Quote from: MunnyTim on November 11, 2026, 09:35:29 AMI debated posting this message this week, but a lot of conversation has been bouncing back and forth on selection and the NPI.  Full transparency, I am a NESCAC fan (go Camels), so context is important.  I am also someone who has been involved in D3 athletics for decades, across a whole host of sports.  Two thoughts to share.

First, I will state I am not a huge fan of any selection criteria that leads to one conference getting eight bids, with teams 9 and 10 being the first two outside the window of an at-large bid.  Just does not feel right.

Which leads to the second point, which NCAA hoops fans will be somewhat familiar with.  And that is the actual objective in determining selection criteria - are we looking for the "best" teams?  Or are we looking for those who are "most deserving"?  While those two objectives may align with certain teams (St. Olaf comes to mind this year), at times they diverge with certain teams.  It seems the NPI is designed to get to the "best" teams, but as a general sports fan, I believe there should be a space in our selection windows for those who are "most deserving."  The teams from one bid leagues who have extraordinary regular seasons but may lose in the conference tournament.  The sports fan in me thinks we should have space for them in national tournaments, and if that is at the expense of the 7th or 8th place team in the NESCAC, so be it.

The NESCAC is a league that has sent a 6th place team to the national final as recently as 2024 (go Camels), so the league is certainly deep and has shown that teams from outside the top 4 can do some damage in the NCAA tournament.  We've also seen Buffalo St. knock out a NESCAC top seed in penalties by playing a great game.  In the end, you can't have a cinderella story without inviting her to the dance, I guess.

I understand and respect your perspective, but as another fellow NESCAC fan, I respectfully disagree. There cannot be a subjective committee pretending to oversee all 400+ teams of college soccer and decide who gets in. The idea that this format existed until 2-3 years ago is insane. Can the NPI algorithm / weights be adjusted? Of course. Is it perfect? No, and it probably never could be.

But seeing what I call the "annual west coast outrage" this past week has been a bit too much. There's always complaints about the NESCAC, east coast teams, etc. The NCAA Tournament is for the best teams in the country - at least, the at-large spots are for exactly that. If we make it about who's most deserving, I'd imagine there's 400+ opinions on what that means. And as others have poked at, we'd need a 400 team tournament to decide a national champion.

The NESCAC has, by far, the best teams in the country. This may upset you if your son doesn't play in the NESCAC, but this is just the truth. Learn from Babson: they prove they can compete with the best by scheduling NESCACs every year (where they usually tie games at best). But, to what extent is there a point to this? See you guys in November 2027 for our annual west coast outrage.

Quote from: MunnyTim on November 11, 2026, 04:02:23 PM

Quote from: Bucket on November 11, 2026, 01:49:49 PM

Quote from: nescac1 on November 11, 2026, 11:54:03 AMAll conference teams out.  Stunned that Williams, the top overall seed in the NCAA tourney, only has one all-league player (meanwhile Trinity has three?). In particular, I don't understand how Jake Farmer, who was a rock all year, didn't make it at D.  The Ephs are very balanced so I understand having only one (well-deserving) offensive player, but Darrell at GK, Ruehlmann at F, and Appleton at ROTY were other guys who at least warranted consideration. 

Or, if the talent really was so deficient relative to say Bowdoin (five all league players) maybe the coaching staff should have been honored! 

Conn's an even better comparison: Player of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year, 3 first-team selections, and 5 total—all to finish...4th?

Just chiming in that Conn was two second half disallowed goals (one against Bates, the other against Bowdoin) from finishing top of the table this year...  Top five were within four points of each other.  One or two bounces (or calls) and any of those top 5 could have finished first in the regular season.

I'd agree with Bucket and nescac1. Though I'm biased towards Wes, I'm a bit surprised at the number of selections this year given their position in the table and a first round loss in the NESCAC playoffs... and yet, they had multiple honorees across the teams. That's not to say the players aren't deserving... but should Williams not have more?

Another one that stuck out was the Co-Coaching Staff of the Year selections, awarded to Hamilton and Middlebury. I can see the argument for Hamilton - that's a team that finished at the bottom of the table last season, missing out on playoffs, who now goes into the NCAA Tournament as a top 10 team in the country with a NESCAC-semifinal loss in penalties to the reigning national champions. But, Middlebury? Don't get me wrong, it's hard to overlook their success in recent years, but that's precisely my point. Middlebury, a team usually at the top of the conference, lost in 90' in the NESCAC quarterfinals. Does this really make their staff deserving of this award? It feels like the committee just couldn't handle not giving something to Midd.