NESCAC 2010

[Dfense1]

Bracket is out:

http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/w-soccer/auto_pdf/2010d3wsoccerbracket2

Williams is the only NESCAC representative, ouch.  Ephs face a very tough road ahead with, it seems, no home games and some tough teams in their quarter of the bracket.  But at least they won't have the pressure this year of being an overwhelming favorite to make it to the Final Four. 

Interesting footnote to the Williams 2010 season is they have played 11 of 17 games on the road, including this past weekends conference championship at Amherst.

So they would appear to be a battle-tested team who know how to win on the road and what it takes to win come tournament time, i.e., their senior class has been to the NCAA Sweet 16 twice and Final Four once. 

Should be an interesting run!

[Becks]

NESCAC parity this year means no real outstanding teams.  I wouldn't be surprised if the only NESCAC team to get an NCAA bid is the NESCAC tournament winner.

At least loyal readers should not have been surprised that there was only 1 NESCAC bid. 

[Jim Matson]

While rational, it still seems odd!

[jellybelly]

Bracket is out:

http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/w-soccer/auto_pdf/2010d3wsoccerbracket2

Williams is the only NESCAC representative, ouch.  Ephs face a very tough road ahead with, it seems, no home games and some tough teams in their quarter of the bracket.  But at least they won't have the pressure this year of being an overwhelming favorite to make it to the Final Four. 

Just wondering who you would consider to be the tough teams in their quarter to get past...

[Dfense1]

I found the NCAA Regional Score Reporting Form

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=WSO&region=25&division=3

appearing on Page 3 of the latest NCAA New England Regional Rankings to be helpful in better understanding how these "power" rankings are derived, and in turn how the Pool C bids may have been determined.

Five key In-Region factors being evaluated for each of 75 teams under consideration by the NCAA in New England include:
-- W/L %
-- Avg Opp W/L %
-- Avg Opp Opp W/L %
-- SOS
-- Results vs. Ranked Teams

What would be helpful is to understand the "weighting" each factor carries in determining the final Region ranking. 

Can anyone shed some further light?

[deiscanton]

Here is some clarification of the primary criteria-

Primary criteria for regional rankings is as follows (Not in priority order-- each of these factors is to be taken as a whole in determining the rankings.)

(1)  In-region win/loss percentage

(2)  In-region head-to-head

(3)  In-region results vs common opponents on team schedules

(4)-- In-region strength of schedule ranking  (2/3 of it is composed of avg opponents winning percentage, 1/3 of it is composed of avg opponents' opponents winning percentage).

(5)  In-region results vs regionally ranked opponents.

The regional rankings by the regional advisory committees are important because for Pool C consideration in each region-- the regional ranking determines the "pecking order" in each region in which teams come up for consideration by the national selection committee-- the members of which are the chairs of each of the regional advisory committees.

When the bids are awarded on a national basis, each of the 8 evaluation regions always has one team on the national table for consideration at a time-- and these 8 are then evaluated as a group. When the best team of those 8 teams gets awarded a Pool C bid, the next available team from that region then goes onto the national table for consideration.   The process is repeated until all 20 Pool C bids are awarded. These 20 teams are deemed to be the "best" 20 teams nationally who did not win their respective automatic qualifying bids.

The bids are to be awarded nationally based on the primary in-region selection criteria, however, if the national committee cannot reach a selection decision based on that criteria, then out-of-region secondary criteria may be added to help reach a final decision.

There are no minimum or maximum number of bids which are required to be given to any particular region, however, this year, the national selection process had each region ending up with at least 1 Pool C bid--  with the South Atlantic and East regions each being awarded with 4 Pool C teams, the Central, North, and New England Regions each getting 3 Pool C bids, and the remaining 3 Pool C bids being awarded to the Great Lakes, West, and Mid-Atlantic regions  (1 Pool C team each).   

For the New England regional selection process-- the pecking order for Pool C selection was Eastern Conn State being first on the table, followed by Brandeis, then Wheaton (MA), with Keene State being the team left on the national table when the final Pool C selection was awarded.    Tufts, being ranked #9 in New England in the final rankings which were released Monday afternoon after the bracket was announced, never got to the national table for Pool C consideration.

As to why Keene State was ranked ahead of Tufts,  it seems to me to be a close call--  Tufts and Keene State tied in the head-to head, and it seemed close in the results with common opponents Williams, Middlebury, and Amherst-- Tufts went 1-1-1 vs those teams, and Keene State went 1-2 vs those teams.

Both Keene State and Tufts had high enough strength of schedules to be worthy of being regionally ranked-- Keene State's SOS as of 10/31 was .548, while Tufts had a .596 SOS as of 10/31.

Looking at the schedule of the Jumbos,  Tufts did not have a significant in-region win outside of the NESCAC to seem to be worthy of a Pool C pick in my opinion--   Tufts lost to Wheaton (MA), and tied with Keene State.   The only non-conference wins of note for Tufts were wins over Babson and Endicott, neither of those two teams won their conference automatic bids to the NCAA tournament.   A chance for the Jumbos to make a statement vs Brandeis got cancelled by bad weather, so Tufts basically had to prove themselves exclusively in NESCAC competition.   Tufts seemed to make a statement with their tie against Williams and their victory against Bowdoin to get the #1 seed in the NESCAC tournament, but being unable to win in regulation vs Bates in the first round of the NESCAC tournament really cost Tufts in the end.

In the end,  Keene State's better in-region winning percentage may have been the deciding factor in a close-call vs those teams. 

[freekick]

I'm a Great Lakes follower. Was told SOS was a huge factor in the regional rankings this year...straight from the committee itself. But you gotta wonder how that distort things. WashU is the clear outlier in the regional picks, and was probably the last pool C bid in the Central/Great Lakes area, which seem to have some overlap in the selection process. Great strength of schedule (.694) but out of 10 games against ranked teams (which clearly builds a strength of schedule) they only won 3) and, they end up with a bid...but that's the way it works...also it's very difficult (i'm told) to move across regions...there are geographic considerations in building the bracket which is probably why Hamilton got in, for instance, even it's strenght of schedule wasn't all that great and they were 0-2 against ranked teams.

On other other side of the coin and in support of the importance of SOS, look at Thomas More in the Great Lakes ... undefeated 14-0-4...but a .494 SOS and they only played one ranked team which they beat...no bid...go figure.

Of particular interest to me in the Great Lakes was Wooster...they dropped one spot in the regional rankings last week (from 3rd to 4th) even though they tied a ranked team in tournament (Lost in PKs)and only lost one of it's last eight games...Centre which lost three of tis last four games, rose up to 3, from I believe it was 6th...but still no bid for Centre either, by all accounts, a really good team.

There's always going to be folks who are upset by the process of selection (look at hte BCS mess) but it seems there are other factors, perhaps political, that come into play.

[Dfense1]

Deiscanton & Freekick,

Thanks for the perspectives...it really sheds some light.

As you might guess, when I reviewed the New England Score Reporting Form I referenced earlier, I got a little excited because it seemed there really was a quantitative and objective basis out there for ranking teams.

Both of your perspectives however, seem to point to some degree of subjectivity (including politics) that still (unfortunately) exists in the selection process (okay...call me naive).

[deiscanton]

Hamilton was actually 0-0-2 vs regionally ranked teams, not 0-2.   Hamilton tied with William Smith and Oneonta State (the top two teams in Hamilton's region), both of those teams won their respective automatic bids from their leagues.    Had Hamilton lost to those teams, they probably would not be in the NCAAs.

As to why Hamilton got a Pool C bid ahead of Keene State, the national committee probably used secondary criteria to award that bid.    Keene State played Cortland out-of-region and only got a tie in that match, while Hamilton defeated Cortland in-region.   That probably was the factor in getting Hamilton a Pool C bid ahead of Keene State.

Hamilton had a good-enough regional winning percentage and strength of schedule to be worthy of Pool C consideration despite being ranked only #7 in the East.

Of note, Hamilton is scheduled to join NESCAC for soccer and basketball next season, if I recall correctly, and that will make the NESCAC a multi-region league. (as well as getting Hamilton full NESCAC membership in all sports.)

[freekick]

Sorry...you're right. I misread that.

On the other hand, Vassar had a better record and a better SOS but no quality wins with one quality tie...should they have been in over Hamilton???

[Dfense1]

I would not be surprised to see Wild win POY.

Good call Becks...following site lists the NESCAC All-Conference selections released today.

http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2010-11/honors/allconference

[Dfense1]

Re: ROY

I believe the ROY will go to whichever First Year offensive NESCAC POW whose team finishes highest in final conference rankings.

I should have said...will go to the First Year offensive POW whose team finishes highest in the NESCAC tournament.

Congrats to Amanda Brisco of Amherst...they lost in finals to Williams.

http://www.nescac.com/sports/wsoc/2010-11/honors/allconference

[Becks]

I haven't gone through the NESCAC all-conference awards, but at first blush, they make sense to me.  I definitely agree with the 2 Wesleyan picks.  I would have picked them that way myself.  Kurash has the highest work rate of pretty much any player I've ever seen and is a great finisher.  Battelle was a total rock in midfield (amazingly strong; I loved watching players bounce off her), with ball skills to match (queen of the step over).

I thought Kurash's first team honors was a first for a Wes player.  But after checking the archives, I found that Wes had a first team keeper back in 2001 -- pretty amazing since Wes had by far the worst GA stats in the league that year.

[Becks]

Definitely takes away a lot of the NCAA tournament buzz on this thread, having only 1 NESCAC representative this year, as opposed to 3 last year.  Dfense1 and Johnboy have reason to be excited; the rest of us, not so much.

[Dfense1]

Definitely takes away a lot of the NCAA tournament buzz on this thread, having only 1 NESCAC representative this year, as opposed to 3 last year.  Dfense1 and Johnboy have reason to be excited; the rest of us, not so much.

Ahhh...you guys (and gals) like good soccer whoever plays it.  I think we'll see the Ephs give a great accounting of themselves in the tournament and on behalf of NESCAC.