NESCAC

[Camel_Supporter]

The number one defense in D3 should have more than one defender on a NESCAC team!

Agreed. As a camel fan, happy so many of our players made it. But weird to see 3 of our defenders made it over some of the other options . Cest la vie!

[Newenglander]

The number one defense in D3 should have more than one defender on a NESCAC team!

Agreed. As a camel fan, happy so many of our players made it. But weird to see 3 of our defenders made it over some of the other options . Cest la vie!

It is a team sport - maybe it's the sum of the parts at Tufts vs individual standouts that garner the votes.

[Camelparent]

The number one defense in D3 should have more than one defender on a NESCAC team!

Agreed. As a camel fan, happy so many of our players made it. But weird to see 3 of our defenders made it over some of the other options . Cest la vie!

Seventeen is far too many, and the number keeps growing every year. Among the Camel defensive selections, one plays as a CDM, while the other two have been key contributors on teams that ranked among the top three defensively in the NESCAC on goals conceded over the past two seasons. This while playing in a lot bigger games and and taken on a lot bigger roles in the build out than most NESCAC defenders.

[ccd494]

All the Brazilian forwards are players you'll want to watch if the conditions allow it, including top scorer Lucca Torres, who scored the winning goal in the SLIAC championship game, and Matheus Nunes, who scored in the semifinals, as well as MF Christian De La Rosa and D Tomas Biasi were also first team All SLIAC, but midfielder Micah Rangel is someone you can't help but watch on the field.  He's generally not an offensive threat, but at 6'4" with what seems like another 5-6 inches of hair, he can block everyone's view defending a corner kick.  You might be able to spot him in this story about the team winning the SLIAC tourney.

Speaking of conditions, driving past Bowdoin's field this morning it had about 2 inches of snow on it.  Looking like highs in the upper 30's Friday and Saturday, a little warmer but dumping rain Sunday. 

[Sandon Mibut]

Cross-posting my rudimentary analysis here since I've mostly focused on NESCAC:

Some analysis and commentary with focus moreso on the Northeast, South and New England teams:

Midwest teams certainly have some tough 2nd round matchups. The left-half of the bracket with 5 NESCAC teams (n addition to the tough Midwest matchups) also looks challenging. Top-left quadrant with Tufts-Conn-Bowdoin means only one of those 3 teams will make it to the Final 4. Augsburg (#2) and Lynchburg (#4), conversely, seem to have the easiest road to the Final 4. I would also say #5 Emory and #13 Wesleyan have fairly easy paths to Final-4 as well.

St Olaf could face Williams in the 3rd round who I'd say are not playing great in the latter-half of the season. Williams had a big win early September at Tufts (basically their only good W of the year) but they've done nothing since a 1-0 win at Bates over a month ago. They've lost to Wesleyan, Conn, Middlebury, and Conn in the last 4 weeks with 1 GF. It's a long way of saying Williams could be the easiest opponent in the 3rd round but at the same time it's a school with strong pedigree and plenty of experience facing top teams.

Macalaster-Middlebury is another potential 3rd round match with Middlebury being another school with incredible history that has found their stride in the last 3 weeks. Minimal goals (GF) til late October but they're 4-1-0 in their last five games defeating Vassar, Bates, Williams, Bowdoin and losing in OT to Tufts with a combined 13 GF in those last 5 games with at least 2 GF in every contest. Their defense has been excellent all season with only 3 multi-GA games this year (Tufts, Vassar, and Tufts each with 2 GA). Also of note regarding Middlebury is their aptitude for earning cards: leading the NESCAC with 37 YC + 2 RC in 16 regular-season games plus another 5 YC vs Bowdoin in the playoffs and 5 more YC vs Tufts in the playoffs!!

Tufts' 2nd round would be at #26 Brandeis (granted it's only a 20 minute drive but still) who has played 8 games amongst top-80 teams with a 3-2-2 record: W @ Bridgewater, W @ Wesleyan, W @ Babson, Tie vs Wheaton, Tie vs Emory, Loss [2-3] at Chicago, and one blowout loss [0-4] at WashU. Brandeis has 5 games against Top-21 teams in which they're 1-2-2 which means they're no stranger to very good competition and they have some offense which in single-elimination goes a long way: 13 GF and 14GA in their 7 games against top-80 opponents and 8 GF - 12 GA in 5 games against top-21 teams. Tufts has solid offense and defense with only 2 multi-GA games this year (1-3 loss to Williams which was not nearly as bad a beating as the score implies, and the Tufts 3-2 comeback win vs Middlebury last weekend. Some have commented that Tufts have scored a lot of PKs this year (10 or perhaps 11 goals on 11 or 12 attempts) but most of them, I believe, have been in non-NESCAC games.

Hobart (potential 3rd round opponent for Tufts) is undefeated at 13-0-5 however most of their opponents are outside the top-100 NPI (probably 75% of Hobart's opponents are lower-ranked NPI then 80+% of Tufts opponents this year). I can't comment much on Hobart. Hobart might be an easier 3rd round for Tufts (if they get there) than their 2nd rounch match at Brandeis.

Conn-Bowdoin in the 3rd round would be tough. Conn is 8-1-2 in their 11 games since a loss vs Tufts on 9/21 (with the single loss being... Tufts [again] in the NESCAC final game on 11/9. I think any non-biased observer would say Conn is a very strong team and they've been playing very well for the last 2 months straight. Bowdoin is also playing quite well and fairly consistent in the last 5+ weeks. Since the Bowdoin 9/28 loss at Hamilton (top ~50 NPI) they've gone 6-1-2 including regular season wins over Middlebury, Wesleyan and Amherst, coupled with ties at Williams and vs Tufts, and one loss to Middlebury in the NESCAC quarterfinal. Bowdoin has the NESCAC player of the year in Senior midfield Tyler Huck (2022 rookie of year, 2023 and 2024 NESCAC 1st team) who lead the NESCAC in goals and assist for 27 points total.

I'm not as familiar with the right-half of the bracket but as I said, I think Augsburg and Lynchburg have the 2 easiest paths to the final-4. Augsburg vs Amherst as a potential 3rd round match: Amherst is nothing like what they've been in recent years. Their "scoring margin" is 3rd-worst in NESCAC (9th of 11 teams) and they are 4-5-0 in their last 9 games dating back to late September. They have an abnormally tall team (which I think is common for Amherst) and they commit a lot of fouls (tied with Middlebury at 37 YC for the regular season).

Wesleyan (lower-right quadrant) has been consistent all year. They suffered non-conference early season losses at Babson [0-1] and vs Brandeis [1-2] but Babson is NPI #63 and Brandeis is NPI #26 so they're not terrible losses. Ever since their 9/16 loss to Brandeis they are 7-2-3 with the 2 losses being vs #9 NPI Bowdoin [0-1] and #7 NPI Conn [1-2]. In that stretch they also defeated Middlebury, Amherst, Williams and Amherst and had ties at Tufts [1-1] and vs Conn [1-1]. Aside from scoring 5 goals in their 2 matches hosting Amherst, Wesleyan does not have the offensive firepower of the top-ranked NESCAC teams. They seem to eke-out a lot of low-scoring wins and ties and they only had 1 good opponent (not named Amherst) with 2 goals whereas all their other tough matchups have been 0 or 1 single goal for Wesleyan. That said, I think the Wesleyan's lower-right quadrant is the easiest of all 4 quadrants and Wesleyan's right-half bracket is easier than the left half, so Wesleyan could have the best opportunity of any NESCAC school to reach the final 4.

Emory being ranked #5 is comical to me. They're 1-1-2 vs top-30 NPI teams (only win was in August vs #29 Wash&Lee). After the W&L win, their next best win was at #46 Univ of Rochester. No way is Emory equivalent to #2 in the NESCAC! I would say Emory is behind Tufts, Conn, Bowdoin, Wesleyan, and Midd and they may not even be as good as Williams or Amherst. I imagine the Midwest also has several teams that are better than Emory. Emory appears to lack offense with only 5 GF in their 6 matches against top-50 NPI teams (2-1-3). Emory tied Brandeis 1-1 (Brandeis NPI #26 who Tufts would potentially face in the 2nd round).

Additionally, Lynchburg at #4 is overrated. They have not faced any top-20 NPI teams this year! They only lost 1 game all season but it was their toughest opponent #23 Hampden-Sydney [0-2]. Their best 2 wins were both against #29 Washington & Lee (late regular season away game 2-0 win; ODAC championships hosting W&L 2-1 win). Again using #26 Brandeis as a barometer, it's hard to say that Lynchburg is much better (if at all) since Brandeis actually has a win and 2 ties against top-21 teams (plus 2 losses).

Between Chicago and WashU, if one of them survives the 2nd round I would like either of them over Trinity in the 3rd round. Trinity at 15-1-1 on the season lost (as home team) to their only tough opponent #19 Christopher Newport [2-3] and tied # 73 Berry 1-1 with a loss on PKs in their conference tournament. Trinity's best win for the year was a 2-1 win as home team vs #38 Southwestern. WashU offense looked more potent early in the season but they've managed their best 2 wins of the year within the last 2 weeks at #5 Emory [1-0... again I don't think Emory is truly #5] and hosting #8 Chicago [1-0]. Aside from a weird loss on 9/5, WashU lost 2 other games within the last few weeks: 2-3 at #46 Rochester and 0-1 at #121 NYU. Against top-30 NPI they're 4-0-0 so who knows.

Chicago: they have strong SOS this year with a lot of top-100 opponents including 7 games against top-30 NPI teams in which they are 2-2-3. They also tied #45 Carnegie Mellon and #95 Hope. I'm not really sure who would be the favorite between Chicago and WashU. They met recently at St Louis where WashU won 1-0.

I would love to hear commentary from people familiar with the MN and WI teams on what you think of their current trajectory and overall strengths or weakenesses.

[maineman]

Here are the first round games involving NESCAC teams.  Who and how many do you think will survive the first round game?



11:00 A.M. Brunswick, ME / NCAA First Round
Lyon College (Ark.)

Bowdoin



11:00 A.M. New London, CT / NCAA First Round
University of Saint Joseph

Conn. College


11:00 A.M. Norton, MA / NCAA First Round
Middlebury

SUNY Geneseo


11:00 A.M. Waltham, MA / NCAA First Round
Tufts

Penn State Harrisburg

11:00 A.M. Middletown, CT / NCAA First Round
Lehman College

Wesleyan


1:00 P.M. Scranton, PA / NCAA First Round
La Roche University

Williams



1:30 P.M. Cortland, NY / NCAA First Round
Amherst

Catholic University

[Sandon Mibut]

Who knows what will happen but I'd guess 6-7 teams advance to 2nd round. Seems like Williams and Amherst would have the toughest time:

Williams hasn't been playing great lately (1-4-1 last 6) but La Roche doesn't look particularly impressive. Also Williams recent losses were all against top-15 teams so it's hard to gauge whether they're playing poorly: Wesleyan, Conn, Midd, Conn and a 3-3 tie vs Western Conn State.

Amherst faces an undefeated Catholic team at a neutral site and by NPI Amherst is the under dog. Amherst is 3-4-0 last 7 but the losses were Wesleyan, Tufts, Bowdoin and Wesleyan.

Hopefully the other NESCAC teams advance without too much difficulty.

As a Tufts fan, part of me would like to see Conn fall early but another part of me would love to see Tufts make a run to the Final 4 and it would be sweet if they defeated Conn en route.

[Ejay]

Amherst is 3-4-0 last 7 but the losses were Wesleyan, Tufts, Bowdoin and Wesleyan.

And those three wins are 1 goal games against Trinity, Hamilton and Keene St., and they were outshot in 2 of 3.

[camosfan]

Who knows what will happen but I'd guess 6-7 teams advance to 2nd round. Seems like Williams and Amherst would have the toughest time:

Williams hasn't been playing great lately (1-4-1 last 6) but La Roche doesn't look particularly impressive. Also Williams recent losses were all against top-15 teams so it's hard to gauge whether they're playing poorly: Wesleyan, Conn, Midd, Conn and a 3-3 tie vs Western Conn State.

Amherst faces an undefeated Catholic team at a neutral site and by NPI Amherst is the under dog. Amherst is 3-4-0 last 7 but the losses were Wesleyan, Tufts, Bowdoin and Wesleyan.

Hopefully the other NESCAC teams advance without too much difficulty.

As a Tufts fan, part of me would like to see Conn fall early but another part of me would love to see Tufts make a run to the Final 4 and it would be sweet if they defeated Conn en route.

I don't really want Tufts to face Con again this year, Tufts is playing well, but it is hard to beat another NESCAC team 3 times in a season. 

[Sandon Mibut]

Question as a spectator who has never played soccer at any level: how much does the type of field impact a team's playing style? I only get to watch a handful of games each season (Tufts) so it's basically 100% on the synthetic turf. Yesterday I was able to watch several portions of the Messiah and Calvin games which appeared to be on real grass. All 4 teams yesterday seemed to play very differently than what I've seen in NESCAC.

My take was I saw lots of passing, including shorter passes. Lots of good opportunities to score. But to me it seemed like the passing was possible because the ball actually stops rolling on grass; a well-weighted pass can get past a defender without continuing to roll into the next county. The grass just seemed more forgiving like even an imperfect first-touch wouldn't immediately be 10 feet away so there was time to recover and continue a possession. Whereas on the hard turf the ball bounces with so much energy.

So it seems like NESCAC games have more corners and long passes to the box and goals from unsettled play. While the games yesterday seemed like more attacking the goal head-on with the ball on the ground.

Any thoughts from you experts?

[kevdog]

It depends on the team. Some are consistent and they play their style no matter what. Some like to play that short passing game and play from the back even in bad weather. I saw a little bit of that Messiah/Hobart game yesterday and from what I saw that was not your typical Messiah team you would see in the past of playing from the back, short passing/posession style game that I have watched in previous years. Hobart also plays that style. Some teams might not have the players to do that. There is a saying that let the ball do the work. The ball doesn't sweat.

[camosfan]

The major problem with grass fields at the college level, is inconsistency in quality surfaces you find moving from venue to venue, so that will take some time for the visiting team to figure, speed and bounce.

[Kuiper]

Question as a spectator who has never played soccer at any level: how much does the type of field impact a team's playing style? I only get to watch a handful of games each season (Tufts) so it's basically 100% on the synthetic turf. Yesterday I was able to watch several portions of the Messiah and Calvin games which appeared to be on real grass. All 4 teams yesterday seemed to play very differently than what I've seen in NESCAC.

My take was I saw lots of passing, including shorter passes. Lots of good opportunities to score. But to me it seemed like the passing was possible because the ball actually stops rolling on grass; a well-weighted pass can get past a defender without continuing to roll into the next county. The grass just seemed more forgiving like even an imperfect first-touch wouldn't immediately be 10 feet away so there was time to recover and continue a possession. Whereas on the hard turf the ball bounces with so much energy.

So it seems like NESCAC games have more corners and long passes to the box and goals from unsettled play. While the games yesterday seemed like more attacking the goal head-on with the ball on the ground.

Any thoughts from you experts?

I think traditionally, just like in England, Ireland, and Scotland, the weather and field conditions have almost necessitated the more cynical, conservative, style of play NESCAC has come to be known for over the years.  The players they recruited grew up and learned to play in those conditions, so it was pretty familiar to everyone.  "Kick it to the flag" was a standard strategy.  More recently, with the advent of artificial turf, national recruiting, and the popularity and accessibility of La Liga and other leagues, more possession-based teams have emerged in NESCAC.  Conn College notably falls into that category and I've always viewed it as a little bit of a money ball strategy by Coach Burk as he attempted to bring the program up to a higher standard. 

Currently, I think many coaches are simply too risk averse to try anything different.  If the other teams are playing a low block, then you are susceptible to a counter if you don't as well.  It creates unlovely football and a lot of 1-0 or 0-0 games, but it basically works to get a lot of teams to the tournament. 

On grass v. turf specifically, I think many of the teams using grass know exactly what they are doing in terms of field maintenance to suit their style.  In the modern college game, though, lots of teams have both grass and turf practice options and they alternate depending upon where they are playing next.  So, while the players are all used to playing both, that's mostly to figure out how to adjust to the field, not to change their strategy.

In the Messiah-Hobart/Cortland-Grove City games, those are generally possession-based teams that were being sloppier than usual with placement.  I'm not sure if the field was to blame.  Socal and Southwest teams are the ones that sometimes have trouble adjusting because they play on harder grass fields with a very different short type of grass and they play to adjust to high heat and dry conditions, not cold and wet conditions.  Northwest teams know exactly how to play on wet artificial turf because that describes a lot of their games.

[Ejay]

Question as a spectator who has never played soccer at any level: how much does the type of field impact a team's playing style? I only get to watch a handful of games each season (Tufts) so it's basically 100% on the synthetic turf. Yesterday I was able to watch several portions of the Messiah and Calvin games which appeared to be on real grass. All 4 teams yesterday seemed to play very differently than what I've seen in NESCAC.

My take was I saw lots of passing, including shorter passes. Lots of good opportunities to score. But to me it seemed like the passing was possible because the ball actually stops rolling on grass; a well-weighted pass can get past a defender without continuing to roll into the next county. The grass just seemed more forgiving like even an imperfect first-touch wouldn't immediately be 10 feet away so there was time to recover and continue a possession. Whereas on the hard turf the ball bounces with so much energy.

So it seems like NESCAC games have more corners and long passes to the box and goals from unsettled play. While the games yesterday seemed like more attacking the goal head-on with the ball on the ground.

Any thoughts from you experts?

I know this is a serious question and Kuiper does a nice job answering it, but it feels like a beautiful job of trolling. lol

[paclassic89]

It's 100% trolling.  Dude has been a poster on BigSoccer since the beginning of time.