes 272 (+146)
Southern Maine 297 (+169)
Maine Maritime 402 (+276)
Univ of New England 214 (+88)
Husson 340 (+214)
Opponent average BR: 305 (+179)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 0
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 1
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 1
Cream-puffs (>+150): 3

Bowdoin (BR 14)
Maine-Farmington 330 (+316)
Univ of New England 214 (+200)
Brandeis 30 (+16)
Southern Maine 297 (+283)
Opponent average BR: 218 (+204)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 1
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 0
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 0
Cream-puffs (>+150): 4

Colby (BR 92)
Thomas 397 (+305)
Univ of New England 214 (+122)
Southern Maine 297 (+205)
Maine-Farmington 330 (+238)
Husson 340 (+248)
Opponent average BR: 316 (+224)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 0
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 0
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 1
Cream-puffs (>+150): 4

Conn (BR 123)
Albertus Magnus 209 (+86)
Johnson and Wales 254 (+131)
St Joes 206 (+83)
Coast Guard 232 (+109)
Eastern Connecticut 165 (+42)
Opponent average BR: 213 (+90)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 1
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 2
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 2
Cream-puffs (>+150): 0

Hamilton (BR 57)
SUNY IT 370 (+323)
RPI 24 (-23)
SUNY Canton 383 (+336)
SUNY Oswego NR (+NR)
Utica 262 (+205)
Opponent average BR: 248 (+191)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 1
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 0
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 0
Cream-puffs (>+150): 3

Middlebury (BR 8)
Castleton State 232 (+224)
Keene State 93 (+85)
Plattsburgh State 107 (+98)
Skidmore 45 (+37)
St Lawrence 53 (+45)
Opponent average BR: 106 (+98)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 2
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 2
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 0
Cream-puffs (>+150): 1

Trinity (BR 25)
St Joes 202 (+177)
Manhattanville 278 (+253)
Wheaton 62 (+37)
Albertus Magnus 207 (+182)
Eastern Connecticut 165 (+140)
Opponent average BR: 183 (+158)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 1
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 0
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 1
Cream-puffs (>+150): 4

Tufts (BR 29)
MIT 50 (+21)
Suffolk 285 (+256)
Lesley 230 (+201)
Endicott 128 (+99)
Mass-Boston 73 (+44)
Opponent average BR: 153 (+124)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 2
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 1
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 0
Cream-puffs (>+150): 2

Wesleyan (BR 61)
Mass-Boston 73 (+12)
Vassar 60 (-1)
Babson 112 (+51)
Eastern Connecticut 165 (+101)
Elms 343 (+282)
Opponent average BR: 180 (+119)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 2
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 1
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 1
Cream-puffs (>+150): 1

Williams (BR 10)
Wheaton 64 (+54)
MIT 50 (+40)
Castleton State 227 (+217)
Springfield 78 (+68)
New England 333 (+323)
Opponent average BR: 150 (+140)
Highly competitive opponents (<+50): 1
Competitive opponents (>+50<+100): 2
Easy opponents (>+100<+150): 0
Cream-puffs (>+150): 2

So, to summarize:

1. Every NESCAC team plays some real cream-puff games, except Conn. For Colby, Bowdoin and Trinity, 4 out of 5 of their non-league games are against cream-puff opponents. For Bates and Hamilton, 3 out of 5 of their non-league games are against cream-puff opponents.

2. Colby, Bates and Amherst are playing NO highly competitive non-league games this year.

3. Colby is the only NESCAC team not playing any highly competitive or competitive non-league games this year -- only easy opponents and cream-puffs.

4. Opponent average BR rankings:
Middlebury 106
Williams 150
Amherst 152
Tufts 153
Wesleyan 180
Trinity 183
Conn 213
Bowdoin 218
Hamilton 248
Bates 305
Colby 316

5. Opponent average BR differential:
Conn +90 (mainly because they have a low BR and don't play any extremely weak teams)
Middlebury +98
Wesleyan +119
Tufts +124
Williams +140
Amherst + 143
Trinity +158
Bates +179
Hamilton +191
Bowdoin +204
Colby +224

6. Most highly competitive and competitive non-league games:
4 - Middlebury
3 - Conn
3 - Tufts
3 - Wesleyan
3 - Williams
2 - Amherst
1 - Bates
1 - Bowdoin
1 - Hamilton
1 - Trinity
0 - Colby

7. Only 2 NESCAC teams play non-league opponents with better BRs: Hamilton v RPI (-23) and Wesleyan v Vassar (-1).

8. Lowest BR opponent: Bates v Maine Maritime (BR 402).

9. Biggest BR differential: Hamilton v SUNY Canton (BR + 336).

Looking at the Bennettrankings for the non-NESCAC D3 schools in Maine, there are no potential highly competitive or competitive non-league opponents:

214 - Univ of New England
272 - St Joes
293 - Univ of Southern Maine
330 - Maine-Farmington
345 - Husson
403 - Maine Maritime
428 - Maine-Presque Island
(There are 434 D3 teams ranked by Bennettrank.)

The lack of nearby quality opponents is probably the reason Bowdoin is only playing 4 non-league games instead of the permitted 5 and is driving 2+ hours to Brandeis one weekend. It's worse for Bates and Colby because they are even farther north.

Lack of quality nearby opponents also causes Middlebury to have to play non-league games 2+hrs from campus.

Tufts has it easy. Lots of nearby quality competition.

Quote from: rudy on September 09, 2014, 04:40:21 PM
I'll say Tufts 3-1 over MIT.  But I'm biased.  It will be a very good test to see if Tufts offense can put in goals against a very solid MIT team.

I wasn't too far off.  Tufts 4-0.    This is no small feat since one starting center back was injured pregame and did not play and the other all conference defender was injured late in the first half and did not return.  Goalie played excellent today.  MIT probably deserved one goal on the day but got some unlucky bounces and a couple solid saves.   Also another player that scored 2 goals in the opener sat out with injury.  Hopefully they all get healthy but it was good to see that they fought as a team in spite of the injuries and beat a quality opponent.

Quote from: rudy on September 10, 2014, 08:25:11 PM

Quote from: rudy on September 09, 2014, 04:40:21 PM
I'll say Tufts 3-1 over MIT.  But I'm biased.  It will be a very good test to see if Tufts offense can put in goals against a very solid MIT team.

I wasn't too far off.  Tufts 4-0.    This is no small feat since one starting center back was injured pregame and did not play and the other all conference defender was injured late in the first half and did not return.  Goalie played excellent today.  MIT probably deserved one goal on the day but got some unlucky bounces and a couple solid saves.   Also another player that scored 2 goals in the opener sat out with injury.  Hopefully they all get healthy but it was good to see that they fought as a team in spite of the injuries and beat a quality opponent.

Very impressive couple of wins by Tufts.

Comments on Wednesday, Sept 10 games:

Middlebury 2-1 Keene State (@ Middlebury) - Bennettrank had Middlebury as 2 goal favorites, while I predicted Middlebury 2-0. Middlebury outshot KS by 23-6.

Colby 6-0 Thomas (@ Colby) - Bennettrank favored Colby by 4 and I had Colby 4-0. Colby outshot Thomas 33-6.

Tufts 4-0 MIT (@ MIT) - Bennettrank had Tufts as a 1-goal favorite, while I said 2-2 tie. Shots were actually even at 12-12, so the final score seems a bit fluky.

Vassar 2-1 Wesleyan (@ Wesleyan) - Bennettrank had Wes as 1-goal favorites, while I had a 1-1 2OT tie. Well, Wes did manage to keep its streak of 1-goal losses going (now 3 and counting), but were outshot by 26-9. That's almost identical to how much Bowdoin outshot them, but Bowdoin is supposed to be a better team than Vassar.

Amherst 6-0 Mt Holyoke (@ Amherst) - Bennettrank had Amherst as a 4-goal favorite, and I had Amherst 4-0. Amherst outshot MH by 37-3.

Hamilton v SUNYIT (@ SUNYIT) - Bennettrank had a 4-goal blowout, and I had Hamilton 4-0. I guess the #370 D3 team really is that bad.

Hamilton 7-0 win over SUNY IT.   

Quote from: amh63 on September 10, 2014, 09:11:04 PM
Hamilton 7-0 win over SUNY IT.

Thanks, amh63. That was fast.

Games scheduled for Saturday, Sept 13:

Middlebury (BR 8) @ Conn (BR 123) - Last year, Middlebury only beat Conn 1-0 at Middlebury, outshooting Conn 15-8. Conn seems to be playing well but haven't faced NESCAC competition yet. Bennettrank has Middlebury as 2 goal favorites. I'll say Middlebury 1-0.

Hamilton (BR 57) @ Bates (BR 133) - Last year, Hamilton beat Bates 1-0 at Hamilton, outshooting Bates 19-12. Hamilton is coming off a nice win over Trinity. Bates, on the other hand, was pulverized 6-0 by Tufts, but the stats were actually decently close. BR makes Hamilton a 1-goal favorite. I'll say Hamilton 2-1.

Amherst (BR 9) @ Bowdoin (BR 14) - Last year, these teams tied 0-0 at Amherst, with Amherst outshooting Bowdoin 23-9. This year it is a battle of possibly the best defense against the best office. BR has Bowdoin as 1-goal favorites. I'll go with a 0-0 tie again.

Trinity (BR 25) @ Williams (BR 10) - Last year, Trinity played Williams twice: beating them 2-0 in the regular season at Trinity and losing to them 2-0 in the NESCAC playoffs at Middlebury. Williams oustshot Trinity in both games: 16-12 and 17-6. BR has Williams as a 1-goal favorite. If Hamilton can get 3, I bet Williams can get 3, so I'll say 3-1.

Tufts (BR 29) @ Colby (BR 92) - Last year, Tufts beat Colby 2-0, outshooting them 16-6. BR has Tufts as a 1-goal favorite. The Tufts offense has been on fire this year, so I'll say 2-0.

Wesleyan (BR 61) @ Babson (BR 112) - These teams played to a 0-0 tie last year at Wesleyan, with Wesleyan outshooting Babson 12-10. Both teams have already played UMass-Boston this year, with Wesleyan losing 1-0 and Babson tying 0-0. BR has Wes as 1-goal favorites, but I see another 0-0 tie as likely.

Games scheduled for Saturday, Sept 14:

MIT (BR 50) @ Williams (BR 10) - Tufts beat MIT 4-0 last weak, but I think that was a fluke since the shots were 12-12. BR has Williams as 1-goal favorites. Williams is playing back to back games, while MIT has Saturday off. I don't think Williams will be able to repeat Tufts result. I'll say Williams 2-1.

Hamilton (BR 57) @ RPI (BR 24) - This will be a tough game for Hamilton since they play Bates at Bates on Saturday. RPI is also playing away on Saturday but it should be a easy game for them. BR has RPI favored by 1. RPI's results aren't too impressive so far, while Hamiton had the nice win over Trinity. Still, playing away back to back games against a supposedly stronger team, I see a 1-0 RPI win.

Quote from: Becks on September 12, 2014, 01:54:42 PM
Games scheduled for Saturday, Sept 13:

Middlebury (BR 8) @ Conn (BR 123) - Last year, Middlebury only beat Conn 1-0 at Middlebury, outshooting Conn 15-8. Conn seems to be playing well but haven't faced NESCAC competition yet. Bennettrank has Middlebury as 2 goal favorites. I'll say Middlebury 1-0.

Hamilton (BR 57) @ Bates (BR 133) - Last year, Hamilton beat Bates 1-0 at Hamilton, outshooting Bates 19-12. Hamilton is coming off a nice win over Trinity. Bates, on the other hand, was pulverized 6-0 by Tufts, but the stats were actually decently close. BR makes Hamilton a 1-goal favorite. I'll say Hamilton 2-1.

Amherst (BR 9) @ Bowdoin (BR 14) - Last year, these teams tied 0-0 at Amherst, with Amherst outshooting Bowdoin 23-9. This year it is a battle of possibly the best defense against the best office. BR has Bowdoin as 1-goal favorites. I'll go with a 0-0 tie again.

Trinity (BR 25) @ Williams (BR 10) - Last year, Trinity played Williams twice: beating them 2-0 in the regular season at Trinity and losing to them 2-0 in the NESCAC playoffs at Middlebury. Williams oustshot Trinity in both games: 16-12 and 17-6. BR has Williams as a 1-goal favorite. If Hamilton can get 3, I bet Williams can get 3, so I'll say 3-1.

Tufts (BR 29) @ Colby (BR 92) - Last year, Tufts beat Colby 2-0, outshooting them 16-6. BR has Tufts as a 1-goal favorite. The Tufts offense has been on fire this year, so I'll say 2-0.

Wesleyan (BR 61) @ Babson (BR 112) - These teams played to a 0-0 tie last year at Wesleyan, with Wesleyan outshooting Babson 12-10. Both teams have already played UMass-Boston this year, with Wesleyan losing 1-0 and Babson tying 0-0. BR has Wes as 1-goal favorites, but I see another 0-0 tie as likely.

Games scheduled for Saturday, Sept 14:

MIT (BR 50) @ Williams (BR 10) - Tufts beat MIT 4-0 last weak, but I think that was a fluke since the shots were 12-12. BR has Williams as 1-goal favorites. Williams is playing back to back games, while MIT has Saturday off. I don't think Williams will be able to repeat Tufts result. I'll say Williams 2-1.

Hamilton (BR 57) @ RPI (BR 24) - This will be a tough game for Hamilton since they play Bates at Bates on Saturday. RPI is also playing away on Saturday but it should be a easy game for them. BR has RPI favored by 1. RPI's results aren't too impressive so far, while Hamiton had the nice win over Trinity. Still, playing away back to back games against a supposedly stronger team, I see a 1-0 RPI win.

Middlebury is hungry after losing a tough one against Amherst on an own goal.  I watched first half of that game streaming video and Middlebury looked to be the better team.  Middlebury will take it out on CT and win by 3 goals. 3-0.

MIT is not as strong as their record indicates.  A couple of dangerous players but Williams is deep.  They got 12 shots off against Tufts but only 2 or 3 were any serious threat.  A shot wide by 20 yards is no threat.   Perhaps scoring 4 off 12 shots is "flukey" for Tufts but not if they are good shots to take.  I think shots taken can be misleading stat.   I would take Williams by at least 2 goals...probably more.   4-1

Amherst and Bowdoin will be interesting game.  I think one team will pull off a 1 goal win.  Not sure which one though (-:

Tufts has some injuries to deal with but should be able to handle Colby.  First away game so may not have the same offensive output as they have in first 2 games.  I agree with 2-0 or maybe 2-1 if still missing starting defenders.

No comment on the rest of the games (-:

Quote from: rudy on September 12, 2014, 03:06:10 PM

Quote from: Becks on September 12, 2014, 01:54:42 PM
Games scheduled for Saturday, Sept 13:

Middlebury (BR 8) @ Conn (BR 123) - Last year, Middlebury only beat Conn 1-0 at Middlebury, outshooting Conn 15-8. Conn seems to be playing well but haven't faced NESCAC competition yet. Bennettrank has Middlebury as 2 goal favorites. I'll say Middlebury 1-0.

Hamilton (BR 57) @ Bates (BR 133) - Last year, Hamilton beat Bates 1-0 at Hamilton, outshooting Bates 19-12. Hamilton is coming off a nice win over Trinity. Bates, on the other hand, was pulverized 6-0 by Tufts, but the stats were actually decently close. BR makes Hamilton a 1-goal favorite. I'll say Hamilton 2-1.

Amherst (BR 9) @ Bowdoin (BR 14) - Last year, these teams tied 0-0 at Amherst, with Amherst outshooting Bowdoin 23-9. This year it is a battle of possibly the best defense against the best office. BR has Bowdoin as 1-goal favorites. I'll go with a 0-0 tie again.

Trinity (BR 25) @ Williams (BR 10) - Last year, Trinity played Williams twice: beating them 2-0 in the regular season at Trinity and losing to them 2-0 in the NESCAC playoffs at Middlebury. Williams oustshot Trinity in both games: 16-12 and 17-6. BR has Williams as a 1-goal favorite. If Hamilton can get 3, I bet Williams can get 3, so I'll say 3-1.

Tufts (BR 29) @ Colby (BR 92) - Last year, Tufts beat Colby 2-0, outshooting them 16-6. BR has Tufts as a 1-goal favorite. The Tufts offense has been on fire this year, so I'll say 2-0.

Wesleyan (BR 61) @ Babson (BR 112) - These teams played to a 0-0 tie last year at Wesleyan, with Wesleyan outshooting Babson 12-10. Both teams have already played UMass-Boston this year, with Wesleyan losing 1-0 and Babson tying 0-0. BR has Wes as 1-goal favorites, but I see another 0-0 tie as likely.

Games scheduled for Saturday, Sept 14:

MIT (BR 50) @ Williams (BR 10) - Tufts beat MIT 4-0 last weak, but I think that was a fluke since the shots were 12-12. BR has Williams as 1-goal favorites. Williams is playing back to back games, while MIT has Saturday off. I don't think Williams will be able to repeat Tufts result. I'll say Williams 2-1.

Hamilton (BR 57) @ RPI (BR 24) - This will be a tough game for Hamilton since they play Bates at Bates on Saturday. RPI is also playing away on Saturday but it should be a easy game for them. BR has RPI favored by 1. RPI's results aren't too impressive so far, while Hamiton had the nice win over Trinity. Still, playing away back to back games against a supposedly stronger team, I see a 1-0 RPI win.

Middlebury is hungry after losing a tough one against Amherst on an own goal.  I watched first half of that game streaming video and Middlebury looked to be the better team.  Middlebury will take it out on CT and win by 3 goals. 3-0.

MIT is not as strong as their record indicates.  A couple of dangerous players but Williams is deep.  They got 12 shots off against Tufts but only 2 or 3 were any serious threat.  A shot wide by 20 yards is no threat.   Perhaps scoring 4 off 12 shots is "flukey" for Tufts but not if they are good shots to take.  I think shots taken can be misleading stat.   I would take Williams by at least 2 goals...probably more.   4-1

Amherst and Bowdoin will be interesting game.  I think one team will pull off a 1 goal win.  Not sure which one though (-:

Tufts has some injuries to deal with but should be able to handle Colby.  First away game so may not have the same offensive output as they have in first 2 games.  I agree with 2-0 or maybe 2-1 if still missing starting defenders.

No comment on the rest of the games (-:

MIT also gave up 8 corner kicks against Tufts..letting up one goal off an early corner.  We'll see if Williams can pull a goal out of a corner.

Besides Bennettrankings, there is another rating site that I saw mentioned on the NESCAC men's soccer board: http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=csocw2014&sub=11620 Not a fan of the graphics, but it's worth checking out.

Comments on Saturday, Sept 13 games:

Conn 3-0 Middlebury (@ Conn) - Surprise result of the year so far. Bennettrank had Middlebury as 2 goal favorites. I said Middlebury 1-0. Stats show a very even game: shots 13-13. Loss puts the defending league champs at 0-2 in the league.

Bates 2-1 Hamilton (@ Bates) - Not as surprising at the Conn-Midd result, but still a mild upset. BR made Hamilton a 1-goal favorite, while I said Hamilton 2-1. Stats suggest that Bates was a bit lucky to win. Hamilton outshot them 19-15 and out SOG'd them 8-6.

Bowdoin 1-0 Amherst (@ Bowdoin) - BR had Bowdoin as 1-goal favorites (spot on), while I went with a 0-0 tie. Stats indicate that Bowdoin was a bit lucky to win. Bowdoin outshot Amherst only 13-12 and Amherst out SOG'd Bowdoin by 8-5.

Williams 5-0 Trinity (@ Williams) - BR had Williams as a 1-goal favorite, while I said Williams by 3-1. Stats suggest the game was closer than the score. Williams outshot Trinity by 21-15 and out SOGd them by 9-3.

Tufts 3-1 Colby (@ Colby) - BR had Tufts as a 1-goal favorite, while I said Tufts by 2-0. Stats suggest the final score flatters Tufts slightly: Tufts outshot Colby 21-13.

Babson 2-0 Wesleyan (@ Babson) - BR had Wes as 1-goal favorites, while I predicted a 0-0 tie. A very disappointing result for Wes in my opinion, and the stats were worse than the score. Last year the teams played to a 0-0 tie, with Wesleyan outshooting Babson 12-10. This year Wesleyan was outshot by 26-6.

Quote from: Becks on September 13, 2014, 05:03:49 PM
Comments on Saturday, Sept 13 games:

Conn 3-0 Middlebury (@ Conn) - Surprise result of the year so far. Bennettrank had Middlebury as 2 goal favorites. I said Middlebury 1-0. Stats show a very even game: shots 13-13. Loss puts the defending league champs at 0-2 in the league.

Bates 2-1 Hamilton (@ Bates) - Not as surprising at the Conn-Midd result, but still a mild upset. BR made Hamilton a 1-goal favorite, while I said Hamilton 2-1. Stats suggest that Bates was a bit lucky to win. Hamilton outshot them 19-15 and out SOG'd them 8-6.

Bowdoin 1-0 Amherst (@ Bowdoin) - BR had Bowdoin as 1-goal favorites (spot on), while I went with a 0-0 tie. Stats indicate that Bowdoin was a bit lucky to win. Bowdoin outshot Amherst only 13-12 and Amherst out SOG'd Bowdoin by 8-5.

Williams 5-0 Trinity (@ Williams) - BR had Williams as a 1-goal favorite, while I said Williams by 3-1. Stats suggest the game was closer than the score. Williams outshot Trinity by 21-15 and out SOGd them by 9-3.

Tufts 3-1 (@ Colby) - BR had Tufts as a 1-goal favorite, while I said Tufts by 2-0. Stats suggest the final score flatters Tufts slightly: Tufts outshot Colby 21-13.

Babson 2-0 Wesleyan (@ Babson) - BR had Wes as 1-goal favorites, while I predicted a 0-0 tie. A very disappointing result for Wes in my opinion, and the stats were worse than the score. Last year the teams played to a 0-0 tie, with Wesleyan outshooting Babson 12-10. This year Wesleyan was outshot by 26-6.

That Middlebury game is definitely a shocker.  Did Connecticut have a big recruiting year?  Maybe some local CFC kids come in and make an impact? Only goal against Tufts was an own goal so still have not let in a goal from an opponents shot in 3 games.  I watched online and I would say that Colby played good soccer and they impressed me. Tufts plays more counter attack and moves forward fast getting players in the box for scoring opportunities.  Colby was better than I expected.  They will get some NESCAC wins this season for sure. 

Saw the first half of the Bowdoin Amherst game. Bowdoin carried the play and appeared to be the better team.

All ten Eph goals on the season, and six out of nine assists, have now come at the foot of frosh or sophomore players.  24 out of 29 shots on goal have likewise come from underclass players.  Bodes well for the Eph offense for the next three seasons ...

Quote from: nescac1 on September 14, 2014, 08:59:31 AM
All ten Eph goals on the season, and six out of nine assists, have now come at the foot of frosh or sophomore players.  24 out of 29 shots on goal have likewise come from underclass players.  Bodes well for the Eph offense for the next three seasons ...

I'm sure they will be good, but stats suggest that there is a good chance that the production by those particular players may peak this year.

Here's the distribution by class of goals scorers who were within the top 10 (including ties for 10th) for 2012-2008 (league only):
Fr - 12
So - 16
Ju - 16
Se - 15

This is consistent with my findings in post #42 (copied below) for average pts production by year for the last 4 Williams graduating classes:

Average Number of Points
Frosh year 2.9
Soph year 5.8
Junior year 5.7
Senior year 5.2

So the evidence suggests that, on average, players improve significantly from freshman to sophomore year, plateau as juniors, and fall off a bit as seniors.

Got to love the NESCAC, you just never know do you?  Big win for Bowdoin as they normally have a very tough time getting points from Amherst, Williams and Middlebury.  They look like they will be very tough defensively again this year.  While its only the week 2, surprised by the records of Conn College (positive) and Middlebury (negative).  Is the peeking order in the NESCAC changing or is it still much to early to tell?

Quote from: GUBFL on September 14, 2014, 04:29:50 PM
Got to love the NESCAC, you just never know do you?  Big win for Bowdoin as they normally have a very tough time getting points from Amherst, Williams and Middlebury.  They look like they will be very tough defensively again this year.  While its only the week 2, surprised by the records of Conn College (positive) and Middlebury (negative).  Is the peeking order in the NESCAC changing or is it still much to early to tell?

I think the Conn program is getting better under their new coach, while Midd is having a bit of a rebuilding year after several very good seasons. Still, I would be surprised to see Conn finish above Midd.

Comments on Sunday, Sept 14 games:

Williams 3-2 MIT (2OT) - BR has Williams had 1-goal favorites and I had Williams 2-1. Stats show a deserved win for Williams, as they outshot MIT 29-16.

Hamilton 2-1 RPI - A bit of a surprise based the BR prediction of a 1-goal RPI win. Stats show a deserved win for Hamilton, as they outshot RPI 21-14.

Quote from: Becks on September 14, 2014, 04:50:41 PM
Comments on Sunday, Sept 14 games:

Williams 3-2 MIT (2OT) - BR has Williams had 1-goal favorites and I had Williams 2-1. Stats show a deserved win for Williams, as they outshot MIT 29-16.

To further the point, the Ephs outshot MIT 14-1 in the 2 OT's and 10-4 in Corner's.

Quote from: Becks on September 14, 2014, 04:45:55 PM

Quote from: GUBFL on September 14, 2014, 04:29:50 PM
Got to love the NESCAC, you just never know do you?  Big win for Bowdoin as they normally have a very tough time getting points from Amherst, Williams and Middlebury.  They look like they will be very tough defensively again this year.  While its only the week 2, surprised by the records of Conn College (positive) and Middlebury (negative).  Is the peeking order in the NESCAC changing or is it still much to early to tell?

I think the Conn program is getting better under their new coach, while Midd is having a bit of a rebuilding year after several very good seasons. Still, I would be surprised to see Conn finish above Midd.

Was in attendance for the Midd vs Conn game and Conn outplayed Midd.  Conn has added some new recruits to last years recruiting class and they can play. They are a young team.  First goal, was a soft PK (easily could not have been called but it was) but overall they looked good moving the ball around and the D played well.  They will be in every game this year and given that they are a very young team, barring injury, they should get better each game.

Weekday games this week feature 2 league games: Wes @ Tufts on Tuesday and Bates @ Bowdoin on Wednesday.

Games scheduled for Tues, Sept 16:

Colby v Univ of New England (@Colby) - Bennettrank has Colby as 3 goal favorites, while Massey has UNE rated much higher and predicts Colby by only 2-1. UNE beat St Joes (ME) 4-1, while Bates only beat St Joes by 2-0, and UNE also beat Endicott last weekend, so UNE is no pushover. This should be a closer game than BR predicts. I'll go with Massey and say Colby 2-1.

Conn v St Joes (CT) (@St Joes) - BR has Conn as a 2 goal favorite, while Massey has Conn only by 2-1. Trinity beat St Joes 5-0 earlier this year, outshooting them 28-2. Conn is playing well, so I'll say Conn 3-0.

Middlebury v Plattsburgh State (@Middlebury) - BR has Midd as a 3 goal favorite. while Massey says Midd by only 1-0. I'll split the difference and say Midd 2-0.

Wesleyan v Tufts (@Tufts) - BR has Tufts as a 1 goal favorite, while Massey predicts Tufts by 2-0. Based on how hot Tufts is right now and how poorly Wes's results have been so far, I say Tufts 3-0.

Games schedule for Wed, Sept 17:

Trinity v Wheaton (@Trinity) - BR has Trinity as a 1 goal favorite, while Massey predicts Trinity 2-1.  I'll agree with Massey.

Bates v Bowdoin (@Bowdoin) - Both teams are coming off good wins (Bates over Hamilton and Bowdoin over Amherst). BR has Bowdoin as 3 goal favorites, while Massey says Bowdoin by only 2-1. Surprisingly, Bowdoin's D's been more impressive than their O so far this season. I'll say Bowdoin 2-0.

Amherst v Springfield (@Springfield) - BR has Amherst as a 1 goal favorite, and Massey says Amherst 1-0. When great algorithms agree, who am I to argue? Amherst 1-0.

It is great fun to follow what you folks are talking about.  I guess this question is for Becks, when you say "stats indicate a deserved win" does that also mean sometimes "stats indicate an undeserved win"?

Quote from: 2xfaux on September 15, 2014, 06:25:39 PM
It is great fun to follow what you folks are talking about.  I guess this question is for Becks, when you say "stats indicate a deserved win" does that also mean sometimes "stats indicate an undeserved win"?

Yes, I'd say they do. The premise is that the team that is the better/more dominant team on the day is the one that "deserves" the win. If the winning team was outshot and SOG'd by a sizable margin, it is likely that the other team was the better/more dominant team on the day, and that they, rather than the winning team, "deserved" to win.

Becks.....the Amherst vs Springfield game is presently listed on the Amherst website as scheduled for Wednesday.

Quote from: amh63 on September 15, 2014, 08:02:31 PM
Becks.....the Amherst vs Springfield game is presently listed on the Amherst website as scheduled for Wednesday.

Yup. That's how I've got it. I just underlined the date headings to make them stand out more.

Comments on Tues, Sept 16 games:

Univ of New England 3-2 Colby - A bit of an upset. Bennettrank had Colby as 3 goal favorites, while Massey and I predicted Colby by 2-1. Stats give a slight edge to UNE, so not an unreasonable result. UNE is decent. They outshot Colby 15-12 and out SOGd them 9-7.

Conn 8-0 St Joes (CT) - BR had Conn as a 2 goal favorite, while Massey had Conn only by 2-1. I came closest and predicted Conn 3-0. Conn outshot St Joes 35-5 and out SOGd them 21-2.

Middlebury 1-0 Plattsburgh State - BR had Midd as a 3 goal favorite, while I said Midd 2-0. Massey turned out to be spot on with 1-0. Midd outshot PS 17-7 and out SOGd them 12-4.

Wesleyan 1-1 Tufts (2OT) - I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the result. Tufts outshot Wes by 19-8 but only SOGd them by 7-5. Perhaps actually Tufts was actually lucky to get the tie. Wes players felt hard done by when a goal in the 2d OT was waived off for offsides.

Wesleyan 1-1 Tufts (2OT) - I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the result. Tufts outshot Wes by 19-8 but only SOGd them by 7-5. Perhaps actually Tufts was actually lucky to get the tie. Wes players felt hard done by when a goal in the 2d OT was waived off for offsides.
[/quote]

You could also say that Wesleyan was lucky to get he tie as there was a golden opportunity in the last seconds of regulation that hit the post (-:  All depends how you look at it.  I was at the game and both sides played hard.  Tufts missed some early opportunities in the first 20 minutes with miss hits in front of the open net but that's soccer.  Wesleyan also has the goal called back for offsides.  In general I think Tufts had more good opportunities to score but did not capitalize.  No excuses though. SOG's does not always mean they were great chances.  Tufts missed probably 4 great chances and Wesleyan may have missed one.  That's the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Second NESCAC weekly soccer release posted: http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2014-15/reports/NESCAC_WSOC_091514.pdf Astrid Kempainen gets POW in a crowded field with several other deserving candidates whose feats are mentioned in the NESCAC Notes section.

Amherst wins in Springfield in a night game on turf, 1-0.....as all predicted.

Quote from: amh63 on September 17, 2014, 08:56:55 PM
Amherst wins in Springfield in a night game on turf, 1-0.....as all predicted.

Really, if Bennettrank and Massey already said it was going to be 1-0, I'm not sure why they even bothered playing the game.  ;)

Comments on Wed, Sept 17 games:

Trinity 4-1 Wheaton (@Trinity) - BR had Trinity as a 1 goal favorite, while Massey and I predicted Trinity 2-1.  Stats suggest this was a very odd result and Wheaton actually had the better of the play. Wheaton outshot Trinity by 21-8 and out SOGd them by 8-6.

Bowdoin 1-0 Bates (@Bowdoin) - BR had Bowdoin as 3 goal favorites, while Massey said Bowdoin by 2-1 and I had 2-0. Bowdoin's defense comes through again, but their offense is surprisingly unimpressive so far this season given the offensive talent returning. Bowdoin outshot Bates 18-7, but only out SOGd them 7-5.

Amherst 1-0 Springfield (@Springfield) - BR had Amherst as a 1 goal favorite, and Massey and I said Amherst 1-0. Stats suggest a very even game. Springfield slightly outshot Amherst by 11-9, while SOGs were tied 4-4.

After checking out BennettRank http://www.bennettrank.com/conferences/nescac/?sports=Soccer&gender=Women&division=D3 and Massey http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=csocw2014&sub=12903 , they each have plus and minuses.  BennettRank has a better look to its website and it seems to get complete results (at least for NESCAC teams), but is a bit slow to input the results and it's ratings seem to respond only slowly to current season results. On the other hand, Massey provides more info and its ratings seem to reflect current season results better, but its site is uglier (in my opinion) and Massey is missing some results (eg, it currently only has 1 of Bowdoin's results). Massey has some scary features. If you click on a team's name, it will give you it's current odds for how likely it is that it is that the team will win each of its remaining games on its schedule. You can also pop up a Monte Carlo simulation that show the likelihood of different season-end records. That's scary if you are Wes or Colby (currently ranked #10 and 11 by Massey), perhaps heart-warming if you are Williams or Amherst.

Games scheduled for Sat, Sept 20:

A couple of headline games in the classic Williams v Amherst matchup and the more northern pairing of Bowdoin v Middlebury.

Wesleyan v Bates (@Bates) - Last year, Wes and Bates tied 1-1, although Bates outshot Wes 25-12 and out SOGd them 13-8. BennettRank makes Wes a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says Bates will win 1-0. I'll say a 1-1 tie, with Bates again outshooting Wes.

Conn v Hamilton (@Hamilton) - Last year, the teams tied 3-3, with Hamilton outshooting Conn 19-14 and out SOGing them 13-7. BennettRank makes Hamilton a 2-goal favorite, while Massey says a 2-2 tie. I'll go with Massey.

Colby v Trinity (@Trinity) - Last year, Trinity beat Colby 1-0, with Trinity outshooting Colby 18-13 and out SOGing them 11-7. BennettRank makes Trinity a 2-goal favorite, while Massey says Trinity 2-1. I'm turning into a Massey fan: Trinity 2-1.

Bowdoin v Middlebury (@Middlebury) - Last year, Middlebury beat Bowdoin 2-1, outshooting them 17-10 and out SOGing them 8-5. BennettRank makes Middlebury a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says a 1-1 tie. Again, I'll go with Massey.

Williams v Amherst (@Amherst) - Last year, the teams played to a 0-0 tie, with Williams slightly outshooting Amherst 13-12 and out SOGing them 7-5. BennettRank makes Amherst a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says a 1-1 tie. I'll go out on a limb and say Williams 1-0.

Games scheduled for Sun, Sept 21:

All should be easy wins over weak non-NESCAC teams.

Williams v Castleton State (@Castleton) - BennettRank makes Williams a 4-goal favorite, while Massey predicts Williams 3-0. Middlebury beat Castleton 3-0 earlier this year and Williams is better than Middlebury, so I'll say Williams 4-0.

Amherst v Lasell (@Amherst) - BennettRank makes Amherst a 4-goal favorite, while Massey say Amherst 2-0. I'll say Amherst 3-0.

Bowdoin v Maine-Farmington(@Bowdoin) - Bennett makes Bowdoin a 4-goal favorite, while Massey predicts Bowdoin 4-0. Following the rule not to buck the algorithms when they agree, I'll also say Bowdoin 4-0.

Quote from: Becks on September 18, 2014, 02:59:18 PM
After checking out BennettRank http://www.bennettrank.com/conferences/nescac/?sports=Soccer&gender=Women&division=D3 and Massey http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=csocw2014&sub=12903 , they each have plus and minuses.  BennettRank has a better look to its website and it seems to get complete results (at least for NESCAC teams), but is a bit slow to input the results and it's ratings seem to respond only slowly to current season results. On the other hand, Massey provides more info and its ratings seem to reflect current season results better, but its site is uglier (in my opinion) and Massey is missing some results (eg, it currently only has 1 of Bowdoin's results). Massey has some scary features. If you click on a team's name, it will give you it's current odds for how likely it is that it is that the team will win each of its remaining games on its schedule. You can also pop up a Monte Carlo simulation that show the likelihood of different season-end records. That's scary if you are Wes or Colby (currently ranked #10 and 11 by Massey), perhaps heart-warming if you are Williams or Amherst.

Re Massey missing some results -- It turns out that Massey gets the game scores from the NCAA website, and the problem is that some NESCAC schools (ahem, Bowdoin) are slow in reporting their scores to the NCAA.

Comments on Sat, Sept 20 games:

Bates 1-0 Wes (1OT) (@Bates) - BennettRank made Wes a 1-goal favorite, while Massey said Bates would win 1-0 and I said a 1-1 tie. Based on stats, a tie would have been a fair result. Wes outshot Bates slightly 15-14 (the first time Wes has outshot any opponent this year), but Bates out SOGd them 6-4.

Conn 1-0 Hamilton (@Hamilton) - BennettRank made Hamilton a 2-goal favorite, while Massey and I said a 2-2 tie.  A good win for Conn as it continues it's hot start to the season. Stats show a well-deserved win for Conn. Conn outshot Hamilton by 20-7 and out SOGd them by 11-2.

Colby 0-0 Trinity (@Trinity) - BennettRank made Trinity a 2-goal favorite, while Massey and I said Trinity 2-1. A bad tie for Trinity and good tie for Colby. Trinity's performances this year definitely not up to those of last year so far. Stats show a tie was a fair result. Trinity slightly outshot Colby by 13-10, but Colby out SOGd them by 9-6.

Bowdoin 2-1 Middlebury (@Middlebury) - BennettRank made Middlebury a 1-goal favorite, while Massey and I said a 1-1 tie. Good win for Bowdoin and another bad loss for Midd. Returning champs is sole possession of last place in the league -- the only team with 0 points after 3 games. Stats show a tie might have been a fairer result. Middlebury slightly outshot Bowdoin 15-13, but Bowdoing out SOGd them by 7-5.

Amherst 2-0 Williams (@Amherst) - BennettRank made Amherst a 1-goal favorite, while Massey said a 1-1 tie and I said Williams 1-0. Amherst D continues to impress. Stats show that Williams created more scoring opportunities but couldn't finish any. Williams outshot Amherst 27-13 and out SOGd them by 10-6.

Quote from: Becks on September 20, 2014, 01:37:09 PM
Comments on Sat, Sept 20 games:

Bates 1-0 Wes (1OT) (@Bates) - BennettRank made Wes a 1-goal favorite, while Massey said Bates would win 1-0 and I said a 1-1 tie. Based on stats, a tie would have been a fair result. Wes outshot Bates slightly 15-14 (the first time Wes has outshot any opponent this year), but Bates out SOGd them 6-4.

Conn 1-0 Hamilton (@Hamilton) - BennettRank made Hamilton a 2-goal favorite, while Massey and I said a 2-2 tie.  A good win for Conn as it continues it's hot start to the season. No stats yet.

Colby 0-0 Trinity (@Trinity) - BennettRank made Trinity a 2-goal favorite, while Massey and I said Trinity 2-1. A bad tie for Trinity and good tie for Colby. Trinity's performances this year definitely not up to those of last year so far.

Bowdoin 2-1 Middlebury (@Middlebury) - BennettRank made Middlebury a 1-goal favorite, while Massey and I said a 1-1 tie. Good win for Bowdoin and another bad loss for Midd. Returning champs is sole possession of last place in the league -- the only team with 0 points after 3 games. No stats yet.

Amherst 2-0 Williams (@Amherst) - BennettRank made Amherst a 1-goal favorite, while Massey said a 1-1 tie and I said Williams 1-0. Amherst D continues to impress. No stats yet.

Re Wes outshooting Bates 15-14 -- Not only was that the first time this year that Wes has outshot an opponent, amazingly it is the first time since Oct 16, 2012 that Wes has outshot a NESCAC opponent.

Amherst looked very good in their 2-0 shutout victory over previously undefeated Williams. Williams had some pockets of possession but were off target. In their on target chances the Amherst keeper snuffed them out. Amherst had the ball more often for longer stretches. A solid win.

Quote from: Jump4Joy on September 20, 2014, 08:42:49 PM
Amherst looked very good in their 2-0 shutout victory over previously undefeated Williams. Williams had some pockets of possession but were off target. In their on target chances the Amherst keeper snuffed them out. Amherst had the ball more often for longer stretches. A solid win.

Watched 2nd half of Conn vs Hamilton.  Very impressed by Conn women. They are a very good team and play a very entertaining style.  Game easily could have been 4 or 5 for Conn but Hamilton keeper played a tremendous game.  Conn is deep young and good with a good combination of size speed ans skill.  If some of their  young strikers would learn to shoot with their off foot they would be even more dangerous.  They are young and getting better each game.

Very few players at this level have confidence in their off foot..especially in hard fought games.  That includes the men.  Those that do are All- Americans.

I suppose there are more players who are at least adequately 2-footed at the higher levels, but almost all still favor 1 foot and some of the very best players in the world will essentially never shoot or even pass with their weaker foot - eg G Bale. There are also some very 2-footed players who are not very good.

Amherst beats Lasell, 1-0 at Amherst.  Expect the stats will show that Amherst dominated the game...a very low scoring game.  Lots of subs in this a back to back contest....from the win over the Ephs yesterday.  Interesting scheduling.

Quote from: amh63 on September 21, 2014, 12:14:16 PM
Very few players at this level have confidence in their off foot..especially in hard fought games.  That includes the men.  Those that do are All- Americans.

I'm sorry but if you cant shoot from 20 feet in open goal with your off foot (at least try) then you were not trained well at younger ages and all college soccer players should be able to do this with no decision to be made.  You don't have to be an All American to do this just an average player and if you cant do this and you play striker well maybe you should be practicing this or don't play striker.

Comments on Sun, Sept 21 games:

Williams 4-0 Castleton State (@Castleton) - BennettRank made Williams a 4-goal favorite, while Massey predicted Williams 3-0. I said Williams 4-0 (nailed it). Williams outshot CS 28-5 and out SOGd them 13-1.

Amherst 1-0 Lasell (@Amherst) - BennettRank made Amherst a 4-goal favorite, while Massey said Amherst 2-0. I said Amherst 3-0. Amherst outshot Lasell 24-10 and out SOGd them 10-2. No doubts about the quality of Amherst's defense, but their win against Williams aside, their offense has yet to impress.

Bowdoin 4-0 Maine-Farmington(@Bowdoin) - Bennett made Bowdoin a 4-goal favorite, while Massey predicted Bowdoin 4-0. I also said Bowdoin 4-0. Bowdoin outshot MeFarm 22-0 and out SOGd them 13-0. Allowing 0 shots is impressive, even against MeFarm; not sure I've ever seen that before.

Quote from: Becks on September 21, 2014, 09:29:49 PM
Games scheduled for Tuesday, Sept 23:

Tufts v Suffolk (@Tufts) - Last year, Tufts beat Suffolk 7-2, outshooting them 35-5. Again, no BennettRank yet for this game, but they give Suffolk a D3 ranking of 285 (Tufts is 20). Massey says Tufts 4-0. Not sure why Tufts would schedule teams this weak. It's not like there aren't lots of decent D3 teams nearby.

Have to agree with you here.  Watching online and it's 10-0.  I can't believe Suffolk actually won their last game 2-0. Everyone padding there stats in this game.  This has to be the weakest team they will play this year.   Saturday will be a big game with Amherst.

Comments on Tuesday, Sept 23 games:

Hamilton 4-2 Oswego State (@Oswego) - Massey predicted Hamilton 2-1. Stats actually show a very close game. Hamilton outshot OS only 16-13 and out SOGd them 11-9.

Tufts 10-0 Suffolk (@Tufts) - Total waste of time for both teams. Just hope NESCAC pays no attention to this game in awarding POW. Shots: 46-4.

Wesleyan 2-1 Eastern Connecticut State (@Wesleyan) - Massey predicted a 1-0 Wes win and a 1-goal margin it was. Stats show that Wes was lucky to get the win. Wes was outshot 16-9 and out SOGd 8-3. Wes got the go-ahead goal on a PK in the 87th minute.

Trinity 3-0 Albertus Magnus (@Albertus Magnus) - Massey predicted a 2-1 Trinity win. Based on the stats, 1-0 or 2-0 would have been fair. Trinity outshot Fat Albert by 11-3 and out SOGd them by 7-1.

Games scheduled for Wed, Sept 24:

4 non-league games on tap today. NESCAC teams should win each comfortably and some may end up as blowouts.

Bowdoin v University of New England (@Bowdoin) - BennettRank makes Bowdoin a 4-goal favorite, while Massey says Bowdoin 2-0. In light of UNE's win over Colby last week, I'll go with the lower GD and Massey.

Colby v Southern Maine (@Southern Maine) - BennettRank makes Colby a 4-goal favorite, while Massey says Colby 1-0. SoMe lost 4-0 to Bates a couple of weeks ago, so I'll say Colby 3-0.

Conn v Coast Guard (@Coast Guard) - BennettRank makes Conn a 2-goal favorite, while Massey says Conn 2-0. The way Conn has been playing, I'll say Conn 3-0.

Bates v Maine Maritime (@Bates) - BennettRank makes Bates a 4-goal favorite, while Massey says Bates 3-0. I'll go with BR on this: Bates 4-0.

Quote from: Becks on September 24, 2014, 12:57:44 PM
Games scheduled for Wed, Sept 24:

4 non-league games on tap today. NESCAC teams should win each comfortably and some may end up as blowouts.

Bowdoin v University of New England (@Bowdoin) - BennettRank makes Bowdoin a 4-goal favorite, while Massey says Bowdoin 2-0. In light of UNE's win over Colby last week, I'll go with the lower GD and Massey.

Colby v Southern Maine (@Southern Maine) - BennettRank makes Colby a 4-goal favorite, while Massey says Colby 1-0. SoMe lost 4-0 to Bates a couple of weeks ago, so I'll say Colby 3-0.

Conn v Coast Guard (@Coast Guard) - BennettRank makes Conn a 2-goal favorite, while Massey says Conn 2-0. The way Conn has been playing, I'll say Conn 3-0.

Bates v Maine Maritime (@Bates) - BennettRank makes Bates a 4-goal favorite, while Massey says Bates 3-0. I'll go with BR on this: Bates 4-0.

Geez Maine Maritime  has BR of 401.  Worse than Tufts playing Suffolk.  If they don't beat them by at least 4 I would be surprised.   Coast Guard is pretty bad too.  Seems that Conn could find better teams to play in their area.  I can understand Bates playing a bad team since not many teams in Maine to play but Conn is similar to Tufts..plenty of teams in the area to play that would be better.    I would be surprised if Tufts plays Suffolk again next year.

Quote from: rudy on September 24, 2014, 04:08:46 PMGeez Maine Maritime  has BR of 401.  Worse than Tufts playing Suffolk.  If they don't beat them by at least 4 I would be surprised.   Coast Guard is pretty bad too.  Seems that Conn could find better teams to play in their area.  I can understand Bates playing a bad team since not many teams in Maine to play but Conn is similar to Tufts..plenty of teams in the area to play that would be better.    I would be surprised if Tufts plays Suffolk again next year.

4 it was for Bates over Maine Maritime. As for Conn v Coast Guard, that is generally a bit of a mismatch, but I don't blame the schools for playing each other because they are both in New London, so very convenient. Re Tufts not playing Suffolk again - I hope your right. I'm sure after the 10-0 blowout neither team wants to play each other next year. However, I think these things may be scheduled a year or two in advance, so it's possible they are scheduled to play again next year and won't be able to cancel.

Comments on results of Wed, Sept 24 games:

Bowdoin 4-1 University of New England (@Bowdoin) - BennettRank made Bowdoin a 4-goal favorite, while Massey and I said Bowdoin 2-0. Bowdoin outshot UNE 24-7 and out SOGd them 12-4.

Colby 3-0 Southern Maine (@Southern Maine) - BennettRank made Colby a 4-goal favorite, while Massey said Colby 1-0. I said Colby 3-0 (nailed it). Colby outshot SoMe 27-5 and out SOGd them 15-2.

Conn 4-0 Coast Guard (@Coast Guard) - BennettRank made Conn a 2-goal favorite, while Massey said Conn 2-0. I said Conn 3-0 (closest of the 3). Stats suggest a game that is a bit closer than the score. Conn outshot CG by 15-5 and outSOGd them 7-1.

Bates 4-0 Maine Maritime (@Bates) - BennettRank made Bates a 4-goal favorite, while Massey said Bates 3-0. I said Bates 4-0 (spot on). Interesting that the scoreline was the same as for Conn v Coast Guard, because the stats show that the Bates game was much more one-sided. Bates outshot MM 35-4 and out SOGd them 15-4.

Games scheduled for Sat, Sept 27:

Middlebury v Colby (@Middlebury) - BennettRank makes Midd a 1-goal favorite and Massey says Midd 1-0. I'll go with that.

Hamilton v Wesleyan (@Wesleyan) - BennettRank (which still has Wes rated too high) makes Wes a 1-goal favorite, while Massey (which may have Wes rated too low) says Hamilton 1-0. I'll split the difference and say a 1-1 tie.

Bates v Trinity (@Trinity) - BennettRank (which also still has Trinity rated too high) makes Trinity a 2-goal favorite, while Massey say Trinity 1-0. I'll go with Massey.

Amherst v Tufts (@Tufts) - Best defense against one of the best offenses. BennettRank makes Amherst a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says 1-1. It doesn't seem like Tufts offense is as potent as earlier in the season. I'll go with Amherst 1-0.

Williams v Conn (@Conn) - Before the start of the season, this would have looked like a walk-over for Williams. But Conn has shown that they are a good team this year.  BennettRank (which still has Conn rated too low) makes Williams a 2-goal favorite, while Massey says a 1-1 tie. I'll go with Massey.

Bowdoin v Brandeis (@Brandeis) - Finally a decent non-league game. BennettRank makes Bowdoin a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says Bowdoin 1-0. I'll go with that.

Quote from: Becks on September 26, 2014, 11:06:15 AM
Games scheduled for Sat, Sept 27:

Middlebury v Colby (@Middlebury) - BennettRank makes Midd a 1-goal favorite and Massey says Midd 1-0. I'll go with that.

Hamilton v Wesleyan (@Wesleyan) - BennettRank (which still has Wes rated too high) makes Wes a 1-goal favorite, while Massey (which may have Wes rated too low) says Hamilton 1-0. I'll split the difference and say a 1-1 tie.

Bates v Trinity (@Trinity) - BennettRank (which also still has Trinity rated too high) makes Trinity a 2-goal favorite, while Massey say Trinity 1-0. I'll go with Massey.

Amherst v Tufts (@Tufts) - Best defense against one of the best offenses. BennettRank makes Amherst a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says 1-1. It doesn't seem like Tufts offense is as potent as earlier in the season. I'll go with Amherst 1-0.

Williams v Conn (@Conn) - Before the start of the season, this would have looked like a walk-over for Williams. But Conn has shown that they are a good team this year.  BennettRank (which still has Conn rated too low) makes Williams a 2-goal favorite, while Massey says a 1-1 tie. I'll go with Massey.

Bowdoin v Brandeis (@Brandeis) - Finally a decent non-league game. BennettRank makes Bowdoin a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says Bowdoin 1-0. I'll go with that.

Game of the weekend is Williams @ Conn.  This game used to be a laugher for the Ephs, but not this weekend.  Game is at Conn and the Lady Camels are a good team.   Can the young Conn team continue its great start?  I  believe they can.  Conn 2 Williams 1.

Games scheduled for Sun, Sept 28:

Bates v Amherst (@Amherst) - BennettRank makes Amherst a 3-goal favorite, while Massey says Amherst 1-0. Bates has been playing pretty well apart from their 6-0 shellacking by Tufts. Amherst has a great defense but mediocre offense. I'll say Amherst 2-0.

Hamilton v SUNY Canton (@Hamilton) - BennettRank makes Hamilton a 4-goal favorite, while Massey gives Hamilton a 100% chance of winning and predicts Hamilton 9-0. Even with Hamilton playing back to back days, this one has blowout written all over it. This year, SUNY Canton is one of the worst D3 programs in the country. They have already lost 3 times by 7 goals or more. And it's not like they are playing Messiah. I'll say Hamilton 8-0 and suggest that Hamilton try to schedule Union, Skidmore or William Smith next year instead.

Saw the Williams v. Conn game, a home game for Conn which Williams won 3-0. No doubt Conn is a young, much improved team vs. previous seasons but simply didn't have the depth or style of play to run with the Ephs.

Conn's kick and run play v. Williams possession style of play was no match. And while the Ephs only outshot Conn 14-10, they dominated possession by a wide margin and the Ephs 2nd wave of players shared field play about equally with William's first wave in both halves.

Interesting to see the difference in rankings between Massey and Bennett for Conn...Bennett ranking is #104 while Massey is #15.

By my estimation Conn is not a Top 25 team yet...convincing wins over lesser programs just don't move the needle, notwithstanding their home win over Midd who are still ranked #25. Will be interesting to see how they continue to fare in NESCAC competition this season.

Amherst meets Bates at home.  First back to back regular conf. Game that I can recall.  Interesting scheduling.  Is it because of the addition game this season?  Anyone have any background on this or should I be annoyed at the Amherst coach?  Not really since Amherst plays Bates in two other sports today.

Amherst wins over Bates 2-1 today at home.  It was Amherst 2-0 at the half.  I left the game and came back with 10 minutes to go...Amherst 2-1.  In the last 10 minutes, it seemed to me that Amherst was dominating the play again and being more aggressive.  It was a warm day and many of the players seemed over heated.

I watched Hamilton's 2-1 win over Wes. While Wes was never a big favorite to win this, it was a somewhat disheartening loss, considering that Massey rated this game as Wes's best chance to win a league game. Injuries have significantly weakened the squad.

Quote from: Ocean 1 on September 27, 2014, 05:19:21 PM
Saw the Williams v. Conn game, a home game for Conn which Williams won 3-0. No doubt Conn is a young, much improved team vs. previous seasons but simply didn't have the depth or style of play to run with the Ephs.

Conn's kick and run play v. Williams possession style of play was no match. And while the Ephs only outshot Conn 14-10, they dominated possession by a wide margin and the Ephs 2nd wave of players shared field play about equally with William's first wave in both halves.

Interesting to see the difference in rankings between Massey and Bennett for Conn...Bennett ranking is #104 while Massey is #15.

By my estimation Conn is not a Top 25 team yet...convincing wins over lesser programs just don't move the needle, notwithstanding their home win over Midd who are still ranked #25. Will be interesting to see how they continue to fare in NESCAC competition this season.

Agree.  Watched the 2nd half of Willams vs Conn and while Conn has some good players, Williams still has more and much more depth.  Williams pinged the ball around the field and I was very impressed with their style, skill and speed.  I must say Williams first two goals were very very soft goals, but overall Williams dominated.  The young conn team still has a way to go, but they will learn from this and hopefully continue to get better each game.  I believe Conn will continue to win a number of NESCAC games this season and will prove to be a major thorn for most of their opponents the rest of the season.

Watched the Tufts Amherst game.  It was a game of two halves.  First half played close with Tufts getting 2 very good chances off corner kicks that just missed the net.  Amherst had some shots but none that were real dangerous.  Second half Amherst controlled the ball completely.  Tufts looked tired.  Looking at stats Tufts had 0 shots and 0 corners in second half with 8 shots and I think 4 or 5 corners in first half.   I think the heat and the small bench hurt them. 

Games scheduled for Sat, Oct 4:

Conn @ Bates - BennettRank makes Bates a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says a 1-1 tie. I'll go with Massey.

Wesleyan @ Colby - BennettRank makes Wesleyan a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says a 0-0 tie. I'll agree with Massey again.

Trinity @ Bowdoin - BennettRank makes Bowdoin a 1-goal favorite, while Massey say Bowdoin 2-1. I'll say Bowdoin 1-0.

Tufts @ Middlebury - BennettRank make Middlebury a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says a 2-2 tie. I'll say 1-1.

For the record.....Amherst wins over Hamilton on a wet grass field and in the rain..3-0.  It was 1-0 at the half.  Did not watch the 2nd half as I went to the Amherst vs. Middlebury football game in VT. 
Unusual sports day for Amherst.  All the games played today, Amherst shut out its opponents...football, volleyball and both mens and women soccer games....all Amherst wins. 

amh63: great dedication to wind your way up to Midd to support the Jeffs on the gridiron!
To add to Amherst's success yesterday: field hockey also claimed victory.
Interesting that a struggling Trinity (winless in conference) took top-o-the-table Bowdoin to OT. Maybe weather was a factor.
Way too much schedule left to speculate on the qualifying 8 for the 'CAC post-season. Meanwhile, the Polar Bears have home field advantage in their crosshairs. Can Williams blemish their perfect conference record?

Comments on Sat, Oct 4 games:

Conn 2-0 Bates - Stats show a clearly deserved win for Conn. Conn outshot Bates 22-4 and out SOGd them 13-2. Conn very much looking like a top 4 team. First time since probably ever.

Colby 2-1 Wesleyan - Stats show a very even game, with Wes with the edge if anything. My impression from watching very choppy video (and the stats by halves) was that Colby had a bit better of the play in the first half, while Wes had the better of the play in the 2d half. Wes slightly outshot Colby 10-9 and SOGs were even at 6-6. Wes out cornered Colby 8-2, including 5-1 in the 2d half. Wes starting to look a bit snake-bit this year both with injuries and not getting results in close games. I think last year they were a bit lucky to have made the NESCAC tournament. So far this year they have out-shot 2 NESCAC opponents (slightly) Bates and Colby and gotten no points from either game, while last year they did not outshoot a single NESCAC appointment but yet tied a bunch and won 1 such game 2-0.

Bowdoin 1-0 Trinity - This was the predicted result. Bowdoin's defense is excellent this year, but their offense is pretty mediocre. Bowdoin outshot Trinity 19-12, but Trinity actually out SOGd them 8-7.

Amherst 3-0 Hamilton - Stats actually show a very even game, certainly much closer than the score. Amherst only outshot Hamilton 18-17 and only out SOGd them 11-10.

Middlebury 1-0 Tufts - Stats show a deserved win for Middlebury, as Tufts' offense, so impressive early in the season, was totally shut down. Middlebury outshot Tufts 15-3 and out SOGd them 4-1.

We're halfway through the league season, so I thought I'd compare how the teams are doing so far this year to how they did last year.

Amherst - Amherst is clearly improved from last year, and the improvement have been on both offense and defense. GF has improved from 1.4/g to 1.7/g, while GA has improved slightly from 0.4/g to 0.3/g.

Bates - It's a bit of a surprise that Bates sits tied for 3 at this point, because while their offensive production has improved significantly, the defense has gotten worse and is the leakiest in the league. GF has improved from 0.6/g to 0.9/g, but GA has worsened from 1.7/g to 1.9/g.

Bowdoin - In past years, Bowdoin has typically been a fairly high scoring team with a mediocre defense. This year they've flipped the formula.  Bowdoin's defense is excellent this year, but their offense is pretty mediocre. GF has declined from 1.8/g to 1.4/g, but GA has improved significantly from 1.0/g to 0.4/g.

Colby - Stats-wise, Colby is exactly the same team as last year. Both  last year and so far this year, their GF is 0.6/g while their GA is 1.4/g.

Conn - Clearly the most improved team from last year. Both offense and defense have improved significantly. GF has improved from 1.0/g to 1.5/g, while GA has improved from 2.1/g to .8/g.

Hamilton - Hamilton is a bit of a mixed bag. Their offensive production has improved significantly but their defense has slipped slightly. GF had improved from a league-worst 0.5/g to 1.2/g but GA has worsened from 1.3/g to 1.8/g.

Middlebury - Midd is one of two teams that have suffered the biggest drop-offs from last year. Both offense and defense have worsened substantially. GF has declined from 1.3/g to 0.6/g and GA has worsened from 0.5/g to 1.2/g.

Trinity - Trinity is the second of the two teams with the biggest drop-offs from last year. GF has declined from 1.5/g to 0.6/g and GA has worsened from 1.0/g to 2.2/g.

Tufts - Overall stats-wise, Tufts is substantially improved this year. GF has improved from 1.4/g to 2.0/g and GA has improved form 1.4/g to 1.0/g. The improvement in GF stats, however, a largely the result of their 6-0 pounding of Bates in week 1 and their 3-1 win over Colby in week 2. Since then, Tufts has only scored 1 goal in 3 league games. So at this point in the season, I would say that the stats flatter their degree of improvement, particularly on offense.

Wesleyan - Wesleyan's offensive production is so far up very slightly from last year, but its defense has become more porous. GF has improved slightly from 0.7/g to 0.8/g, but GA has worsened from 0.9/g to 1.6/g. Lower level stats support the the overall trends: shots per game are up slightly (from 9.1 to 10.4), but so are shots conceded per game (from 18.6 to 19.6), and saves percentage is down a bit (from 0.895 to 0.814).

Williams - Williams is improved over last year, with the improvement being entirely on offense. GF has improved from 1.4/g to 2.5/g. GA has remained steady at a very good 0.5/g.

Summary of team comparisons against last year.

Most Improved:
Conn

Significantly Improved:
Amherst
Tufts
Williams

No Significant Change/Mixed Bag:
Bates
Bowdoin
Colby
Hamilton

Some Drop-off:
Wesleyan

Substantial Drop-off:
Middlebury
Trinity

Quote from: Becks on October 05, 2014, 10:23:22 AM
Comments on Sat, Oct 4 games:

Middlebury 1-0 Tufts - Stats show a deserved win for Middlebury, as Tufts' offense, so impressive early in the season, was totally shut down. Middlebury outshot Tufts 15-3 and out SOGd them 4-1.

The person keeping stats on this game was way off.  Tufts had more than 3 shots in this game.  More like 7 or 8..have no idea where they get 3 from.  With 6 corner kicks they must have had 3 shots off corner kicks alone.  Not sure what game they were watching.  Nonetheless, Tufts again was not able to capitalize on early opportunities (shot hit post off corner kick early in game) and played flat in 2nd half.  Middlebury outplayed them in 2nd half but first half Tufts had better chances. Weather was a factor on the lone goal by Middlebury as defender slipped and fell - but it was wet for everyone so no excuses.   Best defender (perhaps best player) was out due to a red card at end of previous game...she is key on corner kicks..at 5' 10" she gets head on the ball and creates problems.  One starting forward out for season after serious injury a few games back. So small squad even smaller in this game and fatigue seems to be a factor.  Couple that with a long drive and away game and it was ripe for a tough loss.  They have to make some adjustments to get back on track but they did beat a pretty good Leslie team away early in the week.  They will have to get a win against some good NESCAC teams to get in the top 4 of the league but it can still happen..time will tell.    Big weekend in CT that will determine if they are in the lower half or top half of standings.

Middlebury plays good possession soccer..Amherst was fortunate to get an own goal win over them early in the year.  Sometimes it is simply a good or bad bounce that can cost or win a game.  Connecticut 3-0 win over Middlebury was probably a case of good fortune for CT and bad luck for Middlebury.  Not taking anything away but probably a bit of a fluke score.  Would not be surprised to see Mid fight back to be in the top 4-5 teams by end of year and do well in league playoffs.

Quote from: rudy on October 06, 2014, 05:05:51 PM

Quote from: Becks on October 05, 2014, 10:23:22 AM
Comments on Sat, Oct 4 games:

Middlebury 1-0 Tufts - Stats show a deserved win for Middlebury, as Tufts' offense, so impressive early in the season, was totally shut down. Middlebury outshot Tufts 15-3 and out SOGd them 4-1.

The person keeping stats on this game was way off.  Tufts had more than 3 shots in this game.  More like 7 or 8..have no idea where they get 3 from.  With 6 corner kicks they must have had 3 shots off corner kicks alone.  Not sure what game they were watching.  Nonetheless, Tufts again was not able to capitalize on early opportunities (shot hit post off corner kick early in game) and played flat in 2nd half.  Middlebury outplayed them in 2nd half but first half Tufts had better chances. Weather was a factor on the lone goal by Middlebury as defender slipped and fell - but it was wet for everyone so no excuses.   Best defender (perhaps best player) was out due to a red card at end of previous game...she is key on corner kicks..at 5' 10" she gets head on the ball and creates problems.  One starting forward out for season after serious injury a few games back. So small squad even smaller in this game and fatigue seems to be a factor.  Couple that with a long drive and away game and it was ripe for a tough loss.  They have to make some adjustments to get back on track but they did beat a pretty good Leslie team away early in the week.  They will have to get a win against some good NESCAC teams to get in the top 4 of the league but it can still happen..time will tell.    Big weekend in CT that will determine if they are in the lower half or top half of standings.

Middlebury plays good possession soccer..Amherst was fortunate to get an own goal win over them early in the year.  Sometimes it is simply a good or bad bounce that can cost or win a game.  Connecticut 3-0 win over Middlebury was probably a case of good fortune for CT and bad luck for Middlebury.  Not taking anything away but probably a bit of a fluke score.  Would not be surprised to see Mid fight back to be in the top 4-5 teams by end of year and do well in league playoffs.

Rudy, was at the Conn vs Midd game believe me this game was no fluke or case of bad luck.  Conn dominated possession, shots, play and score and completely outplayed Midd.   Conn is young and talented, but vs Williams they were completely outplayed and dominated.  This happens with young teams.  Conn is a good team.  No fluke there.  They will be a thorn in the side of many teams for the rest of this year and for the next few years.

Quote from: All NESCAC on October 07, 2014, 09:44:38 AMRudy, was at the Conn vs Midd game believe me this game was no fluke or case of bad luck.  Conn dominated possession, shots, play and score and completely outplayed Midd.   Conn is young and talented, but vs Williams they were completely outplayed and dominated.  This happens with young teams.  Conn is a good team.  No fluke there.  They will be a thorn in the side of many teams for the rest of this year and for the next few years.

I just noticed that 4 of the Conn girls (Cathy Higgins, Annie Higgins, Michelle Medina and Nicole Medina) all came from the same CT Northwest Catholic team. One of the best CT teams in recent memory.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nULrkLF71qk&app=desktop Not surprising that they are doing well at the college level. Probably doesn't hurt that they all played together for years. I also noticed that one of the Conn girls (Morgan Cowie-Haskell) is the older sister of a frosh who is starting for the Wes men's team.

Anyone see the Mid v. St. Lawrence game yesterday...NESCAC v. Liberty League?

Wasn't expecting much from St. Lawrence but ultimately realized they play a pretty good brand of soccer in the Liberty League where William Smith is typically head of the pack. Bennett Rankings now has the Liberty League as the #2 power conference with NESCAC following at #3.

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 08, 2014, 09:47:25 AM
Anyone see the Mid v. St. Lawrence game yesterday...NESCAC v. Liberty League?

Wasn't expecting much from St. Lawrence but ultimately realized they play a pretty good brand of soccer in the Liberty League where William Smith is typically head of the pack. Bennett Rankings now has the Liberty League as the #2 power conference with NESCAC following at #3.

Based on how BR has rated teams compared to Massey, I am now a much bigger fan of Massey. I think it is much more nimble and more quickly reflects the strength of teams in any given year. Heck, BR still has Wesleyan and Trinity ranked ahead of Conn, which is ridiculous. Based on Massey rating, NESCAC is still clearly stronger than the Liberty league. The median NESCAC team (Middlebury) has a Massey rank of 344, while the Median Liberty team (Union) has a Massey rank of 452. Massey has the UAA as clearly the top D3 women's conference, with a median rank of 299.

Both BR and Massey were predicting a 1-goal Midd win over St Lawrence and, based on the game stats, that or a tie would have been a fair result. Midd outshot St Lawrence 17-11 and out SOGd them 7-5.

Amherst plays at ECSU tonight under the lights.  First time this year, I believe.  Do not know what the "pitch" surface is....think I am slowly getting the lingo in soccer.  Interesting to see under the conditions...especially if the field is turf.
Midweek game with Colby arriving this weekend.  Game tonight is scheduled for 7 pm.  webcast/video available.

Amherst gets beat in the second half by ECSU....2-1.  Could say it was cold and under the lights...on turf....etc.  Plain and simple the Warriors came out strong in the second half and dominated the Lady Jeffs.  The Warriors go over 500 for the season.  The announcers stated that Amherst dominated the first half.  Halftime lead was 1-0, Amherst.  In the 2nd half with less than 20 minutes to go and the lead holding, Amherst quite mentally and physically.  The goal that tied the game with 15 minutes left was a mistake by Gibson of Amherst and Burwick, the GK that fell down coming out for the ball.  The game winner was off a corner kick and a fine header that saw Amherst and its GK out of position.  Fine shot by the ECSU player. 
I am disappointed..yes.  Amherst had the advantage in talented players..ECSU had the advantage in coaches....imo.

Quote from: amh63 on October 08, 2014, 09:07:16 PM
Amherst gets beat in the second half by ECSU....2-1.  Could say it was cold and under the lights...on turf....etc.  Plain and simple the Warriors came out strong in the second half and dominated the Lady Jeffs.  The Warriors go over 500 for the season.  The announcers stated that Amherst dominated the first half.  Halftime lead was 1-0, Amherst.  In the 2nd half with less than 20 minutes to go and the lead holding, Amherst quite mentally and physically.  The goal that tied the game with 15 minutes left was a mistake by Gibson of Amherst and Burwick, the GK that fell down coming out for the ball.  The game winner was off a corner kick and a fine header that saw Amherst and its GK out of position.  Fine shot by the ECSU player. 
I am disappointed..yes.  Amherst had the advantage in talented players..ECSU had the advantage in coaches....imo.

Saw the game video as well. One heck of an effort by ECSU given they were outshot by Amherst 14-4. Agree as well that Amherst may have sat back in H2 thinking they could protect the lead. That header by ECSU was spectacular! Gives the rest of NESCAC hope that another conference loss by Amherst is certainly possible. Who will be the team to do it?

amh,
Most of ECSU women's home games are played at ECSU's Mansfield Sports Complex, which is artificial turf.  Sometimes they will play on campus where the men play which is natural grass.  Looks like the Warrior win tonight was first in a looong time over the Lady Jeffs.  Warrior Gods must be watching over the soccer teams this week as the NESCAC teams have dominated play, yet lost the game.

ECSU.....those Warrior ladies deserve to know that last night they beat the ninth ranked team in the nation.  Your broadcasters...a really fine crew...best I heard all season...we're a little behind.  They mention Amherst as the 14th ranked team.  If you can...doesn't matter to the coaches...let the players know their accomplishment.  It may spur them on to finish the season strong and into the post season.
I see that your MBB team will meet both Amherst and Williams this season.  I must warn Coach Hixon that the Warriors Den this season will be dangerous and point to the soccer upset.  :)

Quote from: amh63 on October 09, 2014, 04:37:55 PM
ECSU.....those Warrior ladies deserve to know that last night they beat the ninth ranked team in the nation.  Your broadcasters...a really fine crew...best I heard all season...we're a little behind.  They mention Amherst as the 14th ranked team.  If you can...doesn't matter to the coaches...let the players know their accomplishment.  It may spur them on to finish the season strong and into the post season.
I see that your MBB team will meet both Amherst and Williams this season.  I must warn Coach Hixon that the Warriors Den this season will be dangerous and point to the soccer upset.  :)

Thanks for the kind comments amh63!!!  Again hoping the Warrior men and women make a good showing on the basketball court this fall/winter

Quote from: All NESCAC on October 07, 2014, 09:44:38 AM

Quote from: rudy on October 06, 2014, 05:05:51 PM

Quote from: Becks on October 05, 2014, 10:23:22 AM
Comments on Sat, Oct 4 games:

Middlebury 1-0 Tufts - Stats show a deserved win for Middlebury, as Tufts' offense, so impressive early in the season, was totally shut down. Middlebury outshot Tufts 15-3 and out SOGd them 4-1.

The person keeping stats on this game was way off.  Tufts had more than 3 shots in this game.  More like 7 or 8..have no idea where they get 3 from.  With 6 corner kicks they must have had 3 shots off corner kicks alone.  Not sure what game they were watching.  Nonetheless, Tufts again was not able to capitalize on early opportunities (shot hit post off corner kick early in game) and played flat in 2nd half.  Middlebury outplayed them in 2nd half but first half Tufts had better chances. Weather was a factor on the lone goal by Middlebury as defender slipped and fell - but it was wet for everyone so no excuses.   Best defender (perhaps best player) was out due to a red card at end of previous game...she is key on corner kicks..at 5' 10" she gets head on the ball and creates problems.  One starting forward out for season after serious injury a few games back. So small squad even smaller in this game and fatigue seems to be a factor.  Couple that with a long drive and away game and it was ripe for a tough loss.  They have to make some adjustments to get back on track but they did beat a pretty good Leslie team away early in the week.  They will have to get a win against some good NESCAC teams to get in the top 4 of the league but it can still happen..time will tell.    Big weekend in CT that will determine if they are in the lower half or top half of standings.

Middlebury plays good possession soccer..Amherst was fortunate to get an own goal win over them early in the year.  Sometimes it is simply a good or bad bounce that can cost or win a game.  Connecticut 3-0 win over Middlebury was probably a case of good fortune for CT and bad luck for Middlebury.  Not taking anything away but probably a bit of a fluke score.  Would not be surprised to see Mid fight back to be in the top 4-5 teams by end of year and do well in league playoffs.

Rudy, was at the Conn vs Midd game believe me this game was no fluke or case of bad luck.  Conn dominated possession, shots, play and score and completely outplayed Midd.   Conn is young and talented, but vs Williams they were completely outplayed and dominated.  This happens with young teams.  Conn is a good team.  No fluke there.  They will be a thorn in the side of many teams for the rest of this year and for the next few years.

I have no doubt that CT is a good and much improved team this year.  I was just saying that a 3 goal win in any NESCAC game may not be an indicator of how close the game really was. Sounds like on that particular day CT was the better team.   I think consistency over the season is key..especially when most teams can beat any other team on a given day.  It will be interesting to see if Tufts can play a full game against CT on Saturday.  This is important game for both teams. I hope to make it to watch at least some of the game.

Games scheduled for Sat, Oct 11:

Bowdoin @ Hamilton - BR makes Bowdoin a 1-goal favorite. Massey say Bowdoin 2-1. I'll say Bowdoin 1-0.

Middlebury @ Trinity - A battle between the two teams with the biggest drop-offs since last year. BR makes Middlebury a 1-goal favorite. Massey says 1-1. I'll say Middlebury 2-1.

Colby @ Amherst - BR makes Amherst a 3-goal favorite, while Massey says Amherst 1-0. I'll say Amherst 2-0.

Wesleyan @ Williams - BR makes Williams a 2-goal favorite, while Massey say Williams 2-0. I'll go with Massey.

Tufts @ Conn - BR makes Tufts a 1-goal favorite, while Massey says Conn 2-1. I'll go with Massey again.

Seems the Lady Jeffs do not like wet cold weather....see Wednesday lost.  Amherst wins over a game Colby team in OT....winning 2-1.  Amherst's coaches needs to get her players head straight against teams that look weaker ON PAPER!  Game started in rain, on a grass field.

Comments on Sat, Oct 11 games:

Hamilton 1-0 Bowdoin - Upset win by Hamilton, but stats showed they deserved it. Hamilton outshot Bowdoin 16-10 and out SOGd them 7-3.

Trinity 2-1 Middlebury - A bit of an upset, but this time, the stats indicate that Middlebury was the better team on the day and Trinity was lucky to win. Midd outshot Trinity by 20-7 and out SOGd them 6-3.

Amherst 3-2 Colby (OT) - Unexpectedly tight came. Stats show that Amherst deserved the win and that the game was more defensive than the score suggests. Amherst outshot Colby 13-5 and out SOGd them 7-5.

Williams 4-0 Wesleyan - A bigger margin than expected and stats show the margin was deserved. Williams outshot Wes 21-2 and out SOGd them 12-2.

Becks, as usual, helpful info. Thanks.
I do note that Midd's loss to Trinity is another outcome based on "luck" when they've been the "better" team but lost. The same was said when the Panthers lost to the Jeffs at the season start. When does luck weigh less and underperformance weigh more?  ;)

I would say that looking at how many shots a team takes does not tell the complete story. There are quality shots and there a prayer shots. In the case of Middlebury, I suspect we might be seeing the impact of the graduation of their All American GK. Midd won a lot of one goal games last year and this year have been on the losing end of a lot of one goal games. On the other hand, maybe they were just  lucky last year and not so much this year.   

Quote from: jc2 on October 12, 2014, 10:52:33 AM
I would say that looking at how many shots a team takes does not tell the complete story. There are quality shots and there a prayer shots. In the case of Middlebury, I suspect we might be seeing the impact of the graduation of their All American GK. Midd won a lot of one goal games last year and this year have been on the losing end of a lot of one goal games. On the other hand, maybe they were just  lucky last year and not so much this year.

Stats suggest that poor shots and weaker goalkeeping "may" be factors in Midd's struggles. Last year, Midd had a team save's percentage of .886 in league games (3d best in the league behind Amherst and Wesleyan). This year it is .692., which is worst in the league. This could be the result of some combination of weaker goalkeeping and bad luck. Just as bad, however, Midd's league opponents' saves percentage is a phenomenal .915, which is also worst in the league (last year it was .829), which could be the result of some combination of taking worse shots (eg more shots from distance) and bad luck. I note that luck can play a big part because when we are talking about only 5-15 goals, a lucky couple of goals can shift that stats quite a bit.

Excellent points as usual.

Of note, in NESCAC games,  Midd takes the 2nd most shots per game (16) but has the worst conversion rate scoring on only 6% of their shots. I would argue that this is more likely the result of poor shot selection than bad luck. It might explain why statistically they appear to "dominate" a game (by taking more shots) but end up losing. I still contend that putting a lot of stock in the total number of shots can give a false impression about whether a win or loss was "justified".

Quote from: Jump4Joy on October 05, 2014, 09:04:00 AM
amh63: great dedication to wind your way up to Midd to support the Jeffs on the gridiron!
To add to Amherst's success yesterday: field hockey also claimed victory.
Interesting that a struggling Trinity (winless in conference) took top-o-the-table Bowdoin to OT. Maybe weather was a factor.
Way too much schedule left to speculate on the qualifying 8 for the 'CAC post-season. Meanwhile, the Polar Bears have home field advantage in their crosshairs. Can Williams blemish their perfect conference record?

As we know now, Williams did indeed help to blemish the Polar Bears conference record...although not without one heck of a performance by both teams.

While the Ephs SOG dominated the Polar Bears by a 2-1 margin, the real story was in the OT periods where the Ephs outshot them by a 3-1 margin (i.e., 9-3) and the game winner in the 108th minute.

It was one of the best 'CAC games I've seen in recent years and the Polar Bears "D" was as advertised...they just ran up against a very tenacious offense...and what is turning out to be a pretty good defense as well now that they made the adjustment from a 3-back to a 4-back scheme.

Quote from: Becks on October 08, 2014, 10:36:27 AM

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 08, 2014, 09:47:25 AM
Anyone see the Mid v. St. Lawrence game yesterday...NESCAC v. Liberty League?

Wasn't expecting much from St. Lawrence but ultimately realized they play a pretty good brand of soccer in the Liberty League where William Smith is typically head of the pack. Bennett Rankings now has the Liberty League as the #2 power conference with NESCAC following at #3.

Based on how BR has rated teams compared to Massey, I am now a much bigger fan of Massey. I think it is much more nimble and more quickly reflects the strength of teams in any given year. Heck, BR still has Wesleyan and Trinity ranked ahead of Conn, which is ridiculous. Based on Massey rating, NESCAC is still clearly stronger than the Liberty league. The median NESCAC team (Middlebury) has a Massey rank of 344, while the Median Liberty team (Union) has a Massey rank of 452. Massey has the UAA as clearly the top D3 women's conference, with a median rank of 299.

Both BR and Massey were predicting a 1-goal Midd win over St Lawrence and, based on the game stats, that or a tie would have been a fair result. Midd outshot St Lawrence 17-11 and out SOGd them 7-5.

Becks...your point about why BR would have Conn ranked below Wes and Trinity was well taken. In fact, today BR has Trinity (6-4-1) ranked #52, Wes (1-8-1) ranked # 74 and Conn (10-1-0) ranked #89.

Seemingly, the answer lies in part with Bennett's explanation today when they introduced their Offense and Defense Rankings and methodologies where Strength of Schedule (SOS) plays a major role in the derivation of ranking position. Interestingly, SOS for Trinity is 38, Wes is 13 and Conn is 60. Apparently, despite Conn's superior W/L record, SOS plays a major role and appears to be a key reason for their #89 ranking. Would be instructive to understand to what degree Massey utilizes SOS in their rankings.

An explanatory excerpt from the Bennett site today:

"This week, we're excited to introduce BennettRank Team Offensive and Defense Rankings. We've calculated BR-O and BR-D in the background all season, but it wasn't until this week they stabilized enough for us to share. Our hope is to provide players, coaches, and fans with a metric deeper and more accurate than a simple goals for/against list that they can use to preview matchups, understand opponents, and audit their own team's performance. As with everything we do, we want these rankings to be as fair and objective as possible, so in the spirit of transparency, we figured we should take the time to explain how they work.

The calculation starts with goals scored, for and against. Scoring goals will help a team's offensive ranking, allowing goals will hurt their defensive ranking, as you might expect, but only to a point. Any goals scored beyond four won't help the team scoring them or harm the team allowing them. We figure a blowout is a blowout. After four goals we know an offense is good, and a defense is bad, so maximum awards and penalties are handed out. Any goal scored beyond the fourth is like pouring another cup of water onto a soaking-wet towel — it's not going to get any wetter. Call it the victory saturation-point.

We then take the raw goals scored/allowed numbers and modify them with opponent BennettRank. Thus, BR-Offense and BR-Defense are Strength of Schedule-adjusted rankings. Like the classic BennettRanks, BR-O and BR-D will rank each team from top to bottom across the division; e.g. 1-332 for D1 womens soccer.

We make no apologies for weighting Strength of Schedule heavily in our algorithm. Goals scored against a strong team are more impressive than goals scored against a weak team. Goals allowed to a strong team are more understandable than goals allowed to a weak team. Strength of Schedule is a major component of our overall ranking, and will be a major component of our offensive and defensive rankings as well.

Most (if not all) BR Top 25 teams have a reasonable balance of offense and defense. It is rare for a team to reach the BR Top 25 without that balance. As the season progresses, look for these rankings to stabilize as we see these teams prove who they are with more data."

Ocean1 - The only explanation I can see for BR ranking Trinity and Wes above Conn is that their algorithm is still giving weight to prior years' results. I think Massey's algorithm flushes those out pretty quickly. I don't see how SOS explains it, because if you eliminate non-league games, the teams' SOS's are probably quite similar and Conn's results have been much better. BTW, Wes's SOS is due to plummet -- they play their one real cream-puff game of the season mid-week - Elms (BR #309). Worth noting that Massey only has them as 2-goal favorites. [insert emoticon of guy bugged-eyed in horror]

Quote from: Becks on October 13, 2014, 10:48:36 AM
Ocean1 - The only explanation I can see for BR ranking Trinity and Wes above Conn is that their algorithm is still giving weight to prior years' results. I think Massey's algorithm flushes those out pretty quickly. I don't see how SOS explains it, because if you eliminate non-league games, the teams' SOS's are probably quite similar and Conn's results have been much better. BTW, Wes's SOS is due to plummet -- they play their one real cream-puff game of the season mid-week - Elms (BR #309). Worth noting that Massey only has them as 2-goal favorites. [insert emoticon of guy bugged-eyed in horror]

BR claims they make a mid-season adjustment to account for teams whose performance is significantly different than the year before. Seems like Conn would get a boost by this adjustment. Anyone know if this has happened?

Quote from: jc2 on October 14, 2014, 07:36:14 AMBR claims they make a mid-season adjustment to account for teams whose performance is significantly different than the year before. Seems like Conn would get a boost by this adjustment. Anyone know if this has happened?

BR says they make the adjustment between weeks 5 and 6 after about 8 games have been played. http://www.bennettrank.com/collegesoccer/d1-womens-soccer/mid-season-one-time-adjustments/ We're past that now and the only team that looks like it might possibly have gotten an adjustment is Trinity, which dropped 25 places between weeks 6 and 7, but it's possible that that was just a reflection of their loss to Bates.

Anyone know how the NESCAC all-conference awards are determined? Who votes? What criteria are used to select the All NESCAC teams, player of the year, coach of the year, etc? Is there a formula to distribute the slots among the teams based on their winning percentage (the team with the best record, probably has the best players)?  Is the coach of the year the one with the best team or are there other criteria?

Any insight?

Quote from: jc2 on October 14, 2014, 05:04:37 PM
Anyone know how the NESCAC all-conference awards are determined? Who votes? What criteria are used to select the All NESCAC teams, player of the year, coach of the year, etc? Is there a formula to distribute the slots among the teams based on their winning percentage (the team with the best record, probably has the best players)?  Is the coach of the year the one with the best team or are there other criteria?

Any insight?

I think the coaches nominate players on their team and all the coaches vote. Successful teams generally get more of their players on the all-FCIAC teams, but I don't think there is any formula. Coach of the year generally goes to the coach of the top team or at least one of top teams. I've never seen it go to a coach who took a bad team and made it respectable. Player of the Year is a bit of a misnomer because it seems to go to the senior who has had the best college career, even if their senior season was rather mediocre.

Quote from: Becks on October 14, 2014, 11:42:06 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 14, 2014, 05:04:37 PM
Anyone know how the NESCAC all-conference awards are determined? Who votes? What criteria are used to select the All NESCAC teams, player of the year, coach of the year, etc? Is there a formula to distribute the slots among the teams based on their winning percentage (the team with the best record, probably has the best players)?  Is the coach of the year the one with the best team or are there other criteria?

Any insight?

I think the coaches nominate players on their team and all the coaches vote. Successful teams generally get more of their players on the all-FCIAC teams, but I don't think there is any formula. Coach of the year generally goes to the coach of the team or at least one of top teams. I've never seen it go to a coach who took a bad team and made it respectable. Player of the Year is a bit of a misnomer because it seems to go to the senior who has had the best college career, even if their senior season was rather mediocre.

Concur with Beck's assessment. Also, player stats have much to do with the choices and impact of players on their respective teams. Offensively, total points in a given season and/or career is a clear metric. Defensively, it gets a little nebulous but GAA gets a team recognized and from there the coach's make their individual cases.

Game of the week looks to be Bowdoin v Conn. Massey is projecting a tie.  Any thoughts or predictions?

Amherst got a little more experience playing on turf last night at home under the lights.  Amherst won over Keene State 4-0.....led at the half 2-0.  Keene state had good possession time I n the first half and was aggressively attacking late in each half...info from announcers since I was switching between contests...the other being the field hockey game...away game.  A large number of young players inserted by Amherst in the last eight minutes.  Keene State is the defending LEC and went to the post season last season...is in 2nd place in the LEC presently behind UMass-Boston.  Only lost in conference is to ECSU who beat Amherst last week and beat another CAC team last night in an away game.  Amherst has two critical games remaining...CONN and WES that will impact seeding.  Cardinals this Sat in Middletown.

Quote from: jc2 on October 16, 2014, 08:37:30 AM
Game of the week looks to be Bowdoin v Conn. Massey is projecting a tie.  Any thoughts or predictions?

Having seen them both play v. Williams, suggest that Bowdoin, the tougher opponent, will prevail 1-0. It is a home contest for the Polar Bears with a 50% chance of rain that makes all things possible.

D3 Soccer site has an in-depth description of the NCAA regional ranking process leading-up to The Big Dance. The link can be found at:

http://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2014/ncaa-regional-rankings-coming-next-week

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 16, 2014, 12:35:54 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 16, 2014, 08:37:30 AM
Game of the week looks to be Bowdoin v Conn. Massey is projecting a tie.  Any thoughts or predictions?

Having seen them both play v. Williams, suggest that Bowdoin, the tougher opponent, will prevail 1-0. It is a home contest for the Polar Bears with a 50% chance of rain that makes all things possible.

Have to turn the table on you Ocean 1--Lady Camels should get a result....they are very deep and their depth will carry them in the 2nd half....a young team who has gained confidence as the season has progressed.

Quote from: All NESCAC on October 17, 2014, 10:19:51 AM

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 16, 2014, 12:35:54 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 16, 2014, 08:37:30 AM
Game of the week looks to be Bowdoin v Conn. Massey is projecting a tie.  Any thoughts or predictions?

Having seen them both play v. Williams, suggest that Bowdoin, the tougher opponent, will prevail 1-0. It is a home contest for the Polar Bears with a 50% chance of rain that makes all things possible.

Have to turn the table on you Ocean 1--Lady Camels should get a result....they are very deep and their depth will carry them in the 2nd half....a young team who has gained confidence as the season has progressed.

Let the best team prevail!

Williams women take down an obviously frustrated Middlebury team this afternoon 1-0 ---in the face of the Panthers extraordinary physical play, including throwing Williams players to the ground, tackles from behind, tripping, lots of whining from the sideline, and other marginal tactics such as constantly being told by the referee to move back on throw-ins, corner kicks, etc.

In a game in which the referee"let them play", the Williams women kept their poise, whereas Middlebury was more focused on roughness instead of the crisp playing they displayed in the first half. Williams completely controlled the last 15 minutes of the game, including constantly keeping the ball in the corner.

Saw Bowdoin/Conn game over the weekend.  Good game. Conn has a much higher skill level this year than I have seen in the past and came out of the gates very fast, but Bowdoin, thanks to a couple of good saves held them at bay.  Bowdoin slowly took over the game about the middle of the first half and while they did not have many scoring chances, made the most of them. I didn't think that Conn got as good goalie play as Bowdoin did.  Bowdoin has been playing without its top offensive player that last few games, but the other girls seem to be stepping things up.  Very entertaining game between two of the stronger teams in the NESCAC.

Can someone detail the playoff race? Has any team been mathematically eliminated? Which teams have clinched a playoff spot?

Quote from: jc2 on October 20, 2014, 12:02:35 PM
Can someone detail the playoff race? Has any team been mathematically eliminated? Which teams have clinched a playoff spot?

I don't think any team has been eliminated yet. Last place Wesleyan has 3 games left and could, in theory, finish 3-6-1, which could get them in. If they lose to Trinity on Wednesday, they will be mathematically eliminated. Amherst, Williams and Bowdoin are locked in, but everyone else still has work to do.

1 - Amherst 7-1-0, 21pts (GTP: Conn, Trinity), max pts 27
1 - Williams 7-1-0, 21pts (GPT: Bates, Hamilton), max pts 27
3 - Bowdoin 6-2-0, 18pts (GTP: Colby, Tufts), max pts 24
4 - Conn 5-2-0, 15pts (GTP: Amherst, Trinity, Wes), max pts 24
5 - Middlebury 4-5-0, 12pts (GTP: Wes), max pts 15
6 - Bates 3-5-0, 9pts (GTP: Williams, Colby), max pts 15
6 - Hamilton 3-5-0, 9pts (GTP: Tufts, Williams), max pts 15
8 - Trinity 2-4-1, 7pts (GTP: Wes, Conn, Amherst), max pts 16
8 - Colby 2-5-1, 7pts (GTP: Bowdoin, Bates), max pts 13
10 - Tufts 2-5-1, 7pts (GTP: Hamilton, Bowdoin), max pts 13)
11 - Wesleyan 0-6-1, 1pt (GTP: Trinity, Middlebury, Conn), max pts 10

Quote from: Becks on October 20, 2014, 02:01:11 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 20, 2014, 12:02:35 PM
Can someone detail the playoff race? Has any team been mathematically eliminated? Which teams have clinched a playoff spot?

I don't think any team has been eliminated yet. Last place Wesleyan has 3 games left and could, in theory, finish 3-6-1, which could get them in. If they lose to Trinity on Wednesday, they will be mathematically eliminated. Amherst, Williams and Bowdoin are locked in, but everyone else still has work to do.

1 - Amherst 7-1-0, 21pts (GTP: Conn, Trinity), max pts 27
1 - Williams 7-1-0, 21pts (GPT: Bates, Hamilton), max pts 27
3 - Bowdoin 6-2-0, 18pts (GTP: Colby, Tufts), max pts 24
4 - Conn 5-2-0, 15pts (GTP: Amherst, Trinity, Wes), max pts 24
5 - Middlebury 4-5-0, 12pts (GTP: Wes), max pts 15
6 - Bates 3-5-0, 9pts (GTP: Williams, Colby), max pts 15
6 - Hamilton 3-5-0, 9pts (GTP: Tufts, Williams), max pts 15
8 - Trinity 2-4-1, 7pts (GTP: Wes, Conn, Amherst), max pts 16
8 - Colby 2-5-1, 7pts (GTP: Bowdoin, Bates), max pts 13
10 - Tufts 2-5-1, 7pts (GTP: Hamilton, Bowdoin), max pts 13)
11 - Wesleyan 0-6-1, 1pt (GTP: Trinity, Middlebury, Conn), max pts 10

Most helpful. I'm almost afraid to ask but what are the tie-break rules?

Quote from: jc2 on October 20, 2014, 04:33:09 PM

Quote from: Becks on October 20, 2014, 02:01:11 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 20, 2014, 12:02:35 PM
Can someone detail the playoff race? Has any team been mathematically eliminated? Which teams have clinched a playoff spot?

I don't think any team has been eliminated yet. Last place Wesleyan has 3 games left and could, in theory, finish 3-6-1, which could get them in. If they lose to Trinity on Wednesday, they will be mathematically eliminated. Amherst, Williams and Bowdoin are locked in, but everyone else still has work to do.

1 - Amherst 7-1-0, 21pts (GTP: Conn, Trinity), max pts 27
1 - Williams 7-1-0, 21pts (GPT: Bates, Hamilton), max pts 27
3 - Bowdoin 6-2-0, 18pts (GTP: Colby, Tufts), max pts 24
4 - Conn 5-2-0, 15pts (GTP: Amherst, Trinity, Wes), max pts 24
5 - Middlebury 4-5-0, 12pts (GTP: Wes), max pts 15
6 - Bates 3-5-0, 9pts (GTP: Williams, Colby), max pts 15
6 - Hamilton 3-5-0, 9pts (GTP: Tufts, Williams), max pts 15
8 - Trinity 2-4-1, 7pts (GTP: Wes, Conn, Amherst), max pts 16
8 - Colby 2-5-1, 7pts (GTP: Bowdoin, Bates), max pts 13
10 - Tufts 2-5-1, 7pts (GTP: Hamilton, Bowdoin), max pts 13)
11 - Wesleyan 0-6-1, 1pt (GTP: Trinity, Middlebury, Conn), max pts 10

Most helpful. I'm almost afraid to ask but what are the tie-break rules?

Some value-added perspective including the question posed...also available on the NESCAC website:

2014 Women's Soccer Championship Information

Quarterfinals - Saturday, November 1
No. 8 Seed at No. 1 Seed
No. 7 Seed at No. 2 Seed
No. 6 Seed at No. 3 Seed
No. 5 Seed at No. 4 Seed

Semifinals - Saturday, November 8

Hosted by Highest Remaining Seed
Highest Remaining Seed vs. Lowest Remaining Seed
Other Quarterfinal Winners

Championship - Sunday, November 9
Hosted by Highest Remaining Seed
Semifinal Winners

Format

The top eight teams in the conference will qualify for the NESCAC Women's Soccer Championship. Quarterfinal games will be conducted on Saturday, November 1, 2014 with the semifinals and championship games conducted on Saturday, November 8 and Sunday, November 9, respectively. The tournament champion will receive an automatic bid to the NCAA Division III Championship.

Seeding

Seeding will be based on final conference standings of round robin play. Standings will be based on points (3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie). The 8th seed will play at the 1st seed, the 7th seed will play at the 2nd seed, the 6th seed will play at the 3rd seed, and the 5th seed will play at the 4th seed. Teams will be re-bracketed after first round games and the lowest remaining seed will face the highest remaining seed.

Pairings

Pairings will be announced Wednesday, October 29.

Tie Breaking Procedures

Ties will be broken as follows:

Head-to-head result (if teams play each other more than once during the regular season, the game that appears on the league schedule will be the game that is counted).

If teams tied during the regular season, or there is a 3-way or more tie, the following tie breaking procedure will be used:

Best record among tying teams, against one another (head-to-head).
Best conference winning percentage.
Most conference wins (in games that are part of the conference schedule and count toward league standings).
Comparison of results of conference games played against top 4 teams (including all teams at the 4th spot).
Comparison of results of conference games played against top 8 teams (including all teams at the 8th spot).
Comparison of results of conference games played against conference teams in rank order.
Comparisons shall be made one team at a time starting with the highest ranked team.

If the tie remains after comparing results against the highest ranked team, the results against the next team in rank order shall be used. This process is continued until a winner is determined.

Coin flip (or similar random action involving all tied teams).

Note: In case of ties among three or more schools, the criteria above will be applied in order until a team is (or teams are) separated. At that point, the process begins anew (returning to the first criteria) with the remaining teams. The process is continued until the tie is eventually broken. In cases where only a random action will break the tie of three or more teams, the random action will be applied to all teams involved in the tie. For example, if three teams are tied and only a random action (pulling names out of a hat) will break the tie, each name will be pulled and seeded in order of being pulled. Also, in the event that there are two (or more) groups of teams tied at different spots in the standings and the only criteria left that can be used to break those ties is a coin flip/random action, the coin flip/random action used to break the tie of one group (to put teams in rank order) will not affect the tie breaking procedures of the other group(s) of tied teams.

Quote from: jumpshot on October 19, 2014, 03:58:32 PM
Williams women take down an obviously frustrated Middlebury team this afternoon 1-0 ---in the face of the Panthers extraordinary physical play, including throwing Williams players to the ground, tackles from behind, tripping, lots of whining from the sideline, and other marginal tactics such as constantly being told by the referee to move back on throw-ins, corner kicks, etc.

In a game in which the referee"let them play", the Williams women kept their poise, whereas Middlebury was more focused on roughness instead of the crisp playing they displayed in the first half. Williams completely controlled the last 15 minutes of the game, including constantly keeping the ball in the corner.

From D3soccer.com:

A physical game that went right down to the final moments resulted in a narrow victory for 10th-ranked Williams (12-1-0/7-1-0) over NESCAC rival Middlebury (8-6-0/4-5-0). With the conference title probably their only way back to the NCAA tournament where they advanced to the semifinals a year ago, the Panthers were looking for a confidence- and momentum-building win and came out attacking aggressively. But it was the Eph's Kristi Kirshe who scored the game's only goal early in the second half as the tide turned in favor of Williams. Ephs coach Michelyne Pinard commented, "That was just unbelievable soccer for 90 minutes, both halves. This was just what it's all about, playing on Cole Field on Senior Day against a great team. We didn't know that we'd get on the board, let alone score first, but we worked so hard out there, creating chances in the second half especially. Middlebury's ball movement in the middle-third is as good as it gets, and that made us pretty uncomfortable at times. Settling down a little bit in the second half and seeing a little bit more of the ball made all the difference in the world for us."

Conn v Amherst

Massey calls it a tie, Bennett says a 1-goal win for Amherst.

Anyone have insight into the game? Do both teams play primarily an athletic style of soccer? Weather might be a factor.

Quote from: jc2 on October 22, 2014, 08:23:56 AM
Conn v Amherst

Massey calls it a tie, Bennett says a 1-goal win for Amherst.

Anyone have insight into the game? Do both teams play primarily an athletic style of soccer? Weather might be a factor.

Weather could be a factor indeed...chance of rain 70%, wind at 20-30 mph and 54 degrees. Probability in my view is a win by Amherst. Conn has a kick and run style of play while Amherst plays possession soccer and has a stronger defense. Conn could get lucky with the home field advantage though. A Conn win/tie has major potential implications for NESCAC Championship home field advantage.

NCAA Regional Rankings due out today...first of 3 in series of rankings leading-up to Selection Sunday when the NCAA Tournament brackets and teams participating will be released.

Is the Conn v Amherst game scheduled to be broadcast online?

I can't seem to find a broadcast schedule...anyone else?

NCAA Regional Rankings and Data Sheets are up. Link is:

http://www.d3soccer.com/rankings/2014/Women/regional-rankings-1

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 22, 2014, 08:52:23 AMWeather could be a factor indeed...chance of rain 70%, wind at 20-30 mph and 54 degrees. Probability in my view is a win by Amherst. Conn has a kick and run style of play while Amherst plays possession soccer and has a stronger defense. Conn could get lucky with the home field advantage though. A Conn win/tie has major potential implications for NESCAC Championship home field advantage.

Conn is the real deal this year. Conn's best season ever in NESCAC. Hard to believe they were 1-6-3 in league last year.

What a difference a year makes!

Kudos to the Camels!!

Entering the last weekend of NESCAC play, Amherst, Williams, Conn and Bowdoin have clinched home field for the first round. Wesleyan is out. There are still 6 teams vying for the 4 remaining playoff spots. What are the key matchups this weekend in terms of qualifying for the playoffs? Is it Tufts v Hamilton?

Quote from: jc2 on October 23, 2014, 08:42:13 AM
Entering the last weekend of NESCAC play, Amherst, Williams, Conn and Bowdoin have clinched home field for the first round. Wesleyan is out. There are still 6 teams vying for the 4 remaining playoff spots. What are the key matchups this weekend in terms of qualifying for the playoffs? Is it Tufts v Hamilton?

There's actually Tufts v. Hamilton (if Ham wins, their 12 pts. will get them into the final 8) and Conn v. Trinity (if Trinity wins, their 13 pts. will get them into the final 8). For that matter, if Bates prevails over Williams (Bates home game) their 12 points could also get them into the final 8. Still alot of soccer left to play this weekend.

From a home field advantage point-of-view, Williams certainly has increased incentive to win their next 2 games as they will then host NESCAC semi's and finals given Conn's win over Amherst yesterday.

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 23, 2014, 08:38:38 AM
What a difference a year makes!

Kudos to the Camels!!

Great win by the Lady Camels...and they likely get a home playoff game....hopefully they can continue to play well.  Williams is still the best team in the league (IMO) but Conn, Bowdoin, Amherst are pretty good also....hoping all continue to play well and get NCAA berths.

Massey is predicting a 55% chance of a Tufts win and a 31% chance of a Hamilton victory. It gives Trinity a 34% chance of beating Conn (and Conn a 52% chance of winning).  It predicts only a 10% chance that Bates will beat Williams

Quote from: All NESCAC on October 23, 2014, 10:20:16 AM

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 23, 2014, 08:38:38 AM
What a difference a year makes!

Kudos to the Camels!!

Great win by the Lady Camels...and they likely get a home playoff game....hopefully they can continue to play well.  Williams is still the best team in the league (IMO) but Conn, Bowdoin, Amherst are pretty good also....hoping all continue to play well and get NCAA berths.

Agree about Williams as best in NESCAC right now. And Conn will definitely host a Quarterfinal NESCAC match at home. Assuming they win, they will then travel to continue to play.

As for NCAA berths, think based on 2013 selections where 13 New England teams received nods (including automatic qualifiers and at-large bids) that 2014 bodes well for the likes of Williams, Amherst, Brandeis, Conn, Bowdoin and MIT with New England College, Springfield and Roger Williams also potentially vying for spots. Key will be to remain in the top of the NCAA regional poll mix after Week 3 regional selections.

Entering the last few days of NESCAC play, only Wesleyan is out of the playoffs. Looks like there is a good chance of a 3 way tie for second thru fourth place and the tie break rules will get put to good use. If Amherst, Conn and Bowdoin do indeed win their last game, how will they line up?   

Quote from: jc2 on October 27, 2014, 07:54:47 AM
Entering the last few days of NESCAC play, only Wesleyan is out of the playoffs. Looks like there is a good chance of a 3 way tie for second thru fourth place and the tie break rules will get put to good use. If Amherst, Conn and Bowdoin do indeed win their last game, how will they line up?

It would seem that if Amherst, Conn and Bowdoin win their last games and finish with the same point total, and assuming Williams wins v. Hamilton, the seeding order should go as follows by virtue of the tie-breaker rule (i.e., both Conn and Bowdoin beat Amherst and Bowdoin beat Conn during the regular season):

- #1 Williams
- #2 Bowdoin
- #3 Conn
- #4 Amherst

Can anyone validate?

I suspect most people are predicting that Conn, Amherst and Bowdoin will all win their last games and end up in a 3-way tie for second place. Massey lists the chances of winning as: Amherst 72%, Conn 84% and Bowdoin 68%. The chance of all 3 winning is then .72 x .84 x .68 = .41.

Surprisingly, if the Massey odds are accurate, it's more likely that at least one of the teams will lose than all 3 will win.

Only time will tell.

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 07:29:35 AM
I suspect most people are predicting that Conn, Amherst and Bowdoin will all win their last games and end up in a 3-way tie for second place. Massey lists the chances of winning as: Amherst 72%, Conn 84% and Bowdoin 68%. The chance of all 3 winning is then .72 x .84 x .68 = .41.

Surprisingly, if the Massey odds are accurate, it's more likely that at least one of the teams will lose than all 3 will win.

Only time will tell.

Nice! Another fan of probability and statistics, I see.

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 07:29:35 AM
I suspect most people are predicting that Conn, Amherst and Bowdoin will all win their last games and end up in a 3-way tie for second place. Massey lists the chances of winning as: Amherst 72%, Conn 84% and Bowdoin 68%. The chance of all 3 winning is then .72 x .84 x .68 = .41.

Surprisingly, if the Massey odds are accurate, it's more likely that at least one of the teams will lose than all 3 will win.

Only time will tell.

That would of course mean an upset was in the making which is conceivable.

However, with Conn at 5-1-0 in Away games and Bowdoin and Amherst undefeated in Home games this year and with that trio possessing an average GAA of 0.62 and GFA of 1.63 vs. an average GAA of 1.66 and GFA of 1.13 for the Trinity, Wes and Tufts trio...I do not believe an upset is probable. That is, unless of course there are key injuries or  moment(s) of inspiration.

Let the games proceed!

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 07:29:35 AM
I suspect most people are predicting that Conn, Amherst and Bowdoin will all win their last games and end up in a 3-way tie for second place. Massey lists the chances of winning as: Amherst 72%, Conn 84% and Bowdoin 68%. The chance of all 3 winning is then .72 x .84 x .68 = .41.

Surprisingly, if the Massey odds are accurate, it's more likely that at least one of the teams will lose than all 3 will win.

Only time will tell.

Actually, looking back at this. You are correct that the chance of all 3 winning is .41. But that doesn't mean it is more likely that at least one of them will lose, because ties are also possible. Massey provides both teams' chances of winning, and using those figures, we can easily calculate the chances of a tie as well. Here's what Massey says are Conn's, Amherst's and Bowdoin's chances of winning, tying and losing.

Conn - 84%, 9%, 7%
Amherst - 72%, 13%, 15%
Bowdoin - 68%, 13%, 19%

So, if the likelihood of those teams getting a win or a tie is 93%, 85%, and 81%, respectively, the likelihood of all 3 getting a win or a tie is the product of those 3 or 64%, which means that the chances of at least one of the three losing is only 36%. So, while it is more likely that one of the 3 will lose or tie (59%) than it is that all 3 will win (41%), it is more likely that all 3 will win (41%) than that one of them will lose (36%).

If Wes fails to beat Conn today, it will be the first time they have gone winless in NESCAC since 2003.

Winless NESCAC teams to date (reverse chronological order):
2009 Conn 0-9-0
2008 Conn 0-8-1
2007 Colby 0-7-2
2006 Conn 0-8-1
2006 Trinity 0-8-1
2003 Wesleyan 0-9-0
2002 Wesleyan 0-8-1
2000 Wesleyan 0-8-1

Quote from: Becks on October 28, 2014, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 07:29:35 AM
I suspect most people are predicting that Conn, Amherst and Bowdoin will all win their last games and end up in a 3-way tie for second place. Massey lists the chances of winning as: Amherst 72%, Conn 84% and Bowdoin 68%. The chance of all 3 winning is then .72 x .84 x .68 = .41.

Surprisingly, if the Massey odds are accurate, it's more likely that at least one of the teams will lose than all 3 will win.

Only time will tell.

Actually, looking back at this. You are correct that the chance of all 3 winning is .41. But that doesn't mean it is more likely that at least one of them will lose, because ties are also possible. Massey provides both teams' chances of winning, and using those figures, we can easily calculate the chances of a tie as well. Here's what Massey says are Conn's, Amherst's and Bowdoin's chances of winning, tying and losing.

Conn - 84%, 9%, 7%
Amherst - 72%, 13%, 15%
Bowdoin - 68%, 13%, 19%

So, if the likelihood of those teams getting a win or a tie is 93%, 85%, and 81%, respectively, the likelihood of all 3 getting a win or a tie is the product of those 3 or 64%, which means that the chances of at least one of the three losing is only 36%. So, while it is more likely that one of the 3 will lose or tie (59%) than it is that all 3 will win (41%), it is more likely that all 3 will win (41%) than that one of them will lose (36%).

Correct as usual. I used the term "lose" rather loosely. I meant to imply that failing to get 3 points would drop that team out of the three-way tie for 2nd place.

Quote from: Becks on October 28, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
If Wes fails to beat Conn today, it will be the first time they have gone winless in NESCAC since 2003.

Winless NESCAC teams to date (reverse chronological order):
2009 Conn 0-9-0
2008 Conn 0-8-1
2007 Colby 0-7-2
2006 Conn 0-8-1
2006 Trinity 0-8-1
2003 Wesleyan 0-9-0
2002 Wesleyan 0-8-1
2000 Wesleyan 0-8-1

Add Wes to the list.  :'(

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 27, 2014, 09:32:20 AM

Quote from: jc2 on October 27, 2014, 07:54:47 AM
Entering the last few days of NESCAC play, only Wesleyan is out of the playoffs. Looks like there is a good chance of a 3 way tie for second thru fourth place and the tie break rules will get put to good use. If Amherst, Conn and Bowdoin do indeed win their last game, how will they line up?

It would seem that if Amherst, Conn and Bowdoin win their last games and finish with the same point total, and assuming Williams wins v. Hamilton, the seeding order should go as follows by virtue of the tie-breaker rule (i.e., both Conn and Bowdoin beat Amherst and Bowdoin beat Conn during the regular season):

- #1 Williams
- #2 Bowdoin
- #3 Conn
- #4 Amherst

Can anyone validate?

Looks like this is going to be the final finish order.

Quote from: Becks on October 28, 2014, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 07:29:35 AM
I suspect most people are predicting that Conn, Amherst and Bowdoin will all win their last games and end up in a 3-way tie for second place. Massey lists the chances of winning as: Amherst 72%, Conn 84% and Bowdoin 68%. The chance of all 3 winning is then .72 x .84 x .68 = .41.

Surprisingly, if the Massey odds are accurate, it's more likely that at least one of the teams will lose than all 3 will win.

Only time will tell.

Actually, looking back at this. You are correct that the chance of all 3 winning is .41. But that doesn't mean it is more likely that at least one of them will lose, because ties are also possible. Massey provides both teams' chances of winning, and using those figures, we can easily calculate the chances of a tie as well. Here's what Massey says are Conn's, Amherst's and Bowdoin's chances of winning, tying and losing.

Conn - 84%, 9%, 7%
Amherst - 72%, 13%, 15%
Bowdoin - 68%, 13%, 19%

So, if the likelihood of those teams getting a win or a tie is 93%, 85%, and 81%, respectively, the likelihood of all 3 getting a win or a tie is the product of those 3 or 64%, which means that the chances of at least one of the three losing is only 36%. So, while it is more likely that one of the 3 will lose or tie (59%) than it is that all 3 will win (41%), it is more likely that all 3 will win (41%) than that one of them will lose (36%).

And as we now know, and as was predicted accurately from the elegant amount of analysis and collaboration...all 3 in fact did win!!!

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 27, 2014, 09:32:20 AM

Quote from: jc2 on October 27, 2014, 07:54:47 AM
Entering the last few days of NESCAC play, only Wesleyan is out of the playoffs. Looks like there is a good chance of a 3 way tie for second thru fourth place and the tie break rules will get put to good use. If Amherst, Conn and Bowdoin do indeed win their last game, how will they line up?

It would seem that if Amherst, Conn and Bowdoin win their last games and finish with the same point total, and assuming Williams wins v. Hamilton, the seeding order should go as follows by virtue of the tie-breaker rule (i.e., both Conn and Bowdoin beat Amherst and Bowdoin beat Conn during the regular season):

- #1 Williams
- #2 Bowdoin
- #3 Conn
- #4 Amherst

Can anyone validate?

Looks like this is going to be the final finish order.

As Hannibal would say, I love it when a plan comes together!  ;)

My goodness, NESCAC folks citing John Hannibal Smith. What's next Rocky and Bullwinkle.  I hope so.

Very nice play by Trinity tonight as they fought brilliantly to beat Amherst by a score of 1-0 in double OT. While Amherst seemed to have the better of the play in regulation, Trinity essentially dominated Amherst in that last OT period with some pretty good defense and great pace.

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 28, 2014, 05:35:29 PM

Quote from: Becks on October 28, 2014, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 07:29:35 AM
I suspect most people are predicting that Conn, Amherst and Bowdoin will all win their last games and end up in a 3-way tie for second place. Massey lists the chances of winning as: Amherst 72%, Conn 84% and Bowdoin 68%. The chance of all 3 winning is then .72 x .84 x .68 = .41.

Surprisingly, if the Massey odds are accurate, it's more likely that at least one of the teams will lose than all 3 will win.

Only time will tell.

Actually, looking back at this. You are correct that the chance of all 3 winning is .41. But that doesn't mean it is more likely that at least one of them will lose, because ties are also possible. Massey provides both teams' chances of winning, and using those figures, we can easily calculate the chances of a tie as well. Here's what Massey says are Conn's, Amherst's and Bowdoin's chances of winning, tying and losing.

Conn - 84%, 9%, 7%
Amherst - 72%, 13%, 15%
Bowdoin - 68%, 13%, 19%

So, if the likelihood of those teams getting a win or a tie is 93%, 85%, and 81%, respectively, the likelihood of all 3 getting a win or a tie is the product of those 3 or 64%, which means that the chances of at least one of the three losing is only 36%. So, while it is more likely that one of the 3 will lose or tie (59%) than it is that all 3 will win (41%), it is more likely that all 3 will win (41%) than that one of them will lose (36%).

Actually, only two of the three won.

And as we now know, and as was predicted accurately from the elegant amount of analysis and collaboration...all 3 in fact did win!!!

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 04:54:15 PM

Quote from: Becks on October 28, 2014, 02:54:36 PM
If Wes fails to beat Conn today, it will be the first time they have gone winless in NESCAC since 2003.

Winless NESCAC teams to date (reverse chronological order):
2009 Conn 0-9-0
2008 Conn 0-8-1
2007 Colby 0-7-2
2006 Conn 0-8-1
2006 Trinity 0-8-1
2003 Wesleyan 0-9-0
2002 Wesleyan 0-8-1
2000 Wesleyan 0-8-1

Add Wes to the list.  :'(

Again

I've been sifting through the ashes of the Wesleyan season to figure out what happened. Wes finished 7th in the league last year, but 11th this year.

Wes allowed only 9 goals last year (4th best  in the league), but allowed 21 this year (worst in the league). That's the most allowed by a Wes team since 2004 (when they went 1-8-0). Shots allowed were very similar. 2013 - 186, 2014 - 189. However, opponents' SOG% went up from .398 to .460 and saves percentage went down from a very high .895 to a mediocre .774. Since the starting keeper was the same as last year and was still regarded as perhaps the best player on the team, the stats suggest that the large increase in GA was the result of the team defense in front of the keeper allowing opponents significantly more high quality scoring opportunities than in 2013. Wes only graduated 2 starters from last year, but both were on defense and one (Kerry Doyle) was Wes's only all-NESCAC player and very fast. Wes also suffered injuries to several key defenders and defensive midfielders this year.

With the dramatic decline in the defense, Wes would have needed a substantial increase in goal scoring this year (say, up to the 13 goals it got in 2010 and 2011) in order to maintain the same record. Instead, the offense stayed steady at 7 goals. That offensive production was enough for Wes to make the NESCAC tournament last year when its defense was top 4 in the league, but was not enough to get results this year when the defense was substantially weaker.

One more NESCAC regular season game today that will decide the last playoff spot. Looks like Hamilton and Wes are out.

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 09:18:27 PM

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 28, 2014, 05:35:29 PM

Quote from: Becks on October 28, 2014, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 28, 2014, 07:29:35 AM
I suspect most people are predicting that Conn, Amherst and Bowdoin will all win their last games and end up in a 3-way tie for second place. Massey lists the chances of winning as: Amherst 72%, Conn 84% and Bowdoin 68%. The chance of all 3 winning is then .72 x .84 x .68 = .41.

Surprisingly, if the Massey odds are accurate, it's more likely that at least one of the teams will lose than all 3 will win.

Only time will tell.

Actually, looking back at this. You are correct that the chance of all 3 winning is .41. But that doesn't mean it is more likely that at least one of them will lose, because ties are also possible. Massey provides both teams' chances of winning, and using those figures, we can easily calculate the chances of a tie as well. Here's what Massey says are Conn's, Amherst's and Bowdoin's chances of winning, tying and losing.

Conn - 84%, 9%, 7%
Amherst - 72%, 13%, 15%
Bowdoin - 68%, 13%, 19%

So, if the likelihood of those teams getting a win or a tie is 93%, 85%, and 81%, respectively, the likelihood of all 3 getting a win or a tie is the product of those 3 or 64%, which means that the chances of at least one of the three losing is only 36%. So, while it is more likely that one of the 3 will lose or tie (59%) than it is that all 3 will win (41%), it is more likely that all 3 will win (41%) than that one of them will lose (36%).

Actually, only two of the three won.

And as we now know, and as was predicted accurately from the elegant amount of analysis and collaboration...all 3 in fact did win!!!

Not sure what game I was watching...thanks for the correction!

Quote from: jc2 on October 29, 2014, 10:35:12 AM
One more NESCAC regular season game today that will decide the last playoff spot. Looks like Hamilton and Wes are out.

Agree. The way I think the NESCAC Quarters line-up:

- Williams v. winner of Bates/Colby
- Bowdoin v. Tufts
- Conn v. Trinity
- Amherst v. Midd

Quote from: Ocean 1 on October 29, 2014, 11:19:25 AM

Quote from: jc2 on October 29, 2014, 10:35:12 AM
One more NESCAC regular season game today that will decide the last playoff spot. Looks like Hamilton and Wes are out.

Agree. The way I think the NESCAC Quarters line-up:

- Williams v. winner of Bates/Colby
- Bowdoin v. Tufts
- Conn v. Trinity
- Amherst v. Midd

It's amazing how many times it comes down to Bates v Colby for the 8th seed. This year, 2013, 2011, 2008, . . . I guess it's because for most of the last 10 years they usually have both been near the bottom of the table and they always play each other in the last game of the season.

i watched the last bit of the Amherst game last night. It looked like they were playing on a turf field. Is this something new at Amherst. In prior years their games were played on grass. This would make Amherst the only women's NESCAC team to play on turf.

The latest NCAA Regional rankings are out. Four NESCAC teams in the top 6.

Quote from: jc2 on October 29, 2014, 02:09:43 PM
i watched the last bit of the Amherst game last night. It looked like they were playing on a turf field. Is this something new at Amherst. In prior years their games were played on grass. This would make Amherst the only women's NESCAC team to play on turf.

I attended an Amherst game this year...field is still grass. Looks I guess, remain deceiving!  ;)

Quote from: jc2 on October 29, 2014, 02:12:16 PM
The latest NCAA Regional rankings are out. Four NESCAC teams in the top 6.

Yes...a couple of observations:

1) Rankings changed for NESCAC v. 10/22
    - Williams remains #1
    - Amherst went from #2 to #4
    - Conn went from #4 to #2
    - Bowdoin went from #5 to #6

2) Imagine at stake are NCAA at-large berths, seedings and 1st round matches

3) Perhaps another shake-up in rankings next week when yesterday's games are added-in

Quote from: amh63 on October 08, 2014, 09:07:16 PM
Amherst gets beat in the second half by ECSU....2-1.  Could say it was cold and under the lights...on turf....etc.  Plain and simple the Warriors came out strong in the second half and dominated the Lady Jeffs.  The Warriors go over 500 for the season.  The announcers stated that Amherst dominated the first half.  Halftime lead was 1-0, Amherst.  In the 2nd half with less than 20 minutes to go and the lead holding, Amherst quite mentally and physically.  The goal that tied the game with 15 minutes left was a mistake by Gibson of Amherst and Burwick, the GK that fell down coming out for the ball.  The game winner was off a corner kick and a fine header that saw Amherst and its GK out of position.  Fine shot by the ECSU player. 
I am disappointed..yes.  Amherst had the advantage in talented players..ECSU had the advantage in coaches....imo.

Maybe Amherst uses two different fields? It really looked like turf with a lots of lining (perhaps for lacrosse).

Quote from: jc2 on October 30, 2014, 02:17:29 PM

Quote from: amh63 on October 08, 2014, 09:07:16 PM
Amherst gets beat in the second half by ECSU....2-1.  Could say it was cold and under the lights...on turf....etc.  Plain and simple the Warriors came out strong in the second half and dominated the Lady Jeffs.  The Warriors go over 500 for the season.  The announcers stated that Amherst dominated the first half.  Halftime lead was 1-0, Amherst.  In the 2nd half with less than 20 minutes to go and the lead holding, Amherst quite mentally and physically.  The goal that tied the game with 15 minutes left was a mistake by Gibson of Amherst and Burwick, the GK that fell down coming out for the ball.  The game winner was off a corner kick and a fine header that saw Amherst and its GK out of position.  Fine shot by the ECSU player. 
I am disappointed..yes.  Amherst had the advantage in talented players..ECSU had the advantage in coaches....imo.

Maybe Amherst uses two different fields? It really looked like turf with a lots of lining (perhaps for lacrosse).

Now that you mention it, that is possible. I did not notice the different field lines on the video. Good eyes! When I attended it was their normal grass soccer field.

Looking at the First Round games this weekend, excuse me, the Quarterfinal games does anyone see any upsets in the making?  The top 4 seeds have significantly better records so you would think not, but this is the NESCAC and it seems every year that at least one non top 4 team ends up in the final 4.  If I had to pick one upset, Middlebury over Amherst?

Quote from: GUBFL on October 30, 2014, 09:27:00 PM
Looking at the First Round games this weekend, excuse me, the Quarterfinal games does anyone see any upsets in the making?  The top 4 seeds have significantly better records so you would think not, but this is the NESCAC and it seems every year that at least one non top 4 team ends up in the final 4.  If I had to pick one upset, Middlebury over Amherst?

No upsets...favorites (home teams) across the board in Quarterfinals

Quote from: GUBFL on October 30, 2014, 09:27:00 PM
Looking at the First Round games this weekend, excuse me, the Quarterfinal games does anyone see any upsets in the making?  The top 4 seeds have significantly better records so you would think not, but this is the NESCAC and it seems every year that at least one non top 4 team ends up in the final 4.  If I had to pick one upset, Middlebury over Amherst?

I concur with your assessment GUBFL. Midd gave both Amherst and Williams fits this year, losing to both by a score of 0-1.

In the Amherst contest in particular, Midd outshot Amherst 18-6 (with SOG 9-2) while losing the corner kick duel 6-2. If there is an upset in the making, it could be this game. Having said that, home field advantage is probably worth a goal for Amherst and Midd is not exactly a goal scoring machine with a 1.2 goals/game average in conference. And with Amherst's superior defense, it may be a stretch for Midd to prevail.

A change in 'tie' rules from the regular season for the NESCAC Championship per the Championship manual:

Tie-breaking Procedure

There shall be no ties. A tied game will be broken to determine a winner. Ties will be broken by playing up to two 10-minute sudden-victory periods. If the score still is tied, the game shall be recorded as a tie and the penalty-kick tie breaking procedure shall be used to determine the team that will advance (or receive the automatic bid).

Has the 8 team playoff always been the case in the NESCAC?  I know there are other conferences that use the same format but does a #8 v #1 game really make sense?  I don't think it helps prepare a team for the NCAA tournament. 

Quote from: 2xfaux on October 31, 2014, 12:22:23 PM
Has the 8 team playoff always been the case in the NESCAC?  I know there are other conferences that use the same format but does a #8 v #1 game really make sense?  I don't think it helps prepare a team for the NCAA tournament.

If you are going to have 8 teams in the playoff (which has been the case for a number of years) then #8 vs #1 makes a lot of sense as it rewards #1.  Semi's and Finals are the testing ground for the NCAA.

I agree in any playoff format the top seed should play the lowest seed.  I guess my question is, more specifically, about the idea of a regular season that eliminates only (in the NESCAC case) 3 of 11 teams.  Would it not make more sense to have an extra game in the regular season against W.S., Ithaca, Hopkins etc. as a test for the top NESCAC teams?

Quote from: 2xfaux on October 31, 2014, 12:22:23 PM
Has the 8 team playoff always been the case in the NESCAC?  I know there are other conferences that use the same format but does a #8 v #1 game really make sense?  I don't think it helps prepare a team for the NCAA tournament.

From the start of the NESCAC league in 2002 through 2007, there was a 7-team playoff, with the #1 seed getting a bye into the semis. That left 3 teams out of the tourney. In 2008, they switched to the 8-team playoff. There were still only 10 teams, so only 2 missed out, until 2011, when Hamilton joined the league, and so once again 3 miss out.

Quote from: 2xfaux on October 31, 2014, 01:41:50 PM
I agree in any playoff format the top seed should play the lowest seed.  I guess my question is, more specifically, about the idea of a regular season that eliminates only (in the NESCAC case) 3 of 11 teams.  Would it not make more sense to have an extra game in the regular season against W.S., Ithaca, Hopkins etc. as a test for the top NESCAC teams?

The 8 spots in the NESCAC playoffs gives the rest of the League hope of a potential tourney berth if they can make the playoffs and somehow upset 3 teams in a row....not likely but it does give the bottom 5 or 6 teams something to shoot for....IMHO it is better than just adding an extra regular season game when you know you don't have any chance at a NCA berth if there were no League playoffs....it's a very low percentage for the #8 or #7 seed to advance, but it does give hope to the bottom of the League and makes the entire regular season have some importance for the bottom tier.

Let's assume that each of the top 4 seeds has an 85% of advancing into the next round. The chance that all 4 advance is ~52%.  ;)

Quote from: jc2 on October 29, 2014, 10:35:12 AM
One more NESCAC regular season game today that will decide the last playoff spot. Looks like Hamilton and Wes are out.

There's an old adage that when a team wins it's because the players played well. When a team loses, it's because they were poorly coached.

What role did coaching play in the Wes season? Did the team improve as the season went on?

Quote from: jc2 on October 31, 2014, 04:47:55 PM

Quote from: jc2 on October 29, 2014, 10:35:12 AM
One more NESCAC regular season game today that will decide the last playoff spot. Looks like Hamilton and Wes are out.

There's an old adage that when a team wins it's because the players played well. When a team loses, it's because they were poorly coached.

What role did coaching play in the Wes season? Did the team improve as the season went on?

Not sure the Wes team got either significantly better or worse relative to other teams as the season went on. If the defense was more porous toward the end of the season, it is easy to blame that on injuries. Only real obvious coaching mistake I can point to is that my daughter should have gotten WAY more playing time. . . . ;)

Nice thing is that team spirit stayed very good right through the end of the season. Very nice bunch of girls.

Comments on NESCAC quarterfinals:

Williams 1-0 Colby - Based on stats, game was not as close as the score. Williams outshot Colby 20-3 and out SOGd them 9-2.

Middlebury 1-0 Amherst - Weird stats. Amherst outshot Midd 16-5, but only 1 of Amherst's 16 shots was on goal and Midd out SOGd them 3-1. Amherst out CKd Midd by 7-1 but Midd scored on their one and only CK.

Conn 3-0 Trinity - Stats indicate that the game was somewhat closer than the score. Conn outshot Trinity by 18-6 and out SOGd them 8-4.

Bowdoin 4-0 Tufts - Again, stats indicate the the game was close than the score. Bowdoin outshot Tufts 19-10 and out SOGd them 12-5.

Actually, the score indicates how close the game was. :)

Went to the Bowdoin/Tufts game, weather was miserable!!! On a very wet surface, almost anything can happen, but after about the first 10/15 minutes, it was clear who the better team was. Felt bad for Tufts who had a hard time getting over mid field in the second half.

Now on to the semis. On paper, Williams over Middlebury and Bowdoin over Conn and Williams over Bowoin in the final. After watching the earlier Bowdoin/Conn, Bowdoin was the stronger team, but Conn is vastly improved over prior years so who knows.

The last 10 days have been rough for Amherst. They have now lost 3 straight games, two of them to unranked teams. Could this unlucky stretch have cost them an NCAA bid or is their resume still good enough to get an invite?

Quote from: GUBFL on November 02, 2014, 09:47:53 AM
Went to the Bowdoin/Tufts game, weather was miserable!!! On a very wet surface, almost anything can happen, but after about the first 10/15 minutes, it was clear who the better team was. Felt bad for Tufts who had a hard time getting over mid field in the second half.

Now on to the semis. On paper, Williams over Middlebury and Bowdoin over Conn and Williams over Bowoin in the final. After watching the earlier Bowdoin/Conn, Bowdoin was the stronger team, but Conn is vastly improved over prior years so who knows.

Massey gives the following win probabilities for the semis:

Midd v Williams: 16% / 71%
Bowdoin v Conn: 40% / 45%

If you assume that each team as an equal chance of winning if a game ends in a tie and goes to PKs, the probability of advancing to the finals are:
Williams  77.5% / Midd 22.5%
Bowdoin 47.5% / Conn 52.5%


Looking at it slightly differently, the chances of seeing a particular finals matchup:
Williams v Bowdoin  36.8%
Williams v Conn       40.7%
Midd v Bowdoin       10.7%
Conn v Midd            11.8%

Quote from: jc2 on November 04, 2014, 08:01:12 AM

Quote from: GUBFL on November 02, 2014, 09:47:53 AM
Went to the Bowdoin/Tufts game, weather was miserable!!! On a very wet surface, almost anything can happen, but after about the first 10/15 minutes, it was clear who the better team was. Felt bad for Tufts who had a hard time getting over mid field in the second half.

Now on to the semis. On paper, Williams over Middlebury and Bowdoin over Conn and Williams over Bowoin in the final. After watching the earlier Bowdoin/Conn, Bowdoin was the stronger team, but Conn is vastly improved over prior years so who knows.

Massey gives the following win probabilities for the semis:

Midd v Williams: 16% / 71%
Bowdoin v Conn: 40% / 45%

If you assume that each team as an equal chance of winning if a game ends in a tie and goes to PKs, the probability of advancing to the finals are:
Williams  77.5% / Midd 22.5%
Bowdoin 47.5% / Conn 52.5%


Looking at it slightly differently, the chances of seeing a particular finals matchup:
Williams v Bowdoin  36.8%
Williams v Conn       40.7%
Midd v Bowdoin       10.7%
Conn v Midd            11.8%

Great Statistics....I'll go with the 40.7%  Williams vs Conn.

Interesting developments on the final NCAA Regional Rankings vs. last weeks rankings (10/29) that will play a key role for those teams jockeying for at-large bids next week:

- Williams maintains its #1 ranking with a record of 15-1-0

- Conn drops from #2 to #5 position despite improving their record from 12-2-0 to 14-2-0

- They are replaced by MIT who rise from #5 to #2 ranking by improving from 12-3-2 to 14-3-2

- Brandeis hangs-in at #3 with a mixed record going from 11-3-1 to 12-4-1 week over week

- Bowdoin improves from #6 to #4 on the strength of winning two more games to come in at 12-3-0

- Amhesrt drops from #4 to #7 with their record dropping from 11-3-0 to 11-5-0

I don't understand the Conn and MIT position exchange, particularly given Conn's superior Strength of Schedule (per Massey) where Conn is ranked #17 and MIT #44.

Any thoughts?

Quote from: Ocean 1 on November 06, 2014, 05:17:41 PM
Interesting developments on the final NCAA Regional Rankings vs. last weeks rankings (10/29) that will play a key role for those teams jockeying for at-large bids next week:

- Williams maintains its #1 ranking with a record of 15-1-0

- Conn drops from #2 to #5 position despite improving their record from 12-2-0 to 14-2-0

- They are replaced by MIT who rise from #5 to #2 ranking by improving from 12-3-2 to 14-3-2

- Brandeis hangs-in at #3 with a mixed record going from 11-3-1 to 12-4-1 week over week

- Bowdoin improves from #6 to #4 on the strength of winning two more games to come in at 12-3-0

- Amhesrt drops from #4 to #7 with their record dropping from 11-3-0 to 11-5-0

I don't understand the Conn and MIT position exchange, particularly given Conn's superior Strength of Schedule (per Massey) where Conn is ranked #17 and MIT #44.

Any thoughts?

Ocean1...I am as puzzled as you on Conn's drop (literally jaw dropping)...can't understand it.  Although have done is to continue winning.

How about those Lady Camels! This is a young and improving Conn team and they went out to Billsville and beat the only 2 teams they lost to this year....it wasn't pretty but they got it done.  Sure makes this weeks regional rankings look pretty silly (which they were). How about the reserve centerback coming off the bench donning the keeper Jersey and making 3 PK saves....great coaching move. Conn and Williams are both good teams....go NESCAC in the NCAAs!

just saw the D3 NCAA selections and placement...all I can say is WOW did Conn get hosed.  At 15-2-1 (PK win over Williams is considered a tie) not only they don't get to host a playoff game, but they also have to travel to NJ and likely meet 16-1-2 Montclaire State on their home field in game #2 if they advance.   Yet somehow MIT at 14-4-2 gets to stay home and host, and to boot Bowdoin (who they just beat on a neutral field) gets to stay in New England.  Unbelievable.  They were ranked 2nd in the Region two weeks ago and all they did was win their last 4 games and they get dropped down to #5 when they beat two teams ranked above them (and Williams on their home field).  Utterly head scratching given their season and who they have beaten.

First, congrats to Conn.  A really good season and an outstanding coaching job.  I saw them in person Saturday and watched on video Sunday.  They had a game plan and stuck with it.

While others might be willing to dig into this in more depth, I suspect that the strength of schedule outside of conference might have hurt them.  I read your comments and took a look at the out of conference games.  Albertus Magnus, Johnson & Wales, St. Joseph (ct), Coast Guard, and Eastern Ct., is probably not strong enough.  They will need to schedule some stronger teams if they want to host.  I'm sure that this will be part of Coach Riker's plan in the future and that he knows it well.

Quote from: onetouch on November 10, 2014, 02:14:00 PM
First, congrats to Conn.  A really good season and an outstanding coaching job.  I saw them in person Saturday and watched on video Sunday.  They had a game plan and stuck with it.

While others might be willing to dig into this in more depth, I suspect that the strength of schedule outside of conference might have hurt them.  I read your comments and took a look at the out of conference games.  Albertus Magnus, Johnson & Wales, St. Joseph (ct), Coast Guard, and Eastern Ct., is probably not strong enough.  They will need to schedule some stronger teams if they want to host.  I'm sure that this will be part of Coach Riker's plan in the future and that he knows it well.

One touch you are probably correct, but MIT's cupcake list of Mt Holyoke, Clark, Wellsley, Smith, Salem St and Emerson can't be ignored, nor can their 4-0 lost to Tufts....but it is what it is.  Being the new kid on the block Conn won't get any jump balls from the committee....hopefully that will change in the coming years.

Quote from: All NESCAC on November 10, 2014, 01:42:46 PM
just saw the D3 NCAA selections and placement...all I can say is WOW did Conn get hosed.  At 15-2-1 (PK win over Williams is considered a tie) not only they don't get to host a playoff game, but they also have to travel to NJ and likely meet 16-1-2 Montclaire State on their home field in game #2 if they advance.   Yet somehow MIT at 14-4-2 gets to stay home and host, and to boot Bowdoin (who they just beat on a neutral field) gets to stay in New England.  Unbelievable.  They were ranked 2nd in the Region two weeks ago and all they did was win their last 4 games and they get dropped down to #5 when they beat two teams ranked above them (and Williams on their home field).  Utterly head scratching given their season and who they have beaten.

A couple of observations:

If a game ends in a tie after 2 OT's, the game ends in a tie. PK's are used in championship formats where the winning team advances in the championship but a tie in regular time is still recorded as a tie for team record purposes.

From the intel gleaned out there, apparently conference championships are not weighted very heavily in the NCAA tournament seedings. The logic seems to be that 1 or 2 games only represent ~10% of the schedule at the high end and teams are not penalized much if at all for the results. The real prize (like for Conn) was the conference championship, the automatic qualifier status...and I'd think some personal vindication over Williams and Bowdoin.

What really matters for the NCAA seedings appears to be the series of 3 NCAA Regional rankings over the last 3 weeks of the regular season which I believe incorporate win-loss record and strength of schedule. In this case, the final New England ranking had Williams, MIT, Brandeis, Bowdoin and Conn appearing in that order as #'s 1-5.

As a result, the top 2 New England seeds...Williams and MIT are hosting, Brandeis travels to PA, Bowdoin travels to MA and Conn travels to NJ.

Hats off to Conn for a terrific NESCAC season...let's see if the momentum can continue on the national stage. BTW, I think Conn gets by Swarthmore to meet Montclair State in the 2nd Round.

Story of the year has to be Conn. Greatest Cinderella in NESCAC history.

Last year they didn't even qualify for the NESCAC tourney and this year they won it. That has never happened before. Here's where NESCAC tourney champs had ended in the standings the prior year.

Year of championship, team, finish prior year
2014 - Conn - 8
2013 - Middlebury - 1
2012 - Williams - 2
2011 - Amherst - 2
2010 - Williams - 1
2009 - Williams - 1
2008 - Williams - 1
2007 - Williams - 4
2006 - Middlebury - 6
2005 - Bates - 4
2004 - Williams - 3
2003 - Amherst - 4
2002 - Tufts - 6
2001 - Amherst - 4
2000 - Middlebury - NA

Conn joins Bates and Tufts as the only teams to win the tourney besides Williams(6), Amherst(3) and Middlebury(3).

Quote from: Becks on November 11, 2014, 08:29:12 PM
Story of the year has to be Conn. Greatest Cinderella in NESCAC history.

Last year they didn't even qualify for the NESCAC tourney and this year they won it. That has never happened before. Here's where NESCAC tourney champs had ended in the standings the prior year.

Year of championship, team, finish prior year
2014 - Conn - 8
2013 - Middlebury - 1
2012 - Williams - 2
2011 - Amherst - 2
2010 - Williams - 1
2009 - Williams - 1
2008 - Williams - 1
2007 - Williams - 4
2006 - Middlebury - 6
2005 - Bates - 4
2004 - Williams - 3
2003 - Amherst - 4
2002 - Tufts - 6
2001 - Amherst - 4
2000 - Middlebury - NA

Conn joins Bates and Tufts as the only teams to win the tourney besides Williams(6), Amherst(3) and Middlebury(3).

Becks...thank you for the research and stats, not just above but for the entire season.  Good luck to  all the remaining NESCAC teams heading into the NCAA's....hopefully 1 or 2 will make a deep run.

Amherst wins its first round game today 2-0.

Congrats to the Ephs on making a second-straight Sweet 16.   Since they are the highest-ranked remaining team in their quarter (and I think the most geographically-central), fingers crossed they get to host -- Nice story here on Kristi Kirshe, who is absolutely in the zone right now, scoring seven of the Ephs' nine goals over their last four games. 

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20141116/SPORTS/141117113/11524/SPORTS

Quote from: nescac1 on November 17, 2014, 06:34:41 AM
Congrats to the Ephs on making a second-straight Sweet 16.   Since they are the highest-ranked remaining team in their quarter (and I think the most geographically-central), fingers crossed they get to host -- Nice story here on Kristi Kirshe, who is absolutely in the zone right now, scoring seven of the Ephs' nine goals over their last four games. 

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20141116/SPORTS/141117113/11524/SPORTS

Williams will indeed be hosting next weekend. Thanks for sharing the Kirshe story...terrific competitor!

Go Lady EPHS!  Playing in Billsville is plus for the purple.

Quote from: All NESCAC on November 18, 2014, 02:22:12 PM
Go Lady EPHS!  Playing in Billsville is plus for the purple.

No doubt...with a record of 22-0-1 when on Cole Field over the past 2 years, the Ephs do not lose!  ;)

Unbelievable game, unbelievable finish in Williamstown.  RWU definitely the best team Williams has played this season.  The game was dead even in all respects until about the last ten minutes -- possession, shots, scores, opportunities.  Roger Williams was right there toe-to-toe with the Ephs, and the teams looked very even; RWU impressively didn't get down after giving up two quick goals, and gamely battled back.  The difference was that the Ephs had a little more depth, which allowed them to be fresher towards the end, and finally, in the last 10 minutes, the Ephs started to consistently get the better of play.  The Ephs after several good opportunities finally broke through with a truly spectacular team goal with under a minute left -- RWU attacking, Magruder, playing in the back, knocks just an incredible volley over half the field right to Kirshe, who then controlled the ball and made a gorgeously timed pass to a running Thomas, who finished the play beautifully in the back corner of the goal with about 40 seconds remaining.

I can't imagine  you will ever see three better offensive players in D3 on the field at the same time as Mariah Kaiser (who scored one RWU goal, set up the other, and constantly menaced the Eph defense with her ability to use her speed to blow past players, yet stop on a dime and maintain control of the ball ... she is definitely the most dynamic offensive player the Ephs have faced this season and should be an all-American), Kirshe, and Thomas.  Thomas and Kirshe continued to be the dynamic duo for the Ephs, with Kirshe matching Kaiser's danger up front with a very different but equally effective style, and Thomas, as always, using her quickness and aggressiveness to be an opportunistic finisher and creator.  Kirshe's incredible NCAA tourney run continues, now with six goals and a crucial assist through three games.  Thomas is right there with her, with three goals and three assists.  Go Ephs and good luck tomorrow! 

There is no doubt, by the way, that if they stay healthy Kirshe and Thomas will be Williams' all time leaders in points and goals ... the only question is who will finish on top, and in which category. 

Kirshe somehow was not credited with an assist on the game-winner, I see, which is crazy.  Nonetheless, a tremendous play by all three Ephs involved. 

Perils of watching on a small fuzzy feed ... I guess Thomas hit the ball off a RWU player, it then deflected off Thomas again into the goal.  Didn't see that at all, thought it was clean.  Hence no assist.  Still a great all around play and given the many strong Eph attacks in the second half, including a Kirshe header off the post, a deserved win!

Congrats to the Ephs, on to the Final Four!  Who else but the dynamic duo up front sealed the deal with a Kirshe pass to Thomas for an easy breakaway one-on-one finish.  Unlike yesterday's wide open game where the Ephs defense looked a bit shaky, TCNJ had VERY few opportunities of any kind, and the Ephs dominated most of the run of play until very late in the second half.  TCNJ only put three shots on goal, and almost all of their attempts were long-distance prayers.  TCNJ didn't have any single unusually dangerous attacking player, and the Ephs' defense was really stout.  Williams had a lot of good opportunities in the second half and could easily have added a second goal.  Great win for the Ephs, and hopefully they continue their run of fine play in the Final Four!  Johns Hopkins is up a goal late so it looks like the Ephs will have a chance for some payback against the squad that broke their hearts last year. Should be a great match-up. 

Back-to-back final four appearances by NESCAC in both men's and women's brackets. People need to stop claiming that NESCAC is not one of the best conferences in D3 soccer. It. Just. Is.

Quote from: Jump4Joy on November 23, 2014, 03:23:41 PM
Back-to-back final four appearances by NESCAC in both men's and women's brackets. People need to stop claiming that NESCAC is not one of the best conferences in D3 soccer. It. Just. Is.

Agreed. Congratulations Lady EPHS and Tufts men both onto Final 4.  Go NESCAC.

Anyone have any thoughts on the Williams-JHU match-up?  JHU played a really tough non-conference schedule including Messiah and Lynchburg, so they are certainly battle-tested.  They also bring back all-American striker Kronick who scored the last-second game winner vs. the Ephs last year.  Hopefully Williams will have a plan to mark her tightly as elite strikers have caused some problems at times for the Eph backline this season.  On the plus side, Williams is clearly a much better team than the one who lost to Hopkins last year, especially offensively, as the Kirshe-Thomas duo were still learning at this point last year.  No one has been able to stop them so far this post season, and my hope is that two superstars up front is greater than one come Friday! 

Quote from: nescac1 on December 01, 2014, 03:48:29 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on the Williams-JHU match-up?  JHU played a really tough non-conference schedule including Messiah and Lynchburg, so they are certainly battle-tested.  They also bring back all-American striker Kronick who scored the last-second game winner vs. the Ephs last year.  Hopefully Williams will have a plan to mark her tightly as elite strikers have caused some problems at times for the Eph backline this season.  On the plus side, Williams is clearly a much better team than the one who lost to Hopkins last year, especially offensively, as the Kirshe-Thomas duo were still learning at this point last year.  No one has been able to stop them so far this post season, and my hope is that two superstars up front is greater than one come Friday!

Well...if we believe the Massey Ratings, Williams has a win pobability of 53% v. 32% for JHU in a match-up. Williams defense/offense is rated #1 / #5 v. #15 / #7 respectively for JHU.

Goals/game and shot percentage are pretty even (Williams at 2.64/.124 and JHU at 2.65/.144) while both have outstanding scorers in Kirshe/Thomas (Williams) and Kroniker/Teng (JHU). GAA average is 0.44 (Williams) v. 0.64 (JHU).

I think in this game both teams can score. But with the #1 top-rated defense, a strength-of-schedule rating of #1 as a differentiator and the motivation to reverse last year's JHU result...I'll go with the old motto that 'defense wins championships' and align with the smart money and take Williams in a victory.

First of the All-American Team announcements involving NESCAC players are out from Bennett Ranking

The BennettRank XI All-American Team includes William's Lilly Wellenbach, Kristi Kirshe and Audrey Thomas. Congratulations to all and good luck in the Tournament!

NSCAA All-New England Awards are out:

- 4 Teams selected:

  - 1st Team: Wellenbach, Mitsuyama, Kirshe (Williams); McCarthy (Bowdoin); Kempainen (Conn)
  - 2nd Team: Thomas (Williams); Burwick (Amherst); Higgins (Conn); Hofstetter (Bowdoin)
  - 3rd Team: Stier (Amherst); Smith (Bowdoin)
  - 4th Team: Greer (Tufts); Kligler, Robinson (Midd)

Coach of Year: Riker (Conn)

Congratulations to everyone!

I guess Williams can only get so many on the first team, but Thomas is a first team all-New England player for sure. 

A more glaring omission: Maya Jackson-Gibson from Amherst.  How is she not on any of those four teams?  And odd that Stier is third team when Jackson-Gibson is not represented at all (by way of comparison, Jackson-Gibson was first team all-NESCAC, Stier second-team). 

Good luck to the Ephs today!!

Quote from: nescac1 on December 05, 2014, 08:07:07 AM
I guess Williams can only get so many on the first team, but Thomas is a first team all-New England player for sure. 

A more glaring omission: Maya Jackson-Gibson from Amherst.  How is she not on any of those four teams?  And odd that Stier is third team when Jackson-Gibson is not represented at all (by way of comparison, Jackson-Gibson was first team all-NESCAC, Stier second-team). 

Good luck to the Ephs today!!

Agree with a deserving Thomas belonging on the 1st team All-New England squad...all she did was score 16 goals and break the school record right behind Kirshe in one of the top leagues in the country.

Would also appear that there is an attempt to be inclusive in these selections. Here's how total selections by conference break down:

- NESCAC:     14 players
- NEWMAC:    10
- CCC:             9
- LEC:              4
- UAA:              3
- GNAC:            3
- MASCAC:        2
- NECC:            2
- NAC:              1
- Total:           48

So NESCAC, NEWMAC and CCC end-up with 69% of the picks. One could clearly argue about the distribution from a NESCAC point-of-view, but then again, would imagine fairness is in play here as well.

GO EPHS!

Four (4) NESCAC players have been selected to the NSCAA All-American Team:

- 1st Team: Wellenbach (Williams) and Kempainen (Conn)
- 2nd Team: Kirshe (Williams) and McCarthy (Bowdoin)

Gongratulations to all!!!

Congraulations to the Lady Ephs last evening...knocking-off JHU in dramatic fashion and advancing to the title game today. The stats weren't pretty but the defensive performance and result was!

Best of luck in bringing home the first Women's Soccer National Championship to both Williams and to New England later today!!

Good luck LADY EPHS. GO NESCAC!

Yes: Go NESCAC!
Saw only the second half last night, when JH had the run of play for the most part, but Williams held on while asserting just enough attack to occupy some precious minutes. Ephs were under fire (how many CKs in that second half?!) but never looked flustered.

Quote from: Jump4Joy on December 06, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
Yes: Go NESCAC!
Saw only the second half last night, when JH had the run of play for the most part, but Williams held on while asserting just enough attack to occupy some precious minutes. Ephs were under fire (how many CKs in that second half?!) but never looked flustered.

Agree. And don't forget, Williams appeared to be subbing liberally throughout the game, particularly in the second-half. When their first-team is on the pitch, they can attack quickly and relentlessly and suspect they will do so tonight...no need to save any gas in the tank for another game.

Heartbreaking end to the season, especially to lose on the ever-cruelly-random PKs, but what an incredible year by Williams, and they played a juggernaut, veteran Lynchburg squad toe-to-toe wire to wire.  Congrats to the Ephs on completing the best season in their history, and they should remain strong next season.  The Ephs will miss a wonderful group of seniors, led by first-team all-American Wellenbach (who came back from a bad knee injury suffered two years ago) and underrated goalie Hannah Van Wetter, who came up huge in her last three games, not surrendering a single goald in any of those contests despite some good chances. 

Although there are big losses at defense and goalie to overcome, some talented players are waiting in the wing.  And with Kirshe, Thomas, Lewin, Mitsuyama, Swarr, Wardlaw, Kaeser, and Sim all back (and all but two of them back for two more seasons), the offense could be even more dynamic. Added to that group will be Natasha Albaneze, who posted four goals and four assists through nine games before a season-ending injury.  Williams will be incredibly deep in talent in both attacking midfielders and strikers; the only questions will be how quickly two new starting defenders and a new starting goalie can acclimate. 

Congrats to the Ephs on a spectacular Final Four effort.  Always tough when a team has to lose in PKs.  But at least Lynchburg was deserving and they were clearly the best team Williams faced all season. 

Quote from: nescac1 on December 07, 2014, 09:59:23 AM
Heartbreaking end to the season, especially to lose on the ever-cruelly-random PKs, but what an incredible year by Williams, and they played a juggernaut, veteran Lynchburg squad toe-to-toe wire to wire.  Congrats to the Ephs on completing the best season in their history, and they should remain strong next season.  The Ephs will miss a wonderful group of seniors, led by first-team all-American Wellenbach (who came back from a bad knee injury suffered two years ago) and underrated goalie Hannah Van Wetter, who came up huge in her last three games, not surrendering a single goald in any of those contests despite some good chances. 

Although there are big losses at defense and goalie to overcome, some talented players are waiting in the wing.  And with Kirshe, Thomas, Lewin, Mitsuyama, Swarr, Wardlaw, Kaeser, and Sim all back (and all but two of them back for two more seasons), the offense could be even more dynamic. Added to that group will be Natasha Albaneze, who posted four goals and four assists through nine games before a season-ending injury.  Williams will be incredibly deep in talent in both attacking midfielders and strikers; the only questions will be how quickly two new starting defenders and a new starting goalie can acclimate. 

Congrats to the Ephs on a spectacular Final Four effort.  Always tough when a team has to lose in PKs.  But at least Lynchburg was deserving and they were clearly the best team Williams faced all season.

Terrific assessment Nescac 1...couldn't agree more.

Defense will certainly be a priority on the recruiting front. I think Trutner could command the middle (very cool under pressure) of the Ephs defense, Palcheck will make her mark in goal (she handled the PK's in the Final and did a nice job in a very tough assignment) and Amos-Grosser is a very capable, speedy outside back, but it's not as obvious as to who else steps-up from the current team to replace the combo of Wellenbach, Costa and McGruder plus add some depth along the back-line.

Then again, who would have thought their leading scorer from 2013 (McGruder) would convert to an outside back role in 2014 and do such a fantastic job in expanding the dimension of that role.

Think the Ephs have the talent and experience...another capable incoming class will simply help reload for another run at the titles next year.

Ephs add a strong recruit from Vermont: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/sports/high-school/2015/02/05/feeney-named-gatorade-girls-soccer-player-year/22959107/

Hopefully she works out as well as the last two Eph state Gatorade players of the year (Kirshe and Thomas)!

The Ephs will be beyond loaded in the attacking midfield and striker positions next season, with basically everyone returning who was a major contributor offensively including two likely all-Americans, plus added talent in the new recruit and Albaneze returning from mid-season injury -- the Ephs will be two-deep with top-tier talent at every position up front.  Palchek should be very strong in goal, but she is the only returning goalie on the roster, so hopefully (and I'm assuming) the Ephs added or will add another strong GK in recruiting. 

As for the back, that is definitely the biggest question mark, but in addition to Amos-Grosser and Trutner, there are a few strong candidates for PT: Hannah Levin, who started eight games as sophomore, will, I believe, be back after missing the year due to injury, Suarez played a lot both in midfield and I believe some in back, and Gancedo could always move back from a holding midfield to a back role given how much midfield talent the Ephs have returning.  Incoming recruits Dawn Penso and Lauren Brown could also potentially make an impact in the back.  Between those five, I imagine they can find two or three very solid complements in the back, but obviously things will have to shake out in the pre-season. 

Anyone know other info of recruiting classes in the league?  Seems pretty tight lipped.

Quote from: MENESCACFAN on February 14, 2015, 10:29:20 AM
Anyone know other info of recruiting classes in the league?  Seems pretty tight lipped.

Word out of Conn is they have another stellar frosh class coming in to bolster a solid returning roster which is only losing 2 or 3 seniors....there will be major competition for playing time which could be good or bad....knowing Conn's coach he will turn the competition into a positive and they will be at or near the top of NESCAC again next fall....tremendous chemistry and leadership on that team.

Quote from: MENESCACFAN on February 14, 2015, 10:29:20 AM
Anyone know other info of recruiting classes in the league?  Seems pretty tight lipped.

Pre-season is starting...it's very quiet on this board....who are the Top 4 picks for NESCAC this season?