D3boards.com

I thought we would start a new thread for 2017 with the preseason poll and rankings for the CAC.

http://cacsports.com/sports/msoc/2017-18/releases/cac_msoc_pre_poll

No surprises at the top.  CNU picked to repeat with Mary Wash close behind.

Quote from: Goldenrj on August 31, 2017, 01:05:06 PM
I thought we would start a new thread for 2017 with the preseason poll and rankings for the CAC.

http://cacsports.com/sports/msoc/2017-18/releases/cac_msoc_pre_poll

No surprises at the top.  CNU picked to repeat with Mary Wash close behind.

There is a short video and an interview with CNU coach Steve Shaw embedded at the bottom of that article.

In region:

Noke beats G'Boro 2-0

Let's bump the poor South Atlantic before it falls off the first page.  Pretty nice in-region road victory for Mary Washington, 2-1 at Lynchburg yesterday.  Matchup of projected #2s in their conferences.

CNU with a 4-0 win over Rutgers-Camden and 2-1 win over Greensboro, both Away.

Quote from: just4kix on September 15, 2017, 05:25:49 PM
Let's bump the poor South Atlantic before it falls off the first page.  Pretty nice in-region road victory for Mary Washington, 2-1 at Lynchburg yesterday.  Matchup of projected #2s in their conferences.

Roanoke travels to Mary Wash today.  Should be another good in region match.

W&L picks up 2 good wins. Rolling SVa 7-0 after the short road trip to Buena Vista Wednesday and beating Capital 4-0 at home today. That closes out the non-conference schedule and we're on to ODAC play next Saturday with a 5-0-1 record.

1   Washington & Lee University - Defeated Southern VA 7-0; Defeated Capitol 4-0
2   Oglethorpe University - Lost to Truett-McConnell 0-2
3   Rutgers University-Newark - Defeated Cabrini 5-1; Defeated Rutgers-Camden 2-0
4   Rowan University - Defeated Hood 5-0, Lost to Messiah 2-3, Defeated NJCU 6-0
5   Lynchburg College - Lost to #10 Mary Washington 1-2
6   Maryville College - Defeated Ferrum 2-1
7   Stockton University - Tied Arcadia 0-0, Defeated Kean 1-0
8   York College (Pa.) - Lost to Johns Hopkins 4-1; Lost to Randolph 1-0
9   William Paterson University - Defeated Medgar Evers 8-0, Defeated TCNJ  3-0
10   University Of Mary Washington - Defeated #5 Lynchburg 2-1, Defeated Roanoke 2-1

Week 2 Poll...

1. Washington & Lee University
2. Rutgers University-Newark
3. University Of Mary Washington
4. Rowan University
5. Lynchburg College
6.  Maryville College
7. Oglethorpe University
8. William Paterson University
9. Stockton University
10. Randolph-Macon College

Quote from: EB2319 on September 19, 2017, 12:36:00 PM
Week 2 Poll...

1. Washington & Lee University
2. Rutgers University-Newark
3. University Of Mary Washington
4. Rowan University
5. Lynchburg College
6.  Maryville College
7. Oglethorpe University
8. William Paterson University
9. Stockton University
10. Randolph-Macon College

few of these teams have some cupcake schedules...WPU has one legit win over etown. and same with stockton. i'm more of a NJAC tracker but i can tell you Newark is LEGIT. hopefully they get their first NJAC trophy. and a lot of these teams are teams i've never even heard of, which is awesome.

Quote from: firstplaceloser on September 19, 2017, 01:14:01 PM

Quote from: EB2319 on September 19, 2017, 12:36:00 PM
Week 2 Poll...

1. Washington & Lee University
2. Rutgers University-Newark
3. University Of Mary Washington
4. Rowan University
5. Lynchburg College
6.  Maryville College
7. Oglethorpe University
8. William Paterson University
9. Stockton University
10. Randolph-Macon College

few of these teams have some cupcake schedules...WPU has one legit win over etown. and same with stockton. i'm more of a NJAC tracker but i can tell you Newark is LEGIT. hopefully they get their first NJAC trophy. and a lot of these teams are teams i've never even heard of, which is awesome.

While I get that perhaps Willy P or Stockton's schedule hasn't been the best let's make sure we are fair with our assessments.  The overall record of Stockton's opponents thru 6 games is 15-11-13 in comparison the overall record of Rutgers Newark's opponents thru 7 games is 16-25-3.  I don't have the time to get into strength of schedule etc for every team but Rutgers Newark is off to a great start and is riding their ranking from the end of last year.  I really don't see an impressive win on their resume yet (only beat 2 teams with winning records; Nazareth 4-2 & Elmhurst 3-1-2).  Let's see how this plays out a little more before we dismiss or crown teams before more of the season is played.

Quote from: Ji Sung Park the Bus on September 19, 2017, 02:29:56 PM

Quote from: firstplaceloser on September 19, 2017, 01:14:01 PM

Quote from: EB2319 on September 19, 2017, 12:36:00 PM
Week 2 Poll...

1. Washington & Lee University
2. Rutgers University-Newark
3. University Of Mary Washington
4. Rowan University
5. Lynchburg College
6.  Maryville College
7. Oglethorpe University
8. William Paterson University
9. Stockton University
10. Randolph-Macon College

few of these teams have some cupcake schedules...WPU has one legit win over etown. and same with stockton. i'm more of a NJAC tracker but i can tell you Newark is LEGIT. hopefully they get their first NJAC trophy. and a lot of these teams are teams i've never even heard of, which is awesome.

While I get that perhaps Willy P or Stockton's schedule hasn't been the best let's make sure we are fair with our assessments.  The overall record of Stockton's opponents thru 6 games is 15-11-13 in comparison the overall record of Rutgers Newark's opponents thru 7 games is 16-25-3.  I don't have the time to get into strength of schedule etc for every team but Rutgers Newark is off to a great start and is riding their ranking from the end of last year.  I really don't see an impressive win on their resume yet (only beat 2 teams with winning records; Nazareth 4-2 & Elmhurst 3-1-2).  Let's see how this plays out a little more before we dismiss or crown teams before more of the season is played.

i saw them play a few times this year so that's the only reason i claimed they were legit. they also have a pretty soft schedule but we will see when they meet Rowan what level they are on. Rowan is also very good now that Doherty is back

Randolph Macon cracks regional rankings even though they've played 1 team with more than 2 wins.  I get that they are 6-0, but that schedule is laughable. 

Quote from: NokeAlum15 on September 20, 2017, 09:01:40 AM
Randolph Macon cracks regional rankings even though they've played 1 team with more than 2 wins.  I get that they are 6-0, but that schedule is laughable.

Agreed.  I suspect that an unranked CNU would spank them.

Quote from: EB2319 on September 20, 2017, 09:38:37 AM

Quote from: NokeAlum15 on September 20, 2017, 09:01:40 AM
Randolph Macon cracks regional rankings even though they've played 1 team with more than 2 wins.  I get that they are 6-0, but that schedule is laughable.

Agreed.  I suspect that an unranked CNU would spank them.

Saturday they play W&L. That should provide some clarity.

RMC's schedule has not been the toughest, but they have looked pretty good. Tonight they step up a bit against Catholic and play W&L on Saturday.  Should see how good they are on Saturday.

Nice result vs Catholic last night for Macon

Good slate of games this weekend, at least in the ODAC

Lburg @ Noke
W&L @ Macon

Quote from: NokeAlum15 on September 21, 2017, 10:20:07 AM
Nice result vs Catholic last night for Macon

Good slate of games this weekend, at least in the ODAC

Lburg @ Noke
W&L @ Macon

Yes. Early in the year, but you have to figure these games are going to be big on setting the order for the ODAC tournament. By this time next week, W&L will have played at Macon and at Lburg. Hosting Noke on 10/7, but a week from now a lot will be known.

Macon loses to W&L 3-2.  Scoreless and pretty even first half. W&L took a 2-0 lead but Macon came back to tie it up. W&L went back up shortly after Macon tied. I think it was a pretty even game, but the result was fair.

W&L (undefeated at 6-0-1) and Lynchburg (6-1-1) look to be the early favorites in the ODAC again this year.  A whole bunch of teams vying for the next 5-6 spots.

CNU (5-2) and Mary Wash (5-2-1) are leading the way again in the CAC.  I think they may run away from the pack.

WEEK 3 REGIONAL RANKINGS
http://unitedsoccercoaches.org/web/Rankings/College_Rankings/NCAA_DIII_MEN/web/rankings/ncaa/diii_men.aspx

1    Washington & Lee University
2    Rutgers University-Newark
3    Rowan University
4    University Of Mary Washington
5    Lynchburg College
6    Stockton University
7    Randolph College
8    William Paterson University
9    Emory University
10    Randolph-Macon College

Quote from: EB2319 on September 26, 2017, 02:25:18 PM
WEEK 3 REGIONAL RANKINGS
http://unitedsoccercoaches.org/web/Rankings/College_Rankings/NCAA_DIII_MEN/web/rankings/ncaa/diii_men.aspx

1    Washington & Lee University
2    Rutgers University-Newark
3    Rowan University
4    University Of Mary Washington
5    Lynchburg College
6    Stockton University
7    Randolph College
8    William Paterson University
9    Emory University
10    Randolph-Macon College

W&L holds scalps from #9 and #10, one home, one away. Will get a chance at a third, on the road, tomorrow. Regional GOTW has to be #1 W&L at #5 Lynchburg, 7 p.m. 9/27. A good secondary is #3 Rowan hosting #6 Stockton at the same time.

Quote from: EB2319 on September 26, 2017, 02:25:18 PM
WEEK 3 REGIONAL RANKINGS
http://unitedsoccercoaches.org/web/Rankings/College_Rankings/NCAA_DIII_MEN/web/rankings/ncaa/diii_men.aspx

1    Washington & Lee University
2    Rutgers University-Newark
3    Rowan University
4    University Of Mary Washington
5    Lynchburg College
6    Stockton University
7    Randolph College
8    William Paterson University
9    Emory University
10    Randolph-Macon College

CNU was the only school listed as Also Receiving Votes, so I guess that makes them #11

Week 5

1   Rowan University
2   Rutgers University-Newark
3   University Of Mary Washington
4   Lynchburg College
5   Emory University
6   Christopher Newport University
7   Oglethorpe University
8   Randolph-Macon College
9   Maryville College
10   Washington & Lee University

Rankings 10/17/2017


1      Rowan University
DA Rutgers University-Camden 3-2; DH Rutgers University-Newark 1-0
   
2   University Of Mary Washington
DA Southern Virginia University 7-0; DA Wesley College 1-0

3   Rutgers University-Newark
DH Ramapo College 1-0; LA Rowan University 0-1

4   Lynchburg College
DH Randolph College 3-0; DA Hampden-Sydney College 3-1

5   Christopher Newport University
DA St. Mary's College of Maryland 2-1; DH Penn State Harrisburg 4-1

6   Oglethorpe University
DH Millsaps College 8-1; DH Birmingham-Southern College 3-0

7   Emory University
DH New York University 5-0; LH Brandeis University 0-1

8   Randolph-Macon College
DH Virginia Wesleyan College 4-0; DA Eastern Mennonite University 2-1

9   Washington & Lee University
DA Eastern Mennonite University 2-1; DA Virginia Wesleyan College 2-1

10   Roanoke College
DH Hampden-Sydney College 4-0; DA Shenendoah University 5-0

I'm telling you, keep an eye on CNU.

Coaches regional rankings

1      Rowan University  DA Brooklyn College 6-0; TA Ramapo College 0-0;   1   15-2-1
2   Lynchburg College DH Guilford College 4-0; DH Randolph-Macon College 2-1;   4   14-1-1
3   Rutgers University-Newark  DH Stevens Institute Of Technology 2-0; DA Montclair State University 2-0;   3   17-2-0
4   Oglethorpe University   DH Emory University 3-1; DH Berry College 2-1;   6   13-1-1
5   Christopher Newport University  TH Salisbury University 1-1; DA University Of Mary Washington 2-1;   5   11-2-1
6   Washington & Lee University  DH Emory & Henry College 3-0; DH Guilford College 8-0;   9   11-3-1
7   Emory University  LA Oglethorpe University 1-3; DH Berry College 4-0;   7   11-4-0
8   Roanoke College  DH Randolph College 2-1; DA Eastern Mennonite University 1-0;   10   12-4-1
9   North Carolina Wesleyan College  DH LaGrange College 2-0;   NR   11-5-0
10   St. Mary's College of Maryland  DH University Of Mary Washington 2-0; DH Wesley College 2-0;

My SA NCAA Regional Ranking Predictions:

1      Rowan      
2   Lynchburg      
3   Oglethorpe      
4   W&L      
5   Rutgers- Newark
6   CNU   
7   Emory
8.   Roanoke College

With Emory's SOS I do not think they will drop that much..Plus with RvR being factored in I doubt they would drop past RUN.Will be interesting to see what happens

True.  CNU also tied an average at best Salisbury team this past week.  So Emory and CNU could flip-flop.

SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 25, 2017

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Non-Conf. . SOS	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Lynchburg	13-1-1	0.580	2-1-1	0.653	14-1-1	2
2.	Rowan	15-2-1	0.604	2-2-0	0.608	15-2-1	1
3.	Oglethorpe	13-1-1	0.590	2-1-0	0.676	13-2-1	3
4.	Washington and Lee	11-3-1	0.570	3-1-0	0.630	11-3-1	5
5.	Emory	11-4-0	0.642	2-3-0	0.635	11-4-0	4
6.	Rutgers-Newark	17-2-0	0.554	1-2-0	0.537	17-2-0	6
7.	Christopher Newport	11-2-1	0.547	1-2-0	0.631	12-2-1	8
8.	Mary Washington	11-4-1	0.556	1-3-0	0.675	11-4-1	7

Can someone explain why Oglethorpe isn't #1 in this ranking?  I thought a result vs. a non-D3 opponent is only considered as a tiebreaker.

Identical D3 record to Lynchburg, slightly higher overall SOS and non-conference SOS.  2-1-0 RvR versus 2-1-1.  It's close, but not a tie.

Quote from: just4kix on October 26, 2017, 12:38:57 PM
Can someone explain why Oglethorpe isn't #1 in this ranking?  I thought a result vs. a non-D3 opponent is only considered as a tiebreaker.

Identical D3 record to Lynchburg, slightly higher overall SOS and non-conference SOS.  2-1-0 RvR versus 2-1-1.  It's close, but not a tie.

Well, one of the primary criteria is "Division III head-to-head competition".  Lynchburg beat Oglethorpe head-to-head, 1-0 at Oglethorpe.

So, with everything thing else being pretty close, the head-to-head makes the difference.

Another primary criterion that wasn't mentioned is "Results versus common Division III opponents", however, this doesn't favor either team.
     vs. Roanoke - Oglethorpe W 3-0 (A), Lynchburg W 1-0 (A)
     vs. Berry - Oglethorpe W 2-1 (H), Lynchburg W 1-0 (A)

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2017, 01:06:28 PM

Quote from: just4kix on October 26, 2017, 12:38:57 PM
Can someone explain why Oglethorpe isn't #1 in this ranking?  I thought a result vs. a non-D3 opponent is only considered as a tiebreaker.

Identical D3 record to Lynchburg, slightly higher overall SOS and non-conference SOS.  2-1-0 RvR versus 2-1-1.  It's close, but not a tie.

Well, one of the primary criteria is "Division III head-to-head competition".  Lynchburg beat Oglethorpe head-to-head, 1-0 at Oglethorpe.

So, with everything thing else being pretty close, the head-to-head makes the difference.

Another primary criterion that wasn't mentioned is "Results versus common Division III opponents", however, this doesn't favor either team.
     vs. Roanoke - Oglethorpe W 3-0 (A), Lynchburg W 1-0 (A)
     vs. Berry - Oglethorpe W 2-1 (H), Lynchburg W 1-0 (A)

I'm thinking the bold part is the winner. Hard to scoot past a team that beat you, especially if they beat you at your house, unless they have a significant blemish you don't have. Lynchburg just doesn't have that blemish.

I can't find what I wanted (the video of Joe Hutzler that is a lead-in to game broadcasts where he is walking around the pitch at night with dramatic sound highlights flashing in the background), so this will have to do for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yQErJDASQU

Joe Hutzler is easily the best D3 broadcast guy in the business.  Absolutely love this guy.  Just happened to come across him last year when Kenyon played Lynchburg.

SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 01, 2017

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Lynchburg	14-1-2	0.577	2-1-1	15-1-2	1
2.	Rowan	16-2-1	0.594	2-2-0	16-2-1	2
3.	Oglethorpe	14-1-1	0.566	2-1-0	14-2-1	3
4.	Washington and Lee	13-3-1	0.564	3-1-0	13-3-1	4
5.	Rutgers-Newark	18-2-0	0.558	1-2-0	18-2-0	6
6.	Emory	11-5-1	0.636	2-3-1	11-5-1	5
7.	Christopher Newport	12-2-1	0.540	1-2-0	13-2-1	7
8.	Mary Washington	13-4-1	0.552	1-3-0	13-4-1	8

SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 06, 2017

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Lynchburg	16-1-2	0.602	3-1-1	17-1-2	1
2.	Rowan	17-3-1	0.616	3-3-0	17-3-1	2
3.	Oglethorpe	16-1-1	0.576	1-1-0	16-2-1	3
4.	Rutgers-Newark	20-2-0	0.579	2-2-0	20-2-0	5
5.	Washington and Lee	14-4-1	0.580	3-2-1	14-4-1	4
6.	Emory	12-5-1	0.637	2-3-1	12-5-1	6
7.	Mary Washington	15-4-1	0.566	2-3-0	15-4-1	8
8.	Christopher Newport	13-3-1	0.547	1-3-0	14-3-1	7

Did anyone get a more favorable draw than W&L? I hope my Generals can take advantage of it. I would have killed for this kind of draw the last two years.

Quote from: jknezek on November 07, 2017, 02:07:30 PM
Did anyone get a more favorable draw than W&L? I hope my Generals can take advantage of it. I would have killed for this kind of draw the last two years.

You are at least top 2 of best draws IMO.  Winnable games and at home when hosting was probably not even on your radar.

Is Mary Washington a good draw?  They seem pretty tough to me.

Quote from: D3soccer2017 on November 07, 2017, 02:42:38 PM
Is Mary Washington a good draw?  They seem pretty tough to me.

It's a winnable game, at home, for a team that didn't win it's conference regular season or conference tournament. There aren't a lot of push overs at this level, and Mary Washington and Ogelthorpe aren't push overs, but in terms of teams within W&L's driving distance that they could have been sent to? Yes, it's a good draw.

That doesn't mean I think W&L is the favorite in the pod everyone else thinks. I just think it's not a pod with a National Powerhouse, so I think there are 3 teams that could conceivably come out of it and W&L gets to sleep in their own beds. It's not often a 5th ranked team in a region hosts, especially hosts the third ranked team...

W&L got fortunate, that doesn't mean it will be easy.

Thanks for the insight.  I guess I should have figured out there aren't too many easy draws in the tournament.  Why do you think they got to host over the number 3 team, is that a tip of the cap to ODAC?

Quote from: D3soccer2017 on November 07, 2017, 09:30:57 PM
Thanks for the insight.  I guess I should have figured out there aren't too many easy draws in the tournament.  Why do you think they got to host over the number 3 team, is that a tip of the cap to ODAC?

No. I think the most likely explanation is Oglethorpe didn't apply to host. The second explanation is they wanted a more geographically central host. Mary Washington could not have been in an Oglethorpe hosted bracket. It would have meant a flight. There were other options for an Atlanta pod though, Emory and Thomas More come to mind, so I think most likely is Oglethorpe did not apply. That would make sense for why they are at W&L and not Lynchburg,  as Lynchburg would have been a tougher draw for the Petrals.

NCAA Rankings Prediction 2018
1 Lynchburg    10-0-2
2 MSU             13-1-2
3 UMW            9-1-3
4 Emory          8-4-1
5 Rowan         10-4-0
6 Oglethorpe    9-2-0
7 W&L             7-3-1
8 York/WPU/RUC/Salisbury

I hope Salisbury gets a little more love.  I watched some of their game vs. #8 MWU (a win by the way) and they looked decent. Rowan on the other hand is not the same Rowan of years past.  They're not a #5 to me.

SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 17, 2018

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Montclair State	13-1-2	0.560	--	13-1-2	--
2.	Mary Washington	9-1-3	0.578	--	9-1-3	--
3.	Rutgers-Camden	11-3-2	0.584	--	11-3-2	--
4.	Rowan	10-4-0	0.606	--	10-4-0	--
5.	Emory	8-4-1	0.619	--	8-4-1	--
6.	Salisbury	9-2-2	0.558	--	9-2-2	--
7.	York (Pa.)	9-3-2	0.567	--	9-3-2	--
8.	Washington and Lee	7-3-1	0.577	--	7-3-1	--

Rutgers-Camden falls to Rowan in OT on an OG.  Plays WPU on Sat.

Oglethorpe hands Emory it's first out-of-conference loss.   This should be fairly high within the rankings now as they are 2-1 RvR (wins over Emory and WashU) and SOS will jump.

Emory still has a nightmare schedule left; CMU, CWRU, @ Rochester.

York falls to St. Mary's MD.  Still has Salisbury on the schedule.

W&L has a big game vs Noke 10/20.

St. Mary's MD has a low SOS, but now with key wins over York and Salisbury.  Should move into rankings

Lynchburg 1-0-2 RvR


Projected movers
Up:  Lynchburg, Oglethorpe, Rowan, St. Mary's
Down:  Camden, Emory, York

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 19, 2018, 07:58:25 AM

Rutgers-Camden falls to Rowan in OT on an OG.  Plays WPU on Sat.

Oglethorpe hands Emory it's first out-of-conference loss.   This should be fairly high within the rankings now as they are 2-1 RvR (wins over Emory and WashU) and SOS will jump.

Emory still has a nightmare schedule left; CMU, CWRU, @ Rochester.

York falls to St. Mary's MD.  Still has Salisbury on the schedule.

W&L has a big game vs Noke 10/20.

St. Mary's MD has a low SOS, but now with key wins over York and Salisbury.  Should move into rankings

Lynchburg 1-0-2 RvR


Projected movers
Up:  Lynchburg, Oglethorpe, Rowan, St. Mary's
Down:  Camden, Emory, York

Wow that is brutal for Emory!  :o

Took me a few years to really understand the impact of SoS on rankings and bids, and as noted on Lycoming in another thread, you simply cannot count on what looks to be a solid schedule beforehand.  I have a lot of respect for the high S0S's of the UAA teams and others, but that said, there has to be a point where losing matters.  If Emory runs the table from here, then OK, but otherwise, I would hate to see a team like Emory that is 0-5-1 (or is it 0-6-1?) get a bid over a Lynchburg, Lycoming or St. Joe's.  I think Lynchburg will end up being fine, but still....

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 19, 2018, 09:30:54 AM
Took me a few years to really understand the impact of SoS on rankings and bids, and as noted on Lycoming in another thread, you simply cannot count on what looks to be a solid schedule beforehand.  I have a lot of respect for the high S0S's of the UAA teams and others, but that said, there has to be a point where losing matters.  If Emory runs the table from here, then OK, but otherwise, I would hate to see a team like Emory that is 0-5-1 (or is it 0-6-1?) get a bid over a Lynchburg, Lycoming or St. Joe's.  I think Lynchburg will end up being fine, but still....

Agreed. Case has seemed to have that problem in the last few seasons — compiling a very solid SoS but not getting the results. 2015 if I remember correctly they were in the UAA hunt going into the penultimate weekend, then lost two straight on the road which probably also did them in for an NCAA bid. This year I think they are in great shape to make their first tournament since 2011, but their struggles in the past few years have evidenced that you have to win those games in order to make the SoS count for something.

Quote from: blooter442 on October 19, 2018, 09:42:57 AM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 19, 2018, 09:30:54 AM
Took me a few years to really understand the impact of SoS on rankings and bids, and as noted on Lycoming in another thread, you simply cannot count on what looks to be a solid schedule beforehand.  I have a lot of respect for the high S0S's of the UAA teams and others, but that said, there has to be a point where losing matters.  If Emory runs the table from here, then OK, but otherwise, I would hate to see a team like Emory that is 0-5-1 (or is it 0-6-1?) get a bid over a Lynchburg, Lycoming or St. Joe's.  I think Lynchburg will end up being fine, but still....

Agreed. Case has seemed to have that problem in the last few seasons — compiling a very solid SoS but not getting the results. 2015 if I remember correctly they were in the UAA hunt going into the penultimate weekend, then lost two straight on the road which probably also did them in for an NCAA bid. This year I think they are in great shape to make their first tournament since 2011, but their struggles in the past few years have evidenced that you have to win those games in order to make the SoS count for something.

And while saying what I said, let's say Emory beats Berry (not a given at all, esp away) and then goes 2-1 in last 3 UAAs, and they end up something like 11-6-1....that actually might get them in.  I think Case is probably in even if they lose all 3 of final UAAs, but a win or a draw in any of those I think ensures it as Great Lakes is not very deep or with many teams that will have more than a couple of ranked wins.

I could be wrong, but I think 7-8 blemishes is the near the cut-off.   A few teams have gotten in with 9

I think they could get in if they finish 10-7-1.     

18 games on the schedule with 11 RvR likely.   
Wins within the region over Rowan, Rutgers-Camden and W&L should help their case.
SOS currently .619 and should be upwards of .650 by season end.
 

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 19, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
I could be wrong, but I think 7-8 blemishes is the near the cut-off.   A few teams have gotten in with 9

I think they could get in if they finish 10-7-1.     

18 games on the schedule with 11 RvR likely.   
Wins within the region over Rowan, Rutgers-Camden and W&L should help their case.
SOS currently .619 and should be upwards of .650 by season end.

I think you're probably right.  A week or so ago I was marveling at their chances even as they continued to lose.  Let's say they beat Berry and win 1 out 3 remaining UAA games....that would put them right at 10-7-1 with a sky high SoS and RvR probably around 4-5 (if Wash U doesn't end up ranked and the rest stay put).  Does that get them in?  Has a UAA team ever won only 1 game (especially absent several draws) in league and gotten a bid?

I think they would be much safer winning 2 of the last 3 or at least going 1-1-1.  The trio of wins over W&L, Rowan and RUC definitely were huge.

Emory last won a game on September 25th!

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 19, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
I could be wrong, but I think 7-8 blemishes is the near the cut-off.   A few teams have gotten in with 9

When has a team received an at-large berth with 9 losses?

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 19, 2018, 02:17:36 PM

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 19, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
I could be wrong, but I think 7-8 blemishes is the near the cut-off.   A few teams have gotten in with 9

When has a team received an at-large berth with 9 losses?

Blemishes, not losses. Includes ties.

With 10 NCAA titles, it's not FWs fault that he's unaware of the terminology.   Messiah doesn't know what a blemish is!

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 19, 2018, 02:48:25 PM

With 10 NCAA titles, it's not FWs fault that he's unaware of the terminology.   Messiah doesn't know what a blemish is!

:)

The official number is actually 11 titles, but I myself consider it 10, since Lynchburg was robbed of a fairly earned title in 2010, when a non-call allowed the Falcons to tie the game in the final five minutes of regulation. Lynchburg's coach was very gracious, but I think the foul should have been called and the game would have ended with Lynchburg on top. Is that a blemish?   8-)

It's 11 NCAA titles, so while we may be unaware of the terminology, at least we can count!!!

Sorry that I misread that. That's makes more sense.  Without looking it up, I imagine teams with 9 blemishes get selected sometimes.

Lastguys 2nd Regional Ranking Projection
1) MSU   14-1-3 (W vs TCNJ)
2) UMW  11-1-3 (Ws vs PSU-Harrisburg, CNU)
3) Rowan 11-5
4) Rutgers-Camden 12-4-2 (L vs Rowan, W over WPU)
5) Emory 9-5-1 (L vs Oglethorpe, W vs Berry)
6) Salisbury 11-2-2
7) W&L 10-3-1
8) Oglethorpe 11-2
-----------------------
9) Ramapo/St. Marys/Lynchburg/York

It's nice to see W&L really gelling. The three losses are tough. All road games, back to back to back. Travel to Emory, to F&M, and to York, all in an eight day span. The York game was the only one they weren't in, and they just looked tired at that point. Since then, been a strong season. At Lynchburg was a solid tie, and probably the only game I think the Generals were more on the back foot than the front since York.

If either W&L or Lynchburg come out of the ODAC, they will be tough teams to beat. This weekend Lynchburg just couldn't get the ball in the net. Out shot Bridgewater 14-7, 6-4 on goal, 11-1 in corners. Just one of those things that happens in soccer I guess.

            WP%    Rank   SOS        Rank   RvR       
MSU..........0.882.......1......0.56.........6......2-1-1
UMW.........0.833.......4......0.578........4......1-1-0
Rowan.......0.688......10....0.606........2......2-3-0
RUC..........0.722.......9......0.584........3......1-3-0
Emory.......0.633.......11....0.619........1......3-4-0
Salisbury...0.800........6......0.558........7......1-0-0
W&L.........0.750........8......0.577........5......1-2-0
Ogelthorpe.0.846.......3......0.541........8......1-1-0
                     
St. Mary.....0.781.......7......0.532........9......1-2-0      
Ramapo.....0.824.......5......0.518........11.....2-1-1
Lynchburg..0.857.......2......0.522........10.....1-0-2

WP% Rank and SOS Rank were just among the teams listed...

If Lynchburg was not in the initial rankings and split results this week, I am not sure they will crack the rankings, but who knows.   Ramapo is also legit, but the SOS is not there.   Oglethorpe beats Emory but falls to W&L (they have a lack of RvR, but will h2h hold an advantage).  I really think Lynchburg is deserving of a ranking.

#7 York will fall out with 2 losses during the week. 

Emory beat both Rowan and RUC, so even though the WP% is low, the SOS is just outrageous.    Would not have a problem if they were somehow ranked #3.   

Salisbury getting the shaft.  I think they've got a nice team this year.

I would have a problem if Emory is ranked 3rd and are 0-4-0 in the UAA even with a high SOS. At some point the committee MUST look at what a team is doing in conference and that should outweigh a high SOS..Emory is a prime example

Quote from: EB2319 on October 22, 2018, 02:27:30 PM
Salisbury getting the shaft.  I think they've got a nice team this year.

The Gulls could be higher and also would not shock me to see them ahead of Emory...

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 22, 2018, 06:10:18 PM

Quote from: EB2319 on October 22, 2018, 02:27:30 PM
Salisbury getting the shaft.  I think they've got a nice team this year.

The Gulls could be higher and also would not shock me to see them ahead of Emory...

And RUC, who is 12-4-2 and Rowan at 11-5.

Salisbury only 1 game vs a regionally ranked opponent.  If St. Mary's squeeze in, that hurts the Gulls... also SOS drops from .558 to .550 after playing 6-7 CNU and 0-14 Southern Virginia

NCAA SOS First Release
Rutgers-Newark.............0.630
Emory...........................0.619
Rowan..........................0.606
Rutgers-Camden............0.584
CNU.............................0.581
VWU............................0.580
MWU...........................0.578
Wash&Lee....................0.577
Stockton......................0.575
York............................0.567
William Paterson...........0.565
Montclair St..................0.560
Randolph-Macon...........0.560
Salisbury......................0.558
NCW............................0.549
NJCU...........................0.544
TCNJ...........................0.544
Centre.........................0.541
Oglethorpe...................0.541
Millsaps.......................0.537
Frostburg St.................0.536
Averett........................0.534
St. Marys.....................0.532
Southern Va.................0.531
Randolph.....................0.530
Brevard.......................0.528
Rhodes.......................0.524
Lynchburg...................0.522
Ramapo......................0.518
Sewanee.....................0.517
Kean..........................0.512
Covenant....................0.510
EMU...........................0.510
BirminghamSo.............0.506
Emory & Henry.............0.501
-------------------------------------------------
Berry...........................0.499
Piedmont.....................0.498
Hampden-Sydney..........0.493
Roanoke.......................0.492
Bridgewater...................0.482
Greensboro....................0.472
Berea............................0.471
Guilford.........................0.470
Shenandoah...................0.458
Pfeiffer...........................0.453
Ferrum...........................0.451
Huntingdon.....................0.447
Maryville........................0.445
Hendrix..........................0.443
William Peace.................0.433
Methodist.......................0.430
LaGrange.......................0.425
PSU-Harrisburg...............0.419

I will update with columns after each release.

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 22, 2018, 10:45:10 PM
Salisbury only 1 game vs a regionally ranked opponent.  If St. Mary's squeeze in, that hurts the Gulls... also SOS drops from .558 to .550 after playing 6-7 CNU and 0-14 Southern Virginia

To my point in a different thread, I don't weight SOS as much.  If I had the luxury of choosing an opponent, I would rather play RUC over Salisbury.  IMO, Salisbury is a better team regardless of SOS. 

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 22, 2018, 10:45:10 PM
Salisbury only 1 game vs a regionally ranked opponent.  If St. Mary's squeeze in, that hurts the Gulls... also SOS drops from .558 to .550 after playing 6-7 CNU and 0-14 Southern Virginia

-Oglethorpe SOS jumps from .541 to .564 and the W over Emory catapults them to #3 in the region. 1-1 or 1-2 RvR
-St. Mary's enters in the polls.  Nearly identical record, slightly higher SOS than Salisbury to go along with the H2H win.
-WPU also enters for the first time with 3-4 RvR and an SOS of .570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Salisbury falls out despite a 2-0 week, SOS dropped from .558 to .539
-Wash&Lee falls out despite a 3-0 week, SOS dropped from .577 to .562
-Lynchburg SOS dropped from .522 to .509
-Ramapo SOS increased from .518 to .535.... will continue to climb with NJAC post-season. 

SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 24, 2018

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Montclair State	14-1-2	0.555	2-1-1	14-1-2	1
2.	Mary Washington	11-1-3	0.587	1-1-1	11-1-3	2
3.	Oglethorpe	10-2-0	0.564	1-2-0	11-2-0	--
4.	Rowan	11-5-0	0.617	2-3-0	11-5-0	4
5.	Emory	9-5-1	0.625	3-3-0	9-5-1	5
6.	Rutgers-Camden	12-4-2	0.597	1-3-0	12-4-2	3
7.	St. Mary's (Md.)	10-2-3	0.555	2-2-0	11-2-3	--
8.	William Paterson	11-5-1	0.570	3-4-0	11-5-1	--

Ramapo 3 WPU 2. Fala with two more, including the game winner in OT.  That gives him 23 on the year and Ramapo a second place finish in the NJAC.  Congrats to the Roadrunners.

Ramapo getting the #2 seed has to be their best regular season outcome ever. Good for them. Looking forward to R-C visiting Ramapo in 2nd roind on Tuesay - if they get by Willy P.  Rowan is a big disappointment.  They're strategy, of thinking that leading the conference in fouls and yellow cards will lead to good results, needs to be reconsidered.

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 22, 2018, 02:27:59 PM
I would have a problem if Emory is ranked 3rd and are 0-4-0 in the UAA even with a high SOS. At some point the committee MUST look at what a team is doing in conference and that should outweigh a high SOS..Emory is a prime example

Conference winning percentage is neither a primary criterion nor a secondary criterion according to the NCAA handbook, so it won't be looked at.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 12:57:34 PM

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 22, 2018, 02:27:59 PM
I would have a problem if Emory is ranked 3rd and are 0-4-0 in the UAA even with a high SOS. At some point the committee MUST look at what a team is doing in conference and that should outweigh a high SOS..Emory is a prime example

Conference winning percentage is neither a primary criterion nor a secondary criterion according to the NCAA handbook, so it won't be looked at.

I understand that BUT IT SHOULD BE a factor...Say Emory finishes 1-6-1 in the UAA and then gets rewarded with a Pool C because of a decent Winning % and +.600 SOS...I am just saying I WOULD have a problem with that but hey if the committee wants to reward them with a Pool C then it is what it is.

It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

It could also end up being your beef as well in a week in a half when North Park gets screwed and left out after a fine season and Emory gets rewarded with a Pool C and a hypothetical 1-6-1 UAA record. You don't think some of these bubble teams Head Coaches that get left out wont have a beef as well with that situation?

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

I would assume we can agree, though, that occasionally there can be unfortunate results from the process....that none of us would prefer to see a team 1-6-1 even from a very good conference get in while Lynchburg, W&L or any of our own preferred teams with an outstanding record/season didn't.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 02:09:55 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

I would assume we can agree, though, that occasionally there can be unfortunate results from the process....that none of us would prefer to see a team 1-6-1 even from a very good conference get in while Lynchburg, W&L or any of our own preferred teams with an outstanding record/season didn't.

To be fair, Emory did beat W&L. Granted it was at their place in double overtime, but they did win. So you could make a case that way.

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:32:51 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 02:09:55 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

I would assume we can agree, though, that occasionally there can be unfortunate results from the process....that none of us would prefer to see a team 1-6-1 even from a very good conference get in while Lynchburg, W&L or any of our own preferred teams with an outstanding record/season didn't.

To be fair, Emory did beat W&L. Granted it was at their place in double overtime, but they did win. So you could make a case that way.

Agreed, IF the teams otherwise were very even so it made sense to go with head-to-head.  I'd have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure W&L's performance over the past 8-10 games blows away Emory.....and then there's Lynchburg.

Anyway, we're going to always come back to the "criteria are the criteria" but we're also always going to think of imagined adjustments that might improve the process....like, for example, each cmte having one "wild card" slot that they can use to fix something that they agree on seems egregious.

P.S. Our banter here is really no different than what happens the second after the NCAA D1 bball selections are announced....the very first segments on ESPN and CBS are the "who are the 3-4 teams that got screwed the worst" deals with Dick Vitale ranting and raving and a couple of interviews with distraught coaches.  And of course one of the annual themes is how the major conferences got coddled with too many bids and the "little guys" (mid majors) got the shaft.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 02:39:21 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:32:51 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 02:09:55 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

I would assume we can agree, though, that occasionally there can be unfortunate results from the process....that none of us would prefer to see a team 1-6-1 even from a very good conference get in while Lynchburg, W&L or any of our own preferred teams with an outstanding record/season didn't.

To be fair, Emory did beat W&L. Granted it was at their place in double overtime, but they did win. So you could make a case that way.

Agreed, IF the teams otherwise were very even so it made sense to go with head-to-head.  I'd have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure W&L's performance over the past 8-10 games blows away Emory.....and then there's Lynchburg.

Anyway, we're going to always come back to the "criteria are the criteria" but we're also always going to think of imagined adjustments that might improve the process....like, for example, each cmte having one "wild card" slot that they can use to fix something that they agree on seems egregious.

What might work for soccer, might not work well in other sports. And the NCAA wants the criteria to be standardized. It's hard to make something that works for everyone, and a wildcard is just that. A completely unaccountable way to place a team. The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

LOL.  Not that deluded to think the NCAA is going to adopt some idea posted on this website...and I don't think it would have to be in a back room and smoky.

At any rate, I hope W&L gets in, via AQ or Pool C.  My vague sense is that the ODAC often has difficulty with getting its teams ranked or ranked highly.

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 25, 2018, 02:03:44 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

It could also end up being your beef as well in a week in a half when North Park gets screwed and left out after a fine season and Emory gets rewarded with a Pool C and a hypothetical 1-6-1 UAA record.

I'm aware of that, although I hasten to point out that in this case we're talking about "if" and not "when". I wouldn't gripe about it, though, because I understand the criteria going in. Whether they're good criteria or not, all I ask is that they be fairly and evenly applied -- and in the scenario in which NPU and Emory would be two of the eight teams on the table when the last Pool C berth is allocated by the national committee, which then decided to give the berth to the Eagles rather than the Vikings, I wouldn't gripe about it if the numbers definitively showed that the primary selection criteria favored the Eagles. Instead, I'd spend my energy griping about the fact that the Vikings didn't take care of business at the end of the season when the avenue was wide open for them to reserve their spot in the postseason.

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 25, 2018, 02:03:44 PMYou don't think some of these bubble teams Head Coaches that get left out wont have a beef as well with that situation?

I can't and won't vouch for how any coach thinks. But if he understands the criteria, then he can't complain about a team with a bad conference record getiting a Pool C bid, because he knows that conference winning percentage is irrelevant to the selection process. He may complain about how the pertinent criteria were applied, justifiably or not, but his objections would be groundless if he complained about something that wasn't in the manual. The pre-championships manual containing the criteria is published a year ahead of time -- and, actually, the criteria themselves haven't changed at all in several years -- so ignorance is no excuse in this instance. Everybody has access to the rules for postseason selection, and a coach ought to know how those rules apply in terms of his sport. The only expectation that any coach could have is that the committee apply the relevant rules fairly and even-handedly.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 02:09:55 PM
I would assume we can agree, though, that occasionally there can be unfortunate results from the process....that none of us would prefer to see a team 1-6-1 even from a very good conference get in while Lynchburg, W&L or any of our own preferred teams with an outstanding record/season didn't.

No, not really. I don't think that teams from power conferences should be docked for bad conference records, while teams from mediocre (or less) conferences are rewarded for good conference records. Within the confines of the NCAA principle of equal access, I'd like to see each and every NCAA championship tourney, playoff, or meet have the strongest field possible -- and to me that means not restricting power conferences from having as many representatives as they can get into the field under the current system. (Note that this goes against self-interest in my case regarding men's soccer; while the CCIW is annually one of the strongest leagues in all of D3 in most sports, men's soccer is an exception. The CCIW will get sometimes three, four, and once in a great while even five teams into the D3 tourney in other sports, but only seven times in the 30 years that the league has sponsored men's soccer have there been multiple CCIW squads in the D3 tourney, and there's never been more than two on those seven occasions.) If the seventh-best side in the UAA is better than the second-best side in some other league, then, by all means, give the seventh-best UAA team the berth. The best sides make for the best bracket in terms of quality of play.

But where we get into the weeds, and where I think that your opinion and mine of what's best for the field may converge, is how the five primary criteria as they currently exist are weighted. Right now the premium seems to be put on SoS, as opposed to winning percentage. But there's no reason why that has to remain so; after all, the five primary criteria are not listed in order of precedence. The committee could choose to balance those two criteria a bit more, which would reduce the attractiveness of an Emory-type side vis-a-vis the NPUs of the world.

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
What might work for soccer, might not work well in other sports. And the NCAA wants the criteria to be standardized. It's hard to make something that works for everyone, and a wildcard is just that. A completely unaccountable way to place a team. The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

This.

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:01:11 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Thanks.  It can be a tough crowd...

For the record, I would never argue that a bad to middling team with a great record in a weak conference should take a bid from a good team in a top conference (like, let's say, Mt. Aloysius) but a St Joe's at this point has demonstrated that it might be better or is better than some of those middling teams in strong conferences.  I assume these folks have seen the aftermath of the NCAA ball selections....

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:01:11 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Define "tournament-worthy", "common sense", and "incorrect results" in this instance. If your objective is to produce the best bracket possible in D3 men's soccer, is that an "incorrect result"? If not, would common sense dictate that you apply the criteria in such a way as to penalize teams that didn't do well in their respective conferences but performed more than adequately within the five primary criteria to justify receiving a Pool C berth? What's a tournament-worthy team if you're trying to fashion the best bracket possible in terms of soccer quality, within the confines of the equal-access principle that dictates that each member league of D3 gets at least one side into the field?

There's really no such thing as "blind application of the criteria." The five primary criteria do offer leeway for interpretation in terms of how they're weighted with respect to each other. Also, part of that leeway is that they allow the committee to turn to secondary criteria if there's an internal logjam within the committee. In other words, it's not simply a matter of punching in the numbers and spitting out a list of Pool C candidates in terms of precedence. After all, a computer could do that. The idea behind the current system is to tie one hand behind the backs of the committee's members in order to make sure that everyone is applying the same numbers-based criteria, not to cut off both of their hands.

Sometimes we're just having fun....a funny and sort of frightening tangential, true story...

I couple of months ago Dan Wetzel wrote an article about the kneeling thing, and I usually never do this, but I browsed through the comments section...and 95% of the comments all sounded the same and were ripping Wetzel and basically anything close to the kind of folks and agencies that are the intended recipients of all these bombs.  I chimed in to make a couple of comments, and I noted how similar all of the hateful and extremely partisan comments were, suggesting in jest that there were Russian bots.  Now I actually know what the whole probe is about and how elections can be turned by flooding these comments sections, social media, etc, etc.  Seriously, I was blown away that comments that should have been running 50-50 or at worst 60/40 were going 95% (and 95% horrifically nasty) in one direction.  THE VERY NEXT DAY, for the first time ever in my nearly 60 years, I received a phone call on my cell labeled as coming from Russia with the weird country code and the whole deal.  I didn't answer so don't know what would have happened if I did.  Totally true story.  And guess what the impact was?  I have never again posted in any comments sections for news articles or anything in that kind of genre, which I think was the point.

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:01:11 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Not missing the point. Just don't agree. The criteria more or less works. It provides flexibility in the committee in how they weight and rank the criteria. It works across all sports more or less. If you go back to the pre-AQ time, backroom deals, old coaches networks, and happy phone calls were the norm. It sucked. Standardizing the criteria, making it mostly public, and allowing coaches and teams to understand it, has been a boon to teams, programs, schools, and athletes.

The idea of removing that criteria to allow the committees to again subjectively select wildcards, not based on any standardized criteria or weighting, is a bad idea. Does it annually cause some small heartache around a few teams for every tournament across every sport? Of course. But arguing about the last 2 or 3 teams in or out, at most, is a heck of a lot better than what used to happen.

Known selection criteria is a good thing. It allows teams a better idea of what they need to do, how to build their schedules, and what their performance merits. Wildcards from the committee do none of these things.

It's settled.  The system at present is perfect.  No tweaks needed or desired.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 03:36:44 PM
It's settled.  The system at present is perfect.  No tweaks needed or desired.

What he said, especially if Greg Sager and jknezek happen to be Russian bots . . .

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 03:12:47 PM

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:01:11 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Thanks.  It can be a tough crowd...

For the record, I would never argue that a bad to middling team with a great record in a weak conference should take a bid from a good team in a top conference (like, let's say, Mt. Aloysius) but a St Joe's at this point has demonstrated that it might be better or is better than some of those middling teams in strong conferences.  I assume these folks have seen the aftermath of the NCAA ball selections....

Again, what I'm saying is that your concern could be addressed within the process as it currently exists, without having to completely change the rules by adding conference winning percentage as a sixth criterion. What's needed is for there be an impetus within the committee to weigh winning percentage a bit more and SoS a bit less. That would cause, for instance, St. Joe's to rise within the Northeast Region rankings the next season, presuming that the Monks continue to run roughshod over every side they face.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 03:43:13 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 03:12:47 PM

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:01:11 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Thanks.  It can be a tough crowd...

For the record, I would never argue that a bad to middling team with a great record in a weak conference should take a bid from a good team in a top conference (like, let's say, Mt. Aloysius) but a St Joe's at this point has demonstrated that it might be better or is better than some of those middling teams in strong conferences.  I assume these folks have seen the aftermath of the NCAA ball selections....

Again, what I'm saying is that your concern could be addressed within the process as it currently exists, without having to completely change the rules by adding conference winning percentage as a sixth criterion. What's needed is for there be an impetus within the committee to weigh winning percentage a bit more and SoS a bit less. That would cause, for instance, St. Joe's to rise within the Northeast Region rankings the next season, presuming that the Monks continue to run roughshod over every side they face.

Well done Greg!  Suggesting an improvement is better than defending an imperfect system in my view.

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 03:36:44 PM
It's settled.  The system at present is perfect.  No tweaks needed or desired.

What he said, especially if Greg Sager and jknezek happen to be Russian bots . . .

что не вычисляет!

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_xmTzO3Zx0ZQ%2FTJCcIqVZGoI%2FAAAAAAAAE1M%2FfR7XKlnGR20%2Fs1600%2Frobot-posters-inspiration-01.jpg&hash=4220d56de4d3f3b83bef249316b9cc01cdede553)

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:46:00 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 03:43:13 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 03:12:47 PM

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:01:11 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Thanks.  It can be a tough crowd...

For the record, I would never argue that a bad to middling team with a great record in a weak conference should take a bid from a good team in a top conference (like, let's say, Mt. Aloysius) but a St Joe's at this point has demonstrated that it might be better or is better than some of those middling teams in strong conferences.  I assume these folks have seen the aftermath of the NCAA ball selections....

Again, what I'm saying is that your concern could be addressed within the process as it currently exists, without having to completely change the rules by adding conference winning percentage as a sixth criterion. What's needed is for there be an impetus within the committee to weigh winning percentage a bit more and SoS a bit less. That would cause, for instance, St. Joe's to rise within the Northeast Region rankings the next season, presuming that the Monks continue to run roughshod over every side they face.

Well done Greg!  Suggesting an improvement is better than defending an imperfect system in my view.

Except that's not really an improvement or change. It's already allowed. What criteria the committee chooses to put as the most important changes year to year with the membership of the committee. As an example, the flexibility exists to put W&L over Emory. They committee is choosing not to. You might think that is wrong. It's an opinion you have and that's fine.

My argument is with the idea of a wildcard. Compared to what we have, my opinion is that idea is not good.

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:46:00 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 03:43:13 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 03:12:47 PM

Quote from: 1970s NESCAC Player on October 25, 2018, 03:01:11 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Thanks.  It can be a tough crowd...

For the record, I would never argue that a bad to middling team with a great record in a weak conference should take a bid from a good team in a top conference (like, let's say, Mt. Aloysius) but a St Joe's at this point has demonstrated that it might be better or is better than some of those middling teams in strong conferences.  I assume these folks have seen the aftermath of the NCAA ball selections....

Again, what I'm saying is that your concern could be addressed within the process as it currently exists, without having to completely change the rules by adding conference winning percentage as a sixth criterion. What's needed is for there be an impetus within the committee to weigh winning percentage a bit more and SoS a bit less. That would cause, for instance, St. Joe's to rise within the Northeast Region rankings the next season, presuming that the Monks continue to run roughshod over every side they face.

Well done Greg!  Suggesting an improvement is better than defending an imperfect system in my view.

But I am defending the system. I'm in agreement with jknezek. What I'm saying is that the system itself provides for internal tweaking within the national committee. How each iteration of the committee chooses to weight and rank the five criteria is their own choice.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 03:25:30 PM
Sometimes we're just having fun....a funny and sort of frightening tangential, true story...

I couple of months ago Dan Wetzel wrote an article about the kneeling thing, and I usually never do this, but I browsed through the comments section...and 95% of the comments all sounded the same and were ripping Wetzel and basically anything close to the kind of folks and agencies that are the intended recipients of all these bombs.  I chimed in to make a couple of comments, and I noted how similar all of the hateful and extremely partisan comments were, suggesting in jest that there were Russian bots.  Now I actually know what the whole probe is about and how elections can be turned by flooding these comments sections, social media, etc, etc.  Seriously, I was blown away that comments that should have been running 50-50 or at worst 60/40 were going 95% (and 95% horrifically nasty) in one direction.  THE VERY NEXT DAY, for the first time ever in my nearly 60 years, I received a phone call on my cell labeled as coming from Russia with the weird country code and the whole deal.  I didn't answer so don't know what would have happened if I did.  Totally true story.  And guess what the impact was?  I have never again posted in any comments sections for news articles or anything in that kind of genre, which I think was the point.

Maybe it was Putin wanting to discuss further the US Seal with the American eagle plucking all the olives from the branches leaving only arrows. Of course it also could have been a Russian Brides for sale call.

Seems that semantics may be playing a significant role here.....one man's "wild card" is another man's "internal to the cmte 'flexibiity'."   And by "wild card" I didn't mean something willy-nilly, do whatever you want and without any oversight or approval.  A "wild card" provision could have all sorts of parameters, limits, layers of approval needed, including a provision to kick a decision or issue to the larger cmte that decides.  I at least didn't argue for a 6th criteria, and if there is room to weight the criteria in different ways then problem solved. 

As an aside, though, are there any rules, regulations, procedures, etc of the NCAA that you disagree with?

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 05:47:52 PM
Seems that semantics may be playing a significant role here.....one man's "wild card" is another man's "internal to the cmte 'flexibiity'."   And by "wild card" I didn't mean something willy-nilly, do whatever you want and without any oversight or approval.  A "wild card" provision could have all sorts of parameters, limits, layers of approval needed, including a provision to kick a decision or issue to the larger cmte that decides.  I at least didn't argue for a 6th criteria, and if there is room to weight the criteria in different ways then problem solved. 

As an aside, though, are there any rules, regulations, procedures, etc of the NCAA that you disagree with?

Yes. Their general ineptitude bothers me. Their hypocritical stance on amateurism is a joke. Their enforcement of their own rules is fairly random and incompetent. However, the system they have for selecting teams for the various DIII tournaments is one of the better things they do. It's generally well thought out and applicable to all sports, pretyty fair, and, and as far as I can tell, has not left a genuine competitor for the championship out on the cold. Has it left teams that could win a few games out? Sure. All the time. But a real championship contender? I can't think of one. That makes for an effective system.

Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 07:07:17 PM
Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 07:17:27 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 07:07:17 PM
Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

You skipped half of the post.

Lynchburg was ranked as high as #5 in the country....to say they wouldn't be a 'contender' is pretty silly...I'll give you not a favorite.... but they've done enough to be in the friggin D3 soccer tournament.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 07:46:15 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 07:17:27 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 07:07:17 PM
Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

You skipped half of the post.

Lynchburg was ranked as high as #5 in the country....to say they wouldn't be a 'contender' is pretty silly...I'll give you not a favorite.... but they've done enough to be in the friggin D3 soccer tournament.

Rankings at one point in a season are not real relevant. Especially the earlier in the season that they happen. Original ranking, opponent quality, and injury status play too much role. Lynchburg went on a good run against mediocre to good competition. When it mattered, in the ODAC season, they tied W&L at home and were well upset by a not great team. Rankings are guesses. Results are important. Lynchburg is a good team. As is W&L. But they are not a threat to the best teams in the country this year. The 5 ranking was wrong, as we saw with results. It happens regularly. Emory was ranked 4 I think at one point. They aren't the 4th beat team in their conference. Rankings are fun bits of talking points. Accuracy is not a hallmark, especially the earlier in the season it happens.

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 08:27:25 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 07:46:15 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 07:17:27 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 07:07:17 PM
Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

You skipped half of the post.

Lynchburg was ranked as high as #5 in the country....to say they wouldn't be a 'contender' is pretty silly...I'll give you not a favorite.... but they've done enough to be in the friggin D3 soccer tournament.

Rankings at one point in a season are not real relevant. Especially the earlier in the season that they happen. Original ranking, opponent quality, and injury status play too much actualbility role. Lynchburg went on actualbility good run actualbilitygainst mediocre to godo competition. When it mattered, in the ODAC season, they tied W&L at home and were well upset by a not great team. Rankings are guesses. Results are important. Lynchburg is a good team. As is W&L. But they are not a threat to the best teams in the country this year. The 5 ranking was wrong, as we saw with results. It happens regularly. Emory was ranked 4 I think at one point. They aren't the 4th beat team in their conference. Rankings are fun bits of talking points. Accuracy is not a hallmark, especially the earlier in the season it happens.

1) I agree with your general point about rankings.

2)  Are you saying the true bar for admittance to the NCAA tournament is having good odds to win the tournament or to make the final four?

3)  You don't think Lynchburg deserves to be in the tournament (and/or is not a NCAA tournament team)?  St. Joe's?  Are there only 4-5 teams with legit chances to win it all that you feel deserve bids?

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 08:44:41 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 08:27:25 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 07:46:15 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 07:17:27 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 07:07:17 PM
Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

You skipped half of the post.

Lynchburg was ranked as high as #5 in the country....to say they wouldn't be a 'contender' is pretty silly...I'll give you not a favorite.... but they've done enough to be in the friggin D3 soccer tournament.

Rankings at one point in a season are not real relevant. Especially the earlier in the season that they happen. Original ranking, opponent quality, and injury status play too much actualbility role. Lynchburg went on actualbility good run actualbilitygainst mediocre to godo competition. When it mattered, in the ODAC season, they tied W&L at home and were well upset by a not great team. Rankings are guesses. Results are important. Lynchburg is a good team. As is W&L. But they are not a threat to the best teams in the country this year. The 5 ranking was wrong, as we saw with results. It happens regularly. Emory was ranked 4 I think at one point. They aren't the 4th beat team in their conference. Rankings are fun bits of talking points. Accuracy is not a hallmark, especially the earlier in the season it happens.

1) I agree with your general point about rankings.

2)  Are you saying the true bar for admittance to the NCAA tournament is having good odds to win the tournament or to make the final four?

3)  You don't think Lynchburg deserves to be in the tournament (and/or is not a NCAA tournament team)?  St. Joe's?  Are there only 4-5 teams with legit chances to win it all that you feel deserve bids?

No. I love the AQ system. It's a great reward for a great season.  There are, thankfully and necessarily to round out the field, a few spare bids for runners up. Since we insist on making soccer a tournament sport we need some second chances. But... that is what they are. Second chances. The very best teams, those with a real chance to win it who have proven it all season long and got unlucky in a conference tournament get a second chance. Because the criteria is pretty good at sorting the cream of the second chances. Where it starts to fall aprt is the bottom of the second chances. These are all teams with serious warts. Not just a conference tourney loss, but also either a weak schedule or a less impressive winning percentage. These warts are significant. And arguing over them doesn't matter to me because teams with those warts aren't really a threat to the best in the nation. They are good teams, no doubt, but good and National Champion quality are different things.

To say Lynchburg isn't a top 62 team and isn't good enough to be in the tournament is just silly. 

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on October 25, 2018, 09:23:29 PM
To say Lynchburg isn't a top 62 team and isn't good enough to be in the tournament is just silly.

I didn't say that. But the AQs make sure it's not the top 62. The question is are they among the top Pool C teams if they drop to it. And if, when we look at those Pool C teams, are they at the top of that group or the bottom? If the bottom, does it matter if they get in over someone else on a slightly different interpretation of best avaliable? My thought is no. And  that is what arguing over the criteria devolves to. Those last 2 or 3 second chance teams. That really aren't a threat to the teams that compete for the title.

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 09:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on October 25, 2018, 09:23:29 PM
To say Lynchburg isn't a top 62 team and isn't good enough to be in the tournament is just silly.

I didn't say that. But the AQs make sure it's not the top 62. The question is are they among the top Pool C teams if they drop to it. And if, when we look at those Pool C teams, are they at the top of that group or the bottom? If the bottom, does it matter if they get in over someone else on a slightly different interpretation of best avaliable? My thought is no. And  that is what arguing over the criteria devolves to. Those last 2 or 3 second chance teams. That really aren't a threat to the teams that compete for the title.

I disagree due to the glitches that need worked out involving the way SOS is calculated and the way RvR is viewed. It is more beneficial to pick up a blemish versus a team that isn't ranked compared to a picking up a blemish against a team that is ranked because is not only hits your overall record negatively but it then hurts the RvR piece as well. So a team is getting punished twice. How does that make any sense at all? You really think that the system doesn't need fixed at all....I disagree. 

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on October 25, 2018, 09:53:43 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2018, 09:44:24 PM

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on October 25, 2018, 09:23:29 PM
To say Lynchburg isn't a top 62 team and isn't good enough to be in the tournament is just silly.

I didn't say that. But the AQs make sure it's not the top 62. The question is are they among the top Pool C teams if they drop to it. And if, when we look at those Pool C teams, are they at the top of that group or the bottom? If the bottom, does it matter if they get in over someone else on a slightly different interpretation of best avaliable? My thought is no. And  that is what arguing over the criteria devolves to. Those last 2 or 3 second chance teams. That really aren't a threat to the teams that compete for the title.

I disagree due to the glitches that need worked out involving the way SOS is calculated and the way RvR is viewed. It is more beneficial to pick up a blemish versus a team that isn't ranked compared to a picking up a blemish against a team that is ranked because is not only hits your overall record negatively but it then hurts the RvR piece as well. So a team is getting punished twice. How does that make any sense at all? You really think that the system doesn't need fixed at all....I disagree.

That's not correct. You are better off being 0-1 against Ranked than 0-0. The criteria is clear about that. In soccer this is less apparent than football, but it is very clear in football that it matters you played ranked opponents than ducked them. The criteria is the same for soccer. It gets tricky if you are say 1-5 or 2-1, but the criteria is biased toward playing ranked opponents as well as winning against them.

What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Montclair St (W 5-0 Kean, BYE)
Mary Washington (W 10-0 Southern VA, vs Southern Va)
Oglethorpe (vs Hendrix)
Rowan (L 0-2 TCNJ, vs Stockton)
Emory (vs CMU, vs CWRU)
Rutgers-Camden (W 1-0 Stockton, vs William Paterson)
St. Mary's MD (L 1-2 CNU, vs PSU-Harrisburg)
William Paterson (L 2-3 Ramapo, @ Rutgers-Camden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salisbury L to York 0-5
Ramapo beating WPU helps their case

ODAC – looking like a one bid league
Lynchburg still getting no love and with an SOS of .509 it's seemingly win or bust.  Unfortunate that the games vs Oglethorpe and Berry were CANCELLED. 
W&L (W 3-0 EMU).   

NJAC - looking like a two bid league, potentially three:  Semis are MSU vs winner of Rowan/Stockton,  Ramapo vs winner of Camden/WPU

UAA - Emory could be 1-6 in conference play, but at 10-7-1 with RvR 4-5, SOS near .650.  I think they should be in.     

CAC is a two bid league if UMW fails to win the AQ.

SAA is a one bid league, IMO.   Could be tricky if Ogelthorpe fails to earn the AQ.

I'm sorry but if Emory is 10-7-1, no way should they be in. That's barely a .500 team

Quote from: EB2319 on October 26, 2018, 08:43:17 AM
I'm sorry but if Emory is 10-7-1, no way should they be in. That's barely a .500 team

I mostly agree with this. If you are the 4th or best team in your conference, you are way out on the bubble. We are pretty sure you aren't a contender if you go 1-6 versus other contenders. I'd rather a team that finished second in a conference get that bid and have a shot at doing better than 1-6 or whatever they end up with versus other contenders. However, it really depends on who is on the table.

For example, I don't really have a problem with Emory keeping W&L from reaching the discussion since there is a h2h. I also don't have a problem if the committee looks at that h2h and decides it was a) early in the season that W&L later rolled and Emory flopped, b) was a double overtime game and c) was at Emory and decides that W&L should hit the table first because the game was as close to a tie as you can get despite adverse factors for W&L.

Either interpretation of that data is fine with me. Though as a W&L grad, I'd obviously prefer the latter.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 11:21:02 PM
What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Based on what the official D3soccer.com folks have said over the past few years, this is my understanding.....

0-2 on RvR might be marginally better than 0-0, but not much, as the cmtes look for at least 1 ranked win or at least a couple of draws.  I'm not sure having a RvR of 0-2 would be considered a tiebreaker in a close call.  But of course I may be totally wrong.

What is disconcerting in these discussions is the apparent unwillingness to concede any points.  On a word scale from "criminal, against the rules, unfair, unfortunate, tough break for those guys, etc, etc" it seems to me that you all could at least concede in some scenarios to "unfortunate." 

Some of us do understand the criteria and generally how the process works, and there still seems to be room where all of us are unsure.  You've said the cmtes have flexibility and could have emphasized one criterion more than another, and our W&L friend said just yesterday that the cmte could have kept W&L in the rankings if they wanted (or Lynchburg).  Maybe you're saying they can only emphasize one over the other year to year and that all cmtes have to agree, or are you saying each cmte can adjust as they see fit?

I also completely disagree with this thesis that the last few teams in (or not in) are irrelevant in the big picture because they can't win the tournament.  1) I'm not sure perceived ability to win the tournament is the overriding thing, and as I said yesterday just making the tournament for some is considered a big deal; and 2) That standard isn't even true!  Tufts at least once and maybe both times was viewed by a significant consensus here as the last team in or one of the very last teams in 2014 and 2016 when they won the tournament.  They didn't host in even the first round either year, and they only hosted a sectional in 2016 because of fluky issues like Trinity (TX) was too far away for the other 3 teams and Kenyon had a field problem and UMass-Boston was in after the debacle with Haverford (who would have hosted), and so there were already 2 teams in the Boston area.  Anyway, in at least one of those years Tufts very easily could have been left out of the tournament, period.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 25, 2018, 02:09:55 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 01:53:07 PM
It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

I would assume we can agree, though, that occasionally there can be unfortunate results from the process....that none of us would prefer to see a team 1-6-1 even from a very good conference get in while Lynchburg, W&L or any of our own preferred teams with an outstanding record/season didn't.

Perfect example above.  I don't see any real reason to disagree with the bolded, other than to just be disagreeing.  IF, and say IF, we really knew the 1-6-1 team is "better" than St. Joe's or W&L or whoever, then OK, but you say later you want the strongest field.  Being in a strong conference does not by definition make you better than a team from a weaker conference.  If St. Joe's doesn't make it, many of us won't feel bad just because they suffer from being in a weak conference or because we're feeling bad for the "little guy."  A decent portion here would actually believe (based on all available data, 2 straight NCAA appearances where they showed well, and a still undefeated record which included wins over Bowdoin, Endicott and Gordon and (73 GF, 1 GA)...that St. Joe's "deserved" a bid over a team that is 1-7 in conference.

I'll try again....IF Calvin had been left out the two years they made the Final Four (I assume that qualifies for serious contender), are we truly not in agreement that that would have been at least "unfortunate"?

Now, if Emory gets in at 1-7 in their conference, and North Park doesn't, you may not have any reaction at all or at least not consider that unfortunate, but I will certainly feel that it was unfortunate on your behalf as a Vikings fan.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 26, 2018, 09:18:56 AM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 11:21:02 PM
What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Based on what the official D3soccer.com folks have said over the past few years, this is my understanding.....

0-2 on RvR might be marginally better than 0-0, but not much, as the cmtes look for at least 1 ranked win or at least a couple of draws.  I'm not sure having a RvR of 0-2 would be considered a tiebreaker in a close call.  But of course I may be totally wrong.

What is disconcerting in these discussions is the apparent unwillingness to concede any points.  On a word scale from "criminal, against the rules, unfair, unfortunate, tough break for those guys, etc, etc" it seems to me that you all could at least concede in some scenarios to "unfortunate." 

Some of us do understand the criteria and generally how the process works, and there still seems to be room where all of us are unsure.  You've said the cmtes have flexibility and could have emphasized one criterion more than another, and our W&L friend said just yesterday that the cmte could have kept W&L in the rankings if they wanted (or Lynchburg).  Maybe you're saying they can only emphasize one over the other year to year and that all cmtes have to agree, or are you saying each cmte can adjust as they see fit?

I also completely disagree with this thesis that the last few teams in (or not in) are irrelevant in the big picture because they can't win the tournament.  1) I'm not sure perceived ability to win the tournament is the overriding thing, and as I said yesterday just making the tournament for some is considered a big deal; and 2) That standard isn't even true!  Tufts at least once and maybe both times was viewed by a significant consensus here as the last team in or one of the very last teams in 2014 and 2016 when they won the tournament.  They didn't host in even the first round either year, and they only hosted a sectional in 2016 because of fluky issues like Trinity (TX) was too far away for the other 3 teams and Kenyon had a field problem and UMass-Boston was in after the debacle with Haverford (who would have hosted), and so there were already 2 teams in the Boston area.  Anyway, in at least one of those years Tufts very easily could have been left out of the tournament, period.

But they weren't left out. So the system worked. That's the point you keep skipping over. The system works as it is. If you want to suggest tweaks that's fine. I'm not opposed to them. But I am opposed to tweaks that create ambiguity in how the committees work. We understand, pretty well, what they are doing. Therefore it is pretty clear what teams need to do. For me to consider a tweak or change of value, it absolutely has to fall inside this kind of framework.

I don't see people suggesting tweaks in this thread other than one suggestion to give committees "a wildcard". Other than that, I see people that want to complain and don't like that people aren't joining in on the complaining. It was explained why we switched to this system from a previous one and why it is better now.

If you have a tweak that makes sense, throw it out there. Most of us will happily discuss why it might or might not work. But don't expect a vague idea like "a wildcard" to get much traction from those of us who have watched this process for many years.

Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2018, 09:34:05 AM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 26, 2018, 09:18:56 AM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 11:21:02 PM
What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Based on what the official D3soccer.com folks have said over the past few years, this is my understanding.....

0-2 on RvR might be marginally better than 0-0, but not much, as the cmtes look for at least 1 ranked win or at least a couple of draws.  I'm not sure having a RvR of 0-2 would be considered a tiebreaker in a close call.  But of course I may be totally wrong.

What is disconcerting in these discussions is the apparent unwillingness to concede any points.  On a word scale from "criminal, against the rules, unfair, unfortunate, tough break for those guys, etc, etc" it seems to me that you all could at least concede in some scenarios to "unfortunate." 

Some of us do understand the criteria and generally how the process works, and there still seems to be room where all of us are unsure.  You've said the cmtes have flexibility and could have emphasized one criterion more than another, and our W&L friend said just yesterday that the cmte could have kept W&L in the rankings if they wanted (or Lynchburg).  Maybe you're saying they can only emphasize one over the other year to year and that all cmtes have to agree, or are you saying each cmte can adjust as they see fit?

I also completely disagree with this thesis that the last few teams in (or not in) are irrelevant in the big picture because they can't win the tournament.  1) I'm not sure perceived ability to win the tournament is the overriding thing, and as I said yesterday just making the tournament for some is considered a big deal; and 2) That standard isn't even true!  Tufts at least once and maybe both times was viewed by a significant consensus here as the last team in or one of the very last teams in 2014 and 2016 when they won the tournament.  They didn't host in even the first round either year, and they only hosted a sectional in 2016 because of fluky issues like Trinity (TX) was too far away for the other 3 teams and Kenyon had a field problem and UMass-Boston was in after the debacle with Haverford (who would have hosted), and so there were already 2 teams in the Boston area.  Anyway, in at least one of those years Tufts very easily could have been left out of the tournament, period.

But they weren't left out. So the system worked. That's the point you keep skipping over. The system works as it is. If you want to suggest tweaks that's fine. I'm not opposed to them. But I am opposed to tweaks that create ambiguity in how the committees work. We understand, pretty well, what they are doing. Therefore it is pretty clear what teams need to do. For me to consider a tweak or change of value, it absolutely has to fall inside this kind of framework.

I don't see people suggesting tweaks in this thread other than one suggestion to give committees "a wildcard". Other than that, I see people that want to complain and don't like that people aren't joining in on the complaining. It was explained why we switched to this system from a previous one and why it is better now.

If you have a tweak that makes sense, throw it out there. Most of us will happily discuss why it might or might not work. But don't expect a vague idea like "a wildcard" to get much traction from those of us who have watched this process for many years.

Fine....delete that "wild card" was ever mentioned although that was defined in more detail.  You still yesterday insisted that the last few team in or out were irrelevant.  Tufts was the last or one of the last teams. 

Still not sure you or Sager are really endorsing this or not.....but IF the cmtes really do have flexibility and could address St. Joe's, Lynchburg, Calvin, fill in the blank with any situation in recent years that seemed 'unfortunate' then there's nothing to debate or discuss.

The insistence that a team has to have the ability to win the tournament seems rather odd.  Obviously with the AQ system that isn't the case from the jump.  And completely dismisses what it means to some programs to make the tournament, sometimes for the first or second time in their histories.  And also presumes a ton. How many times have NCAA bball teams reached the Sweet 16, Elite 8 and even the Final Four that most didn't expect to even get out of the first round.  On Butler's first trip to the title game with Stevens and Hayward and crew, I doubt there was a person on the planet who thought Butler would get to the national title game.

UAA is the anomaly due to geography.  When you have teams spread across various regions that are also top of the rankings, conference to me means very little.  They are winning games vs teams within their respective regions.

Chicago #1 Central
Rochester #1 East
CWRU #1 Great Lakes
CMU #3 Great Lakes
NYU #4 East
Emory #5 South Atlantic
Brandeis #8 New England

Barely a .500 you say, but 9-10 games vs Regionally Ranked teams out of 18.    Emory scheduled W&L, Rowan, Camden, Oglethorpe outside of the UAA grueling schedule, going 3-1.   If they maintain a #4 or #5 ranking within the NCAA Region.   Chances are very high they make it...

I'm also going to say that Brandeis has an outside chance if they are 9-7-2 (5-4-1 RvR Projection).   Just my thoughts, gentleman.

And btw I wasn't looking for any particular idea to gain traction.  I'm not invested in any particular tweak or change, and like I said I'm fine if there truly is leeway within the system as is.  What I was and am looking for is just a basic "yes, occasionally the outcome may be 'unfortunate' [or even just 'tough'] for a team or two....like a few years ago when John Carroll was 17-4-1 and missed out.  There are examples every year where saying 'unfortunate' doesn't seem like a stretch.

The committee must have flexibility because St. Joe's SOS is .495.   

It was my understanding that teams needed a .500 to even be eligible....

St. Joe's just beat Salem State (11-2-2), SOS of .409!   With Emmanuel on the schedule, that SOS drops even more.   

I also believe that teams MUST be regionally ranked by NCAA in order to receive consideration for Pool C.   


It's not St. Joe's fault they're in a weak conference, and they did try to play a few strong out-of-conf games.   So please just win the conference and do not get upset by J&W or Norwich. 

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 26, 2018, 09:41:06 AM
Still not sure you or Sager are really endorsing this or not.....but IF the cmtes really do have flexibility and could address St. Joe's, Lynchburg, Calvin, fill in the blank with any situation in recent years that seemed 'unfortunate' then there's nothing to debate or discuss.

I'm curious about how much you really understand about what the committees do and how the tournament selection actually works. The Regional Committees, one member from each conference, set up their rankings. The part of the current process I like least is the final ranking is not required to be disclosed. However, from those rankings, the highest ranking team not in the field is placed on a table with all the other highest ranking teams not in the field from each region. The National Committee, which is distinct from the Regional Committees but made up of one member from each regional committee, then debate the merits of the teams on the table, and ONLY the teams on the table. One team is selected, and the next team in the rankings from that region joins the teams already on the table from the previous round.

One thing that can be done, but as far as we know is not generally done, is the National Committee is allowed to change the order of the Regional Rankings when they receive them. So the process actually involves several levels of review and refinement if you include the several weeks of Regional releases.

The criteria is not required to be applied the same way by each Regional Committee. One Region can emphasize SOS, another can emphasize RRO, and a third can emphasize win percentage. The National Committee may then prefer one method or the other, boosting the odds of teams from one region who got the order more in line with the National Committee a better chance to get more teams through.

For example, if the South Region puts Emory pretty high in the rankings but the National Committee prefers win percentage this year, it is possible Emory blocks other South Atlantic teams from getting to the table by languishing round after round. It could also be that guidance has come down that the National Committee prefers SOS this year, and a different region that went with win percentage but weak SOS will have a team that blocks their follow ons from getting to the table because they emphasized the wrong thing.

It is important to remember that all the committees change every year. So criteria that was emphasized one year, may not be emphasized the next. It is also important to remember that the committee members are all well versed in doing this. They are coaches and ADs primarily, and they each remember teams they were high on in the past that went in and flopped or that snuck in and conquered. That will color their choices as well in how they prefer to rank teams.

So yes. The Regional Committees can vary the teams by emphasizing different criteria. The National Committee can restructure the teams if they choose. And the National Committee can choose to provide guidance on what criteria they prefer to be emphasized. All of this will give wiggle room in how teams are ranked. Once the ranking is finalized, it becomes important ONLY how the teams look against the ones they are compared to when they reach the table. If they don't reach the table, they are never discussed by the National Committee. So getting the criteria right, for how the National Committee will evaluate the teams in the end, is very important. Otherwise you could have quality teams that never see the table and, therefore, are never discussed.

So a Ranking Committee that blows off the criteria to boost Lynchburg or St. Joes or someone else over an Emory may be doing significant damage to not just that top team to hit the table, but the more rounds that top team sits on the table, the more damage is done to EVERY team that follows in the ranking by diminishing their chances of either getting to the table or being selected.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 11:21:02 PM
What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Sure, "results" could be interpreted (or evaluated) in many ways--win pct., number of wins, number of wins & ties, etc.--but how could it possibly mean the number of games played against ranked opponents?  This isn't a complicated concept that's hard to clearly communicate in written words.  If that was the intent it would (or certainly should) say "number of games played against ranked Division III teams" not "Results against ranked Division III teams". 

The regional data sheets provide the W-L-T record versus ranked opponents, not merely the number of games played against ranked opponents.  If the men's and women's soccer committees were only interested in number of games against ranked opponents and did not want to be influenced by the actual results in those games, then they shouldn't have the W-L-T records in the data sheet.

My observations have lead me to believe that the men's soccer committee is looking for a combination of positive results (wins, but also ties) versus ranked teams and number of games played versus ranked teams.  That is, loses aren't that damaging to your chances (and decreasingly so), as a team's positive results and total games played versus ranked team increase.

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2018, 10:06:49 AM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 11:21:02 PM
What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Sure, "results" could be interpreted (or evaluated) in many ways--win pct., number of wins, number of wins & ties, etc.--but how could it possibly mean the number of games played against ranked opponents?  This isn't a complicated concept that's hard to clearly communicate in written words.  If that was the intent it would (or certainly should) say "number of games played against ranked Division III teams" not "Results against ranked Division III teams". 

The regional data sheets provide the W-L-T record versus ranked opponents, not merely the number of games played against ranked opponents.  If the men's and women's soccer committees were only interested in number of games against ranked opponents and did not want to be influenced by the actual results in those games, then they shouldn't have the W-L-T records in the data sheet.

My observations have lead me to believe that the men's soccer committee is looking for a combination of positive results (wins, but also ties) versus ranked teams and number of games played versus ranked teams.  That is, loses aren't that damaging to your chances (and decreasingly so), as a team's positive results and total games played versus ranked team increase.

No one says "ONLY" games played. Games played and record against them are both important. How important varies from year to year. But regardless, the committee WILL look more favorable on 1-3 than 0-0 vs RRO. Whether it is favorable to be 1-5 or 2-0 is harder to distinguish.

Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2018, 10:06:00 AM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 26, 2018, 09:41:06 AM
Still not sure you or Sager are really endorsing this or not.....but IF the cmtes really do have flexibility and could address St. Joe's, Lynchburg, Calvin, fill in the blank with any situation in recent years that seemed 'unfortunate' then there's nothing to debate or discuss.

I'm curious about how much you really understand about what the committees do and how the tournament selection actually works. The Regional Committees, one member from each conference, set up their rankings. The part of the current process I like least is the final ranking is not required to be disclosed. However, from those rankings, the highest ranking team not in the field is placed on a table with all the other highest ranking teams not in the field from each region. The National Committee, which is distinct from the Regional Committees but made up of one member from each regional committee, then debate the merits of the teams on the table, and ONLY the teams on the table. One team is selected, and the next team in the rankings from that region joins the teams already on the table from the previous round.

One thing that can be done, but as far as we know is not generally done, is the National Committee is allowed to change the order of the Regional Rankings when they receive them. So the process actually involves several levels of review and refinement if you include the several weeks of Regional releases.

The criteria is not required to be applied the same way by each Regional Committee. One Region can emphasize SOS, another can emphasize RRO, and a third can emphasize win percentage. The National Committee may then prefer one method or the other, boosting the odds of teams from one region who got the order more in line with the National Committee a better chance to get more teams through.

For example, if the South Region puts Emory pretty high in the rankings but the National Committee prefers win percentage this year, it is possible Emory blocks other South Atlantic teams from getting to the table by languishing round after round. It could also be that guidance has come down that the National Committee prefers SOS this year, and a different region that went with win percentage but weak SOS will have a team that blocks their follow ons from getting to the table because they emphasized the wrong thing.

It is important to remember that all the committees change every year. So criteria that was emphasized one year, may not be emphasized the next. It is also important to remember that the committee members are all well versed in doing this. They are coaches and ADs primarily, and they each remember teams they were high on in the past that went in and flopped or that snuck in and conquered. That will color their choices as well in how they prefer to rank teams.

So yes. The Regional Committees can vary the teams by emphasizing different criteria. The National Committee can restructure the teams if they choose. And the National Committee can choose to provide guidance on what criteria they prefer to be emphasized. All of this will give wiggle room in how teams are ranked. Once the ranking is finalized, it becomes important ONLY how the teams look against the ones they are compared to when they reach the table. If they don't reach the table, they are never discussed by the National Committee. So getting the criteria right, for how the National Committee will evaluate the teams in the end, is very important. Otherwise you could have quality teams that never see the table and, therefore, are never discussed.

So a Ranking Committee that blows off the criteria to boost Lynchburg or St. Joes or someone else over an Emory may be doing significant damage to not just that top team to hit the table, but the more rounds that top team sits on the table, the more damage is done to EVERY team that follows in the ranking by diminishing their chances of either getting to the table or being selected.

Yes, I am pretty well versed after being here a handful of years and having worked through some things that were still confusing or whatever....I'm pretty sure I have a handle on it better than many readers here, and obviously every year these issues come up, some folks are new and pretty surprised, Shirk re-rusn his very good articles about all this, etc.  Now, I am not anywhere as knowledgeable as you, Sager, McHugh, Shirk, Harmanis, etc......

And to repeat, all I was looking for was a mild concession on an outcome occasionally can be unfortunate (even if how it happened makes sense).

What I did know is what I bolded above, which would enable the cmte to deal with a St. Joe's and all the repercussions of the Emory situation that you described IF it is true that the national cmte could boost St. Joe's while also dropping Emory down so that the identified deserving teams ranked by the region cmte below Emory could be boosted and not get stuck never reaching the table for discussion.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 26, 2018, 10:14:47 AM

What I did know is what I bolded above, which would enable the cmte to deal with a St. Joe's and all the repercussions of the Emory situation that you described IF it is true that the national cmte could boost St. Joe's while also dropping Emory down so that the identified deserving teams ranked by the region cmte below Emory could be boosted and not get stuck never reaching the table for discussion.

They can. It has been discussed in various other sports over the years. From our understanding, and keep in mind this part of the process is unfortunately opaque, something I do not like, it rarely happens. The National Committee generally takes what the Regional Committees give them and go from there. Given that the National Committee is made up of members of the Regional Committees, this makes sense. For soccer, I believe the Chair of the Regional Committee is the National Committee member, so the Regional Committees should not be making a mistake that would lead to the kind of problem that would have the National Committee reshuffle their results. Regardless, it is a re-ranking of what the Regional Committee gives them ONLY, not a redoing where new teams could be added or old teams subtracted.

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 26, 2018, 09:52:45 AM
The committee must have flexibility because St. Joe's SOS is .495.   

It was my understanding that teams needed a .500 to even be eligible....

St. Joe's just beat Salem State (11-2-2), SOS of .409!   With Emmanuel on the schedule, that SOS drops even more.   

I also believe that teams MUST be regionally ranked by NCAA in order to receive consideration for Pool C.   


It's not St. Joe's fault they're in a weak conference, and they did try to play a few strong out-of-conf games.   So please just win the conference and do not get upset by J&W or Norwich. 

It is nothing new to have teams with sub-.500 SOS's being ranked.  Obviously it doesn't happen often, but it does and has happened.  While a sub-.500 SOS is certainly frowned upon, there are only two definitive cases where a .500 SOS threshhold was actually applied.

(1) In 2010 an undefeated Dominican and undefeated Swarthmore (both highly ranked in the NSCAA and D3ssoccer.com polls) were left out of the first weekly rankings when their SOS's were below .500.  There was a lot of negative reaction to that and a week later the committee had already abandoned the threshold and Dominican and Swarthmore, despite ironically both picking up their first losses that week, were ranked #3 in the Mid-Atlantic and #2 in the Central regions.

(2) In 2014 Luther went from #2 in the North region in the first week's rankings to unranked the next week with their SOS going from a little above to a little below .500.  When asked by D3soccer.com, the NCAA committee denied there was any .500 SOS threshold to be ranked, but that was hard to accept because there was no other reasonable explanation for why Luther had dropped out from #2 when they had won both their games by shutout that week while several of the teams that moved ahead of them had lost and had little or no improvement in the SOS.

There may have been other times when the committee applied the .500 SOS threshhold that went undetected since it didn't result in an obvious, eye-catching omission or movement in and out from one week to the next.  But, there are many examples over the years of teams with sub-.500 SOS's being ranked.

Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2018, 10:14:23 AM

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2018, 10:06:49 AM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 11:21:02 PM
What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Sure, "results" could be interpreted (or evaluated) in many ways--win pct., number of wins, number of wins & ties, etc.--but how could it possibly mean the number of games played against ranked opponents?  This isn't a complicated concept that's hard to clearly communicate in written words.  If that was the intent it would (or certainly should) say "number of games played against ranked Division III teams" not "Results against ranked Division III teams". 

The regional data sheets provide the W-L-T record versus ranked opponents, not merely the number of games played against ranked opponents.  If the men's and women's soccer committees were only interested in number of games against ranked opponents and did not want to be influenced by the actual results in those games, then they shouldn't have the W-L-T records in the data sheet.

My observations have lead me to believe that the men's soccer committee is looking for a combination of positive results (wins, but also ties) versus ranked teams and number of games played versus ranked teams.  That is, loses aren't that damaging to your chances (and decreasingly so), as a team's positive results and total games played versus ranked team increase.

No one says "ONLY" games played. Games played and record against them are both important. How important varies from year to year. But regardless, the committee WILL look more favorable on 1-3 than 0-0 vs RRO. Whether it is favorable to be 1-5 or 2-0 is harder to distinguish.

Then maybe I misunderstood what Gregory Sager wrote.  He said,

"but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams."

Cumulative number of games played rather than won-lost percentage . . . poor choice of words if "in addition to" was the intent.

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2018, 11:19:30 AM

Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2018, 10:14:23 AM

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2018, 10:06:49 AM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 11:21:02 PM
What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Sure, "results" could be interpreted (or evaluated) in many ways--win pct., number of wins, number of wins & ties, etc.--but how could it possibly mean the number of games played against ranked opponents?  This isn't a complicated concept that's hard to clearly communicate in written words.  If that was the intent it would (or certainly should) say "number of games played against ranked Division III teams" not "Results against ranked Division III teams". 

The regional data sheets provide the W-L-T record versus ranked opponents, not merely the number of games played against ranked opponents.  If the men's and women's soccer committees were only interested in number of games against ranked opponents and did not want to be influenced by the actual results in those games, then they shouldn't have the W-L-T records in the data sheet.

My observations have lead me to believe that the men's soccer committee is looking for a combination of positive results (wins, but also ties) versus ranked teams and number of games played versus ranked teams.  That is, loses aren't that damaging to your chances (and decreasingly so), as a team's positive results and total games played versus ranked team increase.

No one says "ONLY" games played. Games played and record against them are both important. How important varies from year to year. But regardless, the committee WILL look more favorable on 1-3 than 0-0 vs RRO. Whether it is favorable to be 1-5 or 2-0 is harder to distinguish.

Then maybe I misunderstood what Gregory Sager wrote.  He said,

"but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams."

Cumulative number of games played rather than won-lost percentage . . . poor choice of words if "in addition to" was the intent.

Huh. Yeah. I'd agree. I've never heard it discussed as an either/or, always an "and".

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 26, 2018, 09:52:45 AM
The committee must have flexibility because St. Joe's SOS is .495.   

It was my understanding that teams needed a .500 to even be eligible....

That's not in the manual, (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) and jknezek has pointed out some examples of sub-.500-SoS ranked teams.

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 26, 2018, 09:52:45 AMI also believe that teams MUST be regionally ranked by NCAA in order to receive consideration for Pool C.

That's not in the manual, either. In fact, on page 20 there's a bullet point under the heading Allocation of Berths that specifically states, "There will be no maximum or minimum number of berths from one region."

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2018, 11:19:30 AM

Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2018, 10:14:23 AM

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2018, 10:06:49 AM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2018, 11:21:02 PM
What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2018-19DIIIMWSO_PreChampsManual.pdf) The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Sure, "results" could be interpreted (or evaluated) in many ways--win pct., number of wins, number of wins & ties, etc.--but how could it possibly mean the number of games played against ranked opponents?  This isn't a complicated concept that's hard to clearly communicate in written words.  If that was the intent it would (or certainly should) say "number of games played against ranked Division III teams" not "Results against ranked Division III teams". 

The regional data sheets provide the W-L-T record versus ranked opponents, not merely the number of games played against ranked opponents.  If the men's and women's soccer committees were only interested in number of games against ranked opponents and did not want to be influenced by the actual results in those games, then they shouldn't have the W-L-T records in the data sheet.

My observations have lead me to believe that the men's soccer committee is looking for a combination of positive results (wins, but also ties) versus ranked teams and number of games played versus ranked teams.  That is, loses aren't that damaging to your chances (and decreasingly so), as a team's positive results and total games played versus ranked team increase.

No one says "ONLY" games played. Games played and record against them are both important. How important varies from year to year. But regardless, the committee WILL look more favorable on 1-3 than 0-0 vs RRO. Whether it is favorable to be 1-5 or 2-0 is harder to distinguish.

Then maybe I misunderstood what Gregory Sager wrote.  He said,

"but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams."

Cumulative number of games played rather than won-lost percentage . . . poor choice of words if "in addition to" was the intent.

Yeah, I'll concede that my wording was misleading, due to brevity (which is usually not one of my failings ;)). But "results" as it has been interpreted in different D3 sports with regard to RRO is a deliberately difficult term to encompass. It doesn't necessarily mean "in addition to", either. It could be a both/and in terms of W-L% and cumulative games. It could be an either/or in terms of W-L% and cumulative games. And if it's a both/and, the weight given to W-L% versus cumulative games could vary, as they might choose to interpret it 50/50, or 40/60, or 90/10, or however they like. That's the point; the use of the word "results" all by itself in constructing the manual was deliberate. By using as vague a term as possible without commentary, they've given the committee as much leeway as possible for them to parse it as they choose.

As jknezek said, it's typically a both/and, given that a bigger combination of variables tends to be more useful in making thorough comparisons than a smaller one.

Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2018, 10:21:39 AMThe National Committee generally takes what the Regional Committees give them and go from there. Given that the National Committee is made up of members of the Regional Committees, this makes sense. For soccer, I believe the Chair of the Regional Committee is the National Committee member, so the Regional Committees should not be making a mistake that would lead to the kind of problem that would have the National Committee reshuffle their results.

I'm not 100% sure, and I'm not going to take the time to sift through D3's various championship manuals to find out, but I have the impression that this is the polity for all sports with regard to the composition of their respective national committees. For instance, I know that in men's basketball the national committee consists of the eight chairs of the regional committees, and that the same holds true for women's basketball. The manual for men's soccer doubles as the manual for women's soccer as well, and it indicates that the same eight regional committee chairs = national committee polity exists for women's soccer, too.

I didn't realize NJAC tourney already underway....William Paterson knocks out Rutgers-Camden.

That will give Willy P a 4th Win v Ranked and a probable Pool C especially if they can get 1 more Win. RUC looks to be on the wrong side of the bubble now. Rowan hosts Stockton at 5pm and I would guess Rowan is on the right side of the bubble with a .615 SOS but they have lost 2 in a row and are 11-6-0 so I do not think they want to lose that game.

ODAC tournament has all favorites hold serve through the first games. Va Wes (8) beat RMC (9) 3-2 in the opening game. W&L (1) then beat Va Wes (8) 2-0, Lynchburg (2) beat Randolph (7) 3-0, Bridgewater (3) beat Ferrum (6) 2-0, and Roanoke (4) beat EMU (5) 2-1.

The tournament now breaks until Saturday. W&L faces Roanoke, Lynchburg faces Bridgewater. The Championship follows Sunday.

This format seems so awkward to me. If you are going to clear the opening games this past weekend, why not do the semis Wednesday night? Then finish with the finals the following weekend. It would be easier on the travel budgets as well by cancelling the overnight, though it would lesson the "tournament" feel.

Plus I'm not big on the back to back format. All 4 remaining ODAC teams played 2 back to backs all season, August 31 and Sept 1 and Sept 8 and 9, now they play it for all the marbles. I get why it's necessary for the NCAA tournament, but that doesn't make it a good format to use when you don't have to.

It is good preparation for the NCAA's to get kids ready for the back to backs..Plus it gives the edge to teams that have the most depth or best fitness and for soccer I like it.

Jknesek,

Are you going on Saturday?  Think me and fam might make the trip to Lexington.

Quote from: NokeAlum15 on October 29, 2018, 11:13:30 AM
Jknesek,

Are you going on Saturday?  Think me and fam might make the trip to Lexington.

No. Much too far from Birmingham AL. Plus I'm still on the coaching hook for my U8s. Last game for them is this weekend. If the weather is good, it's a great place to watch a game (you'll have to excuse me if I don't hope you are sticking around to watch your own team play 2!).

Quote from: jknezek on October 29, 2018, 11:17:09 AM

Quote from: NokeAlum15 on October 29, 2018, 11:13:30 AM
Jknesek,

Are you going on Saturday?  Think me and fam might make the trip to Lexington.

No. Much too far from Birmingham AL. Plus I'm still on the coaching hook for my U8s. Last game for them is this weekend. If the weather is good, it's a great place to watch a game (you'll have to excuse me if I don't hope you are sticking around to watch your own team play 2!).

Fair enough  :)  Only a 30 min drive from Roanoke for me, so if we have to stick around until Sunday, I'm good with it.  However, I know going in you all are the better squad.  Maybe some Cinderella magic will take place.   

Good luck to your u8s!

Quote from: NokeAlum15 on October 29, 2018, 11:23:43 AM

Quote from: jknezek on October 29, 2018, 11:17:09 AM

Quote from: NokeAlum15 on October 29, 2018, 11:13:30 AM
Jknesek,

Are you going on Saturday?  Think me and fam might make the trip to Lexington.

No. Much too far from Birmingham AL. Plus I'm still on the coaching hook for my U8s. Last game for them is this weekend. If the weather is good, it's a great place to watch a game (you'll have to excuse me if I don't hope you are sticking around to watch your own team play 2!).

Fair enough  :)  Only a 30 min drive from Roanoke for me, so if we have to stick around until Sunday, I'm good with it.  However, I know going in you all are the better squad.  Maybe some Cinderella magic will take place.   

Good luck to your u8s!

Ha. It's been a long season for my team. I've got 9 players and 5 of them were born in December and one is playing up with a Jan birthday. I only had 2 kids born before June, and my last is October, so we are closer to being U7 than U8. Not really ideal and it's showed.

Enjoy the game and the campus visit if you haven't been. Some great restaurants in Lexington if you are going to get a bite to eat as well.

Third Regional Ranking Prediction

1 MSU
2 UMW
3 Oglethorpe
4 Ramapo
5 W&L
6 WPU
7 Rutgers-Camden
8 Lynchburg
---------------------------
9 Emory/Rowan/St Marys MD/Salisbury

I thought you predicted RUC was getting a Pool C? There is no way they can get one being behind WPU. I bet Rowan even at 12-7-0 hangs on in the rankings and does not drop out. I think Ramapo and MSU are now Pool C locks.

Yes, I jumped the gun on Rowan... they should be ranked this time, but drop out the next.

I think RUC will be ahead of WPU for the final Regional Ranking...

I am more interested in Lynchburg at this point.  If a team like St. Joe's can grab a ranking, you'd think the committee makes a move for them.

SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 31, 2018

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Montclair State	15-1-2	0.543	3-1-1	15-1-2	1
2.	Mary Washington	13-1-3	0.535	2-0-0	13-1-3	2
3.	Ramapo	13-2-2	0.542	3-1-1	14-2-2	--
4.	Oglethorpe	11-2-0	0.542	1-1-0	12-2-0	3
5.	Rowan	12-6-0	0.599	3-3-0	12-6-0	4
6.	William Paterson	12-6-1	0.585	4-4-0	12-6-1	8
7.	Rutgers-Camden	13-5-2	0.589	2-4-0	13-5-2	6
8.	Washington and Lee	12-3-1	0.554	1-2-0	12-3-1	--

Hmmmmm.....

So you have:

Mary Washington at 13-1-3 with .535 SOS and 2-0-0 RvR

Lynchburg at 13-1-2 with .511 SOS and 1-0-1 RvR


And....Mary Washington is ranked #2 in South Atlantic and Lynchburg cannot crack the Top 8....



I would like ANYONE to try and explain that one.....

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 31, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
Hmmmmm.....

So you have:

Mary Washington at 13-1-3 with .535 SOS and 2-0-0 RvR

Lynchburg at 13-1-2 with .511 SOS and 1-0-1 RvR


And....Mary Washington is ranked #2 in South Atlantic and Lynchburg cannot crack the Top 8....



I would like ANYONE to try and explain that one.....

It's odd. But who are you going to throw out?

Lynchburg also beat Dickinson, and tied both UMW and W&L.  The only explanation at this point would be how much emphasis there is on SOS.   I don't get it.

If you give an eye test with the three NJAC schools; Rowan, WPU, Camden... I don't know how you can legitimately pick one over the other for a Pool C.   

.700% / .589 SOS / 2-3-1 RvR   
.632% / .599 SOS / 3-4-0 RvR   
.625% / .585 SOS / 4-6-0 RvR   

Quote from: jknezek on October 31, 2018, 03:01:49 PM

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 31, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
Hmmmmm.....

So you have:

Mary Washington at 13-1-3 with .535 SOS and 2-0-0 RvR

Lynchburg at 13-1-2 with .511 SOS and 1-0-1 RvR


And....Mary Washington is ranked #2 in South Atlantic and Lynchburg cannot crack the Top 8....



I would like ANYONE to try and explain that one.....

It's odd. But who are you going to throw out?

Nothing to do with throwing anyone out.....My point is there is really NO DIFFERENCE between a #2 ranked team and an unranked team....SO either they should be ranked near each other or not ranked at all......There is no sense to that at all

I'd remove Oglethorpe from the equation...  if one had to go.   

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 31, 2018, 03:11:10 PM

I'd remove Oglethorpe from the equation...  if one had to go.

LOL and Oglethorpe has a similar resume to Lynchburg and MW....Now it makes even less sense....The NJAC team you listed that is 4-6-0 v Ranked IMO would get my nod over the other two but you are correct those 3 NJAC's are tough to seperate.

All the while this little convo going on Mary Washington is being held by Frostburg St 0-0 with about 10 minutes left in the Semi's so it could get real interesting...I like the stream angle right on the pitch...Tough for formations and the like but a good view of the action.

Well Frostburg St took MW to PK's and then looked absolutely useless in PK's...Horrible kicks....MW GK is pretty good...

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 31, 2018, 03:13:13 PM

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on October 31, 2018, 03:11:10 PM

I'd remove Oglethorpe from the equation...  if one had to go.

LOL and Oglethorpe has a similar resume to Lynchburg and MW....Now it makes even less sense....The NJAC team you listed that is 4-6-0 v Ranked IMO would get my nod over the other two but you are correct those 3 NJAC's are tough to seperate.

3-4 RvR - Rowan 12-7 (picks up loss vs Montclair St for final ranking) Lost to Ramapo, beat WPU and Camden.
4-6 RvR - WPU 12-7-1 (picks up loss to Ramapo for final ranking)  Lost to Ramapo 2x, lost to Rowan
2-3-1 RvR - Camden 13-5-2 (idle after being eliminated by WPU in quarter-final) Tied Ramapo, split with WPU for the year, lost to Rowan

Do the 7 losses weigh heavier on Pool C chances?   SOS will nearly be identical.

Can St. Mary's avenge a 5-1 drubbing vs UMW.   UMW scored 5 goals on 11 shots. 

Can Lynchburg crack the final rankings somehow?  Is it win or bust for a 1 loss team

NJAC FINAL:   Montclair St vs Ramapo (both teams should be NCAA locks)
CAC FINAL:  Mary Washington vs St. Marys (St. Mary's is outside the bubble, UMW near lock)
ODAC FINAL:  Lynchburg/Bridgewater vs W&L/Roanoke  (apparently win or bust)
SAA FINAL:  Oglethorpe/Berry vs Centre/Millsaps
USAC FINAL: Greensboro/Covenant vs NCW/Maryville

I don't think WPU has a chance.
As for Rowan, I wouldn't take them either, especially after getting hammered in semi-final. If they do make it, I unfortunately think it would be based on history and reputation.
Camden is interesting.  They lost to MSU (outshot 22-7) and tied Po (outshot 26-10), but I think the QF loss is a deal breaker.

I think the ODAC results will be important. 
Bridgewater in with AQ only
Lynchburg I take if they make final, and personally I would even if they lose semi-final to BW (only two losses would be to BW)
W&L I take if they make final or lose semi-final (provided BW doesn't get AQ). If BW gets AQ, I drop W&L for Lynchburg
Noke I think needs AQ

WPU absolutely has a chance, albeit a small one.   4 wins vs ranked opponents and an SOS near .600
However, I think with New Paltz dropping to Brockport, their window in closing.  Wins over Haverford and Eastern are huge.


ODAC, to me, is a one bid league at this point... Committee has shown no love for Lynchburg and if W&L falls in the final, they are likely to slip a spot to 9 or 10 within the region.   I have a terrible memory, and I know it has been pointed out, but if they are not on the NCAA Regional Rankings, I don't think they are brought to the National level.... I could be wrong, but I don't think in tournament history, and unranked team has made the dance.

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 01, 2018, 12:54:08 PMI have a terrible memory, and I know it has been pointed out, but if they are not on the NCAA Regional Rankings, I don't think they are brought to the National level.... I could be wrong, but I don't think in tournament history, and unranked team has made the dance.

It's theoretically possible to give Pool C slots to sides that didn't get ranked in the region, after all of the region's ranked sides have been slotted into the field. The D3 men's soccer pre-championships manual explicitly states that there is no restriction upon the number of sides that can be included from a region.

Of course, just because it's theoretically possible doesn't mean that it's happened before, or ever will happen.

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 01, 2018, 12:54:08 PM
WPU absolutely has a chance, albeit a small one.   4 wins vs ranked opponents and an SOS near .600
However, I think with New Paltz dropping to Brockport, their window in closing.  Wins over Haverford and Eastern are huge.


ODAC, to me, is a one bid league at this point... Committee has shown no love for Lynchburg and if W&L falls in the final, they are likely to slip a spot to 9 or 10 within the region.   I have a terrible memory, and I know it has been pointed out, but if they are not on the NCAA Regional Rankings, I don't think they are brought to the National level.... I could be wrong, but I don't think in tournament history, and unranked team has made the dance.

W&L losing to Lynchburg in ODAC final and getting passed over for WPU would be a travesty. 
W&L has 3 losses (all in an 8 day period in the first 9 days of September) and 2 of those were in OT (Emory & F&M).
WPU has 7 losses which include a lopsided 0-3 home loss to the same F&M team, a 1-2 loss to sub .500 Stockton and 1-3 losses to MSU and RUC.

It's not fair, but I can't see how the ODAC gets a sniff of a Pool C berth given the Regional Rankings.  Never (starting with 2007 when the current SOS formula was instituted) has a team that was unranked in the third weekly rankings been selected.  I can't see reason to think that will change this year.  So Lynchburg, much less Bridgewater and Roanoke, are AQ or bust. And it could very well be true that the last team ranked has never been selected, but I haven't tried to verify that.  Regardless, it's hard to see how W&L climbs enough to get a Pool C berth without winnng the ODAC title and AQ.

Lynchburg is a victim of (a) some very unfortunate circumstances and (b) a process that is extremely quantitatively with very limited room for discretion.  Oberlin's unpredictably bad 1-16-0 record is hurting Lynchburg's SOS.  Just two years ago in 2016 Oberlin was 15-4-1 and probably just missed out on an at-large tournament berth.  But one team alone doesn't kill a team's SOS and I wasn't sure why Lynchburg's SOS trailed W&L's as much as it did given they largely play the same ODAC schedule (not identical as teams only play 10 of the other 12 teams in a given season) and Lynchburg played some good team's out of conference.  By the way, head-to-head, they tied 1-1.

The ODAC opponents that the two did not play are a wash: neither played Ferrum (10-7-0) and W&L missed out on Shenandoah (6-10-1) while Lynchburg didn't play Hampden-Sydney (6-8-2), so the SOS difference must be in their non-conference schedules.  Unexpectantly, Christopher Newport has had an extremely down year at 7-8-1 (CNU hasn't been under .700 in the past 10 years), but W&L also played CNU, so again, that's a wash. Also from the CAC, Lynchburg played Mary Washington (13-1-4) while W&L faced York (10-6-2), so Lynchburg has the advantage there. Versus the Centennial, W&L played F&M while Lynchburg played Dickinson, so deserved edge to W&L there. W&L played Emory (9-7-1) which would have been expected to boost their SOS much more than it did, while Lynchburg played Averett (4-13-1) and aforementioned Oberlin (1-16-1), so there's a big advantage to W&L.  And finally, the other misfortune for Lynchburg.  Both scheduled two SAA opponents: Oglethorpe (12-2-0) and Sewanee (7-9-1) for W&L, Oglethorpe (12-2-0) and Berry (10-4-2) for Lynchburg.  Problem is, Hurricane Florence resulted in both Lynchburg's matches being cancelled while W&L only missed out on the Sewanee match. So W&L gets their SOS-boosting game and is spared their SOS-hurting match while Lynchburg losses out on two SOS-boosting matches.  Oberlin and the two missed SAA matches explains much of the difference between the two team's SOS.

Between Oberlin's horrendous season and the two cancelled mathces due to Hurricane Florence, Lynchburg's SOS took about a 0.030 hit if you conservatively assume Oberlin should have been good for at least a 6-11-0 season instead of 1-16-0 (in other words, 5 more wins).  If Lynchburg had a .541 SOS (.511 + .030), how much would that change their ranking?  Let's conservatively assume Lynchburg would have beaten Berry and lost to Oglethorpe, their record would be 14-2-2.  So where would Lynchburg be ranked with a 14-2-2 record, .541 SOS, and 1-1-1 R-v-R (Dickinson W, Oglethorpe L, Mary Wash T)?  The SOS is still on the low side, but very much in line with many of the other South Atlantic ranked teams (MSU .543 SOS, Mary Wash .535. Ramapa .542, Oglethorpe .542, W&L .554). And if Lynchburg would have beaten Oglethrope, then their record would be 15-1-2 and the R-v-R 2-0-1.

It's not the committee's job to speculate on how Lycnhburg would have done, but the inflexibility of the process means Lynchburg's not getting a fair shake, IMO.

Great explanation....and describes perfectly IMO why the cmtes or cmte should have wiggle room or ability to waive a criterion for one slot per region or 2-3 spots nationally.  Although perhaps not as severe as Lynchburg's situation there are other teams having great seasons with low SoS or with 1 or 2 ranked wins that may get squeezed by teams with mediocre records but holding 3-5 ranked wins (which seems to be getting heavy emphasis).  BTW, Kenyon had a SoS of .590+ until getting Hiram and Oberlin added in which dropped them to .560 in just a week.

Sort of joking, but Oberlin may knock out more teams than they beat.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 01, 2018, 03:51:44 PM
Great explanation....and describes perfectly IMO why the cmtes or cmte should have wiggle room or ability to waive a criterion for one slot per region or 2-3 spots nationally.  Although perhaps not as severe as Lynchburg's situation there are other teams having great seasons with low SoS or with 1 or 2 ranked wins that may get squeezed by teams with mediocre records but holding 3-5 ranked wins (which seems to be getting heavy emphasis).  BTW, Kenyon had a SoS of .590+ until getting Hiram and Oberlin added in which dropped them to .560 in just a week.

They have the wiggle room. We keep saying this. They could add Lynchburg in and pull out WPU or Oglethorpe or Rowan or RUC. All they have to do is decide that winning percentage is more important than SOS or RvR. They are choosing not to do this. What they don't have the room to do is add more teams than the region is allowed. There is no reason, per the criteria that Lynchburg CAN'T be there, but if they include Lynchburg they have to pull someone else, all of whom can also be there per the criteria. The South Atlantic gets 8. That's it. Lynchburg in means someone else out.

Quote from: jknezek on November 01, 2018, 04:08:45 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 01, 2018, 03:51:44 PM
Great explanation....and describes perfectly IMO why the cmtes or cmte should have wiggle room or ability to waive a criterion for one slot per region or 2-3 spots nationally.  Although perhaps not as severe as Lynchburg's situation there are other teams having great seasons with low SoS or with 1 or 2 ranked wins that may get squeezed by teams with mediocre records but holding 3-5 ranked wins (which seems to be getting heavy emphasis).  BTW, Kenyon had a SoS of .590+ until getting Hiram and Oberlin added in which dropped them to .560 in just a week.

They have the wiggle room. We keep saying this. They could add Lynchburg in and pull out WPU or Oglethorpe or Rowan or RUC. All they have to do is decide that winning percentage is more important than SOS or RvR. They are choosing not to do this. What they don't have the room to do is add more teams than the region is allowed. There is no reason, per the criteria that Lynchburg CAN'T be there, but if they include Lynchburg they have to pull someone else, all of whom can also be there per the criteria. The South Atlantic gets 8. That's it. Lynchburg in means someone else out.

Right. I'm very aware that teams can't be added and that chances are poor if you aren't in top half or top third.  You keep saying there's wiggle room.  It's not wiggle room if it's never used.  Do you have evidence of wiggle room ever being utilized? And, additionally, what is your own personal opinion about what should happen with the loser of another Lynchburg versus W&L game should one eventuate?

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 01, 2018, 04:34:48 PM

Quote from: jknezek on November 01, 2018, 04:08:45 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 01, 2018, 03:51:44 PM
Great explanation....and describes perfectly IMO why the cmtes or cmte should have wiggle room or ability to waive a criterion for one slot per region or 2-3 spots nationally.  Although perhaps not as severe as Lynchburg's situation there are other teams having great seasons with low SoS or with 1 or 2 ranked wins that may get squeezed by teams with mediocre records but holding 3-5 ranked wins (which seems to be getting heavy emphasis).  BTW, Kenyon had a SoS of .590+ until getting Hiram and Oberlin added in which dropped them to .560 in just a week.

They have the wiggle room. We keep saying this. They could add Lynchburg in and pull out WPU or Oglethorpe or Rowan or RUC. All they have to do is decide that winning percentage is more important than SOS or RvR. They are choosing not to do this. What they don't have the room to do is add more teams than the region is allowed. There is no reason, per the criteria that Lynchburg CAN'T be there, but if they include Lynchburg they have to pull someone else, all of whom can also be there per the criteria. The South Atlantic gets 8. That's it. Lynchburg in means someone else out.

Right. I'm very aware that teams can't be added and that chances are poor if you aren't in top half or top third.  You keep saying there's wiggle room.  It's not wiggle room if it's never used.  Do you have evidence of wiggle room ever being utilized? And, additionally, what is your own personal opinion about what should happen with the loser of another Lynchburg versus W&L game should one eventuate?

Here's the thing. You say they aren't using wiggle room because Lynchburg isn't in. I say they are using wiggle room because WPU is in. Basically you are setting it up to say that the only way they use wiggle room, is if they agree with you. That's a logical fallacy. The wiggle room exists because they have chosen one criteria over the other, but we have seen other years where SOS wasn't the dominant criteria. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

What you keep insisting is about wiggle room really doesn't seem to be what you are saying. What it seems to be about is the criteria they find important, which is not the criteria you want them to find important. That is a completely different thing.

The loser of the W&L/Lynchburg game is probably a tough team out. It happens. If W&L had won just one of those 3 they lost, they probably wouldn't be a bubble team. If they had won 2 of them, they would be sitting pretty. They didn't, so  if they want to go to the tournament, win the conference tournament. The AQ is foolproof for qualifying conferences. Everything else is about second chances. When you are asking for second chances, there is a possibility, even a likelihood, of disappointment. But you had a fair chance, you just didn't execute. And W&L didn't execute for those 8 days, especially the 8th day.

Do I wish we didn't have conference tournaments and the AQ went to the regular season champion? Absolutely. Soccer, to me, is not really a single elimination tournament sport. Too many variables in a game to game situation. But it is what it is, and because the ODAC is too large for soccer, it isn't a full round robin. Both W&L and Lynchburg know what they have to do to make the tournament, no questions asked. It's exactly what they knew they had to do on August 1st. Win the ODAC Tournament.

Nope, not personally invested in Lynchburg (other than my fondness for Joe Hurtzler).  And of course any of us can go to the "they all know about the AQ if they really want to make the tournament."  But I assume you would concede that many of these teams also try to position themselves for the Pool C criteria, and sometime despite obvious serious efforts things don't always work out (not to mention that it is kind of weird to have teams chasing their tails around the criteria trying to guess what teams will have their usual strong seasons or a poor one in terms of trying to create a strong SoS and predicting what teams will get ranked.

If wiggle room for you means a certain application of the criteria for all teams then that's not wiggle room.  You keep saying they could just put Lynchburg in if they wanted.  Wiggle room to me is a team not meeting a criterion as needed but with explainable reasons and with strengths that outweigh an unforeseen/unplannable deficit.

I know a thing or two about logical fallacies.  You're making one by concluding that wiggle room means agreeing with me.  Not the case.  If they had true wiggle room, which implies being able to go outside a strict application of criteria and waiving something if they see fit, then they might ultimately decide a couple of teams are more deserving overall than "my team.". You're not actually talking about real wiggle room and that's the disconnect.

What criteria do you think is being applied too strictly?

The wiggle room you talk about is changing how each criterion is weighed.  In other words, an adjustment that is applied across the board to all teams in the region.  That's not the wiggle room some of us are asking for.  I think the committee should have their collective idea of how much to weigh each criterion before they get started and before they look at the data.  That is, I don't want them to fundamentally change how much they weigh the different criteria after they have looked at the data and begun to apply it, just so they get the end result (i.e. the teams ranked) that they want.  So the wiggle room you talk about, if applied during the evaluation process instead of prior to getting started, is a type of wiggle room that I think is undesirable and not what I (and I think others) are looking for. 

What I think some of us believe is needed at a minimum (I would go further personally, but . . .) is some leeway/discretion for extenuating circumstances for certain individual teams.  As it stands, the committee needs to be able to justify all their selections in a quantifiable manner.  Sometime exceptions to that are needed, and I think we should trust the committees with some discretion to make those exceptions.  And I think the Lynchburg situation is a great example of when this would be appropriate.  Two games lost to a hurricane that couldn't be rescheduled and happened to be two of their toughest non-conference games.  It cost them around .020 in SOS which is plenty to be the difference between being selected or not.  Rather than lower the SOS standard for all teams, why not allow the committee to grade Lynchburg (not the entire region) on a curve with respect to SOS.  No one's asking the committee to speculate on whether Lynchburg would have won those games and would have improved their wining pct. or more importantly their Results versus Ranked Teams, but simply saying that some acknowledgement of the fact that Lynchburg was disadvantaged by something wholely out of their control well beyond an opponent having an off-season (that's something many teams are faced with and sometimes that works the other way with an opponent being better than expected--that's a whole other story).

I guess you can say that's a slippery slope.  I don't think so.  And the regional rankings provide some transparency and time for the committee to be questioned and held accountable should they misuse whatever discretion/leeway that have.  The whole set-up and process ensures it's can't be like back int he day with the "old boy's club", so I'm not concerned about a return to that.

And I don't agree with the perspective that since at-large berths are just "second chances" that it doesn't matter if the process sometimes doesn't result in the best remaining teams getting selected.

We're not going to agree about this, that's clear.  The current set-up is vastly superior to what we had 2 decades ago, but I see different areas to further improve it.  One I have been repeating for several years is to restrict low OWP's to .350 or something.  Any OWP lower than the selected threshold get replaced with the threshold in the SOS calculations. For the level of teams in the running for at-large berths, what's the real difference between playing 5-10-1 opponent or a 1-15-1 opponent?  But one is much more damaging to your SOS.  Those opponents are not who determines if your team tested itself.  So why should they influence one's SOS so much.  Just one of my ideas.

Aren't tournament PK's considered a draw?  What if W&L wins ODAC on PK's and therefore hands Lynch a draw so they finish with a record of 14-1-3.  Do you still keep them out with 1 loss?

What FW said....

The way it's set up, where there isn't true wiggle room, like everyone in the room agrees a team should be in but the algorithm (so to speak) they're using doesn't put them in and so they can't get them in, really does have some poor consequences, like when the away multiplier was being used teams were having less and less home games.  How could have less home games be good for the athletes, fans, parents, etc, etc?  And yet programs were and are being forced to model themselves after the criteria.....and even then some still can't plan around them because they are in conferences that are too weak (like with St. Joe's and now we know that the coach is on the cmte).  I always had a vague sense that the ODAC was a strong conference...but they almost always fare poorly on the criteria.  I recall a few years ago when Randolph had a stellar season and yet were miles and miles away from a bid.

I guess we are just going to disagree. Personally I think the system works well but there are always ways to improve. I think the OWP suggestion has merit. It's quantifiable and I think it should stay that way. Any kind of "well... because we think so" is a slippery slope and I'm glad it's mostly not allowed. I haven't found cases where the criteria has excluded a team in favor of an unjustifiable alternative. I don't think Lynchburg is that case either. Everyone on the South Atlantic list is justifiable. There simply aren't enough slots. There is always a last team out. One of the ODAC teams is likely to play or be close to that role this year. That doesn't mean the system is wrong. Someone will ALWAYS be in that role, regardless of the system so long as there are finite berths. And there will always be a way to justify that last team out even though they didn't get in.

Quote from: EB2319 on November 01, 2018, 06:07:27 PM
Aren't tournament PK's considered a draw?  What if W&L wins ODAC on PK's and therefore hands Lynch a draw so they finish with a record of 14-1-3.  Do you still keep them out with 1 loss?

The die has been cast and a draw will not save them.  Lynchburg has not been ranked and teams that aren't ranked don't have a chance (other than some nebulous theoretical chance) if history is any guide.  And if Lynchburg wins the AQ then W&L almost certainly isn't getting in because generally only teams ranked in the top half or at worst top two-thirds of the rankings get a bid. 

Quote from: jknezek on November 01, 2018, 06:28:19 PM
I guess we are just going to disagree. Personally I think the system works well but there are always ways to improve. I think the OWP suggestion has merit. It's quantifiable and I think it should stay that way. Any kind of "well... because we think so" is a slippery slope and I'm glad it's mostly not allowed. I haven't found cases where the criteria has excluded a team in favor of an unjustifiable alternative. I don't think Lynchburg is that case either. Everyone on the South Atlantic list is justifiable. There simply aren't enough slots. There is always a last team out. One of the ODAC teams is likely to play or be close to that role this year. That doesn't mean the system is wrong. Someone will ALWAYS be in that role, regardless of the system so long as there are finite berths. And there will always be a way to justify that last team out even though they didn't get in.

Yep, we disagree.....And it's not about finite berths.  The question here isn't even that Lynchburg didn't get a rankings slot.  They (or W&L) would have needed a rankings slot high enough to get in.  Do you truly think it is theoretically impossible for everyone or almost everyone to agree sometimes?  Like, let's say for the sake of argument that Endicott gets a bid at like 10-6-2, with a good SoS and a few ranked wins (like 3-5 or 3-6) and St Joe's doesn't with a perfect season at 18-0 (and 78 GF and 1 GA even allowing for a weak conference but still some good teams out of conference), and we know based on very recent evidence that St. Joe's has performed well in the tournament, AND St. Joe's beat Endicott head to head.  There is a clear argument that Endicott (or several NJAC teams with very, very  mediocre years but 3+ ranked wins) don't "deserve" a bid and wouldn't even complain much or believe they deserve a bid....but can you really say St. Joe's isn't deserving???  True wiggle room would allow a couple of corrections across the entire field.

Quote from: Mr.Right on October 31, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
Hmmmmm.....

So you have:

Mary Washington at 13-1-3 with .535 SOS and 2-0-0 RvR

Lynchburg at 13-1-2 with .511 SOS and 1-0-1 RvR


And....Mary Washington is ranked #2 in South Atlantic and Lynchburg cannot crack the Top 8....



I would like ANYONE to try and explain that one.....

Since FW did a fantastic  job of explaining why Lynchburg's SOS sucks I would love an explanation  on how a team with a very similar resume to Lynchburg's is ranked #2 in the same region. There is a very minor SOS difference but not enough of a difference  for one team to be #2 and the other unranked. To me this is the biggest travesty of any of it.

Quote from: EB2319 on November 01, 2018, 02:03:22 PM

Quote from: lastguyoffthebench on November 01, 2018, 12:54:08 PM
WPU absolutely has a chance, albeit a small one.   4 wins vs ranked opponents and an SOS near .600
However, I think with New Paltz dropping to Brockport, their window in closing.  Wins over Haverford and Eastern are huge.


ODAC, to me, is a one bid league at this point... Committee has shown no love for Lynchburg and if W&L falls in the final, they are likely to slip a spot to 9 or 10 within the region.   I have a terrible memory, and I know it has been pointed out, but if they are not on the NCAA Regional Rankings, I don't think they are brought to the National level.... I could be wrong, but I don't think in tournament history, and unranked team has made the dance.

W&L losing to Lynchburg in ODAC final and getting passed over for WPU would be a travesty. 
W&L has 3 losses (all in an 8 day period in the first 9 days of September) and 2 of those were in OT (Emory & F&M).
WPU has 7 losses which include a lopsided 0-3 home loss to the same F&M team, a 1-2 loss to sub .500 Stockton and 1-3 losses to MSU and RUC.

Last year CNU was ranked all four releases and did not earn an at-large bid with a 14-3-1 record,
8th 10-2-0  .537
7th 11-2-1  .547
8th 12-2-1  .540
8th 14-3-1  .547 //  loses to W&L, Rowan, and UMW in CAC final.

Dickinson ranked all four releases, #5 in MA, got in with a record of 11-6-3 // .604 SOS // 4-6-1 SOS.   A resume that is eerily similar to that of WPU.

W&L takes out Roanoke 4-0. Lynchburg Bridgewater to go today.

Lynchburg down 0-1 midway through 1st half.

And thus ends the argument for Lynchburg. We will see if W&L can win when it matters and make it a non-issue.

W&L takes the ODAC with a dominating 3-0 win over Bridgewater. 13-0-1 in the last 14 games. They haven't conceded 2 goals in a game since their last loss on 9/9. They will be a good test for whoever they face in the NCAAs. Playing with lots of confidence and speed right now.

Tough draw for W&L. Johns Hopkins and, if they get past, Messiah. Those three losses were brutal. But the Generals are playing well. We will see how they hold up.

Here's a surprise... New coach at CNU - and keeping it in-house.
https://www.cnusports.com/news/2018/12/11/cnu-announces-hiring-of-justin-chezem-as-head-mens-soccer-coach.aspx