Last year the Pool C broke down by the following:
New England: 4 (Amherst, Brandeis, Coast Guard, Wheaton (MA))
South Atlantic: 3 (Emory, Rutgers-Newark, Salisbury)
East: 3 (Brockport St, Cortland St, Rochester)
Mid Atlantic: 2 (Dickinson, F&M)
Central: 2 (Dominican, North Park)
North: 1 (Loras)
Great Lakes: 1 (OWU)
West: 1 (Texas-Dallas)
Likely Candidates from Stronger Conferences with high win percentages and solid SOS.
UW-W or UW-O will be snatching up a Pool C (Winner of this match-up will get the Pool B).
NESCAC Conference Finalist + one additional (at least 2 Pool C total)
NJAC Conference Finalist + one additional (at least 2 Pool C total)
UAA Conference Runner UP + one additional (atleast 2 Pool C total) possibility of 3 Pool C
Centennial Conference Finalist + one additional (at least 2 Pool C)
SUNYAC Conference Finalist + possibly one additional (atleast 2 Pool C total)
NCAC Conference Finalist + possibly one additional (atleast 1 Pool C total)
Liberty League Conference Finalist (atleast 1 Pool C)
That leaves 4-6 spots left throughout the nation, not even factoring in any upsets.
Very little room for error at this point in the season, unless your name is Dickinson.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 15, 2015, 02:54:55 PM
New England: 5 (Amherst, Brandeis, Coast Guard, Wheaton (MA), Tufts)
South Atlantic: 3 (Emory, Rutgers-Newark, Salisbury)
East: 3 (Brockport St, Cortland St, Rochester)
Mid Atlantic: 2 (Dickinson, F&M)
Central: 2 (Dominican, North Park)
North: 1 (Loras)
Great Lakes: 1 (OWU)
West: 1 (Texas-Dallas)
There were 18 Pool C at-large berths? You listed 17. Are you forgetting about the national champion?
Yeah, just the Champion... no big deal.
With teams tallying up blemishes each passing week, this leads me to believe that it will be a year where the stronger conferences grab the Pool C's
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 15, 2015, 02:54:55 PMVery little room for error at this point in the season, unless your name is Dickinson.
Last year Dickinson had an SOS over .600 which had them up there with NESCAC and UAA schools. They also had three wins and a tie versus ranked teams, which was only bettered by five other Pool C candidates and only matched by an additional two Pool C swimmers. Sure, they struggled (understatement) in the final three weeks going winless, but that isn't a criteria/consideration for at-large selection. It's the full body of work. By this point of the season last year, they had built their room for error (which they took full advantage of down the stretch) by having a 10-2-1 record, a 3-1-0 record vs. eventual ranked teams, and an SOS that was nearing .600 with conference foes F&M and Muhlenberg and the conference playoffs ahead to push that over .600.
I do not see SUNYAC garnering 2 Pool C's...IMO both Oneonta AND Plattsburgh still have work to do
Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 15, 2015, 03:29:53 PM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 15, 2015, 02:54:55 PMVery little room for error at this point in the season, unless your name is Dickinson.
Last year Dickinson had an SOS over .600 which had them up there with NESCAC and UAA schools. They also had three wins and a tie versus ranked teams, which was only bettered by five other Pool C candidates and only matched by an additional two Pool C swimmers. Sure, they struggled (understatement) in the final three weeks going winless, but that isn't a criteria/consideration for at-large selection. It's the full body of work. By this point of the season last year, they had built their room for error (which they took full advantage of down the stretch) by having a 10-2-1 record, a 3-1-0 record vs. eventual ranked teams, and an SOS that was nearing .600 with conference foes F&M and Muhlenberg and the conference playoffs ahead to push that over .600.
But why do teams get punished for a bad start to a season but not a bad end? That makes no sense. I know it's a numbers game and we have had this discussion before, but the college basketball committee DOES factor in how teams are playing in the last couple weeks of the season because that is the team that will be playing in the NOW(present time). Does anybody disagree with that logic or am I just that insane to think that way?
I can see both sides..
It definitely is harder for teams to break into the NCAA Regional Rankings as the season progresses...
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on October 15, 2015, 03:37:17 PM
Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 15, 2015, 03:29:53 PM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 15, 2015, 02:54:55 PMVery little room for error at this point in the season, unless your name is Dickinson.
Last year Dickinson had an SOS over .600 which had them up there with NESCAC and UAA schools. They also had three wins and a tie versus ranked teams, which was only bettered by five other Pool C candidates and only matched by an additional two Pool C swimmers. Sure, they struggled (understatement) in the final three weeks going winless, but that isn't a criteria/consideration for at-large selection. It's the full body of work. By this point of the season last year, they had built their room for error (which they took full advantage of down the stretch) by having a 10-2-1 record, a 3-1-0 record vs. eventual ranked teams, and an SOS that was nearing .600 with conference foes F&M and Muhlenberg and the conference playoffs ahead to push that over .600.
But why do teams get punished for a bad start to a season but not a bad end? That makes no sense. I know it's a numbers game and we have had this discussion before, but the college basketball committee DOES factor in how teams are playing in the last couple weeks of the season because that is the team that will be playing in the NOW(present time). Does anybody disagree with that logic or am I just that insane to think that way?
In what sense do teams get punished for a bad start? And in what sense do they not get punished for a bad finish. Come selection Sunday, all games are in. Your SOS is your SOS no matter when you played your toughest opposition. Your win pct. is your win pct. no matter when you won and lost. Your wins (and ties) versus ranked teams is what it is no matter when you picked those wins up.
Now, if you read the final paragraph in the Primary Selection Criteria section of the Manual, the selection committee may consider teams' win-loss pct. during the final 25% of the season if they deem it applicable and request and gain approval form the Championships committee. I don't know if the D-III men's soccer committee is taking advantage of this or not. I could imagine it being used more as a tie-breaker, but not an initial factor. But who knows.
And think about this. Teams from tougher conferences are going to get beat up down the stretch and pick up some blemishes while teams from softer conference have an easier home stretch. So couldn't it be unfair to teams form the tougher conferences to weigh the last 25% more? On the other hand, teams from weaker conferences need to schedule more challanging non-conference mathces to build up their SOS, but that might mean a tougher opening few weeks when they pick up most of their blemishes. What I am getting at is that schedules vary so much with regard to when the toughest matches occurr that it's not really fair to count one portion more or less than another.
Assuming Haverford keeps on winning and say loses 1 or 2 more, with their SOS would they host for RD64 / RD 32?
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 15, 2015, 04:00:18 PMIt definitely is harder for teams to break into the NCAA Regional Rankings as the season progresses...
The season is already 7 weeks old when the first NCAA rankings are issued. That is, 70% of the regular season is in the books, and progressively more with the second and third rankings. Sure it can be hard to break in, but that's because one or two weeks can't erase seven or more weeks of results. It might compensate if you win 3 consecutive games versus ranked teams, but those first seven weeks are what they are. Teams are on the hook for how they did from week 1.
I would guess Etown, F&M or Eastern would have a chance.
I think Haverford would need to finish 14-3 (win out) and lose in finals to host which would make them 15-4 heading into NCAA.
Quote from: Mr.Right on October 15, 2015, 04:59:39 PM
Assuming Haverford keeps on winning and say loses 1 or 2 more, with their SOS would they host for RD64 / RD 32?
What is the field size needed to host per NCAA Tournament regulations?
1.1 Dimensions
1.1.1 The field of play shall be rectangular, the width of which shall not exceed the length.
1.1.2 The width shall not be more than 80 yards [73.15m] nor less than 65 yards [59.44m] and the length shall not be more than 120 yards [109.73m] nor less than 110 yards [100.58m]; however, fields of less than minimal dimensions may be used by prior written mutual consent of the competing institutions. The optimum size is 75 yards [68.58m] by 120 yards [109.73m].
New facilities shall be a minimum of 70 yards [64.01m] in width by 115 yards [105.15m] in length.
It is the responsibility of the home team to notify the visiting team, before the date of the game, of any changes in field dimensions (e.g., greater or lesser than minimal requirements), playing surface (e.g., from grass to artificial or vice versa) or location of the playing site. Further, it is recommended that teams agree on field dimensions before confirming contests or signing game contracts.
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on October 18, 2015, 07:49:04 PM
What is the field size needed to host per NCAA Tournament regulations?
From Page 22 of the NCAA Manual:
Section 2•6
Site Selection criteria
The Division III Championships Committee has prioritized the fo
llowing site-selection criteria for all championships:
1. Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations;
2. Geographical location (which may include such factors as rotation of sites, weather, accessibility and
transportation costs);
3. Seeding; and
4. Attendance history and revenue potential, which shall be consid
ered necessary to assure fiscal responsibility.
In addition, the soccer committees include the following site-selection deliberations:
●hosts for all rounds of the championship must have the ability to charge admission.
●preference is given to grass/grass-like surfaces.
●
preference is given to playing surfaces 70 yards x 115 yards or larger. The minimum field size is 65 yards x
110 yards.
●hosts must be able to establish a barrier to separate the spectators from the field of play.
●The potential host must have played the majority of its home games on the field it is submitting for consideration.
A competing institution that cannot charge admission at its home facility and/or cannot establish a barrier to separate
the spectators from the field of play and/or does not have a field that meets minimum-size requirements (65 yards x 110
yards) may not serve as host
Quote from: TennesseeJed on October 18, 2015, 09:45:39 PM
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on October 18, 2015, 07:49:04 PM
What is the field size needed to host per NCAA Tournament regulations?
From Page 22 of the NCAA Manual:
Section 2•6
Site Selection criteria
The Division III Championships Committee has prioritized the fo
llowing site-selection criteria for all championships:
1. Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations;
2. Geographical location (which may include such factors as rotation of sites, weather, accessibility and
transportation costs);
3. Seeding; and
4. Attendance history and revenue potential, which shall be consid
ered necessary to assure fiscal responsibility.
In addition, the soccer committees include the following site-selection deliberations:
●hosts for all rounds of the championship must have the ability to charge admission.
●preference is given to grass/grass-like surfaces.
●preference is given to playing surfaces 70 yards x 115 yards or larger. The minimum field size is 65 yards x
110 yards.
●hosts must be able to establish a barrier to separate the spectators from the field of play.
●The potential host must have played the majority of its home games on the field it is submitting for consideration.
A competing institution that cannot charge admission at its home facility and/or cannot establish a barrier to separate
the spectators from the field of play and/or does not have a field that meets minimum-size requirements (65 yards x 110
yards) may not serve as host
Great thanks for relaying this info!
Amherst
Tufts
16 remaining
Middlebury for the AQ or a strong NESCAC school could miss out. Still projecting 2 at-large bids total.
Denison #3 Great Lakes falls to Oberlin 2-1. Probably needed at least 1 NCAC postseason win
Defending national Champion Tufts falls once again in the quarters. At 9-4-3 and a .620 SOS and 3 wins v ranked they will need to sweat it out again. They are currently ranked #3 but should fall to #6 next week. They better hope ECONN, MIT and MIDD win respective tournaments
CNU falls to Mary Washington in PKs. Had 3 chances for the win but missed all of them. They won't be dancing
Quote from: Mr.Right on October 31, 2015, 03:43:46 PM
Defending national Champion Tufts falls once again in the quarters. At 9-4-3 and a .620 SOS and 3 wins v ranked they will need to sweat it out again. They are currently ranked #3 but should fall to #6 next week. They better hope ECONN, MIT and MIDD win respective tournaments
I agree that Tufts' situation is precarious. You have to wonder if Conn and Bowdoin are playing for Tufts' bid. And of the two Bowdoin might be the team more likely to overtake the Jumbos, as they, with a win over Conn, would have an impressive RvR of 4-1-1 (unless I'm counting that wrong) with a head-to-head with Tufts of 1-0-1 (both away). Conn by beating Bowdoin only can get to a RvR of 2-3. Tufts now stands at 3-3-1. Wesleyan is a real wild card as well. I can definitely picture the Cardinals winning 2 games, and they certainly would be very confident and jacked up for a Final if they can upset Middlebury (who I thought they played evenly or outplayed in the first match).
Save a Pool C for Dickinson (if needed). Just beat F&M only real chance of the game with 59 secs left.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 31, 2015, 03:38:14 PM
Denison #3 Great Lakes falls to Oberlin 2-1. Probably needed at least 1 NCAC postseason win
Denison is done. If you can't even make your conference tourney, you shouldn't make the big dance.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 31, 2015, 02:32:58 PM
Amherst
Tufts
16 remaining
If Tufts makes the tournament they are stealing a bid from a more deserving team...
If ECSU fails to earn the AQ who would you rather see, Tufts or ECSU?
North Park is done.
Add UW-Oskosh for Pool C, 15 remaining.
Haverford, Dickinson, F&M, 13 remaining.
Stockton, 12 remaining (fairly safe whether they make NJAC final or not).
Washington U and CMU, 10 remaining
Loser of Oneonta St v Plattsburgh St, 9 remaining
Winner of Cortland St v Brockport St, 8 remaining (slight reach)
RPI misses LL playoffs but beat Stockton, Oneonta St, Skidmore tied Hobart, Union, Babson. They are in if SLU wins LL. 7 remain
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 03, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 31, 2015, 02:32:58 PM
Amherst
Tufts
16 remaining
If Tufts makes the tournament they are stealing a bid from a more deserving team...
Really, when they have one of the hardest schedules in the nation and a good rvr..... They don't play patsies....
Quote from: Brother Flounder on November 03, 2015, 11:55:17 AM
Really, when they have one of the hardest schedules in the nation and a good rvr..... They don't play patsies....
I personally agree that Tufts is worthy of a bid this year, as 9-4-3 combined with their SOS and RvR is actually pretty good given all the parity nationwide. What I think most people don't want to see is Tufts becoming like Rochester and seemingly getting the benefit of the doubt most years even with four, five losses, and nearly as many ties - that said, Rochester is pretty much cooked this year. I think if Tufts were in double figures for wins there would be a lot fewer questions, and most years nine wins and four losses might be pushing it, but I think this year it could well be one of the better resumes.
Tufts is deserving of an At-Large. Would be harsh for the committee to leave them out imo.
Quote from: Wisco21 on November 03, 2015, 12:10:06 PM
Tufts is deserving of an At-Large. Would be harsh for the committee to leave them out imo.
Who gets left out if Conn or Bowdoin or Wesleyan wins the NESCAC AQ Tournament not Middlebury?
Possibly 4 bid league then... Crazier things have happened
Quote from: Wisco21 on November 03, 2015, 12:10:06 PM
Tufts is deserving of an At-Large. Would be harsh for the committee to leave them out imo.
Never once said Tufts wasn't "deserving." I said they would be stealing a bid from a "more deserving" team. I know language can be hard sometimes.
So a team with 7 blemishes, not double digit wins, 4-3-3 (mediocre) in their last 10 games, 3-3-2 vs ranked, a very good SOS above .600, and didn't even make conference semifinals should get into the NCAA tournament? If the name "Tufts" was removed from this and you are comparing other teams yeah they would get picked over some but when you add the name back to it they sky rocket to the top. If that's the case then why even play? It's just like other people saying RPI should get a pool C bid...they didn't even make their conference playoffs!!! What makes you think they deserve to be an NCAA tournament team? They finished 7th out of 9 teams in their conference........7th.......it's not like they finished 5th and missed the top 4 on a tie breaker or if the league has 9 teams but only 4 get in unlike others who have a 4/5 play in game...still wouldn't have mattered! They finished 7th!!!!! The bias is ridiculous with some of these teams...Rochester still has a chance? Really? A 7 win team at best has a chance to make the tournament? Where do you guys come up with this stuff? I have watched UR and I thought they would start winning and make the tournament...they are a good team...but they are not NCAA worthy this year...sorry but they aren't.
Newark and Camden are other examples...each have 7 losses and people are still considering them? Seriously? Newark finished the year on a 3 game losing streak and lost games by scores of 7-1 and 6-0 this year...yeah they would be a great team to invite to the dance....Camden is 4-6-0 in their last 10 games...that's great form...ya know losing more games than winning...but we should consider them for the tournament though.
Get a grip on reality and look at the teams who deserve to be in the field this year based on their body of work...not getting in because they were the national runner-up 2 years ago.
Overall I do believe Tufts gets in...and I think you will see 3 teams get snubbed that probably deserve it more than Tufts...doesn't mean Tufts isn't deserving and doesn't mean they can't make a run at back to back titles, but it also doesn't mean that they deserved to get in over other more deserving teams. We will know more after the conference playoffs wrap up. A lot will hinder on those outcomes.
Back to back titles is also a pipe dream for this Tufts team. Sweet 16 would be a solid goal for now if they were to get in and I would expect them to most likely exit there
You are contradicting yourself... Saying RPI shouldn't get in Bc they missed conference playoffs, BUTTT then say it should be based on body of work. In that case, RPI is certainly deserving of consideration.
Newark is cooked.
Teams like Salisbury or CNU should also be cooked. Salisbury will possibly steal a bid if they fail to win CAC
Teams that play strong schedules should be rewarded, 6 blemishes should be the cutoff. 7 with an incredibly high SOS
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 03, 2015, 01:41:36 PM
Rochester still has a chance? Really? A 7 win team at best has a chance to make the tournament? Where do you guys come up with this stuff? I have watched UR and I thought they would start winning and make the tournament...they are a good team...but they are not NCAA worthy this year...sorry but they aren't.
People - including myself - were saying this a few weeks back, but Rochester is done. The loss to Brandeis pretty much sealed their fate. They haven't been ranked in any of the RRs so far, in all likelihood won't be, and are 1-2-4 against ranked opponents. Even if they win against Emory on Saturday, a 7-4-5 record and their poor RvR won't offset their SOS. Had they managed to get a win Sunday and then won at Emory, they might have had a sliiiiiiiight chance, but with where they are I'd say they have no chance.
Rutgers-Camden is 5-6 in last 11 games. 8 of those teams were regionally ranked, so what's your point?
They haven't been playing great, but some teams haven't played 8 regionally ranked opponents over 2 seasons, let alone over 11 game span. Stockton makes it 9 of 12 games and if win 10 of 13 game run vs regionally ranked opponent (MSU or Rowan).
AQ or bust for Camden, but won't really shock me if they sneak in as a last school.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 02:08:07 PM
You are contradicting yourself... Saying RPI shouldn't get in Bc they missed conference playoffs, BUTTT then say it should be based on body of work. In that case, RPI is certainly deserving of consideration.
Newark is cooked.
Teams like Salisbury or CNU should also be cooked. Salisbury will possibly steal a bid if they fail to win CAC
Teams that play strong schedules should be rewarded, 6 blemishes should be the cutoff. 7 with an incredibly high SOS
I did not contradict myself. It should be body of work...and RPI's is not good enough...and I also firmly believe that if you don't make your conference playoffs you do not deserve to make the NCAA tournament therefore RPI is out on both of them...you can argue that their resume is good enough...that's fine, but when you finish 7th in a 9 team league how do you possibly think they deserve to get in the NCAA tournament? You're talking about what's suppose to be the best 61 teams(for the most part) and you want to give a team that finished 7th in their league of 9 one of the precious 18 bids? Please tell me you realize how silly this sounds??
Because they took care of business with a strong out of conference schedule. On top of that LL is not a weak conference...
No doubt in my mind RPI is in, especially if SLU wins the AQ. They will sweat selection day if SLU doesn't win AQ, because it's likely not a 3 bid league
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 02:27:04 PM
No doubt in my mind RPI is in, especially if SLU wins the AQ. They will sweat selection day if SLU doesn't win AQ, because it's likely not a 3 bid league
Who would the second bid go to? Hobart? I ask genuinely because I literally have no idea, and Hobart has been an excellent LL side this year. That said, I don't follow the LL closely, so I could very well have missed something.
RPI is 40th overall is Massey Ratings, 36th in Hero Sports
If Hobart beats Skidmore, they have a strong chance for Pool C, just depends if they move into secret rankings
I also am willing to bet RPI is out. I am also willing to bet SUNYAC is not getting 3 Pool C's. To many upsets will happen this weekend for either of these teams like Cortland St and RPI to make it.
The NCAA selection committee has no basis to judge a team on their conference record or standing. Nothing in the prescribed criteria allows them to make a distinction between conference and non-conference games/results. So I'm with LGOTB in the sense that RPI is to be judged on their overall body of work and conferenc finish isn't to factor in. Doesn't mean I agree with that, but just saying that's the way it should be according to the Pre-Championships Manual
RPI was at #4 in the region last week when they were already looking likely to miss the Liberty payoffs. If they somehow hold onto the #4 spot (or even only drop to the #5 spot) they will have a real chance at a Pool C berth. But let's see where they are ranked tomorrow and then go from there.
A team getting selected who missed their conference tournament could be a first as I'm not remembering any instance of that. I presonaly think there's something wrong with a 7th place team getting into the NCAA tournament, but understand that doesn't factor in (or at least isn't supposed to officially).
Better chance is RPI out and Tufts in.... ;)
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 03, 2015, 02:39:23 PM
I also am willing to bet RPI is out. I am also willing to bet SUNYAC is not getting 3 Pool C's. To many upsets will happen this weekend for either of these teams like Cortland St and RPI to make it.
Thank you Mr.Right.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 02:31:01 PM
RPI is 40th overall is Massey Ratings, 36th in Hero Sports
Yeah that's not a good thing...you want to be top 25 if you're a bubble team and even then some are still sweating big time. Messiah is 13-4-1 and top 25 in both Massey and Bennett(Hero) rankings and people say the need to win the Commonwealth or they don't get in but you want to put RPI in becausde they are top 40 in both? Not a good justification. If you compare them with the criteria used like SOS, RvR and record/winning% then we can see how they stack up...
Agree or disagree but:
2 at large bids
NESCAC
UAA
NJAC
Centennial
SUNYAC
1 at large bid
NCAC
LL
IIAC
WIAC
CCIW
Upset of high team
Upset of high team
Upset of high team
That's 18 right there...
RPI vs Messiah... I'd choose RPI
Again, RPI beat Oneonta St, won at Stockton, beat Skidmore. Tied at Babson, tied at Hobart. Lost at SLU and vs Williams.
.574 SOS. 2-1-1 RvR. 4th in ranking but will drop
Messiah lost to overachieving Lycoming, E-Town, CMU, and 4th place NJAC Rowan handedly... No strong wins
.593 SOS. 0-3-0 RvR. 7th in Ranking but had a run of games vs Stevenson, Alvernia, LVC which won't help really. Leaning AQ or bust for the Falcons
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 02:27:04 PM
Because they took care of business with a strong out of conference schedule. On top of that LL is not a weak conference...
No doubt in my mind RPI is in, especially if SLU wins the AQ. They will sweat selection day if SLU doesn't win AQ, because it's likely not a 3 bid league
They are 2-1-0 RvR...didn't play that strong of a non-conference compared to most...11-4-3...SOS will drop slightly from .574 but not much...and I cannot stress enough how disappointed I am that the committee doesn't consider how you are playing right now...I know it's a "last criteria" but it should be more important than that. It gets proven over time and time again...Dickinson last year didn't win in their last 4 games of the season...so what, you expect them to make a run in the tournament??? NO they lose in the first round!!!! Wonder who could have predicted that. Salisbury was 1-1-2 in their last 4 last year headed into NCAA's...gets thrashed 4-0 in the first round. Brockport was 3-2-2 in last 7...not bad but not good form and they lose in the first round. Coast Guard was winless in last 4 games entering the NCAA tournament and they proceeded to lose in the first round........just like all the other teams who were in bad form upon entering the tournament. Is it me or is this not obvious? People were questioning Rochester's bid last year...they finished the season 4-2-1 in their last 7 which included a tough UAA schedule and ended up cruising in their first round game then losing a heart breaker, that could have gone either way, in PKs to F&M.
But then you have teams like John Carroll who went 17-4 last year(far better than the other teams mentioned) and finished 14-1 in their last 15 games and loses a heart breaker in conference finals and doesn't get in....a team in GREAT form or Lycoming who went 15-3-3(far better than the others that made it) who finished 6-1 in their last 7 with the loss being to Messiah and they beat Rochester earlier in the year who made it...how does that happen? And they were an NCAA tournament team the year before who won their first round game before losing to national runner-ups Camden...
I know it's a numbers game and some of those other teams for sure had better "numbers", but I firmly believe (and this being my point in this whole ramble) that how you are performing at the end of the season right now SHOULD matter to the selection committee. I would put a lot of money down that Lycoming or John Carroll wouldn't have gotten thrashed in the first round like Salisbury did(I know Lycoming wouldn't have because they already beat that team that killed Salisbury) or would have won one of the other first round games that Coast Guard or Brockport or Dickinson lost....
How teams are playing at the end of the season matters to the D1 NCAA Selection Committee for basketball...why not soccer too?
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 02:58:59 PM
RPI vs Messiah... I'd choose RPI
Again, RPI beat Oneonta St, won at Stockton, beat Skidmore. Tied at Babson, tied at Hobart. Lost at SLU and vs Williams.
.574 SOS. 2-1-1 RvR. 4th in ranking but will drop
Messiah lost to overachieving Lycoming, E-Town, CMU, and 4th place NJAC Rowan handedly... No strong wins
.593 SOS. 0-3-0 RvR. 7th in Ranking but had a run of games vs Stevenson, Alvernia, LVC which won't help really. Leaning AQ or bust for the Falcons
I agree that it is AQ or bust for the Falcons...but Messiah also made playoffs in their league. Lycoming, Etown and Rowan are all very good teams...CMU is clicking now (even though I still think they are overrated). Those aren't bad losses. And you listed some unranked teams for RPI that they beat...you can do the same for Messiah.
I don't think either of these teams make the cut. But they are very close and have similar stats is my point and nobody thinks Messiah can get an at-large but we think RPI can? To me they are equal to Messiah or less(bc they fnished 7th in conference play). Neither will make the dance unless they win AQ which obviously wont happen for RPI ;)
This is a good debate I like both sides btw so thanks to whoever gave me the -K...you're a real winner
So you take RPI over Messiah...okay now compare them to a team like Tufts......I take Tufts and sensing that they will be one of the last ones to come off the board I do not think RPI has a chance...like FW said it's not in the criteria, but can you imagine if a team that finished 7/9 and didn't make conference playoffs got in over some of the teams that are going to get snubbed? The committee would get buried alive.
Emory is another one that comes to mind from last year. Believe they finished 2-3-1 in their last 6 and ended up losing in the first round. You have some valid points Shooter and I don't think many people would completely disagree with that logic. Maybe Ryan Harmanis can provide his thoughts on that topic and why or why not the committee doesn't utilize the way teams are playing at the tail end of the season during the selection process.
Also Dickinson lost to Tufts in the first round so a harsh draw, but I do agree that they should not have gotten in last year either.
Dickinson earned wiggle room last year for their strong wins.
I only give + karma so it wasn't me...
Yes, I would take Tufts over RPI 9x out of 10 for a bid
Shooter, I didn't give you the -K because I don't know to give karma.
I stand by my thoughts of Tufts making the tourney. If they don't, I'll send you a sixer of Spotted Cow ;)
Quote from: Wisco21 on November 03, 2015, 04:03:22 PM
Shooter, I didn't give you the -K because I don't know to give karma.
I stand by my thoughts of Tufts making the tourney. If they don't, I'll send you a sixer of Spotted Cow ;)
Wasn't me but it did cross my mind for a split second... ::)
Shooter, I mostly with you on this one as well, but LGOTB is a savvy soccer person and poster so you can't dismiss his reasoning out of hand and FW chimed in with a question I had.....whether their conference standing mattered. He said NO, but then he also said he can't recall when a team that did not make its own conference playoffs got a bid. I was going to ask that question too. Another one is when was the last time, before Tufts last year, that a NESCAC team lost in the quarters and got a bid? And when was the last time TWO NESCACs lost in the quarters in the tourney and BOTH got bids? This is a crazy year with lots of weird situations and scenarios. AND, we thought about this in the positive direction, but could a cmte ask for permission to consider a team's downward trend in making a decision? RPI had a fantastic first half of the year followed by a dreadful second half. And comparisons to Messiah don't make sense to me. Messiah IS in their conference tourney and likely to win it.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 02:51:03 PM
Agree or disagree but:
2 at large bids
NESCAC
UAA
NJAC
Centennial
SUNYAC
1 at large bid
NCAC
LL
IIAC
WIAC
CCIW
Upset of high team
Upset of high team
Upset of high team
That's 18 right there...
LGOTB, I would have predicted the NCAC as a 3 bid league but I think CMU has messed that up or at least really complicated things. I also have a sneaking suspicion that TMC is NOT going to win their AQ. That is HUGE.
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 03, 2015, 05:12:20 PM
And when was the last time TWO NESCACs lost in the tourney and BOTH got bids?
2012, but I think that had to do with the fact that those two teams - Tufts and Wesleyan - both played the NESCAC finalists (who were both in the top 10 if I remember correctly) to close games in the conference tourney. Wesleyan lost to the undefeated Amherst side 1-0 in the semis, while Tufts took Williams to PKs before losing. And I think Williams was undefeated then, too, so that might have explained it.
Quote from: blooter442 on November 03, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 03, 2015, 05:12:20 PM
And when was the last time TWO NESCACs lost in the tourney and BOTH got bids?
2012, but I think that had to do with the fact that those two teams - Tufts and Wesleyan - both played the NESCAC finalists (who were both in the top 10 if I remember correctly) to close games in the conference tourney. Wesleyan lost to the undefeated Amherst side 1-0 in the semis, while Tufts took Williams to PKs before losing. And I think Williams was undefeated then, too, so that might have explained it.
IMHO the NESCAC will get 3......
Quote from: blooter442 on November 03, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 03, 2015, 05:12:20 PM
And when was the last time TWO NESCACs lost in the tourney and BOTH got bids?
2012, but I think that had to do with the fact that those two teams - Tufts and Wesleyan - both played the NESCAC finalists (who were both in the top 10 if I remember correctly) to close games in the conference tourney. Wesleyan lost to the undefeated Amherst side 1-0 in the semis, while Tufts took Williams to PKs before losing. And I think Williams was undefeated then, too, so that might have explained it.
I had to edit the post....I meant last time two teams lost in the QUARTERS and both got bids.
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 03, 2015, 05:41:13 PM
I had to edit the post....I meant last time two teams lost in the QUARTERS and both got bids.
That would be a question for the record books. ;)
But to answer your original question - that year,
three NESCACs got Pool Cs. That was the year that same year that the UAA got five, largely due to the four-way tie for first between Brandeis, Carnegie, Emory, and WashU, and then Rochester was #5. If my math is correct, the NESCAC and UAA alone took almost half of the Pool Cs!
And if the theory that RPI is still very much alive has merit then you'd have to assume Denison also is still very much alive.
Hobart loses 1:0 to Skidmore in semifinal.
Skidmore even weaker SOS and record than Hobart but RvR v. ranked just got better.
Quote from: blooter442 on November 03, 2015, 05:47:11 PM
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 03, 2015, 05:41:13 PM
I had to edit the post....I meant last time two teams lost in the QUARTERS and both got bids.
That would be a question for the record books. ;)
But to answer your original question - that year, three NESCACs got Pool Cs. That was the year that same year that the UAA got five, largely due to the four-way tie for first between Brandeis, Carnegie, Emory, and WashU, and then Rochester was #5. If my math is correct, the NESCAC and UAA alone took almost half of the Pool Cs!
In the UAA's defense, unlike most leagues around the country, they are so spread out regionally, that for the most part they are hardly competing amongst themselves for Pool C's.
With Skidmore winning I like RPI even more now. We cannot wrote off Denison or RPI until we how far they fall in the rankings tomorrow...
NCAC I think gets Kenyon AQ, OWU, DePauw (if they beat OWU)
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 07:19:03 PM
With Skidmore winning I like RPI even more now. We cannot wrote off Denison or RPI until we how far they fall in the rankings tomorrow...
NCAC I think gets Kenyon AQ, OWU, DePauw (if they beat OWU)
So are you projecting that RPI is going to in, or are you also maintaining that you believe they should get in?
And if DePauw beats OWU, you think Great Lakes will have TMC, Kenyon, OWU, DePauw and CMU?
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 07:19:03 PM
With Skidmore winning I like RPI even more now. We cannot wrote off Denison or RPI until we how far they fall in the rankings tomorrow...
NCAC I think gets Kenyon AQ, OWU, DePauw (if they beat OWU)
BTW, I think you're right that Skidmore winning helps RPI, but I still don't see RPI getting in, and certainly not if Skidmore beats SLU.
RPI should be in
Yes to list of GL schools.
I'm guessing they won't get one if they lose but Endicott is 15-1-3 now and deserves a bid.
If RPI gets in its solely because their coach is on te NCAA rankings committee. Although the Liberty League has quite a few good teams, this isn't a UAA, NJAC or NESCAC that get 3 or 4 teams every year to the tournament. I know it's not criteria, but if you aren't good enough to play in your conference tournament, what makes you good enough for the NCAA tournament? They finished 7th in the league, that fact that people believe they should be in the tournament is laughable. You can say SoS all you want but the best teams should be the ones ranked and RPI is not the #4 team in the East. How does it make sense that they are 7th in their conference but 4th in region?
Quote from: Scoring Machine on November 03, 2015, 06:28:58 PM
In the UAA's defense, unlike most leagues around the country, they are so spread out regionally, that for the most part they are hardly competing amongst themselves for Pool C's.
Good point. I'm a supporter of a UAA team, and I'm usually more concerned with how we stand in-region than against the other UAA teams. The only thing is that if you're last or second-last in the conference it would be a bit of a head-scratcher if you received a bid but teams with better conference records didn't. Then again, there can always be anomalies that can skew a team's conference record from its record and/or perceived ability - e.g. Chicago going 6-5 out of conference last year yet 5-0-2 in conference.
Herosports has LL as 4th best Conf... Behind NESCAC UAA NJAC. ahead of the centennial...
They are this years Dickinson, and it's just my hunch they get in. If Oneonta St and Stockton win the AQs, their OOWP will continue to improve.
I'll stop beating Barbaro now...
Looking forward to the rankings tomorrow
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 03, 2015, 10:31:52 PM
Herosports has LL as 4th best Conf... Behind NESCAC UAA NJAC. ahead of the centennial...
They are this years Dickinson, and it's just my hunch they get in. If Oneonta St and Stockton win the AQs, their OOWP will continue to improve.
I'll stop beating Barbaro now...
Looking forward to the rankings tomorrow
But Dickinson made Centennial playoffs last year...so they are not like Dickinson. And the Hero Sports ranking means very little.
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 03, 2015, 05:12:20 PM
Shooter, I mostly with you on this one as well, but LGOTB is a savvy soccer person and poster so you can't dismiss his reasoning out of hand and FW chimed in with a question I had.....whether their conference standing mattered. He said NO, but then he also said he can't recall when a team that did not make its own conference playoffs got a bid. I was going to ask that question too. Another one is when was the last time, before Tufts last year, that a NESCAC team lost in the quarters and got a bid? And when was the last time TWO NESCACs lost in the quarters in the tourney and BOTH got bids? This is a crazy year with lots of weird situations and scenarios. AND, we thought about this in the positive direction, but could a cmte ask for permission to consider a team's downward trend in making a decision? RPI had a fantastic first half of the year followed by a dreadful second half. And comparisons to Messiah don't make sense to me. Messiah IS in their conference tourney and likely to win it.
Not disclaiming LastGuys responses. I tend to agree with him a majority of the time, but RPI does not deserve a bid and they should not get a bid based off of their numbers/resume either. Then added in finishing 7/9 in conference and missing playoffs is just extra discussion that also should be included in a selection process. And it also led to a good discussion about how teams are playing upon entering the tournament which should be weighed heavier in the criteria. Just because I don't agree with his assessment this time doesn't mean I dismiss his opinions?
Shooter is still steaming from the ridiculous putt Happy sank on the 18th...
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 04, 2015, 08:48:45 AM
Shooter is still steaming from the ridiculous putt Happy sank on the 18th...
LOL :D
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 03, 2015, 03:33:54 PM
Emory is another one that comes to mind from last year. Believe they finished 2-3-1 in their last 6 and ended up losing in the first round. You have some valid points Shooter and I don't think many people would completely disagree with that logic. Maybe Ryan Harmanis can provide his thoughts on that topic and why or why not the committee doesn't utilize the way teams are playing at the tail end of the season during the selection process.
I don't think how well a team is playing at the end of the season should be a focus, for a few reasons.
As an initial point, I think the NCAA committee for DI basketball actually stopped using the "record in the last 10 games" criteria. I'm not positive, but I'm relatively confident that no longer comes into play.
We want to select teams based on the overall body of work. If Team A's overall body of work is better than Team B's, and we let Team B into the tournament over Team A because they were better down the stretch, then what was the point of those early-season games? All of the other criteria - win%, record versus ranked, strength of schedule, etc. - are all based on your entire schedule, so putting weight on the last few games cuts against that. We want the best teams, not the "hottest" teams, in the NCAA tournament. How do you explain to Team A that, yes, you had a better season than Team B, but Team B got "hot" down the stretch (whatever that means) so they get in over you?
That's the big problem - how to we decide which teams are "hot" or "playing well" down the stretch? If the team was playing
that well down the stretch, they'd win their conference's AQ. So if they didn't end the regular season with a W they aren't
that hot. And how many games are we going to count? In basketball was last 10, but they play thirty regular season games, so that's 33%. Can't do 10 games here, as that's 50%. So do we look at the last five games? Last 7? Then do we compare schedules? Who's hotter - a team that goes 3-3-1 against a backloaded schedule with 5 ranked opponents, or a team that goes 7-0 against a cupcake schedule? I don't know.
Do we do SoS calculations, RvR, all of that, for just the last 5 games? That would be infinitely more problematic than using the criteria for a full season - and most people on here (myself included) think the criteria are far from perfect even for a full season. It's much easier to string together a couple lucky results over a 5-game stretch than to do it for the full season. Is a team "hot" because they won a couple games 1-0, despite being outshot heavily and just sneaking a goal? They aren't really "playing well," but they're getting results. Do we let them in? In the end it would require subjectively determining who's "hot," and I think that would be the wrong way to do this.
Bottom line, I think it's too subjective and that it would be very, very unfair to let a team with a worse profile into the tournament just because they're "playing better" over a team that had a better overall season. I also think that most of the time any team that is truly "hot" down the stretch - so hot that we think they're one of the best at-large teams and need to be in the tournament - is going to win the AQ or do enough for an at-large bid.
Quote from: Ryan Harmanis on November 04, 2015, 10:40:06 AM
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 03, 2015, 03:33:54 PM
Emory is another one that comes to mind from last year. Believe they finished 2-3-1 in their last 6 and ended up losing in the first round. You have some valid points Shooter and I don't think many people would completely disagree with that logic. Maybe Ryan Harmanis can provide his thoughts on that topic and why or why not the committee doesn't utilize the way teams are playing at the tail end of the season during the selection process.
I don't think how well a team is playing at the end of the season should be a focus, for a few reasons.
As an initial point, I think the NCAA committee for DI basketball actually stopped using the "record in the last 10 games" criteria. I'm not positive, but I'm relatively confident that no longer comes into play.
We want to select teams based on the overall body of work. If Team A's overall body of work is better than Team B's, and we let Team B into the tournament over Team A because they were better down the stretch, then what was the point of those early-season games? All of the other criteria - win%, record versus ranked, strength of schedule, etc. - are all based on your entire schedule, so putting weight on the last few games cuts against that. We want the best teams, not the "hottest" teams, in the NCAA tournament. How do you explain to Team A that, yes, you had a better season than Team B, but Team B got "hot" down the stretch (whatever that means) so they get in over you?
That's the big problem - how to we decide which teams are "hot" or "playing well" down the stretch? If the team was playing that well down the stretch, they'd win their conference's AQ. So if they didn't end the regular season with a W they aren't that hot. And how many games are we going to count? In basketball was last 10, but they play thirty regular season games, so that's 33%. Can't do 10 games here, as that's 50%. So do we look at the last five games? Last 7? Then do we compare schedules? Who's hotter - a team that goes 3-3-1 against a backloaded schedule with 5 ranked opponents, or a team that goes 7-0 against a cupcake schedule? I don't know.
Do we do SoS calculations, RvR, all of that, for just the last 5 games? That would be infinitely more problematic than using the criteria for a full season - and most people on here (myself included) think the criteria are far from perfect even for a full season. It's much easier to string together a couple lucky results over a 5-game stretch than to do it for the full season. Is a team "hot" because they won a couple games 1-0, despite being outshot heavily and just sneaking a goal? They aren't really "playing well," but they're getting results. Do we let them in? In the end it would require subjectively determining who's "hot," and I think that would be the wrong way to do this.
Bottom line, I think it's too subjective and that it would be very, very unfair to let a team with a worse profile into the tournament just because they're "playing better" over a team that had a better overall season. I also think that most of the time any team that is truly "hot" down the stretch - so hot that we think they're one of the best at-large teams and need to be in the tournament - is going to win the AQ or do enough for an at-large bid.
Agree with you. It's hard enough to get anywhere near agreement or consensus on who's entire body of work is "best" already. :) Performance metrics should be inclusive of all your games, good and bad. Strength should be based on your entire season, not leaving it up to gaming your schedule. Most transparent, fair and clean approach. There's enough subjectivity in the process as it is now.
Quote from: Ryan Harmanis on November 04, 2015, 10:40:06 AM
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 03, 2015, 03:33:54 PM
Emory is another one that comes to mind from last year. Believe they finished 2-3-1 in their last 6 and ended up losing in the first round. You have some valid points Shooter and I don't think many people would completely disagree with that logic. Maybe Ryan Harmanis can provide his thoughts on that topic and why or why not the committee doesn't utilize the way teams are playing at the tail end of the season during the selection process.
I don't think how well a team is playing at the end of the season should be a focus, for a few reasons.
As an initial point, I think the NCAA committee for DI basketball actually stopped using the "record in the last 10 games" criteria. I'm not positive, but I'm relatively confident that no longer comes into play.
We want to select teams based on the overall body of work. If Team A's overall body of work is better than Team B's, and we let Team B into the tournament over Team A because they were better down the stretch, then what was the point of those early-season games? All of the other criteria - win%, record versus ranked, strength of schedule, etc. - are all based on your entire schedule, so putting weight on the last few games cuts against that. We want the best teams, not the "hottest" teams, in the NCAA tournament. How do you explain to Team A that, yes, you had a better season than Team B, but Team B got "hot" down the stretch (whatever that means) so they get in over you?
That's the big problem - how to we decide which teams are "hot" or "playing well" down the stretch? If the team was playing that well down the stretch, they'd win their conference's AQ. So if they didn't end the regular season with a W they aren't that hot. And how many games are we going to count? In basketball was last 10, but they play thirty regular season games, so that's 33%. Can't do 10 games here, as that's 50%. So do we look at the last five games? Last 7? Then do we compare schedules? Who's hotter - a team that goes 3-3-1 against a backloaded schedule with 5 ranked opponents, or a team that goes 7-0 against a cupcake schedule? I don't know.
Do we do SoS calculations, RvR, all of that, for just the last 5 games? That would be infinitely more problematic than using the criteria for a full season - and most people on here (myself included) think the criteria are far from perfect even for a full season. It's much easier to string together a couple lucky results over a 5-game stretch than to do it for the full season. Is a team "hot" because they won a couple games 1-0, despite being outshot heavily and just sneaking a goal? They aren't really "playing well," but they're getting results. Do we let them in? In the end it would require subjectively determining who's "hot," and I think that would be the wrong way to do this.
Bottom line, I think it's too subjective and that it would be very, very unfair to let a team with a worse profile into the tournament just because they're "playing better" over a team that had a better overall season. I also think that most of the time any team that is truly "hot" down the stretch - so hot that we think they're one of the best at-large teams and need to be in the tournament - is going to win the AQ or do enough for an at-large bid.
Ryan,
Great analysis! I agree with your perspective as it is a good one. I personally believe that that shouldn't be a sole reason a team gets in over another. I think it should come in to play when we are comparing teams that have very similar resumes and are hard to distinguish between. I can't vouch for what Shooter believes exactly but I understand his logic as well and try to take the best of both sides. Lets use a hypothetical?
So Team A is 15-2-1, loses in conf. finals, but is 6-1 in last 7 games (final being only loss), SOS of say .543 and RvR is even lets say 1-1-1....now look at Team B who is 10-4-3, loses in conf. semis, goes 2-3-2 in last 7 (includes loss in semis), SOS of say .566 and RvR is 1-2-2....now keep in mind Team A plays in a 1 or 2 bid league(AQ+maybe another) and Team B plays in a 3 or 4 bid league(AQ+1 or 2 sometimes 3). ***These are all fake/made up numbers*** Just trying to provide a scenario that probably happens in the selection process when trying to decide on teams. So who do you take? Why should the committee ignore how Team A did compared to how Team B did down the stretch? Sure you definitely shouldn't put a team in the NCAA based solely off a hot streak. But I think you should consider which team has the best chance to make a run in the tournament and how a team is playing right now or over the last 5 or 7 games can be used as an indicator for that so I get that argument.
Like I said I feel that it should be part of the criteria used...not a sole justification for one team over another though, but it cannot be completely dismissed. Shooter provided good evidence from last year's tournament teams who played poorly down the stretch, snuck in the field and pretty much wasted the bid. Emory came to mind for me last year as I mentioned earlier as well as Dickinson. Both of those teams fit into the "Team B category."
Any thoughts? This is an interesting topic and it has generated good discussion so far. Great stuff for the boards! :)
I agree with much of what RH said. I would add this as another reason to be very hesitant to use any "down the stretch"/last 25% criteria. It favors top teams in weak conferences. Some teams have their toughest games on the front end because they are in weaker conferences and can only get tougher games by scheduling that way out of conference. Others from the stronger, deeper conferences (NESCAC, UAA, NJAC, etc.) will have a tougher home stretch. So it's not going to be a fair comparison . . . unless you start doing the SOS of the home stretch, etc which starts making all this messier than it already is.
All very valid points! :)
I still think it should count for something or matter a little bit. I understand there can be no actual criteria for it but it should be something to consider at the very least.
As long as SLU and Oneonta St take care of business.... RPI sitting somewhat comfortably for a Pool C.
Yours Truly,
Barbaro
Rutgers-Camden one slot higher than I projected at 4. What happened to Salisbury? Finally validated that they are overrated...
Can somebody shed some insight into how the brackets are set and how many 1st/2nd round host sites per region there are? I would tend to think there are more in NE. There seems to be a pattern of the 1 seed in each region generally seeing the 5 seed, 2 seed hosting the 6 seed, etc., but I could just be making things up.
IIRC, New England had three sites last year - Brandeis, Wheaton, and Babson, and three the year before in Amherst, Williams, and Brandeis. In the past few years, Brandeis has seen mostly NE teams (plus 1 or 2 teams from NY/NJ per year), while places like Babson has seen mostly Mid-Atlantic/East teams (plus Colorado College). Thought it was interesting that two schools very close from one another saw vastly different teams from different regions.
The pressure is on Thomas More at this point... down 1-0, 40 min to go vs a team that will park the bus.
With the anticipation of teams that win their conference:
Central (1): Washington
East (3): Plattsburgh St, Winner of Brockport St/Cortland St, RPI (didn't make conf tourney)
Great Lakes (2): CMU, Either DePauw or OWU.
Mid-Atlantic (3): Lycoming, 2 of these 3 (Haverford, Dickinson, F&M)
New England (4): Amherst, Tufts, if MIT fails to win conf, if MA-Boston fails to win AQ, winner of Bowdoin/Conn, or loser of Endicott/Gordon
North (2): Macalester, UW-O
South (2): Rowan, Winner of Stockton/Camden
West (1): Colorado
When is the last time a team got an at large bid without making their conference tournament?
Thomas More equalizer in the 86th min...
Down goes Thomas More
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 04, 2015, 03:50:58 PM
Thomas More equalizer in the 86th min...
booyah Westminster with a 90th minute "Clutch Cargo!" 2-1
There goes somebody's bid!
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 04, 2015, 03:27:36 PM
With the anticipation of teams that win their conference:
Central (1): Washington
East (3): Plattsburgh St, Winner of Brockport St/Cortland St, RPI (didn't make conf tourney)
Great Lakes (2): CMU, Either DePauw or OWU.
Mid-Atlantic (3): Lycoming, 2 of these 3 (Haverford, Dickinson, F&M)
New England (4): Amherst, Tufts, if MIT fails to win conf, if MA-Boston fails to win AQ, winner of Bowdoin/Conn, or loser of Endicott/Gordon
North (2): Macalester, UW-O
South (2): Rowan, Winner of Stockton/Camden
West (1): Colorado
TMC shakes up Great Lakes Pool C vs. expectations. TMC now serious contender for Pool C Bid. NCAC tourney outcome will likely determine 2nd bid after CMU. Oberlin now out too as Kenyon just closes out NCAC semi with a 1-0 win over the Yeomen.
TMC SOS is .526, Westminster was .494. They could be in trouble with this loss, dropping them to 5-7 within the GL Region... 2-1-1 RvR may not be good enough. They are about to be John Carroll'd
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 04, 2015, 04:07:32 PM
TMC SOS is .526, Westminster was .494. They could be in trouble with this loss, dropping them to 5-7 within the GL Region
Good points! Too bad we can't see the next NCAA sheets... It's gonna be a close call in the GL region. Even if Case wins over CMU, which is doubtful after last weekend, I doubt they'll make it back in the top 8, which helps CMU potentially retain the top spot.
John Carroll'd ;D ;D ;D ;D Touché my friend
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 04, 2015, 04:07:32 PM
TMC SOS is .526, Westminster was .494. They could be in trouble with this loss, dropping them to 5-7 within the GL Region... 2-1-1 RvR may not be good enough. They are about to be John Carroll'd
I'm sick that they gave up a bid but TMC not getting a Pool C will be a travesty.
You can see the NCAA Sheets on the bottom of the NCAA Webpage... PDF Links...
Kenyon should be pretty safe now.....5-1 now RvR, so at worst will be 5-2 on RvR.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 04, 2015, 04:12:25 PM
You can see the NCAA Sheets on the bottom of the NCAA Webpage... PDF Links...
Not next week's sheets...which are the ones that really matter. This week's are almost outdated already!
I think it's pretty clear cut that there is not much movement, unless a terrible loss happens (TMC today)...
ECSU loses 1-0 today. They are done. No shot at a Pool C now after all the early season hype.
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 04, 2015, 05:06:22 PM
ECSU loses 1-0 today. They are done. No shot at a Pool C now after all the early season hype.
A shame, too, because they did have some big wins against some good teams, and their 14-4-1 record is good especially in this year. SOS and RvR killed them, and what I think many people - myself included - who often slate teams for "weak" schedules forget is that, unless you're in a really strong conference, most of the games on your schedule are going to be against weaker teams by default because you
have to play your conference opponents. I think ECSU went out and scheduled about as difficult of a schedule as they could, and even picked up some big Ws, but unfortunately it didn't work out for them.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 04, 2015, 04:07:32 PM
TMC SOS is .526, Westminster was .494. They could be in trouble with this loss, dropping them to 5-7 within the GL Region... 2-1-1 RvR may not be good enough. They are about to be John Carroll'd
LGOTB, hate to comment after your recent hot streak, and I may show that I STILL don't get these criteria, BUT, Westminster's SOS will get a MAJOR bump with AWAY game against 16-win TMC and should get another milder bump for the final, another away game (I think). So TMC's SoS shouldn't drop if at all. Now whether they still get a bid is another story.
TMC's SoS should stay about the same given Westminster's record. When compared to at-large profiles in the last two years, TMC would be right at the bottom of the SoS metric - either lowest or in the bottom two. And only having one ranked win hurts if they're up against someone like Tufts. So I think TMC is firmly on the bubble.
Bottom line is that TMC shouldn't have lost. Not sure why I thought they would lose but just had a strong feeling. Maybe a little arrogant and maybe a lot too focused on being chippy (as Domino suggested). Just cannot lose to Westminster (PA) at home. The selection system is harsh. They lose a ranked win with hard-luck CWRU dropping out, and Kenyon and OWU gain with Oberlin slipping in (which seems a little questionable in all honesty and I've been hyping Oberlin). Very hard to accept that a RPI could be more deserving than TMC, or even a Tufts or Dickinson for that matter. They can't do anything about their conference and they did play an aggressive out-of-conf schedule too.
Quote from: blooter442 on November 04, 2015, 05:12:48 PM
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 04, 2015, 05:06:22 PM
ECSU loses 1-0 today. They are done. No shot at a Pool C now after all the early season hype.
A shame, too, because they did have some big wins against some good teams, and their 14-4-1 record is good especially in this year. SOS and RvR killed them, and what I think many people - myself included - who often slate teams for "weak" schedules forget is that, unless you're in a really strong conference, most of the games on your schedule are going to be against weaker teams by default because you have to play your conference opponents. I think ECSU went out and scheduled about as difficult of a schedule as they could, and even picked up some big Ws, but unfortunately it didn't work out for them.
In total agreement with this. They just came down to earth at the wrong time(end of year before NCAA's)
Add Wheaton (Ill.) to the list gents
NCAC Pool Cs
Amherst
Tufts/Midd/Bowdoin
MIT?
Brockport/Oneonta
RPI/Plattsburgh
Haverford/F&M
Lycoming
Dickinson/E'town
Rowan
MSU/RUC
Kenyon/OWU
CMU
DePauw
TMC
Wash U
Wheaton (Ill)
Macalester
UW-W
Colorado Coll/Trinity (TX)
That's 19 spots, inclusive of UW-W (who could go Pool B?)
And wild cards still out there....MIT (if win add spot), SLU, Stockton? (a 3rd NJAC Pool C?), Calvin (would North Park really be picked over Calvin???), E'town, Loras, Redlands?, MSOE? A 3rd NESCAC Pool C?
Obviously other scenarios, like adding spot if Lycoming wins, etc, but sort of my guess today of how could play out.
Strikingly similar to mine, but I'll have my 3.0 updates upon the conclusion of Sunday's results.
Wheaton's loss certainly puts North Park outside the bubble, if they were even in it before.
Those on the bubble are praying MSOE, Lycoming, Loras, Trinity, MIT, E-town all take care of business.
I cannot see E-town or Trinity losing.
UW-W should be getting the Pool B, dropping UW-O into the mix (but the eyeball test has the Titans on the bubble, IMO).
POOL C LOCKS (6 teams)
Amherst
Washington U
Wheaton (Ill)
Macalester
FM/Haverford loser
Carnegie Mellon
POOL C Should Be Safe (6-7 teams)
Tufts
Kenyon (if lose AQ)
Middlebury (if reach NESCAC final)
Brockport St
Lycoming (if lose AQ)
Rutgers-Camden (if lose AQ)
Plattsburgh St
POOL C Bubble (4-5 teams) No particular order
RPI
Thomas More
Rowan
Dickinson
(OWU if lose AQ)
----------------------
TBA (upset high seed)
TBA (upset high seed)
Outside bubble/likely done
DePauw
Stockton
Chicago (win over Wash U could see them bump up)
Denison
Pacific Lutheran
North Park
UW-W
ECSU
Cortland St
CNU
Loser of Kings/Eastern
I like the list except for Camden being in the "should be safe" section. I think they would fall under the "bubble" section.
Also,
I do not see 1 West team on the bubble. That is a region that will get one because of geography and deservedly so. You cannot fault them for low RvR and even SOS usually you are playing each other twice or playing non D3 or playing really bad teams.
It was cheeky for me to slot Camden there, but partial bias towards the NJAC and South Atlantic. I am forced to believe that Camden, most likely #2 in SA secret rankings "should be safe". Rochester had 8 blemishes last year (5L - 3D) and made it with a high SOS and a 3-2-1 RvR, as the #4 ranked team in the East. (This also fits the bill for RPI 2015).
By leaving a blemished Camden out, you're taking a South Atlantic team like Rowan or Stockton over them, and I just can't see it (but could be wrong here as last year Rutgers-Newark got in even with being 0-2 vs Camden last year). As previously mentioned, Rutgers-Camden did not crack the regional rankings last year though.
Starting to think Wheaton may not be a lock, and slip down to the Should be safe pod as well...
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 05, 2015, 11:45:01 AM
Also,
I do not see 1 West team on the bubble. That is a region that will get one because of geography and deservedly so. You cannot fault them for low RvR and even SOS usually you are playing each other twice or playing non D3 or playing really bad teams.
Pacific Lutheran, Mr.Right You could throw in Colorado as well in place of Pacific Lutheran...
Is Macalester a lock? I know only 1 loss and all but I don't know much about them asides from that...any info on them?
I imagine they are from the eyeball test. Solid SOS and RvR and good record. Would be in in my books but just curious of how good they actually are that's all.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 05, 2015, 11:45:40 AM
It was cheeky for me to slot Camden there, but partial bias towards the NJAC and South Atlantic. I am forced to believe that Camden, most likely #2 in SA secret rankings "should be safe". Rochester had 8 blemishes last year (5L - 3D) and made it with a high SOS and a 3-2-1 RvR, as the #4 ranked team in the East. (This also fits the bill for RPI 2015).
By leaving a blemished Camden out, you're taking a South Atlantic team like Rowan or Stockton over them, and I just can't see it (but could be wrong here as last year Rutgers-Newark got in even with being 0-2 vs Camden last year). As previously mentioned, Rutgers-Camden did not crack the regional rankings last year though.
Starting to think Wheaton may not be a lock, and slip down to the Should be safe pod as well...
Not trying to beat a dead horse...but Rochester only had 5 losses...not the same as 8 losses. 5 is my cut-off and even then its up in the air. I would take Tufts over Camden.
Macalester is not a lock. They have only played one game outside of Minnesota all year and if Loras loses to Dubuque they would be the 6th team from the North region. All of their regionally ranked games were at home and their .561 SOS is good but not great. If Loras wins then Macalester is in. If they lose they are out in my opinion.
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 05, 2015, 11:59:59 AM
Is Macalester a lock? I know only 1 loss and all but I don't know much about them asides from that...any info on them?
I imagine they are from the eyeball test. Solid SOS and RvR and good record. Would be in in my books but just curious of how good they actually are that's all.
Watched them multiple times this season. They're the kind of team that you can never really write off, they have the uncanny ability to create something out of nothing. The MIAC was down this year, which I believe hurts them. However the regular season unbeaten record is difficult to ignore. RvR of 2-0-1 and SOS sitting at .561 is about par.
I am in agreement with D3 Scout, however I am willing to wager that Loras sees their conference tournament through. I haven't really been sold on Dubuque, they give teams trouble and have had a decent season. However, the DuHawks at the Rock Bowl on a Saturday night under the lights for some hardware... They're really up against it.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 05, 2015, 11:01:17 AM
Strikingly similar to mine, but I'll have my 3.0 updates upon the conclusion of Sunday's results.
Wheaton's loss certainly puts North Park outside the bubble, if they were even in it before.
Those on the bubble are praying MSOE, Lycoming, Loras, Trinity, MIT, E-town all take care of business.
I cannot see E-town or Trinity losing.
Must point out that Trinity (TX) has already lost 1-3 at Colorado College (elevation 6,035') this season, and will face them there again in the SCAC tourney finals if both win out (as they should - tho #3 seed UDallas seems to give Colorado fits (0-0-2)). CC's level of play *may* have dropped a touch late in the year, but they did take Trinity to OT Oct. 11 in San Antonio before falling 0-1. Trinity's also not the offensive juggernaut they have been in seasons past, winning several 1-0 matches on penalties in regulation.
Camden stands 0 chance of getting in NCAA unless they win the AQ.
NCAA will not allow an 8 loss team or 9 blemish team in the tournament with an at-large bid. It's make or break for Camden in the NJAC final and I think they can win it...but they would be stealing a bid from someone else if they do.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 05, 2015, 11:35:16 AM
POOL C LOCKS (6 teams)
Amherst
Washington U
Wheaton (Ill)
Macalester
FM/Haverford loser
Carnegie Mellon
POOL C Should Be Safe (6-7 teams)
Tufts
Kenyon (if lose AQ)
Middlebury (if reach NESCAC final)
Brockport St
Lycoming (if lose AQ)
Rutgers-Camden (if lose AQ)
Plattsburgh St
POOL C Bubble (4-5 teams) No particular order
RPI
Thomas More
Rowan
Dickinson
(OWU if lose AQ)
----------------------
TBA (upset high seed)
TBA (upset high seed)
Outside bubble/likely done
DePauw
Stockton
Chicago (win over Wash U could see them bump up)
Denison
Pacific Lutheran
North Park
UW-W
ECSU
Cortland St
CNU
Loser of Kings/Eastern
There's 18 and if other teams like Loras somehow slip up then unbold one of the "outside bubble teams"
Thank god for UWW having that Pool B to fall back onto.
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 05, 2015, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 05, 2015, 11:35:16 AM
POOL C LOCKS (6 teams)
Amherst
Washington U
Wheaton (Ill)
Macalester
FM/Haverford loser
Carnegie Mellon
POOL C Should Be Safe (6-7 teams)
Tufts
Kenyon (if lose AQ)
Middlebury (if reach NESCAC final)
Brockport St
Lycoming (if lose AQ)
Rutgers-Camden (if lose AQ)
Plattsburgh St
POOL C Bubble (4-5 teams) No particular order
RPI
Thomas More
Rowan
Dickinson
(OWU if lose AQ)
----------------------
TBA (upset high seed)
TBA (upset high seed)
Outside bubble/likely done
DePauw
Stockton
Chicago (win over Wash U could see them bump up)
Denison
Pacific Lutheran
North Park
UW-W
ECSU
Cortland St
CNU
Loser of Kings/Eastern
There's 18 and if other teams like Loras somehow slip up then unbold one of the "outside bubble teams"
My prediction for the GL region is that Kenyon and OWU are equally safe and that the loser of the NCAC final will likely get GL region Pool C bids along with CMU, whether they lose to CWRU or not. I think DePauw and TMC will drop below Kenyon and OWU next week, based on RvRs, incremental directions in relative SoS's, changes in Win%'s, etc.
Team A: .868 win percentage / 2-1-1 RvR / .518 SOS
Team B: .656 win percentage / 4-3-1 RvR / .623 SOS
Team C: .614 win percentage / 5-4-1 RvR / .625 SOS
Team D: .694 win percentage / 2-1-0 RvR / .564 SOS
Team E: .842 win percengage / 1-2-0 RvR / .550 SOS
Team F: .750 win percentage / 2-2-2 RvR / .555 SOS
Rank your preference. Which three would you take?
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 06, 2015, 09:27:36 AM
Team A: .868 win percentage / 2-1-1 RvR / .518 SOS
Team B: .656 win percentage / 4-3-1 RvR / .623 SOS
Team C: .614 win percentage / 5-4-1 RvR / .610 SOS
Team D: .694 win percentage / 2-1-0 RvR / .564 SOS
Team E: .842 win percengage / 1-2-0 RvR / .550 SOS
Team F: .750 win percentage / 2-2-2 RvR / .555 SOS
Rank your preference. Which three would you take?
F, A, D. All have .500 or better vs RvR, respectable SOS, and decent to great win percentages. I eliminate C for the win percentage, yes the rest of the stats are great, but at some point you simply have to win versus your schedule, E for the sub .500 RvR which tempers the great win percentage, and B is my next team up. They kind of get shafted. OK win percentage, very good RvR, very good RvR. Everything is good, nothing is excellent. You could convince me to switch D and B given the actual resumes...
Great question
My 2 cents (probably wrong):
1.) F
2.) D
3.) B
E, C, and A I feel for.
A, the SOS is too low.
C, was sort of a toss up with B but I gave B the edge for tougher SOS and 4 wins and above .500 RvR vs a tougher SOS.
E, Great win percentage, middle of the road SOS, but 1 ranked win and below .500 record RvR...
I'm sure all 3 would be worthy teams of bids as well...
Quote from: jknezek on November 06, 2015, 09:37:50 AM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 06, 2015, 09:27:36 AM
Team A: .868 win percentage / 2-1-1 RvR / .518 SOS
Team B: .656 win percentage / 4-3-1 RvR / .623 SOS
Team C: .614 win percentage / 5-4-1 RvR / .610 SOS
Team D: .694 win percentage / 2-1-0 RvR / .564 SOS
Team E: .842 win percengage / 1-2-0 RvR / .550 SOS
Team F: .750 win percentage / 2-2-2 RvR / .555 SOS
Rank your preference. Which three would you take?
F, A, D. All have .500 or better vs RvR, respectable SOS, and decent to great win percentages. I eliminate C for the win percentage, yes the rest of the stats are great, but at some point you simply have to win versus your schedule, E for the sub .500 RvR which tempers the great win percentage, and B is my next team up. They kind of get shafted. OK win percentage, very good RvR, very good RvR. Everything is good, nothing is excellent. You could convince me to switch D and B given the actual resumes...
I'd have to go with eliminating team E first for 1-2 RvR and middle of the road SOS. Team D 2nd, Team A 3rd. Leaving Teams B, F, C. Really a toss up for me with teams C and A. Could see the committee going either way.
And what we've managed to do is show that regardless of what the committee does, some of us will think it was wrong...
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 05, 2015, 01:13:25 PM
Camden stands 0 chance of getting in NCAA unless they win the AQ.
NCAA will not allow an 8 loss team or 9 blemish team in the tournament with an at-large bid. It's make or break for Camden in the NJAC final and I think they can win it...but they would be stealing a bid from someone else if they do.
Might want to check the D1 brackets every year especially in the ACC..
I think 5 of the 6 teams listed are safe. And you're correct. I don't believe an 8 loss team has ever received an at-large bid...
I know for a fact there have been at LEAST 7 loss ACC teams get a bid the past 5-10 years on more than one occasion. Not sure about 8 but 7 for sure.
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 06, 2015, 10:11:21 AM
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 05, 2015, 01:13:25 PM
Camden stands 0 chance of getting in NCAA unless they win the AQ.
NCAA will not allow an 8 loss team or 9 blemish team in the tournament with an at-large bid. It's make or break for Camden in the NJAC final and I think they can win it...but they would be stealing a bid from someone else if they do.
Might want to check the D1 brackets every year especially in the ACC..
I think he means in D3 soccer. UCLA is top 20 this year with an 8-7-1 record...D1 is different than D3 in that regard I guess.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 06, 2015, 09:27:36 AM
Team A: .868 win percentage / 2-1-1 RvR / .518 SOS
Team B: .656 win percentage / 4-3-1 RvR / .623 SOS
Team C: .614 win percentage / 5-4-1 RvR / .625 SOS
Team D: .694 win percentage / 2-1-0 RvR / .564 SOS
Team E: .842 win percengage / 1-2-0 RvR / .550 SOS
Team F: .750 win percentage / 2-2-2 RvR / .555 SOS
Rank your preference. Which three would you take?
I would take Teams D, F, and A or B...probably B.
For me Team A SOS is too low...I would like to see a team with .540 or higher...team C winning % is poor. E has a good shot too its a tough choice but I think if you had to pick 1 which is more realistic of how the selection process would work I would take Team F out of those choices.
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 06, 2015, 11:25:07 AM
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 06, 2015, 10:11:21 AM
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 05, 2015, 01:13:25 PM
Camden stands 0 chance of getting in NCAA unless they win the AQ.
NCAA will not allow an 8 loss team or 9 blemish team in the tournament with an at-large bid. It's make or break for Camden in the NJAC final and I think they can win it...but they would be stealing a bid from someone else if they do.
Might want to check the D1 brackets every year especially in the ACC..
I think he means in D3 soccer. UCLA is top 20 this year with an 8-7-1 record...D1 is different than D3 in that regard I guess.
Ahhh my bad..So now we have a different rules for different divisions in the NCAA. They use a better RPI system than the shabby D3 version but even that has its own issues. I also have not read in any of those manuals that you cannot more than a certain # of losses. It's unlikely but it also is very possible otherwise they would not have ranked them to begin with. Oswald is on the committee so maybe he got the vibe going. Notice how the more and more we talk about it it can for some people begin to look more and more like a reality than a possibility. SO with all these different resumes with each team having 1-2 solid primary criteria and a couple shaky primary criteria then it will come down to yes you guessed it HUMANS. Only teams that are well represented by their league representative on the committee will win out IMO. The best salesman for their own league will win out.
I don't know if HUMANS or computers selected this team last year, but:
2014: Rochester #4 in East Region for 3rd Regional Ranking. And I'm not so certain they were the last team in
8-5-3 (.595 winning percentage / 3-2-1 RvR (.583) / .628
13-8-1 (.614 winning percentage / 5-4-1 RvR (.555) / .625 (estimate on SOS).
If Camden were to have earned ONE more win, they'd be at .659 winning percentage (same as Team B):
TUFTS: .656 win percentage / 4-3-1 RvR / .623 SOS
They got wins from the bottom feeders of the NESCAC and mid-tier NE teams, with one strong win vs Middlebury and wins vs Wesleyan and Williams... Don't want to hear that Endicott and Gordon are "strong" wins. Why is everyone so quick to lay the carpet out for the reigning champions...
Rutgers-Camden went 5-2 this season so far vs the top 6 of the NJAC and tied an underachieving CNU squad...
The problem with playing more games I guess, is that you see the ugly loss column figure inflated. I am a Camden supporter, but last year I was also adamant about K-zoo making it with as many blemishes that they had. Rutgers-Camden is surely deserving of a bid. Let the committee match em' up vs the Jumbos... Scarlet Raptors would love to head to the NE Region for a chance at the NESCAC schools!
Well you are correct and if you institute my plan of cutting the FAT out of these regional rankings and drop 3 teams across the board in the Eastern US. Tufts RvR and others (hello: Calvin) and SOS would be weaker. We will call Gordon and Endicott up and coming programs but Wins v Ranked should be more elite IMO. New England should have 8 ranked teams, East only 6, South Atlantic 6, Mid-Atlantic 6, etc, etc. Then if Endicott and Gordon cracked that and had their own wins v ranked that would be considered legit in my mind. The idea of these sides picking up extra "ranked wins" bothers me as it cheapens it.
The benefit of the NE Region is the fact that there are 77 teams. It looks like the NCAA Regional Rankings allot the top 15%.
Ok cut the fat to 10%.
Have you ever met Coach Oz, Mr.Right? I didn't know he was on the committee...
One thing to keep in mind that I was just able to confirm - my understanding is that they use the exact same criteria for all sports - soccer, basketball, baseball, etc. all have the same formula. So that makes things even more difficult to change - because we'd need to either change SOS and/or other metrics for all sports, or else make them individualized, which makes it that much more difficult to manage.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 06, 2015, 02:22:52 PM
Have you ever met Coach Oz, Mr.Right? I didn't know he was on the committee...
Never met him. Any word on the live stream and gametime for tomorrow's NJAC final?
Quote from: Ryan Harmanis on November 06, 2015, 03:57:23 PM
One thing to keep in mind that I was just able to confirm - my understanding is that they use the exact same criteria for all sports - soccer, basketball, baseball, etc. all have the same formula. So that makes things even more difficult to change - because we'd need to either change SOS and/or other metrics for all sports, or else make them individualized, which makes it that much more difficult to manage.
I do not understand why the men switched to this in 2013 and the women are waiting until 2016.
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 06, 2015, 07:23:11 PM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 06, 2015, 02:22:52 PM
Have you ever met Coach Oz, Mr.Right? I didn't know he was on the committee...
Never met him. Any word on the live stream and gametime for tomorrow's NJAC final?
I've heard live stream only. These conferences should Atleast offer to set up a live feed for big games... Pathetic that it's only live stats
That is ridiculous. 2015. I was looking forward to that game because I figured it would be a late start under the lights.
Kickoff 6pm and looks like MSU added the all encouraging Video option.
TMC and E-town will have two restless nights. A shame that neither will make it. RPI also will be sweating it out
Camden would not have made the cut.
OK, Mr.Right, here ya go....
1) Amherst
2) Montclair St
3) Haverford/Dickinson
4) Trinity (TX)/Colorado Coll
5) Franklin & Marshall
6) Wheaton (Ill)
7) Macalester
8) Rowan
9) Elizabethtown
10) OWU
11) CMU
12) Wash U
13) Plattsburgh
14) Brockport
15 thru 18) – Pick 3-4 based on MIT outcome today and presumes UW-W Pool B – Middlebury, Stockton, Bowdoin if loses, Tufts, DePauw, Thomas More, Chicago, RPI
Others – Pacific Lutheran, Messiah, UW-Oshkosh, St Johns, North Park, W&L if loses, Christopher Newport, Johns Hopkins, Rutgers-Newark, Texas-Dallas/Texas-Tyler loser, Concordia (WIS)/Dominican, Case Western, Kean, Conn College, Luther, King's, Greensboro, Hobart, Endicott, La Verne, Union, Randolph if loses, ECSU, Denison, Cortland, TCNJ, Mary Washington, Oglethorpe, Skidmore
UW-W – Pool B
No F&M?
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 08, 2015, 07:49:26 AM
OK, Mr.Right, here ya go....
1) Amherst
2) Montclair St
3) Haverford/Dickinson
4) Trinity (TX)/Colorado Coll
5) Wheaton (Ill)
6) Macalester
7) Rowan
8) Elizabethtown
9) OWU
10) CMU
11) Wash U
12) Plattsburgh
13) Brockport
14) Middlebury
15 thru 18) – Pick 3-4 based on MIT outcome today and presumes UW-W Pool B – Stockton, Bowdoin if loses, Tufts, DePauw, Thomas More, Chicago, RPI
Others – Pacific Lutheran, Messiah, UW-Oshkosh, St Johns, North Park, W&L if loses, Christopher Newport, Johns Hopkins, Rutgers-Newark, Texas-Dallas/Texas-Tyler loser, Concordia (WIS)/Dominican, Case Western, Kean, Conn College, Luther, King's, Greensboro, Hobart, Endicott, La Verne, Union, Randolph if loses, ECSU, Denison, Cortland, TCNJ, Mary Washington, Oglethorpe, Skidmore
UW-W – Pool B
Thanks 'dawg...I'll fix that.
I was thinking as I was doing this that the prospects are not as bad as some were/are fearing, but of course that depends on where your own team lands, and just having to add one or two teams can really put the squeeze on. Partly I think some of the AQs were taken by bubble teams so that relieves the bubble in a way. I'm guessing that the New England and Great Lakes cmtes in particular will struggle with how to order their rankings but the same teams may get in regardless of the order. MIT needing a Pool C obviously will be big, and I suppose one could wonder if Colorado College moves to the bubble if they lose. Same with Dickinson although hard to imagine that Dickinson isn't pretty safe at this point especially after back-to-back wins over F&M. Honestly, the way some other bubble and just off bubble teams have fallen I wouldn't be shocked if Messiah is realistically more on the bubble but they'd have to get the Falcons above Hopkins so not sure how unlikely that might be. I also cannot imagine RPI and/or North Park really getting a bid given their in-conference placements but the way things have fallen I think LGOTB is correct to at least have RPI seriously in the discussion.
Corrected version....
1) Amherst
2) Montclair St
3) Haverford/Dickinson
4) Trinity (TX)/Colorado Coll
5) Franklin & Marshall
6) Wheaton (Ill)
7) Macalester
8) Rowan
9) Elizabethtown
10) OWU
11) CMU
12) Wash U
13) Plattsburgh
14) Brockport
15 thru 18) – Pick 3-4 based on MIT outcome today and presumes UW-W Pool B – Middlebury, Stockton, Bowdoin if loses, Tufts, DePauw, Thomas More, Chicago, RPI
Others – Pacific Lutheran, Messiah, UW-Oshkosh, St Johns, North Park, W&L if loses, Christopher Newport, Johns Hopkins, Rutgers-Newark, Texas-Dallas/Texas-Tyler loser, Concordia (WIS)/Dominican, Case Western, Kean, Conn College, Luther, King’s, Greensboro, Hobart, Endicott, La Verne, Union, Randolph if loses, ECSU, Denison, Cortland, TCNJ, Mary Washington, Oglethorpe, Skidmore
UW-W – Pool B
NE: Amherst, Tufts, Middlebury, (MIT if lose)
East: Plattsburgh St, Brockport St, RPI
Mid-Atlantic: Haverford/Dickinson, F&M, E-town
South-Atlantic: MSU, Rowan
Central: Washington, Wheaton
Great Lakes: CMU, OWU
North: Macalester
West: Trinity/Colorado
Last team in: Stockton or TMC last team in if MIT wins AQ I'd like to see hard luck CWRU in it, but I doubt they jump that high in secret rankings.
I think Camden would have been #2 in South Atlantic and in over Rowan had they fallen in PKs. They are 5-3-2 RvR. I'm sure they are hoping to be shipped to NE region, but I think they will be in a pod with Dickinson Cabrini Lycoming Eastern in opening round
Byes: Kenyon, Calvin, Brandeis
Which two loss team has better chance, E-town or TMC. SOS, RvR, win % all incredibly close.. It's also likely they are both #5 in their respective regions.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 08, 2015, 09:27:06 AM
Which two loss team has better chance, E-town or TMC. SOS, RvR, win % all incredibly close.. It's also likely they are both #5 in their respective regions.
Then compare them to Endicott which might have gotten modest SoS boost. Basically same record and 3-2-1 RvR. Endicott could also end up ahead of Conn Coll and ECSU in rankings and with some of the others taking AQs could be last team out in NE.
E'town has 2 wins to TMC's 1 win. Case not being ranked really hurts TMC.
I would guess Etown just because of the process. Etown will probably be third in the pecking order for the Mid-Atlantic, behind the Haverford/Dickinson loser and F&M. I think there's a good chance TMC is fourth in the Great Lakes (fifth overall). TMC was already behind Carnegie and DePauw, and all three teams lost. Carnegie and DePauw lost on the road to much better teams than TMC, who was at home. They also both have more ranked wins, higher SOS, etc. So I'm not sure if TMC can jump either of them.
If that ends up being the case, then TMC would need Carnegie, OWU, and DePauw to get in before they're up for consideration. Whereas Etown only needs F&M and Haverford/Dickinson - much easier to picture.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 08, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
NE: Amherst, Tufts, Middlebury, (MIT if lose)
East: Plattsburgh St, Brockport St, RPI
Mid-Atlantic: Haverford/Dickinson, F&M, E-town
South-Atlantic: MSU, Rowan
Central: Washington, Wheaton
Great Lakes: CMU, OWU
North: Macalester
West: Trinity/Colorado
Last team in: Stockton or TMC last team in if MIT wins AQ I'd like to see hard luck CWRU in it, but I doubt they jump that high in secret rankings.
I think Camden would have been #2 in South Atlantic and in over Rowan had they fallen in PKs. They are 5-3-2 RvR. I'm sure they are hoping to be shipped to NE region, but I think they will be in a pod with Dickinson Cabrini Lycoming Eastern in opening round
Byes: Kenyon, Calvin, Brandeis
DePauw 11-3-4 with .580+ SoS and 3-3-2 RvR. CMU 11-3-3 with .580+ and 3-2 RvR.
UW-Osh in the just out category may have best resume in that category wwith 11-3-3, .565, and 2-3-2.
Given the depth of the NE region you'd think there would be 4 teams... You'd assume a 4th team makes it.
Final answer is Chicago last team in. Incredibly high SOS, 4-5 RvR, only 5 losses. If they don't get in, we can safely say a 7 loss Camden team with a 5-3-2 RvR and similar SOS would have not made it. My guess is Chicago Atleast bumps North Park... Possibly AQ MSOE too
Are they really going to put two mid-west teams with byes? I think with location that could be hard.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 08, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
NE: Amherst, Tufts, Middlebury, (MIT if lose)
East: Plattsburgh St, Brockport St, RPI
Mid-Atlantic: Haverford/Dickinson, F&M, E-town
South-Atlantic: MSU, Rowan
Central: Washington, Wheaton
Great Lakes: CMU, OWU
North: Macalester
West: Trinity/Colorado
Last team in: Stockton or TMC last team in if MIT wins AQ I'd like to see hard luck CWRU in it, but I doubt they jump that high in secret rankings.
I think Camden would have been #2 in South Atlantic and in over Rowan had they fallen in PKs. They are 5-3-2 RvR. I'm sure they are hoping to be shipped to NE region, but I think they will be in a pod with Dickinson Cabrini Lycoming Eastern in opening round
Byes: Kenyon, Calvin, Brandeis
Crazier things have happened. I did say Oneonta St would host until the final 4, they are definitely in the mix for a bye
I don't see Amherst or MSU because of not winning conference..
Could Haverford potentially get a bye if they win the Centennial?
Middlebury is def in. They are not on the bubble. Also, after comparing some of these bubble teams I am convinced Tufts still gets in. The New England region will get 4-5
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 08, 2015, 11:27:17 AM
Middlebury is def in. They are not on the bubble. Also, after comparing some of these bubble teams I am convinced Tufts still gets in. The New England region will get 4-5
Yeah, I had Midd in and off the bubble but I had forgotten F&M so moved Midd to top of bubble list. Could have moved Plattsburgh or Brockport probably instead.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 08, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
Byes: Kenyon, Calvin, Brandeis
100% of Byes last year went to #1 ranked (in 3rd ranking) teams in their respective regions. Kenyon wasn't #1 in the GL region. I'd be surprised if they get it, even with their win% and RvR, I think their SoS might be too low this year for a bye, given how it impacted their regional ranking.
Brandeis, Oneonta, Loras and Haverford make the most sense to me, if they all come from top ranked teams. All won respective conference AQ and all top ranked team in their respective region.
FWIW, we have Part II of our Men's at-large berth analysis and predictions (http://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2015/at-large-analysis-and-predictions) column up on D3soccer.com that includes the color-coded regional rankings table with updated records/win pct., strength of schedules (approximated), and records versus ranked teams.
If you find any errors, please let me know. We have tried to be 100% accurate, but it is a lot of data to deal with.
We hope and currently expect to have our predictions posted yet tonight.
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 08, 2015, 07:15:50 PM
FWIW, we have Part II of our Men's at-large berth analysis and predictions (http://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2015/at-large-analysis-and-predictions) column up on D3soccer.com that includes the color-coded regional rankings table with updated records/win pct., strength of schedules (approximated), and records versus ranked teams.
If you find any errors, please let me know. We have tried to be 100% accurate, but it is a lot of data to deal with.
We hope and currently expect to have our predictions posted yet tonight.
Lycoming beat Widener 2-0 not 4-0 in the semifinals which is under the games played in past week section...obviously won't affect anything but just wanted to let you know! Great job it looks good and is helpful for all of us. We appreciate your hard work!
Final Prediction:
NE: Amherst, Middlebury, Tufts, MIT
East: Plattsburgh St, RPI, Brockport St
Mid-Atlantic: Dickinson, F&M
South Atlantic: MSU, Rowan
North: Macalester
Central: Washington, Wheaton
Great Lakes: CMU, OWU, DePauw
West: Colorado
Last 3 in: RPI, DePauw, Colorado,
First 4 out: Stockton, e-town, TMC, Chicago
Tough call between Stockton and DePauw. Does e-town SOS keep them out?
Byes: Brandeis, Oneonta St, Calvin
Here are my quick glance picks for the Pool C's berths:
NE Region:
Amherst
MIT
Middlebury
Tufts
Endicott
East Region:
Plattsburgh St.
Brockport St.
Mid-Atlantic Region:
F&M
Etown
Dickinson
Messiah
South Atlantic:
Montclair St.
Rowan
Stockton
Great Lakes:
Carnegie Mellon
DePauw
Thomas More
Ohio Wesleyan
Central Region:
Wash. U
Wheaton(Ill)
Chicago
North Region:
Macalester
West Region:
Colorado College
Pool B:
UWW
23 teams battling for 18 spots. And some other teams may deserve to be in consideration but this is what I have narrowed it down to. The 5 teams with lines through them are the 5 missing out on the dance in my opinion. I think Tufts is the first team out and misses out on the tournament. Losing in their conference tournament crushed their chances along with their poor winning percentage. TMC and Etown survive and sneak in...barely. RPI not even considered for me and Stockton gets bumped as the second team out and Chicago gets bumped as the 3rd team out. Those 3 wish it was a 64 team field. SOS will kill the west region and winning percentage dooms the central and north regions. Plattsburgh State is my bubble team to watch that may end up getting snubbed and shock some people. John Carroll'd? Great SOS and winning percentage but 7 blemishes and 1-3-1 RvR hurts them. I think they are safe but something to keep an eye on. Any thoughts?
Plattsburgh St is in. 7 blemishes, but .738 win percentage and your classic tourney SOS
TMC is getting John Carroll'd
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 08, 2015, 07:15:50 PM
FWIW, we have Part II of our Men's at-large berth analysis and predictions (http://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2015/at-large-analysis-and-predictions) column up on D3soccer.com that includes the color-coded regional rankings table with updated records/win pct., strength of schedules (approximated), and records versus ranked teams.
If you find any errors, please let me know. We have tried to be 100% accurate, but it is a lot of data to deal with.
We hope and currently expect to have our predictions posted yet tonight.
Looks like you are missing JHU's 5-0 win over Swat on 11/4 in the Mid-Atlantic grid.
RetiredD3fan... Is that you, BlueJayFan?
Thought maybe so with the JHU reference
Yeah, I still check in every once in a while, but I have not attended a game in a long time. I have been pondering posting my controversial "2-losses-to-one-team" philosophy. You know, where a team (such as JHU vs. Haverford, Messiah vs. Lycoming) with two losses to the same team (assuming that team is going to the tournament) does not deserve to be selected for a Pool C bid. My feeling is they have already proven they can't beat that team, and that team should not have to beat them a third time. I know that ignores the eldritch calculations the selection committee uses to pick whomever they intended to pick from the outset, but hey what do I know? If such a team is picked they should be shipped out of region to avoid meeting their tormentors a third time for as long as possible.
But after pondering that, I decided I shouldn't post it.
Oops.
I think Tufts is going to get in but their problem is on what basis could the cmte move them ahead of MIT and Midd. There is none, so maybe Tufts should have been ahead of one of them in last week's ranking but they weren't and sitting idle gave them no chance to add some positive data to provide justification for a move up. It gets complicated when you look at other teams too. There is a clear basis to bump OWU over DePauw based on a second head to head win this week since the last ranking. The conundrum there since everyone seems to have TMC out now is that there really isn't a clear basis to move OWU ahead of TMC....they could say SoS as OWU got another nice bump this week but if SoS was the issue for TMC then they shouldn't have jumped OWU last week. I'm sure there are other similar examples like how to differentiate Plattsburgh and Brockport.
NCAC's Final, Final, Final Version (in reverse order of regions)
West: Colorado College, Pac Lutheran
North: Macalester, UW-Oshkosh, St Johns
Central: Wheaton (Ill), Wash U, Chicago
Great Lakes: OWU, Thomas More???, DePauw, CMU (DePauw and CMU in dead heat and they maybe drop TMC because can't pick between DPU and CMU)
South Atlantic: MSU, Rowan, Stockton
Mid-Atlantic: Dickinson, F&M, E'town
East: Brockport, Plattsburgh
NE: Amherst, Midd, MIT, Tufts (or is possible MIT gets John Carroll'ed?)
These reflect my final regional rankings [for Pool Cs]....last spots come down to MIT, Tufts, DePauw/CMU (while knowing TMC may get ditched), Stockton, UW-Osh, Chicago
Pool B - UW-W
I wouldn't be shocked if Plattsburgh misses out.
Just as CMU and DePauw look virtually identical on paper (with maybe edge to DPU for beating Loras and Kenyon), the same is true for MIT, E'town and TMC....extremely similar resumes for those three.
Feels like we're waiting for the brackets to come out right now, lol.
If Chicago and Stockton are in that means some real pain elsewhere.
Quote from: RetiredD3Fan on November 08, 2015, 08:28:11 PM
Yeah, I still check in every once in a while, but I have not attended a game in a long time. I have been pondering posting my controversial "2-losses-to-one-team" philosophy. You know, where a team (such as JHU vs. Haverford, Messiah vs. Lycoming) with two losses to the same team (assuming that team is going to the tournament) does not deserve to be selected for a Pool C bid. My feeling is they have already proven they can't beat that team, and that team should not have to beat them a third time. I know that ignores the eldritch calculations the selection committee uses to pick whomever they intended to pick from the outset, but hey what do I know? If such a team is picked they should be shipped out of region to avoid meeting their tormentors a third time for as long as possible.
But after pondering that, I decided I shouldn't post it.
Oops.
Wow! BlueJayFan! How have you been? Every new soccer season I wonder what's up with you. And I still feel very nostalgic about the old message board. Glad to have you pop in here.
Tufts will get in. Compared to the Last 4 IN and First 4 OUT teams. They will make it. Cannot ignore the SOS. Committee also like to see how many NCAA tournament teams you have beaten. ETOWN does not stack up against Tufts resume.
Yes, MIT E-town and TMC with nearly identical resumes, but MIT is the benefactor of the larger region and will get in over both.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 09:25:32 AM
Yes, MIT E-town and TMC with nearly identical resumes, but MIT is the benefactor of the larger region and will get in over both.
MIT, Etown, TMC in that order of how they get selected/if they get selected.
What time is the selection show today?
Obviously doesn't matter because the number is the number and it looks fantastic but for me Tufts' SoS is a bit inflated.
I assumed mostly because of away at Endicott (unexpected superb W%) and away at MIT (another huge W%), but they didn't play MIT. Away at Amherst only other big plus SoS game for Tufts and then did well with having Brandeis but as a home game and I guess also Gordon at home.
Here's Tufts' non-conference schedule -- away at Endicott, away at Plymouth State, Brandeis at home, Gordon at home, away at Keene State.
Like you said the # is the # but alot of schools SOS is inflated. You think Messiah at close to.600 is not inflated?
Thankfully Rutgers-Camden earned the AQ:
Tufts: .656 / .623 SOS / 4-3-1 SOS (2-3-1 vs tourney teams; assuming Middlebury makes it)
Camden: .636 / .625 SOS / 5-3-2 SOS (2-3-1 vs tourney teams; assuming Stockton does not make it)
Still believe that Tufts is safe...
Haverford, IMO should be the #1 team in the country at this point... 8-2 RvR, losses early in season to Stevens, Wesleyan, MSU... Such an impressive schedule and mind boggling that SOS is only .585... Would not shock me if they were to earn a first round bye.
Yep...some really inflated and some really deflated. Should be great for summer doldrums debate.
Can't argue with Haverford. One thing every future opponent should know by now is DO NOT FOUL THEM anywhere within 25 yards because that Corkery kid is lethal.
I feel bad too for the Endicotts of the world who help teams like Tufts get rich on their W% while they have no shot at a bid.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 10:20:21 AM
Haverford, Such an impressive schedule and mind boggling that SOS is only .585..
LGOTB, this is actually a great example of how flawed the method is. Haverford's schedule is MUCH stronger than Tufts. Not even in the same ballpark IMHO, and yet Tufts is ~.40 higher.
Meaningless data:
MASSEY RATINGS POOL C PREDICTIONS
NE: Amherst, Middlebury, MIT, Tufts, Endicott
East: Hobart, Brockport St, Plattsburgh St, Cortland St.
Mid-Atlantic: F&M, E-town, Messiah, Dickinson
South-Atlantic: MSU, Rowan, Stockton
Great Lakes: Thomas More, OWU
North:
Central:
West:
Teams out, in order: RPI, CMU, CWRU, Bridgewater, ECSU, JHU, Wheaton ILL, Skidmore, DePauw, Chicago, Macalester, Colorado.
*Williams, Wesleyan, Connecticut (highly ranked, but for purposes of geography and conference representation, I dropped them off).
At a minimum they should correct for penalizing home teams on SoS who have earned home conference tourney games. That's just so counter-intuitive.
Is it, though? I agree with the general premise that the SOS metric is not accurate as constructed, although I'd still want confirmation of what actual home-field advantage looks like. But if you're playing at home in the conference tournament, that in theory gives you a higher percentage of winning the AQ, correct? So I don't think it necessarily follows that you should get the benefit of home games in the conference tournament and get preferential treatment on the SOS metric. It's really the same argument for playing in a weak conference - if playing at home (or in a weak conference) gives you a higher probability of the AQ, that offsets the punishment you might get on the SOS metric. IMO it just all comes back to finding the true numbers that we should be using to calculate SOS.
I get what you're saying that it seems odd to "punish" teams for winning their conference, but the entire point of SOS is to balance out your record against your schedule. I'm less convinced that the solution is somehow nullifying the multipliers for conference tournament games rather than just changing the multipliers altogether to solve the fundamental problem that there isn't this big of a difference in home and away games.
Quote from: Ryan Harmanis on November 09, 2015, 10:49:10 AM
Is it, though? I agree with the general premise that the SOS metric is not accurate as constructed, although I'd still want confirmation of what actual home-field advantage looks like. But if you're playing at home in the conference tournament, that in theory gives you a higher percentage of winning the AQ, correct? So I don't think it necessarily follows that you should get the benefit of home games in the conference tournament and get preferential treatment on the SOS metric. It's really the same argument for playing in a weak conference - if playing at home (or in a weak conference) gives you a higher probability of the AQ, that offsets the punishment you might get on the SOS metric. IMO it just all comes back to finding the true numbers that we should be using to calculate SOS.
I get what you're saying that it seems odd to "punish" teams for winning their conference, but the entire point of SOS is to balance out your record against your schedule. I'm less convinced that the solution is somehow nullifying the multipliers for conference tournament games rather than just changing the multipliers altogether to solve the fundamental problem that there isn't this big of a difference in home and away games.
I don't think you should get
preferential treatment but I do believe a team that has won home field on the merits certainly should not suffer a
penalty (negative multiplier) for that.
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 09, 2015, 10:41:36 AM
At a minimum they should correct for penalizing home teams on SoS who have earned home conference tourney games. That's just so counter-intuitive.
Yes. A good example of this is TMC losing to unranked Westminster in their conference semi-final. They don't get punished in the RvR but if a team like Lycomng would have lost to Messiah they would have got a loss in the RvR which could have hurt them when being compared for an at-large or Dickinson losing tacks on another Loss in the RvR column which makes them look worse in that category and they lost in the loss column as well compared to TMC who just picked up a Loss but stayed 1-1-1 RvR...system is flawed in that regard. It's almost better to play road games in conference tournaments because if you lose it could be a double hit for some teams but if you win it can add to RvR and give you the SOS multiplier depending on your opponent.
Or teams can host and take care of business at home and not have to worry but it makes for a good debate none the less. ;D But there definitely is some room for complaints in that regard. Etown doesn't get punished too hard but imagine if Scranton was ranked regionally. That would have added another loss in the loss column and the RvR loss column as well. A double whammy!
So maybe just treat it as neutral for the home team (no multiplier) while still giving the away team the multiplier?
Quote from: Ryan Harmanis on November 09, 2015, 10:49:10 AM
It's really the same argument for playing in a weak conference - if playing at home (or in a weak conference) gives you a higher probability of the AQ, that offsets the punishment you might get on the SOS metric.
I don't think I buy the weak conference argument either in terms of greater likelihood of AQ so it's OK if you get overly punished on the SoS metric. Not sure those two things really have anything to do with each other, or perhaps shouldn't. That doesn't account for the times when a weak conference happens to have 2 or even 3 good teams, and the risk of losing/not advancing (in OT, PKs, or otherwise) in a tournament environment is still a very high risk regardless of conference just given the nature of soccer and dynamics of tournaments...not necessarily the same risk as other, more obviously competitive conferences but still a high risk nonetheless. TMC is a perfect example. May well not get in and I'm sure more than a few of us would rate them stronger than some that will get in (and fear them more as an opponent), and their risk in their tournament in a one-off situation was still high as proven by the result.
Quote from: Ryan Harmanis on November 09, 2015, 11:02:59 AM
So maybe just treat it as neutral for the home team (no multiplier) while still giving the away team the multiplier?
That sounds more fair, but why give the away team a bonus for something they had the full opportunity to earn? Or, start having more conference tourneys at neutral sites. Would love to see the NCAC held at Crew Stadium ;)
Speaking of TMC, I'm guessing we'll be talking a lot about them in the next couple of days. Having been up close and personal with the fan base I'm very surprised no representatives seem to have made their way to this site.
Can't believe that Hobart isn't regionally ranked, and therefore won't get a chance at the tournament. They're a top quality side who deserves a shot.
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 09, 2015, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 10:20:21 AM
Haverford, Such an impressive schedule and mind boggling that SOS is only .585..
LGOTB, this is actually a great example of how flawed the method is. Haverford's schedule is MUCH stronger than Tufts. Not even in the same ballpark IMHO, and yet Tufts is ~.40 higher.
I'm sure the method has flaws, but two entirely different methods -- Massey and HeroSports -- agree that Tufts has a tougher (tuffer?) schedule. Both have Tufts at #3, Haverford at #10 and #19 respectively in strength of schedule.
It would be interesting to find major discrepancies between the SOS method and computer ranking methods.
I will guess that Rowan gets sent to the Mid-Atlantic with the likes of Haverford, Eastern, Cabrini
MSU will go to Salisbury with the likes of Salisbury, W&L, and Methodist
Camden will head to SLU with Stevens, SLU, and a team like Babson perhaps?
As a SLU supporter, that group is mortifying. Talk about a pod of death.
To this point, I hadn't really considered the possibility of SLU hosting, but I suppose it's possible. They won't place SLU and Oneonta in the same opening pod (or they shouldn't, at least), so it's probable that 2 East teams would be selected to host pods.
Itching to see the bracket!
Brandeis will get a pod MIT, Bridgewater St, Daniel Webster.
Amherst will get a pod with the likes of J&W, Gordon, and MA-Boston
Bowdoin, Middlebury, Thomas, ???
Oneonta St gets a draw with the likes of Morrisville St, CCNY, Scranton
Calvin with the likes of Carthage, Lake Forest, and OWU
Kenyon with the likes of Rose-Hulman, Ohio Northern, Mt. Aloysius
Loras with CSS, St. Olaf, and ???
Geographically the West could be grouped together; Trinity, Texas-Dallas, Whitworth, Colorado/Redlands
Do Not forget Plattsburgh St if they get in. I think they get left out but if they get in they will either go to SLU or MIDD
They are not going to send 2 Jersey schools to SLU. Also, I can picture Camden going to Amherst and Stevens to Brandeis
Quote from: Dark Knight on November 09, 2015, 11:19:31 AM
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 09, 2015, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 10:20:21 AM
Haverford, Such an impressive schedule and mind boggling that SOS is only .585..
LGOTB, this is actually a great example of how flawed the method is. Haverford's schedule is MUCH stronger than Tufts. Not even in the same ballpark IMHO, and yet Tufts is ~.40 higher.
I'm sure the method has flaws, but two entirely different methods -- Massey and HeroSports -- agree that Tufts has a tougher (tuffer?) schedule. Both have Tufts at #3, Haverford at #10 and #19 respectively in strength of schedule.
It would be interesting to find major discrepancies between the SOS method and computer ranking methods.
Tufts has the all-around tougher schedule in my honest opinion...
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 11:48:38 AM
Brandeis will get a pod MIT, Gordon, and Bridgewater St/MA-Boston.
Unless Brandeis gets the bye. In that case, I can't even begin to predict who they'd get. MIT, despite its loss yesterday, might even get to host.
No way:
Haverford
Scranton (Landmark Champs)
@ Stevens (E8 Champs)
vs Wesleyan
@ MSU (NJAC Runner-up)
@ JHU (regionally ranked)
vs Stockton (#2/#3 South Atlantic)
@ Gbury (regionally ranked)
@ RUC (#2-#4 South Atlantic, NJAC Champs)
vs Dickinson
vs F&M
vs Swat
vs JHU
vs Dickinson
Tufts
Endicott
vs Conn
vs Brandeis (UAA CHamps)
@ Wesleyan
@ Amherst
vs Midd
vs Gordon
@ Williams
vs Bowdoin
vs Bowdoin
Lastguy, I forgot - Brandeis actually has no chance of hosting a pod. I spoke with someone at Brandeis and they said the men will either get the bye and host R2 or they'll be on the road - the Brandeis women will 99% have a pod and they get priority this year.
Quote from: Brother Flounder on November 09, 2015, 11:57:38 AM
Tufts has the all-around tougher schedule in my honest opinion...
[/quote]
In your
honest opinion? Touche again!
Non-conf for Haverford -- Scranton (just beat 17-1 E'town and NCAA team), @Stevens (NCAA team), @
Rosemont, Wesleyan (just got to NESCAC final and beat #1 Amherst), @Montclair State (top 5 team in the country and NCAA team), Stockton (2nd in NJAC and very possible NCAA team), Rutgers-Camden (just won NJAC tourney and NCAA team), Catholic
I'll give Tufts slight edge on conference games, but F&M, Dickinson, Hopkins, Swat, Muhlenberg, etc are no joke.
Haverford has 10
ranked games vs 8 for Tufts.
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 09, 2015, 12:12:45 PM
Quote from: Brother Flounder on November 09, 2015, 11:57:38 AM
Tufts has the all-around tougher schedule in my honest opinion...
In your
honest opinion? Touche again!
Non-conf for Haverford -- Scranton (just beat 17-1 E'town and NCAA team), @Stevens (NCAA team), @
Rosemont, Wesleyan (just got to NESCAC final and beat #1 Amherst), @Montclair State (top 5 team in the country and NCAA team), Stockton (2nd in NJAC and very possible NCAA team), Rutgers-Camden (just won NJAC tourney and NCAA team), Catholic
I'll give Tufts slight edge on conference games, but F&M, Dickinson, Hopkins, Swat, Muhlenberg, etc are no joke.
Haverford has 10
ranked games vs 8 for Tufts.
[/quote]
::) ::) :o :o
Quote from: blooter442 on November 09, 2015, 12:10:54 PM
Lastguy, I forgot - Brandeis actually has no chance of hosting a pod. I spoke with someone at Brandeis and they said the men will either get the bye and host R2 or they'll be on the road - the Brandeis women will 99% have a pod and they get priority this year.
Already thought Brandeis should get a bye, this makes it more likely IMO.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 11:42:54 AM
Camden will head to SLU with Stevens, SLU, and a team like Babson perhaps?
Now that I think about it, that's actually 3/4 of the 2011 Sweet 16 pod at SLU where Oneonta moved on to the Final 4.
WashU women (16-2) are not hosting and are instead going to Denison (15-4)...that can only mean one thing: that the WashU men are hosting. #foreshadowing
Welp, I was wrong - Brandeis women are NOT hosting. Men are still in with a shout for the bye. Guess that 1% was the case.
How many UAA women's teams? I counted 4. Nescac Women's team:3
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 11:48:38 AM
Brandeis will get a pod MIT, Bridgewater St, Daniel Webster.
Amherst will get a pod with the likes of J&W, Gordon, and MA-Boston
Bowdoin, Middlebury, Thomas, ???
Oneonta St gets a draw with the likes of Morrisville St, CCNY, Scranton
Calvin with the likes of Carthage, Lake Forest, and OWU
Kenyon with the likes of Rose-Hulman, Ohio Northern, Mt. Aloysius
Loras with CSS, St. Olaf, and ???
Done projecting now since we are moments away....
Geographically the West could be grouped together; Trinity, Texas-Dallas, Whitworth, Colorado/Redlands
Could see Westminster heading to Lycoming (if they host)...
Quote from: blooter442 on November 09, 2015, 12:10:54 PM
Lastguy, I forgot - Brandeis actually has no chance of hosting a pod. I spoke with someone at Brandeis and they said the men will either get the bye and host R2 or they'll be on the road - the Brandeis women will 99% have a pod and they get priority this year.
I think Brandeis women are traveling to Amherst for the 1st/2nd Rnd pod, so that opens up the opportunity for the men to host.
Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 09, 2015, 01:26:10 PM
I think Brandeis women are traveling to Amherst for the 1st/2nd Rnd pod, so that opens up the opportunity for the men to host.
You're correct, FW, and so it proved. Some at Brandeis were convinced the women were hosting, but that ended up not being the case.
POOL B AT-LARGE BERTH - 1 Berth
UW-Whitewater
POOL C AT-LARGE BERTHS - 18 Berths
Amherst
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
DePauw
Dickinson
Franklin and Marshall
Macalester
MIT
Montclair State
Ohio Wesleyan
Plattsburgh State
Rowan
RPI
Thomas More
Tufts
UW-Oshkosh
Washington U.
Wheaton (Ill.)
I think that many of us predicted that this year's bracket would be the craziest one yet, and so it proved. Wow. Seeing TMC get in was a bit of a surprise, as well as RPI and Chicago. UC seemingly didn't have anything to play for, but they kept going and they got their rewards.
No Middlebury is an absolute shocker, and I really do feel for Midd. That is awful. :o
Happy that Tufts got a bid, but at the same time I'm kind of stunned that they were chosen instead of Middlebury, because they lost in the NESCAC quarters and had an inferior winning percentage. Seems like Midd's SOS and possibly the Tufts H2H matchup made them pay (maybe Saward will take our suggestions and schedule stronger games OOC games next year. ;) )
Quote from: blooter442 on November 09, 2015, 01:46:49 PM
I think that many of us predicted that this year's bracket would be the craziest one yet, and so it proved. Wow. No Middlebury is an absolute shocker, and I really do feel for Midd. That is awful. :o
Happy that Tufts got a bid, but at the same time I'm kind of stunned, because they lost in the NESCAC quarters and had an inferior winning percentage. Seems like Midd's SOS and possibly the Tufts H2H matchup made them pay (maybe Saward will take our suggestions and schedule stronger games OOC games next year. ;) )
I'd agree if Midd's SOS was egregious, but it wasn't that bad. It was stronger than Amherst's, for instance. And essentially the same as Plattsburgh's, a team that didn't match Midd in winning percentage.
And I say this while agreeing that I would much rather see the Panthers play Plattsburgh or RPI than Green Mountain or Castleton.
Quote from: Bucket on November 09, 2015, 01:49:22 PM
I'd agree if Midd's SOS was egregious, but it wasn't that bad. It was stronger than Amherst's, for instance. And essentially the same as Plattsburgh's, a team that didn't match Midd in winning percentage.
And I say this while agreeing that I would much rather see the Panthers play Plattsburgh or RPI than Green Mountain or Castleton.
Definitely wasn't that bad, I was just pointing to a possible reason. Even then, you're right, Midd's SOS is stronger than Amherst.
Obviously the Babson victory knocked Midd OUT
No Brockport St, Colorado, E-town....
Not to mention why not book Loras to Kansas City now. Very easy bracket
Amherst got the bye. Didn't I call it?! (I said that Brandeis had a good shot for it, but still thought Amherst would in the back of my mind.)
Personally, I'm happy that Brandeis doesn't have to see any of Babson, MIT, or Tufts before the Final Four. A potential matchup with Amherst is perhaps inevitable, but those three - even MIT, who I've been critical of - are dangerous, and have given the Judges fits this year, regardless of the final result. That said, Thomas (ME) has the two legit freshmen in Adam LaBrie and DJ Nicholas, and NAC POY Tre Ming, so Brandeis won't take them lightly. And the other side of that pod is Stevens and RPI, who are both legit programs and will get new life with NCAA bids. Still, not being set up against Babson, MIT, or Tufts was a relief.
Absolutely shocking for Etown to not get in...2 losses all year - 1 @ F&M and other in conference final after running the table all year...yet they take other teams who were worse.
Quote from: igotthisfeeling on November 09, 2015, 02:01:34 PM
Absolutely shocking for Etown to not get in...2 losses all year - 1 @ F&M and other in conference final after running the table all year...yet they take other teams who were worse.
Not that shocking they need to play a better OOC schedule to make up for their weak conference.
Quote from: igotthisfeeling on November 09, 2015, 02:01:34 PM
Absolutely shocking for Etown to not get in...2 losses all year - 1 @ F&M and other in conference final after running the table all year...yet they take other teams who were worse.
I know you are a Bluejay supporter and I feel for you as I would have loved to see as many teams from our region make it as possible...but the biggest snub for me was RPI getting in over Brockport...I am flabbergasted by this...and Midd not getting in? Wow.
Quote from: blooter442 on November 09, 2015, 02:01:23 PM
Amherst got the bye. Didn't I call it?! (I said that Brandeis had a good shot for it, but still thought Amherst would in the back of my mind.)
Personally, I'm happy that Brandeis doesn't have to see any of Babson, MIT, or Tufts before the Final Four. A potential matchup with Amherst is perhaps inevitable, but those three - even MIT, who I've been critical of - are dangerous, and have given the Judges fits this year, regardless of the final result. That said, Thomas (ME) has the two legit freshmen in Adam LaBrie and DJ Nicholas, and NAC POY Tre Ming, so Brandeis won't take them lightly. And the other side of that pod is Stevens and RPI, who are both legit programs and will get new life with NCAA bids. Still, not being set up against Babson, MIT, or Tufts was a relief.
That may be true, but if we're going to look ahead I'd rather see a difficult matchup like one of those few teams in the second round then what looks to be a potential Sweet 16 clash with Trinity. Long way to go obviously and we will see how it all breaks down but there's an argument to be made that 3 of the top 5 or so teams in the country are in that quadrant. Whoever emerges will have to earn it that's for sure.
Loras, Amherst and Oneonta (if they can get by Camden) on paper have routine roads to Elite 8.
shocked that both plattsburgh and rpi got in over brockport. Brockport owned the head to head vs plattsburgh and was ranked higher than rpi
Unfortunately for them - some teams had down years that werent expected - nor could have been predicted when making the schedule - plus can only schedule games against people who can make their schedule work...but still played F&M, dickinson, Messiah and went 2-1 in those games. Would love to know the committees reasoning for not taking them - had to be another reason besides SOS...
What I don't get about the Midd-Tufts thing is why wasn't Tufts ahead of Middlebury in the third published rankings if the committee liked the Tufts' SoS and RvR more than Middlebury's win pct.? Hardly anything changed on the resumes in the final week. Tufts didn't play, Middlebury tied Wesleyan. I can see the argument for Tufts over Middlebury based on the criteria and how we know they esp. like SoS and wins vs. ranked teams, but then why wasn't that already reflected in the third rankings.
SLU Gets their wish with no NESCAC and punished with Haverford. Instant classic in the making. Crap draw for both
So Montclair, Tufts, Kenyon, F&M, OWU, Calvin all in same bracket, and that's not counting TMC, CMU, Chicago, MSOE...
Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 09, 2015, 02:17:36 PM
What I don't get about the Midd-Tufts thing is why wasn't Tufts ahead of Middlebury in the third published rankings if the committee liked the Tufts' SoS and RvR more than Middlebury's win pct.? Hardly anything changed on the resumes in the final week. Tufts didn't play, Middlebury tied Wesleyan. I can see the argument for Tufts over Middlebury based on the criteria and how we know they esp. like SoS and wins vs. ranked teams, but then why wasn't that already reflected in the third rankings.
Does this not bring back the question of, is there favor towards the reigning champion to defend their title?
Quote from: nw_ds on November 09, 2015, 02:12:15 PM
That may be true, but if we're going to look ahead I'd rather see a difficult matchup like one of those few teams in the second round then what looks to be a potential Sweet 16 clash with Trinity. Long way to go obviously and we will see how it all breaks down but there's an argument to be made that 3 of the top 5 or so teams in the country are in that quadrant. Whoever emerges will have to earn it that's for sure.
Point taken, but with Trinity potentially having to come to MA for that one, could be advantage to the New England side. Trinity did hit Brandeis for two quick ones at the beginning of the season, but that was at home and also Brandeis has become much more defensively stout since then (as are NCAA contests in general.) Would be an exciting matchup, that's for sure.
Midd was kind of like Stockton in the NJAC. Good record but when you really look into their wins they did not beat the top 4 of their own conference. Committee must have not counted Midd's 5 out of conference wins so really 8-2-2. Beating Colby , Bates. 6-2-2. Beating a down Williams and Wesleyan. 4-2-1. Beating a weak Trinity twice 2-2-1. So 2-2-1. THAT IS WHY
Quote from: Mr. Wrong on November 09, 2015, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 09, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
Not to mention why not book Loras to Kansas City now. Very easy bracket
Don't jump to conclusions. DePauw beat them 2-0 earlier this year and they are in the same bracket.
I have seen DePauw play and they do not look very threatening
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 09, 2015, 02:26:27 PM
Midd was kind of like Stockton in the NJAC. Good record but when you really look into their wins they did not beat the top 4 of their own conference. Committee must have not counted Midd's 5 out of conference wins so really 8-2-2. Beating Colby , Bates. 6-2-2. Beating a down Williams and Wesleyan. 4-2-1. Beating a weak Trinity twice 2-2-1. So 2-2-1. THAT IS WHY
Well, let's don't change the facts. 4th place team was Conn, a team Midd beat. 5th was Williams, another team Midd beat. (One has to go down to 5th to gauge the top 4 teams Midd played in the conference as the Panthers, finishing second, couldn't exactly beat themselves.) Bowdoin had a great run in the tourney, but they still finished in 6th. Also, Tufts lost to one of the weak teams that Midd beat.
I agree that this appears to be why, but it seems like a contorted way to pick one over the other.
And, honestly, I have less of an issue with Tufts getting selected over the Panthers as I do RPI or Plattsburgh.
Quote from: NCAC New England on November 09, 2015, 02:19:36 PM
So Montclair, Tufts, Kenyon, F&M, OWU, Calvin all in same bracket, and that's not counting TMC, CMU, Chicago, MSOE...
Absolutely brutal!! Whomever emerges may not have the juice left to go on.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 02:19:30 PM
SLU Gets their wish with no NESCAC and punished with Haverford. Instant classic in the making. Crap draw for both
2 of my first final 4 picks thrown together early.
And how the f:€£ did RPI get in?
If you are 7th best in your conference, how are you going to get in the tourney. Letting Denison in would have been a better choice of conference tourney non-participants.
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 09, 2015, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Wrong on November 09, 2015, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 09, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
Not to mention why not book Loras to Kansas City now. Very easy bracket
Don't jump to conclusions. DePauw beat them 2-0 earlier this year and they are in the same bracket.
I have seen DePauw play and they do not look very threatening
But they were threatening enough to have beaten Loras already
Quote from: Bucket on November 09, 2015, 02:36:12 PM
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 09, 2015, 02:26:27 PM
Midd was kind of like Stockton in the NJAC. Good record but when you really look into their wins they did not beat the top 4 of their own conference. Committee must have not counted Midd's 5 out of conference wins so really 8-2-2. Beating Colby , Bates. 6-2-2. Beating a down Williams and Wesleyan. 4-2-1. Beating a weak Trinity twice 2-2-1. So 2-2-1. THAT IS WHY
Well, let's don't change the facts. 4th place team was Conn, a team Midd beat. 5th was Williams, another team Midd beat. Bowdoin had a great run in the tourney, but they still finished in 6th. Also, Tufts lost to one of the weak teams that Midd beat.
I agree that this appears to be why, but it seems like a contorted way to pick one over the other.
And, honestly, I have less of an issue with Tufts getting selected over the Panthers as I do RPI or Plattsburgh.
Definitely agree with the RPI and Plattsburgh comment...
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 02:19:30 PM
SLU Gets their wish with no NESCAC and punished with Haverford. Instant classic in the making. Crap draw for both
SLU will take this bracket all day. NESCAC schools have just had their number lately, be it tough calls/shootouts/OT losses. They'll be thrilled to be at home on Sandy for the first round, and like their chances going away to a team who at least plays on a decent grass surface.
Great Lakes (52 teams) with 4 Pool C is the shocker for me atleast.
DePauw over Middlebury. I guess Middlebury 1-2-1 vs. DePauw 3-3-2 is what did them in? Midd win % was .822 to DePauw .722... Nearly identical SOS.
UAA gets 4 teams (no problems with Chicago getting in)
NCAC gets 3 teams (DePauw is 2-10 in the NCAA tourney)
NESCAC gets 3 teams (shoulda been 4 given the size of the region, IMO)
NJAC gets 3 teams
Centennial gets 3 teams
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 09, 2015, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Wrong on November 09, 2015, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: Mr.Right on November 09, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
Not to mention why not book Loras to Kansas City now. Very easy bracket
Don't jump to conclusions. DePauw beat them 2-0 earlier this year and they are in the same bracket.
I have seen DePauw play and they do not look very threatening
They did not look threatening against OWU in the NCAC Semis, if that's your point of reference, but they didn't really show up to that game, unfortunately. We'll see how they do, obviously, but they've got game if they choose to bring it. I'd say they're an easy favorite over Westminster in rd 1 and could be a very interesting match for Wash U potentially in 2nd.
Quote from: CovensCorner on November 09, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 09, 2015, 02:17:36 PM
What I don't get about the Midd-Tufts thing is why wasn't Tufts ahead of Middlebury in the third published rankings if the committee liked the Tufts' SoS and RvR more than Middlebury's win pct.? Hardly anything changed on the resumes in the final week. Tufts didn't play, Middlebury tied Wesleyan. I can see the argument for Tufts over Middlebury based on the criteria and how we know they esp. like SoS and wins vs. ranked teams, but then why wasn't that already reflected in the third rankings.
Does this not bring back the question of, is there favor towards the reigning champion to defend their title?
It's a good question. There's not supposed to be, but it had to be in the back of the minds of those ranking the teams in the region. How does a tie drop a team below a team that was idle?
In any case, Tufts getting selected over Middlebury is frustrating to me, but I can also see it is within reason. What makes no sense to me is the selection of Plattsburgh and RPI over Middlebury, as presumably each of those teams were selected when Middlebury had moved to the top of New England.
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 08, 2015, 10:13:08 AM
Given the depth of the NE region you'd think there would be 4 teams... You'd assume a 4th team makes it.
Final answer is Chicago last team in. Incredibly high SOS, 4-5 RvR, only 5 losses. If they don't get in, we can safely say a 7 loss Camden team with a 5-3-2 RvR and similar SOS would have not made it. My guess is Chicago Atleast bumps North Park... Possibly AQ MSOE too
Was Chicago possibly the last team in?
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 04:20:25 PM
Was Chicago possibly the last team in?
Would have to think that Tufts would have come before Chicago or RPI, so I'd say they were odds-even with RPI for last team.
Forgot to check what happened in last Colorado Coll vs Trinity game. Trinity won 1-0 on a PK in 25th minute. Colorado outshot the Tigers 12 to 5 with advantage in corners 4 to 2. Colorado's 3 losses -- twice to Trinity (and beat Trinity once) and early game with Redlands.
Maybe they wanted to save $$$ and not fly them anywhere. Colorado College should petition the NCAA and say we will be happy to hop on a bus just allow us to play
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 09, 2015, 09:47:06 AM
Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 09, 2015, 09:25:32 AM
Yes, MIT E-town and TMC with nearly identical resumes, but MIT is the benefactor of the larger region and will get in over both.
MIT, Etown, TMC in that order of how they get selected/if they get selected.
You would have to think TMC might have been the geography choice of the year, as MR.Right has indicated... The Mid-Atlantic was a stronger region AND has more teams (60) to Great Lakes (52), but only got TWO Pool C to Great Lakes FOUR!
TMC: .868 / .525 / 1-1-1 RvR BEAT OWU 5-1, TIED DePauw 2-2
E-town: .878 / .520 / 2-1-0 RvR BEAT DICKINSON 2-1, BEAT MESSIAH 1-0