SoccaGuru,
I understand where you're coming from. The tournament this year proved almost all of the rankings wrong and raises some eyebrows at the system they use. However, if I am understanding you correctly, you would only be taking win-loss record into account. Strength of schedule is a huge factor in deciding rankings, and while I think too much weight is put on it currently, it is an important part of assessing which teams are for real or not. If a team's record is the only basis that rankings are taken from, schools would be rewarded for creating easy schedules for their teams just so they will have the best possible record come tournament time. For one, this wouldn't be good for any fans of D3 soccer, as we wouldn't be able to watch any great matchups during the regular season. And second, teams with more difficult schedules would be punished for trying to test their team.
Like I said though, I do think there is too much weight being put on strength of schedule. As you pointed out, Calvin is a great example of strength of schedule not telling the whole story. They have made as much noise as anyone in the tournament, knocking off four very solid opponents. They are handicapped by their round-robin + conference tournament schedule format, which they have no control over (I've heard rumours of the MIAA changing this in the near future, but who knows how long that will take). So they're basically getting punished for a system that they can't do anything about. However, teams with high strength of schedules usually do better in the National tournament every year, as they have gained valuable experience in the regular season when losing doesn't end their season.
All in all, I think the system puts too much weight of strength of schedule, but to get rid of it altogether seems a bit over the top. Then again, if there's anything I've learned with my experience with D3 soccer, rankings don't mean squat, and teams would be smart to not pay too much attention to where the committee thinks they should be put.
I understand where you're coming from. The tournament this year proved almost all of the rankings wrong and raises some eyebrows at the system they use. However, if I am understanding you correctly, you would only be taking win-loss record into account. Strength of schedule is a huge factor in deciding rankings, and while I think too much weight is put on it currently, it is an important part of assessing which teams are for real or not. If a team's record is the only basis that rankings are taken from, schools would be rewarded for creating easy schedules for their teams just so they will have the best possible record come tournament time. For one, this wouldn't be good for any fans of D3 soccer, as we wouldn't be able to watch any great matchups during the regular season. And second, teams with more difficult schedules would be punished for trying to test their team.
Like I said though, I do think there is too much weight being put on strength of schedule. As you pointed out, Calvin is a great example of strength of schedule not telling the whole story. They have made as much noise as anyone in the tournament, knocking off four very solid opponents. They are handicapped by their round-robin + conference tournament schedule format, which they have no control over (I've heard rumours of the MIAA changing this in the near future, but who knows how long that will take). So they're basically getting punished for a system that they can't do anything about. However, teams with high strength of schedules usually do better in the National tournament every year, as they have gained valuable experience in the regular season when losing doesn't end their season.
All in all, I think the system puts too much weight of strength of schedule, but to get rid of it altogether seems a bit over the top. Then again, if there's anything I've learned with my experience with D3 soccer, rankings don't mean squat, and teams would be smart to not pay too much attention to where the committee thinks they should be put.