https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39211 (https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39211)
The long awaited NPI ranks are out. At first glance, York at 16 stood out to me as an outlier compared to something like Massey. NESCAC has 5 out of the top 10 teams
Quote from: paclassic89 on October 08, 2024, 03:51:22 PMhttps://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39211 (https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39211)
The long awaited NPI ranks are out. At first glance, York at 16 stood out to me as an outlier compared to something like Massey. NESCAC has 5 out of the top 10 teams
Adrian at 17 is probably the poster child for NPI prioritizing wins -- any wins -- over strength-of-schedule. They are 9-0, but most of their opponents have been really sketchy (e.g., NAIA teams like 1-10-1 Siena Heights, 0-12 Defiance, and 1-7-2 Rochester Christian, and NCCAA teams like 1-7-1 Kuyper). Those non-NCAA opponents don't count for NPI, meaning that they have a 3-0 record against 2-3-2 Wittenberg, 6-4-1 Wooster, and 2-7-1 Earlham. Nice turnaround for Adrian from a 1-13-2 record last season, but it's not like they are suddenly one of the top 17 teams in the country. If that's all it takes, then everyone can schedule non-NCAA cupcakes from the bargain bin at the Dollar Store's bankruptcy liquidation sale and then play a few middling teams. You still need to meet the 10 win minimum for it to matter if you don't have the AQ, but it makes a mockery of the rankings.
Very interesting.
Apologies and I know I should have read the fine print on this earlier, will this order of merit determine seeding? And if you don't get the AQ, but are ranked in the 18 best of the rest (assuming my count of 46 D3 conferences is accurate), will that get you in.
Kuiper, I'm looking at you 😁.
Some of these results are really whacky but I won't put too much stock just yet, as the NPI index for teams 14 through the 130s is separated by 4 points. A lot of movement yet to be had.
Quote from: EnmoreCat on October 08, 2024, 04:33:55 PMApologies and I know I should have read the fine print on this earlier, will this order of merit determine seeding? And if you don't get the AQ, but are ranked in the 18 best of the rest (assuming my count of 46 D3 conferences is accurate), will that get you in.
Kuiper, I'm looking at you 😁.
There are 42 conferences and 22 at-large bids this season.
Clearly I can't count, thanks StLawUS.
Quote from: EnmoreCat on October 08, 2024, 04:33:55 PMApologies and I know I should have read the fine print on this earlier, will this order of merit determine seeding? And if you don't get the AQ, but are ranked in the 18 best of the rest (assuming my count of 46 D3 conferences is accurate), will that get you in.
Kuiper, I'm looking at you 😁.
You mean you didn't pore over every word of every post and linked document/podcast in the NCAA Rule Change on Tournament Selection Criteria (https://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=9562.0) thread I started?! ;)
Seeding is determined by the NPI rankings at season's end. They also approved a 2-year waiver of the 500 mile rule to avoid top seeds facing each other in the early games, so that makes seeding somewhat more important than under the old rules, but they also confirmed that seeding is considered, but still not determinative in who hosts, which theoretically cuts the other way.
As tempting as it was, I was waiting for the Brodie's Notes version. Do appreciate you clarifying.
NPI ranking determines the at large bids into NCAA tournamemt AFTER the ACQ.
NPI for each team will change every week as most current results are factored in.
ACQ over rules NPI Rank then NPI
Quote from: paclassic89 on October 08, 2024, 03:51:22 PMhttps://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39211 (https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39211)
The long awaited NPI ranks are out. At first glance, York at 16 stood out to me as an outlier compared to something like Massey. NESCAC has 5 out of the top 10 teams
Not questioning the data itself, but is this an official NCAA website? There's no (obvious) link to it from ncaa.com and I'd think the RPI rankings would be published openly/directly under "rankings"...?
The NCAA had stated they would appear in several areas on the website under the Rankings ribbon was one of them. I would give it a week or two to see if they add it.
They all mentioned a first posting in mid October so they beat that by a week.
Yeah - I guess I expected it to be a drop-down option on ncaa.com as it is for DI. (Plus the "nitty_gritties" part of the thread threw me...)
According to the 2024-25 NCAA prechampionship manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2024-25D3XSO_PreChampionshipManual.pdf), the first regional rankings isn't due out until October 23rd. Yesterday (October 8) a regional advisory committees training call should have been held, with the first regional mock ranking to be held October 15th followed by a national mock ranking the following day. Given that, it's not surprising that the NCAA website hasn't been updated with a link to this information.
Those interested will also find the dials to be used this season in calculating the men's soccer NPI:
- Winning percentage/SOS: 15%/85% ("SOS" means the average of opponents' NPI)
- Home/Away Win/Loss: 1/1 (meaning you gain no more advantage from a road win than a home win)
- Quality Win Base: 54.0 (meaning a win against an opponent with an NPI > 54 is a "quality win")
- QWB multiplier: .750 (subtract 54 from your opponent's NPI, multiply by .75, the result is your bonus)
- Minimum wins: 10.0
The dials for women's soccer are slightly different; variances are
- WP/SOS: 20/80
- QWB multiplier: .500
- Minimum wins: 8.0
I had a quick re-read of the original NCAA advice and think I know the answer to this, but will check my comprehension. Do post-season conference games get taken into account for the calcs, or do they only provide the AQ and the rankings cut off at regular season end?
Quote from: EnmoreCat on October 09, 2024, 09:32:58 AMI had a quick re-read of the original NCAA advice and think I know the answer to this, but will check my comprehension. Do post-season conference games get taken into account for the calcs, or do they only provide the AQ and the rankings cut off at regular season end?
The final regional ranking, to be relased the same day as the field is announced (Nov 11) will include all games played to that point.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 09, 2024, 06:56:05 PMQuote from: EnmoreCat on October 09, 2024, 09:32:58 AMI had a quick re-read of the original NCAA advice and think I know the answer to this, but will check my comprehension. Do post-season conference games get taken into account for the calcs, or do they only provide the AQ and the rankings cut off at regular season end?
The final regional ranking, to be released the same day as the field is announced (Nov 11) will include all games played to that point.
Agreed, Thats how I read it as well.
Is quality win bonus for the current NPI of the team or the NPI at the end of the season.
p.s. UAA looking shocking according to the rankings, in conference games are usually a bonus but it looks like very few games could generate the QWB.
Quote from: BoardsBoardsBoards on October 10, 2024, 01:31:04 PMIs quality win bonus for the current NPI of the team or the NPI at the end of the season.
I think the answer is that whether a win qualifies for the Quality Win Bonus is determined based on the opponent's NPI as of the Final NPI, which is why what we see in each iteration of the rankings can change pretty significantly and you have to focus not only on your team's results, but your opponent's results (and your opponent's opponent's results) as the season continues.
My source for this is the final language of the administrative regulation (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=107925) implementing NPI, although it would be nice if it was even more explicit than saying it in an example:
Quote(2) Quality Win Bonus. Assign a bonus for a quality win (e.g., a win over an opponent that finished in the top 50 of the final NPI).
Quote from: Kuiper on October 10, 2024, 02:48:27 PMQuote from: BoardsBoardsBoards on October 10, 2024, 01:31:04 PMIs quality win bonus for the current NPI of the team or the NPI at the end of the season.
I think the answer is that whether a win qualifies for the Quality Win Bonus is determined based on the opponent's NPI as of the Final NPI, which is why what we see in each iteration of the rankings can change pretty significantly and you have to focus not only on your team's results, but your opponent's results (and your opponent's opponent's results) as the season continues.
My source for this is the final language of the administrative regulation (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=107925) implementing NPI, although it would be nice if it was even more explicit than saying it in an example:
Quote(2) Quality Win Bonus. Assign a bonus for a quality win (e.g., a win over an opponent that finished in the top 50 of the final NPI).
As per NCAA will be based on end of season NPI
and will change each week up to final week
I'll wait to see how these sort out by the end of the season before passing judgment. The SOS vs win pct still seems ridiculous to me, but again, let's see how it plays out. I'm a big D1 basketball guy, and the first version of their rankings usually has a few outliers.
One thing I am glad to see go is the road/home win diffential. There was a gigantic difference there that is just unfounded for D3. Most (not all - I'm aware there are a small number of places where there may be a significant advantage) road games are not significantly more difficult than home games. It made no sense to give that much of a distinction for it in the regional rankings.
It's not the atmosphere that makes road games hard, it's the travel. It is a huge advantage to roll out of bed, go about your day and prep for the game at a reasonable time versus sitting on a bus for hours and knowing you have hours back home after.
D3 travel, especially out and back games 150+ miles away, is rough, and it definitely makes for an advantage for home teams.
Quote from: jknezek on October 12, 2024, 05:28:36 PMIt's not the atmosphere that makes road games hard, it's the travel. It is a huge advantage to roll out of bed, go about your day and prep for the game at a reasonable time versus sitting on a bus for hours and knowing you have hours back home after.
D3 travel, especially out and back games 150+ miles away, is rough, and it definitely makes for an advantage for home teams.
Getting off a bus after 2-3 hours and getting up for a game is an can be challenging for players
Yeah, the home/away thing is way different back east than it is in the south and west. Teams in the SAA and SCAC (and before it blew up, the ASC, but even them with two schools in west Texas and one in far east Texas) can be several (or more) hundreds of miles apart. When you have to sit on a bus for 5-8 hours each way (or take flights which can take even longer if you have to make connections) the road challenge is way different than what two schools 30 miles apart face.
I don't know enough about the SCIAC or the NWC to weigh in on them.
Quote from: jknezek on October 12, 2024, 05:28:36 PMIt's not the atmosphere that makes road games hard, it's the travel. It is a huge advantage to roll out of bed, go about your day and prep for the game at a reasonable time versus sitting on a bus for hours and knowing you have hours back home after.
D3 travel, especially out and back games 150+ miles away, is rough, and it definitely makes for an advantage for home teams.
Is it common for teams to go 150 miles+ for an average D3 game? I know it may be out west where schools are much more separated. Obviously UAA as well (though I would argue they do that by choice), but other than those two I don't think that is normal. It's not normal for the northern/midwest conferences I am more familiar with - MIAC, UMAC, American Rivers.
In the MIAC for most teams there is one conference game over 150 miles. The other 9 are all generally within 50ish miles. Same generally true with the UMAC and ARC.
I just don't think home vs road matters much. Never felt that way as a player either.
Quote from: mngopher on October 12, 2024, 06:28:50 PMQuote from: jknezek on October 12, 2024, 05:28:36 PMIt's not the atmosphere that makes road games hard, it's the travel. It is a huge advantage to roll out of bed, go about your day and prep for the game at a reasonable time versus sitting on a bus for hours and knowing you have hours back home after.
D3 travel, especially out and back games 150+ miles away, is rough, and it definitely makes for an advantage for home teams.
Is it common for teams to go 150 miles+ for an average D3 game? I know it may be out west where schools are much more separated. Obviously UAA as well (though I would argue they do that by choice), but other than those two I don't think that is normal. It's not normal for the northern/midwest conferences I am more familiar with - MIAC, UMAC, American Rivers.
In the MIAC for most teams there is one conference game over 150 miles. The other 9 are all generally within 50ish miles. Same generally true with the UMAC and ARC.
I just don't think home vs road matters much. Never felt that way as a player either.
Shortest away game travel with no traffic for UMW is two hours to CNU
3+ hours to JHU/Meesiah/Gettysburg
For Salisbury they recently moved to doing an overnight in a hotel to avoid the 3-5 hour ride
Another factor is the traffic that can lead to abbreviated warm ups
Quote from: eaglesoccerdad on October 12, 2024, 06:59:39 PMQuote from: mngopher on October 12, 2024, 06:28:50 PMQuote from: jknezek on October 12, 2024, 05:28:36 PMIt's not the atmosphere that makes road games hard, it's the travel. It is a huge advantage to roll out of bed, go about your day and prep for the game at a reasonable time versus sitting on a bus for hours and knowing you have hours back home after.
D3 travel, especially out and back games 150+ miles away, is rough, and it definitely makes for an advantage for home teams.
Is it common for teams to go 150 miles+ for an average D3 game? I know it may be out west where schools are much more separated. Obviously UAA as well (though I would argue they do that by choice), but other than those two I don't think that is normal. It's not normal for the northern/midwest conferences I am more familiar with - MIAC, UMAC, American Rivers.
In the MIAC for most teams there is one conference game over 150 miles. The other 9 are all generally within 50ish miles. Same generally true with the UMAC and ARC.
I just don't think home vs road matters much. Never felt that way as a player either.
Shortest away game travel with no traffic for UMW is two hours to CNU
3+ hours to JHU/Meesiah/Gettysburg
For Salisbury they recently moved to doing an overnight in a hotel to avoid the 3-5 hour ride
Another factor is the traffic that can lead to abbreviated warm ups
But aren't they another outlier? The C2C conference is a pretty different deal with UC-Santa Cruz in the same conference as schools in Virginia. And with so few conference teams UMW is forced to play a lot of non-conference games, and likely has to be flexible with scheduling those. It seems like a bandaid until those schools can figure out a home.
For a majority of conferences (again, with the exceptions I have mentioned) I don't think there are many schools regularly traveling several hours to play conference games. I'm fine with a small bump for road games, but the 1.2 for away games vs 0.8 for home games was way too big of a difference in my mind.
Essentially it means that playing a 6-6 team on the road vs a 9-3 team at home is the same thing. It's not. Not even close. I guess there is no point in complaining about it now that it is gone, but I'll maintain that it is a good thing.
UMW is not an outlier. Look at the travel for Catholic in the Landmark as another example - DC to Lycoming 3.5 hours, DC to Drew 3.5 hours, DC to Susquehanna 3 hours
W&L to Guilford is 2.5 hours. It's 2 to Shenandoah. 3.5 to VA Wesleyan. 2.25 to RMC. I don't think it's that unusual. Most of the CCS and USASAC is forever. The SAA trips are long. Sure the northeast and Midwest are better, but large parts of D3 are significant trips.
Quote from: mngopher on October 12, 2024, 06:28:50 PMQuote from: jknezek on October 12, 2024, 05:28:36 PMIt's not the atmosphere that makes road games hard, it's the travel. It is a huge advantage to roll out of bed, go about your day and prep for the game at a reasonable time versus sitting on a bus for hours and knowing you have hours back home after.
D3 travel, especially out and back games 150+ miles away, is rough, and it definitely makes for an advantage for home teams.
Is it common for teams to go 150 miles+ for an average D3 game? I know it may be out west where schools are much more separated. Obviously UAA as well (though I would argue they do that by choice), but other than those two I don't think that is normal. It's not normal for the northern/midwest conferences I am more familiar with - MIAC, UMAC, American Rivers.
In the MIAC for most teams there is one conference game over 150 miles. The other 9 are all generally within 50ish miles. Same generally true with the UMAC and ARC.
I just don't think home vs road matters much. Never felt that way as a player either.
In the NESCAC, road trips for Middlebury are 2 hours to Williams, 2.5 to Amherst, 3.5 to Hamilton, Trinity, Wesleyan, Tufts, 4.5 to Conn, 6 plus hours to Bates, Colby, and Bowdoin. Trips to Maine are complicated by the fact that buses cannot navigate the two lane roads through the mountains of NH and VT to get to Maine, so the route goes south and east to reach interstates into Maine.
It's interesting to play around with NPI by conference to get a sense of which conferences are likely 1 bid this year. I don't think it's that far off from what you would expect. NESCAC is looking like it will get its typical 6, maybe 7, but others are perhaps a little more surprising. We obviously won't know the rankings "cutoff" until we see who wins conference AQs. Here are a few (non-NESCAC) examples
Some possible 1-bid conferences this year if the favorite wins the auto-bid
UAA (highest NPI is Rochester at 48 and next is Brandeis at 50)
CCIW (highest is North Park at 19, but next is Illinois Wesleyan at 71)
C2C (UMW is 1, but next closest is Christopher Newport at 61)
MAC Commonwealth (York is 13, but next closest is Messiah at 89)
MAC Freedom (highest NPI are Lebanon Valley at 63 and Stevens at 64)
American Rivers (highest NPI is Luther at 77)
Liberty (Vassar is 14, but next highest is Clarkson at 104)
NEWMAC (Babson at 9, but next highest is Wheaton at 46)
NJAC (Montclair at 16, but next highest is Rowan at 80)
Some possible multi-bid conferences
MIAA (Hope is at 21 and Adrian is at 32)
MIAC (Gustavus Adolphus, Macalester, and St. Olaf are 5, 24, 27)
SCAC (Trinity and Colorado College are 11 and 17)
NCAC (Kenyon, Denison, and Ohio Wesleyan are 12, 23, 25)
OAC (Ohio Northern and Mount Union are 15 and 26, John Carroll is 42)
Centennial (Dickinson, F&M, JHU, and Wash College are 10, 21, 31, 35, and Swat is 43)
SCIAC (Claremont and Redlands are 29 and 33)
ODAC (Could go either way w/ Roanoke, Va Wesleyan, and Lynchburg at 36, 41, 44)
SUNYAC (Buffalo St and Cortland at 22, 34, with Oneonta and Plattsburgh at 45, 47)
WIAA (Eau Claire and Plattesville at 7, 28)
Still too early to put much stock I think, spots 20 through 120 are separated by 3 points.
I have not been paying any attention to this, but where are these NPI rankings of which you speak?
Go to first post in the thread for the link
Quote from: stlawus on October 15, 2024, 03:13:50 PMStill too early to put much stock I think, spots 20 through 120 are separated by 3 points.
Definitely things will change, especially with teams getting a chance for quality win bonuses and enhanced strength of schedule with remaining conference games and in conference tournaments by playing the better teams in their conferences. Nevertheless, if your team is in a conference where the NPI rankings of all or almost all teams are not that great and non-conference games are over, playing those teams more isn't going to help those aspects of the ranking much (although they can help your W-L record). There is a chance, however, someone you beat earlier in the season will do well and raise the quality of your win and SoS, so you have to monitor the NPI of your opponents too.
I posted this more to highlight the new reality that things like USC rankings, regional rankings and equity, etc are out the window and NPI is the only game in town other than winning your conference's automatic bid. So, tracking these weekly (or twice weekly) NPI numbers replaces predictions about whether a committee of humans would pick a 7th team from the NESCAC or take a second team from the Liberty this season.
Quote from: Kuiper on October 15, 2024, 03:58:33 PMQuote from: stlawus on October 15, 2024, 03:13:50 PMStill too early to put much stock I think, spots 20 through 120 are separated by 3 points.
Definitely things will change, especially with teams getting a chance for quality win bonuses and enhanced strength of schedule with remaining conference games and in conference tournaments by playing the better teams in their conferences. Nevertheless, if your team is in a conference where the NPI rankings of all or almost all teams are not that great and non-conference games are over, playing those teams more isn't going to help those aspects of the ranking much (although they can help your W-L record). There is a chance, however, someone you beat earlier in the season will do well and raise the quality of your win and SoS, so you have to monitor the NPI of your opponents too.
I posted this more to highlight the new reality that things like USC rankings, regional rankings and equity, etc are out the window and NPI is the only game in town other than winning your conference's automatic bid. So, tracking these weekly (or twice weekly) NPI numbers replaces predictions about whether a committee of humans would pick a 7th team from the NESCAC or take a second team from the Liberty this season.
USC rankings (and the standard regional rankings they do) usually seem way off anyway so hopefully NPI starts to make sense.
Looks like the NCAA is starting to roll-out the NPI rankings in a public way now
https://x.com/NCAADIII/status/1846627557992456405
I'm cross-posting this from the NESCAC thread.
A poster noted that 5 of the top 10 teams in the latest NPI rankings (and 6 of the top 20 and 7 of the top 25) were from the NESCAC and mentioned that this wasn't surprising given their history of success in the NCAA tournaments. I responded, not so much directly to the comment, but with the following little "ramble" as speculation as to why this was the case:
I agree that it shouldn't shock anyone to see that those are some of the top ranked teams given the NESCAC's history of success, but is it because of past results from the perspective of the formula inputs? I could be wrong, but I don't think it's like Massey where a few years past results are included as a part of the algorithm to a declining degree.
I suspect that because NESCAC teams simply don't schedule a lot of non-conference opponents, but they tend to beat most of them, and they schedule just enough good non-conference opponents (e.g., Babson, Cortland, Oneonta), that most of their teams are pretty highly ranked early on. Because they start conference play long before most other conferences, that means that in these first few NPI rankings, they have great SoS from playing each other and great Quality Win Bonuses because so many of their teams start in the top 50.
For example, Hamilton is #24 in NPI despite having a record of 5-4-3, which is probably the worst record among the top 50 teams. I think you have to go to Christopher Newport at #61 to find a team with a % record barely over .500. Hamilton also has only 1 win in the NESCAC, but that win against Williams is huge because Williams is #6 after beating Amherst and Cortland. Plus, Hamilton's loss against Oswego State isn't horrible since they are #79 and they have tied Bowdoin, which is #40 and Conn College, which is #8 (and has a tie against #3 Tufts, which gets them half a QWB I think) and Oneonta, which is #45.
The key is that most NESCAC teams start out winning early, with a few of them beating high NPI teams, and they quickly play each other. Winning early matters a lot for these early rankings, and then SoS and QWB take over soon after. It's why Adrian was #18 in the first NPI ranking on 10/6 - they were undefeated even though they had played an exclusively marshmallow-soft schedule. They dropped to #32 in the 10/13 ranking because they tied Olivet and Albion, and beat Kalamazoo. Not horrible results for them, but they weren't playing teams that had started winning early (or teams that had started playing teams that won early). You can't stay high, even if you are still winning or tying, if your opponents remain low SoS teams and you get no QWB points.
The men's soccer committee has given so much weight to QWB (more than any other sport as I recall), that it actually reinforced the strong conference advantage, at least early on. Those advantages will lessen as teams stop winning. So, Hamilton might not suffer too badly if it loses to Amherst, but Utica and Trinity will drag down its SoS (since they won't have the 10 wins to drop any "bad wins") and won't provide any QWB, making it more important that they qualify for the NESCAC tournament and get some more points there.
There are probably some lessons here for non-conference scheduling from a league, not just team, perspective, but I would like to see more results to get a better sense of how things shakeout. I wonder if something like the old BIG10-ACC basketball scheduling agreements will pop up to allow leagues to ensure that their teams will have enough high SoS to schedule cupcakes the rest of their non-conference games and maximize their high NPI teams.
QuotePlus, Hamilton's loss against Oswego State isn't horrible since they are #79 and they have tied Bowdoin, which is #40 and Conn College, which is #8 (and has a tie against #3 Tufts, which gets them half a QWB I think) and Oneonta, which is #45.
Are you saying Hamilton tied Tufts or they tied Con, who tied Tufts?
No. He is saying Hamilton tied Conn, who then tied Tufts.
Quote from: camosfan on October 18, 2024, 03:51:19 PMQuotePlus, Hamilton's loss against Oswego State isn't horrible since they are #79 and they have tied Bowdoin, which is #40 and Conn College, which is #8 (and has a tie against #3 Tufts, which gets them half a QWB I think) and Oneonta, which is #45.
Are you saying Hamilton tied Tufts or they tied Con, who tied Tufts?
The latter. It was an awkward and convoluted way of saying that part of Hamilton's high ranking is that it tied a team (Conn) that tied a team that is ranked #3 (Tufts). That is how league play can really supercharge the collective ranking of the teams in the league if the league has a lot of highly-ranked teams or drag it down if a league has mostly lower-ranked teams.
updated NPI just came out. Tufts up to #1 over UMW based off the win over Amherst. But no ill effects for Amherst - i guess that is a "quality" loss. Middlebury down to 3rd. Colorado College, Denison, UW-Platteville & JHU all making moves up. York, Montclair, ONU, Vassar, F&M and Buff State moving down.
Ties at the top of NESCAC definitely help.
Despite not playing in the last week the QWB for UMW went up which is probably based on the moves by CC and JHU in the rankings.
To Kuiper's point - Bowdoin moved up 6 spots with a tie to Wesleyan
There are a lot of teams in the top 50 that do not have a minimum of 10 wins. What does that mean if they do not ultimately get the 10 wins? Do these teams become ineligible for the tournament? Apologies if this is answered earlier in the thread.
Here's a link to the NPI rankings through 10/20
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39652?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit
Tufts jumping above Mary Washington is an example of how NPI differs from human rankings. My guess is UMW does not drop in the USC poll in a week where it wins both games to remain undefeated, especially when one of the wins is against Christopher Newport and Tufts ties Middlebury at home (NPI doesn't distinguish between home and away games).
My guess is that York drops a bit more than from 13 to 18 in a human ranking system in a week when it loses to Messiah 4-0, in part because of the perception that York's performance was a mirage (and, in fact, the USC voters already must have concluded that because York wasn't even ranked or RV last week in the USC national rankings even though York was ranked ahead of RV Johns Hopkins in the regional rankings).
From a NESCAC perspective, Wesleyan ties Bowdoin and Williams and drops very little (from 18 to 20). The problem is that it plays Eastern Connecticut State next and then has Colby and Conn College. Eastern Connecticut State is ranked #306 and Wesleyan likely won't be able to drop them if they win because they are far away from 10 wins. I'm not positive how the NESCAC tournament factors into the win count, but they would need to get to the finals with straight wins - not PKs - to get to 10 wins anyway and if they do that they would have beaten so many top teams that the ECSU ranking wouldn't matter. Conn College (#8) will help them a lot, but Colby (#93) likely won't. So, it's possible Wesleyan could go from #20 to out of the picture even if they win 2 of their last three if they don't also win outright (not PKs) the first game in the NESCAC tournament.
Edgewood is probably the most interesting case. It's ranked #35 with a 13-1-2 record. It doesn't have anything that really looks like a signature win. It has only played 1 team above it (Eau-Claire) and lost. It has won a lot of games, but every additional conference game in the NACC is dragging down its SoS and it can only drop a few of those "bad wins." Its remaining regular season games against Ripon, Concordia Chicago, Marian, and St. Norbert are going to hurt Edgewood and there's no one coming up in the conference tournament that is likely to help them given that they are all over 100 and most over 150/200 in the rankings. I think they should still make it if they win out and lose in the conference tournament final, but I'm not sure. Perhaps that's no different than in the old system though.
Quote from: wihsuafs24 on October 21, 2024, 12:31:24 PMThere are a lot of teams in the top 50 that do not have a minimum of 10 wins. What does that mean if they do not ultimately get the 10 wins? Do these teams become ineligible for the tournament? Apologies if this is answered earlier in the thread.
No. My understanding is that the 10 win minimum is to be eligible to drop "bad wins" for SoS purposes (you can't drop losses regardless), not to qualify for the tournament itself. If you scheduled all of your games against the worst teams in DIII, but one game against a good team, you could theoretically drop all the games except that one "good win" and go in as an undefeated team with a good SoS. This requires you to get to 10 wins before you start dropping anything else.
This is what Coach Bianco of Denison tweeted about this in a thread earlier this year
https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1799429004522397850
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.
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
Quote from: Kuiper on October 21, 2024, 01:03:50 PMQuote from: wihsuafs24 on October 21, 2024, 12:31:24 PMThere are a lot of teams in the top 50 that do not have a minimum of 10 wins. What does that mean if they do not ultimately get the 10 wins? Do these teams become ineligible for the tournament? Apologies if this is answered earlier in the thread.
No. My understanding is that the 10 win minimum is to be eligible to drop "bad wins" for SoS purposes (you can't drop losses regardless), not to qualify for the tournament itself. If you scheduled all of your games against the worst teams in DIII, but one game against a good team, you could theoretically drop all the games except that one "good win" and go in as an undefeated team with a good SoS. This requires you to get to 10 wins before you start dropping anything else.
This is what Coach Bianco of Denison tweeted about this in a thread earlier this year
https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1799429004522397850
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.
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
Thanks for clarifying. Who decides which games to drop? I would think everyone would just drop what they could to achieve the best SoS (or the algorithm would optimize somehow)...?
Quote from: wihsuafs24 on October 21, 2024, 01:54:15 PMQuote from: Kuiper on October 21, 2024, 01:03:50 PMQuote from: wihsuafs24 on October 21, 2024, 12:31:24 PMThere are a lot of teams in the top 50 that do not have a minimum of 10 wins. What does that mean if they do not ultimately get the 10 wins? Do these teams become ineligible for the tournament? Apologies if this is answered earlier in the thread.
No. My understanding is that the 10 win minimum is to be eligible to drop "bad wins" for SoS purposes (you can't drop losses regardless), not to qualify for the tournament itself. If you scheduled all of your games against the worst teams in DIII, but one game against a good team, you could theoretically drop all the games except that one "good win" and go in as an undefeated team with a good SoS. This requires you to get to 10 wins before you start dropping anything else.
This is what Coach Bianco of Denison tweeted about this in a thread earlier this year
https://x.com/BMBianco/status/1799429004522397850
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.
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
Thanks for clarifying. Who decides which games to drop? I would think everyone would just drop what they could to achieve the best SoS (or the algorithm would optimize somehow)...?
I'm sure the algorithm just does it automatically to maximize a team's ranking. It's not like the win is dropped for any purpose other than NPI, which is only used for selecting teams for Pool C bids to the NCAA tournament.
Presumably the bad win exclusion is the reason for the new Adjusted Win Loss column which I don't think appeared before. In this column it appears some teams are already being capped at the 10 win mark (MWU for example.)
Quote from: Kuiper on October 21, 2024, 12:33:31 PMHere's a link to the NPI rankings through 10/20
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39652?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit
Tufts jumping above Mary Washington is an example of how NPI differs from human rankings. My guess is UMW does not drop in the USC poll in a week where it wins both games to remain undefeated, especially when one of the wins is against Christopher Newport and Tufts ties Middlebury at home (NPI doesn't distinguish between home and away games).
I disagree, mainly because I think that with both being undefeated but Tufts having probably(at least in the NCAA algorithim's eye) the best win in 2024 on the road at #4 and still being undefeated, they would probably go to #1
Quote from: rdanie03 on October 21, 2024, 05:30:47 PMQuote from: Kuiper on October 21, 2024, 12:33:31 PMHere's a link to the NPI rankings through 10/20
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39652?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit
Tufts jumping above Mary Washington is an example of how NPI differs from human rankings. My guess is UMW does not drop in the USC poll in a week where it wins both games to remain undefeated, especially when one of the wins is against Christopher Newport and Tufts ties Middlebury at home (NPI doesn't distinguish between home and away games).
I disagree, mainly because I think that with both being undefeated but Tufts having probably(at least in the NCAA algorithim's eye) the best win in 2024 on the road at #4 and still being undefeated, they would probably go to #1
You may be right, but I was comparing the NPI decision to make that change with what might happen under the human rankings. We know that the NPI doesn't take Tufts away win into account because the men's soccer committee chose to leave that Home v. Away "dial" set at 0/0. but we have no knowledge of what the coaches think about home versus away. My speculation was based on the notion that I haven't seen the coaches bump down a #1 team that continued to win for a team that had a win and a tie. I tend to think there is an anchoring bias in favor of keeping a team in that spot if it didn't do anything to lose it. Could be wrong, though, but that was the reason to go to NPI - it theoretically reduces the guesswork/predictions or at least it makes it clear the factors it considers.
One factor that a human committee might consider in elevating Tufts over UMW that the NPI would not consider is goal difference in a game. A ranking committee might think UMW's 1-0 win over Stevenson on a goal in the 89th minute was "too close" for a #1 team against a 3-4-4 Stevenson team even though UMW outshot Stevenson 33-4. For the NPI, however, UMW's SoS drops playing Stevenson (NPI #214 last week) whether it beat them 1-0 or 100-0.
That was really my only point. NPI makes that move because of SoS - since that matters even more than wins versus ties in this instance. A human committee (or group of voters) could consider a bunch of factors that we might agree are relevant, but the NPI can't deviate from its algorithm.
Incidentally, it's useful to remember that the NPI shifts are typically momentary when you look at the rankings week-by-week. For example, Tufts will be hurt next week by playing Husson (NPI #182) regardless of whether it crushes Husson or squeaks by them on an own goal in the 90th minute simply because it will drag down its SoS (although they will most likely be dropped at season's end and the same would happen for Stevenson for UMW). UMW also plays a lower-ranked team next week, but N.C. Wesleyan is ranked #58 in the current NPI, so that isn't quite as big a hit. And, of course, they can both be helped or hurt by how their prior opponents do because SoS and QWB are both ultimately determined at the end of the season, not by these interim numbers.
Because Tufts has reached the minimum wins dial they will not see their NPI lowered because of a win over Husson. If adding that game in would lower their NPI it would be dropped immediately.
Perhaps a helpful way to think of it is up until the minimum wins dial, NPI treats every game as "need more information". Once that is reached (which it is in the case of Tufts), NPI says "you are this score and if beating a team you should beat would lower your score it will not count against you".
On the NCAA NPI report you'll notice two important columns: Win Value and Loss Value. These show the game npi score a team would get for beating or losing to that team in the current iteration of NPI. So, in this NPI report, every team who has beaten Husson has a game NPI of 57.538 factoring into their overall NPI. This would obviously lower Tufts' NPI, which currently sits at 61.778, and so it immediately falls below the cutline for games that get factored in because they have met the minimum wins dial.
If Tufts does drop after beating Husson it will be because of the overall shift of the entire interconnected national picture - not directly because they played Husson.
[UPDATE: Actually, this may not be totally correct. It's possible it would count, but in a way that bumps out another of their games that is currently counted. Just quick glancing at who they have played there are opponents who rank below Husson. If any of them are currently counting, beating Husson may lead to a direct increase in Tufts' NPI because beating Husson is better than, say, beating Trinity (CT)]
Quote from: ziggy on October 28, 2024, 10:36:25 AMBecause Tufts has reached the minimum wins dial they will not see their NPI lowered because of a win over Husson. If adding that game in would lower their NPI it would be dropped immediately.
Perhaps a helpful way to think of it is up until the minimum wins dial, NPI treats every game as "need more information". Once that is reached (which it is in the case of Tufts), NPI says "you are this score and if beating a team you should beat would lower your score it will not count against you".
On the NCAA NPI report you'll notice two important columns: Win Value and Loss Value. These show the game npi score a team would get for beating or losing to that team in the current iteration of NPI. So, in this NPI report, every team who has beaten Husson has a game NPI of 57.538 factoring into their overall NPI. This would obviously lower Tufts' NPI, which currently sits at 61.778, and so it immediately falls below the cutline for games that get factored in because they have met the minimum wins dial.
If Tufts does drop after beating Husson it will be because of the overall shift of the entire interconnected national picture - not directly because they played Husson.
[UPDATE: Actually, this may not be totally correct. It's possible it would count, but in a way that bumps out another of their games that is currently counted. Just quick glancing at who they have played there are opponents who rank below Husson. If any of them are currently counting, beating Husson may lead to a direct increase in Tufts' NPI because beating Husson is better than, say, beating Trinity (CT)]
Yes. That's correct that it wouldn't affect this week's rankings. You'll notice I mentioned that (although not in the detail you went into) in the parenthetical I added after the statement you focus on
Quote(although they will most likely be dropped at season's end and the same would happen for Stevenson for UMW)
It's really a season's end determination of whether a particular team's game will be dropped or kept in the 10 that are used for tournament selection beyond auto bids, so we can't say a week ago, when I posted that comment, which 10 games will "count" in the final ranking that matters other than to say the highest NPI wins will count. The more "bad wins" you have, though, the more likely you will have to include a bad win in your 10, which would lower your overall NPI. That's really the effect of playing Husson, rather than a better non-conference opponent. The Men's Soccer Committee presumably selected a 10 win standard to incentivize teams to schedule stronger non-conference opponents.
Mary Washington jumps back above Tufts in this week's rankings (which, as mentioned above, is just for fun because of weekly fluctuations)
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39798?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit
Among the top 15, Williams drops a couple of spots from 6 to 8, Kenyon rises from 12 to 9, Babson drops from 9 to 12, Trinity TX rises from 15 to 13 (after tying Colorado College), North Park drops from 13 to 14, and Johns Hopkins rises from 17 to 15.
There's naturally more volatility the lower you go in the rankings. A few big risers are Lynchburg, from 43 to 25, and Redlands from 37 to 24.
Other big moves
W&L up from 62 to 42
Montclair drops 21 to 37
Messiah 70 to 50
CMS 23 to 33
John Carroll 40 to 28
Macalester 41 to 29
OWU 30 to 19
So ties are being included in the 10 win threshold then, in terms of being 0.5 wins for each contest? I'm assuming that's what the adjusted win/loss column indicates.
As everyone else said, these rankings are predictably volatile given such small sample sizes. Vassar drops from 24 to 43 and SLU goes from 104 to 74.
It is funny to see teams win two games in a week and drop because the quality of opponent.
Quote from: SKUD on October 28, 2024, 05:59:38 PMIt is funny to see teams win two games in a week and drop because the quality of opponent.
Heck, North Park went on the road and beat a team with a winning record (North Central), and yet the Vikings still dropped a spot in the national NPI ranking. Of course, NPU remained atop the regional NPI ranking, which is the ranking of primary importance.
Quote from: stlawus on October 28, 2024, 05:56:28 PMSo ties are being included in the 10 win threshold then, in terms of being 0.5 wins for each contest? I'm assuming that's what the adjusted win/loss column indicates.
As everyone else said, these rankings are predictably volatile given such small sample sizes. Vassar drops from 24 to 43 and SLU goes from 104 to 74.
Yes. Ties are considered half a win and half a loss for purposes of the Adj/W-L column.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 28, 2024, 06:19:40 PMQuote from: SKUD on October 28, 2024, 05:59:38 PMIt is funny to see teams win two games in a week and drop because the quality of opponent.
Heck, North Park went on the road and beat a team with a winning record (North Central), and yet the Vikings still dropped a spot in the national NPI ranking. Of course, NPU remained atop the regional NPI ranking, which is the ranking of primary importance.
Is it? I thought the regional rankings are irrelevant now, with the selection of Pool C bids strictly based upon numerical order of NPI scores after the AQs are removed. Perhaps I missed something though.
Quote from: Kuiper on October 28, 2024, 06:24:50 PMQuote from: Gregory Sager on October 28, 2024, 06:19:40 PMQuote from: SKUD on October 28, 2024, 05:59:38 PMIt is funny to see teams win two games in a week and drop because the quality of opponent.
Heck, North Park went on the road and beat a team with a winning record (North Central), and yet the Vikings still dropped a spot in the national NPI ranking. Of course, NPU remained atop the regional NPI ranking, which is the ranking of primary importance.
Is it? I thought the regional rankings are irrelevant now, with the selection of Pool C bids strictly based upon numerical order of NPI scores after the AQs are removed. Perhaps I missed something though.
That's imprecise wording on my part. Sorry about that. I was speaking strictly of NPU, which is in good shape for a Pool C if needed at #14, just as it was at #13. The "primary importance" to which I referred concerns hosting privileges for the first weekend, which is a pretty big topic for discussion in the North Park athletic department right now (in part because it would greatly affect departmental scheduling and resources in light of the start of men's and women's basketball seasons).
I've loved every chance I've had over the past decade to call D3 tournament soccer games, and I'm eager to get another opportunity to do it.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 28, 2024, 06:19:40 PMQuote from: SKUD on October 28, 2024, 05:59:38 PMIt is funny to see teams win two games in a week and drop because the quality of opponent.
Heck, North Park went on the road and beat a team with a winning record (North Central), and yet the Vikings still dropped a spot in the national NPI ranking. Of course, NPU remained atop the regional NPI ranking, which is the ranking of primary importance.
Home win vs. Away win doesn't matter to NPI. In real life, it's a major factor in matches. The push by schools to get home games for next year with these factors in NPI will be massive.
New NPI is out - NPI (switch to games after 10/27) (https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39798?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit)
Here's a list of who would be in for at-large if EVERY conference bid went to highest ranked team which won't happen. Right now the bubble team is #41 Muhlenberg.
Washington and Lee, Oglethorpe, and Messiah would not get an at-large bid if they don't win the conference tourney according to today's rankings. More changes to come in future weeks, but fun to consider if it was today.
Largest NPI jump from last week...Emory up to 72 after sitting at 130 last week, two wins helps it seems.
NESCAC with 7 bids and up to 5 hosts. Wow, had 8 last week but Bowdoin dropped to 44.
NPI as of 10/27 - if you see a conference name, that's the highest ranked team in that conference. Numbers are the total number of at-large bids used in that section before a new conference shows up. These are the conferences that the lower at-large teams need the highest team to win.
C2C
Nescac
2
WIAC
MIAC
4
NCAC
SCAC
Centennial
NEWMAC
5
CCIW
6
MIAA
10
SUNYAC
OAC
11
SCIAC
ODAC
Mac Commonwealth
18
CCS
NACC
19 - Washington College #36
NJAC
20 - Rowan #38
21 - Hamilton #39
SAA
22 - Muhlenberg #41
Quote from: kansas hokie on October 29, 2024, 10:52:15 AMHome win vs. Away win doesn't matter to NPI. In real life, it's a major factor in matches. The push by schools to get home games for next year with these factors in NPI will be massive.
This is a specific choice by the sport committees when they set the dials, not something inherent to NPI. The various sport committees were pretty split on whether or not to apply any home/away weighting. Each sport has its own document listing their dial settings and rationales so we can get some insight into the thinking behind the decisions.
Men's soccer committee: "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."
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/men/2023-24D3MSO_NPI.pdf
Women's soccer committee: "The committee does not feel that either should be weighted differently, especially since that was never part of the discussion in the past."
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/women/2024-25D3WSO_PowerIndexReport.pdf
There's also a very good chance that Bowdoin would move to an AQ spot if they can knock off Tufts in the NESCAC QF, which could put the NESCAC at 8.
Very big if on them being able to knock off Tufts at Bello. They have 0 quality wins so far this season
The NPI wizards posted an update on 10/30. Maybe they will do twice-a-week updates now until the final one.
Some (kind of) significant movers in the top 40:
Wesleyan (CT) up to 16 from 27 on 10/27. Bowdoin up to 33 from 44 on 10/27. W&L up to 35 from 42 on 10/27.
Hope down to 22 from 16 on 10/27. Buff St down to 27 from 21 on 10/27.
I guess we got confirmation that UMW v UVA doesn't count for NPI purposes
Quote from: eaglesoccerdad on October 31, 2024, 10:59:03 AMI guess we got confirmation that UMW v UVA doesn't count for NPI purposes
Correct. They only count NCAA D3 games (no DI, DII, NAIA, NCCAA, NJCAA etc games). For example, Redlands, which has played 16 games, including a loss in the season opener to DII Cal Poly Pomona, is only counted as having played 15 games for NPI purposes.
As far as the QWB is concerned, it appears that a quality tie is just as good as a quality win. Am I reading that incorrectly?
Quote from: DH on October 31, 2024, 12:16:24 PMAs far as the QWB is concerned, it appears that a quality tie is just as good as a quality win. Am I reading that incorrectly?
Half as good, since a tie only counts as half a QWB
So, the fact that W&L beat Va Wesleyan, Oglethorp and Chris Newport, all of whom have much higher NPI rankings, should help W&L? Or are they irrelevant?
Quote from: Another Mom on October 31, 2024, 01:00:37 PMSo, the fact that W&L beat Va Wesleyan, Oglethorp and Chris Newport, all of whom have much higher NPI rankings, should help W&L? Or are they irrelevant?
I looked at the 10/30 NPI and it lists W&L as 0-2-1 in vAbove. I'm not sure when that is calculated. At the time of the game or at the time of the NPI release? It doesn't make sense for either as far as I can tell. For the 10/30 release, only Lynchburg and Covenant are opponents listed above, and W&L should be 1-1 against them. At the time of the game, I'm not sure how to proof it all, but W&L should still have the win over Lynchburg as that game was 10/19 and the 10/20 ratings show Lynchburg at 43, W&L at 62, so I'm a bit confused.
Regardless, vAbove ties into QWB (quality win bonus).
Quote from: jknezek on October 31, 2024, 01:10:21 PMQuote from: Another Mom on October 31, 2024, 01:00:37 PMSo, the fact that W&L beat Va Wesleyan, Oglethorp and Chris Newport, all of whom have much higher NPI rankings, should help W&L? Or are they irrelevant?
I looked at the 10/30 NPI and it lists W&L as 0-2-1 in vAbove. I'm not sure when that is calculated. At the time of the game or at the time of the NPI release? It doesn't make sense for either as far as I can tell. For the 10/30 release, only Lynchburg and Covenant are opponents listed above, and W&L should be 1-1 against them. At the time of the game, I'm not sure how to proof it all, but W&L should still have the win over Lynchburg as that game was 10/19 and the 10/20 ratings show Lynchburg at 43, W&L at 62, so I'm a bit confused.
Regardless, vAbove ties into QWB (quality win bonus).
I'm a little confused as to what vAbove & vBelow shows. Could anyone give a brief explanation?
Quote from: nunezfan27 on October 31, 2024, 01:19:27 PMI'm a little confused as to what vAbove & vBelow shows. Could anyone give a brief explanation?
vAbove is wins over teams above you in NPI, vBelow is wins over teams below you in NPI. The question I have is when is the team above or below. When the game is played, or when each NPI is calculated.
a guess, above are teams ranked higher than you and below the opposite!
Um, I was looking at the wrong week . . .
Quote from: jknezek on October 31, 2024, 01:21:34 PMQuote from: nunezfan27 on October 31, 2024, 01:19:27 PMI'm a little confused as to what vAbove & vBelow shows. Could anyone give a brief explanation?
vAbove is wins over teams above you in NPI, vBelow is wins over teams below you in NPI. The question I have is when is the team above or below. When the game is played, or when each NPI is calculated.
Looks to me that it's based on when the NPI is calculated.
Quote from: paclassic89 on October 30, 2024, 02:43:17 PMVery big if on them being able to knock off Tufts at Bello. They have 0 quality wins so far this season
They almost did it Tuesday! That was a tight game and a lot of goals!
Quote from: jknezek on October 31, 2024, 01:21:34 PMQuote from: nunezfan27 on October 31, 2024, 01:19:27 PMI'm a little confused as to what vAbove & vBelow shows. Could anyone give a brief explanation?
vAbove is wins over teams above you in NPI, vBelow is wins over teams below you in NPI. The question I have is when is the team above or below. When the game is played, or when each NPI is calculated.
This would be after each NPI is calculated.
NPI updated thru 10/30 matches
Stupid question probably, but do conference playoff games count towards NPI? If not and considering that some still played reg. season games this weekend, will this week's NPI be the last?
Thanks from a confused person.
Yes, all games factor into NPI as the final selections are made after conference tournaments conclude.
New NPI out
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39955?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit
what will the cutoff be for the at large bids be in the NPI? Somewhere in the 30's?
Quote from: kansas hokie on October 30, 2024, 12:39:25 AMNew NPI is out - NPI (switch to games after 10/27) (https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/39798?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit)
Here's a list of who would be in for at-large if EVERY conference bid went to highest ranked team which won't happen. Right now the bubble team is #41 Muhlenberg.
Washington and Lee, Oglethorpe, and Messiah would not get an at-large bid if they don't win the conference tourney according to today's rankings. More changes to come in future weeks, but fun to consider if it was today.
Largest NPI jump from last week...Emory up to 72 after sitting at 130 last week, two wins helps it seems.
NESCAC with 7 bids and up to 5 hosts. Wow, had 8 last week but Bowdoin dropped to 44.
NPI as of 10/27 - if you see a conference name, that's the highest ranked team in that conference. Numbers are the total number of at-large bids used in that section before a new conference shows up. These are the conferences that the lower at-large teams need the highest team to win.
I posted this in the summer, but it bears repeating as teams consider whether they will host.
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.
Translation: Where top schools are densely grouped, the geographic proximity rule has required top seeded teams to play each other early on, which makes for groups of death and easier groups. This waiver means that schools in the NESCAC or NCAC, for instance, may be shifted more than 500 miles outside of their region because there are too many top seeded teams under the NPI from those conferences. That may help those teams by playing weaker teams, but it may hurt if they have to travel farther (especially if they have to play in different time zones) with different refs/conditions/etc. So, I could see fewer hosts from NESCAC, especially since they have the most top seeds, rather than more, to avoid top seeds playing each other.
It probably depends upon what they mean by "top seeds" playing each other. if it's just the top couple of seeds, this will only affect a few teams. If it's the top 10-15 seeds or more, it would have more disruptive effects.
I put together a hypothetical bracket (with no adjustments) using today's NPI, will be easy to update as NPI changes. Let me know how to make it better. Thanks!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Looks like back to 8 teams for NESCAC. 16 hosts overall - hard to imagine NESCAC getting more than 2 host locations the first weekend. Maybe Montclair/Dickinson, JHU, UMW, Gustavus, Kenyon, Colorado/Trinity as others
Quote from: Kuiper on November 04, 2024, 11:13:40 AMI posted this in the summer, but it bears repeating as teams consider whether they will host.
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.
Translation: Where top schools are densely grouped, the geographic proximity rule has required top seeded teams to play each other early on, which makes for groups of death and easier groups. This waiver means that schools in the NESCAC or NCAC, for instance, may be shifted more than 500 miles outside of their region because there are too many top seeded teams under the NPI from those conferences. That may help those teams by playing weaker teams, but it may hurt if they have to travel farther (especially if they have to play in different time zones) with different refs/conditions/etc. So, I could see fewer hosts from NESCAC, especially since they have the most top seeds, rather than more, to avoid top seeds playing each other.
It probably depends upon what they mean by "top seeds" playing each other. if it's just the top couple of seeds, this will only affect a few teams. If it's the top 10-15 seeds or more, it would have more disruptive effects.
The way this will work in practice is the bracket will be constructed with NPI ranks 1-4 designated as "one seeds" and NPI ranks 5-8 as "two seeds" such that none of the top eight seeds will have any possibility of facing each other until the quarterfinals. None of the top four could meet earlier than the national semifinals.
Geography will still play somewhat of a role in the Top 8 picture in that the 8 seed will not automatically get paired with the one seed, the seven with the two, and so on.
These bracketing principles are in effect for this season and next across Division III as sort of a pilot then will be assessed from there.
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 04, 2024, 11:27:31 AMI put together a hypothetical bracket (with no adjustments) using today's NPI, will be easy to update as NPI changes. Let me know how to make it better. Thanks!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
I can no longer find the TES calculator online for mileage, but it's not something you can ignore. They may have expanded the distance to 500 miles, but they are going to hold to it and avoid as many flights as possible in the first round. You seem to have tried to put one flight team in each first round pod, and that has 0% chance of happening. Va Wesleyan would not go to Middlebury when they can drive to at least a dozen other teams.
If you are looking at Mount Aloysius as the host team for that pod, that is equally unlikely. The tournament's #1 overall seed is going to host, unless it is the women's turn to host the first round. And even at that, the top overall seed would be unlikely to get a 498 mile trip when the options to keep them closer to home are innumerable.
For example, it would not surprise me at all for Emory to host a pod with Emory, Covenant, and Rhodes. All are drivable, Lynchburg would be the top seed but not host due to problems with Rhodes distance, and Emory and Covenant have few other options for teams within 500 miles. Or you could sub in W&L and let Lynchburg host a pod that includes a team like NC Wes and a few others from Ohio or PA. Lynchburg becomes the host because NC Wes is a drag to other areas.
Mock brackets are fun, but they do still need to be grounded in reality. If the tournament can reasonably avoid flights, they will do so. If the higher seeds can reasonably host, they will do so. There are 16 first round pods, maybe by the 5rd or 6th you start getting to a point where the top seed can't host do to geography, but it's probably deeper than that most years. At that point, they will push the hosts to the most geographically advantageous. But it's usually not the lowest seed in the pod in the first round.
I know that Middlebury is looking like the top seed but it seems like it would make sense to use another host location since they are pretty far removed from any other school
Thank you for all of this, I am aware of most of it but was just doing the first step of placing teams by NPI. I thought I had heard that they were loosening the 500 mile restriction with the advent of NPI but I may be wrong. You can see in the sheet the second tab which may be more helpful to everyone to see where teams can move up and down to make travel right, avoid conference conflicts, etc.. It also helps to see which conference tournaments could truly steal a bid (it's not that many).
This isn't my projection, just an exercise to start conversation and help everyone see how NPI makes the foundation that yes, will be manipulated to lower costs, conflicts, and travel. Thank you!
Quote from: eaglesoccerdad on November 04, 2024, 12:49:56 PMI know that Middlebury is looking like the top seed but it seems like it would make sense to use another host location since they are pretty far removed from any other school
There are plenty of schools within 500 miles of Middlebury. By mileage in a big circle, all of New England, all of New York, PA, MD and NJ qualify. Parts of Ohio, WVa, and Va also qualify. Finding 3 teams in the densest region of D3 schools and conferences will not be a problem for a first round quad. Assuming it is not the women's turn to host. I never remember. I'm well aware a 500 mile circle is different than 500 miles the way TES calculates, but in my experience when TES was accessible, it wasn't more than 20% different. So I guess a 400 mile circle, might be better, but that still encompasses a very D3 rich area.
For the most part, is has been my observation that the NCAA is agnostic on the distance teams have to bus. So it matters very little if you are 25 miles or 490 miles by the TES calculator (and again, that's different than Google maps). They tend to only get prickly about busing vs flying.
Here is the current mileage calculator: https://web2.ncaa.org/mileage
I believe it switched to this a couple years ago.
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 04, 2024, 11:27:31 AMI put together a hypothetical bracket (with no adjustments) using today's NPI, will be easy to update as NPI changes. Let me know how to make it better. Thanks!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
This is cool. Thanks!
I may be wrong and the people calculating the NPI may not issue the NPI until right after all the conf. championships and big NCAA bracket announcement, but the reveal of all the teams in what brackets will pretty much be along the lines who is going to host and who travels where. As opposed to that AND WHO MADE THE NCAAs in previous years?
In other words, if the last NPI is held till after the announcement this year, only maybe one or two possible bubble teams might not know if they are going this year (no more 2022 Western Conn 20-0-2 issues??) Very transparent imo which is nice.
I added a sheet to my doc that includes analysis of potential conferences where an at-large bid would be "stolen".
Conferences most likely to steal a bid....
C2C - If Mary Washington loses in conference tournament, a bid is stolen.
MIAC - Win by Gustavous Adolphus, St. Olaf, or Macalester OK; any other is a stolen bid.
Newmac - If Babson loses, a bid is stolen.
WIAC - If UW-Eau Claire and UW-Platteville lose, a bid is stolen.
NCAC - If Kenyon and Denison lose, a bid is stolen.
SCAC - If Trinity (TX) and Colorado College lose, a bid is stolen.
OAC - If Ohio Northern and Mount Union lose, a bid is stolen.
CCIW - If North Park loses, a bid is stolen.
ODAC - If Lynchburg, W&L, and VA Wesleyan lose, a bid is stolen.
SUNYAC - If Buffalo St. and Cortland lose, a bid is stolen.
Conferences where a big MIGHT be stolen...(these teams have to stay high enough for at-large bid)
CCS - If Covenant loses, they might steal a bid
MAC Commonwealth - If York (PA) loses, they might steal a bid
Bids that would be stolen (in order)
Macalester
Plattsburg St.
Montclair St.
Muhlenberg
VA Wesleyan
Add McDaniel if it wins the Cent. which would be the biggest upset in a long time. Would have to beat Muhls (lost to Muhls Sat.) then Hop and the final.
I only focused on my conference of greatest interest, but unless I'm missing something DePauw would have to win AQ to steal a bid as OWU also appears to be in line to get a bid along with Denison and Kenyon. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
Thanks, sorry I missed ohio Wesleyan. yes, they would have to lose along with Kenyon and Denison for that conference to steal a bid. Depauw is too far out for at-large for sure right now, it's conference title for bid or nothing.
Centennial conference has 4-5 at-large bids (Muhlenberg may drop out if they lose), so I didn't list them in the list of likely bid stealers. Things would have to go really nuts to have a winner outside of that top 5.
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 04, 2024, 05:04:44 PMI added a sheet to my doc that includes analysis of potential conferences where an at-large bid would be "stolen".
Conferences most likely to steal a bid....
C2C - If Mary Washington loses in conference tournament, a bid is stolen.
MIAC - Win by Gustavous Adolphus, St. Olaf, or Macalester OK; any other is a stolen bid.
Newmac - If Babson loses, a bid is stolen.
WIAC - If UW-Eau Claire and UW-Platteville lose, a bid is stolen.
NCAC - If Kenyon and Denison lose, a bid is stolen.
SCAC - If Trinity (TX) and Colorado College lose, a bid is stolen.
OAC - If Ohio Northern and Mount Union lose, a bid is stolen.
CCIW - If North Park loses, a bid is stolen.
ODAC - If Lynchburg, W&L, and VA Wesleyan lose, a bid is stolen.
SUNYAC - If Buffalo St. and Cortland lose, a bid is stolen.
Conferences where a big MIGHT be stolen...(these teams have to stay high enough for at-large bid)
CCS - If Covenant loses, they might steal a bid
MAC Commonwealth - If York (PA) loses, they might steal a bid
Bids that would be stolen (in order)
Macalester
Plattsburg St.
Montclair St.
Muhlenberg
VA Wesleyan
I'm not sure how to think about "bid stealers" in an NPI world. Conference tournament results will alter the NPI rankings because so many teams will pick up schedule strength and Quality Win Bonus points. Plus, teams that played upset winners earlier in the season might get bumps to their schedule strength and pick up QWB points if the "upset" winners move up high enough in the rankings. For example, if Christopher Newport beats Mary Washington, then you can't simply say CNU wouldn't have gotten a bid if they didn't win the AQ (which is what a bid stealer label on UMW would imply about CNU). Winning against UMW might get CNU enough SoS/QWB points that they finish ahead of any of the teams that would think of their bid as stolen. Moreover, CNU beat (or earned half a win in a tie) against many teams that could help give CNU more SoS/QWB points through their performance in their own conference tournaments (e.g., Rutgers-Camden, Rowan, Colorado College).
Fortunately, NPI data will be released daily in the week leading up to selection day so we can track these things in real time.
Great stuff..thanks for putting this together!
With Macalester losing to Augsburg for a second time after losing to them in the final game of the regular season (assuming a loss in 2OT is a loss and not a tie), I'm not sure they can claim bid stealing status anymore. Augsburg already passed them by in the NPI rankings before today and I imagine that gap will grow after this game.
Quote from: Kuiper on November 04, 2024, 11:19:19 PMWith Macalester losing to Augsburg for a second time after losing to them in the final game of the regular season (assuming a loss in 2OT is a loss and not a tie), I'm not sure they can claim bid stealing status anymore. Augsburg already passed them by in the NPI rankings before today and I imagine that gap will grow after this game.
Looks like we get daily NPI updates now and that move seems to have occurred. Augusburg up to 39 from 47, Macalester down to 50 from 42.
Macalester season is done, Augsburg now playing for their season next. another win could be all they need to lock up an at-large.
Updated team list with 11/4 NPI data - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
NPI question from a non-math major.
In the new system is it possible that a strong team in a weak conference tournament wins it all and drops NPI points? I am not talking about ranking just their point value.
Quote from: SKUD on November 05, 2024, 10:07:36 AMNPI question from a non-math major.
In the new system is it possible that a strong team in a weak conference tournament wins it all and drops NPI points? I am not talking about ranking just their point value.
If they are a strong team and win it all, they should have over 10 wins and can drop the lowest NPI win(s) to improve their NPI points even if their overall SoS drops because they beat lower-ranked teams on the way to winning the conference tourney.
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 05, 2024, 09:59:34 AMMacalester season is done, Augsburg now playing for their season next. another win could be all they need to lock up an at-large.
Updated team list with 11/4 NPI data - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Note that Augsburg also pushed a bunch of teams down a spot in the rankings because of their win and move up, which is a reminder that improvements by one team can come at the expense of other unrelated teams in a pure rank order selection system for Pool C bids. Another way that teams that are out and not playing anymore can lose a bid.
Quote from: Kuiper on November 05, 2024, 10:11:33 AMQuote from: SKUD on November 05, 2024, 10:07:36 AMNPI question from a non-math major.
In the new system is it possible that a strong team in a weak conference tournament wins it all and drops NPI points? I am not talking about ranking just their point value.
If they are a strong team and win it all, they should have over 10 wins and can drop the lowest NPI win(s) to improve their NPI points even if their overall SoS drops because they beat lower-ranked teams on the way to winning the conference tourney.
Correct. Since NPI automatically takes the 10 highest contributing wins towards a team's rating, they would not move down. At worst, all of the games that are played in the run to a conference championship are worse than 10 of the wins the team already has; and thus, the rating would just stay the same as the current top 10 wins on their record are unchanged.
Can any of the experts on here give me a sense of how much the NCAA works to avoid regular season rematches when making the brackets? repeats of last years bracket matchups? Thanks.
It would be cool if Covenant could host. The Scots have the best walk out music:
https://www.facebook.com/covenant.edu/videos/homecoming-march/10154709376856315/ (https://www.facebook.com/covenant.edu/videos/homecoming-march/10154709376856315/)
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 05, 2024, 12:34:53 PMCan any of the experts on here give me a sense of how much the NCAA works to avoid regular season rematches when making the brackets? repeats of last years bracket matchups? Thanks.
Over the summer, they codified the practice of not scheduling conference opponents against each other in the first round, but they didn't say anything about limiting rematches of non-conference opponents or last year's bracket matchups.
NCAA Bylaw 31.3.5.1 (b) – Executive Regulations – Selection of
QuoteTeams 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.
Ran through an exercise today to see what a bracket that minimizes flights, keeps everyone traveling under 500 miles, and avoids conference matchups in first round (only one potential NESCAC 2nd round). ended up with only 4 flights (2 california teams, Colorado College, and one midwest team, St. Olaf in my bracket, but could be many different teams).
Where teams are doesn't really matter now, but it comes out with 6 Northeast pods, 4 midwest pods, 4 mid-atlantic pods, a texas pod (2 texas teams plus two flights in), and a southern pod (with Colorado College as top seed, Covenant hosts). So, either the Texas and South are together in elite 8 group or those two are matched up with Northeast pods. the mid-atlantic and midwest groups of 4 fit nicely together for minimizing flights in later rounds.
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 04, 2024, 05:04:44 PMI added a sheet to my doc that includes analysis of potential conferences where an at-large bid would be "stolen".
Conferences most likely to steal a bid....
C2C - If Mary Washington loses in conference tournament, a bid is stolen.
MIAC - Win by Gustavous Adolphus, St. Olaf, or Macalester OK; any other is a stolen bid.
Newmac - If Babson loses, a bid is stolen.
WIAC - If UW-Eau Claire and UW-Platteville lose, a bid is stolen.
NCAC - If Kenyon and Denison lose, a bid is stolen.
SCAC - If Trinity (TX) and Colorado College lose, a bid is stolen.
OAC - If Ohio Northern and Mount Union lose, a bid is stolen.
CCIW - If North Park loses, a bid is stolen.
ODAC - If Lynchburg, W&L, and VA Wesleyan lose, a bid is stolen.
SUNYAC - If Buffalo St. and Cortland lose, a bid is stolen.
Conferences where a big MIGHT be stolen...(these teams have to stay high enough for at-large bid)
CCS - If Covenant loses, they might steal a bid
MAC Commonwealth - If York (PA) loses, they might steal a bid
Bids that would be stolen (in order)
Macalester
Plattsburg St.
Montclair St.
Muhlenberg
VA Wesleyan
How does Hope losing to Calvin play into your projections?
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/40013?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit
Quote from: SKUD on November 06, 2024, 08:59:28 AMHow does Hope losing to Calvin play into your projections?
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/40013?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit
Is the bubble still 31st b/c Hope is 32nd now? Calvin is in the 60's.
The bubble line has held at 41 or 42 thus far, but it will go down as conference tournaments give us surprises (like Hope losing, first bid "stolen"). Hope though seems good to get in.
Today, I'm struggling to find a list of conferences with auto bids. The NPI has 43 conferences but I thought I read that there's 42. Can anyone help?
You can check out my spreadsheet I made. The 2024 Pre-Championships manual stated 42 AQs, not including the WIAC, but I saw on the WIAC website that they have an AQ. I believe the AQ number is 43 which leaves 21 Pool C.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q01GY7C3lBdBc8goCop1YYM-cgdO1gZNFFN0VeGmLQQ/edit?usp=sharing
Quote from: oacalum on November 06, 2024, 10:31:55 AMYou can check out my spreadsheet I made. The 2024 Pre-Championships manual stated 42 AQs, not including the WIAC, but I saw on the WIAC website that they have an AQ. I believe the AQ number is 43 which leaves 21 Pool C.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q01GY7C3lBdBc8goCop1YYM-cgdO1gZNFFN0VeGmLQQ/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks!!
Adjusted my sheet to 43 AQ, thank you!
Important bubble games tonight 11/6....
Virginia Wesleyan / Washington & Lee - VA Wesleyan is in right now at 35, but a loss or even a tie will likely see them drop out of an at-large spot. W&L is at 30 so carries some risk as well. Two teams battling for conference final bid but also having real implications for their NCAA chances.
SUNY Oneonta / SUNY Cortland - Cortland (28) is likely in but no guarantees as it's a new NPI world. Oneonta (46) is much simpler, they have to win for their season to continue.
previewing tomorrow (11/7)...
Augsburg / St. Olaf - does Augsburg jump up and take an at-large with a win here?
Redlands vs. Chapman - same here for Redlands have to win to jump up
Both Augsburg and Redlands still likely need to win their final to stay up though.
PreChampionships Manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2024-25D3XSO_PreChampionshipManual.pdf)
The prechampionships manual (page 18) lists 42 conferences as having AQs in 2024. The list does not include WIAC. Not sure why the WIAC website says they do (maybe Culver's really has pull).
Good find, WIAC not having an auto-bid won't affect the bracket with the strength of that conference, but it does clear up the 42/22 split. Thank you, that manual helps.
page 45 of the manual shows the WIAC having an AQ
I think page 45 is the women's list.
Yes, page 45 is the women's. WIAC men are on page 36.
my bad
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 06, 2024, 11:02:45 AMAdjusted my sheet to 43 AQ, thank you!
Important bubble games tonight 11/6....
Virginia Wesleyan / Washington & Lee - VA Wesleyan is in right now at 35, but a loss or even a tie will likely see them drop out of an at-large spot. W&L is at 30 so carries some risk as well. Two teams battling for conference final bid but also having real implications for their NCAA chances.
SUNY Oneonta / SUNY Cortland - Cortland (28) is likely in but no guarantees as it's a new NPI world. Oneonta (46) is much simpler, they have to win for their season to continue.
previewing tomorrow (11/7)...
Augsburg / St. Olaf - does Augsburg jump up and take an at-large with a win here?
Redlands vs. Chapman - same here for Redlands have to win to jump up
Both Augsburg and Redlands still likely need to win their final to stay up though.
SUNYAC
Cortland wins over Oneonta in PK's so goes down as a tie..
Buff state wins over New Paltz
Washington & Lee gets the win over VA Wesleyan, likely dropping VA Wesleyan out of at-large spot tomorrow. No bid stolen in ODAC as W&L and Lynchburg are in the final and both are likely in regardless of the outcome.
Quote from: eaglesoccerdad on November 04, 2024, 12:49:56 PMI know that Middlebury is looking like the top seed but it seems like it would make sense to use another host location since they are pretty far removed from any other school
Yes, how important is rank in the decision? So many New York schools for example could pull in even Midwest schools to a pod.
Geographical is stated as a factor in the manual but ranking is not. In reality I am not sure how ranking cannot be a factor. I like that they state that a grass field is preferred - not sure how many NESCAC teams play on grass other than Amherst.
CRITERIA
The Division III Championships Committee has prioritized the site-selection criteria in the following order for Division III
championships:
1. Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations.
2. Geographical location (including such factors as rotation of sites, weather conditions, accessibility and
transportation costs).
3. Attendance history and revenue potential, which shall be considered necessary to assure fiscal responsibility.
4. Hosts will be selected based on meeting the minimum hosting requirements and maintaining geographic proximity.
Seeding may be a consideration when selecting hosts but is not determinative.
In addition, the soccer committees include the following site-selection deliberations:
● Preference is given to grass/grass-like surfaces; and
● The potential host must have played the majority of its home games on the field it is submitting for
consideration.
New team list based on 11/6 NPI can be found at the link below. Updated last teams in/out and games left as well.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Bubble watch...
Tonight...
Augsburg / St. Olaf - Augsburg needs to win to have a chance at at-large, loss likely knocks them out. Conference semifinal.
Redlands / Chapman - Redlands first team out right now, conference semifinal.
Tomorrow preview of important bubble games...
Oglethorpe / Sewanee
Muhlenberg / F&M
Centre / Rhodes
Quote from: eaglesoccerdad on November 07, 2024, 08:47:30 AMGeographical is stated as a factor in the manual but ranking is not. In reality I am not sure how ranking cannot be a factor. I like that they state that a grass field is preferred - not sure how many NESCAC teams play on grass other than Amherst.
CRITERIA
The Division III Championships Committee has prioritized the site-selection criteria in the following order for Division III championships:
1. Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations.
2. Geographical location (including such factors as rotation of sites, weather conditions, accessibility and
transportation costs).
3. Attendance history and revenue potential, which shall be considered necessary to assure fiscal responsibility.
4. Hosts will be selected based on meeting the minimum hosting requirements and maintaining geographic proximity.
Seeding may be a consideration when selecting hosts but is not determinative.
In addition, the soccer committees include the following site-selection deliberations:
● Preference is given to grass/grass-like surfaces; and
● The potential host must have played the majority of its home games on the field it is submitting for
consideration.
It's stated in the Pre-Championships manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2024-25D3XSO_PreChampionshipManual.pdf), pp. 20-21:
QuoteSection 2•5 Bracketing Principles (Pairings)
The following bracketing principles will be in effect for the next two years (2024-25 and 2025-26) to assess its financial impact and success in protecting top-seeded teams.
1. Protection of top-eight seeded teams in the bracket.
In brackets greater than 32 teams, teams will be protected based on the seed lines of No. 1s and No. 2s (based on NPI ranking at the time of selection).
a. NPI rank 1-4 will be No. 1s. NPI rank 5-8 will be No. 2s.
b. No. 1s and No. 2s will be bracketed based on quarterfinal matchups providing a possibility that the top eight (8) teams could each advance to the round of eight.
c. No. 1s and No. 2s will be paired in the quarterfinals based on current bracketing principles (i.e., geographic proximity is maintained).
Brackets will be built outward based on protecting the quarterfinal matchups that will protect No. 1s and No. 2s while maintaining geographic proximity.
2. Remaining teams will continue to be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity. Teams shall then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may be moved to numerically balance the bracket if geographic proximity is maintained. Teams shall be paired and eligible according to geographic proximity (within 500 miles). An exception may be granted when there are not enough teams within the 500-mile radius to fill the region. Geographic proximity shall take precedence over seeding for teams below the top-8 seeds.
3. Teams from the same conference shall not play one another in the first round.
4. The highest-seeded team that meets all selection criteria shall be selected as the host institutions, provided that geographic proximity is maintained and they meet all site selection criteria.
The top team on the bracket is the designated home team and will wear the light (white) colored jersey.
Stated more succinctly, after the 1s and 2s are set, ranking is used for the rest of the bracket - as long as geographic proximity can be preserved.
Sorry for being so dense--what are the color blocks and how does this translate to brackets? Thank you for sharing this!
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 04, 2024, 11:27:31 AMI put together a hypothetical bracket (with no adjustments) using today's NPI, will be easy to update as NPI changes. Let me know how to make it better. Thanks!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Sorry for the confusion. The yellow is for the top 8 seeds as those are the "protected" seeds that can't meet in the bracket before the quarterfinals.
The next green are the ones that should have a right to host, but may not due to conflicts with women's team having priority, not bidding to host, or some other reason. Still, green are the rest of the "1 seeds" in a 4 team pod.
Light blue are the 2 seeds for a pod, dark blue are 3 seeds, and purple are 4 seeds. Now, the NCAA won't stick to those at all, geographic proximity will be most important (less than 500 miles), but it helps me to see where some pods may be balanced out.
Hope this helps, you aren't dense at all, thanks for asking
11/7 NPI team list is updated. Back later with key games tonight.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 08, 2024, 01:00:09 PM11/7 NPI team list is updated. Back later with key games tonight.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
See that Kenyon is in bold, but lost to Denison yesterday. Should they still be in bold although they can't win the NCAC?
Good catch on the conference AQ, lost of moving parts, I'm sure I'll miss other things like that. Thanks.
Bubble watch tonight....
Two SAA semifinals - Rhodes (36) / Centre (44) and Oglethorpe (37) / Sewanee (124). all sorts of bubble fun here. Oglethorpe is last team in and both they and Rhodes would likely drop out of NCAA tournament with a loss today. Could Centre win today and lose the final and still get at-large? it's possible. How these games end and tomorrow's NPI will be interesting.
Muhlenberg (32) / Franklin & Marshall (17) - Muhlenberg may need the win to stay in. F&M needs the win to move into a hosting position so implications there too.
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 08, 2024, 03:04:50 PMMuhlenberg (32) / Franklin & Marshall (17) - Muhlenberg may need the win to stay in. F&M needs the win to move into a hosting position so implications there too.
Definitely! Though being home has not been great for F&M at least the five times in a row where they lost in 2nd round and lost in pks the last two years.
FYI, I think JHU may not host as it did last year and the women may be in line to host. The women currently are 18th.
SAA matches both went to OT with Oglethorpe and Rhodes winning (no PK's). I think NPI see those as ties so it will be interesting to see the change in their rankings to best know if their matchup in the final will be one where either can lose and still maintain at at-large berth. Getting 2 from SAA would shift the bracket as you would have 4 southern teams then in SAA, Covenant/Bellhaven, and Emory.
Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think OT wins count as normal wins for NPI purposes. If a game goes to PKs then it is a draw
Quote from: paclassic89 on November 08, 2024, 05:56:18 PMSomeone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think OT wins count as normal wins for NPI purposes. If a game goes to PKs then it is a draw
Yup. As far as understand!!
If that's the case, then both should move up and by playing each other in the final, possibly both will stay up in the at-large spots.
found this language from NCAA which indicates that OT weights could be different in post-season vs. regular season. If there's not change though, an OT win counts 100% like a regular win.
Overtime Win/Loss: 1) Allows for an overtime win/loss to count as less than a full win/loss. 2) An example is in ice hockey. Overtime is played 3-on-3 versus 5-on-5 in regulation. Since a win in overtime required extra time and was played differently an OT win can be weighted at .75 win/.25 loss. The losing team would bet .25 wins/.75 losses. 3) Regular season and post-season can be weighted differently. 4) This is an optional adjustment and can be set at 1.00/0.00 meaning a win is a win, or a loss is a loss regardless of regulation or overtime.
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 08, 2024, 07:16:45 PMfound this language from NCAA which indicates that OT weights could be different in post-season vs. regular season. If there's not change though, an OT win counts 100% like a regular win.
Overtime Win/Loss: 1) Allows for an overtime win/loss to count as less than a full win/loss. 2) An example is in ice hockey. Overtime is played 3-on-3 versus 5-on-5 in regulation. Since a win in overtime required extra time and was played differently an OT win can be weighted at .75 win/.25 loss. The losing team would bet .25 wins/.75 losses. 3) Regular season and post-season can be weighted differently. 4) This is an optional adjustment and can be set at 1.00/0.00 meaning a win is a win, or a loss is a loss regardless of regulation or overtime.
This was a statement from the NCAA competition committee regarding how the individual sports committees could decide to treat OT for their sport, which could give it lesser weight than a full win. Men's soccer didn't give it any weight during the regular season because we no longer play OT and I don't think it spoke to the use of OT in the post-season. That would suggest it is just like a normal win if you win during OT and a normal tie if you win by PKs.
Quote from: SierraFD3soccer on November 08, 2024, 03:32:11 PMQuote from: kansas hokie on November 08, 2024, 03:04:50 PMMuhlenberg (32) / Franklin & Marshall (17) - Muhlenberg may need the win to stay in. F&M needs the win to move into a hosting position so implications there too.
Definitely! Though being home has not been great for F&M at least the five times in a row where they lost in 2nd round and lost in pks the last two years.
FYI, I think JHU may not host as it did last year and the women may be in line to host. The women currently are 18th.
Did they host in second weekend? 16/8? They went pretty far, yes?
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 07, 2024, 10:04:10 PMSorry for the confusion. The yellow is for the top 8 seeds as those are the "protected" seeds that can't meet in the bracket before the quarterfinals.
The next green are the ones that should have a right to host, but may not due to conflicts with women's team having priority, not bidding to host, or some other reason. Still, green are the rest of the "1 seeds" in a 4 team pod.
Light blue are the 2 seeds for a pod, dark blue are 3 seeds, and purple are 4 seeds. Now, the NCAA won't stick to those at all, geographic proximity will be most important (less than 500 miles), but it helps me to see where some pods may be balanced out.
Hope this helps, you aren't dense at all, thanks for asking
So great to see it visually like that, thank you!
Does anyone know about this rule posted by the NCAA? It states that the committee set the dial to a minimum of 10 wins, presumably to get an at-large bid. Does this mean that Hamilton and Wesleyan would not be in contention for an at-large bid, given that they did not reach the 10-win threshold?
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/men/2023-24D3MSO_NPI.pdf
The minimum win threshold only impacts when teams are allowed to start dropping bad wins for ranking purposes. Teams below 10 wins are still eligible for an at-large if their NPI ranking qualifies
Quote from: hdhendnd22 on November 09, 2024, 09:21:14 AMDoes anyone know about this rule posted by the NCAA? It states that the committee set the dial to a minimum of 10 wins, presumably to get an at-large bid. Does this mean that Hamilton and Wesleyan would not be in contention for an at-large bid, given that they did not reach the 10-win threshold?
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/men/2023-24D3MSO_NPI.pdf
I posted about this earlier in this thread and the thread I started in the summer about NCAA Tournament Changes, but it's not really a 10 win "minimum" to be eligible for selection. It's that you can't drop "bad wins" from your NPI calculation (i.e., wins against weak opponents that drag down your strength of schedule) unless you at least have 10 wins that are being used for NPI purposes. So, teams with more than 10 wins (which include the sum of all of your ties counting as half wins each) only count the strongest 10 wins for NPI purposes and teams with fewer than 10 wins have to count all of their wins in their NPI calculation. In either case, teams count all of the losses, so a loss against a weaker team counts even if the team already has 10+ wins.
Sheet updated with 11/9 NPI data. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Fun weekend, lots going on today and tomorrow...here's the look at the bubble watch...
Bid stealing possibilities
CCIW final - North Park / North Central - North Central wins steals a bid. 8pm EST
OAC final - Mount Union / Otterbein - Otterbein win steals a bid. 7pm EST
SCIAC - Claremont M-S / Chapman - Chapman win may steal a bid, Claremont M-S might get at-large bid. 10pm EST
Results
CCS - Covenant / Bellhaven - Bellhaven won. Bid likely stolen. Covenant might get at-large bid.
MAC Commonwealth - York (PA) / Messiah - Messiah won, bid likely stolen. York might get at-large bid.
Last schools in - VA Wesleyan, Oglethorpe (11/10), Hamilton, Hope, Cortland (11/9), Muhlenberg (11/10)
Plattsburgh, SUNY Oneonta, Augsburg, and Redlands are all out and done with matches, but if the teams above them lose and bids aren't stolen, they could sneak in and grab an at-large.
SCAC also could steal a bid. Trinity has lost to St. Thomas three straight years and haven't won a championship since 2018.
Bellhaven and messiah won and are in. That leaves covenant and York looking fit at large bids in bubble land. Va Wesleyan not feeling as fortunate and may get bumped.
W&L and Lynchburg tied 0-0 at the half in a defensive struggle. Haven't seen many good opportunities from either.
We just needed one :-)
Seriously, it's quite a reflection on Coach Shabazz that he won the conference, and hasn't lost a game since Sept 7.
Quote from: Another Mom on November 09, 2024, 07:12:04 PMWe just needed one :-)
Seriously, it's quite a reflection on Coach Shabazz that he won the conference, and hasn't lost a game since Sept 7.
Agreed. He inherited a lot of talent. He just needed to get it going the right direction. An outstanding way to cap the season and on to the tournament!
What's it looking like for the UAA this year with bids? Seems like it may just be Emory...
It will only be Emory. Rochester had a shot today to jump into the at-large range but gave up the tying goal with under 3 mins left. First time in 20 years for only one bid for UAA.
York and Covenant are going to be real close to dropping out of at-large berths. Oglethorpe and VA Wesleyan dropped out today when those first two lost. I looked at some other semifinal losers and they drop .4-.5 NPI points. If York and Covenant have the same effect, they will be right around Hope, Hamilton, Oglethorpe, VA Wesleyan.
Tonight's matches can change it as well.
Otterbein up 1-0 on Mount Union at half....another bubble may be popped in the next hour.
Mount Union would be in that York/Covenant group that lost today and hopes they don't fall out.
another bubble popped....Otterbein beats Mount Union. Mount Union had a shot in the middle of the box with one second left that was saved by Otterbein keeper.
Teams that lost today and have to see how far they fall tomorrow - York (PA), Covenant, and Mount Union
CCIW final is causing more bubble headache.. North Central (83) winning over North Park (19) 2-0 with 30 mins left and North Park is down a man. North Park will get an at-large for sure.
If this holds....Mount Union becomes the last team in at #30. The bubble line was around 39-40 at the start of the day.
Mount Union - 30
Covenant - 29
York - 27
All lost and will drop tomorrow. Hope, Hamilton, and VA Wesleyan are on the other side of the line right now.
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 09, 2024, 09:33:47 PMCCIW final is causing more bubble headache.. North Central (83) winning over North Park (19) 2-0 with 30 mins left and North Park is down a man. North Park will get an at-large for sure.
If this holds....Mount Union becomes the last team in at #30. The bubble line was around 39-40 at the start of the day.
Mount Union - 30
Covenant - 29
York - 27
All lost and will drop tomorrow. Hope, Hamilton, and VA Wesleyan are on the other side of the line right now.
Something very profound about saying Hope is on the other side of the line ;D
Edited - I was mistaken, GrizDad below is correct. Bids can be stolen if Mary Washington or Trinity (TX) lose. Muhlenberg and Denison already are holding an at-large bid so it's not a "stolen" bid but his point about who to root for is accurate as well.
Muhlenberg can lose tomorrow and fall out. Otherwise, it all comes down to the NPI calculations tomorrow. These six teams seem like the six that are on the edge. VA Wesleyan may be a real long shot though.
York 56.387
Covenant 56.358
Mount Union 56.356
Hope 55.919
Hamilton 55.846
VA Wesleyan 55.392
Rhodes/Oglethorpe is now a must-win game for each tomorrow.
Who knows, maybe some ripple from a Sunday final will change the numbers and move teams in and out, but I think tomorrow's NPI will be close to the final 64.
Here's the order from the NPI (through Friday games) of teams not yet locked in (some can still win tomorrow). Both the NESCAC and WIAC finalists are above the line so should be safe. C2C, NCAC, SCAC and possibly CC could affect the bubble tomorrow.
1 Middlebury (vs 8 Conn College)
*2 Tufts
3 Mary Washington (vs 53 Chris Newport)
*4 Amherst
*5 Williams
*6 Gustavus Adolphus
7 Johns Hopkins (vs 28 Muhlenberg)
8 Conn College (vs 1 Middlebury)
9 UW-Eau Claire (vs 17 UW-Platteville)
11 Trinity (TX) (vs 74 St Thomas)
12 Denison (vs 69 DePauw)
*13 Kenyon
*14 Colorado College
*15 Lynchburg
*16 Dickinson
17 UW-Platteville (vs 9 UW-Eau Claire)
*18 North Park
*19 Wesleyan
*20 Ohio Northern
*23 Buffalo St
*24 Frank & Marsh
*25 Ohio Wesleyan
*26 Bowdoin
27 York (PA)
28 Muhlenberg (vs 7 Johns Hopkins)
29 Covenant
30 Mount Union
31 Rhodes (vs Oglethorpe)
The 15 * teams are waiting but above the line, the NESCAC and WIAC loser will take 2 more bids, that leaves 4 spots. Bubble teams are looking for Mary Washington, Johns Hopkins, Trinity (TX), and Denison to win tomorrow and avoid taking a pool C spot.
Hamilton, Hope, Buffalo St. and Mount Union are last four in.
York, Oglethorpe, Covenant, and VA Wesleyan are last four out.
Oglethorpe plays today against Rhodes. Winner in, loser out it seems.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Updated NPI after Saturday's games. Teams not locked in yet.
1 Middlebury (vs 5 Conn College)
*2 Tufts
3 Mary Washington (vs 49 Chris Newport)
*4 Amherst
5 Conn College (vs 1 Middlebury)
*6 Williams
7 Johns Hopkins (vs 27 Muhlenberg)
9 UW-Eau Claire (vs 16 UW-Platteville)
*10 Gustavus Adolphus
11 Trinity (TX) (vs 73 St Thomas)
12 Denison (vs 72 DePauw)
*13 Kenyon
*14 Colorado College
16 UW-Platteville (vs 9 UW-Eau Claire)
*17 Dickinson
*19 Wesleyan
*20 Ohio Northern
*21 Lynchburg
*22 Ohio Wesleyan
*24 Frank & Marsh
*25 North Park
*26 Bowdoin
27 Muhlenberg (vs 7 Johns Hopkins)
28 Rhodes (vs 37 Oglethorpe)
30 Hamilton
31 Hope
32 Buffalo St
34 Mount Union
35 York (PA)
14 teams marked with * should be safe, NESCAC and WIAC loser should get a spot as well. That leaves five spots for the following
Will pop a bubble if they lose today:
3 Mary Washington
7 Johns Hopkins
11 Trinity (TX)
12 Denison
Will probably drop a couple spots with a loss and be squarely on the bubble:
27 Muhlenberg
28 Rhodes
Hoping the above teams all win:
30 Hamilton
31 Hope
32 Buffalo St
34 Mount Union
35 York (PA)
Are there 43 AQs this year?
Quote from: paclassic89 on November 10, 2024, 09:10:51 AMAre there 43 AQs this year?
Section 2.3 (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/d3/common/2024-25D3XSO_PreChampionshipManual.pdf) of the prechampionship manual. 43 AQ, 21 at large
There are inconsistencies all over the manual. 2.3 states 43 AQ, then right below says "the 42 conferences granted automatic qualification..." Then, as we've discussed elsewhere, it states how the AQ is earned incorrectly for a few conferences in Appendix B.
I think the confusion surrounds whether the WIAC gets an AQ, which luckily won't matter this year. Either way there are 20 at-large spots after you account for the 2 WIAC teams getting in. Whether it is 1 AQ plus 1 of 21 at-large or no AQ plus 2 of 22 at-large.
Interesting that Hamilton, which didn't play, jumped 5 spots from 35 to 30, which is the largest increase near the cut line of a team that didn't play. At first glance, it appears to be nothing more than the reshuffling caused by the losses and ranking drops of Buffalo St., Mt. Union, York, and Covenant, but a closer examination reveals something further. Their QWB points increased from 1.3843 to 1.5092, presumably because their Conn College tie (half-win) became a stronger half-win after Conn jumped higher. That (plus whatever SoS bump they may have gotten) increased their NPI from 55.846 to 56.012. Without it, it looks like they would have dropped to 36 behind York.
Quote from: Kuiper on November 10, 2024, 11:31:32 AMInteresting that Hamilton, which didn't play, jumped 5 spots from 35 to 30, which is the largest increase near the cut line of a team that didn't play. At first glance, it appears to be nothing more than the reshuffling caused by the losses and ranking drops of Buffalo St., Mt. Union, York, and Covenant, but a closer examination reveals something further. Their QWB points increased from 1.3843 to 1.5092, presumably because their Conn College tie (half-win) became a stronger half-win after Conn jumped higher. That (plus whatever SoS bump they may have gotten) increased their NPI from 55.846 to 56.012. Without it, it looks like they would have dropped to 36 behind York.
Nice find. That little bump was pretty important too. The difference between NPI 36 vs NPI 30 is probably out vs probably in. Right on the cut line.
Wonder how that will change based on today's results — if Conn College loses to Middlebury is that enough to drop Hamilton even 2-3 NPI spots which could make a huge difference?
Although the current NPI rankings says it is only current through games on 11/9, it has already updated the 11/9 listing to add the AQ notations next to Mary Washington and Conn College. Doesn't look like they updated the actual NPI, though, which is a more complicated process involving the interaction of the results of all of today's games. So, in one sense the NPI is being updated in real time.
Quote from: mngopher on November 10, 2024, 12:01:38 PMQuote from: Kuiper on November 10, 2024, 11:31:32 AMInteresting that Hamilton, which didn't play, jumped 5 spots from 35 to 30, which is the largest increase near the cut line of a team that didn't play. At first glance, it appears to be nothing more than the reshuffling caused by the losses and ranking drops of Buffalo St., Mt. Union, York, and Covenant, but a closer examination reveals something further. Their QWB points increased from 1.3843 to 1.5092, presumably because their Conn College tie (half-win) became a stronger half-win after Conn jumped higher. That (plus whatever SoS bump they may have gotten) increased their NPI from 55.846 to 56.012. Without it, it looks like they would have dropped to 36 behind York.
Nice find. That little bump was pretty important too. The difference between NPI 36 vs NPI 30 is probably out vs probably in. Right on the cut line.
Wonder how that will change based on today's results — if Conn College loses to Middlebury is that enough to drop Hamilton even 2-3 NPI spots which could make a huge difference?
With Conn College winning and moving up a little after today, it looks like Hamilton may benefit a little from another boost or at least wouldn't drop any points.
oglethorpe won with 2:48 left, if it went to PK, Rhodes would have knocked Mount Union out.
Depauw steals a bid in PK win over Denison. Mount Union projected out, Buffalo St. on the bubble.
I'm guessing if Muhlenberg can get this to a tie that will be enough to keep them on the right side of the line
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 10, 2024, 04:51:12 PMDepauw steals a bid in PK win over Denison. Mount Union projected out, Buffalo St. on the bubble.
Talk about hot! When was the last time Depauw won??
Must have a personal problem with SC, Just saying.
Making a bracket starts with putting the top 8 seeds so that they can make it to Elite 8 without meeting each other. That will make for some odd travel in the second weekend, 5 NESCAC in top 8, 2 Mid-Atlantic with JHU maybe dropping out (and adding another Northeast school, Babson), and one Midwest team (UW-Eau Claire).
Where do you put a Texas pod with Trinity? Seeds 8-16 have a bunch of midwest teams and not all will host so then you have some mid-atlantic teams next to be able to host.
What do you do with three Southern schools? fly Colorado College there again? make Emory and Oglethorpe play for a third time this year?
Let's see how this plays out... I don't like it.
Updated for selection:
https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/40157?utf8=%E2%9C%93&commit=Submit
One conference getting 7 bids would be absolutely ridiculous, especially since 2 of those teams have sub .600 win percentages. I'm not opposed to NPI but this has got to change after this year.
Quote from: stlawus on November 10, 2024, 06:50:04 PMOne conference getting 7 bids would be absolutely ridiculous, especially since 2 of those teams have sub .600 win percentages. I'm not opposed to NPI but this has got to change after this year.
Well, you're going to hate it even more because Hamilton is also above the cutline. Everyone Mt. Union and up got in, with York the first team out.
Quote from: rdanie03 on November 10, 2024, 06:53:27 PMQuote from: stlawus on November 10, 2024, 06:50:04 PMOne conference getting 7 bids would be absolutely ridiculous, especially since 2 of those teams have sub .600 win percentages. I'm not opposed to NPI but this has got to change after this year.
Well, you're going to hate it even more because Hamilton is also above the cutline. Everyone Mt. Union and up got in, with York the first team out.
So 8 total, including the AQ, correct?
Some weird stuff. NCAC has had 3 several times but never 4 in my memory. I'm not sure why I'm thinking this just yet, but my hunch is that we're gonna have an even greater number of monster 1st and 2nd round matchups.
Put a full bracket together...good luck to all tomorrow. Ended up with only 4 flights, but lots of 400-500 miles bus rides across the bracket. have fun, let me know how to make it better.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Given the bar on teams in the same conference playing each other in the first round, but the priority of geography over seeding in brackets, half of those NESCAC teams could be knocked out after the second round.
QuoteOne conference getting 7 bids would be absolutely ridiculous, especially since 2 of those teams have sub .600 win percentages
Do you think all games should have the same weight?
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 10, 2024, 07:07:24 PMPut a full bracket together...good luck to all tomorrow. Ended up with only 4 flights, but lots of 400-500 miles bus rides across the bracket. have fun, let me know how to make it better.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Pacific Lutheran will cry bloody murder if this bracketing becomes a reality. It's one thing to fly. It's quite another to fly and have to play with a three hour time difference.
NESCAC with 8, Buffalo St. holds on, Mount Union out. Trinity in a top 8 protected seed.
Quote from: Kuiper on November 10, 2024, 07:14:20 PMQuote from: kansas hokie on November 10, 2024, 07:07:24 PMPut a full bracket together...good luck to all tomorrow. Ended up with only 4 flights, but lots of 400-500 miles bus rides across the bracket. have fun, let me know how to make it better.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FFmaYk8mMaNjCnoyEG0-j1kaN0vF_-3E7uYYmTeNUI4/edit?usp=sharing
Pacific Lutheran will cry bloody murder if this bracketing becomes a reality. It's one thing to fly. It's quite another to fly and have to play with a three hour time difference.
Easy fix then, fly Pacific Lutheran to Trinity (San Antonio) and Bellhaven to Babson (Boston).
Quote from: kansas hokie on November 10, 2024, 07:17:06 PMNESCAC with 8, Buffalo St. holds on, Mount Union out. Trinity in a top 8 protected seed.
I would think wisconsin eau claire or trinity tx gets a nod for a number one seed in one bracket with the other as the number 2. Mary Washington in a second bracket with williams. Likely middlebury and amherst in the third bracket and tufts and connecticut college in the fourth bracket. unless they do some additional plot twists with john hopkins to swap with williams.
I'm still not understanding this NPI thing. Take Bowdoin for example...
They're 7-5-5, with those 7 wins coming against The University of New England, Husson, Wheaton, St. Jospeh's (ME), Southern Maine and NESCAC "powerhouses" Colby and Trinity. Where are they getting their points? In the 4 draws against other NESCAC teams (a conference they had a total of 2 wins in 10 games)?
Quote from: Kuiper on November 10, 2024, 07:09:01 PMGiven the bar on teams in the same conference playing each other in the first round, but the priority of geography over seeding in brackets, half of those NESCAC teams could be knocked out after the second round.
It would take a lot of upsets. 5 of the 8 can't play each other until the quarters because they are 1 and 2 seeds
Quote from: Ejay on November 10, 2024, 08:10:03 PMI'm still not understanding this NPI thing. Take Bowdoin for example...
They're 7-5-5, with those 7 wins coming against The University of New England, Husson, Wheaton, St. Jospeh's (ME), Southern Maine and NESCAC "powerhouses" Colby and Trinity. Where are they getting their points? In the 4 draws against other NESCAC teams (a conference they had a total of 2 wins in 10 games)?
I am curious to hear what team you think should be in this spot instead... I guarantee a NESCAC team like Bowdoin would be a major threat to many .800 teams you're thinking of.
Quote from: Mohammed413 on November 10, 2024, 08:56:08 PMQuote from: Ejay on November 10, 2024, 08:10:03 PMI'm still not understanding this NPI thing. Take Bowdoin for example...
They're 7-5-5, with those 7 wins coming against The University of New England, Husson, Wheaton, St. Jospeh's (ME), Southern Maine and NESCAC "powerhouses" Colby and Trinity. Where are they getting their points? In the 4 draws against other NESCAC teams (a conference they had a total of 2 wins in 10 games)?
I am curious to hear what team you think should be in this spot instead... I guarantee a NESCAC team like Bowdoin would be a major threat to many .800 teams you're thinking of.
Ok, I'll bite. As a start, I'll take Centre, VA Wesleyan, Oneonta, and dare I say Mt Union :-) Could Bowdoin be a major threat to them, perhaps. Could those 3 teams be a major threat to a 7-5-5 NESCAC team with zero quality wins and 2 in-conference wins against the bottom of the league? Absolutely.
Quote from: Mohammed413 on November 10, 2024, 08:56:08 PMQuote from: Ejay on November 10, 2024, 08:10:03 PMI'm still not understanding this NPI thing. Take Bowdoin for example...
They're 7-5-5, with those 7 wins coming against The University of New England, Husson, Wheaton, St. Jospeh's (ME), Southern Maine and NESCAC "powerhouses" Colby and Trinity. Where are they getting their points? In the 4 draws against other NESCAC teams (a conference they had a total of 2 wins in 10 games)?
I am curious to hear what team you think should be in this spot instead... I guarantee a NESCAC team like Bowdoin would be a major threat to many .800 teams you're thinking of.
Augsburg out of the MIAC has a more favorable resume than Bowdoin in my opinion. Bowdoin's best win is over #88 NPI Colby. Augsburg has 4 wins better than that — #50 Macalester x2, #79 Carleton, and #76 Wartburg. Augsburg also has 2 ties against top 15 NPI teams.
Ultimately we are talking about teams that likely aren't championship contenders, so it's not that big of a deal. Overall I think the NPI did ok in year 1. No extreme oversights. I think going into year 2 the dials could be adjusted a bit to reward beating good teams instead of just playing good teams.
Well. You have a team like Saint Lawrence (I am biased) that lost their first two games (one to a top 25 team) and was then 9-0-7 since, losing in PKs in the Liberty league finals. Looking forward to seeing Vassar play and beat a Nescac team to give the Liberty League some cred.
Quote from: mngopher on November 10, 2024, 09:28:30 PMQuote from: Mohammed413 on November 10, 2024, 08:56:08 PMQuote from: Ejay on November 10, 2024, 08:10:03 PMI'm still not understanding this NPI thing. Take Bowdoin for example...
They're 7-5-5, with those 7 wins coming against The University of New England, Husson, Wheaton, St. Jospeh's (ME), Southern Maine and NESCAC "powerhouses" Colby and Trinity. Where are they getting their points? In the 4 draws against other NESCAC teams (a conference they had a total of 2 wins in 10 games)?
I am curious to hear what team you think should be in this spot instead... I guarantee a NESCAC team like Bowdoin would be a major threat to many .800 teams you're thinking of.
Augsburg out of the MIAC has a more favorable resume than Bowdoin in my opinion. Bowdoin's best win is over #88 NPI Colby. Augsburg has 4 wins better than that — #50 Macalester x2, #79 Carleton, and #76 Wartburg. Augsburg also has 2 ties against top 15 NPI teams.
Ultimately we are talking about teams that likely aren't championship contenders, so it's not that big of a deal. Overall I think the NPI did ok in year 1. No extreme oversights. I think going into year 2 the dials could be adjusted a bit to reward beating good teams instead of just playing good teams.
Do draws not carry much weight, then? Let's not forget Bowdoin gave Tufts majority of their goals conceded this season along with knocking them out of the Nescac playoffs. Plus, draws against three teams in the top 16 definitely have some points involved.
It very much does appear as if draws are not as important... obviously, wins should be valued more, but once again, a quality tie should count for something. This year has been quite hectic adjusting to the new NPI system. I think we will continue to learn even more tomorrow about NPI and how the new NCAA bracketing rules are going to be implemented. Tomorrow will have a MASSIVE effect on what coaches do with their schedules next year. There have also even been side conversations of teams attempting to schedule a game today (11-10) after getting eliminated from their conference tournament in a last-ditch effort to bolster NPI ratings vs other desperate programs.
^ That's funny for 2 reasons:
1: I think the only NPI they use is the 11/10 update
And 2: they already have that and it is called the ECAC Tournament.
There's quite a discrepancy between the Massey algorithm and the NPI rankings. For example, Massey ranks Redlands 9th, but they didn't make the NPI cutoff. What this means, I'm not sure. But it's interesting.
Massey is not good unless you like history.
Well, given where they've ranked W&L all season, and compared to teams they've beaten, I agree with you!
Re: the murmuring around certain NESCAC teams with relatively average records making the tournament... is there any insight into how the very first Win Values/QWB were calculated for the 10/13 NPI ranking? It seems to me that there had to be some sort of initial basis for heavily weighting any result against a fellow NESCAC team, even if just a tie. What was that basis, statistically?
Quote from: wihsuafs24 on November 11, 2024, 09:58:23 AMRe: the murmuring around certain NESCAC teams with relatively average records making the tournament... is there any insight into how the very first Win Values/QWB were calculated for the 10/13 NPI ranking? It seems to me that there had to be some sort of initial basis for heavily weighting any result against a fellow NESCAC team, even if just a tie. What was that basis, statistically?
The first ranking was just the first published ranking. They presumably could have calculated it every day and the very first (unpublished) ranking would be based simply on wins with a whole bunch of teams tied at 1-0. Wins are the basis for all rankings, strength of schedule, quality win bonuses etc. That's why Adrian was highly ranked in the first published ranking in mid-Oct even though they only had 3 countable games (all wins) due to playing mostly non-NCAA teams. Despite those 3 wins being against weak teams, they were still top 20. The key is getting your wins against other teams that have wins. NESCAC wins a lot of non-conference games again against weak teams that play in weaker conferences and a few strong teams that are in the top of their conferences like Babson and some of the upstate NY teams. That's the winning formula - win against teams that win a lot of their games and then play conference games with most teams getting a lot of non-conference wins. You can do it like Rowan - which played a Murderers' Row of non-conference teams to make up for a middling conference strength - but it's a lot harder. Trinity crept up the rankings by just winning, but it also beat strong teams in weak conferences (the ASC) and some of its conference teams and non-conference foes had really good wins. They got a little lucky in that respect.
EDIT: I should add that it helps that NESCAC teams tie a lot and there are "upsets" like Wesleyan beating Conn. It's not completely optimal if the bottom half of the conference loses all the time since wins against those teams will end up meaning less later in the season. You'll still have top teams doing well if they keep winning, but not as many conference teams will get in. Conference tournaments also help increase the end of season schedule strength and QWB for prospective NCAA qualifiers, since all of that is determined in the final ranking ultimately and NESCAC uses a really generous conference tournament system (down to quarters, which gives strong teams plenty of chances to build their resume). Some top-heavy conferences might do better to increase the conference tournament numbers for that effect.
At this point NPI needs to be renamed NESCAC Protection Index. Absolutely ridiculous that 8 teams are in. I wasn't/am not opposed to an NPI system but this needs drastic changes in the off season.
Yep. If you are barely .500 you don't belong in the conversation.
Quote from: stlawus on November 11, 2024, 01:54:51 PMAt this point NPI needs to be renamed NESCAC Protection Index. Absolutely ridiculous that 8 teams are in. I wasn't/am not opposed to an NPI system but this needs drastic changes in the off season.
And my Purple Raiders are screwed a second year in a row.
SC.
Quote from: SimpleCoach on November 11, 2024, 02:01:50 PMQuote from: stlawus on November 11, 2024, 01:54:51 PMAt this point NPI needs to be renamed NESCAC Protection Index. Absolutely ridiculous that 8 teams are in. I wasn't/am not opposed to an NPI system but this needs drastic changes in the off season.
And my Purple Raiders are screwed a second year in a row.
SC.
That's with and without NPI SC so not sure what the answer is. It's all kinda crazy to sort through. I was just looking and Mt Union had 19 regular season games before tournament play. These things seem like apples and oranges to compare when all teams don't even play the same number of games. NESCAC doesn't even allow more than 15.
QuoteI was just looking and Union had 19 regular season games.
is that OK for people who are not professionals in a 10-12 week span?
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2024, 01:58:12 PMYep. If you are barely .500 you don't belong in the conversation.
Unless a team earns and AQ I agree with you. Heck while you are at it toss out teams like F&M who only won 1/2 their games! ;D
We can call it the SC-Williams rule.
I do think they should have a win percentage rule for non-AQs. It should be 51% win percentage. Not wins plus ties, wins. That way playing for a tie is disincentived. If you play 15 games there is no reason you can't win 8 if you want to go to the dance. 16 games you have to win 9.
And yes, count conference tournament games as well. 7-6-3, 7-5-5, not good enough.
The NESCAC is still going to get 4 or 5 bids, best conference in the country deserves multiple bids, but going 6 or more deep to teams winning barely 40% of their games is ridiculous.
Quote from: SKUD on November 11, 2024, 02:39:49 PMQuote from: Ron Boerger on November 11, 2024, 01:58:12 PMYep. If you are barely .500 you don't belong in the conversation.
Unless a team earns and AQ I agree with you. Heck while you are at it toss out teams like F&M who only won 1/2 their games! ;D
We can call it the SC-Williams rule.
Would have no problem with F&M not making it. Did not win enough games.
Not even thinking this for F&M, but Williams did go really far despite its ties.
Quote from: jknezek on November 11, 2024, 04:16:09 PMI do think they should have a win percentage rule for non-AQs. It should be 51% win percentage. Not wins plus ties, wins. That way playing for a tie is disincentived. If you play 15 games there is no reason you can't win 8 if you want to go to the dance. 16 games you have to win 9.
And yes, count conference tournament games as well. 7-6-3, 7-5-5, not good enough.
The NESCAC is still going to get 4 or 5 bids, best conference in the country deserves multiple bids, but going 6 or more deep to teams winning barely 40% of their games is ridiculous.
Totally agree with this, but then definitely need to bring back OT/golden goal if this case. Teams would have a chance to play for a win as opposed to ties.
Quote from: SierraFD3soccer on November 11, 2024, 04:20:19 PMQuote from: jknezek on November 11, 2024, 04:16:09 PMI do think they should have a win percentage rule for non-AQs. It should be 51% win percentage. Not wins plus ties, wins. That way playing for a tie is disincentived. If you play 15 games there is no reason you can't win 8 if you want to go to the dance. 16 games you have to win 9.
And yes, count conference tournament games as well. 7-6-3, 7-5-5, not good enough.
The NESCAC is still going to get 4 or 5 bids, best conference in the country deserves multiple bids, but going 6 or more deep to teams winning barely 40% of their games is ridiculous.
Totally agree with this, but then definitely need to bring back OT/golden goal if this case. Teams would have a chance to play for a win as opposed to ties.
Considering I'm on the record hating the current tie endings, I'm good with that. But I don't think you need to. 90 minutes is plenty to play for a win. It may not happen, but it's plenty of time.
But sure, bring back OT. D3 is about the students' playing, let them play. That's why we can sub and sub and sub, or so I've been told.
They should think about lowering the QWB multiplier a bit for next season. That would reduce the value of draws against top teams. Men's soccer is at .750. Women's soccer is at .500
Quote from: paclassic89 on November 11, 2024, 04:32:16 PMThey should think about lowering the QWB multiplier a bit for next season. That would reduce the value of draws against top teams. Men's soccer is at .750. Women's soccer is at .500
Dial settings are in place a minimum of two years before there could be any changes.
Can we wait and see how these NESCAC teams perform, or that does not matter?
Quote from: camosfan on November 11, 2024, 04:42:30 PMCan we wait and see how these NESCAC teams perform, or that does not matter?
Doesn't really matter because we can't see how the teams they prevented from getting in would have performed. Just because they do or don't bomb out doesn't mean they are better than the teams that could have been in.
Quote from: ziggy on November 11, 2024, 04:37:25 PMQuote from: paclassic89 on November 11, 2024, 04:32:16 PMThey should think about lowering the QWB multiplier a bit for next season. That would reduce the value of draws against top teams. Men's soccer is at .750. Women's soccer is at .500
Dial settings are in place a minimum of two years before there could be any changes.
Ok lol, they should think about lowering the QWB multiplier the season after next then
Quote from: paclassic89 on November 11, 2024, 04:54:12 PMQuote from: ziggy on November 11, 2024, 04:37:25 PMQuote from: paclassic89 on November 11, 2024, 04:32:16 PMThey should think about lowering the QWB multiplier a bit for next season. That would reduce the value of draws against top teams. Men's soccer is at .750. Women's soccer is at .500
Dial settings are in place a minimum of two years before there could be any changes.
Ok lol, they should think about lowering the QWB multiplier the season after next then
One reason to wait two years that is unique to this season is that schedules were pretty much set for most teams by the time the NPI system was announced. So, some teams may have unintentionally benefited from the NPI and others were unintentionally hurt because they couldn't adjust. Next year, and really the year after because many non-conference games new to a team's schedule this year were signed to two year home-and-away deals, I expect teams will be trying to study and replicate the types of schedules that seemed to do better under the new system.
I tend to think the Men's Soccer Committee was heavily lobbied by coaches of teams that had loaded up their schedules a certain way to set the dials to preference a system that preserved the status quo as much as possible within the parameters set by the NPI system. They may have over-corrected or they may have gotten exactly what those coaches wanted.
Maybe they should think about borrowing something from the NHL.
Play one golden goal 10 minute period followed by 3 PKs each.
Winner gets the win and only 2 points. OT loser gets one point. If your record is 9-5-2, you have 2 overtime losses. Just a thought to spice things up and not overwork them with 20 mins.
I think Kuiper has it right. I don't claim to truly understand the NPI, but I would bet bottom and top dollar that the dials are set to preserve (mostly) the status quo.
And if you think about it, that's really only fair. There's no way coaches could completely overhaul schedules that have already been set for at least the next year, if not farther out.
I do think NESCAC getting 8 is going to cause some rumbling, especially if it happens again next year.
Quote from: Hopkins92 on November 12, 2024, 10:31:05 AMI think Kuiper has it right. I don't claim to truly understand the NPI, but I would bet bottom and top dollar that the dials are set to preserve (mostly) the status quo.
And if you think about it, that's really only fair. There's no way coaches could completely overhaul schedules that have already been set for at least the next year, if not farther out.
I do think NESCAC getting 8 is going to cause some rumbling, especially if it happens again next year.
I do agree with 8 being a lot but not much different than Division 1 and the ACC - they had 5 teams in the 32 team field last year and they have 8 teams in the top 22 RPI rankings right now.
Mens field in D1 is 48, not 32.
Quote from: jsr on November 12, 2024, 12:23:20 PMMens field in D1 is 48, not 32.
thanks for the correction - point hasn't changed.
With all of the NESCAC chatter aside... I come in praise of the NPI system!! And, yes, this is parochial, but a pretty good contrast... I posted this on an alumni FB page today. I cut some stuff explaining the NPI prior to this chunk:
QuoteHopkins is actually a great example of how this plays out. Hopkins played #15 Babson in the first round last year, and was rewarded with that win by lining up against #3 in the country Middlebury. (Folks will remember the epic 4-3 OT thriller against the Beavers before going down with a fight to hosts Midd the next day (2-1).
By contrast, here's the NPI ranking of our pod: Hop (#9), W&L (#18), Otterbein (#52) and PSU-B (#212). So, yeah, I'm not great at math but I'll take a 197 spread in rankings from last year to this. 🙂
Waiting in a potential sweet 16 is Williams (#6 - out of the NESCAC, the SEC of d3 soccer), Cortland (#22 - always a very tough out), perennial power Messiah (#36) or Manhattanville (#132). Nothing easy about any of the first three, but for the third round... fair enough.
Per NCAA D3 Men Championships director with the NCAA here at the United Soccer Coaches Convention in Chicago, the dials for NPI settings are locked for the next two seasons and any changes would not apply until the 2027 season.
Guess that means 3 more years of the NESCAC and a few other getting more bids than SC thinks any conference should and the friendly banter about it.
The d3 Coaches meeting men's and women's combined. There was a lot of pushback from coaches about the dials being set after coaches had already finalized schedules for this past season. While the dial settings for the women are a bit different, the complaints were similar, although the NESCAC feels they got screwed in favor of the UAA, which got 7 teams in on the women's side. One point the director made repeated is that the NESCAC's out of conference record was so strong that it put their teams in a great position.