2026 Conference Tournament and NCAA Selection Thread

[stlawus]

I find it funny how in every other sport at every other level teams with bad records are universally panned for getting tournament bids.  .500 or below teams get in the NCAA D1 basketball tournament to the outcry of everyone (even fans in the same conferences) except their fans and those on the committee, yet when it comes to the NESCAC it's suddenly "this is about the best teams not the teams most deserving".

[Ejay]

Not sure if it's still the case today, but when I was in High School you needed to have a .500 record to qualify for the state tournament (I recognize all states run their tournaments differently). Under .500 at the cutoff date and you were ineligible. I like that and feel the NCAA could benefit from including a minimum win criteria, i.e. 10 wins.

[Gregory Sager]

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.

What outrage? There are a grand total of three of us here talking about this topic, and our beef has gone no further than me saying that I'm not going to shed any tears about the Jumbos having to fly to the midwest if and when Tufts wins its quad. Also, stlawus, who posted after you, has pointed out that numerous NCAA sports have mandated that only teams with winning records can receive at-large bids to postseason tournaments, but that point is only tangential to the larger topic of NESCAC hegemony in D3 men's soccer.

And the three of us who are bandying this about consist of myself (a Chicagoan who supports a Chicago-based team), mngopher (whose name is a dead giveaway that he's a MIAC fan from the Land of 10,000 Lakes), and stlawus (whose name indicates that he's right in your backyard across Lake Champlain). You might want to check a map, because it's kinda hard to generate an "annual west coast outrage" from Chicago, Minnesota, and upstate New York. Oh, wait a minute ... Ron Boerger has checked in as well. But he's a Texan, and, while Texas is many things both good and bad, like Chicago, Minnesota, and upstate NY it is in no way, shape, or form a part of the West Coast.

This isn't about an "annual west coast outrage." This is some guy so eager to climb back on his hobby horse that he both pulled the trigger too early and misread his audience.

[SKUD]

Preach Brother Safer! Amen!

[Kuiper]

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.

What outrage? There are a grand total of three of us here talking about this topic, and our beef has gone no further than me saying that I'm not going to shed any tears about the Jumbos having to fly to the midwest if and when Tufts wins its quad. Also, stlawus, who posted after you, has pointed out that numerous NCAA sports have mandated that only teams with winning records can receive at-large bids to postseason tournaments, but that point is only tangential to the larger topic of NESCAC hegemony in D3 men's soccer.

And the three of us who are bandying this about consist of myself (a Chicagoan who supports a Chicago-based team), mngopher (whose name is a dead giveaway that he's a MIAC fan from the Land of 10,000 Lakes), and stlawus (whose name indicates that he's right in your backyard across Lake Champlain). You might want to check a map, because it's kinda hard to generate an "annual west coast outrage" from Chicago, Minnesota, and upstate New York. Oh, wait a minute ... Ron Boerger has checked in as well. But he's a Texan, and, while Texas is many things both good and bad, like Chicago, Minnesota, and upstate NY it is in no way, shape, or form a part of the West Coast.

This isn't about an "annual west coast outrage." This is some guy so eager to climb back on his hobby horse that he both pulled the trigger too early and misread his audience.

I can assure you no one out here is outraged.  Heck, very few people besides me in the SoCal soccer world know this Board exists, only slightly more have heard of the NESCAC (we have to persuade the kids that they shouldn't ignore interest from Williams and Bowdoin just because they are D3 schools they have never heard of and not local D2 schools like Westmont or Cal State San Marcos), and I can't think of a single D3 men's soccer team that feels hard-done by this year's NCAA tournament selections.   

The one SoCal school that is thinking about the NCAA tournament right now is La Verne, which qualified for the first time in its history.  They are just happy to be going back to Texas for a re-match against Trinity (TX).  Those kids have no idea that there is a Trinity in Connecticut too.       

[Sandon Mibut]

I enjoy looking at the numbers and in spite of being a NESCAC fan I like to think there is a rational way to choose the tournament in a reasonably objective fashion. I've never noticed outrage from others and at the same time I do not think any arbitrary cap on # of teams/conference nor a minimum # of wins would be beneficial to the selection process. The .500 minimum seems reasonable but at the same time I'm not aware of any sub .500 teams that have participated so it's somewhat an irrelevant argument.

D3 college soccer with nearly 400 teams is a fickle sport. I am comfortable with the forthcoming changes to the NPI dials. It does seem like there's an effect with the current NPI math that makes conference NPI ratings converge.

I look forward to seeing the performance of the lower-ranked NESCAC teams in the coming days and I look forward to the performance of future bubble-teams with the NPI changes. If the formula isn't working quite right then (as is about to happen) let's modify the formula rather than create arbitrary rules to achieve altnerative results.

We are talking about extremely fine margins here. I suspect the NPI changes will not move Hamilton or Wesleyan from #6 or 12(?) down to 50 or 60 nor will the Salisbury's jump from 43(?) to 20. It will still be a battle on the bubble and perhaps some different teams will make it. Nearly every team has ties so the 50% to 45% drop will affect everyone. Awesome. One of the interesting aspects, to me, of the NCAA tournament is seeing the diversity of match ups.

Good luck to all!

[Kuiper]

We are talking about extremely fine margins here. I suspect the NPI changes will not move Hamilton or Wesleyan from #6 or 12(?) down to 50 or 60 nor will the Salisbury's jump from 43(?) to 20. It will still be a battle on the bubble and perhaps some different teams will make it. Nearly every team has ties so the 50% to 45% drop will affect everyone. Awesome. One of the interesting aspects, to me, of the NCAA tournament is seeing the diversity of match ups.

Good luck to all!

This isn't the right thread to really dig into the NCAA rule changes for the NPI next year, but it will be interesting to see if the changes to ties will alter the way some teams approach the game tactically.  Playing for ties against stronger teams in the conference may have been the recipe for keeping contention for both the NESCAC and NCAA tournament as long as they win their nonconference games (Bates, for example, may have lost out on an at large bid with its tie against Southern Maine).  If, however, teams start playing more for wins to keep pace, that will create a divergence of outcomes that would naturally reduce the number of teams that could qualify from a single conference.   

[kevdog]

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.

What outrage? There are a grand total of three of us here talking about this topic, and our beef has gone no further than me saying that I'm not going to shed any tears about the Jumbos having to fly to the midwest if and when Tufts wins its quad. Also, stlawus, who posted after you, has pointed out that numerous NCAA sports have mandated that only teams with winning records can receive at-large bids to postseason tournaments, but that point is only tangential to the larger topic of NESCAC hegemony in D3 men's soccer.

And the three of us who are bandying this about consist of myself (a Chicagoan who supports a Chicago-based team), mngopher (whose name is a dead giveaway that he's a MIAC fan from the Land of 10,000 Lakes), and stlawus (whose name indicates that he's right in your backyard across Lake Champlain). You might want to check a map, because it's kinda hard to generate an "annual west coast outrage" from Chicago, Minnesota, and upstate New York. Oh, wait a minute ... Ron Boerger has checked in as well. But he's a Texan, and, while Texas is many things both good and bad, like Chicago, Minnesota, and upstate NY it is in no way, shape, or form a part of the West Coast.

This isn't about an "annual west coast outrage." This is some guy so eager to climb back on his hobby horse that he both pulled the trigger too early and misread his audience.

I can assure you no one out here is outraged.  Heck, very few people besides me in the SoCal soccer world know this Board exists, only slightly more have heard of the NESCAC (we have to persuade the kids that they shouldn't ignore interest from Williams and Bowdoin just because they are D3 schools they have never heard of and not local D2 schools like Westmont or Cal State San Marcos), and I can't think of a single D3 men's soccer team that feels hard-done by this year's NCAA tournament selections.   

The one SoCal school that is thinking about the NCAA tournament right now is La Verne, which qualified for the first time in its history.  They are just happy to be going back to Texas for a re-match against Trinity (TX).  Those kids have no idea that there is a Trinity in Connecticut too.       

That's so true and Greg is right St. Lawrence is not even close to the West Coast. They are closer to Canada than either coast. I understand the argument for both sides but my issue with the selection is that all 8 NESAC teams should not have hosted this weekend games. I understand money is the driving force but teams like Amherst, Hamilton, and Wesalyn should not be hosting. Don't know if there were scheduling conflicts at the other schools or what but other schools were higher ranked up that should have received the bid, imo.

edited by GS for formatting

[MunnyTim]

I suspect that some hosting decisions were made based on who put in bids and the geography - I highly doubt the NCAA wants to do a whole bunch of flights for the first and second rounds.  I am certainly not in the zoom with the committee when hosting decisions are made and do not want to be.  But, I think those two factors have something to do with all 8 NESCAC's hosting.  Plus, there has to be some protection/bias for the top 8 seeds (NPI ranked teams), right?

[mngopher]

If anything my "outrage" is aimed more at the NCAA. It's always frustrated me that generally (there are exceptions) all of the North/Midwest teams get put in the same sectional so there is really only an opportunity for one to get to the final four. I'd like to see them spread out. If that means none make the final 4 then that's fine. Some years that might be the case. Others it might mean 2-3 make it. We don't really know because we rarely get the opportunity to see it.

Last year some of the early matchups and paths to advancement didn't really correlate with what you'd expect to see based on where NPI had teams ranked. The pods for St Olaf, Macalester, and Chicago were significantly tougher (based on NPI) than some counterparts that were not as well ranked. #8 Chicago's first round game was against #39 DePauw. Their pod also included #10 WashU and #27 UWW. Meanwhile #9 Bowdoin got #228 Lyon in the first round with the other teams in their pod being #49 Roger Williams and #58 UMass Boston. Thats quite the disparity.

In saying all of that, I fully understand why it happens. As someone who works in corporate finance I am well aware that at the end of the day the budget is going to be the deciding factor, especially for a non-revenue sport like D3 soccer. I get it, but I don't have to like it. And again, my frustration is with the NCAA, not the NESCAC.

In terms of NPI ranking as a whole I actually agree with the Wesleyan guy that it's impossible to expect a committee to be able to properly sort through 400+ teams based on playing 18-20 games. Having a ranking system do it is the way to go.

In terms of the number of NESCAC teams at the top of the NPI I think two things can be true (and you can count this as NESCAC outrage if you so choose): The NESCAC is far and away the best conference in D3 soccer, but I'm skeptical that the 8th best team in the NESCAC is the 11th best team in the country.

Can't remember who said it, but I do think the whole conversation of "best" vs "most deserving" is an important one, and the two often get conflated. Obviously teams need to be challenging themselves and playing tough opponents, but I think for a little while the D3 selection committees had been losing sight of the idea that winning should be a big factor as well. There were a couple pretty egregious examples from right before NPI was implemented where removing wins and replacing them with losses would have drastically improved a team's resume for the data the committee considers. I think the NPI is an improvement that needs to continue to be tweaked, and I like that there will be an adjustment in the dials for next year.

[NEPAFAN]

Does anyone know if the NCAA games are archived for veiwing after they are completed?