D3boards.com

In advance of the Regional Rankings, from D3soccer.com (https://d3soccer.com) . . .

2021 NCAA Regional Rankings (https://d3soccer.prestosports.com/rankings/2021/about)

October 18, 2021
Coming Wednesday: the rankings that matter (https://d3soccer.prestosports.com/columns/christan-shirk/2021/the-rankings-that-matter)
By Christan Shirk and Jim Hutchinson

While we wait for the first weekly NCAA Regional Rankings to drop, here's the data sheets for the first weekly rankings.

Region I (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=5&division=3)

Region II (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=10&division=3)

Region III (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=15&division=3)

Region IV (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=20&division=3)

Region V (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=25&division=3)

Region VI (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=30&division=3)

Region VII (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=35&division=3)

Region VIII (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=40&division=3)

Region IX (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=45&division=3)

Region X (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankingsRedirect&sportCode=MSO&region=50&division=3)

REGION I REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Amherst	9-2-1	0.678	--	9-2-1	--
	Connecticut College	8-3-0	0.592	--	8-3-0	--
	Middlebury	8-3-1	0.609	--	8-3-1	--
	Norwich	10-2-0	0.513	--	10-2-0	--
	St. Joseph's (Maine)	10-1-2	0.567	--	10-1-2	--
	Tufts	10-0-2	0.616	--	10-0-2	--
	Mass-Boston	10-2-1	0.532	--	10-2-1	--
	Wesleyan	8-2-2	0.559	--	8-2-2	--
	Williams	6-4-2	0.613	--	6-4-2	--

REGION II REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Babson	7-3-3	0.568	--	7-3-3	--
	Coast Guard	8-4-1	0.600	--	8-4-1	--
	MIT	11-2-1	0.551	--	11-2-1	--
	Springfield	8-4-0	0.544	--	8-4-0	--
	Wheaton (Mass.)	9-4-0	0.553	--	9-4-0	--
	WPI	7-3-3	0.592	--	7-3-3	--

REGION III REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Buffalo State	11-3-1	0.543	--	11-3-1	--
	RPI	9-2-2	0.575	--	9-2-2	--
	RIT	8-3-3	0.583	--	8-3-3	--
	Rochester	7-2-3	0.593	--	7-2-3	--
	Cortland State	12-2-1	0.559	--	12-2-1	--
	New Paltz State	11-3-0	0.570	--	11-3-0	--
	Oneonta State	9-2-2	0.580	--	9-2-2	--
	Vassar	10-2-1	0.569	--	10-2-1	--

REGION IV REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Lycoming	7-4-3	0.594	--	7-4-3	--
	Misericordia	9-2-0	0.512	--	9-2-0	--
	Montclair State	13-1-1	0.535	--	13-1-1	--
	New York University	9-3-1	0.632	--	9-3-1	--
	Rowan	9-1-1	0.575	--	9-1-1	--
	Rutgers-Newark	10-3-3	0.527	--	10-3-3	--
	Stevens	7-6-1	0.611	--	7-6-1	--

REGION V REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Alvernia	10-3-0	0.567	--	10-3-0	--
	Eastern	8-4-2	0.620	--	8-4-2	--
	Franklin and Marshall	10-2-1	0.599	--	10-2-1	--
	Gettysburg	8-3-2	0.614	--	8-3-2	--
	Johns Hopkins	9-2-2	0.585	--	9-2-2	--
	Messiah	11-0-2	0.600	--	11-0-2	--
	Swarthmore	9-2-2	0.594	--	9-2-2	--
	Washington College	8-4-1	0.629	--	8-4-1	--

REGION VI REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Christopher Newport	7-3-2	0.659	--	7-3-2	--
	Covenant	6-3-3	0.591	--	7-3-3	--
	Emory	7-1-4	0.659	--	7-1-4	--
	Lynchburg	8-4-1	0.590	--	8-4-1	--
	Mary Washington	7-3-2	0.583	--	7-3-2	--
	Maryville (Tenn.)	10-2-1	0.513	--	11-2-1	--
	Randolph-Macon	7-2-3	0.528	--	8-2-3	--
	Washington and Lee	11-0-1	0.565	--	11-0-1	--

REGION VII REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Capital	8-4-1	0.550	--	8-4-1	--
	Carnegie Mellon	6-4-3	0.553	--	6-4-3	--
	Case Western Reserve	6-4-2	0.609	--	6-4-2	--
	Denison	7-4-1	0.605	--	7-4-1	--
	Hanover	10-3-1	0.529	--	10-3-1	--
	John Carroll	7-3-3	0.649	--	7-3-3	--
	Kenyon	10-1-1	0.568	--	10-1-1	--
	Mount Union	8-3-2	0.552	--	8-3-2	--
	Ohio Wesleyan	10-1-2	0.611	--	10-1-2	--
	Otterbein	10-0-3	0.575	--	10-0-3	--

REGION VIII REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Carthage	8-5-2	0.609	--	8-5-2	--
	Chicago	9-4-1	0.667	--	9-4-1	--
	Hope	9-2-2	0.570	--	9-2-2	--
	Kalamazoo	8-2-1	0.535	--	8-2-1	--
	North Central (Ill.)	14-1-1	0.546	--	14-1-1	--
	North Park	11-3-0	0.615	--	11-3-0	--
	Washington U.	8-2-1	0.662	--	8-2-1	--
	Wheaton (Ill.)	7-4-1	0.548	--	7-4-1	--

REGION IX REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Carleton	8-3-2	0.545	--	8-3-2	--
	Gustavus Adolphus	10-4-0	0.619	--	10-4-0	--
	Luther	9-4-2	0.571	--	9-4-2	--
	St. John's	7-4-1	0.560	--	7-4-1	--
	St. Olaf	13-1-1	0.576	--	13-1-1	--
	Wartburg	7-4-2	0.561	--	7-4-2	--
	UW-Eau Claire	10-3-0	0.515	--	10-3-0	--
	UW-Platteville	10-2-2	0.504	--	10-2-2	--

REGION X REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 20, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
	Claremont-Mudd-Scripps	10-0-2	0.531	--	10-1-2	--
	Colorado College	9-2-1	0.551	--	9-2-1	--
	Mary Hardin-Baylor	9-3-0	0.574	--	9-3-0	--
	Redlands	10-2-1	0.533	--	10-2-1	--
	Southwestern	7-2-4	0.565	--	7-2-4	--
	Trinity (Texas)	13-0-0	0.593	--	13-0-0	--
	Willamette	8-3-1	0.570	--	8-3-1	--

Just a real quick reminder since it's probably coming....


The First Regional Rankings This Year Are in Alphabetical Order Only

Quote from: jknezek on October 20, 2021, 04:49:08 PM
Just a real quick reminder since it's probably coming....


The First Regional Rankings This Year Are in Alphabetical Order Only

Haha! Thanks. I was about to unleash the caps lock AND the bold. You talked me off the ledge, jknezek.

A bit early, which never stopped anyone from chiming in, but any surprises here? Calvin is the obvious missing team. It appears their SOS may be a bit low, but should get a boost with a game remaining vs Hope and then the MIAA tournament where they would likely face Kalamazoo and/or Hope again. But they also have Albion on their remaining schedule.

Teams on the "fan poll" that don't appear in the Regional Rankings:
Calvin
Wilmington (RV)

Teams on D3Soccer.com that don't appear in the Regional Rankings:
Calvin
Wilmington (RV)
Bowdoin (RV)

Quote from: fishercats on October 21, 2021, 12:19:36 PM
A bit early, which never stopped anyone from chiming in, but any surprises here? Calvin is the obvious missing team. It appears their SOS may be a bit low, but should get a boost with a game remaining vs Hope and then the MIAA tournament where they would likely face Kalamazoo and/or Hope again. But they also have Albion on their remaining schedule.

Teams on the "fan poll" that don't appear in the Regional Rankings:
Calvin
Wilmington (RV)

Teams on D3Soccer.com that don't appear in the Regional Rankings:
Calvin
Wilmington (RV)
Bowdoin (RV)

Not really. You hit the nail on the head with SoS. Next week when RvR is added in SoS might fall a bit in importance. But the way week 1 works this year, if you have 2 teams with a very similar record, SoS is about all the criteria available to tell them apart.

I think this whole alphabetical experiment is silly. I understand that the first week does not directly resemble the following weeks but that does not mean it has no value. We all understand drastic switches are going to happen between weeks 1 and 2. It still helps to get a sense of where you stand. I think if they are going to go these route with non-ranking rankings then they shouldn't even publish them. Just create these for internal use and then release them next week in order with the record vs ranked factored in.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter at all but for some illogical reason this bugs me.

[OK, I got interrupted and others beat me to some of the topics I was commenting on, but I'm just going to post it as is.]

So, Calvin (10-2-2 / .520 SOS) was not ranked this first week and Wheaton, Ill. (7-4-1 / .548 SOS) was.  This week's win over Kalamazoo and the the inclusion of Results vs. Ranked next week will help them, but they are being overly punished for the completely dreadful bottom teams in the MIAA and Oglethorpe having a huge drop off from recent seasons.  And doesn't help that Ill. Wesleyan--who isn't expected to help the SOS, but also isn't expected to hurt it--is having their worst season since 2015, maybe in the past decade.  Calvin scheduled Ohio Wesleyan, Chicago, Emory, Carthage, Oglethorpe, and Ohio Northern out of conference and yet have just a .520 SOS.  Their SOS will climb with the Kalamazoo game and then again with Hope next week.  With Results vs. Ranked in play in the remaining rankings, they'll get credit for the OWU tie and Emory and Kalamazoo wins (they'll be rooting for Kalamazoo to stay ranked the next two weeks so it counts on selection Monday).  They do have the two ranked losses against Chicago and Carthage (they'll be rooting for Carthage to drop from the rankings).  I agree that Calvin doesn't seem to be at the level they typically have been for most of the past decade, but I'm not sure how much they can be faulted for their SOS being so low.  There's so little margin for error when your SOS is so low, and the loss to Carthage and tie to Aurora has eaten much of that margin.  We'll see how much their SOS climbs from this and next weeks' games.

Anyone else surprised to see Wheaton (Ill.) in the rankings?  And it's not that their SOS was so high like it used to be years back.  But looking through the other teams in the region, it's hard to see who else, besides Calvin, should have been in.  I do think Calvin will replace Wheaton in next week's rankings. 

Stevens, with 6 losses and tie with two weeks of games left, is another surprise, even if they have a very high SOS.

But it's going to take time to get used to having 20% of eligible teams ranked instead of 16%, and similarly the adjustment to the strength/weakness of the different regions.  With more regions and less teams in what were the largest regions previously, strong/deep conferences now make up an even greater percentage of their region.  The NESCAC and Centennial will dominate their regions even more than they did before.  The NJAC finally got out of that awkward grouping and competition for places with the South Atlantic schools at a time when the conference seems to be down and less able to take advantage of the return to a less packed region that reminds a little of the old "Metro" region they were in years back.

Quote from: d4_Pace on October 21, 2021, 01:16:44 PM
I think this whole alphabetical experiment is silly. I understand that the first week does not directly resemble the following weeks but that does not mean it has no value. We all understand drastic switches are going to happen between weeks 1 and 2. It still helps to get a sense of where you stand. I think if they are going to go these route with non-ranking rankings then they shouldn't even publish them. Just create these for internal use and then release them next week in order with the record vs ranked factored in.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter at all but for some illogical reason this bugs me.

This.

Quote from: d4_Pace on October 21, 2021, 01:16:44 PM
I think this whole alphabetical experiment is silly. I understand that the first week does not directly resemble the following weeks but that does not mean it has no value. We all understand drastic switches are going to happen between weeks 1 and 2. It still helps to get a sense of where you stand. I think if they are going to go these route with non-ranking rankings then they shouldn't even publish them. Just create these for internal use and then release them next week in order with the record vs ranked factored in.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter at all but for some illogical reason this bugs me.

I actually like it. It makes perfect sense to me because I do some programming and I hate getting stuck in logic loops. The old way of doing this required a set of rankings to create the first set of rankings. Guess what? That's a logic trap. It makes no sense.

For example, I sit on the committee and my 8th and last team is Team E. Because I have Team E at 8th, that gives Teams A, C and D, sitting at 3, 5, and 7 in my opinion, an extra result. However, when we get to the meeting, Team E is not on anyone else's agenda and gets scratched. That removes a Result from 3 of my other teams. It probably doesn't matter to team A at 3, but it does to Team C at 5 and D at 7. Suddenly, Team 7 is no longer on the board because they went from 1-1 to 0-1, RRO. When you remove 7, that makes 5 look less attractive, and maybe they drop to 8. When they drop to 8, they have a result against the team I originally had in 6, but now that team should still be behind them, so they drop off. And the dominoes continue to fall.

Because of one change at the last position, the whole thing blows up. And it blows up because I used criteria to rank teams for the first time that is dependent on teams ALREADY BEING RANKED. Oops. It's much better for all of us on the committee to come in on Week 1 with our top 8, sort it out like a quick poll. That way, next week, we know who was ranked and that gives us criteria to work with.

Logically you cannot use criteria that requires rankings to do the original rankings. It's a muddle. So just don't do it in Week 1. After that, it's fine. But this new system makes perfect logical sense. The old system was ridiculous.

I agree with jknezek. This is the most logical way to run the regional rankings.

Quote from: d4_Pace on October 21, 2021, 01:16:44 PM
I think this whole alphabetical experiment is silly. I understand that the first week does not directly resemble the following weeks but that does not mean it has no value. We all understand drastic switches are going to happen between weeks 1 and 2. It still helps to get a sense of where you stand. I think if they are going to go these route with non-ranking rankings then they shouldn't even publish them. Just create these for internal use and then release them next week in order with the record vs ranked factored in.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter at all but for some illogical reason this bugs me.

As a fan who has followed DIII sports for at least 20 years, I disagree that it is better to have a false inaccurate Week 1 rank order based on incomplete data than no rank order at all, considering that you cannot use results vs DIII ranked teams in the first week when compiling the first week rankings.  The list, after all, does list the teams that are in the current top 20% of each evaluation region right now given the fact that only 4 of the 5 primary criteria factors (Winning pct, DIII SOS, DIII Head to Head, and DIII Common opponents) can be used this week, along with the secondary criteria factor of DIII non-conference SOS. 

As the Championships Committee explained in its minutes of September 13-14, listing the ranked teams in alphabetical order in Week 1 gives sport committees more time to evaluate each team with more complete data for the Week 2 rankings, and as a result, you will have a more accurate, complete rank order for each ranked team in Week 2, where a more complete picture between which teams have a chance to get an at-large bid, and which teams need to win their conference AQ to get in to the NCAAs can take shape.

This is a pilot experiment, and the Championships Committee will review this in June 2022 to see whether this will continue in future years.  However, for the first week of regional rankings, having the teams listed in alphabetical order makes sense to me.

The Volleyball regional rankings are totally messed up.   One example in one region: School A, 19-0, is not ranked.  School B, 9-10, is.   I don't care what the difference in SOS is, you don't belong in a ranking if you can't beat half the teams you play (and especially when there's an undefeated team that isn't ranked).

Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 21, 2021, 10:59:53 PM
The Volleyball regional rankings are totally messed up.   One example in one region: School A, 19-0, is not ranked.  School B, 9-10, is.   I don't care what the difference in SOS is, you don't belong in a ranking if you can't beat half the teams you play (and especially when there's an undefeated team that isn't ranked).

where can you find the volleyball rankings?

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball-women/d3/regional-rankings

You all may find this podcast helpful to understand a few things about where the alphabetical idea came from AND an idea to improve on the idea (hint: pre-rankings; it's been endorsed by several that I have talked to on different committees).

https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2020-21/bonus-reg-rankings

REGION I - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Amherst	11-2-1	0.667	7-1-1	11-2-1	Y
2.	Tufts	10-1-2	0.622	5-1-1	10-1-2	Y
3.	Connecticut College	11-3-0	0.584	3-2-0	11-3-0	Y
4.	Wesleyan	10-2-2	0.566	2-2-2	10-2-2	Y
5.	Middlebury	9-3-2	0.588	1-2-1	9-3-2	Y
6.	Bowdoin	9-4-1	0.561	2-2-1	9-4-1	--
7.	Williams	7-5-2	0.601	2-4-1	7-5-2	Y
8.	Mass-Boston	12-2-1	0.542	1-1-0	12-2-1	Y
9.	St. Joseph's (Maine)	12-1-2	0.537	1-1-1	12-1-2	Y

REGION II - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	MIT	13-2-1	0.541	4-1-0	13-2-1	Y
2.	Coast Guard	10-4-1	0.573	2-4-0	10-4-1	Y
3.	Babson	8-4-3	0.573	2-4-1	8-4-3	Y
4.	WPI	8-4-3	0.593	1-3-2	8-4-3	Y
5.	Springfield	9-5-0	0.561	3-5-0	9-5-0	Y
6.	Wheaton (Mass.)	10-5-0	0.568	2-4-0	10-5-0	Y

REGION III - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Cortland State	14-2-1	0.570	3-1-1	14-2-1	Y
2.	Rochester	8-2-3	0.591	4-2-1	8-2-3	Y
3.	Vassar	10-2-2	0.564	2-1-0	10-2-2	Y
4.	Oneonta State	10-3-2	0.586	2-2-2	10-3-2	Y
5.	RPI	10-3-2	0.593	0-3-1	10-3-2	Y
6.	New Paltz State	12-4-0	0.574	1-4-0	12-4-0	Y
7.	RIT	9-3-3	0.563	2-2-0	9-3-3	Y
8.	Buffalo State	12-5-1	0.540	1-1-1	12-5-1

REGION IV - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Montclair State	15-1-1	0.569	4-1-0	15-1-1	Y
2.	New York University	9-3-1	0.642	5-2-0	9-3-1	Y
3.	Rowan	9-3-1	0.592	2-2-0	9-3-1	Y
4.	Stevens	8-6-1	0.610	2-4-1	8-6-1	Y
5.	Rutgers-Newark	11-4-3	0.537	2-2-0	11-4-3	Y
6.	Kean	10-4-1	0.535	1-3-0	10-4-1	--
7.	Misericordia	10-3-0	0.508	2-0-0	10-3-0	Y

REGION V - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Messiah	13-0-2	0.580	5-0-0	13-0-2	Y
2.	Johns Hopkins	11-2-2	0.558	4-1-0	11-2-2	Y
3.	Washington College	10-4-1	0.615	3-3-1	10-4-1	Y
4.	Swarthmore	10-3-2	0.577	3-2-2	10-3-2	Y
5.	Gettysburg	10-3-2	0.588	2-2-2	10-3-2	Y
6.	Franklin and Marshall	12-2-1	0.581	1-2-1	12-2-1	Y
7.	Alvernia	12-4-0	0.578	1-2-0	12-4-0	Y
8.	Lebanon Valley	12-3-0	0.540	2-3-0	12-3-0	--

REGION VI - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Washington and Lee	12-0-2	0.573	5-0-1	12-0-2	Y
2.	Emory	8-1-4	0.647	4-0-4	8-1-4	Y
3.	Christopher Newport	7-4-2	0.664	4-4-2	7-4-2	Y
4.	Mary Washington	8-3-2	0.599	2-2-0	8-3-2	Y
5.	Lynchburg	10-4-1	0.589	2-4-1	10-4-1	Y
6.	Roanoke	8-3-5	0.573	0-2-3	8-3-5	--
7.	Covenant	7-3-3	0.562	0-2-2	8-3-3	Y
8.	Randolph-Macon	8-3-3	0.539	0-2-0	9-3-3	Y

REGION VII - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Ohio Wesleyan	12-1-2	0.609	4-1-1	12-1-2	Y
2.	Otterbein	12-0-3	0.563	3-0-3	12-0-3	Y
3.	Kenyon	12-1-1	0.553	3-1-1	12-1-1	Y
4.	John Carroll	8-3-4	0.621	4-2-3	8-3-4	Y
5.	Denison	9-4-1	0.579	1-3-1	9-4-1	Y
6.	Case Western Reserve	6-5-2	0.610	1-5-2	6-5-2	Y
7.	Ohio Northern	7-6-2	0.598	2-3-2	9-6-2	--
8.	Hanover	11-4-1	0.539	0-2-1	11-4-1	Y
9.	Wilmington	11-1-3	0.493	3-1-0	11-1-3	--
10.	Mount Union	9-4-2	0.538	1-2-2	9-4-2	Y

REGION VIII - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Chicago	10-4-1	0.671	7-3-1	10-4-1	Y
2.	Washington U.	9-2-1	0.642	2-2-1	9-2-1	Y
3.	North Park	12-4-0	0.596	4-4-0	12-4-0	Y
4.	Calvin	12-2-2	0.556	3-2-1	14-2-2	--
5.	Hope	10-3-2	0.561	3-2-0	10-3-2	Y
6.	North Central (Ill.)	14-1-1	0.546	2-1-0	14-1-1	Y
7.	Carthage	11-5-2	0.598	3-5-0	11-5-2	Y
8.	Wheaton (Ill.)	8-5-1	0.548	2-2-0	8-5-1	Y

REGION IX - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	St. Olaf	14-1-1	0.566	5-1-1	14-1-1	Y
2.	Gustavus Adolphus	12-4-0	0.594	2-4-0	12-4-0	Y
3.	Carleton	10-3-2	0.525	1-1-1	10-3-2	Y
4.	Luther	9-6-2	0.587	0-5-0	9-6-2	Y
5.	UW-Platteville	12-3-2	0.508	1-2-1	12-3-2	Y
6.	Loras	9-6-2	0.533	2-2-1	9-6-2	--
7.	St. John's	7-5-1	0.545	1-2-0	7-6-1	Y
8.	Dubuque	12-3-1	0.494	2-2-0	12-3-1	--

REGION X - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 27, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Trinity (Texas)	14-0-1	0.581	4-0-0	14-0-1	Y
2.	Mary Hardin-Baylor	11-3-0	0.557	0-3-0	11-3-0	Y
3.	Colorado College	10-3-1	0.534	2-1-1	10-3-1	Y
4.	Claremont-Mudd-Scripps	12-0-2	0.518	1-0-0	12-1-2	Y
5.	Willamette	10-3-1	0.544	1-1-0	10-3-1	Y
6.	Southwestern	9-2-4	0.539	0-2-1	9-2-4	Y
7.	Redlands	12-2-1	0.521	0-1-0	12-2-1	Y

Trying to figure out how Middlebury is only 1-2-1 vs ranked teams when Wesleyan and Bowdoin are both ranked and Midd beat both of them. Obviously the Williams game is not included since it happened last night.

They have the column here that shows Bowdoin wasn't ranked last week so they are not being counted in the RVR used to calculate this weeks rankings. Welcome to the logic madness.

Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 29, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Disagree. Hope's rewarded for having played a noticeably tougher schedule than North Central. There's a distinct gap in SOS that favors Hope, and SOS is obviously a criterion that the committees prize highly. And, while the Cardinals have a better winning percentage against RRO, the regional committee is obviously looking at that criterion in terms of overall games played vs. RRO rather than winning percentage vs. RRO (which, at .600, isn't bad for the Flying Dutchmen, either). Hope is also better than NCC with regard to another criterion, record vs. common opponents (Hope 3-0, NCC 2-1).

Hope is a better team than North Central as well, and although that doesn't matter in the strict sense, it's nevertheless reassuring in terms of the rankings matching up to the actual comparative abilities of the teams in question.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2021, 02:21:03 PM

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 29, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

. . . the regional committee is obviously looking at that criterion in terms of overall games played vs. RRO rather than winning percentage vs. RRO  . . .

It bears re-iterating for those who may not know and those who sometimes forget: the criterion is "results versus ranked teams", not "W-L-T record versus ranked teams" or "winning percentage versus ranked teams".  The fact the the W-L-T record versus ranked teams is what the ranking tables and data sheets includes can make us forget or never realize that the criterion is much more open and broad than that. In other words, the committee can consider who specifically the results came against and more generally if the results came mostly against teams near the top or near the bottom of the regional rankings.

That's not to say they don't look at the W-L-T record, winning pct., and how many games were played against ranked opposition--it certainly seems that they very much do--but they can dig deeper than that and give those stats some context.  I think this becomes even more important with the expansion of the rankings to 20% of eligible teams.  Some teams will have more games versus ranked teams than they would have had in the past, but if those additional results are wins against the last team or two in the rankings, that should be allowed to be weighted differently than wins (or even ties or close losses) against teams at the top of the rankings. 

Exactly. Thanks for expanding on that item.

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 29, 2021, 05:12:47 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2021, 02:21:03 PM

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 29, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

. . . the regional committee is obviously looking at that criterion in terms of overall games played vs. RRO rather than winning percentage vs. RRO  . . .

It bears re-iterating for those who may not know and those who sometimes forget: the criterion is "results versus ranked teams", not "W-L-T record versus ranked teams" or "winning percentage versus ranked teams".  The fact the the W-L-T record versus ranked teams is what the ranking tables and data sheets includes can make us forget or never realize that the criterion is much more open and broad than that. In other words, the committee can consider who specifically the results came against and more generally if the results came mostly against teams near the top or near the bottom of the regional rankings.

That's not to say they don't look at the W-L-T record, winning pct., and how many games were played against ranked opposition--it certainly seems that they very much do--but they can dig deeper than that and give those stats some context.  I think this becomes even more important with the expansion of the rankings to 20% of eligible teams.  Some teams will have more games versus ranked teams than they would have had in the past, but if those additional results are wins against the last team or two in the rankings, that should be allowed to be weighted differently than wins (or even ties or close losses) against teams at the top of the rankings.

Thanks for the clarification. Would give +k if I could.

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 30, 2021, 03:08:15 PM

Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 29, 2021, 05:12:47 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2021, 02:21:03 PM

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 29, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

. . . the regional committee is obviously looking at that criterion in terms of overall games played vs. RRO rather than winning percentage vs. RRO  . . .

It bears re-iterating for those who may not know and those who sometimes forget: the criterion is "results versus ranked teams", not "W-L-T record versus ranked teams" or "winning percentage versus ranked teams".  The fact the the W-L-T record versus ranked teams is what the ranking tables and data sheets includes can make us forget or never realize that the criterion is much more open and broad than that. In other words, the committee can consider who specifically the results came against and more generally if the results came mostly against teams near the top or near the bottom of the regional rankings.

That's not to say they don't look at the W-L-T record, winning pct., and how many games were played against ranked opposition--it certainly seems that they very much do--but they can dig deeper than that and give those stats some context.  I think this becomes even more important with the expansion of the rankings to 20% of eligible teams.  Some teams will have more games versus ranked teams than they would have had in the past, but if those additional results are wins against the last team or two in the rankings, that should be allowed to be weighted differently than wins (or even ties or close losses) against teams at the top of the rankings.

Thanks for the clarification. Would give +k if I could.

Covered it for ya.

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 29, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Just to clarify a little further, the regional rankings are NOT a reliable way to figure out "who is better."  Simply how teams grade out on the rankings criteria.  There is no hard or medium hard correlation.  One of the best examples in recent years is Calvin, who often because of a round robin conference schedule found themselves with a low SoS despite efforts to schedule well out of conference. 

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 30, 2021, 06:21:32 PM

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 29, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Just to clarify a little further, the regional rankings are NOT a reliable way to figure out "who is better."  Simply how teams grade out on the rankings criteria.  There is no hard or medium hard correlation.  One of the best examples in recent years is Calvin, who often because of a round robin conference schedule found themselves with a low SoS despite efforts to schedule well out of conference.

Which is why you want to win your conference and avoid the vagaries of the Pool C selection process. 

Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2021, 04:04:08 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 30, 2021, 06:21:32 PM

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 29, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Just to clarify a little further, the regional rankings are NOT a reliable way to figure out "who is better."  Simply how teams grade out on the rankings criteria.  There is no hard or medium hard correlation.  One of the best examples in recent years is Calvin, who often because of a round robin conference schedule found themselves with a low SoS despite efforts to schedule well out of conference.

Which is why you want to win your conference and avoid the vagaries of the Pool C selection process.

Precisely....but no one wants to see their team that had a stellar season be on the outside looking in after a PK loss.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 02, 2021, 04:16:18 PM

Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2021, 04:04:08 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 30, 2021, 06:21:32 PM

Quote from: ConnAlum on October 29, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Just to clarify a little further, the regional rankings are NOT a reliable way to figure out "who is better."  Simply how teams grade out on the rankings criteria.  There is no hard or medium hard correlation.  One of the best examples in recent years is Calvin, who often because of a round robin conference schedule found themselves with a low SoS despite efforts to schedule well out of conference.

Which is why you want to win your conference and avoid the vagaries of the Pool C selection process.

Precisely....but no one wants to see their team that had a stellar season be on the outside looking in after a PK loss.

Kind of why I wish more conferences would go to a single table, no tournament AQ...

The conference tournament gives more teams the hope of a postseason...

The cruelest example in my experience was the 1974 ACC basketball tourney where #1 or #2 NC State beat #2 or #3 Maryland in the final with the only NCAA bid on the line....obviously before a conference could get more than one bid.   Game went to one or two OTs with NC State winning like 103-102.  David Thompson, the greatest college bball player I ever saw including Jordan, went on to the lead NC State to the national title against Bill Walton and UCLA breaking UCLA's string of seven or eight titles in a row.  The Wolfpack also had 7'4 Tommy Burleson and 5'7 Monte Towe pulling the strings at point guard.  Back then the ACC tourney was one of the great events in college athletics or athletics period, and and has remained prominent over the decades although there is no longer the pressure over having to win it. 

At any rate, I get the benefits of more teams having a shot and Colby is probably the best example in recent memory, and now they have that chance again.  But maybe the instead of the AQ the tourney winner should get an at large with the regular season winner getting the AQ.

More to the point, does our Wash U expert wish their was a UAA tournament to decide the AQ?


Addendum:  My heart says David Thompson.  My brain grudgingly says Lew Alcindor.

I'm by no means a purest -- I get why Pro-Rel doesn't really work (yet) in America, for example.

But I also think putting an end-of-the-year tournament above an entire body of work built up over 8-10 weeks is silly. I don't think a team that finished 5th in a league of 8 or 10 teams should be able to wash away that body of work with a 3 game run in the course of a week (or so.) Or a 4th seed going on a two-game run over 3 days.

I have a similar problem with the Wild Card round in MLB. Either reward them or don't, but a 1 game playoff after 162 games is a crapshoot.


=

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 02, 2021, 05:51:14 PM
More to the point, does our Wash U expert wish their was a UAA tournament to decide the AQ?

You must be talking about someone else here, but I'll just say, I would have preferred a tournament back when I started following the Bears, but I love the drama that comes with every league game and builds throughout the season.  This last weekend is the perfect example.

But, historically, Washington University Men's Soccer is the program that always feels just outside of tournament contention so maybe I would if it was tried.

As for my point, I was thinking more about a conference such as the SLIAC.  Webster went undefeated in league play and established themselves as the heavy favorite early on.  If you are one of the other programs, you definitely want a conference tournament.

WUPHF, you noted above that a conference tournament gives more teams a chance at the postseason so just wondered if you would favor a tourney for the UAA.

I have the exact opposite reaction to your example, which for me is an argument against tournaments deciding the AQ...conferences which are almost certain to be one bid leagues.  Imagine Webster or St Joe's (ME) being like 19-2-1 after completely dominating their conference and then miss out because some 6-10-3 team advances in PKs.

I've always found this odd in our sports. We will play a significant long regular season for the minimal reward of home field in a tiny, compressed tournament season to determine the major reward of a championship (or AQ).

Now it makes perfect sense when you have 400 teams and are trying to whittle down to 1. The NCAA tournaments must be played this way because there are too many teams. But it makes no competitive sense for conference regular seasons except we prefer the drama and unpredictability of a tournament when really we should be rewarding the excellence of a long season.

If we must keep the conference tournaments, the AQ should go to the regular season champion with the tournament as a way to better a Pool C resume or your seeding by being hot against the best teams in your conference at the right time. It's so much more logical to do it this way for almost all sports.

Now if you have too big of a conference to do a full round robin, having a 2 team, 2 leg playoff is a simple solution when needed. But in general, I really think conference tournaments are idiotic ways to decide the AQ.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 03, 2021, 12:06:29 PM
I have the exact opposite reaction to your example, which for me is an argument against tournaments deciding the AQ...conferences which are almost certain to be one bid leagues.  Imagine Webster or St Joe's (ME) being like 19-2-1 after completely dominating their conference and then miss out because some 6-10-3 team advances in PKs.

I understand...I was joking about the expert part.

I agree 100% in the case of Webster, but I think in the SLIAC, the coaches would unanimously vote to retain the postseason tournament. 

I know at least one coach who would say that even qualifying for the conference tournament is a benchmark for the season that he used when went for his performance evaluation.  But I know very few coaches so...

I do prefer the status quo in the UAA.

Quote from: WUPHF on November 03, 2021, 12:21:09 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 03, 2021, 12:06:29 PM
I have the exact opposite reaction to your example, which for me is an argument against tournaments deciding the AQ...conferences which are almost certain to be one bid leagues.  Imagine Webster or St Joe's (ME) being like 19-2-1 after completely dominating their conference and then miss out because some 6-10-3 team advances in PKs.

I understand...I was joking about the expert part.

I agree 100% in the case of Webster, but I think in the SLIAC, the coaches would unanimously vote to retain the postseason tournament. 

I know at least one coach who would say that even qualifying for the conference tournament is a benchmark for the season that he used when went for his performance evaluation.  But I know very few coaches so...

I do prefer the status quo in the UAA.

LOL....well, at least until another Wash U supporter emerges, you are the de facto expert.  How about aficionado?

I favor the conference tournament to determine AQ. In theory, it rewards the teams who can succeed in a win-or-go-home scenario. It could also be said it rewards the better coaches who learned from regular season match-ups and made the necessary adjustments to win a second meeting. As a coach, my strategy with the regular season would be to develop my new players, tinker with the roster to find best combinations, yet still do well enough to qualify for the conference tournament. It's a fine line to do all that successfully, but those who do should be rewarded.

Quote from: Ejay on November 03, 2021, 12:43:49 PM
I favor the conference tournament to determine AQ. In theory, it rewards the teams who can succeed in a win-or-go-home scenario. It could also be said it rewards the better coaches who learned from regular season match-ups and made the necessary adjustments to win a second meeting. As a coach, my strategy with the regular season would be to develop my new players, tinker with the roster to find best combinations, yet still do well enough to qualify for the conference tournament. It's a fine line to do all that successfully, but those who do should be rewarded.

One of the reasons I disagree with this is that other than possibly playing on a home field the psychology of the tournament especially in one bid leagues is almost wholly on the side of the underdogs who get rewarded rather than punished for "achieving" an underdog role.  These are the kind of games where the heavy favorite who was undefeated in conference play has 85-90% of possession, outshoots the opponent 30-4, and loses 1-0 or via PKs.  The favorite has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose...which should not be the "reward" for being outstanding all season.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 03, 2021, 01:27:54 PM

Quote from: Ejay on November 03, 2021, 12:43:49 PM
I favor the conference tournament to determine AQ. In theory, it rewards the teams who can succeed in a win-or-go-home scenario. It could also be said it rewards the better coaches who learned from regular season match-ups and made the necessary adjustments to win a second meeting. As a coach, my strategy with the regular season would be to develop my new players, tinker with the roster to find best combinations, yet still do well enough to qualify for the conference tournament. It's a fine line to do all that successfully, but those who do should be rewarded.

One of the reasons I disagree with this is that other than possibly playing on a home field the psychology of the tournament especially in one bid leagues is almost wholly on the side of the underdogs who get rewarded rather than punished for "achieving" an underdog role.  These are the kind of games where the heavy favorite who was undefeated in conference play has 85-90% of possession, outshoots the opponent 30-4, and loses 1-0 or via PKs.  The favorite has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose...which should not be the "reward" for being outstanding all season.

Just different philosophies I guess. The D3 season is so condensed that I view it as largely inconsequential, with the goal of simply getting into the playoffs - where it counts.  I'm not trying to run the table - I'm more interested in setting up my team for success in the tournament.  It's all about the who wins the final game.

In my scenario, the team you're talking about is going to get crushed 1st round.  Still won't agree, but can see your point more if you're talking about a Gettysburg or Swat who gets into the conference tourney, wins the AQ, and then goes on a nice run or wins the NCAA title.

As is often the case on this board, I'm finding myself really seeing things from a perspective I hadn't really examined before. I'd still fall on the side of the regular season being more consequential than a conference tourney, BUT... That's a very interesting point about using the regular season to set yourself up for a November run.

I guess I just never approached it that way as a player, and as a coach (high-level youth travel) we were either playing to win the league (with no playoff involved) or to win a tournament (a de facto playoff over any given weekend.) But I do see validity in the philosophy of using the regular season to prepare for November.

With that said, the thing you can't really prepare for, IMO, is how the kids are going to react to the very specific type of pressure and environment of a one-and-done situation. Not to mention having to deal with that on someone else's home field.

REGION I REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Tufts	11-1-3	0.620	6-1-2	11-1-3	2
2.	Amherst	12-2-2	0.640	6-2-1	12-2-2	1
3.	Connecticut College	13-3-0	0.595	5-3-0	13-3-0	3
4.	Middlebury	10-3-3	0.591	3-2-2	10-3-3	5
5.	Wesleyan	10-3-3	0.573	3-3-3	10-3-3	4
6.	Bowdoin	9-5-2	0.577	2-3-2	9-5-2	6
7.	Mass-Boston	13-3-1	0.538	1-2-0	13-3-1	8
8.	St. Joseph's (Maine)	14-1-2	0.520	0-1-1	14-1-2	9
9.	Hamilton	7-7-1	0.616	3-5-0	7-7-1	--

REGION II REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	WPI	10-4-3	0.615	3-3-2	10-4-3	4
2.	MIT	13-3-1	0.543	4-2-0	13-3-1	1
3.	Babson	9-4-3	0.575	3-4-1	9-4-3	3
4.	Coast Guard	11-4-1	0.563	2-4-0	11-4-1	2
5.	Wheaton (Mass.)	12-5-0	0.569	2-4-0	12-5-0	6
6.	Springfield	10-6-0	0.548	3-6-0	10-6-0	5

REGION III REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Cortland State	14-2-1	0.572	3-1-1	14-2-1	1
2.	Vassar	11-3-2	0.572	3-1-0	11-3-2	3
3.	Oneonta State	10-3-3	0.582	2-2-2	10-3-3	4
4.	New Paltz State	12-4-0	0.582	1-4-0	12-4-0	6
5.	Rochester	8-3-4	0.586	3-3-1	8-3-4	2
6.	RIT	10-3-4	0.555	2-2-0	10-3-4	7
7.	RPI	11-4-2	0.584	0-4-1	11-4-2	5
8.	Buffalo State	13-5-1	0.544	1-1-1	13-5-1	8

REGION IV REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	New York University	10-4-1	0.641	6-3-0	10-4-1	2
2.	Montclair State	16-2-1	0.562	5-2-0	16-2-1	1
3.	Rowan	11-3-1	0.581	2-3-0	11-3-1	3
4.	Rutgers-Newark	12-4-3	0.547	4-2-0	12-4-3	5
5.	Stevens	10-6-1	0.590	2-4-1	10-6-1	4
6.	Kean	12-4-1	0.534	1-3-0	12-4-1	6
7.	Penn State-Harrisburg	13-1-1	0.481	1-1-0	13-1-1	--

REGION V REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Messiah	14-1-2	0.578	4-0-0	14-1-2	1
2.	Franklin and Marshall	14-2-1	0.602	3-2-1	14-2-1	6
3.	Johns Hopkins	11-3-2	0.568	4-2-0	11-3-2	2
4.	Washington College	11-4-1	0.598	3-3-1	11-4-1	3
5.	Swarthmore	11-3-2	0.572	2-2-1	11-3-2	4
6.	Gettysburg	11-4-2	0.576	1-3-2	11-4-2	5
7.	Lebanon Valley	13-4-0	0.547	2-2-0	13-4-0	8
8.	Eastern	10-5-2	0.574	2-3-0	10-5-2	--

REGION VI REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Washington and Lee	14-0-2	0.581	5-0-2	14-0-2	1
2.	Emory	9-2-4	0.642	5-1-4	9-2-4	2
3.	Christopher Newport	8-4-2	0.657	4-4-2	8-4-2	3
4.	Lynchburg	12-4-1	0.576	2-4-1	12-4-1	5
5.	Mary Washington	8-4-2	0.586	2-2-1	8-4-2	4
6.	UW-Whitewater	14-4-1	0.525	3-3-1	14-4-1	--
7.	Roanoke	9-4-5	0.567	0-2-3	9-4-5	6
8.	Covenant	9-3-3	0.545	0-2-1	9-3-3	7

REGION VII REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Ohio Wesleyan	14-1-2	0.580	4-1-2	14-1-2	1
2.	Otterbein	13-0-4	0.558	4-0-4	13-0-4	2
3.	John Carroll	10-3-4	0.601	5-1-3	10-3-4	4
4.	Kenyon	14-1-1	0.543	3-1-1	14-1-1	3
5.	Ohio Northern	8-6-3	0.605	1-5-2	8-6-3	7
6.	Denison	10-4-2	0.554	0-4-1	10-4-2	5
7.	Hanover	12-4-1	0.532	1-2-1	12-4-1	8
8.	Wilmington	12-2-3	0.502	3-2-0	12-2-3	9
9.	Wabash	11-5-2	0.536	1-4-0	11-5-2	--
10.	Rose-Hulman	12-4-1	0.505	1-3-0	12-4-1	--

REGION VIII REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Chicago	12-4-1	0.652	8-3-1	12-4-1	1
2.	Washington U.	11-2-1	0.625	3-2-1	11-2-1	2
3.	North Park	13-4-0	0.583	5-4-0	13-4-0	3
4.	North Central (Ill.)	16-1-1	0.542	3-1-0	16-1-1	6
5.	Calvin	13-2-2	0.549	3-2-1	13-2-2	4
6.	Hope	11-3-3	0.558	3-2-1	11-3-3	5
7.	Carthage	12-6-2	0.582	3-5-0	12-6-2	7
8.	Kalamazoo	9-3-2	0.541	1-3-2	9-3-2	--

REGION IX REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	St. Olaf	16-1-1	0.565	4-1-1	16-1-1	1
2.	Gustavus Adolphus	14-4-0	0.577	2-3-0	14-4-0	2
3.	Carleton	11-3-2	0.523	2-1-0	11-3-2	3
4.	UW-Platteville	13-4-2	0.519	3-2-0	13-4-2	5
5.	Dubuque	12-3-1	0.500	2-2-0	12-3-1	8
6.	Luther	10-6-3	0.587	0-6-1	10-6-3	4
7.	Augsburg	12-5-1	0.525	1-3-0	12-5-1	--
8.	Loras	11-6-2	0.519	0-3-1	11-6-2	6

REGION X REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Trinity (Texas)	15-0-1	0.585	5-0-0	15-0-1	1
2.	Mary Hardin-Baylor	12-3-0	0.562	0-3-0	12-3-0	2
3.	Colorado College	11-4-1	0.534	2-2-1	11-4-1	3
4.	Claremont-Mudd-Scripps	13-0-3	0.521	1-0-0	13-0-3	4
5.	Willamette	11-4-1	0.549	1-1-0	11-4-1	5
6.	Southwestern	10-2-4	0.539	0-2-1	10-2-4	6
7.	Redlands	13-2-1	0.526	0-1-0	13-2-1	7

Maybe this has been discussed before and I missed it, but does anyone know the logic of switching to the expanded regions? It seems to have watered down the quality of ranked wins. The last ranked teams in each region have pretty much a 0 percent chance of earning a pool C bid so whats the point of including them. Like why is a .500 Hamilton team ranked, teams with sub .500 SOS, etc. I don't really understand what issue this change was addressing and how it improved it.

I know others on here will have a more substantive and informed take, but I recall a few folks speculating that this was a move by some of the more competitive Northeastern leagues to spread out the region(s) and increase their league's chances of getting additional bids. So, not necessarily done with an objective or altruistic goal in mind.

Quote from: d4_Pace on November 03, 2021, 02:26:30 PM
Maybe this has been discussed before and I missed it, but does anyone know the logic of switching to the expanded regions? It seems to have watered down the quality of ranked wins. The last ranked teams in each region have pretty much a 0 percent chance of earning a pool C bid so whats the point of including them. Like why is a .500 Hamilton team ranked, teams with sub .500 SOS, etc. I don't really understand what issue this change was addressing and how it improved it.

Most of the larger D3 sports shifted to a 10 region alignment. I can't remember the reasons exactly, but it had something to do with the old regions being out of whack numerically over years and years of schools adding teams, but not all regions adding at the same speed. The shift to 10 regions was designed to lower the number of teams per region and to try and get a more consistent number of teams across the regions.

Totally concur with d4_Pace about the bottom of the rankings.  How on earth can Hamilton be ranked when they could not even crack the top 8 in the NESCAC?  How are they ranked above Williams, which is now penalized for losing to Conn in 1st round of NESCAC play?  Same with Colby, who beat Hamilton and has results against Midd and Tufts during the year.  They are still alive in NESCAC after advancing on PKs vs Amherst and as a result they are behind a team that finished 10th out of 11 in league play?   

Guess Kenyon doesn't like being disrespected by these rankings.  Just kidding.  I knew JCU was gonna jump them. 

Lords 7  Little Giants 0   25 min left

This is how crazy this stuff is.  Kenyon now loses a ranked win with CWRU departing the rankings.  Wabash enters so Kenyon possibly picks up two more there unless of course Wabash now gets knocked back out of the rankings with this loss.

So while seems unlikely Lords could lose NCAC final, drop to 2-2-1 on RvR if Wabash drops out, and end up not getting a bid.

Wabash is actually pretty good.  1-1 with Chicago into like 85th minute and two weeks ago, Kenyon barely prevailed in OT.

Now 8-0.  19 min left.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 03, 2021, 03:34:04 PM
This is how crazy this stuff is.  Kenyon now loses a ranked win with CWRU departing the rankings.  Wabash enters so Kenyon possibly picks up two more there unless of course Wabash now gets knocked back out of the rankings with this loss.

So while seems unlikely Lords could lose NCAC final, drop to 2-2-1 on RvR if Wabash drops out, and end up not getting a bid.

Any result against the opponents currently ranked--that includes Wabash--will remain in a team's RvR for at-large selections.  Remember, the definition of "ranked teams" for at-large selection purposes is:

Quoteranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceding the final ranking.

The current (third weekly) rankings are the rankings preceding the final rankings.

Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 03, 2021, 04:40:23 PM

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 03, 2021, 03:34:04 PM
This is how crazy this stuff is.  Kenyon now loses a ranked win with CWRU departing the rankings.  Wabash enters so Kenyon possibly picks up two more there unless of course Wabash now gets knocked back out of the rankings with this loss.

So while seems unlikely Lords could lose NCAC final, drop to 2-2-1 on RvR if Wabash drops out, and end up not getting a bid.

Any result against the opponents currently ranked--that includes Wabash--will remain in a team's RvR for at-large selections.  Remember, the definition of "ranked teams" for at-large selection purposes is:

Quoteranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceding the final ranking.

The current (third weekly) rankings are the rankings preceding the final rankings.

Thanks...I was wondering about that.  Relieved!

Quote from: d4_Pace on November 03, 2021, 02:26:30 PM
Maybe this has been discussed before and I missed it, but does anyone know the logic of switching to the expanded regions? It seems to have watered down the quality of ranked wins. The last ranked teams in each region have pretty much a 0 percent chance of earning a pool C bid so whats the point of including them. Like why is a .500 Hamilton team ranked, teams with sub .500 SOS, etc. I don't really understand what issue this change was addressing and how it improved it.

As I understand it, the move was intended to address the numerical imbalance among the regions. The New England region especially, but maybe some of the other northeastern and mid-atlantic regions, had a lot more schools than some of the other regions. The expanded number of regions was supposed to even out the number of schools in each region.

Of course, that would give more tourney bids to schools in the northeast.

Quote from: PaulNewman on November 03, 2021, 12:33:29 PM
LOL....well, at least until another Wash U supporter emerges, you are the de facto expert.  How about aficionado?

I'll take it!

Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 03, 2021, 02:15:46 PM
REGION VI REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Washington and Lee	14-0-2	0.581	5-0-2	14-0-2	1
2.	Emory	9-2-4	0.642	5-1-4	9-2-4	2
3.	Christopher Newport	8-4-2	0.657	4-4-2	8-4-2	3
4.	Lynchburg	12-4-1	0.576	2-4-1	12-4-1	5
5.	Mary Washington	8-4-2	0.586	2-2-1	8-4-2	4

6.

UW-Whitewater

14-4-1

0.525

3-3-1

14-4-1

--

[/b]

7.	Roanoke	9-4-5	0.567	0-2-3	9-4-5	6
8.	Covenant	9-3-3	0.545	0-2-1	9-3-3	7

Wait... What's going on here? Sorry, edit to add/clarify... My HTML editing is very rusty... Why is UW-Whitewater in this region??

Quote from: Hopkins92 on November 05, 2021, 01:50:40 PM

Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 03, 2021, 02:15:46 PM
REGION VI REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 03, 2021

Rank	School	. Div. III . Record	. Div. III . SOS	. R-v-R .	. Overall . Record	. Prev. . Rank
1.	Washington and Lee	14-0-2	0.581	5-0-2	14-0-2	1
2.	Emory	9-2-4	0.642	5-1-4	9-2-4	2
3.	Christopher Newport	8-4-2	0.657	4-4-2	8-4-2	3
4.	Lynchburg	12-4-1	0.576	2-4-1	12-4-1	5
5.	Mary Washington	8-4-2	0.586	2-2-1	8-4-2	4

6.

UW-Whitewater

14-4-1

0.525

3-3-1

14-4-1

--

[/b]

7.	Roanoke	9-4-5	0.567	0-2-3	9-4-5	6
8.	Covenant	9-3-3	0.545	0-2-1	9-3-3	7

Wait... What's going on here? Sorry, edit to add/clarify... My HTML editing is very rusty... Why is UW-Whitewater in this region??

WIAC does not have a men's soccer conference. (The WIAC does have a conference for women's soccer)  UW-Whitewater is in the Coast to Coast Conference for men's soccer, and the Coast to Coast Conference is in Region VI.

BTW, the UW-Whitewater men's soccer team is about to begin playing their C2C semifinal vs Mary Washington at 1 PM Central/2 PM Eastern.  The Warhawks beat Finlandia in their C2C quarterfinal match yesterday.  The C2C men's tournament is being played at Mary Washington.

Update-- 2:07 PM Eastern-- Warhawks up 1-0 over Mary Washington in the 4th minute.

Thanks deis!

I probably could've noodled that out, given I'm checking on the C2C playoffs right now, hosted in Cary, NC. :D


edit - got my locations mixed up, as I was watching the USA South game on another feed. Checking out of that game, as it's just not all that fun to watch.

Tied up in Fredericksburg. That's a good, scrappy game if folks are looking for content.