D3boards.com

MASSIVE change recommended  (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d3/champs/Mar2024D3CC_Mar19Report.pdf)by the NCAA Division III Championships Committee on NCAA Tournament Selection Criteria for all team sports.  This is kind of a "throw out everything you think you knew about how teams are seeded and Pool C bids are handed out" rule.  It could dramatically influence how coaches construct their schedules in the future, but because it is supposed to go into effect for Fall 2024 under the recommendation, there will be teams advantaged or disadvantaged by the change right now if it is approved.

Here is the Recommendation:

Quote(1) Recommendation. That the NCAA Power Index (NPI) be adopted as the selection metric
for selecting non-automatic qualifiers for the championship field for Division III team
sports.
(2) Effective date. September 1, 2024.

What does that mean?

Effectively, they will replace human selection committees with an algorithm.

What changes and what is in the algorithm (quotes from the FAQ  (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d3/champs/D3CC_SelectionCriteriaDatabaseFAQ.pdf)section in the December release)?

They are basically recommending using the PairWise system in place already for Hockey to ensure more consistency in selection criteria. 

QuoteMost of the current selection criteria will no longer be used: head-to-head competition;
results versus common Division III opponents; results versus ranked Division III teams; and
secondary criteria. Winning percentage and strength of schedule will remain.

QuoteThe selection criteria database will continue to use winning percentage and strength of
schedule along with a home/away multiplier, quality win bonus (QWB) and overtime results
(in applicable sports).

The home/away multiplier can be used to increase the weight of away wins and home losses
while decreasing the weight of home wins and away losses. The QWB provides a bonus for
wins against top-level teams, the degree of which is determined by the sport committee.

Soccer could adopt different weights on these criteria than in other sports

QuoteThe weight of winning percentage versus strength of schedule is often referred to as one of the
"dials" that a sport committee can adjust, placing any subjectivity within the criteria
themselves. For example, a sport committee could set the dials to 70/30; 75/25, etc. Other
"dials" a sport committee can also choose to apply are home and away multiplier, quality win
bonus (QWB), and overtime win/loss weights.

What are the key differences in this change?

1.  Regional Advisory Committees less important

RACs lose almost all of their power.  They basically make sure there aren't mistakes (like North Central (MN)'s results being assigned to North Central (IL) or vice versa.

2.  Regional Rankings are just for fun

They will still be published, but the rankings will be based upon the algorithm and not the committee.  There is no effect in playing regionally ranked opponents other than possible SoS benefits

3.  Wins against lesser opponents will not hurt a strong team - the key difference, as I will illustrate in a subsequent post

QuoteAnother benefit of the database is that teams are not penalized for winning a contest that it
should win. For example, in the current system if a strong team plays a weaker team its
strength-of-schedule will be negatively impacted even though it won the contest – as it should.
In the selection criteria database, the team that wins a contest against a lesser opponent will
not be statistically impacted by winning a contest it should win. This will greatly benefit
stronger teams in weaker conferences.

How does the new selection criteria impact soccer?

Denison Men's Soccer Head Coach Brandon Bianco, who has twice been chair of the NCAA Men's Soccer Committee and is considered a NCAA Soccer rules guru, has a twitter thread (https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1774095601015079106?s=20) up on the impact.  I will reproduce a few key posts

1.  Bianco calls this "one of the most impactful/biggest changes" to DIII in a long time or maybe ever

QuoteAt a high level, this is among one of the most impactful/biggest changes to
@NCAADIII we have seen in a long time (maybe ever). And unfortunately, despite the narrative out there, there has been nothing shared with broader membership, no opportunity for comment periods, etc.

2.  Bianco agrees that the biggest deal is the removal of the "bad" effect of beating weaker teams, through what he calls a process by which the algorithm "adjusts" the schedule to remove those bad games

QuoteHigh level, what does the Pairwise algorithm do?
1. It ranks every team in every sport #1 through whatever the sport membership is (like RPI)
2. It factors in WL%, SOS, Quality Wins
3. MOST IMPORTANT- it "adjusts" everyone's schedule and removes games against "bad" opponents.

3.  Here's the kicker:  According to Bianco, W&L, a 2023 Final Four team, would not have qualified for the NCAA Tournament under the new selection criteria

QuoteHad Pairwise been used last fall in soccer, W&L (Final Four team) who played the 10th-hardest schedule in the country (out of 415), won 70% of their games, and had 5 RvR would not have made the NCAA's. In fact, they would have needed to jump 5 teams to just be the last team in!!!

QuoteWho would have gotten in over them? A team who played 53% of their schedule against teams #217+ (5 against teams in the 300's!), with only 2 Top 100 wins (#45, 68). All other wins (13!) were #'s 179-365! This is just 1 example. There were more from last year just like this team.

4.  This means, according to Bianco, coaches will not have an incentive to construct a difficult schedule.  I'm not exactly sure why this has such a high magnitude effect, since committees can weight W-L and SoS differently, but presumably a higher W-L is more important and it is better to get a win against a weak opponent (which won't be counted against you for SoS purposes) than a loss against a strong opponent, which doesn't help you enough in SoS to offset the effect on W-L.

QuoteTHERE IS LESS INCENTIVE TO PLAY A COMPETITIVE SCHEDULE- "bad" games get dropped. My team plays Newport and Stevens this year for example- moving forward, there's less incentive to play these.
Coaches are smart. Goalposts are moved. We'll schedule to manipulate the data!

QuoteIf you play a great schedule and win a ton of games, you'll always be fine. It's that next "tier" that most likely will be affected most. The 12-3-3 high SOS team won't be as competitive as the higher WL lower SOS. Again, more incentive to schedule wins moving forward.

Just to provide a little balance to Bianco's thread, here are a few benefits I could see from this selection criteria change:

1.  More transparent, at least eventually, and less susceptible to bias and influence

The selection factors used before were public (albeit complicated), but the selections were always subject to debate and controversy because they were behind closed doors.  This should end that.  There won't even need to be selection shows anymore.  The rankings should tell you exactly where your team stands each week, just like a Massey rankings system.  You can still scoreboard watch to see if Western Connecticut wins or loses, but the debates on the board about whether they will get screwed by a pro-NESCAC committee in favor of Williams and its double digit ties won't happen anymore.  Bad for traffic on the Boards, but good for the student-athletes who can resolve matters on the field.

2.  Middling teams in top conferences will no longer get a huge bump

If it's better to win a lot than to play a really strong schedule, then there is an advantage for a dominant team in a weak conference over the 6th place NESCAC team.  Plus, UAA teams will no longer get a bump from being in different regions with different regional rankings.  That might give a bump to strong second place teams in weaker conferences over middling teams from stronger conferences.  More equitable distribution of tournament access seems like a DIII value.

3.  More geographical equity and less competitive pressure to spend a ton of money to travel for higher ranked competition

My perspective may be colored from being out in Region X, but there is a huge systemic bias on schools in DIII deserts because they need to travel to other areas of their region or to leave their region altogether in order to get higher SoS and to beat regionally ranked opponents from elsewhere.  Some poorer schools simply can't afford to do that and even wealthy schools don't really want to because it is inconsistent with a core value of DIII to prioritize travel and missing classes in the quest to make the NCAA tournament.  Strength of Schedule will still matter, but at least the regional ranking thing won't indirectly make it more costly to be in DIII for these schools and require more missed classes etc.

Moreover, the algorithm approach will affect hosting because the higher seed may no longer be concentrated in a few regions due to access to certain opponents.  That also can provide more geographical equity.

4.  Tournament success will still depend upon the same criteria as has been used in the past

Presumably, teams that make the tournament on the back of a weak schedule will still be at a disadvantage against teams who have been battle-hardened by strong competition in their regular season schedule.  So, in theory, coaches who over-correct their schedules to make them too weak will be punished and some kind of equilibrium or optimal balance will develop.

On the flip side, here's what Bianco either didn't say or undersold about what is bad about this change

1.  Not enough input from coaches

There is plenty about this in the twitter thread, so I won't add much.  I will push back slightly though - if some of the concerns are about travel, missed classes etc, then I could see how coach input would be somewhat less critical than AD/President input.  Either way, input is good and by making this an all team sports change, it definitely washes out the impacts on individual sports.  They do give the sport committees the ability to change the dials somewhat, but I'm not sure it does enough.

2.  No transition period

As Bianco mentioned, they are slating this to take effect this fall, but fall sports like soccer have already set their schedules for the most part.  I have a whole thread on this board full of schools that have published their schedules.  Conference schedules are often locked in for years in advance, but non-conference schedules is the variable coaches can control on SoS and this short effective date eliminates some of the benefits of the proposal for next year (e.g., reducing travel) for those schools with locked schedules and gives an unintentional advantage to others who aren't done yet.

There is a provision allowing sport committees to change the dials every few years if they want to emphasize SoS more etc, but they can't change it weekly if it's not working out this year.

This also impacts students who chose a school in their recruiting process because of the better chance of qualifying for the NCAA tournament and now may be worse off.  I'm not sure I'm that sympathetic (you should choose a school because of the fit of the school qua school under DIII principles), but it is a reality that some students will feel hard done by this change.

3.  Preferences non-competitive schedules

If it's true that W-L matters that much more, then we end up with a lot of non-competitive games.  I've seen tons of those in high school games.  It doesn't look like that much fun for either side and doesn't feel like what an athletic organization should aim to achieve, within limits.

Thanks Kuiper, whatever we miss on debating who makes it will be overwhelmed by this discussion for quite some time.  I don't suppose the NCAA indicated what the 2023 final 64 would have looked like for comparison purposes, other than what it meant for W&L?  Wondering how close Massey's algo will be to the new formula.

Pairwise works in hockey because there aren't nearly as many teams.  There are a ton of common opponent results and just about every team will be no more than a single team/game removed from any opponent they haven't played. 

I do think there needs to be some balance struck when it comes to teams getting in solely due to SOS, this is mostly on the basketball sides of things but it does happen in soccer (my thoughts on teams like Rochester are well known in this regard).  But I don't see why there can't just be some tweaks made to the championship manual to give the committees more guidance.

I'm not going to immediately denounce this since I've literally only just learned about it.  It could be a good thing, could be bad.   I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

Quote from: EnmoreCat on March 30, 2024, 06:45:55 PMThanks Kuiper, whatever we miss on debating who makes it will be overwhelmed by this discussion for quite some time.  I don't suppose the NCAA indicated what the 2024 final 64 would have looked like for comparison purposes, other than what it meant for W&L?  Wondering how close Massey's algo will be to the new formula.

According to the FAQ, they tested the algorithm in selected sports to compare the results against the selections made by the human committees and they didn't find all that many differences.  I don't know if men's soccer was one of the sports though, but I suspect Bianco got his information about W&L from that test. 

QuoteQ: How has this been tested?
A: The Division III Championships Committee has reviewed selected sport data from the 2018-19
season (a full pre-COVID season) and the 2021-22 season (a nearly full season post-COVID).
Staff compared the selected championship field against what would have been selected by the
database and saw only slight variances between the two fields, almost regardless of the dial
settings which have not yet been reviewed by sport committees. The Championships
Committee and staff are in the process of compiling and reviewing data for all team sports
from the 2022-23 season.

Quote from: stlawus on March 30, 2024, 07:07:56 PMPairwise works in hockey because there aren't nearly as many teams.  There are a ton of common opponent results and just about every team will be no more than a single team/game removed from any opponent they haven't played. 

I do think there needs to be some balance struck when it comes to teams getting in solely due to SOS, this is mostly on the basketball sides of things but it does happen in soccer (my thoughts on teams like Rochester are well known in this regard).  But I don't see why there can't just be some tweaks made to the championship manual to give the committees more guidance.

I'm not going to immediately denounce this since I've literally only just learned about it.  It could be a good thing, could be bad.   I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

Interestingly, Bianco later tweeted  (https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1774095972068377054?s=20)that the Pairwise algorithm they would use for all team sports is the not the same as the one they currently use for hockey.  I don't know if he means that individual sports can change the dials on the weight given to individual factors or something else.

QuoteAnother big misunderstanding. The pairwise algorithm hockey has used will not be the same algorithm that will be used for all team sports.

Reading Bianco's thread, I do wonder if this is partially if not predominantly financial based. Many teams (not all) that benefit from high SOS usually get that gaudy SOS number from a pretty eclectic mix of travel opportunities which in turn has resulted in the "have nots" of division III being disadvantaged for bids since they don't have the financial resources to craft hard schedules.  Now with the looming enrollment cliff along with schools already beginning to close and face dire financial situations, athletic department budgets are going to be squeezed even tighter. This will result in schools staying in region more and not traveling as much, which is likely by design as a way to save everyone money. 

Quote from: Kuiper on March 30, 2024, 02:57:52 PMOn the flip side, here's what Bianco either didn't say or undersold about what is bad about this change

1.  Not enough input from coaches

There is plenty about this in the twitter thread, so I won't add much.  I will push back slightly though - if some of the concerns are about travel, missed classes etc, then I could see how coach input would be somewhat less critical than AD/President input.  Either way, input is good and by making this an all team sports change, it definitely washes out the impacts on individual sports.  They do give the sport committees the ability to change the dials somewhat, but I'm not sure it does enough.

2.  No transition period

As Bianco mentioned, they are slating this to take effect this fall, but fall sports like soccer have already set their schedules for the most part.  I have a whole thread on this board full of schools that have published their schedules.  Conference schedules are often locked in for years in advance, but non-conference schedules is the variable coaches can control on SoS and this short effective date eliminates some of the benefits of the proposal for next year (e.g., reducing travel) for those schools with locked schedules and gives an unintentional advantage to others who aren't done yet.

There is a provision allowing sport committees to change the dials every few years if they want to emphasize SoS more etc, but they can't change it weekly if it's not working out this year.

This also impacts students who chose a school in their recruiting process because of the better chance of qualifying for the NCAA tournament and now may be worse off.  I'm not sure I'm that sympathetic (you should choose a school because of the fit of the school qua school under DIII principles), but it is a reality that some students will feel hard done by this change.

3.  Preferences non-competitive schedules

If it's true that W-L matters that much more, then we end up with a lot of non-competitive games.  I've seen tons of those in high school games.  It doesn't look like that much fun for either side and doesn't feel like what an athletic organization should aim to achieve, within limits.

I should have added one more negative about this that Bianco alluded to, but only indirectly.  Maybe he's exaggerating, but he's suggesting that this change has the potential to get coaches fired, presumably because it may take a couple of years to sort itself out and in the meantime a coach with a couple years of not making the tournament might be let go.

QuoteThis new selection criteria- something that will affect the livelihood of coaches- will go into effect this fall! And no one has seen it let alone know how the algorithm is calculated. What was intended to create more objectivity and transparency will do the opposite.

I hope that isn't the case and that schools are a bit more understanding than that, but it's noteworthy that the following D3 soccer coaches have all re-tweeted or commented about Bianco's thread and tons more have liked the post.

Travis Wall - Kenyon
Ryan Souders - Calvin
Greg Holker - Augsburg
Dejan Mladenovic - John Carroll
Justin Serpone - Amherst
Ben Federici - Transylvania
Steve McCarthy - Depauw
Justin Oliver - St. Olaf

Whether it affects their jobs or the jobs of their friends, it's pretty clear that the coaches are hot about the recommended change. 

I'm not sure of the next steps.  One D3 football guy tweeted the following:

QuoteI believe next steps would be a vote in the management council to adopt. May need to go to President's Council since it's a bylaw change? Not sure.

 

Hmmm, so many thoughts. All probably not answerable at least by me.

1. Will the higher ups rubberstamp this? I'm guessing so.

2. Talks about travel and trying to reduce costs. Does this favor teams that have many D3 soccer teams around them like Pennsylvania/Maryland?
For example almost all Cent. Conf. teams are in PA (7 in PA and 3 in MD - 2 are not that remote) and there are lots of D3 soccer teams they can play with very short drives and maybe not very good or marginal competition.

3. Will this reduce the quality of D3 soccer? Many more 5-0 to 10-1 games or more? Not sure, but it may reduce interest as there will be few not very interesting non-conf. games (no Messiah v. UMW etc). Guess most of us will be only looking at NESCAC regularly. Also will this mean that underdog teams will be more incentivized to park the bus and work for the tie especially with no OT?

4. How will this affect NESCAC? Fewer teams making the NCAAs or more?

5. If W&L would not make it in under this system, will teams like W&L will have to win their tournament to get in which would put many conferences like ODAC back 10 years (only one qualifier) for 2024. However, in 2025, W&L, Lynchburg, VA Wes and Roanoke will just play all, or many more,  ODAC teams as there are plenty of teams that are not very good thus increasing their W-L.

Maybe we should go back the good 'ol days of 32 team brackets so we don't need to worry about which 2nd place conference team is in/out. 

I'm a big college hockey fan and I will say the transparency of that process is really refreshing. (With that said, there are tons of issues with the actual tournament, but that's so off topic I wont bore everyone with it.)

I know that it's being stated that soccer would use a different Pairwise formula, but I will say, in college hockey, the better/bigger conferences gobble up more spots and the lesser conferences almost always just get their AQ in. So, Hockey East and the Big Ten get 3 and 4 teams in, and Denver's (NCHC) conference usually gets 2 or 3... In a 16 team field, you're talking about a lot of non-AQs going fast.)

I've heard this isn't just a recommendation - its already been approved.

Quote from: Newenglander on April 01, 2024, 02:31:15 PMI've heard this isn't just a recommendation - its already been approved.

The management council has to sign off on it but the championships committee is in favor and that carries HUGE weight. Then the presidents council sees it as well but they basically rubber stamp the management council.

What's the rush? Is it mainly so they can get this slammed into being, knowing the coaches are going to gripe about it? I don't understand why they couldn't put it into effect but move the effective date out 2 seasons. They still get what they want but they don't (potentially) cost a coach his/her job by allowing them to adjust their scheduling accordingly.

Just weird to me. The rule is going to be a pretty dramatic shift for those schools that promote "competitive program, aiming to play in November" to their recruits. For some conference middle-dwellers, this is going to be a really big deal.

For fear of making this NESCAC-Centric (I can hear it already  ;) ) to make it completely formulaic is a tough sell indeed. I think someone commented it may keep that 3rd or 4th NESCAC team from getting a bid but those 3rd/4th teams have routinely demonstrated they can make a run in the tournament while running a regular season gauntlet (I know its not the only conference like that).....theres always subjectivity but just make it the best teams get in!

Best is always subjective. This is an attempt to make "best" according to a relatively transparent formula.

It won't work, people will still complain and argue. Schedules will get weaker to suit the metric.

In a decade they will change it again. There is no right answer. There are just different ways of getting answers people will argue about.

The more I read about this the more I'm fine with this being implemented, at least for a few years.  Seeing a lot of the basketball folks mad because it means all the teams and leagues that get the most attention every year will likely get the short end of the stick.  Same for leagues in soccer like the NESCAC.  You've had years and years of benefiting from the old system, time for other leagues and teams to get a turn. 

Quote from: Hopkins92 on April 01, 2024, 02:04:03 PMI'm a big college hockey fan and I will say the transparency of that process is really refreshing. (With that said, there are tons of issues with the actual tournament, but that's so off topic I wont bore everyone with it.)

I know that it's being stated that soccer would use a different Pairwise formula, but I will say, in college hockey, the better/bigger conferences gobble up more spots and the lesser conferences almost always just get their AQ in. So, Hockey East and the Big Ten get 3 and 4 teams in, and Denver's (NCHC) conference usually gets 2 or 3... In a 16 team field, you're talking about a lot of non-AQs going fast.)

Just going by what I'm hearing about the system, the DIII proposal is similar to hockey in the sense that hockey uses Pairwise and not a committee.  So, they both have the benefits of transparency and fewer chances for selections to vary based on human decisions about the importance of certain factors etc.  The difference is that the proposal for all DIII sports will use a feature to address one particular problem - schools getting dinged by wins against lower-ranked teams because it hurts their SoS - that I guess is not part of the hockey formula.

I think the parity and $$ are legitimate factors. Also think it is just so tough for a committee or an algorithm to do a legitimate comparison with so many teams so spread out. There is no perfect way to do this. Pairwise works in D1 hockey with about 65 teams, but D3 soccer is a much different animal. SOS has become a driving factor for selection, in my opinion a bit too much. Can't remember the teams, but in the last few years there have been a couple teams winning only like half their games and still getting an at-large bid. Curious to see what this looks like in practice.

Bianco is continuing his fight against the proposal, at least the rush to implement it for this year.

https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1774810791616581779?s=20

Quote👋 it's me again re: NPI/Pairwise

@NCAADIII
 Champs Committee- by your own admission, you're building the plane while it's flying. Membership hasn't seen the algorithm. A couple of questions:

1) What are the benefits to '24-25 implementation?
2) LET US SEE THE DATA!

Although delay is the usual tactic of opponents of change, it's a reasonable question to ask what's the benefit of moving in 24-25 rather than 25-26.  My guess is the Committee would say that if the concern is about lack of transparency at the time of selection (Bianco's concern is about lack of transparency at the time of scheduling, which is different) and biased selections by humans, then delay just allows more concerns about transparency and bias (assuming you think this system reduces those concerns).  Moreover, there's probably no perfect time to implement something like this because scheduling of non-conference games often is done several years in advance through agreements for return trips. 

May be over thinking but does it drive D3 (see it factoring less for D1) coaches out of the more competitive conferences and into positions they feel more favorable to make tournament play?

Ohio Northern has posted its 2024 schedule (https://www.onusports.com/sports/msoc/2024-25/schedule) and I think it is a useful example of both the fact that the rushed implementation will disadvantage some schools, while at the same time illustrating that it's not that easy to solve that issue whenever it is implemented.

ONU clearly has a challenging schedule.  It plays Kenyon, Calvin, Ohio Wesleyan, Colorado College, and UT Dallas, in August/September.  Plus, it plays John Carroll in November right before the OAC tournament.  All six of those teams were in the NCAA tournament last year and only UT Dallas did not advance beyond the first round.  ONU lost to Colorado College in 2OT in the third round.

In theory, ONU would not have scheduled such tough teams if it wasn't going to help them as much as more wins.  They might still win the OAC and the AQ, making it irrelevant, but they might qualify even if they come in 2nd or 3rd because the OAC probably supplies just enough strong opponents in Otterbein, Mount Union, etc to give them a good enough strength-of-schedule number and they could have a good W-L if they just replaced some of their more difficult non-conference opponents with easier ones.

One obvious way to do so is ditching the costly and time-consuming trip to Colorado Springs to play two tough opponents at altitude early in the season.  I expect some people anticipate there will be fewer trips of this nature with the new rules.  The problem is that Colorado College traveled to Ada, OH last fall and ONU is probably contractually obligated to make a return trip.  Colorado College also traveled to Dallas to play UT Dallas last fall and UTD is probably contractually obligated to make the return trip to Colorado Springs this year.  Even if Colorado College wanted to avoid the difficult games too because of the rule change, they've already shelled out a lot of money last year and it's hard to get any home games in Colorado Springs given their location.  They need these games.

The other difficult non-conference games are more local, so travel isn't as much of an issue, but most of them are still home and away obligations.  ONU hosted Kenyon last year and Kenyon is counting on them to come to Gambier this year.  ONU visited OWU last year and is counting on them to come back. Even Rose-Hulman is a return on a home and away deal and ONU lost that game.  So, it's not an easy game.

You might argue that this would all change if they delayed the change until Fall 2025 when those obligations are concluded, but that doesn't really track.  ONU has scheduled new opponents that are likely to be challenging this year and/or next, such as Wash U and Hope, and those are probably home-and-away games too given the long distances between ONU and each of those schools.  Moreover, if it were still under the old rules this year, ONU would want challenging games this year and likely would be required by its AD to negotiate home-and-away deals for budgetary reasons.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where there wouldn't be a transition period of non-ideal schedules because of the push to meet the needs of the current rule in one year and the new rule in the second year and the inevitability of home-and-away deals that cross over.  You might solve that with a gradual implementation rule over several years, but it would have to be awfully complicated since schools are differently situated with respect to how many open non-conference games they have in any given year.  It's unlikely you could construct a transition rule that wouldn't disadvantage as many schools as it helps.

And ONU is in a conference that is a probably a little easier this year than last year because of John Carroll's departure.  They might like their chances of winning all but 1-2 conference games. In other conferences, there's not much a coach can do because all of their conference games are pretty challenging.

The team that might be hurt the most under the new rules isn't ONU, which will eventually be able to find local teams that are a bit easier (although it's not clear why those teams won't also want to avoid ONU for the same reason), but a school like Colorado College.  The only way they can get non-conference teams to come to Colorado Springs is to provide SoS benefits of playing them and a quality opponent in a round robin.  But, Colorado College is way too unique to plan around.

Quote from: Kuiper on April 02, 2024, 06:17:07 PMONU clearly has a challenging schedule.  It plays Kenyon, Calvin, Ohio Wesleyan, Colorado College, and UT Dallas, in August/September.  Plus, it plays John Carroll in November right before the OAC tournament.  All six of those teams were in the NCAA tournament last year and only UT Dallas did not advance beyond the first round.  ONU lost to Colorado College in 2OT in the third round.

I'm wondering if some of what you are saying here is another reason why coaches from lower leagues/non-perennial power teams could be pushing this. Right now there is pretty much 0 incentive for a team with hopes of making the tournament and beyond to play anything but other powerhouse teams in non-conference play. Maybe one or two, but not many to go around. SOS drives everything, and is arguably more important than winning to the selection committee. Because of this it has become somewhat of a good ole boys club in terms of non-conf scheduling. Can't break in unless you are a regular NCAA tourney team, but it's hard to become a regular tournament team if you can't get any of them to play you. Again, I see both sides of it. You want to match your team up against the best, I get that.

Quote from: mngopher on April 02, 2024, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on April 02, 2024, 06:17:07 PMONU clearly has a challenging schedule.  It plays Kenyon, Calvin, Ohio Wesleyan, Colorado College, and UT Dallas, in August/September.  Plus, it plays John Carroll in November right before the OAC tournament.  All six of those teams were in the NCAA tournament last year and only UT Dallas did not advance beyond the first round.  ONU lost to Colorado College in 2OT in the third round.

I'm wondering if some of what you are saying here is another reason why coaches from lower leagues/non-perennial power teams could be pushing this. Right now there is pretty much 0 incentive for a team with hopes of making the tournament and beyond to play anything but other powerhouse teams in non-conference play. Maybe one or two, but not many to go around. SOS drives everything, and is arguably more important than winning to the selection committee. Because of this it has become somewhat of a good ole boys club in terms of non-conf scheduling. Can't break in unless you are a regular NCAA tourney team, but it's hard to become a regular tournament team if you can't get any of them to play you. Again, I see both sides of it. You want to match your team up against the best, I get that.

Based on what Bianco has been tweeting, I'm not sure if coaches have had any input to push this one way or another, but I could see that being a complaint of non-traditional powers.  If there was a poster child in men's soccer for this reform it would be the 2022 Western Connecticut team that was undefeated (20-0-2), but didn't get the AQ because it lost in PKs to UMass Boston in the finals of the Little East Conference, a conference whose members likely did no favors for Western Conn's SoS.  Williams, by contrast, which went 10-2-11 in the NESCAC was selected over Western Connecticut for a Pool C bid after losing in the semifinals of the NESCAC tournament. Now, Williams justified their selection by advancing to the finals of the 2022 NCAA tournament before losing to Chicago, but there were plenty of people griping about how a team could go undefeated and still get passed over for a team that tied more games than it won, albeit in a tougher conference.  Western Conn had a good record in 2021 (17-6), but it wasn't a NCAA tournament team and it probably didn't help anyone's SoS to play them.  It wouldn't be worth it given that there was a risk that a strong team could lose to them.  In a SoS-based system, there's nothing worse than playing a lower team that beats you.  So, they probably felt hard done by the SoS-heavy selection criteria. 

To their credit, Wesleyan and Williams both added Western Conn to their 2023 schedule for the first time since at least 2011, if not ever.  That's kind of revealing because Wesleyan and Western Conn are less than an hour away from each other.  Williams is farther (2.5 hours maybe), but Western Conn came to them, which it might have been willing to do as well if invited. So, it took either an SoS bump from the prior year or a couple of coaches trying to do what is right for Western Conn to get a chance against them.  As it turns out, neither Wesleyan, which Western Conn beat, nor Williams, which beat Western Conn, made it to the NCAA tournament and Western Conn won its AQ and did.

SimpleCoach posted this in his own thread, but I wanted to call attention to it for those primarily interested in the NCAA championship selection criteria rule change recommendation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMvVzjc6sNs

Very interesting and well worth your time if you want to learn more about the proposal.  Coach Bianco is clearly as well versed about the proposal as you can be and he's tried to get as much access to more information/clarification as he can.

A few quick reactions:

1.  Coach Bianco identifies that the key issue is that the algorithm removes certain games called "bad wins" from consideration.  He mentioned one team that would have been ranked #1 in 2023 would have had 80% of its schedule removed. 

He kept saying the games were removed, but I don't think that's really what he meant and repeating it is misleading.  I think he meant that the wins count in the W-L %, but not in the strength of schedule calculation.  If your team loses to lower ranked team, that "upset" game very much matters. 

So, Bianco's complaint is not that the games are removed from the algorithm altogether, but that he doesn't know which games are removed and which games are kept for SoS purposes.  He specifically mentioned an example in the Landmark Conference where Catholic and Drew both played and beat Susquehanna, but the game was removed (presumably just for SoS purposes) for Drew, but not for Catholic (I think I have that right) in the 2022 or 2023 simulation and he couldn't figure out why.  My guess is that the algorithm's setting for when a win is considered a "bad" win is a function of the gap between the two teams' relative rankings and the gap met the standard in the case of Drew, but not in the case of Catholic (whether measured at the end or when they played each other).     

I'm sympathetic that it should be transparent as to what the gap needs to be to trigger the game's removal for SoS purposes and when that gap is measured.  On the latter point, I assume the algorithm measures these things weekly, but the final measurement is based on the full season.  That means no team is advantaged/disadvantaged by playing a weaker conference team first rather than last.  You certainly don't want timing to be a big sticking point in coming up with conference schedules for instance, but the Championships Committee should confirm that.  On the former point, knowing the numerical or percentage amount of the gap is probably helpful in understanding how low down you can go in scheduling non-conference opponents, but only in a rough way since you wouldn't know either ranking when committing to the schedule.  If only really large gaps get thrown out for SoS purposes, then you might schedule differently than if small or medium-sized gaps get thrown out too.  This is a little bit of a "I want to know how to game the system" complaint, but it's also a "I want to know why one team made it and one team didn't" that goes to the legitimacy of the algorithm and therefore the selections, so it's better to be transparent about it even if it aids in gaming the system (which we all know coaches will do once they understand it).

2.  Coach Bianco asserted that he didn't think this would hurt NESCAC and UAA schools and, in fact, it could hurt regional access because the algorithm, by removing regional committee input etc, could give all the Pool C slots to teams from the Northeast.

He's right that the algorithm would not consider regional access, whereas the national selection committee might.  Since I live in Region X, I can represent the extreme view.  There are only 4 AQs in Region X (3 if the ASC is gone) and many years under the old system only the AQs got bids from Region X.  Maybe 1 or 2 other teams in a good year.  The reason there are so few Pool C bids is because the second place teams typically didn't have high enough SoS and/or had too many "bad" wins.  That's because they historically have had to play double round robins within their conferences due to the lack of any DIII opponents out of conference that don't require flights.  So, the algorithm might make things better and the floor is basically the status quo or close to it.  At least from Region X's perspective, I doubt anyone believes this will hurt them. 

I wasn't satisfied with his explanation about the NESCAC and UAA schools. He just said he thought they would continue to make it because they play strong schedules and win a lot of games.  I don't think anyone disagrees with that for the top of those conferences, but the question is about the middle of the conference.  It would be interesting to know if Williams or Western Connecticut would have made it in 2022 since he apparently has that information.  Also, he mentioned that it would affect seeding even more than selection, which means it could affect hosting.  That alone sometimes can tip the balance in terms of advancing in the tournament.

3.  I still wonder if travel costs are an unstated rationale (or at least added benefit that is making this popular for the deciders)

In some parts of the country, it's a simple decision as to whether you play a strong or weak team as part of your non-conference schedule.  You drive within an hour or so in one direction rather than the other.  And in some conferences, the quality is so high from top to bottom, that you don't really need a SoS bump out of your non-conference schedule, so you just schedule mostly easy nearby opponents. In other parts of the country and other conferences, though, the only way to offset the bad win effect of your conference games is to travel far, usually involving high expenses and missed classes, to play teams with high SoS value.  If the algorithm reduces the "bad win" problem, it reduces the need to travel as much for those schools.  You still need a few strong opponents, but not as many.  In the SCIAC, they switched from a full double round robin to a partial one to open up more slots for non-conference games they could use to increase SoS.  Since there is only one non-conference DIII team within 6-7 hours, that means the SCIAC teams voted to increase their costs to fly to other parts of the country in an effort to get maybe 1 more team in the NCAA tournament every so often. 

Reducing the incentive to travel far distances is nowhere stated in the Championships Committee's memo explaining the rationale for the recommendation and Coach Bianco does not mention it either, so I may be mistaken.  Nevertheless, of the 12 members of the Championships Committee making this recommendation, 7 are Athletic Directors and 2 more are Associate Athletic Directors. They see the big picture as to how much their schools are paying for travel each year.  One of them is the Athletic Director of SUNY New Paltz, which just announced it is initiating it's two year notice to leave the SUNYAC because the travel costs and burden are too high and it is going to go to another conference where they can reduce travel costs.  It has to be at least in the back of her mind and others who might be in the same boat as institutions.

If this results in the teams most deserving of making tournaments, then it's worth it.  While all this is very complicated, the ultimate goal should be very simple:  Those who are deserving get in.  On the soccer and basketball side of things, the committees over the past several seasons have swung way too far towards selecting the best teams rather than the teams most deserving of making it. There are 2 major examples in both these sports, and one of them has already been mentioned which is Williams/WestConn in 2022.  Williams may have been a better team, but there should be no scenario where a team gets an at-large bid that has more losses and ties than wins.  You can talk about SOS until the cows come home, but West Conn beat Vassar on the road that season.  Vassar was a few penalties in the rain away from advancing to the sweet 16. 

Rochester in men's basketball last year is the other major example. There has never been a hard win% floor in the manual, but Rochester went 16-9 that season. I think only 1 team had ever made the tournament with that record until then. I've already seen the D3 hoops world complaining about this change by citing the former Empire 8 commissioner leading the charge for the new system as a result of Rochester getting that bid over a team like Nazareth who were 21-6. Again, talk about their SOS all you want, but you still have to win games.  It's about who deserves getting in, not who is better.  Rochester lost in the first round that tournament anyways, so the case that they were better fell flat regardless.

Just being in a tough conference should not guarantee you tournament access, that is what the AQ is for.  Of course not all conferences are the same in terms of quality, but the whole point of division III is to strike the balance between equity and quality, not simply favor the leagues and schools that have the advantages in terms of resources.  I have no issue admitting that part of my viewpoint is from an angle of pettiness (mostly on the basketball side of things) in seeing the folks who think they are in "charge" of all things division III upset that now they might actually have to talk about different schools and leagues instead of their annual favorites.

One good example of this from the 2023 season is Mount Union. 16-2-2 with wins over Calvin, John Carroll, and CWRU. Season ended in a shootout (vs another NCAA tournament team) in their conference tournament. Not only did they not make the NCAA tournament, they weren't even ranked in the final regional rankings. All (I'm guessing) due to a .529 SOS. Way too much focus on the SOS number there. I'd be curious to see what the new system would have done with them.

Quote from: mngopher on April 03, 2024, 10:11:40 PMOne good example of this from the 2023 season is Mount Union. 16-2-2 with wins over Calvin, John Carroll, and CWRU. Season ended in a shootout (vs another NCAA tournament team) in their conference tournament. Not only did they not make the NCAA tournament, they weren't even ranked in the final regional rankings. All (I'm guessing) due to a .529 SOS. Way too much focus on the SOS number there. I'd be curious to see what the new system would have done with them.

Bianco said in the podcast that Mount Union would have not only made the tournament, but it would have been highly ranked because once you dropped their low SoS wins, their SoS would have gone up greatly because of the opponents you cited, plus teams in their conference.

Other thing to consider is how are ties calculated? - I believe soccer is the only sport besides hockey that has ties and hockey still has OT......

Darn great question. Wish I would have thought of it!! I'm guessing it would be a big negative and like a loss, since wins is a huge positive over SOS and tie is not a win.

Also, why does hockey get to play it out?  Heck more dangerous plus incredibly tiring. Or do only "North American" sports get a chance to play it out? Even field hockey, though not a N. American sport, has overtime.

According to Bob Quillman a D3 BB guy, "Pairwise is a done deal"

https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1776444074779725918

QuoteI'm told by #d3hoops coaches who attended the congress meeting today...

1) Pairwise is a done deal.

2) But no one knows what the "dials" are set to and what metrics/results will be rewarded the most.

Coaches confused about how to schedule for future seasons.

Bianco confirms what I said earlier that the job of Regional Advisory Committees will mostly just be (1) to make sure there aren't any North Central (MN) - North Central (IL) mix-ups because the algorithm does the ranking, (2) to set the "dials" every few years for the weight given to W-L and SoS, and (3) to help work at the regional sites

https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1776454103331147937

QuoteThere will still be RAC's, but their job will be to make sure that the data going into the algorithm is correct (also, who else will site rep if no RAC's 🤨). Re: dials- once they're "set", they can't be changed for a few years.

Quote from: Kuiper on April 06, 2024, 01:03:21 AMAccording to Bob Quillman a D3 BB guy, "Pairwise is a done deal"

https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1776444074779725918

QuoteI'm told by #d3hoops coaches who attended the congress meeting today...

1) Pairwise is a done deal.

2) But no one knows what the "dials" are set to and what metrics/results will be rewarded the most.

Coaches confused about how to schedule for future seasons.

Bianco confirms what I said earlier that the job of Regional Advisory Committees will mostly just be (1) to make sure there aren't any North Central (MN) - North Central (IL) mix-ups because the algorithm does the ranking, (2) to set the "dials" every few years for the weight given to W-L and SoS, and (3) to help work at the regional sites

https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1776454103331147937

QuoteThere will still be RAC's, but their job will be to make sure that the data going into the algorithm is correct (also, who else will site rep if no RAC's 🤨). Re: dials- once they're "set", they can't be changed for a few years.

Bianco kept tweeting last night and this morning and it's worth including a few more of his points.

He points out that the dials controlled by the RAC don't really change much.  He doesn't say why, but I'm assuming that's because as long as bad wins are removed from SoS, then the difference between a team with a strong record in a schedule of murders' row opponents and a team with a strong record in a weak schedule with a few strong opponents, is not that much since SoS doesn't adjust based on number of games counted for SoS purposes on your schedule. So, it you win all of the equally high SoS games on your schedule, you have a "perfect" SoS whether 10 games count (in a difficult schedule) or only 2 games count (in an otherwise weaker schedule).  For W&L, part of the problem is likely the 6 ties, but part is that their "bad loss" to Roanoke, which finished 7-10-1, would be included in their SoS calculation.

https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1776596646224167075

Quotethe "dials" change things very marginally, unfortunately. For example, W&L soccer (FF team) wouldn't have made the NCAA's with Pairwise despite any dial you tweak.

Bianco also asserts that 1 (or maybe 2) national champions in the past 10 years would not even have made the tournament.  If I had to guess, it would be Tufts in 2016, which was 9-5-2 when the conference tournament finished and selections were made. Other possibility might be Conn College in 2021, which was 14-4 when selections were made.

https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1776606497104949575

QuoteMen's soccer committee asked for 10 years of data. They were given 3. I can almost guarantee a national champion (possibly two) in the last 10 years for men's soccer wouldn't have made the tournament using Pairwise/NPI.

Now there's a rumor that "several dozen" schools are going to press for delayed implementation until 2025-2026.  No idea whether that would have any effect. 

https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1776687316737651177

QuoteI'm told a group of "several dozen" D3 schools are going to jointly press to delay the implementation of NPI (Pairwise) to 2025-26. Objective - to get the details right & build buy-in.

Another twitter account says the change is being pushed through by smaller schools/conferences that feel it will provide more equity.

https://x.com/davemchugh/status/1773879129777271055

QuoteIt's being forced through as I understand it by those on the former cmte who felt "small" schools and conferences were being disenfranchised. There. I said what others won't say.

McHugh is directly calling out the commissioner of the Empire 8 conference in that tweet. The E8 commissioner was formerly on the championships committee and McHugh claims that he's doing this because E8 men's basketball teams got left out of the tournament in 21/22 and 22/23 despite winning 21+ games and this is his parting gift.

I have a lot of things to say about this, and I'm not sure I should say them quite yet before carefully thinking about it first.

The D3 Management Council has approved the new selection criteria starting this coming season

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/4/18/media-center-diii-management-council-supports-expanding-football-team-sport-brackets.aspx

QuoteAdditionally, the council approved the use of the NCAA Power Index for selection of at-large berths to team sports championships. The changes will go into effect starting with 2024 fall championships.

Coach Bianco was miffed about the way the DIII Council announced the change in its press release, implying that it was trying to hide the change amidst other changes it announced.

https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1781091102298095682

Quote"ADDITIONALLY"?!? Like this is some throw away change. This is THE CHANGE!

It appears that the next step is approval by the DIII Presidents Council, but those in the know say that the President Council doesn't tend to go against the Management Council on these matters.

https://x.com/d3hoopsville/status/1781007706003775497

QuotePairWise on to President's Council.

It's interesting as this progresses how many more people within #NCAAD3 are voicing frustration w/lack of info & clarity about it.

PC doesn't tend to vote against MC. Not sure there's enough pressure to do so. Train wreck coming?

Although the President's Council still has to rule on this as I understand it, I suspect they are preoccupied with other things and despite coaches caring a lot about this, it isn't a politically controversial enough issue for the Presidents to decide to overrule their Athletic Directors and other reps on the Management Council.  So, what would be the real effect after a year or two of transition?  I'll speculate a little:

1.  Higher SoS is still the safest bet for tournament selection (and success in the tournament)

Since they will reportedly drop "bad wins" against weak opponents, many have assumed you can schedule weaker opponents.  However, you still need a couple of strong opponent wins (or maybe really strong opponent ties/losses) to get your SoS level to a level that puts you in contention without the "bad wins."  It's not clear exactly what you need, though, but that's not really different than the current system.  Under the old system, coaches were always guessing, many times years in advance, about opponent strength when they set their non-conference schedules.  We all know schools that scheduled really strong opponents that turned out to have bad seasons and became "bad wins/losses."  That means that if you want to be sure, you still need to schedule a mix of historically strong opponents, hope some of them are actually strong that year, and win those games.   

All that has really changed is that coaches may not understand how far down you can go for a win to be dropped as a "bad win."  Under the new system, coaches would love to schedule teams that they are (1) sure to beat, but (2) will be dropped so it won't hurt their SoS.  Good luck with that.  Even with years of experience with the system, that is going to be difficult to predict except for the very worst programs.  Moreover, under both the old system and the new system, the scheduling incentives of the awful teams haven't changed.  They would like to schedule opponents where their teams can have somewhat competitive games and they aren't going to travel far to get slaughtered.  That means patsies aren't going to have much incentives to agree to a game against a non-local strong opponent.  The bottom line is that not knowing the exact definition of a "bad win" means that because of the incentives for both teams in a scheduling decision, the strong team is going to end up with a mix of opponents that looks similar to the way they do now for the most part.

2.  Lower priority for travel to play highly ranked teams

The big exception to the first point is that, given the uncertainty, teams will have less incentive to schedule expensive trips in search of higher SoS.  Some of the far flung conferences in Region X may still need to do it just to get enough games, but the market will be smaller for high travel games.  That's probably good for everyone because the cost and classes missed are problematic.

3.  Conference will matter more (but coaches won't have much say in that)

I haven't heard anyone discuss this, but this will affect conference affiliation.  It's probably better to be in a conference with a few great teams and a bunch of easy wins, than an evenly matched bunch of decent teams. Coaches of individual sports can't affect that for the most part though.

Did we ever get any confirmation on whether the NPI is going to actually drop bad wins or is this still based on a kneejerk reaction from a coach who saw PairWise and made assumptions that may not even be relevant to soccer?

Maybe the NCAA will attempt to reinvent the wheel in a dumb way with the new ranking system for D3 but they already had an adjusted RPI system in place for years at the D1 level.  It would make sense for the D3 system to closely mirror that.  In the D1 system, teams would receive scaling bonuses for wins or ties against top ranked teams and penalties for losses or ties against low ranked teams.  Every game still counts for win% and SOS purposes.   

Quote from: paclassic89 on April 19, 2024, 03:42:00 PMDid we ever get any confirmation on whether the NPI is going to actually drop bad wins or is this still based on a kneejerk reaction from a coach who saw PairWise and made assumptions that may not even be relevant to soccer?

Maybe the NCAA will attempt to reinvent the wheel in a dumb way with the new ranking system for D3 but they already had an adjusted RPI system in place for years at the D1 level.  It would make sense for the D3 system to closely mirror that.  In the D1 system, teams would receive scaling bonuses for wins or ties against top ranked teams and penalties for losses or ties against low ranked teams.  Every game still counts for win% and SOS purposes.   

According to the FAQ section the Championships Committee released as part of its recommendation for using the NPI, they specifically mentioned one of the benefits of the system was that it dropped "bad wins," so I think it's a fair assumption that it at least does that.  What we don't know is where the cutoff line is drawn.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d3/champs/D3CC_SelectionCriteriaDatabaseFAQ.pdf

QuoteQ: What are the benefits of the selection criteria database?

A: One benefit of the selection criteria database is that all data will be analyzed, and the criteria
will be applied objectively to establish the championships field (the at-large berths remaining
after AQs are awarded).

Another benefit of the database is that teams are not penalized for winning a contest that it
should win. For example, in the current system if a strong team plays a weaker team its
strength-of-schedule will be negatively impacted even though it won the contest – as it should.
In the selection criteria database, the team that wins a contest against a lesser opponent will
not be statistically impacted by winning a contest it should win. This will greatly benefit
stronger teams in weaker conferences

Thanks for that.  I guess i'll withhold judgement until we get more data.  I'm inclined to give the NCAA the benefit of the doubt and say the selection impacts will probably effect what we would consider bubble teams rather than some egregious change where a W&L type of team (easily top 25 in RPI last year) (I think they were brought up as missing out under this potential system??) gets left out.   I'm firmly on the NPI side and have been beating the algorithmic ranking drum for years. There's no reason to have regional ranking committees eyeballing RvR's and SoS in 2024.  It's a waste of time and resources

Let's be honest, every year some teams get screwed and that's not going to change with the new format. And furthermore, any given year any team can win. You don't need to be a "top 10" program to have a shot.   

D3 Datacast, a basketball podcast and blog, did an update on the NPI/Pairwise process.  It has enough inside scoop that it is worth breaking down in some detail, but you should read the whole thing so they get the credit for doing the work (for whatever that is worth to them).

What We've learned about the Coming of NPI (https://d3datacast.com/2024/06/05/what-weve-learned-about-the-coming-of-npi/)

Here's the background to get people up to speed

QuoteThe winds of change have been blowing throughout Division III, including in the way teams will be ranked and selected for national tournament play. As most are likely aware, the Championships Committee has investigated and recommended the implementation of a new ranking and selection system, known as the NCAA Power Index (NPI), sometimes also referred to as "Pairwise" or the Selection Criteria Database.

That recommendation, with an effective date of the 2024-25 season, was subsequently approved in concept by the Division III Management Council and President's Council. While many in the Division III community have known about the ongoing process to move toward NPI there seems to be a great deal of consternation and confusion over its details and implications. While certain details are still being set and the full implications of the new system may not be known until it has been in place for at least a year, I wanted to put together this blog post to lay out some information that we have been able to gather.

The author notes that there has been some opposition trying to slow things down and it identified the principal groups who are complaining.

QuoteWhile change is sure to come with a dose of low-level grumbling there have been some entities that have logged formal concerns or at least expressed a desire to have the process slowed down or delayed a year so there can be greater understanding among the membership before NPI is put into place. That list includes at least the North Coast Athletic Conference, the Liberty League men's and women's soccer coaches, NESCAC men's soccer coaches and the United Soccer Coaches Division III Advisory Council.

Notice a common theme among these critics?  Yep.  They are basically all from soccer and you can bet that the NCAC concerns are being driven by the soccer coaches since Denison men's soccer HC Brandon Bianco has been leading the charge to slow this down ever since word leaked out about the proposals.

Does that mean there's a chance it won't happen for 2024?  The author doesn't think so, in part because all of the opposition has come from soccer.  It sounds like the soccer coaches either haven't gotten the other sports on board or they haven't figured out this politics thing where you need allies to push through or block changes (to be fair, soccer may be uniquely impacted because they are a fall sport, whereas winter or spring sports have some time to alter their schedules, and some other fall sports like football are just trying to find opponents (see former ASC schools) and may just not be as organized from a coach's perspective as soccer).

QuoteSo what are the odds the Management Council slams on the breaks and defers for a year? At this point that seems unlikely given that it appears the bulk of the comments/complaints/concerns have all come from one sport: soccer. With NPI being a division-wide initiative, I have a hard time seeing one sport being able to mount an effort to derail what looks to me to be more of a certainty.

This is especially true based on what we've gathered based on the response from sport committees. If there was a group of people who were best positioned to sidetrack the NPI process it would have come here but responses have been generally positive. Level of support varied, particularly when it came to implementing for Fall 2024 instead of holding off until Fall 2025, but it appears only the men's soccer committee was willing to go further and voice an opinion that the system is not ready to be implemented.

Once again, is a single sport going to be enough to hold off NPI for at least another year?

So what are the next steps?  Apparently, the "dial" settings for soccer, as a fall sport, should have already been submitted because they were due by June 1 and will be posted by June 15. Then, the Management Council will formally approve the NPI in its final form.

QuoteThe next part of the process following the approval of the recommendation to proceed with NPI was for the individual sport committees to consider and submit their recommended "dial" settings. The so called "dials" allow sport committees to tune relative weights of components such as winning percentage, strength of schedule, home/away multipliers, etc. that feed into the NPI calculation. The dials will be set by each committee, not by sports. This means we could see different dial settings in men's and women's basketball. This is not unlike what we have had in the past were the strength of schedule calculation for men's basketball includes a home/away multiplier while the women's basketball SOS does not.

Dials for Fall sports were due to be set by June 1 with a posting date set for June 15. Winter sports face a June 15 date for dial settings and a posting date of July 1 while Spring sports will have their dials set by July 1 to be posted July 15.

This all leads to one big final decision point: the Management Council meeting in July. It is at this meeting that the Management Council is to review and approve the NPI in its final form, taking the necessary legislative action to officially put it into place.

They also will supposedly have educational webinars for coaches in July.  Of course, that will be too late to change anyone's schedule for Fall 2024, but at least they might start to learn how individual games can affect their ranking/selection, which could inform their decisions on how they prioritize games for player selection/rotation/substitution purposes etc.

QuoteIt may be "too little, too late" for some coaches and administrators but for those willing to accept "better late than never" it seems more information is not far off. The plan is to hold educational webinars in July for Fall sports, late July/early August for Winter sports and late August/early September for Spring sports.

More from Coach Bianco about NPI

https://x.com/bmbianco/status/1799144274128163193?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg

"NPI has always felt from the start as a "done deal" by those inside and outside the room. Now that more info is out, there's a lot to digest. But make no mistake, there was an agenda here to push this through. At least @NCAADIII said the quiet part out loud."

(He's referring here to the fact that this gives second place teams in weak conferences a pathway to qualification over middling teams in really strong conferences with high SoS)

The DIII Championships Committee has set the "Dials" for the Fall 2024 sports

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d3/champs/2024D3CC_NPIWeights.pdf

Men's soccer is the following

Win%/SoS

15%/85% SOS

Home/Away Win-Loss
 
equal weight for home and away wins/losses

Quality win Bonus

54.0 (e.g., bonuses for all wins/partial wins against teams with an NPI of 54 or higher)

QWB Multiplier

.750 (default is .500 - meaning soccer has a higher multiplier before it is a quality win bonus)

Overtime

100/0

Minimum Wins

10

I read this as basically the Men's Soccer Committee setting dials as far toward SoS as they could (since 25/75 is the default between Wins/SoS). Still have to have 10 wins to receive the NPI adjustment, which means it has a high bar for when wins only can help. (I could be wrong on my interpretation though)

First few parts of the Q&A

Q: What is the NPI?
A: The NPI is a system that houses the division's statistical data and objectively applies the
selection criteria to the data based on the sport committee's established weighted criteria. NPI
is a combination of the following: winning percentage; strength of schedule; home-away
multiplier; quality win bonus; and overtime results (when relevant).

 The weight of winning percentage versus strength of schedule is often referred to as one of the
"dials" that a sport committee can adjust, placing any subjectivity within the criteria
themselves. For example, a sport committee could set the dials to 30/70; 25/75, etc. Other
"dials" a sport committee can also choose to apply are home and away multiplier, quality win
bonus (QWB), and overtime win/loss weights.

Q: Does this mean our current selection criteria goes away?
A: Most of the current selection criteria will no longer be used. The following criteria will no
longer be used: head-to-head competition; results versus common Division III opponents;
results versus ranked Division III teams; and secondary criteria. However, winning percentage
and strength of schedule will continue to be used.

Quote from: Kuiper on June 07, 2024, 05:47:33 PMI read this as basically the Men's Soccer Committee setting dials as far toward SoS as they could (since 25/75 is the default between Wins/SoS). Still have to have 10 wins to receive the NPI adjustment, which means it has a high bar for when wins only can help. (I could be wrong on my interpretation though)

The balance of WP and SOS could be any combination of numbers adding up to 100, though it it is worth pointing out that men's soccer is leaning more heavily into the SOS number than the rest of the fall sports. Football is at the opposite end of the spectrum electing a 40/60 WP/SOS split.

As for the ten wins number, the NPI system is designed such that teams don't benefit from a loss that raises their NPI or a win that lowers their NPI. Such games are dropped from a team's resume but that can present some wonky situations where an undefeated team at the top would essentially be left with a one-game resume (their best win, since every other lesser win would lower their NPI). The ten minimum ensures that every team is evaluated based on a resume made up of at least ten games.

That's getting a bit into the weeds of NPI but hopefully makes sense and is helpful.

There's not a ton to quibble about here.  I was initially wary at seeing the SOS dial being turned up higher but the QWB could offset that a bit for a team with a lower SOS.  Could also equalize teams that don't have a lot of wins/have lots of ties but game the system with a high SOS.

Minimum wins also seems like a good addition.

Ultimately I don't think a lot will change, like every year there will be 1 or 2 teams that get in that many will disagree about.

What happens if you don't win 10 games, ala 2022 Williams?

Quote from: Ejay on June 07, 2024, 08:01:24 PMWhat happens if you don't win 10 games, ala 2022 Williams?

This too I am wondering about.  I can't decipher if the minimum win threshold is for teams with a high Win% but low SOS getting to the table or for teams trying to game the system with a hard schedule but not winning the games.  I'd much prefer the latter but the former would still be a good adjustment.

I sent the following questions to the NCAA:

Does a team need 10 wins to be considered for at an large bid.

When calculating QWB is it the NPI at date of match or end of season

Will post answers when I receive a response.

Quote from: ziggy on June 07, 2024, 07:54:28 PM

Quote from: Kuiper on June 07, 2024, 05:47:33 PMI read this as basically the Men's Soccer Committee setting dials as far toward SoS as they could (since 25/75 is the default between Wins/SoS). Still have to have 10 wins to receive the NPI adjustment, which means it has a high bar for when wins only can help. (I could be wrong on my interpretation though)

The balance of WP and SOS could be any combination of numbers adding up to 100, though it it is worth pointing out that men's soccer is leaning more heavily into the SOS number than the rest of the fall sports. Football is at the opposite end of the spectrum electing a 40/60 WP/SOS split.

As for the ten wins number, the NPI system is designed such that teams don't benefit from a loss that raises their NPI or a win that lowers their NPI. Such games are dropped from a team's resume but that can present some wonky situations where an undefeated team at the top would essentially be left with a one-game resume (their best win, since every other lesser win would lower their NPI). The ten minimum ensures that every team is evaluated based on a resume made up of at least ten games.

That's getting a bit into the weeds of NPI but hopefully makes sense and is helpful.

Thanks.  That's how I read it too.  I kind of view these things from the prism of the weaker conferences where the conference has a larger conference schedule and, as a consequence, few non-conference game slots.  They may do that because there are no other DIII programs close by or because it just makes for easier scheduling, but an individual men's soccer team is required to abide by it even if they would like to play more challenging games.  That is perhaps the most sympathetic case for not penalizing a team on the SoS side for "bad" wins.

Take, for example, the Northwest Conference.  They play a double round robin because the closest DIII non-conference team, UC Santa Cruz, is a 10-12 hour drive away and the next closest might be Concordia Minnesota or Colorado College, which are both probably a 16-17 hour drive from the NWC's easternmost member.  Pacific Lutheran won the AQ with a record of 13-1-2 in conference and 14-2-5 overall.  They do not have a conference tournament and they play everyone home and away, so this wasn't a "fluke" AQ by a school that just got hot at the right time.  Whitworth finished second with a conference record of 11-2-4 and an overall record of 13-4-4, still a great W-L record, obviously, but their conference record didn't produce a great SoS and although they traveled almost 1,000 miles to Santa Cruz to play UC Santa Cruz and Cal Lutheran, they lost both games.  Whitworth's 11 wins would make the eligible for NPI adjustments.  Nevertheless, because they lost both games to PLU, they probably wouldn't have any strong SoS wins and therefore still wouldn't have gotten a Pool C bid.  If they had won one of those games, however, and beat some of their non-conference opponents (especially if they were stronger and they had not scheduled the NAIA teams), losing out to PLU might not have been disqualifying.  That suggests that this might strike the right balance of not penalizing Whitworth for having so many low SoS wins, while incentivizing them to maximize their smaller opportunities to gain high SoS results.

In the SCIAC, Redlands finished second to Occidental in the conference tournament and therefore lost out on the AQ.  Redlands had an overall record of 12-3-3 and 8-2-2 in conference.  Only 1 of its 4 non-conference wins, however, were against an NCAA opponent (UC Santa Cruz), so it would only have 9 countable wins and would not be eligible for NPI adjustments.  That doesn't really bother me, though, since Redlands lost three straight games to Occidental (including the SCIAC final) and had some weak ties to Pomona-Pitzer and La Verne, but other than paying a ton of money it might not have had to fly across the country or paying another DIII to fly in and play them, it didn't have any other options for better NCAA non-conference games.  It also didn't lose to a single DIII opponent other than Oxy.  So, it basically gets punished for being an island conference and not having the budget to overcome that.  Again, I'm not complaining because if they had won one of their two winnable ties, they would have had the necessary 10 wins.  Plus, you still need some good SoS to get Pool C and they didn't have it.  Nevertheless, it illustrates the margins are still very thin for island conference members, especially if they lack resources to travel.

Coach Bianco confirms that the 10 wins minimum criteria is poorly written.  It's actually 10 games minimum for NPI purposes according to him, which means it includes losses in the 10 games.  Here's a Twitter exchange where he discusses it and more about the NPI system with football and basketball D3 guys

https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1799429004522397850

Bianco:

QuoteThis is very poorly written. It's not a "min win", but as I understand it, the min. # of games that must be counted in the algorithm. All L's count. But also, SOS they say is an avg of your opponent's NPI ranking. How can SOS be the avg of something you're using SOS to determine?

Logan Hansen: 

QuoteAll losses count, even those that would raise a team's NPI? So a winless team would have all their games included in the calculation?

On your last point, the calculation iterates repeatedly. SOS, then NPI, then SOS, and so on, until the values stop changing.

Bianco:

QuoteYes, all loses count as I understand it. So if you play a "bad" team and lose, you'll be punished. What this wants to do (right or wrong) is not punish you for beating a "bad" team. In their words, "a game you should win". This counts for league and non-league opponents

Hansen: 

QuoteThat would be another change, then. Previously, losing "a game you should lose" wouldn't count, like if a winless team lost to an undefeated team.

Zac Snyder:

QuoteThis seems like an OK way to handle the problem of a one-game (or low sample size) resume for a winless team without needing to set a min loss number like they did for min wins. Any team "benefitting" from a loss will be well below any line for tournament consideration.

Bianco:

QuoteI guess the way I have looked at this is has more to do with how much do we want to evaluate a team's (any sport) full body of work? Last year in soccer, the original NPI #1 team had 80% of their 20 game schedule removed/"adjusted". Even raising that min # to 10 still removes 50%

Hansen:

QuoteYeah, I agree with you. There are plenty of metrics out there that wouldn't "penalize" a team for beating bad teams, while still evaluating the full body of work.

Bianco:

QuoteAnd I think the balancing act is trying to find a way that does penalize teams for avoiding playing good teams in favor of bad. By removing games, teams aren't as incentivized to play a rigorous schedule. I would understand adjustments for league game, but this applies to all.

[End quotations and just my own perspective] I think the last point is probably the key for most people. Coaches/teams can't control who they play in conference and they likely don't have a lot of input on conference affiliation, especially since it affects all sports.  They do, however, have control over their non-conference schedule for the most part and there's no particular reason to incentivize teams to avoid strong teams.

Only caveat I would make to that is that "avoiding playing good teams in favor of bad" implies some measure of intent.  It's easy for a coach from an Ohio school or many other places in the upper Northeast quadrant of the United States to find good opponents in close enough proximity to play them economically, especially if they work out out a home-and-away series that effectively splits the costs over two years.  So, you might infer intent if they choose bad teams rather than good.  It's much harder to make that inference for a school in the SCIAC or the NWC, for example, where you have to fly at significant expense to find any non-conference D3 opponent or subsidize the trip of a D3 to come to you.  Even in more densely populated D3 areas, it may be too difficult to find a reasonably close strong opponent to play your team if your team has gotten just good enough to be dangerous, but not good enough to provide an adequate SoS/NPI benefit.

Here is the explanation from the Men's Soccer Committee for why it set the dials where it did.  Given that the committee was opposed to the NPI system as currently developed, and to applying it this year in any event, it's not surprising that the dials were set in a way that prioritizes SoS as much as possible.  That preference theoretically protects the status quo as much as they could for teams that created schedules this year that were designed to maximize SoS (and there are many that fall into this category if you are following the 2024 schedules thread!).  I say "theoretically" because many insiders have suggested that the dials don't change things a ton.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/men/2023-24D3MSO_NPI.pdf

QuoteWinning Percentage/Strength of Schedule.

The committee set the NPI dial to 15/85 with the goal of balancing the weight of a team's schedule
strength with its performance within that schedule.

• Home/Away – Win/Loss Weights.

The committee didn't think there was a need for a home/away advantage to be applied at this time
within the NPI formula. However, they noted that they would examine any potential need for this in the
future with feedback from the membership in regards to scheduling and if there is truly any related
advantage in playing at home or on the road.

• Quality Win Base.

The committee set this to the default number of 54.0. The default was near or equal to the amount of
ranked teams the committee has been ranking over the past few years. It also aligned with a good
percentage of the membership sponsoring men's soccer that the committee felt was deserving of a bonus.
This would also encourage teams to schedule better teams in order to earn quality win bonuses as part
of the NPI formula.

• Quality Win Base Multiplier.

The committee increased and set the QWB multiplier to .750 in order to address ties within the soccer
formulas that are different than a majority of other sports. By increasing the multiplier to .750 it made
the value of quality ties equal to or more valuable than average/below average wins. This again
encourages teams to play quality schedules and earn wins and/or ties against good opponents in order
to earn a spot in the NCAA tournament.

• Overtime Weight.

There is no overtime in the regular season and so the committee did not apply an overtime win/loss
impact.

• Minimum Wins.

The committee set the dial to a minimum of 10 wins. They arrived at this number by setting the dial to
zero in order to see what teams were keeping when there was no minimum. A majority of teams were
keeping 10 or more games and so it seemed like a good number to bring everyone up to 10 that was
keeping less. Also, the average number of games being is around 17-18, the committee felt 10 allowed
teams to drop a few games, but still require they keep a majority of its schedule knowing losses and ties
are automatically kept.

I thought the intent to make quality ties worth more than average or below average wins was interesting.  It fits in the theme of scheduling strong opponents, but I wonder if it also (perhaps unintentionally) will incentivize teams to play conservatively in those games against tough opponents.  It might depend upon the difference in the effect on NPI of a quality tie v. a quality loss.

Meanwhile, in the other football, they've apparently set the dials such that SOS is basically irrelevant and it's all about not losing ... to anyone.  Analysis from Logan Hansen (which starts with "WP explains >96% of a team's NPI"): 

Stat-filled detailed analysis:  https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/1800203411092324624
TLDR version:  https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/1800209963715109131

Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 10, 2024, 07:56:43 PMMeanwhile, in the other football, they've apparently set the dials such that SOS is basically irrelevant and it's all about not losing ... to anyone.  Analysis from Logan Hansen (which starts with "WP explains >96% of a team's NPI"): 

Stat-filled detailed analysis:  https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/1800203411092324624
TLDR version:  https://twitter.com/LogHanRatings/status/1800209963715109131

Not enough games or crossover games to make SoS make sense. When you have 1 or 0 OOC games in your conference, your SoS is going to be near .500 regardless of who you play or how good you are.

NCAA answers in italics below

1-Does a team need to have a minimum of 10 wins to be considered for an at large bid (e.g. High NPI but only 8 wins)?

The minimum wins does not require a team to reach that minimum to be considered. This dial is just specific to any teams that would be dropping games leaving them with under 10 countable games, those few teams would be required to keep 10 wins

One note, specific to soccer, with ties – those equal half wins. So a team that is 8-2-4 would keep the eight wins, and then four ties is equal to four half wins or two wins an that would equal 10. So even though it is listed as wins, ties do play a roll in hitting that minimum for those looking to drop a win against a bad opponent that hurts its NPI.

2-If a team receives an ACQ (Automatic Conference Qualifier) and does not have 10 wins and a low NPI I assume the ACQ overrides?

AQ will override the NPI in basically all factors as their AQ is their selection. But specific to this question, the 10 wins are not a requirement to be selected and so no matter the situation, they are eligible.

3-If a team receives an ACQ (Automatic Conference Qualifier) and does not have a high NPI I assume the ACQ overrides a low NPI?

This is similar in that AQ's are identified and it doesn't matter their rank, they are selected as an AQ. Then the remaining teams left for the Pool B/C are then selected in order of NPI from the teams remaining after AQ's are identified and selected.

4-When a QWB is calculated, is it the NPI ranking of teams day of match or end of season?

The QWB and all numbers will change after every result. So if you got a 1.3 bonus day of game, but then that team loses the next 5 games, that bonus likely will turn into a lower number or may even go away if that team drops far enough. Same goes for if you got the 1.3 and then that team won all of its remaining games, that bonus would increase for you. So really the only calculation that matters is the one at the end of the season as all the numbers and all the calculations will change after every result including your opponents results.

A D3FB stats guy developed a tool that supposedly allows you to check how the NPI system would have worked in prior seasons with various adjustments to the dials.  Presumably, you could also set the dials at the settings selected by this year's sport committee and then know exactly how they would do, or adjust the dials to see if that would matter.

He has only entered the data from prior seasons for two sports thus far (football and men's basketball for some seasons), but I thought I would post this here so you could check men's soccer if and when he enters the data for our sport.

Here is the site with the tool

https://loghan.shinyapps.io/NPI_Calculator_V1/

I have all the fixtures from the past couple of seasons in csvs.  Ideally, this guy would just throw whatever R script he is using on a github and opensource it.  Or we can wait

Here is a quote from a football guy that kind of sums up the coaches' view of NPI

https://x.com/LogHanRatings/status/1803482350040367467

QuoteDIII football only has at most 10 games to evaluate. Why it makes sense to ignore half those games will never make sense to me. If you're a "good team in a weak conference," schedule good teams in non-conference and win! You're letting them off the hook for avoiding the risk...of additional losses, and putting it all on teams who DO play a lot of good teams. Teams in strong conferences are saddled with maximal risk and minimal benefit, and teams in weak conferences get minimal risk and maximum benefit. The risk-reward balance is out of whack.

BUT, here's a paraphrased quote interview with a very experienced men's soccer coach, Jeb Burch from Centre that I think accurately summarizes the College President/AD view of NPI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc6Qdy_-ZXo

~This is all about the cost of travel.  Many schools simply can't afford the travel in search of SoS that is required for tournament selection under the old system~

A lot of coaches who are at wealthier schools or who are at schools in parts of the country where you can't throw a stick without hitting another strong DIII program have trouble understanding this latter perspective, but I think Burch is dead-on right.  And I'm not sure the Presidents/AD's are wrong when I read about how many schools are in financial difficulty and expect it to get much, much worse before it gets better because of the demographic cliff.

I agree...its has occurred in SUNYAC... Brockport & Geneseo to Empire 8 cited travel time & costs. Same for New Paltz leaving SUNYAC in two years to TBD.
SUNY Canton & Morrisville into SUNYAC less travel.

This isn't really related to NPI, per se, but it is about the NCAA Tournament itself, so I thought I would post it here.  basically, the soccer-specific sports committees are exploring the possibility of moving back the championships date a week, which could allow for games to be spread out a bit more with a slightly longer season.  The negative, presumably, is bumping up against review sessions and finals at some schools

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d3/champs/Jun2024D3CC_Report.pdf

QuoteMen's and women's soccer. The committee received an update from the men's and
women's soccer liaisons on the ongoing committee work to survey the membership on a
potential championships date formula adjustment to move the men's and women's soccer
championships one week later than the current formula. . . . The soccer committees are in the process
of receiving . . . membership feedback regarding the potential change to the championship date formula. and will share that once it is analyzed.

For those who are really interested in almost 1.5 hours of NPI, Here is a link  (https://ncaa-my.sharepoint.com/personal/kalcox_ncaa_org/_layouts/15/stream.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Fkalcox%5Fncaa%5Forg%2FDocuments%2FRecordings%2FDIII%20Men%27s%20Soccer%20%2D%20NPI%20Introduction%2D20240626%5F182259%2DMeeting%20Recording%2Emp4&nav=eyJyZWZlcnJhbEluZm8iOnsicmVmZXJyYWxBcHAiOiJPbmVEcml2ZUZvckJ1c2luZXNzIiwicmVmZXJyYWxBcHBQbGF0Zm9ybSI6IldlYiIsInJlZmVycmFsTW9kZSI6InZpZXciLCJyZWZlcnJhbFZpZXciOiJNeUZpbGVzTGlua0NvcHkifX0&ga=1&referrer=StreamWebApp%2EWeb&referrerScenario=AddressBarCopied%2Eview%2Ecf36853f%2D4675%2D4373%2D9110%2Dc4b3976ad282)to the recording of the webinar NCAA's assistant director of championships conducted for explaining the new NPI NCAA tournament selection system for men's soccer.

I have seen more and more schools have one assistant coach who if not formerly called the director of sports analytics, effectively is assigned that role.  For schools focused on maximizing their chances under the NPI system, I expect that analytics assistant coach will likely have a much bigger role in scheduling decisions and in-game decisions about the value of a win v. a tie to take into account the new NPI system.

Here is an interesting pro-NPI point from a D3 hoops perspective that I assume will apply to D3 soccer too.  I think The basic insight is that the old "wins over regionally ranked opponents" component of the selection process didn't differentiate much if at all between regions in giving credit for a win over a regionally ranked opponent. Presumably, NPI gives more of a bump for wins against top opponents in a national ranking than wins against a top 10 opponent from a weak region.

https://x.com/iwuhoopscom/status/1817925477572788580?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg

"In learning more about NPI from the episode, it seems NPI will do a better job giving special credit for "good wins" than the RRO system did.

RROs had good intention but was extremely flawed...mainly because of differing strengths of regions."

The basketball guys at D3 Datacast did a whole show and supplemental Q&A on the new NPI system and how it will work.  Some of it is of general application and may be of interest:

https://d3datacast.com/2024/08/12/npi-qa-episode-83-supplement/

There was a specific question about ties in soccer that they added to the Q&A

QuoteQuestion 5: In soccer, how will draws work? I would assume they count as half a win and half a loss. Thus, are you able to drop just one side of the draw if the win part hurts you or the loss part helps you? Or do you have to drop the entire match? Or can you even drop a draw?

Answer 5: You are correct that ties are counted as half a win and half a loss. However, we believe NPI does not treat these as separate inputs so there is no dropping one side or the other –  it goes in as one Game NPI. The way it would work in the calculation we discussed at about the 24:17 mark of our video is that the winning percentage component would be 50 and the multiplier on any QWB would be cut in half. Or less directly, the Game NPI could be computed had it been a full win or a full loss then take the average but the result is the same. Our current understanding is that ties do not get dropped.

Hey, Zac from the D3 Datacast here. We need to correct the answer about ties we gave earlier today. With the current dial settings it may be a narrow scenario in which it would happen, but it is technically possible for the win component of a tie to be dropped from the NPI calculation.

We have updated the response on our site but I wanted to also include the corrected version here directly:

Ties are counted as half a win and half a loss. These two halves of the result — the win half and the loss half — are essentially handled separately. If the "win half" of the result is one that would hurt NPI (barring minimum wins threshold), it can be dropped from the calculation.

As a (hopefully) clarifying example, one win and one loss versus the same opponent would result in the same NPI as two ties versus that opponent. If you would drop the 'true' win versus that team, you would also drop the two 'half wins' from the ties.

This was a response from the NCAA where I asked about meeting the 10 win minimum...regarding ties in the NPI..

One note, specific to soccer, with ties – those equal half wins. So a team that is 8-2-4 would keep the eight wins, and then four ties is equal to four half wins or two wins an that would equal 10. So even though it is listed as wins, ties do play a roll in hitting that minimum for those looking to drop a win against a bad opponent that hurts its NPI.

Quote from: ziggy on August 15, 2024, 06:03:37 PMHey, Zac from the D3 Datacast here. We need to correct the answer about ties we gave earlier today. With the current dial settings it may be a narrow scenario in which it would happen, but it is technically possible for the win component of a tie to be dropped from the NPI calculation.

We have updated the response on our site but I wanted to also include the corrected version here directly:

Ties are counted as half a win and half a loss. These two halves of the result — the win half and the loss half — are essentially handled separately. If the "win half" of the result is one that would hurt NPI (barring minimum wins threshold), it can be dropped from the calculation.

As a (hopefully) clarifying example, one win and one loss versus the same opponent would result in the same NPI as two ties versus that opponent. If you would drop the 'true' win versus that team, you would also drop the two 'half wins' from the ties.

Thanks for the clarification @Zac.

Am I the only one who finds this unnecessarily complicated?  Seems there are some tried and true ways to "rank" a team base on their W-L-T record, and here we have a system that obfuscates all that.

I confess, my opinion may be shaped from ignorance, so I am happy to have my mind changed.  But right now it has me scratching my head.

SC.

Quote from: Crossit4fun on August 15, 2024, 10:33:32 PMThis was a response from the NCAA where I asked about meeting the 10 win minimum...regarding ties in the NPI..

One note, specific to soccer, with ties – those equal half wins. So a team that is 8-2-4 would keep the eight wins, and then four ties is equal to four half wins or two wins an that would equal 10. So even though it is listed as wins, ties do play a roll in hitting that minimum for those looking to drop a win against a bad opponent that hurts its NPI.

Yes, this part was well-understood but got trickier trying to understand if one of those "half results" could be dropped by NPI in the same way their "full result" counterparts can be. Beyond the minimum wins threshold, wins that would drop your NPI are excluded.

If your next-best win above the minimum win dial would drop your NPI it is excluded so that you are not hurt by it. Should that "win" be a half win from a tie, it sets up a situation where only part of a game's results ends up on a team's resume - the loss would be on the resume but the win portion could be dropped from the calculation. It seems a little weird but perhaps makes more sense when you consider that two ties against a team are seen as equal to going 1-1 against that same team and potentially being able to drop two half wins in the 0-0-2 scenario is the same as being able to drop the win in the 1-1 scenario.

Now here is the thing: While NPI doesn't prevent this, I'm not sure how realistic it is that it would actually happen. It would take a combination of ten wins against really good competition and a tie against a really weak opponent. It is possible but my gut says that the minimum wins dial is set high enough that it is unlikely.

Hopefully this is helpful and not too "in the weeds"  :D

Some updates on changes to selection and bracketing criteria for the NCAA DIII tournament in the Summary of Summer 2024 Actions taking by the Presidents and Management Councils (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d3/mc_mgmt/Aug2024D3MCPC_SummaryActions.pdf).  The first is most significant potentially, if it means we avoid the groups of death because of the extreme geographical concentration of DIII schools in certain parts of the country.

1.  The Management Council approved a two year waiver for the 500 mile limit on travel so that top seeds don't have to face each other in the early rounds:

QuoteNCAA Bylaw 31.3.5.1 (b) – Executive Regulations – Selection of
Teams and Individuals for Championships Participation –
Selection Decisions of Sport Committees – Pairings and Site
Selection – Protecting Top-Seeded Teams.

Management Council. The council approved a waiver of Bylaw 31.3.5.1 (b) that requires geographic proximity (i.e., the competition site is within 500 miles of the institution) to take precedent over seeding when constructing a championship bracket. The waiver allows flexibility for sport committees to ensure that top seeded teams do not face each other in the early rounds of championships. The waiver applies for up to two years to allow time
for the impact of the change to be implemented and assessed.

Presidents Council. No action was necessary.

2. Management Council approved an administrative regulation that codifies existing practice that conference opponents will not meet in the first round of the tournament and that seeding will be considered, but not be determinative in who hosts.

QuoteNCAA Bylaw 31.3.5.1 (b) – Executive Regulations – Selection of
Teams and Individuals for Championships Participation –
Selection Decisions of Sport Committees – Pairings and Site
Selection – Geographic Proximity.

Management Council. The council approved, in concept, an administrative regulation that amends Bylaw 31.3.5.1 to (a) codify the existing practice that conference opponents will not meet in the first round of championships; and (b) that seeding will be considered but not be determinative when selecting hosts for championships.

Presidents Council. No action was necessary.

Does anyone know when the first NPI ranking will be published?

Assuming around the second Tuesday/Wed. in Sept. consistent with prior years rankings being published

Quote from: Crossit4fun on September 02, 2024, 10:16:52 AMDoes anyone know when the first NPI ranking will be published?

Assuming around the second Tuesday/Wed. in Sept. consistent with prior years rankings being published

Where can we find this once posted? Will this include all teams at the d3 level? or only the specific number of teams necessary to fill the bracket (prior to aq's)?

In the NPI FAQ's it stated it would published on the NCAA website landing page, no link or url was provided

They also wrote the regional rankings of the top 7 teams would still be published but not used its informational only as NPI is now the tool used for rankings

From the NCAA (I had asked the date of first NPI release and where the NPI link would be located):

DIII champs committee is still finalizing when the first rank will be released. It more than likely will be around the time of when our first mock ranking would have taken place – which is around October 16, but we still have to see on that becoming official.
 
The plan for the link will be to have it available through NCAA stats as well as a link on the rankings page as well when it all becomes available. The new system will be shown through NCAA stats software and so it will look a little different than what you may have seen previously. So in this first year it will be a little more limited than originally planned as they want to make sure everything is working properly and that the results are all entered correctly before advancing the system. They don't want to go full out and have to pull back, so it will be an on going improvement process over the first year or two starting with the fall.

Interesting to see how this has all played out so far.  All 8 NESCAC teams that made the conference tournament were in the top 34 as of 10/30.  Midd 1, Tufts 3, Amherst 4, Williams 8, Conn 10, Wesleyan 16, Bowdoin 33, Hamilton 34.
NCAC has Kenyon at 9, Ohio Wesleyan 15, and Denison 18
Centennial has Dickinson 12, Hopkins 14, F&M 21, Muhlenberg 37
MIAC has Gustavus Adolphus 5, St. Olaf 24, Macalester 29

The system may end up with MORE bids for the NESCAC that happened under the old system. 

Quote from: College Soccer Observer on November 03, 2024, 12:10:49 AMInteresting to see how this has all played out so far.  All 8 NESCAC teams that made the conference tournament were in the top 34 as of 10/30.  Midd 1, Tufts 3, Amherst 4, Williams 8, Conn 10, Wesleyan 16, Bowdoin 33, Hamilton 34.
NCAC has Kenyon at 9, Ohio Wesleyan 15, and Denison 18
Centennial has Dickinson 12, Hopkins 14, F&M 21, Muhlenberg 37
MIAC has Gustavus Adolphus 5, St. Olaf 24, Macalester 29

The system may end up with MORE bids for the NESCAC that happened under the old system. 

You probably have to distinguish the NPI structure in its bare conceptual form and the one that exists after the Men's Soccer Committee set the dials.  I think the 10 win minimum to drop bad wins and the QWB advantage really changed things from the skeletal version, which accounts for some of the advantages for strong conferences.