Here are my 3rd regional rankings:

Region 4
1. Montclair
2. Stockton
3. Stevens
4. LVC
5. Rowan
6. Kean
7. PSU-Harrisburg

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. F&M
3. Wash College
4. Hopkins
5. Muhles
6. Widener
7. Lycoming

Catholic or Alvernia could also be ranked

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on October 23, 2023, 03:54:24 PM
Got 11 or 12 of the 14 for the 1st rankings (never flipped the coin  )

Here are my 2nd regional rankings:

Region 4
1. Montclair
2. LVC
3. Stevens
4. Kean
5. Stockton
6. Rowan
7. PSU-Harrisburg

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. F&M
3. Wash College
4. Hopkins
5. Widener
6. Scranton
7. Catholic

Lycoming or Muhles could also be ranked.

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on October 16, 2023, 08:39:06 PM
Here are my thoughts for the upcoming regional rankings:

Region 4
1. Montclair
2. LVC
3. Kean
4. Stevens
5. Stockton
6. Rowan
7. PSU-Abington

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. F&M
3. JHU
4. Wash College
5. Muhles
6. Lycoming
7. Scranton or Widener (flip a coin)

2nd ranking prediction

Region 3
1. Cortland
2. Oneonta
3. Brockport
4. Rochester
5. Buff St
6. New Paltz
7. Hobart

Others: Plattsburgh, SLU

2nd ranking predictions

Region 1
1. Conn College
2. Middlebury
3. Amherst
4. Tufts
5. Bowdoin
6. Williams
7. W. Conn

Others: Hamilton

2nd ranking prediction:

Region 7
1. John Carroll
2. Kenyon
3. OWU
4. Case Western
5. ONU
6. Mt. Union
7. Denison

Others: Capital, Otterbein, Mt. Aloysius, CMU

Got 11 or 12 of the 14 for the 1st rankings (never flipped the coin  )

Here are my 2nd regional rankings:

Region 4
1. Montclair
2. LVC
3. Stevens
4. Kean
5. Stockton
6. Rowan
7. PSU-Harrisburg

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. F&M
3. Wash College
4. Hopkins
5. Widener
6. Scranton
7. Catholic

Lycoming or Muhles could also be ranked.

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on October 16, 2023, 08:39:06 PM
Here are my thoughts for the upcoming regional rankings:

Region 4
1. Montclair
2. LVC
3. Kean
4. Stevens
5. Stockton
6. Rowan
7. PSU-Abington

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. F&M
3. JHU
4. Wash College
5. Muhles
6. Lycoming
7. Scranton or Widener (flip a coin)

Regional ranking thoughts:

Region 1
1. Middlebury
2. Conn College
3. Amherst
4. Tufts
5. Bowdoin
6. Williams
7. W. Conn

Others: Keene St, Mass-Boston

Regional ranking thoughts:

Region 7
1. John Carroll
2. Mt. Union
3. Kenyon
4. OWU
5. Case Western
6. Denison
7. Otterbein

Others: Manchester, CMU, Mt. Aloysius, ONU

Here are my thoughts for the upcoming regional rankings:

Region 4
1. Montclair
2. LVC
3. Kean
4. Stevens
5. Stockton
6. Rowan
7. PSU-Abington

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. F&M
3. JHU
4. Wash College
5. Muhles
6. Lycoming
7. Scranton or Widener (flip a coin)

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 07, 2022, 12:04:12 PM
I'll take a stab at the 16 host sites (without knowing who did and did not submit for hosting duties)

Messiah
Chicago
Amherst
Kenyon
Oneonta St
Stevens
Montclair
Hopkins
Wash Lee
John Carroll
North Central
Calvin
Gustavus
Middlebury
Ohio Northern
SLU/Babson/Bowdoin/Texas school

Missed F&M, Newport, Montclair, Mary Washington, John Carroll, Middlebury and Calvin

11ish/16

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 07, 2022, 09:22:45 AM
Approaching this as if I am the committee and selecting the teams in order

Shooter's Pool C Picks
1. Hopkins
2. Kenyon
3. Gustavus
4. North Park
5. Newport
6. Midd
7. Montclair
8. Ohio Northern
9. Bowdoin
10. Cortland
11. Case Western
12. NYU
13. Williams
14. F&M
15. Lynchburg
16. UW-Platteville
17. Tufts
18. CMU
19. Vassar
20. Pacific Lutheran

First 4 Out
Catholic
Skidmore
Hamilton
Lycoming

19/20 isn't too bad 

Quote from: Hopkins92 on November 07, 2022, 01:56:12 PM
Landmark get two in with Catholic and E'town
Centennial get Muhles, Hop, Dips

Montclair gets left out 

Quote from: nescac1 on November 07, 2022, 09:19:43 AM
By all accounts Hamilton remains at the very edge of the bubble.  Conn losing certainly helped them.  But Western Conn failing to win its league tourney may have hurt them.  I think, ultimately, NESCAC gets 5 with Hamilton one of the very last left out, but certainly not inconceivable that they make it in.

Hamilton on paper should be an easy at-large bid, but when you look at the body of work from start to finish, it's staggering the drop off they have had over the last month of the season. Are they deserving? I'd say no chance. But would I be shocked to see them get an at-large? Not at all.

Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 07, 2022, 01:01:20 PM
With regard to the abundance of ties, we just don't know yet how the committee will evaluate that.  I tend to agree that treating them like in the calculation of winning pct. (a tie counts as half a win, half a loss) isn't how I think it should be done.  I think it should be more along the lines of how points for standings are done: 3 pts for a win, 1 pt for tie.  The 3:1 ratio is better IMO than the 2:1 ratio. 

It would be interesting to calculate winning percentages taking ties as 1/3 win, 2/3 loss and see how teams compare that way.

This will be the debate of all debates until they switch back to the old OT rules for the regular season 

Quote from: jknezek on November 07, 2022, 12:28:30 PM

Quote from: Shooter McGavin on November 07, 2022, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: Ejay on November 07, 2022, 12:02:13 PM
I just can't reward 7 wins in 18 games. Winning less than 50% of games played is my line in the sand. Same for 10-4-7, at least that's a bit more respectable.

Well 7-2-9 when breaking out the ties is 11-6-1 right? So if you look at it from that perspective it might shed more light. And the 7 wins is low but the 2 losses is impressive. The ties, these dreadful ties, will be the key factor of how they are viewed.

In terms of how it's counted as winning percentage... yes. In terms of what actually happened... no. They won 7 games, they lost 2. They didn't win 11 and lose 6. If we are accepting that it is better for the game for teams to have these records, instead of about half as many ties using the 2 OT system, then we can't just say they would have won 50% and lost 50%. That's simply not true. There needs to be a better way. Personally I don't think ties should count in winning percentage. Because it's called "winning" percentage. So if you are 7-2-9, your winning percentage is 7/18 or 38.88889%. We can add losing percentage also, and they are at 11.1111%. So if you want to look at those two numbers, I think that is actually better than what we do now. They are more likely to win then lose, but 50% of the time they can't do either.

I look at Williams, winning 6 games, and think that in order for them to win the National Title, they are going to have to almost double their total wins for the year, or go through a lot of PKs. And yet they are likely going to get a shot at it. I don't like it. If you can't flat out win more than 1/2 the times you step on the field, I'm just not real impressed with your resume.

I don't disagree with you. Just stating that a tie is, on paper, half a win and half a loss. Is this how the committee will view it? I don't know, but it's a possibility.

This is also why they view other criteria. Would a 7 win team or a 6 win team get in last year? Probably not. But with the new tie rule (which should be banned for life) there has to be some sort of weight carried for the many, many teams that have historically more draws than ever before.

Can you fault a team for not losing because there is no regular season OT that could decide the deadlock after 90 minutes? I'd say no. Is Williams going to miss the dance with 1 loss all year? If you said a NESCAC team will have 1 loss all year and miss the tournament or be on the bubble everyone on the boards would call you crazy...but here we are 

Quote from: Ejay on November 07, 2022, 12:02:13 PM
I just can't reward 7 wins in 18 games. Winning less than 50% of games played is my line in the sand. Same for 10-4-7, at least that's a bit more respectable.

Well 7-2-9 when breaking out the ties is 11-6-1 right? So if you look at it from that perspective it might shed more light. And the 7 wins is low but the 2 losses is impressive. The ties, these dreadful ties, will be the key factor of how they are viewed.