Coming Wednesday: the rankings that matter (https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2022/the-rankings-that-matter)
https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2022/the-rankings-that-matter
2022 NCAA Regional Rankings (https://www.d3soccer.com/rankings/2022/about)
https://www.d3soccer.com/rankings/2022/about
REGION I REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Amherst | 7-1-4 | 0.639 | -- | 7-1-4 | -- |
. | Bowdoin | 9-1-2 | 0.564 | -- | 9-1-2 | -- |
. | Hamilton | 8-1-3 | 0.602 | -- | 8-1-3 | -- |
. | Johnson and Wales | 11-1-2 | 0.530 | -- | 11-1-2 | -- |
. | Middlebury | 9-1-2 | 0.622 | -- | 9-1-2 | -- |
. | Wesleyan | 6-3-3 | 0.587 | -- | 6-3-3 | -- |
. | Williams | 4-1-7 | 0.587 | -- | 4-1-7 | -- |
REGION II REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Babson | 9-3-2 | 0.573 | -- | 9-3-2 | -- |
. | Coast Guard | 8-2-3 | 0.539 | -- | 8-2-3 | -- |
. | Endicott | 9-3-3 | 0.577 | -- | 9-3-3 | -- |
. | Roger Williams | 9-2-4 | 0.501 | -- | 9-2-4 | -- |
. | Wheaton (Mass.) | 5-4-5 | 0.556 | -- | 5-4-5 | -- |
. | WPI | 5-4-4 | 0.576 | -- | 5-4-4 | -- |
REGION III REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Clarkson | 8-2-3 | 0.559 | -- | 8-2-3 | -- |
. | Rochester | 6-2-4 | 0.605 | -- | 6-2-4 | -- |
. | St. Lawrence | 8-1-5 | 0.539 | -- | 8-1-5 | -- |
. | Cortland State | 11-3-2 | 0.581 | -- | 11-3-2 | -- |
. | New Paltz State | 7-4-3 | 0.592 | -- | 7-4-3 | -- |
. | Oneonta State | 9-2-2 | 0.536 | -- | 9-2-2 | -- |
. | Vassar | 7-3-3 | 0.604 | -- | 7-3-3 | -- |
REGION IV REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Lancaster Bible | 9-3-3 | 0.520 | -- | 9-3-3 | -- |
. | Lycoming | 7-4-4 | 0.585 | -- | 7-4-4 | -- |
. | Misericordia | 9-1-4 | 0.528 | -- | 9-1-4 | -- |
. | Montclair State | 11-1-3 | 0.558 | -- | 11-1-3 | -- |
. | New York University | 6-4-2 | 0.615 | -- | 6-4-2 | -- |
. | Rowan | 6-5-4 | 0.589 | -- | 6-5-4 | -- |
. | Stevens | 11-0-2 | 0.570 | -- | 11-0-2 | -- |
REGION V REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Catholic | 8-2-4 | 0.566 | -- | 8-2-4 | -- |
. | Drew | 10-2-3 | 0.595 | -- | 10-2-3 | -- |
. | Elizabethtown | 8-4-2 | 0.566 | -- | 8-4-2 | -- |
. | Franklin and Marshall | 9-1-4 | 0.600 | -- | 9-1-4 | -- |
. | Gettysburg | 7-3-3 | 0.563 | -- | 7-3-3 | -- |
. | Johns Hopkins | 11-0-3 | 0.570 | -- | 11-0-3 | -- |
. | Messiah | 13-0-1 | 0.607 | -- | 13-0-1 | -- |
REGION VI REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Christopher Newport | 9-2-1 | 0.615 | -- | 9-2-1 | -- |
. | Lynchburg | 9-0-5 | 0.565 | -- | 9-0-5 | -- |
. | Mary Washington | 7-3-2 | 0.613 | -- | 7-3-2 | -- |
. | Roanoke | 6-5-2 | 0.589 | -- | 6-5-2 | -- |
. | Sewanee | 11-3-0 | 0.524 | -- | 11-3-0 | -- |
. | Virginia Wesleyan | 7-3-4 | 0.548 | -- | 8-3-4 | -- |
. | Washington and Lee | 9-1-4 | 0.614 | -- | 9-1-4 | -- |
REGION VII REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Carnegie Mellon | 9-3-1 | 0.571 | -- | 9-3-1 | -- |
. | Case Western Reserve | 6-3-3 | 0.585 | -- | 6-3-3 | -- |
. | Denison | 8-2-3 | 0.543 | -- | 8-2-3 | -- |
. | John Carroll | 9-4-1 | 0.605 | -- | 9-4-1 | -- |
. | Kenyon | 12-0-1 | 0.545 | -- | 12-0-1 | -- |
. | Ohio Northern | 9-2-3 | 0.605 | -- | 9-2-3 | -- |
. | Rose-Hulman | 10-1-2 | 0.503 | -- | 10-1-2 | -- |
REGION VIII REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Calvin | 10-1-1 | 0.558 | -- | 12-1-2 | -- |
. | Concordia (Wis.) | 7-3-4 | 0.571 | -- | 7-3-4 | -- |
. | Dominican | 8-3-3 | 0.560 | -- | 8-3-3 | -- |
. | North Central (Ill.) | 11-0-4 | 0.588 | -- | 11-0-4 | -- |
. | North Park | 11-1-1 | 0.554 | -- | 11-1-1 | -- |
. | Chicago | 14-0-0 | 0.619 | -- | 14-0-0 | -- |
. | Washington U. | 6-3-2 | 0.569 | -- | 6-3-2 | -- |
REGION IX REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Gustavus Adolphus | 9-0-4 | 0.577 | -- | 9-0-4 | -- |
. | Loras | 7-5-1 | 0.585 | -- | 7-5-1 | -- |
. | Luther | 8-2-4 | 0.565 | -- | 8-2-4 | -- |
. | St. Olaf | 9-5-0 | 0.595 | -- | 9-5-0 | -- |
. | Wartburg | 6-1-7 | 0.547 | -- | 6-1-7 | -- |
. | UW-Eau Claire | 14-2-0 | 0.552 | -- | 14-2-0 | -- |
. | UW-Platteville | 10-2-2 | 0.590 | -- | 10-2-2 | -- |
REGION X REGION - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 19, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
. | Cal Lutheran | 5-2-6 | 0.542 | -- | 5-2-6 | -- |
. | Colorado College | 6-2-4 | 0.549 | -- | 6-2-4 | -- |
. | Mary Hardin-Baylor | 7-1-2 | 0.552 | -- | 9-1-2 | -- |
. | Pacific Lutheran | 12-2-0 | 0.528 | -- | 12-2-0 | -- |
. | St. Thomas (Texas) | 9-1-3 | 0.520 | -- | 9-1-3 | -- |
. | Trinity (Texas) | 7-3-2 | 0.529 | -- | 7-3-2 | -- |
. | Willamette | 10-1-2 | 0.549 | -- | 10-1-2 | -- |
Remember that these first rankings are in alphabetical order, not ranked order.
Some observations:
It would be nice, at some point, if the committee attempted to quantify exactly how much SOS is weighted into the ranking decisions. We know that it is valued more than the D1 RPI formula values. D1 is constantly tweaking the adjusted RPI formula to get the effect of a win or loss over a ranked opponent exactly how they want it. What is preventing D3 from providing an objective data point? A case in point would be the omission of undefeated Western Connecticut from the Region I rankings and the addition of 4-1-7 Williams. If we went by RPI, WeConn would be 5th in the region (.6141) and Williams 8th (.5987). This isn't particularly close as far as RPI goes. Conn College has a similar RPI (.5943) to Williams with a better SOS.
On the other side of this, if you have a winning % below .500, you're not getting ranked. Even if you have a gaudy SOS. Emory (.5753), Virginia Wesleyan (.5753), Roanoke (.5741), and Sewanee (.572) are all neck and neck at the bottom of the Region VI rankings. Sewanee got in over Emory despite a massive difference in SOS. Emory .629 and Sewanee .524
In Region VIII, MSOE gets bumped out of the 7th spot by Concordia Wisconsin due to SOS
In Region X, Cal Lutheran and Texas Lutheran are basically dead even but they go with Cal Lutheran with the slightly better winning % over Texas Lutheran's slightly better SOS
Now we get RvR next week to add another element of committee subjectivity into the mix ;D
FWIW, RPI predicted 64/69 of the rankings this week with all of the changes at the theoretical 6 and 7 spots
REGION I - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Amherst | 8-1-5 | 0.637 | 4-0-3 | 8-1-5 | Y |
2. | Bowdoin | 11-1-2 | 0.558 | 2-1-2 | 11-1-2 | Y |
3. | Middlebury | 9-2-3 | 0.613 | 1-1-3 | 9-2-3 | Y |
4. | Hamilton | 8-2-4 | 0.595 | 1-2-2 | 8-2-4 | Y |
5. | Tufts | 7-2-5 | 0.578 | 2-2-2 | 7-2-5 | -- |
6. | Connecticut College | 7-4-3 | 0.596 | 2-3-2 | 7-4-3 | -- |
7. | Williams | 5-1-8 | 0.581 | 1-0-5 | 5-1-8 | Y |
REGION II - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Babson | 11-3-2 | 0.581 | 3-1-1 | 11-3-2 | Y |
2. | Endicott | 11-3-4 | 0.563 | 1-1-1 | 11-3-4 | Y |
3. | WPI | 6-4-5 | 0.597 | 2-3-3 | 6-4-5 | Y |
4. | Coast Guard | 9-2-4 | 0.523 | 1-1-3 | 9-2-4 | Y |
5. | Roger Williams | 12-2-4 | 0.514 | 1-2-1 | 12-2-4 | Y |
6. | Wheaton (Mass.) | 6-4-6 | 0.568 | 0-1-4 | 6-4-6 | Y |
REGION III - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Cortland State | 12-4-2 | 0.590 | 3-4-0 | 12-4-2 | Y |
2. | Oneonta State | 11-2-2 | 0.545 | 3-0-0 | 11-2-2 | Y |
3. | Vassar | 7-3-4 | 0.609 | 1-2-2 | 7-3-4 | Y |
4. | Rochester | 6-3-4 | 0.623 | 1-1-2 | 6-3-4 | Y |
5. | St. Lawrence | 9-1-5 | 0.543 | 1-1-2 | 9-1-5 | Y |
6. | New Paltz State | 9-4-3 | 0.580 | 1-4-0 | 9-4-3 | Y |
7. | Clarkson | 8-3-3 | 0.546 | 2-0-2 | 8-3-3 | Y |
REGION IV - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Stevens | 13-0-2 | 0.570 | 5-0-0 | 13-0-2 | Y |
2. | Montclair State | 12-1-4 | 0.548 | 2-0-1 | 12-1-4 | Y |
3. | New York University | 7-4-2 | 0.615 | 1-4-1 | 7-4-2 | Y |
4. | Misericordia | 9-3-4 | 0.532 | 1-1-0 | 9-3-4 | Y |
5. | Lycoming | 9-4-4 | 0.558 | 0-4-2 | 9-4-4 | Y |
6. | Rowan | 8-5-4 | 0.572 | 1-3-1 | 8-5-4 | Y |
7. | Lancaster Bible | 11-3-3 | 0.507 | 0-0-2 | 11-3-3 | Y |
REGION V - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Messiah | 15-0-1 | 0.577 | 5-0-1 | 15-0-1 | Y |
2. | Johns Hopkins | 11-0-5 | 0.566 | 4-0-1 | 11-0-5 | Y |
3. | Franklin and Marshall | 11-1-4 | 0.573 | 1-1-2 | 11-1-4 | Y |
4. | Catholic | 10-2-4 | 0.572 | 2-1-2 | 10-2-4 | Y |
5. | Drew | 11-2-4 | 0.583 | 1-2-0 | 11-2-4 | Y |
6. | Alvernia | 10-2-5 | 0.533 | 2-2-1 | 10-2-5 | -- |
7. | Gettysburg | 9-3-3 | 0.557 | 0-2-2 | 9-3-3 | Y |
REGION VI - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Washington and Lee | 11-1-4 | 0.605 | 2-1-3 | 11-1-4 | Y |
2. | Mary Washington | 9-3-2 | 0.628 | 4-3-1 | 9-3-2 | Y |
3. | Christopher Newport | 10-3-1 | 0.608 | 2-3-1 | 10-3-1 | Y |
4. | Lynchburg | 10-1-5 | 0.565 | 2-0-3 | 10-1-5 | Y |
5. | Virginia Wesleyan | 9-3-4 | 0.540 | 1-3-1 | 10-3-4 | Y |
6. | Sewanee | 12-3-0 | 0.517 | 0-1-0 | 12-3-0 | Y |
7. | Covenant | 6-3-5 | 0.539 | 0-2-1 | 8-3-5 | -- |
REGION VII - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Kenyon | 14-0-1 | 0.533 | 4-0-0 | 14-0-1 | Y |
2. | Ohio Northern | 11-2-3 | 0.591 | 2-2-1 | 11-2-3 | Y |
3. | John Carroll | 11-4-1 | 0.594 | 1-4-1 | 11-4-1 | Y |
4. | Carnegie Mellon | 9-3-1 | 0.582 | 1-3-1 | 9-3-1 | Y |
5. | Case Western Reserve | 6-3-3 | 0.600 | 1-2-2 | 7-3-3 | Y |
6. | Ohio Wesleyan | 6-4-4 | 0.602 | 1-4-2 | 6-4-4 | -- |
7. | Denison | 8-4-3 | 0.565 | 0-2-0 | 8-4-3 | Y |
REGION VIII - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Chicago | 14-0-0 | 0.613 | 7-0-0 | 14-0-0 | Y |
2. | North Central (Ill.) | 13-0-4 | 0.569 | 1-0-3 | 13-0-4 | Y |
3. | North Park | 11-2-2 | 0.548 | 3-1-1 | 11-2-2 | Y |
4. | Calvin | 11-2-1 | 0.549 | 1-1-0 | 132-0 | Y |
5. | Washington U. | 6-3-2 | 0.569 | 1-1-2 | 6-3-2 | Y |
6. | Wheaton (Ill.) | 7-4-4 | 0.557 | 2-4-0 | 7-4-4 | -- |
7. | MSOE | 12-2-3 | 0.522 | 1-1-1 | 8-3-5 | -- |
REGION IX - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Gustavus Adolphus | 11-0-4 | 0.569 | 3-0-1 | 11-0-4 | Y |
2. | UW-Eau Claire | 17-2-0 | 0.552 | 2-1-0 | 17-2-0 | Y |
3. | UW-Platteville | 12-3-2 | 0.585 | 3-2-1 | 12-3-2 | Y |
4. | St. Olaf | 11-5-0 | 0.584 | 2-4-0 | 11-5-0 | Y |
5. | Wartburg | 7-1-8 | 0.551 | 1-1-3 | 7-1-8 | Y |
6. | Luther | 9-3-5 | 0.562 | 1-3-1 | 9-3-5 | Y |
7. | Loras | 9-5-1 | 0.543 | 0-4-0 | 9-5-1 | Y |
REGION X - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - October 26, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Willamette | 12-1-2 | 0.532 | 2-0-1 | 12-1-2 | Y |
2. | Mary Hardin-Baylor | 9-1-2 | 0.534 | 1-1-0 | 11-1-2 | Y |
3. | Pacific Lutheran | 13-3-0 | 0.529 | 2-1-0 | 13-3-0 | Y |
4. | St. Thomas (Texas) | 11-1-3 | 0.515 | 2-0-1 | 11-1-3 | Y |
5. | Whitman | 8-5-1 | 0.550 | 3-1-0 | 10-6-1 | -- |
6. | Colorado College | 8-2-4 | 0.519 | 1-2-1 | 8-2-4 | Y |
7. | Trinity (Texas) | 8-4-2 | 0.531 | 0-3-1 | 8-4-2 | Y |
Props to UWEC...17-2...decent SoS...two ranked wins.
This year's other darling Western CT now 17-0-1 unranked.
Kind of amazed that Western Conn didn't crack that last spot in Region 1. Williams has won 6 games. Does Western Conn win more than 6 games against Williams schedule? Probably not... but Western Conn has the common opponent with Trinity that gives them legitimacy to not make this a NESCAC sweep. I think I would have leaned that way. You can always take it back with the NESCAC tournament results later.
Exactly half of Chicago's 14 wins are ranked wins...with good possibility of picking up a couple more.
I'm irritated that Cortland State is ranked ahead of Oneonta State. That was a 3-0 shellacking last week. Ignoring a recent H2H like that when you are putting teams one after the other just kills me. The game is played on the field and should matter. Now if you thought on the season Cortland was 1 and Oneonta was 4 or 5 or lower, that I get. But 1 and 2, with a week old H2H... uggh.
At least leave it alone for another week and then claim the result went stale or something.
Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2022, 04:02:49 PM
Kind of amazed that Western Conn didn't crack that last spot in Region 1. Williams has won 6 games. Does Western Conn win more than 6 games against Williams schedule? Probably not... but Western Conn has the common opponent with Trinity that gives them legitimacy to not make this a NESCAC sweep. I think I would have leaned that way. You can always take it back with the NESCAC tournament results later.
Western Conn also beat Vassar (3rd in Region III) and tied Drew (5th in Region V). The fact that they can't even crack the 7 spot in their Region is ridiculous and isn't supported by any of the numbers.
Western Conn's problem is a very low SOS (.516) in a region full of high SOS's.
Quote from: paclassic89 on October 26, 2022, 04:30:04 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2022, 04:02:49 PM
Kind of amazed that Western Conn didn't crack that last spot in Region 1. Williams has won 6 games. Does Western Conn win more than 6 games against Williams schedule? Probably not... but Western Conn has the common opponent with Trinity that gives them legitimacy to not make this a NESCAC sweep. I think I would have leaned that way. You can always take it back with the NESCAC tournament results later.
Western Conn also beat Vassar (3rd in Region III) and tied Drew (5th in Region V). The fact that they can't even crack the 7 spot in their Region is ridiculous and isn't supported by any of the numbers.
Agreed. I forgot they beat Vassar (at Vassar) and also were at Drew iirc. What is their SoS?
Of course they weren't in last week either. It was J&W that got bumped.
Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2022, 04:36:51 PM
Western Conn's problem is a very low SOS (.516) in a region full of high SOS's.
They need to quantify this preference. It's not rocket science and the NCAA has full time statisticians on their payroll to do this work.
Quote from: paclassic89 on October 26, 2022, 04:45:00 PM
Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2022, 04:36:51 PM
Western Conn's problem is a very low SOS (.516) in a region full of high SOS's.
They need to quantify this preference. It's not rocket science and the NCAA has full time statisticians on their payroll to do this work.
Second highest winning percentage in the country. Unless they've played absolutely no one, that should count for something. I think it's a bit silly and makes Region 1 look ridiculous.
On the other hand, if your goal as a Regional Committee is to get as many of your Region teams into the playoffs as possible, ranking all the NESCAC schools gives them the best possible resumes for Pool C consideration. The committee may be playing the odds that Western Conn goes through on a Pool A bid, and having more NESCAC's ranked gives them more ranked wins, increasing the odds of the bottom ranked teams in the region getting those key Pool Cs.
It's Chess not Checkers, but it's also a bit of b.s. in my opinion.
Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2022, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: paclassic89 on October 26, 2022, 04:45:00 PM
Quote from: Flying Weasel on October 26, 2022, 04:36:51 PM
Western Conn's problem is a very low SOS (.516) in a region full of high SOS's.
They need to quantify this preference. It's not rocket science and the NCAA has full time statisticians on their payroll to do this work.
On the other hand, if your goal as a Regional Committee is to get as many of your Region teams into the playoffs as possible, ranking all the NESCAC schools gives them the best possible resumes for Pool C consideration. The committee may be playing the odds that Western Conn goes through on a Pool A bid, and having more NESCAC's ranked gives them more ranked wins, increasing the odds of the bottom ranked teams in the region getting those key Pool Cs.
It's Chess not Checkers, but it's also a bit of b.s. in my opinion.
Hit the nail on the head
Yup. Region 1 is an absolute joke. NCAA should be ashamed.
Imo this is very related to the points FW and I have made in response to one another about poll rankings....who is most deserving, and how one defines deserving, versus I suppose going down each and every spot and asking who would win head to head.
I view W CT as totally deserving, and J&W (.527 and 1-1-0 RvR) maybe too. But if we slot any of the seven (eight) NESCACs in a first round match with W CT (or J&W) what percentage of folks here would pick all of the NESCACs to prevail. I probably would.
And I'm sure the NESCACs believe Region 1 should get 9-10 spots and that NESCAC should always get 7 or 8 of them.
I have been incredibly busy the last week months so I haven't had much of a presence here. But catching up on this thread, I thought I would throw my two cents in. I have been on the regional rankings calls and can tell you its a lot less interesting with less intrigue and politicking than people are implying here. The committee has strict criteria they are examining and they essentially come up with each spot on the rankings in isolation. They decide who the number 1 team is, consider all the options, make their choice, and then start figuring out number 2. They aren't considering who to put at spots 6 and 7 in order to maximize the chances of teams #4 and 5. They have strict bylaws to operate by and people on the call are constantly making sure they are following those rules.
I can see how it is frustrating when you end up with a list of all NESCAC teams, but without knowing who the exact voters are this year, I would imagine there are a few non-nescac coaches involved with the committee. And while we look at the "eye test" of who do we think would beat who in a hypothetical matchup that is not allowed to come into play.
From what I've seen, the factor that garners a lot of consideration is record vs ranked. It is important to note that the criteria is record vs ranked, not wins vs ranked. Whether you agree with it or not, it seems like the committee looks favorably on teams with a lot of ranked games. IE a team that is 1-0-5 vs ranked (Williams) is looked upon as more favorably than a team that is 1-0-1 vs ranked (Western Conn). And finally, while there is no minimum SOS teams with a really low SOS are often pretty much dismissed outright. I would imagine there are very few if any teams ranked across the country with a SOS less than .520
I believe everything D4 just wrote is true.
And when you scan through Regions 2 thru 5 (the regions most likely to slot into brackets the NESCACs will be in) you can definitely see how six or seven NESCACs could get bids. Not sure anyone in Region 2 would beat them out, and maybe Oneonta in Region 3 and one more but not obvious, and then not sure after the first 2-3 in Regions 4 and 5. I know it's not just about Regions 1 thru 5, but that is usually where the teams come from in those brackets and tbh there aren't many teams in other regions beyond the few obvious suspects who would clearly beat out the #6, #7, ore even #8 NESCAC for a spot.
I agree with you. I guess my point is that putting a region together that in many sports, will have one conference dominate many of the spots in the regional rankings is just wrong regardless of the criteria involved. They're still on the board. Nothing against the other conferences and teams in the region, but let's be realistic from historical data, IMO it is the most unbalanced region in the country. I kinda feel that is a bit embarrassing.
Quote from: 4samuy on October 26, 2022, 06:08:40 PM
I agree with you. I guess my point is that putting a region together that in many sports, will have one conference dominate many of the spots in the regional rankings is just wrong. Nothing against the other conferences and teams in the region, but let's be realistic from historical data, IMO it is the most unbalanced region in the country. I kinda feel that is a bit embarrassing.
Yeah I think thats a fair point. This is also a fairly recent change. I know when I was there, so as recently as 2018, there were fewer, bigger regions. This lead to a team like Babson always being regionally ranked on top of the NESCAC teams. I'm not sure what the impetus was for the change.
Quote from: d4_Pace on October 26, 2022, 06:17:35 PM
Quote from: 4samuy on October 26, 2022, 06:08:40 PM
I agree with you. I guess my point is that putting a region together that in many sports, will have one conference dominate many of the spots in the regional rankings is just wrong. Nothing against the other conferences and teams in the region, but let's be realistic from historical data, IMO it is the most unbalanced region in the country. I kinda feel that is a bit embarrassing.
Yeah I think thats a fair point. This is also a fairly recent change. I know when I was there, so as recently as 2018, there were fewer, bigger regions. This lead to a team like Babson always being regionally ranked on top of the NESCAC teams. I'm not sure what the impetus was for the change.
Yes. I do recollect when the regions were changed, and honestly I could not believe what region 1 looked liked, regardless of Criteria involved in NCAA selection criteria, and it has beared out. IMHO not a good look.
Not one team in the region, currently, has the ability to block a NESCAC team from coming to the table for an an at large bid. Very strange.
Quote from: d4_Pace on October 26, 2022, 05:57:26 PM
From what I've seen, the factor that garners a lot of consideration is record vs ranked. It is important to note that the criteria is record vs ranked, not wins vs ranked. Whether you agree with it or not, it seems like the committee looks favorably on teams with a lot of ranked games. IE a team that is 1-0-5 vs ranked (Williams) is looked upon as more favorably than a team that is 1-0-1 vs ranked (Western Conn). And finally, while there is no minimum SOS teams with a really low SOS are often pretty much dismissed outright. I would imagine there are very few if any teams ranked across the country with a SOS less than .520
Actually it's not even record versus ranked teams, it is
results versus ranked teams. The data sheets list the record vs. ranked teams because it is a nice concise piece of data to fit in a table, but that it not the criterion per se. So the committee has a lot of latitude with this criterion. For example, they can consider if a result came against the #1 or #2 team in a region or a team at the bottom.
Regarding the SOS, there is no official threshold (they did apply one many years ago, but their was strong backlash because a couple widely accepted top teams nationally that were not even making the regional rankings (i.e., Dominican, Calvin). Historically, SOS's below .550 or 540 usually meant a team was going to have make a more compelling case with the other criteria just to make the rankings and wasn't going to be in the top half. And anything near .500 or below had virtually no shot (Lancaster Bible making the cut this weak is noteworthy because of how rare it is for a team with a SOS that low to be ranked). What it takes to make the regional rankings now with 10-region alignment and with the new-this-year 7-team cap is something we are still learning. There's quite a bit of variance in the strength and depth of the regions--probably more so than before with the 8-region alignment. So naturally, the SOS needed to be in contention for a spot in the rankings in regions that are relatively week overall or only have a handful of strong teams is going to be considerable lower than in strong, deep regions. And there's Region X (the old West region) that has large (costly) hurdles to putting together strong non-conference schedules which means you're going to see ranked teams with lower SOS than in other regions. Also, we're still getting used to the new reality with no OT in the regular season which is bringing winning percentages down a little and therefore SOS's down a little as well. So we may see lower SOS's in the rankings than in the past due to that effect. And on top of all that, the UAA is having it's weakest season in a long time and the NESCAC is, at the least, seeing more parity than ever if not being a tick down from their norm, so were not getting some of those outrageously high SOS's those conferences usually produce. Putting all that together, it's likely we see lower SOS's in the rankings this year and maybe teams getting selected for the tournament with lower SOSs than usual.
Quote from: d4_Pace on October 26, 2022, 05:57:26 PM
I can see how it is frustrating when you end up with a list of all NESCAC teams, but without knowing who the exact voters are this year, I would imagine there are a few non-nescac coaches involved with the committee.
Region I Advisory CommitteeDavid Kulik, chair - Head Coach @ Johnson & Wales (GNAC)
Mitch Capelle - AD @ Colby Sawyer (GNAC)
John O'Connor - Head Coach @ Castleton (LEC)
Kyle Dezotell - Head Coach @ Tufts (NESCAC)
Joe Machado - Head Coach @ SUNY Cobleskill (NAC)
Quote from: 4samuy on October 26, 2022, 06:08:40 PM
I agree with you. I guess my point is that putting a region together that in many sports, will have one conference dominate many of the spots in the regional rankings is just wrong regardless of the criteria involved. They're still on the board. Nothing against the other conferences and teams in the region, but let's be realistic from historical data, IMO it is the most unbalanced region in the country. I kinda feel that is a bit embarrassing.
But how do you fix that? What could and should the NCAA do to fix this "embarrassment"?
One way to keep a very strong and deep conference from dominating a region is to make the region big enough (numerically) to catch enough top teams from other conferences. In other words, reduce the number of regions. But we just moved from 8 to 10 regions to address other issues. Besides, back when there were 8 regions and New England was the largest region numerically, the NESCAC still held 5 of the top 7 spots in the final rankings in each of the last three years (2017, 2018, 2019) before the re-alignment.
Another option in the case of the NESCAC would be to swap the NEWMAC from Region II to Region I, but this year that would probably only displace on NESCAC school and it would leave Region II even weaker than it already is. What other options are there? Terminate the policy of keeping conferences together in the same region so the NESCAC teams could be split between Regions I and II (and Hamilton in Region III)? That would result in the top half of two regions being dominated by the NESCAC in a year like this.
The nation's strongest, deepest conference is going to dominate its region no matter what you do unless another one of the nation's top conferences is in the same region. That's just natural. Unfortunately, the extent of parity in the NESCAC this year, which is not normal, is ironically making the conference dominate the rankings more then it usually would.
I think one of the main issues is the NESCAC is too large and does not allow for enough non-conference games to create "correspondence" between conferences and results in discrimination based on conference strength. So, one solution would be a conference realignment to reduce the number of teams (never gonna happen haha)
Another potential solution is to change the SOS formula to reduce the impact of OWP and go to a 50-50 SOS
You could also have region and conference bonuses and penalties to minimize discrimination
https://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/modified-rpi?authuser=0 (https://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/modified-rpi?authuser=0)
This is a good technical discussion on the issue from a D1 women's POV and includes some potential solutions that I simplified above.
I had some time this afternoon while on a boring Teams call to take a look at some of the prior year SOS numbers for Regional Rankings. I went back and started at 2015 and I looked at 2015, 2016, and 2017 to determine any RR for a team below an arbitrary 0.525 SOS. There are some instances of teams coming in below the 0.500 mark, but they are few and far between. It was interesting reading to compile this and I wish I had time to format it better. Enjoy!
These came directly from the Regional Ranking archives on D3Soccer.com.
Oct 21 2015
MIT 0.497 (10th, New England Region)
Wentworth 0.512 (11th, New England Region)
Bridgewater State 0.505 (12th, New England Region)
Oct 28, 2015
Gordon 0.512 (9th, New England Region)
Endicott 0.496 (12th, New England Region)
Eastern 0.508 (5th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Kenyon 0.489 (7th, Great Lakes Region)
Calvin 0.509 (3rd, Central Region)
Trinity (Texas) 0.525 (1st, West Region)
Redlands 0.518 (2nd, West Region)
Whitworth 0.501 (4th, West Region)
Nov 4, 2015
Endicott 0.504 (11th, New England Region)
3 other teams in New England Region (Eastern Connecticut, Gordon, Wentworth) just percentage points higher than 0.525
Elizabethtown 0.525 (4th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Eastern 0.506 (8th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Kenyon 0.510 (4th, Great Lakes Region)
Rose-Hulman 0.511 (7th, Great Lakes Region)
Calvin 0.518 (5th, Central Region)
Trinity (Texas) 0.521 (1st, West Region)
Colorado College 0.524 (2nd, West Region)
Redlands 0.508 (3rd, West Region)
Whitworth 0.498 (4th, West Region)
Oct 19, 2016
Lebanon Valley 0.516 (8th, Mid-Atlantic)
Johns Hopkins 0.519 (9th, Mid-Atlantic)
Calvin 0.518 (6th, Central Region)
St. Norbert 0.525 (6th, North Region)
Redlands 0.522 (4th, West Region)
Oct 26, 2016
Johns Hopkins 0.522 (7th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Ohio Northern 0.515 (4th, Great Lakes Region)
Kenyon 0.507 (6th, Great Lakes Region)
Calvin 0.513 (5th, Central Region)
Benedictine 0.516 (6th, Central Region)
St. Norbert 0.521 (6th, North Region)
Nov 2, 2016
Johns Hopkins 0.511 (7th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Kenyon 0.525 (3rd, Great Lakes Region)
Ohio Northern 0.508 (5th, Great Lakes Region)
Benedictine 0.524 (4th, Central Region)
Dominican 0.524 (5th, Central Region)
Calvin 0.501 (6th, Central Region)
Colorado College 0.522 (4th, West Region)
Nov 7, 2016
Springfield 0.513 (11th, New England Region)
Johns Hopkins 0.520 (6th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Ohio Northern 0.524 (6th, Great Lakes Region)
Calvin 0.515 (4th, Central Region)
Dominican 0.524 (6th, Central Region)
2017 was the first year that the ranking committee included D3 SOS and Non-conf SOS
Oct 18, 2017
Drew 0.515 (7th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Lebanon Valley 0.522 (8th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Eastern 0.497 (10th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
St. Norbert 0.524 (4th, North Region)
Simpson 0.518 (7th, North Region)
Mary Hardin-Baylor 0.517 (4th, West Region)
University of Dallas 0.501 (5th, West Region)
Oct 25, 2017
Johnson & Wales 0.517 (10th, New England)
WPI 0.521 (12th, New England)
Concordia (Wis.) 0.511 (6th, Central Region)
St. Norbert 0.515 (6th, North Region)
Mary Hardin-Baylor 0.521 (3rd, West Region)
University of Dallas 0.492 (6th, West Region)
Nov 1, 2017
Endicott 0.521 (10th, New England Region)
Drew 0.521 (6th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
Calvin 0.511 (4th, Central Region)
Simpson 0.524 (6th, North Region)
University of Dallas 0.497 (6th, West Region)
Nov 7, 2017
Johnson & Wales 0.524 (8th, New England Region)
St. Joseph's (Maine) 0.499 (11th, New England Region)
Drew 0.522 (6th, Mid-Atlantic Region)
REGION I - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Amherst | 10-1-5 | 0.612 | 3-1-4 | 10-1-5 | 1 |
2. | Middlebury | 10-3-3 | 0.606 | 2-3-3 | 10-3-3 | 3 |
3. | Bowdoin | 11-1-4 | 0.560 | 2-1-4 | 11-1-4 | 2 |
4. | Tufts | 7-2-7 | 0.587 | 2-1-5 | 7-2-7 | 5 |
5. | Williams | 6-1-9 | 0.586 | 2-1-6 | 6-1-9 | 7 |
6. | Hamilton | 8-4-4 | 0.593 | 3-4-1 | 8-4-4 | 4 |
7. | Western Connecticut | 19-0-1 | 0.513 | 1-0-1 | 19-0-1 | -- |
REGION II - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Babson | 13-3-2 | 0.568 | 3-2-2 | 13-3-2 | 1 |
2. | Endicott | 12-3-4 | 0.539 | 1-1-1 | 12-4-4 | 2 |
3. | WPI | 7-4-6 | 0.595 | 2-2-4 | 7-4-6 | 3 |
4. | Wheaton (Mass.) | 8-4-6 | 0.559 | 0-1-5 | 8-4-6 | 6 |
5. | Coast Guard | 10-3-4 | 0.520 | 0-1-3 | 10-3-4 | 4 |
6. | Roger Williams | 12-3-4 | 0.515 | 0-2-1 | 12-3-4 | 5 |
REGION III - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Oneonta State | 12-2-2 | 0.551 | 5-0-0 | 12-2-2 | 2 |
2. | Cortland State | 12-4-2 | 0.580 | 4-4-0 | 12-4-2 | 1 |
3. | Vassar | 9-3-4 | 0.593 | 1-3-4 | 9-3-4 | 3 |
4. | St. Lawrence | 11-1-5 | 0.546 | 3-1-2 | 11-1-5 | 5 |
5. | Skidmore | 8-3-5 | 0.552 | 1-2-4 | 8-3-5 | -- |
6. | New Paltz State | 9-5-3 | 0.581 | 1-4-1 | 9-5-3 | 6 |
7. | Hobart | 8-4-5 | 0.553 | 2-3-2 | 8-4-5 | -- |
REGION IV - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Stevens | 14-0-2 | 0.569 | 5-0-0 | 14-0-2 | 1 |
2. | Montclair State | 13-1-4 | 0.545 | 2-1-1 | 13-1-4 | 2 |
3. | New York University | 8-4-3 | 0.625 | 2-4-2 | 8-4-3 | 3 |
4. | Rowan | 10-5-4 | 0.576 | 3-3-1 | 10-5-4 | 6 |
5. | Lycoming | 10-4-5 | 0.564 | 0-4-3 | 10-4-5 | 5 |
6. | Lancaster Bible | 12-3-3 | 0.502 | 1-0-2 | 12-3-3 | 7 |
7. | Misericordia | 11-3-4 | 0.514 | 1-1-0 | 11-3-4 | 4 |
REGION V - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Messiah | 17-0-1 | 0.569 | 6-0-1 | 17-0-1 | 1 |
2. | Johns Hopkins | 11-1-5 | 0.574 | 4-1-1 | 11-1-5 | 2 |
3. | Franklin and Marshall | 12-1-4 | 0.583 | 1-1-2 | 12-1-4 | 3 |
4. | Catholic | 11-2-4 | 0.575 | 1-1-2 | 11-2-4 | 4 |
5. | Drew | 12-2-4 | 0.565 | 1-1-1 | 12-2-4 | 5 |
6. | Alvernia | 11-3-5 | 0.530 | 2-2-0 | 11-3-5 | 6 |
7. | Gettysburg | 9-3-5 | 0.556 | 0-2-3 | 9-3-5 | 7 |
REGION VI - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Christopher Newport | 11-3-1 | 0.593 | 3-3-1 | 11-3-1 | 3 |
2. | Washington and Lee | 12-2-4 | 0.588 | 1-1-3 | 12-2-4 | 1 |
3. | Mary Washington | 9-4-2 | 0.600 | 3-3-1 | 9-4-2 | 2 |
4. | Lynchburg | 11-2-5 | 0.559 | 1-0-3 | 11-2-5 | 4 |
5. | Virginia Wesleyan | 11-3-4 | 0.548 | 0-3-2 | 12-3-4 | 5 |
6. | Sewanee | 13-3-0 | 0.505 | 1-1-0 | 13-3-0 | 6 |
7. | Covenant | 8-3-5 | 0.524 | 0-2-1 | 8-3-5 | 7 |
REGION VII - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Kenyon | 15-0-1 | 0.532 | 4-0-1 | 15-0-1 | 1 |
2. | Ohio Northern | 13-2-3 | 0.583 | 3-2-1 | 13-2-3 | 2 |
3. | John Carroll | 13-4-1 | 0.585 | 2-4-1 | 13-4-1 | 3 |
4. | Carnegie Mellon | 11-3-1 | 0.573 | 2-3-1 | 11-3-1 | 4 |
5. | Case Western Reserve | 8-3-3 | 0.598 | 2-2-3 | 8-3-3 | 5 |
6. | Ohio Wesleyan | 8-4-4 | 0.588 | 1-4-2 | 8-4-4 | 6 |
7. | Rose-Hulman | 12-1-3 | 0.510 | 0-1-1 | 12-1-3 | -- |
REGION VIII - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Chicago | 15-0-1 | 0.607 | 9-0-1 | 15-0-1 | 1 |
2. | North Central (Ill.) | 14-0-4 | 0.547 | 3-0-2 | 14-0-4 | 2 |
3. | North Park | 13-2-2 | 0.541 | 3-2-2 | 13-2-2 | 3 |
4. | Calvin | 12-2-1 | 0.545 | 2-1-0 | 14-2-2 | 4 |
5. | MSOE | 13-2-4 | 0.532 | 1-0-0 | 13-2-4 | 7 |
6. | Wheaton (Ill.) | 8-4-4 | 0.534 | 2-3-1 | 8-4-4 | 6 |
7. | Carthage | 8-6-5 | 0.562 | 1-4-2 | 8-6-5 | -- |
REGION IX - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Gustavus Adolphus | 13-0-4 | 0.558 | 3-0-2 | 13-0-4 | 1 |
2. | UW-Eau Claire | 18-2-0 | 0.548 | 4-1-0 | 18-2-0 | 2 |
3. | St. Olaf | 11-5-1 | 0.582 | 2-4-0 | 11-5-1 | 4 |
4. | UW-Platteville | 12-4-2 | 0.582 | 3-4-1 | 12-4-2 | 3 |
5. | Wartburg | 7-2-9 | 0.553 | 2-1-4 | 7-2-9 | 5 |
6. | Luther | 10-3-5 | 0.550 | 2-3-1 | 10-3-5 | 6 |
7. | UW-Whitewater | 12-6-1 | 0.531 | 2-3-1 | 12-6-1 | -- |
REGION X - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Willamette | 12-2-3 | 0.544 | 3-2-0 | 10-1-2 | 1 |
2. | Pacific Lutheran | 15-3-0 | 0.531 | 2-3-0 | 15-3-0 | 3 |
3. | Mary Hardin-Baylor | 9-2-2 | 0.544 | 2-1-0 | 11-2-2 | 2 |
4. | Southwestern | 8-5-2 | 0.551 | 1-4-1 | 8-5-2 | -- |
5. | St. Thomas (Texas) | 12-1-3 | 0.503 | 2-1-2 | 12-1-3 | 4 |
6. | Trinity (Texas) | 8-4-3 | 0.541 | 1-3-2 | 8-4-3 | 7 |
7. | Whitman | 9-6-1 | 0.530 | 3-1-0 | 11-7-1 | 5 |
@Christan: Are the RvR shown the "results versus teams ranked in either the third weekly rankings or the final rankings" as described here (https://d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2022/the-rankings-that-matter)?
Quote from: MNBob on November 02, 2022, 03:54:25 PM
@Christan: Are the RvR shown the "results versus teams ranked in either the third weekly rankings or the final rankings" as described here (https://d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2022/the-rankings-that-matter)?
For this week's rankings (11/2), the Results versus Ranked (RvR) refers to results versus teams ranked in last week's rankings (10/26). The final rankings will only be done next Monday, so it can't be based on that. And the selection/ranking committee can't know the results versus teams ranked in the third weekly rankings while they are still deliberating over the third weekly rankings. So, if you look at the article you cited, here's the key part to understanding this:
Quote"Results versus ranked teams" criteria spelled out
For the . . .
first weekly rankings: N/A (no previous rankings)
second weekly rankings: results versus teams ranked in the first weekly rankings
third weekly ranking: results versus teams ranked in the second weekly rankings
final rankings: results versus teams ranked in the third weekly rankings
at-large selections: results versus teams ranked in either the third weekly rankings or the final rankings
Cristan, for whatever reason the 2021 RR are coming up on the home page link.
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 02, 2022, 04:36:56 PM
Cristan, for whatever reason the 2021 RR are coming up on the home page link.
Thanks. It's been fixed.
Cristan, in your article/guide you have a box chart that says men have 43 AQs, 1 Pool B, and 21 Pool Cs...and just the to left of those numbers you have calculations that would suggest 20 Pool Cs. Is it 20 or 21. I'm assuming 20 since 43+1 =44 and 20 more maxes field out at 64.
And I assume it's not a leap to say UWEC will be the Pool B, and thus not potentially taking one of the Pool C spots.
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 02, 2022, 06:14:22 PM
Cristan, in your article/guide you have a box chart that says men have 43 AQs, 1 Pool B, and 21 Pool Cs...and just the to left of those numbers you have calculations that would suggest 20 Pool Cs. Is it 20 or 21. I'm assuming 20 since 43+1 =44 and 20 more maxes field out at 64.
And I assume it's not a leap to say UWEC will be the Pool B, and thus not potentially taking one of the Pool C spots.
Yes, it is 20 Pool C at-large berths. Thanks for pointing out the error so I could get it corrected.
The only other Pool B team that is regionally ranked is Covenant at #7 in Region VI. UW-Eau Claire is done playing while Covenent has the CCS final against La Grange. While a Covenant win will improve their win pct. and their SOS will climb a little given La Grange is a .700 team, that won't come close to closing the gap on Eau Claire. Yes, I think it's safe to mark UW-Eau Claire down in ink as the Pool B at-large berth.
Chris,
Does usc rankings = NCAA regional rankings?
Saving Christan from having to reply: The answer is no, the USC rankings are different from the NCAA rankings.
Thanks college soccer observer!
That's what I thought. IMO when the committee gets together this weekend, although not published, they
Will do Their hypothetical rankings, such as who is the top seed in the tournament and on down. I would throw this out to the boards, who do you think hypothetically would be the top four "seeds" come tournament selection time, based on primary and secondary criteria that were posted in the regional rankings yesterday? IMHO it goes deeper than the information that was presented, but if you do your research you will probably be able to come to some conclusions.
Quote from: 4samuy on November 03, 2022, 02:55:45 PM
Thanks college soccer observer!
That's what I thought. IMO when the committee gets together this weekend, although not published, they will do
Their hypothetical rankings, such as who is the top seed in the tournament and on down. I would throw this out to the boards, who do think hypothetically would be the top four "seeds" come tournament selection time, based on primary and secondary criteria?
Assuming everyone holds serve through conference tournaments or, in Chicago's case, their last couple games...
Messiah, Chicago are easy. Winning Percentage drives Messiah, who has a good enough SoS for a team with a single blemish. And Chicago, who has both winning percentage and SoS and a ridiculous number of RROs.
Then I think Kenyon. That winning percentage is good, the RROs are good enough, but they do have the worst SoS of any top ranked Regionally Ranked team. However, ranked 1st, with only 1 blemish. I think they get the nod.
That just leaves the tough last one. Do you reward Stevens winning percentage and 5-0+ RvR, or Amherst's ridiculous SoS and 8+ RR games? I'd lean Amherst, but a case can be made for Stevens.
Structuring them as 1-2-3-4 I'd go Chicago, Messiah, Kenyon, Amherst. However, if Stevens gets in over Amherst, I'd put Stevens the 3 seed and Kenyon the 4th. Because Stevens has a better SoS and RRO resume than Kenyon, it outweighs the extra tie to me.
Chicago's resume has more RRO, bigger SoS, than Messiah and Kenyon and the same winning % as Kenyon. Messiah has a hair better winning % than either, but not the RRO or SoS to catch Chicago. However, they do have more RROs and a better SoS than Kenyon.
I think 1-2 are clear. 3/4 are harder.
Jknezek,
Well thought out response based on all the criteria the NCAA committee looks at. Yes messiah has a top winning percentage, Chicago has a top SOS and RVR. But Messiah has an advantage as it relates to common opponent. Messiah beat NYU at home earlier this year 2-1. Chicago went on the road last week at NYU and drew 0-0. I don't think the common opponent will trump the primary criteria currently but could become a factor after this weekends results.
IMO, Chicago could have done a better job of scheduling over the last couple of weeks and could have put at least on more game on the schedule.
As far as RVR , pure numbers give the advantage to Chicago, 10 messiah 7, if you peel back the onion a bit, 5 of Chicago's RVRs are in the so called "top half" of regionally ranked as to messiahs 4. So although Chicago seems to have the RVR advantage, the quality of those are quite similar.
SOS is where IMHO Chicago separates themselves and woul give them the hypothetical number 1 seed in the tournament.
As far as 3 and 4, as much as I think Amherst will be an extremely tough out in the tournament, and the Nescac are the darlings of the Ncaa :) looking at the numbers their 10 wins imho does not get them into the top four.
So IMHO that leaves Kenyon and Stevens.
I think Stevens gets 3 just due to their SOS. And Kenyon comes in at 4 based on winning pct and RVR.
This will be a shock to Enmore Cat and other that I am defending Amherst, but keep in mind that per Nescac league rules, their teams are only allowed 15 regular season games where other teams can play up to 18. Wins are therefor always going to be down for Nescac teams vs other top squads unless they run the table.
That is great information for me personally, since I wasn't aware of the Nescac rule. I appreciate that! Can you help me understand and give clarity as to why that rule is in place.
For a long time, Nescac teams in all sports were not allowed to participate in the NCAA tournament. That rule still applies to football. The basis of the idea is fewer games means more time to do other things. For example, Nescac teams in soccer do not start preseason until late August. They emphasize as little interference with academics as possible, which is why their teams often play Sat and Sun doubleheader. Playing Friday and Sunday would result in more missed class time.
I know, due to the Nescac tournament that at least two teams will get to 18 games, but I'm still trying to understand "the rule" as it relates to the conference and the NCAA. F'rinstance I was critiquing Chicago for only scheduling 17 games without a conference tournament, and a team like Messiah who will likely get to 20 games played with a conference tournament. Just trying to get my arms wrapped around thes numbers and why they occur.
Sorry college soccer observer.
Posted prior to seeing your reply.
It's modeled after the Ivy League, and UAA is to some extent as well I believe.
The JCU announcer, who I think is really, really good, just went absolutely crazy. JCU player chipped the Otter GK to go up 3-2 in 2nd OT with about 7 left. He loves his Blue Streaks (and I assume a student but I'm not good at that) but he's very fair to the other team and their fans, will call out his own fans, knows all the players both teams, etc
He did get it over the keeper, but what on earth was the keeper doing 12 yards off his line at that point? He had not chance to beat the JCU player to the ball.
The same crap that has been happening in the GL all year - except for Kenyon.
It's not parity, it's shared mediocrity. I thought my early season comments/disappointment about poor play and decision making would be due to new teams gelling. But all year long I've seen teams implode. Marauding goalkeepers who unnecessarily leave the 6 - too many times. Ironic given the GK for Otterbein in 2017 would still be inside his 6 until five minutes after the game ended.
ONU's defensive gaffes cost them. I watched the OT goal several times - Moses didn't have it that easy.
Earlier today I was going to post in the GL thread a preview of this weekend and thoughts about bid thieves, which I thought would only be OWU. They have to win to be in. But ONU put their fate unnecessarily on the line. If Case beats the highly over-ranked CMU this weekend I think they secure an at-large. I don't think there are more than 7 bids for the GL: 5 from conference tourneys and 2 at-large. ONU has to hope OWU doesn't beat Kenyon - who is in regardless of Saturday's result. If Wilmington somehow wins on Sat and OWU wins: the first and second place teams from the OAC could be out.
Forecast for Sat at noon: 20 mph winds with rain by 2 pm - temps near 70. And I thought I'd play golf in the am . . .
Quote from: College Soccer Observer on November 03, 2022, 07:33:25 PM
This will be a shock to Enmore Cat and other that I am defending Amherst, but keep in mind that per Nescac league rules, their teams are only allowed 15 regular season games where other teams can play up to 18. Wins are therefor always going to be down for Nescac teams vs other top squads unless they run the table.
Feels more like Amherst is collateral baggage for the NESCAC point you're making CSO. I certainly won't suggest you're an Ammirer!
Quote from: Domino1195 on November 04, 2022, 12:05:07 AM
The same crap that has been happening in the GL all year - except for Kenyon.
It's not parity, it's shared mediocrity. I thought my early season comments/disappointment about poor play and decision making would be due to new teams gelling. But all year long I've seen teams implode. Marauding goalkeepers who unnecessarily leave the 6 - too many times. Ironic given the GK for Otterbein in 2017 would still be inside his 6 until five minutes after the game ended.
ONU's defensive gaffes cost them. I watched the OT goal several times - Moses didn't have it that easy.
Earlier today I was going to post in the GL thread a preview of this weekend and thoughts about bid thieves, which I thought would only be OWU. They have to win to be in. But ONU put their fate unnecessarily on the line. If Case beats the highly over-ranked CMU this weekend I think they secure an at-large. I don't think there are more than 7 bids for the GL: 5 from conference tourneys and 2 at-large. ONU has to hope OWU doesn't beat Kenyon - who is in regardless of Saturday's result. If Wilmington somehow wins on Sat and OWU wins: the first and second place teams from the OAC could be out.
Forecast for Sat at noon: 20 mph winds with rain by 2 pm - temps near 70. And I thought I'd play golf in the am . . .
I am confidently predicting a Case win. CMU was one of the weakest teams UChicago has seen this year, that game was over within 5 minutes. CWRU should be in regardless IMO, that's a good feisty team. I'd take them into the NCAA field over CMU any day.
Quote from: blue_jays on November 04, 2022, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: Domino1195 on November 04, 2022, 12:05:07 AM
The same crap that has been happening in the GL all year - except for Kenyon.
It's not parity, it's shared mediocrity. I thought my early season comments/disappointment about poor play and decision making would be due to new teams gelling. But all year long I've seen teams implode. Marauding goalkeepers who unnecessarily leave the 6 - too many times. Ironic given the GK for Otterbein in 2017 would still be inside his 6 until five minutes after the game ended.
ONU's defensive gaffes cost them. I watched the OT goal several times - Moses didn't have it that easy.
Earlier today I was going to post in the GL thread a preview of this weekend and thoughts about bid thieves, which I thought would only be OWU. They have to win to be in. But ONU put their fate unnecessarily on the line. If Case beats the highly over-ranked CMU this weekend I think they secure an at-large. I don't think there are more than 7 bids for the GL: 5 from conference tourneys and 2 at-large. ONU has to hope OWU doesn't beat Kenyon - who is in regardless of Saturday's result. If Wilmington somehow wins on Sat and OWU wins: the first and second place teams from the OAC could be out.
Forecast for Sat at noon: 20 mph winds with rain by 2 pm - temps near 70. And I thought I'd play golf in the am . . .
I am confidently predicting a Case win. CMU was one of the weakest teams UChicago has seen this year, that game was over within 5 minutes. CWRU should be in regardless IMO, that's a good feisty team. I'd take them into the NCAA field over CMU any day.
Blue Jays I totally agree with you about their game against Chicago, they were out played in every area of the game. CMU looked a lot better the last game against U of PAYWALL (Rochester). It actually looked like they were better than an average High school team which is all I could have said about CMU against Chicago.
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 03, 2022, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 03, 2022, 12:54:16 PM
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 02, 2022, 04:17:02 PM
Quote from: Mid-Atlantic Fan on November 02, 2022, 04:07:37 PM
I flip flopped Lyco and Rowan. I had the RvR wrong and it makes sense that Rowan is ahead with H2H and 3 ranked wins. I am unsure how I missed Rowan getting to 3 wins in the RvR category. I'm actually still uncertain, as I still get 1-3-1 when looking at the last rankings. Can someone help me out here-what am I missing?
I think you have caught a mistake in the NCAA's data sheets (which begs the question about how many other errors there might be).
Rowan versus Week 2 ranked teams:
Wins (1): Lycoming
Losses (3): Johns Hopkins, Cortland State, Montclair State
Ties (1): Trinity (Texas)
Rowan may still have been ranked ahead on the basis of head-to-head as everything else would seem rather even, but given Lycoming was ahead last week it's hard to see what would have changed the order for this week.
Christan-what happens now? Will the NCAA acknowledge the error? Does it get fixed? What kind of impact does this have? That's a HUGE error IMO :o ???
I will be contacting the NCAA shortly. I have figured out the error as it is not only Rowan who has an incorrect RvR. Now I want to confirm if the same error is occurring for women. The RvR on this week's data sheets is being based on who was ranked last week (10/26) and this week (11/2). So teams who played opponents who newly entered the rankings this week, had those results included in the RvR shown on the data sheets.
Of course, it's impossible for the committees to have been looking at data based on decisions/rankings they hadn't completed yet. So I do not think the rankings were done looking at the data the NCAA released to the public with the incorrect RvR. In other words, I doubt that teams were incorrectly ranked because of incorrect data being reviewed/considered by the committees. I think the data sheets released to the public this week were incorrectly re-generated after the rankings were finalized.
As we understand from communication with NCAA committee members in years past, the RvR works as posted on our website:
Quote"Results versus ranked teams" criteria spelled out
For the . . .
first weekly rankings: N/A (no previous rankings)
second weekly rankings: results versus teams ranked in the first weekly rankings
third weekly ranking: results versus teams ranked in the second weekly rankings
final rankings: results versus teams ranked in the third weekly rankings
at-large selections: results versus teams ranked in either the third weekly rankings or the final rankings
Based on that understanding which the data has confirmed to be correct in past years, it is an error to base RvR on two week's rankings except when developing the data to be considered when comparing team across regions in the at-large selection process. And the week to base the RvR on for the four weekly rankings is the previous week.
We at D3soccer.com have gotten a reply from the NCAA. First and most importantly, we have been assured that the data the Regional Advisory Committees were looking at in doing this weeks rankings was correct. That is, the Results versus Ranked Opponents data was correctly based on who was ranked last week (10/26). We have no reason to doubt that as it would be impossible for the committees to have data based on decisions/rankings they hadn't yet made/completed.
What happened is that the data sheets they posted to their website had the Results versus Ranked Opponents data re-generated after the new rankings had been determined, and not only that, it was based on opponents ranked either last week (10/26) or this week (11/2). Neither should have happened. The data sheets should reflect what the committees were looking at when making their decisions. The NCAA knows this and was appreciative that we brought their attention to the mistake. However, at this point, I do not expect that they will post the correct data sheets to accompany this week's rankings.
For ranking purposes, the Results versus Ranked Opponents is always based on just one week's rankings--the previous week's rankings. It is only subsequent to the fourth/final rankings done this coming Monday that the Results versus Ranked Opponents data is updated to reflect opponents ranked in two weeks--either the third (11/2) or final (11/7) rankings. This is the RvR that will be used in making at-large selections when comparing teams across the 10 regions. What isn't clear is whether the national committee tweaks the fourth rankings based on the new RvR data to change the order teams come to the table in their selection process.
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 02, 2022, 03:42:45 PM
REGION V - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Messiah | 17-0-1 | 0.569 | 6-0-1 | 17-0-1 | 1 |
2. | Johns Hopkins | 11-1-5 | 0.574 | 4-1-1 | 11-1-5 | 2 |
3. | Franklin and Marshall | 12-1-4 | 0.583 | 1-1-2 | 12-1-4 | 3 |
4. | Catholic | 11-2-4 | 0.575 | 1-1-2 | 11-2-4 | 4 |
5. | Drew | 12-2-4 | 0.565 | 1-1-1 | 12-2-4 | 5 |
6. | Alvernia | 11-3-5 | 0.530 | 2-2-0 | 11-3-5 | 6 |
7. | Gettysburg | 9-3-5 | 0.556 | 0-2-3 | 9-3-5 | 7 |
FYI, Next week's regional rankings may be very, very different as (I believe) - 4th ranked through 7 either did not make their conf. tourn. or did not make it past the semis. FYI, that could include F&M and Hopkins after tonight.
Quote from: SierraFD3soccer on November 04, 2022, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 02, 2022, 03:42:45 PM
REGION V - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Messiah | 17-0-1 | 0.569 | 6-0-1 | 17-0-1 | 1 |
2. | Johns Hopkins | 11-1-5 | 0.574 | 4-1-1 | 11-1-5 | 2 |
3. | Franklin and Marshall | 12-1-4 | 0.583 | 1-1-2 | 12-1-4 | 3 |
4. | Catholic | 11-2-4 | 0.575 | 1-1-2 | 11-2-4 | 4 |
5. | Drew | 12-2-4 | 0.565 | 1-1-1 | 12-2-4 | 5 |
6. | Alvernia | 11-3-5 | 0.530 | 2-2-0 | 11-3-5 | 6 |
7. | Gettysburg | 9-3-5 | 0.556 | 0-2-3 | 9-3-5 | 7 |
FYI, Next week's regional rankings may be very, very different as (I believe) - 4th ranked through 7 either did not make their conf. tourn. or did not make it past the semis. FYI, that could include F&M and Hopkins after tonight.
Hopkins and F&M will not drop below the others even with a loss.
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 04, 2022, 02:30:35 PM
Quote from: SierraFD3soccer on November 04, 2022, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: Christan Shirk on November 02, 2022, 03:42:45 PM
REGION V - NCAA REGIONAL RANKINGS - November 02, 2022
Rank
|
School | . Div. III .
Record | . Div. III .
SOS |
. R-v-R .
| . Overall .
Record | . Prev. .
Rank |
1. | Messiah | 17-0-1 | 0.569 | 6-0-1 | 17-0-1 | 1 |
2. | Johns Hopkins | 11-1-5 | 0.574 | 4-1-1 | 11-1-5 | 2 |
3. | Franklin and Marshall | 12-1-4 | 0.583 | 1-1-2 | 12-1-4 | 3 |
4. | Catholic | 11-2-4 | 0.575 | 1-1-2 | 11-2-4 | 4 |
5. | Drew | 12-2-4 | 0.565 | 1-1-1 | 12-2-4 | 5 |
6. | Alvernia | 11-3-5 | 0.530 | 2-2-0 | 11-3-5 | 6 |
7. | Gettysburg | 9-3-5 | 0.556 | 0-2-3 | 9-3-5 | 7 |
FYI, Next week's regional rankings may be very, very different as (I believe) - 4th ranked through 7 either did not make their conf. tourn. or did not make it past the semis. FYI, that could include F&M and Hopkins after tonight.
Hopkins and F&M will not drop below the others even with a loss.
Yeah thought.too but did not to appear to much of a homer, haha. Still important for both as to where they'll possibly play I believe. Also winning the conf in a string Messiah year is a great accomplishment for either.
I'm not complaining and arguing that it should be different but the criteria and selection process is challenging.
Perfect example...Bowdoin. I still think they are safe but if I'm calculating correctly Bowdoin only has one ranked win. They could be restored to two if Conn makes the final rankings. But think about it. The Polar Bears just won the NESCAC, accepted as the most competitive conference in the country and they are short on ranked wins.
And looking at Hamilton, Vassar, and Skidmore...Hamilton now down to two wins (unless Conn comes back in), Vassar has only one ranked win and it's New Paltz down near bottom of Reg 3, and then Skidmore only has one which is Hobart clinging to the very last Reg 3 spot. Hamilton's two wins appear far better (Midd and Tufts). Vassar and Skidmore both needed a win today. SLU I think is safe, but Vassar and Skidmore are on very shaky ground (unless of course Skid gets the AQ).
Paul, i agree with you, its tough for NESCAC to get regional wins outside of conference play since they are limited to 5 out of conference games. Hard to predict ahead of time other than maybe Babson, who would be a lock for a regional ranking.
Quote from: coach analytics on November 04, 2022, 05:37:59 PM
Paul, i agree with you, its tough for NESCAC to get regional wins outside of conference play since they are limited to 5 out of conference games. Hard to predict ahead of time other than maybe Babson, who would be a lock for a regional ranking.
It's also hard because the regions are equally limited to 7 spots. Folks were complaining about NESCAC getting all of them in Reg 1. Bowdoin's big wins (at the time) over Conn and Wes no longer "count." Bowdoin played plenty enough tough games but they're not all counting for RvR. On the other hand, Hamilton may get a bid by edging out Vassar and Skidmore.
Correction...Reg 2 has 6 spots.
I cannot figure out how UWEC is listed with 4 ranked wins. UW-W shouldn't have counted yet, and Loras is out. Even allowing for all of them I only get to three (UW-P the other).
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 04, 2022, 07:57:08 PM
I cannot figure out how UWEC is listed with 4 ranked wins. UW-W shouldn't have counted yet, and Loras is out. Even allowing for all of them I only get to three (UW-P the other).
Carthage
Quote from: MNBob on November 04, 2022, 08:16:26 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 04, 2022, 07:57:08 PM
I cannot figure out how UWEC is listed with 4 ranked wins. UW-W shouldn't have counted yet, and Loras is out. Even allowing for all of them I only get to three (UW-P the other).
Carthage
Wow. Thanks. I kept thinking about Carthage and went through all 3 weeks looking but of course I brain lapsed looking in Reg 9.
A bunch of stuff will happen that will change the number of bids and some of the regional rankings but I think there are a couple of teams whose seasons have ended and therefore their "resumes" are pretty stagnant. Let me know how you rank them
SUNY Cortland 12-5-2, rvr 4-4, SOS around .58, wins over
Tufts 7-2-7, SOS around .585, rvr of 2-1-5, wins over regionally ranked 1 and 2
Vassar 9-3-5, sos around .59, rvr of 1-3-5 and wins over #6
Drew 12-2-4, sos around .56 , rr 1-1-1-1 with wins over #6
Alvernia 11-4-5, sos around .53 , rr 2-2, wins over #1
Lynchburg 11-2-5, sos around, .56 rr 1-0-3, win over #5
Drew played a 4th dimension game. That's higher level and should give them homefield for the entire tournament.
Lmao I hope Drew makes it in. Alvernia is done. I know that much for sure
Quote from: coach analytics on November 04, 2022, 08:27:31 PM
A bunch of stuff will happen that will change the number of bids and some of the regional rankings but I think there are a couple of teams whose seasons have ended and therefore their "resumes" are pretty stagnant. Let me know how you rank them
SUNY Cortland 12-5-2, rvr 4-4, SOS around .58, wins over
Tufts 7-2-7, SOS around .585, rvr of 2-1-5, wins over regionally ranked 1 and 2
Vassar 9-3-5, sos around .59, rvr of 1-3-5 and wins over #6
Drew 12-2-4, sos around .56 , rr 1-1-1-1 with wins over #6
Alvernia 11-4-5, sos around .53 , rr 2-2, wins over #1
Lynchburg 11-2-5, sos around, .56 rr 1-0-3, win over #5
My guess...Alvernia and Drew out. Vassar probably out. Lynch right on the bubble. The other two are in.
A wild card is how the cmte will treat ranked draws. If Vassar's 5 draws are, say, worth two wins, then maybe this changes....as that will impact A LOT of teams.
Quote from: paclassic89 on November 04, 2022, 09:00:25 PM
Lmao I hope Drew makes it in. Alvernia is done. I know that much for sure
Right?
The 4th 1 in their RvR stands for 1 conference playoffs missed. It's listed as a tertiary criteria in the pre-championship manual
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 04, 2022, 07:57:08 PM
I cannot figure out how UWEC is listed with 4 ranked wins. UW-W shouldn't have counted yet, and Loras is out. Even allowing for all of them I only get to three (UW-P the other).
The NCAA made a mistake in the data sheets they released this week. The Results versus Ranked Opponents was incorrectly updated after this week's ranking were determined and incorrectly were based on two weeks' rankings--last week (10/26) and this week (11/2). I discussed that in a post on the previous page: http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=9348.msg2058451#msg2058451 So, UW-Eau Claire's RvR should have been listed as 2-0-1 for this week's rankings, not 4-0-1. The ranking committees had the correct data, it's just the data sheets they subsequently released to the public that were in error. For the fourth/final rankings on Monday, Eau Claire will lose the Loras win, but will gain the wins over Carthage and UW-Whitewater for a RvR of 3-1-0. They could gain the Loras win back for at-large selection purposes if Loras would get ranked on Monday (defeating ranked Luther in the ARC final could see them nip UW-Whitewater for that 7th spot--close call as Whitewater holds the head-to-head and Loras will have that loss added to their already poor RvR). But for Eau Claire it doesn't matter as they are locks for the Pool B at-large berth regardless. No one is close.
But, be wary of the RvR's on this week's data sheets and thus on D3soccer.com regional ranking page. We haven't have the time to manually revise the RvR data for the NCAA's mistake.
Cristan, any insight or thoughts on how cmte will score or evaluated ranked draws?
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 04, 2022, 05:29:01 PM
Perfect example...Bowdoin. I still think they are safe but if I'm calculating correctly Bowdoin only has one ranked win. They could be restored to two if Conn makes the final rankings. But think about it. The Polar Bears just won the NESCAC, accepted as the most competitive conference in the country and they are short on ranked wins.
Well, with more ties overall due to no regular season OT, it's logical that RvR's are going to contain more ties and less wins. It will be interesting to see the RvR's of the teams thought to be the last one's selected for at-large berths versus the RvR's for the first ones left out to see if it sheds any light on how the committee evaluated and rewarded ties versus wins, and how many RvR wins seemed to almost guarantee selection.
You are correct that Bowdoin's RvR for the fourth rankings contains just one win at 1-1-3 with Conn Col. dropping out of the rankings. But you could look at it this way: they only lost once in five games against ranked opponents. Middlebury is also down to 1 RvR win at the moment for the same reason.
What hurts Bowdoin's resume is that they don't leave Maine in their non-conference schedule which ensures their SOS won't be as high as most others in the NESCAC (only Colby--the other Maine school--has a lower SOS). Playing Univ. of New England (0-16-2) especially killed their SOS this season. How much it hurts their SOS is, IMO, unfair. So indulge me as I explain a solution for this perceived unfairness.
It takes too many good opponents to compensate for that one absolutely bad opponent which is why I continue to say that the SOS formula (which is only relevant for teams in the running for a place in the NCAA tournament) should have a bottom threshold for Opponent's Winning Percentage (OWP). For example, let's make .375 the bottom threshold. This would mean that any opponent's winning percentage (OWP) less than .375 is taken as .375 for the purposes of calculating a team's SOS. This would base the SOS much more on how good the good teams you played were, and less on how bad the bad teams you played were. To illustrate, two borderline Top 25 teams and contenders for a berth in the NCAA Tournament could play nearly identical 18-game schedules except for two games. If not for those two games, they both would have a very good SOS of .600. In those two games that differed, however, Team A's opponents had records of 5-9-4 and 3-12-3 while Team B's opponents had records 4-13-1 and 1-15-2. None of those games should have been challenging for tournament-calibre teams and more importantly none of those games should be considered relevant to whether a team is worthy of an at-large berth. Under the current SOS calculation, those two games lower Team A's SOS from .600 to .577 while Team B's SOS decreases from .600 to .566, giving Team A a not-insignificant 11 point SOS advantage all because they played a 5-9-4 team instead of a 1-15-2 team. The difference between Team A and Team B garnering one of the last at-large berths could be a result of Team A getting lucky that their worst opponent wasn't as bad as Team B's worst opponent. With a .375 bottom threshold on OWP, the SOS's would come out .581 and .580, respectively, making how bad their worst opponents were virtually irrelevant as it should be, IMHO.
Returning from the hypothetical to Bowdoin's reality, if you remove their game against Univ. of New England, their SOS would be a much more competitive .583 instead of the vastly lower .560 with that game included. That
one game cost them 23 pct. points!!! Remove the Maine Maritime (5-10-1) game as well and their SOS would be an very good .596, meaning their two weakest opponents cost them 36 pct. points! But you can't completely ignore that they played weak opponents giving them easy wins to boost their winning pct. With a .375 bottom threshold on OWP applied to those games, Bowdoin's SOS would be .573 which to me feels much fairer.
The NCAA's SOS will always be flawed because of it's simplicity that results in a game against Husson helping your SOS almost as much as playing Middlebury and more than playing Cortland State. Not sure how you can remedy that (high win pcts. that disguise a mediocre to weak opponent) with a simple tweak to the formula, but my proposal would at least solve the problem at the other end of the win pct. scale in which the formula makes a irrelevant distinction between how bad teams' very worst opponents are and allows that to impact a team's chances of being selected.
The NCAA's own Regional Rankings point to how flawed their SOS formula is. The SOS formula says that Husson's contribution to Bowdoin's SOS is .697 while Middlebury's is barely higher at .699 while Tufts' contribution is .644 and Williams' is .617. If Husson is considered a tougher opponent then Tufts and Williams and just a hair less tough an opponent as Middlebury, they why weren't they ranked 3rd or 4th in Region I. Instead they correctly probably didn't even get a sniff of the regional rankings. The rankings tell us that Husson isn't as good (probably not even close) as most NESCAC teams while the SOS formula that is used in the ranking criteria says that Hussin is a tougher opponent than most of the NESCAC.
FW, excellent as always...
So it sounds like we don't know how the cmte will treat ranked draws, so in turn all of us amateur prognosticators should be cautious in our predictions about who's in and who's out. I have been operating under the impression of past years when at least one ranked win was virtually a necessity for a team with otherwise very strong credentials and often two ranked wins seemed like a minimum...and then three ranked wins (and four and above) put teams in pretty good shape as long as the record was good to very strong and the SoS wasn't so low as to be disqualifying. The increased number of draws (in general and ranked) may add a level of complexity that keeps us in the dark (until we learn more about how the draws will be treated). Will the cmte consider the number of ranked draws in some way, like 3 draws equals 1 or 1.5 wins? And/or will they look at the quality of draws?
Strongly agree with your proposal. Taking Kenyon, for example, I certainly place a fair amount of blame on the program for perennially having lower than expected and sometimes borderline too low SoSs, as it has happened far too often to chalk it up solely to perennial bad luck. I think the Owls will end the weekend up a little, probably around .545, but they should do better than that. They obviously can't control for a conference foe like Hiram going 1-15 and Oberlin 5-7-3, but they don't have to schedule Muskingum who is not a surprise to finish at 2-14. Spalding also is a choice for 3-9-6. And then the totally unexpected calamity that was Centre at 2-12-2. Your example of Bowdoin nicely showed how impact a couple of bad records can have on an otherwise strong to very strong schedule.
Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 05, 2022, 02:46:14 AM
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 04, 2022, 05:29:01 PM
Perfect example...Bowdoin. I still think they are safe but if I'm calculating correctly Bowdoin only has one ranked win. They could be restored to two if Conn makes the final rankings. But think about it. The Polar Bears just won the NESCAC, accepted as the most competitive conference in the country and they are short on ranked wins.
Well, with more ties overall due to no regular season OT, it's logical that RvR's are going to contain more ties and less wins. It will be interesting to see the RvR's of the teams thought to be the last one's selected for at-large berths versus the RvR's for the first ones left out to see if it sheds any light on how the committee evaluated and rewarded ties versus wins, and how many RvR wins seemed to almost guarantee selection.
You are correct that Bowdoin's RvR for the fourth rankings contains just one win at 1-1-3 with Conn Col. dropping out of the rankings. But you could look at it this way: they only lost once in five games against ranked opponents. Middlebury is also down to 1 RvR win at the moment for the same reason.
What hurts Bowdoin's resume is that they don't leave Maine in their non-conference schedule which ensures their SOS won't be as high as most others in the NESCAC (only Colby--the other Maine school--has a lower SOS). Playing Univ. of New England (0-16-2) especially killed their SOS this season. How much it hurts their SOS is, IMO, unfair. So indulge me as I explain a solution for this perceived unfairness.
It takes too many good opponents to compensate for that one absolutely bad opponent which is why I continue to say that the SOS formula (which is only relevant for teams in the running for a place in the NCAA tournament) should have a bottom threshold for Opponent's Winning Percentage (OWP). For example, let's make .375 the bottom threshold. This would mean that any opponent's winning percentage (OWP) less than .375 is taken as .375 for the purposes of calculating a team's SOS. This would base the SOS much more on how good the good teams you played were, and less on how bad the bad teams you played were. To illustrate, two borderline Top 25 teams and contenders for a berth in the NCAA Tournament could play nearly identical 18-game schedules except for two games. If not for those two games, they both would have a very good SOS of .600. In those two games that differed, however, Team A's opponents had records of 5-9-4 and 3-12-3 while Team B's opponents had records 4-13-1 and 1-15-2. None of those games should have been challenging for tournament-calibre teams and more importantly none of those games should be considered relevant to whether a team is worthy of an at-large berth. Under the current SOS calculation, those two games lower Team A's SOS from .600 to .577 while Team B's SOS decreases from .600 to .566, giving Team A a not-insignificant 11 point SOS advantage all because they played a 5-9-4 team instead of a 1-15-2 team. The difference between Team A and Team B garnering one of the last at-large berths could be a result of Team A getting lucky that their worst opponent wasn't as bad as Team B's worst opponent. With a .375 bottom threshold on OWP, the SOS's would come out .581 and .580, respectively, making how bad their worst opponents were virtually irrelevant as it should be, IMHO.
Returning from the hypothetical to Bowdoin's reality, if you remove their game against Univ. of New England, their SOS would be a much more competitive .583 instead of the vastly lower .560 with that game included. That one game cost them 23 pct. points!!! Remove the Maine Maritime (5-10-1) game as well and their SOS would be an very good .596, meaning their two weakest opponents cost them 36 pct. points! But you can't completely ignore that they played weak opponents giving them easy wins to boost their winning pct. With a .375 bottom threshold on OWP applied to those games, Bowdoin's SOS would be .573 which to me feels much fairer.
The NCAA's SOS will always be flawed because of it's simplicity that results in a game against Husson helping your SOS almost as much as playing Middlebury and more than playing Cortland State. Not sure how you can remedy that (high win pcts. that disguise a mediocre to weak opponent) with a simple tweak to the formula, but my proposal would at least solve the problem at the other end of the win pct. scale in which the formula makes a irrelevant distinction between how bad teams' very worst opponents are and allows that to impact a team's chances of being selected.
The NCAA's own Regional Rankings point to how flawed their SOS formula is. The SOS formula says that Husson's contribution to Bowdoin's SOS is .697 while Middlebury's is barely higher at .699 while Tufts' contribution is .644 and Williams' is .617. If Husson is considered a tougher opponent then Tufts and Williams and just a hair less tough an opponent as Middlebury, they why weren't they ranked 3rd or 4th in Region I. Instead they correctly probably didn't even get a sniff of the regional rankings. The rankings tell us that Husson isn't as good (probably not even close) as most NESCAC teams while the SOS formula that is used in the ranking criteria says that Hussin is a tougher opponent than most of the NESCAC.
Other D3 sports compensate for this, as well as make their SOS ratings more granular, by creating SOS out of a formula consisting of two-thirds opponents' winning percentages and one-third opponents' opponents' winning percentages (excluding outcomes against the team in question).
And then there's the irony of opponents markedly benefitting off a team's stellar record but not the team with the stellar record.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 05, 2022, 10:17:51 AM
Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 05, 2022, 02:46:14 AM
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 04, 2022, 05:29:01 PM
Perfect example...Bowdoin. I still think they are safe but if I'm calculating correctly Bowdoin only has one ranked win. They could be restored to two if Conn makes the final rankings. But think about it. The Polar Bears just won the NESCAC, accepted as the most competitive conference in the country and they are short on ranked wins.
Well, with more ties overall due to no regular season OT, it's logical that RvR's are going to contain more ties and less wins. It will be interesting to see the RvR's of the teams thought to be the last one's selected for at-large berths versus the RvR's for the first ones left out to see if it sheds any light on how the committee evaluated and rewarded ties versus wins, and how many RvR wins seemed to almost guarantee selection.
You are correct that Bowdoin's RvR for the fourth rankings contains just one win at 1-1-3 with Conn Col. dropping out of the rankings. But you could look at it this way: they only lost once in five games against ranked opponents. Middlebury is also down to 1 RvR win at the moment for the same reason.
What hurts Bowdoin's resume is that they don't leave Maine in their non-conference schedule which ensures their SOS won't be as high as most others in the NESCAC (only Colby--the other Maine school--has a lower SOS). Playing Univ. of New England (0-16-2) especially killed their SOS this season. How much it hurts their SOS is, IMO, unfair. So indulge me as I explain a solution for this perceived unfairness.
It takes too many good opponents to compensate for that one absolutely bad opponent which is why I continue to say that the SOS formula (which is only relevant for teams in the running for a place in the NCAA tournament) should have a bottom threshold for Opponent's Winning Percentage (OWP). For example, let's make .375 the bottom threshold. This would mean that any opponent's winning percentage (OWP) less than .375 is taken as .375 for the purposes of calculating a team's SOS. This would base the SOS much more on how good the good teams you played were, and less on how bad the bad teams you played were. To illustrate, two borderline Top 25 teams and contenders for a berth in the NCAA Tournament could play nearly identical 18-game schedules except for two games. If not for those two games, they both would have a very good SOS of .600. In those two games that differed, however, Team A's opponents had records of 5-9-4 and 3-12-3 while Team B's opponents had records 4-13-1 and 1-15-2. None of those games should have been challenging for tournament-calibre teams and more importantly none of those games should be considered relevant to whether a team is worthy of an at-large berth. Under the current SOS calculation, those two games lower Team A's SOS from .600 to .577 while Team B's SOS decreases from .600 to .566, giving Team A a not-insignificant 11 point SOS advantage all because they played a 5-9-4 team instead of a 1-15-2 team. The difference between Team A and Team B garnering one of the last at-large berths could be a result of Team A getting lucky that their worst opponent wasn't as bad as Team B's worst opponent. With a .375 bottom threshold on OWP, the SOS's would come out .581 and .580, respectively, making how bad their worst opponents were virtually irrelevant as it should be, IMHO.
Returning from the hypothetical to Bowdoin's reality, if you remove their game against Univ. of New England, their SOS would be a much more competitive .583 instead of the vastly lower .560 with that game included. That one game cost them 23 pct. points!!! Remove the Maine Maritime (5-10-1) game as well and their SOS would be an very good .596, meaning their two weakest opponents cost them 36 pct. points! But you can't completely ignore that they played weak opponents giving them easy wins to boost their winning pct. With a .375 bottom threshold on OWP applied to those games, Bowdoin's SOS would be .573 which to me feels much fairer.
The NCAA's SOS will always be flawed because of it's simplicity that results in a game against Husson helping your SOS almost as much as playing Middlebury and more than playing Cortland State. Not sure how you can remedy that (high win pcts. that disguise a mediocre to weak opponent) with a simple tweak to the formula, but my proposal would at least solve the problem at the other end of the win pct. scale in which the formula makes a irrelevant distinction between how bad teams' very worst opponents are and allows that to impact a team's chances of being selected.
The NCAA's own Regional Rankings point to how flawed their SOS formula is. The SOS formula says that Husson's contribution to Bowdoin's SOS is .697 while Middlebury's is barely higher at .699 while Tufts' contribution is .644 and Williams' is .617. If Husson is considered a tougher opponent then Tufts and Williams and just a hair less tough an opponent as Middlebury, they why weren't they ranked 3rd or 4th in Region I. Instead they correctly probably didn't even get a sniff of the regional rankings. The rankings tell us that Husson isn't as good (probably not even close) as most NESCAC teams while the SOS formula that is used in the ranking criteria says that Hussin is a tougher opponent than most of the NESCAC.
Other D3 sports compensate for this, as well as make their SOS ratings more granular, by creating SOS out of a formula consisting of two-thirds opponents' winning percentages and one-third opponents' opponents' winning percentages (excluding outcomes against the team in question).
It's the same for soccer. 2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP = SOS
My hypothetical illustration assumed a realistic OOWP for weak teams from bottom half conferences in deriving my numbers. And the Bowdoin examples use the actual OWP with head-to-head removed and the actual OOWP but without any games being removed (the manual no longer mentions that for OOWP like it used to IIRC). Either way, my numbers should be within a couple points. Now, Bowdoin's SOS did (unfairly?) benefit from playing Husson, so maybe sometimes things even out.
Brockport....darkhorse Pool C? 9-3-7...RvR of 2-1-1 (beat Oneonta AND Cortland)...and SoS is probably gonna jump from .546 to .565-.570 range after playing Cortland and Oneonta back to back.
Not a bad call. Could get them above skidmore and below Vassar in regional rankings, which would put them third in pool c consideration in the region. I noticed they were not regionally ranked in the most recent rankings, but it's not unprecedented, at this time of year for teams to make a jump based on results coming down the stretch in their conference tournaments. If they can get to third in pool c rankings they will get on the board and it will be up to the committee on what to do with vassar imo.
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 04, 2022, 05:29:01 PM
I'm not complaining and arguing that it should be different but the criteria and selection process is challenging.
Perfect example...Bowdoin. I still think they are safe but if I'm calculating correctly Bowdoin only has one ranked win. They could be restored to two if Conn makes the final rankings. But think about it. The Polar Bears just won the NESCAC, accepted as the most competitive conference in the country and they are short on ranked wins.
And looking at Hamilton, Vassar, and Skidmore...Hamilton now down to two wins (unless Conn comes back in), Vassar has only one ranked win and it's New Paltz down near bottom of Reg 3, and then Skidmore only has one which is Hobart clinging to the very last Reg 3 spot. Hamilton's two wins appear far better (Midd and Tufts). Vassar and Skidmore both needed a win today. SLU I think is safe, but Vassar and Skidmore are on very shaky ground (unless of course Skid gets the AQ).
Does this mean a Conn win Sunday is better for Bowdoin? I thought Bowdoin was certain to get a bid no matter what but this discussion has made me wonder if I am overconfident.
So here are my unscientific thoughts based on last week's rankings.
Region 1--None of top 7 have auto bids yet. Amherst can get one tomorrow.
Region 2--Babson has auto bid, Endicott very slim chance at Pool C, everyone else is done.
Region 3--Oneonta has auto bid, either St. Lawrence or Skidmore will get an auto bid, Hobart and New Paltz done, Vassar and Cortland St along with St. Lawrence/Skidmore loser in the conversation.
Region 4--Stevens and Rowan have auto bids, Montclair St. and NYU in the mix for Pool C, Lancaster Bible and Misericordia done
Region 5--Messiah and Johns Hopkins have auto bids, F&M and Catholic in the mix, Drew, Alvernia, Gettysburg done.
Region 6--W&L auto bid, either CNU or Mary Washington with auto bid, the other and Lynchburg in the mix, VA Wesleyan, Sewanee, Covenant done
Region 7--John Carroll, Ohio Wesleyan, Rose Hulman have auto bids, Kenyon, Ohio Northern, Case Western in the mix, Carnegie Mellon done
Region 8--Chicago, North Central, Calvin auto bids. North Park Pool C. MSOE, Wheaton, Carthage all done.
Region 9--UW Eau Claire, St. Olaf, Luther auto bids. Gustavus Adolphus Pool C. UW Platteville, UW Whitewater, Wartburg all done.
Region 10--Willamette, Mary Hardin Baylor, either St. Thomas or Trinity have auto bids. Pacific Lutheran and St. Thomas Trinity loser in the conversation. Whitman and Southwestern done.
Pool C Candidates:
Region 1 (7) Middlebury, Amherst if they lose, Bowdoin, Tufts, Hamilton, Williams, maybe Conn if they do not win
Region 2 (1) Endicott
Region 3 (3) Cortland St, St. Lawrence/Skidmore loser, Vassar
Region 4 (2) Montclair St., NYU
Region 5 (2) Franklin and Marshall, Catholic
Region 6 (2)--CNU/Mary Washington loser, Lynchburg
Region 7 (3)--Kenyon, Ohio Northern, Case Western
Region 8 (1)--North Park
Region 9 (1)--Gustavus Adolphus
Region 10 (2)--Pacific Lutheran and Trinity/St. Thomas loser
That is a total of 24 teams for 20 spots.
The conference central/NCAA tourney page incorrectly has JHU as the champion already. They still need to beat Muhlenberg tomorrow
I stand corrected on Hopkins. If they lose, 25 teams for 20 spots.
Good work by CSO...
Stay tuned for a SC productions release later today/evening...
My possible divergencies from CSO's work above.
I think the only way NESCAC gets 6 is if Conn wins today..and could only get five even in that scenario.
Given where they were this week in the RR I agree with the sentiment that W CT is out...but I will not be absolutely shocked to hear their name called. Their resume stacks up with some other candidates but there's no obvious or even less obvious way to see how they jump the teams ahead of them in Reg 1. All that said, compare resume with Pac Lutheran.
I think Endicott is out with the caveat that this means not a single at large will come from Reg 2. Too bad W CT isn't in Reg 2.
I'll be shocked if Vassar and Skidmore both get in (if Skid fails today), and I won't be shocked if neither do.
Catholic has a good shot and would guess on right side of bubble. Also don't think Drew is totally out of the question when looking at the resume blindly against some others.
Gut tells me Lynchburg gets in but very much on the bubble and the Hornets are sweating.
I don't think CMU is out. Record and SoS good. Only one ranked win but that's true of the majority of bubble teams. May come down to Reg 7 not going beyond ONU and CWRU.
Imo UW-Platteville and Wartburg are still very much in play (compare Wartburg to like a Williams or Tufts...very similar except for somewhat lower SoS).
My gut tells me yes on Pac Lutheran but if St Thomas falters against Trinity today (which I probably expect), then the cmte will have to decide between the two or obviously take both.
And I am gonna add Brockport to the mix...very competitive resume with some others and two ranked wins are impressive ranked wins.
Disclaimer....I estimated updates to SoS for teams that played in past week...
Locks to Highly Likely (alphabetical)....Bowdoin, Case Western, Cortland St, F&M, Gustavus Adolphus, Kenyon, Middlebury, Montclair St, North Park, NYU, Ohio Northern, Christopher Newport/Mary Washington loser
**** Amherst, Hopkins, SLU take bids if lose today, and St Thomas (TX) joins bubble
EIGHT SPOTS LEFT (and maybe less than eight)
Brockport St – 9-3-7 // .565 // RvR 2-2-1 (ranked wins over Oneonta and Cortland, ranked draw Oneonta)
Carnegie Mellon – 11-4-1 // .585 // RvR 1-3-1
Catholic – 11-3-4 // .580 // RvR 1-1-2
Conn Coll – 7-5-5 // .615 // RvR *2-3-5
Drew – 12-2-4 // .565 // RvR 1-1-1
Endicott – 12-5-4 // .550 // RvR 1-1-1
Hamilton – 8-4-4 // .593 // RvR 2-4-1 (3-4-1 if Conn ranked week 4)
Lynchburg – 11-2-5 // .559 // RvR 1-0-3
Pac Lutheran – 17-3 // .535 // RvR 1-3
Skidmore -- *9-3-6 // .570 // 1-2-5
Trinity (TX) -- *9-4-3 // .560 // RvR 1-2-1
Tufts – 7-2-7 // .587 // RvR 2-1-5
St Thomas (TX) -- *13-1-3 // .520 // RvR 3-1-1
UW-Platteville – 12-4-3 // .565 // RvR 2-4-1
Vassar – 9-3-5 // .600 // RvR 1-3-4
Wartburg – 7-2-9 // .553 // RvR 2-1-4
Western CT – 20-0-2 // .515// RvR 1-0-1
Williams – 6-1-10 // .590 // 2-0-6
* for teams playing today
If you think you're sure who is getting in and who isn't try looking at the resumes without the names attached.
Pn
Your thoughts on pac Lutheran resume and western conn can be very much debate IMO. The advantage pac will have is IMO is they should be up to the plate quicker and longer than western conn. I'm just not sure western conn ever gets to the plate.
St. Lawrence up early on Skidmore thanks to 7th minute goal by Sibanda. Amherst and Conn tied at 1-1 25 min left in 2nd half.
Conn and Amherst heading to OT tied at 1. Saint Lawrence up 2-0 at half on Skidmore.
Quote from: College Soccer Observer on November 06, 2022, 02:06:31 PM
Conn and Amherst heading to OT tied at 1. Saint Lawrence up 2-0 at half on Skidmore.
Amherst up 2-1 in first OT. If Conn loses, that could give hope for some Pool C candidates
Amherst wins, making all the pool C candidates breathe a bit easier.
Quote from: College Soccer Observer on November 06, 2022, 02:37:08 PM
Amherst wins, making all the pool C candidates breathe a bit easier.
And SLU closing out Skidmore, which saves another Pool C.
Trinity and St. Thomas tied 1-1 close to half. If St. Thomas loses, they could jump Pac Lutheran or another team for a Pool C bid.
Quote from: Kuiper on November 06, 2022, 02:48:27 PM
Trinity and St. Thomas tied 1-1 close to half. If St. Thomas loses, they could jump Pac Lutheran or another team for a Pool C bid.
Agree....Pac Lutheran would have to hope Reg 10 gets another one.
Quote from: Kuiper on November 06, 2022, 02:48:27 PM
Trinity and St. Thomas tied 1-1 close to half. If St. Thomas loses, they could jump Pac Lutheran or another team for a Pool C bid.
St. Thomas scores a goal early in the second half and is up 2-1.
Update: St. Thomas now up 3-1, although down a man after red card to their big forward Salako. 22 minutes to go. We'll see if Trinity can mount an epic comeback.
Now Trinity picks up a red as well and, with less than 14 minutes left, they may be done.
Final - St. Thomas wins 3-1. Trinity clinging to Pool C hopes