NESCAC

[paclassic89]

The AQ should not be part of the analysis.

Remove it and the point stands

[Ejay]

To be fair to these teams, they mostly played to their NPI: they beat lower-ranked opponents and lost to higher-ranked ones. So the NPI wasn't badly wrong about them. They just weren't national contenders. Hosting also likely helps the top teams, since they usually host early-round games.

In short, if you have a team that would be NESCAC bid number 5+, it's tough to argue that they are more deserving compared to another team around the same NPI.  Especially if they do not have a resume full of wins

This is my gripe. NESCAC #7 or #8 should not be a tournament team with a record of 7-5-4, and #9 should DEFINITELY not be the first team out with a record of 5-6-4. I'll take a team like 14-2-3 Salisbury all day every day. Just like West Conn not making it a few years ago at 20-0-2 was a travesty.

[Sandon Mibut]

My guesses:

Look at the women's brackets first; it seems like they intend to host 2nd weekend at

• higher of Rowan or Tufts
• higher of WashU or UW-LaCrosse or North Central Ill
• higher of Chicago or Williams
• higher of WashLee or Hopkins

For the men I'd guess these are the contenders for 2nd weekend:

• Williams or Amherst or CWRU
• Midwest [but not in Chicago due to likely women's overlap](Tufts men travel)
• higher of Middlebury or Hamilton
• Conn or Scranton; or perhaps Kenyon or Carnegie if Conn falls first weekend

[Sandon Mibut]

Year	Team	NESCAC rank among bids	NCAA wins	How it ended
2022	Tufts	5th	1	L 0-2 vs SUNY Oneonta
2024	Williams	5th	2	L on PKs vs Washington & Lee
2024	Wesleyan	6th	1	L 0-1 vs Babson
2024	Bowdoin	7th	1	L 0-3 vs Trinity (TX)
2024	Hamilton	8th	1	L on PKs vs Kenyon
2025	Middlebury	5th	1	L 0-1 vs Wheaton (MA)
2025	Williams	6th	2	L 1-2 vs St. Olaf
2025	Amherst	7th	0	L 0-1 (OT) vs Catholic

Are the above teams 9-6-2 in NCAAs since covid with 4 of the losses being 1-goal games? Seems like that would demonstrate they deserve to be there and are consistently amongst the 30 best teams in the country?

[paclassic89]

The 9-6-2 is accurate, but look at who those games were against.

Split by opponent strength (selection-day NPI), the post-COVID 5th+ NESCAC bids are:
- vs teams outside the NPI top 30: 8-0-0
- vs teams inside the NPI top 30: 1-6-2

Their 9 wins came against NPI #24, 36, 58, 73, 93, 104, 105, 142 and 191. Only one (Scranton, #24) was a top-30 team. Beating a mid-ranked automatic qualifier in round one is what almost every at-large team does.

For comparison, here are the 40 non-NESCAC teams ranked #6-30 in the 2024 and 2025 tournaments, the same NPI range these NESCAC teams were in:

Group (2024-25)	NCAA record	vs NPI top 30	vs outside top 30	1-goal losses
NESCAC 5th+ bids (7 teams)	8-5-2	1-5-2	7-0-0	4 of 5
Non-NESCAC teams ranked #6-30 (40 teams)	49-31-15	19-23-12	30-8-3	19 of 31

Other teams in that NPI range regularly beat or tie top-30 opponents (31 of 54 games without a loss). The NESCAC 5th+ bids managed it in 3 of 8. If they really were "consistently among the 30 best teams in the country," their record against the other 30 best should look like the comparison group's, and it doesn't.

On the one-goal losses: that's just soccer. 61% of the comparison group's losses were also by one goal. A narrow loss to a better team doesn't show you're as good as that team.

The sample also starts after COVID. Add 2017 and 2018 and three more 5th+ bids go 0-2-1, all first-round exits.

To be fair, these teams aren't frauds. They beat the teams they should beat, and their wins per team (1.14) aren't far off the comparison group's (1.38). But "decent tournament team that wins its opener" isn't the argument. The question is whether the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th-best NESCAC team is better than the non-NESCAC team it bumps out, and the record against top-30 opponents suggests the NPI ranks them higher than their results justify.

[HamiltonUltra]

To be fair to these teams, they mostly played to their NPI: they beat lower-ranked opponents and lost to higher-ranked ones. So the NPI wasn't badly wrong about them. They just weren't national contenders. Hosting also likely helps the top teams, since they usually host early-round games.

In short, if you have a team that would be NESCAC bid number 5+, it's tough to argue that they are more deserving compared to another team around the same NPI.  Especially if they do not have a resume full of wins

This is my gripe. NESCAC #7 or #8 should not be a tournament team with a record of 7-5-4, and #9 should DEFINITELY not be the first team out with a record of 5-6-4. I'll take a team like 14-2-3 Salisbury all day every day. Just  like West Conn not making it a few years ago at 20-0-2 was a travesty.

West Conn's 20 win season was in 2022, which was a decision by the committee before NPI. They missed out at the expense of a 9-3-4 team in Vassar for the last at-large that year.

The 8th placed team in the NESCAC this year was Amherst, who just beat the number 1 ranked teams in back to back games, and then lost 1-0 to the defending national champions who they outshot 17-3. Please, I encourage anyone to make the case that Salisbury, with top results against the 29th and 30th ranked teams, would be more likely than Amherst to win it all this year.

I might be getting rage baited here, but this debate feels ridiculous.

[HamiltonUltra]

I hear your point paclassic and i agree that the margins are small in d3 soccer. My point is that NPI is infinitely better than the committee. At least now there are clear boundaries of the algorithm, and we can debate how much to weight the sliders in the decisions. I just can't see the 'more wins make a more deserving team' argument. I don't think you are making that argument at all, but that perspective has never made sense to me

[paclassic89]

My point is that NPI is infinitely better than the committee. At least now there are clear boundaries of the algorithm, and we can debate how much to weight the sliders in the decisions. I just can't see the 'more wins make a more deserving team' argument. I don't think you are making that argument at all, but that perspective has never made sense to me

We're in complete agreement on the NPI vs committee approach. I think the modifications to the algorithm next year will resolve most of the complaints from the non-NESCAC crowd (hopefully). 

[Ejay]

Amherst earned their spot with a great tournament run. 

How Bates, who had a losing record and couldn't even make their 8 team conference tournament, was the first bubble team out, is a problem. 

Wesleyan, at 7-5-4 has 1 good win vs. Tufts.

As for Salisbury, I'm not saying they're better or worse then Wesleyan. I'm simply saying that I would prefer to reward a 12-2-3 team that has proven it can beat top competition (i.e. Hopkins) more than I would the 7-5-4 7th place team from the NESCAC that has 1 good win to their name.

[Sandon Mibut]

For comparison, here are the 40 non-NESCAC teams ranked #6-30 in the 2024 and 2025 tournaments, the same NPI range these NESCAC teams were in

If you cap the NESCAC teams, you are not gaining teams with NPI ranks 6 or 15... you're gaining NPIs ranked ~31-40.

Group (2024-25)	NCAA record	vs NPI top 30	vs outside top 30	1-goal losses
NESCAC 5th+ bids (7 teams)	8-5-2	1-5-2	7-0-0	4 of 5
Non-NESCAC teams ranked #6-30 (40 teams)	49-31-15	19-23-12	30-8-3	19 of 31

Other teams in that NPI range regularly beat or tie top-30 opponents (31 of 54 games without a loss). The NESCAC 5th+ bids managed it in 3 of 8. If they really were "consistently among the 30 best teams in the country," their record against the other 30 best should look like the comparison group's, and it doesn't.

On the one-goal losses: that's just soccer. 61% of the comparison group's losses were also by one goal. A narrow loss to a better team doesn't show you're as good as that team.

The sample also starts after COVID. Add 2017 and 2018 and three more 5th+ bids go 0-2-1, all first-round exits.

To be fair, these teams aren't frauds. They beat the teams they should beat, and their wins per team (1.14) aren't far off the comparison group's (1.38). But "decent tournament team that wins its opener" isn't the argument. The question is whether the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th-best NESCAC team is better than the non-NESCAC team it bumps out, and the record against top-30 opponents suggests the NPI ranks them higher than their results justify.

You're not doing an apples-to-apples comparison.

Here's a better comparison. 2024 and 2025 I looked at all AUTO QUALIFIERS with NPI rankings between 22-42. Teams that would've been on the bubble if they had not won their conference. That includes 14 teams whose combined records were 175-36-63 in those two seasons.

How do they perform at NCAAs?

In 2024 those teams were a combined 4-5-3 (Cortland NPI 22, Oglethorpe, Rowan, Claremont, Messiah, Vassar and Stevens NPI 41).

In 2025 those AQ teams were a combined 7-7-0 (Dickinson NPI 22, Catholic, Rowan, Luther, Calvin, Depauw and Oneonta NPI 42) with 3 of those wins coming from Dickinson.

So a total of 11-12-3.
7 out of 14 teams out in the 1st round with 6 losses and 1 tie.
Only 3 teams won more than 1 game: Claremont (2-1 in 2024, Dickinson 3-1 in 2025, and Rowan 2-1 in 2025).

Versus 8-5-2 for NESCACs ranked 5+ in the conference in the same 2 year time period with only 1 out of 6 falling in the opening round.

[paclassic89]

Sorry, small sample size.  We can cherry pick data ranges all day to prove points (and I think that's probably what you do on various message boards)

[Ejay]

Amherst earned their spot with a great tournament run. 

How Bates, who had a losing record and couldn't even make their 8 team conference tournament, was the first bubble team out, is a problem. 

Wesleyan, at 7-5-4 has 1 good win vs. Tufts.

As for Salisbury, I'm not saying they're better or worse then Wesleyan. I'm simply saying that I would prefer to reward a 12-2-3 team that has proven it can beat top competition (i.e. Hopkins) more than I would the 7-5-4 7th place team from the NESCAC that has 1 good win to their name.

I hear you, but reward for what? They have one win against #29, while Wes beat #4. Apart from that I don't see any other wins against teams in the top 50 let alone top 25. Once again, not to say these are bad teams, but this argument makes no sense with any ranking metric

Reward for you know, actually winning games. There should be a 10 win minimum for at large bids.

[camosfan]

For comparison, here are the 40 non-NESCAC teams ranked #6-30 in the 2024 and 2025 tournaments, the same NPI range these NESCAC teams were in

If you cap the NESCAC teams, you are not gaining teams with NPI ranks 6 or 15... you're gaining NPIs ranked ~31-40.

The example there both have one good win so why would you put Sals ahead of Wes? I remember the same line of reasoning in 2025, I think when Hamiliton was selected and they shut up a lot of people.

Group (2024-25)	NCAA record	vs NPI top 30	vs outside top 30	1-goal losses
NESCAC 5th+ bids (7 teams)	8-5-2	1-5-2	7-0-0	4 of 5
Non-NESCAC teams ranked #6-30 (40 teams)	49-31-15	19-23-12	30-8-3	19 of 31

Other teams in that NPI range regularly beat or tie top-30 opponents (31 of 54 games without a loss). The NESCAC 5th+ bids managed it in 3 of 8. If they really were "consistently among the 30 best teams in the country," their record against the other 30 best should look like the comparison group's, and it doesn't.

On the one-goal losses: that's just soccer. 61% of the comparison group's losses were also by one goal. A narrow loss to a better team doesn't show you're as good as that team.

The sample also starts after COVID. Add 2017 and 2018 and three more 5th+ bids go 0-2-1, all first-round exits.

To be fair, these teams aren't frauds. They beat the teams they should beat, and their wins per team (1.14) aren't far off the comparison group's (1.38). But "decent tournament team that wins its opener" isn't the argument. The question is whether the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th-best NESCAC team is better than the non-NESCAC team it bumps out, and the record against top-30 opponents suggests the NPI ranks them higher than their results justify.

You're not doing an apples-to-apples comparison.

Here's a better comparison. 2024 and 2025 I looked at all AUTO QUALIFIERS with NPI rankings between 22-42. Teams that would've been on the bubble if they had not won their conference. That includes 14 teams whose combined records were 175-36-63 in those two seasons.

How do they perform at NCAAs?

In 2024 those teams were a combined 4-5-3 (Cortland NPI 22, Oglethorpe, Rowan, Claremont, Messiah, Vassar and Stevens NPI 41).

In 2025 those AQ teams were a combined 7-7-0 (Dickinson NPI 22, Catholic, Rowan, Luther, Calvin, Depauw and Oneonta NPI 42) with 3 of those wins coming from Dickinson.

So a total of 11-12-3.
7 out of 14 teams out in the 1st round with 6 losses and 1 tie.
Only 3 teams won more than 1 game: Claremont (2-1 in 2024, Dickinson 3-1 in 2025, and Rowan 2-1 in 2025).

Versus 8-5-2 for NESCACs ranked 5+ in the conference in the same 2 year time period with only 1 out of 6 falling in the opening round.

[HamiltonUltra]

Amherst earned their spot with a great tournament run. 

How Bates, who had a losing record and couldn't even make their 8 team conference tournament, was the first bubble team out, is a problem. 

Wesleyan, at 7-5-4 has 1 good win vs. Tufts.

As for Salisbury, I'm not saying they're better or worse then Wesleyan. I'm simply saying that I would prefer to reward a 12-2-3 team that has proven it can beat top competition (i.e. Hopkins) more than I would the 7-5-4 7th place team from the NESCAC that has 1 good win to their name.

I hear you, but reward for what? They have one win against #29, while Wes beat #4. Apart from that I don't see any other wins against teams in the top 50 let alone top 25. Once again, not to say these are bad teams, but this argument makes no sense with any ranking metric

Reward for you know, actually winning games. There should be a 10 win minimum for at large bids.

I hear you, but reward for what? They have one win against #29, while Wes beat #4. Apart from that I don't see any other wins against teams in the top 50 let alone top 25. Once again, not to say these are bad teams, but this Wes/Salisbury debate makes no sense with any ranking metric. Is it the case that NPI is so off that it missed by 32 places?

This also seems completely academic given that neither Bates nor Trinity made it in, I think correctly. However, both had top quality wins against Wesleyan and Hamilton respectively, alongside some tough draws against other top 10 opposition. I see them as more deserving than a team with 10+ wins against opponents outside the top 50-75 teams in the country.

[SierraFD3soccer]

Yes you can say that Amherst made it based on a great tourn run, but they were on the cusp to get in anyway before the tournament. In late Oct, they were 29th. So they were probably going to make it in anyway.