Liberty League

[deutschfan]

What if you don't play any better teams?  It is not like SLU followed Brandeis out to Trinity or made a shorter trip to a upper echelon NESCAC school. 

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

The committee does not care about a few blemishes against weaker teams. They care more about your record against better teams(Record v Ranked opponents) which is one thing the committee does right IMO.

Do they actually not care about a slip up or two? This kind of goes back to my point yesterday with John Carroll, Lycoming and RPI. If this was the case then Dickinson and maybe Rochester or Salisbury wouldn't have gotten in and 2 of these 3 teams would have. RPI lost against the top 25 teams like St. Lawrence(2x) and Oneonta but played a pretty tough schedule. Lycoming beat top 15 Rochester lost to #1 Messiah(2x) and tied another NCAA tournament team on the road. John Carroll had 3 losses in their first 6 games which included 2 tournaments they participated in. Then rallied off 14 wins in a row before losing a heart breaker in their conference final. All 3 had a slip up or two either by a bad loss or maybe a tie that should have been a win. It seems like the committee faulted all 3 of these teams for one slip up.

[Flying Weasel]

The committee does not care about a few blemishes against weaker teams. They care more about your record against better teams(Record v Ranked opponents) which is one thing the committee does right IMO.

Do they actually not care about a slip up or two? This kind of goes back to my point yesterday with John Carroll, Lycoming and RPI. If this was the case then Dickinson and maybe Rochester or Salisbury wouldn't have gotten in and 2 of these 3 teams would have. RPI lost against the top 25 teams like St. Lawrence(2x) and Oneonta but played a pretty tough schedule. Lycoming beat top 15 Rochester lost to #1 Messiah(2x) and tied another NCAA tournament team on the road. John Carroll had 3 losses in their first 6 games which included 2 tournaments they participated in. Then rallied off 14 wins in a row before losing a heart breaker in their conference final. All 3 had a slip up or two either by a bad loss or maybe a tie that should have been a win. It seems like the committee faulted all 3 of these teams for one slip up.

I largely concur with Mr. Right.  It wasn't the slips ups that cost those teams you list.  The at-large selections can largely be explained by the committee prioritizing SOS and wins vs. ranked teams.  I would contend that losses to ranked teams don't really hurt a team; a lack of wins vs. ranked teams is what does.  It's assumed that teams on the bubble will have some losses to ranked teams, assuming they played ranked teams (if they were beating all their ranked opponents they wouldn't be on the bubble).  The bubble teams that have wins vs. ranked teams and high SOS will get the nod over those that don't.

Rochester had a SOS well over .600 and I believe four wins vs. ranked teams.  Dickinson had a SOS just over .600 and 3 wins vs. ranked teams.  None of the teams left out came close to matching that.  RPI had a decent SOS, but not over .600 and they were winless vs. ranked teams.  Lycoming had a pitiful SOS barely over .500 and only one win vs. ranked teams.  John Carroll had a low SOS and by my count 2 wins vs. ranked teams.  What's not clear is why Salisbury got in with a SOS a little over .550 (higher than JCU and Lyco, lower than RPI) and no wins vs. ranked teams. 

Salisbury may have edged RPI on the basis of 3 ties and one loss vs. ranked teams being better than 3 losses and just one tie, and enough so to compensate for the lower SOS.  The argument for selecting Salisbury over John Carroll is harder to make becuse it's not clear what John Carroll's record vs. ranked teams was considered to be.  Meeting minutes of discussions to revisit and revise the determination of "record vs. ranked opponents" say that Team A's (read John Carroll's) record versus ranked teams dropped from 4-0-0 and 3-1-0 in the published rankings to 0-1-0 in the final unpublished rankings used for at-large selections.  I'm confused by that as I calculate a 2-1-0 record, so I'm not sure if I still don't understand how they are determining this or if the meeting minutes have a typo or the committee goofed, but if indeed they considered John Carroll's record vs. ranked teams to be 0-1-0 in the end, Salisbury, also with zero wins vs. ranked teams, would get the nod on the basis of a higher SOS and three ties vs. ranked teams to none for John Carroll.

All that to say, I firmly believe that it's not the slip-ups that cost those teams as you suggest, but lack of wins vs. ranked teams and moderate to low SOS.  The committee wants tournament teams to regularly play and prove themselves against other top teams, and demonstrate that they can win sometimes.  It's not really about losses as long as there aren't too many of them.

And as to Dickinson's terrible finish to the season, the committee is not tasked with weigthing the final 1/3 or 1/4 of the season greater than the rest of the season.  They may do so as a tie-breaker between teams that on the season as a whole are considered even.  But if one team has a better season-long resume than another team, how they each did down the stretch is irrelavant.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

I understand that and the process and that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification and info on Salisbury! As for Dickinson what quality wins did they have verse ranked opponents as compared to losses? Lost to Messiah and Muhlenberg (2x), tied F&M. Lost to Swarthmore but don't think they were ranked. Only good wins when you look at it were Haverford, Hopkins who was barely .500 (9-7-2 I think?) and Catholic in their opening game. I feel like the committee should consider how you are playing down the stretch just like they do in college basketball. Why reward a team for not winning a game in the last month (literally the last month) of the regular season when you have other teams with better or similar records that are clicking on all cylinders down the stretch?

Sure they may not weigh the finish over the rest of the season but if you are talking about ranked opponents they all came in that last month and they didn't perform. That's my argument. I don't disagree at all with what you said about SOS and all that makes total sense. I just cant get over why it isn't a big picture look at a team. It seems like they only focus on 3 categories which is SOS, record vs ranked opponents, and historical records(bias)/what conference you are in. Do they consider shut-outs or defensive stats? Home vs Away records? Anything like that if you know off the top of your head? I am just curious because I feel like this year there will be a lot of headaches with top teams losing so early. If the trend keeps going then we will have a lot of average records for historically good teams in good conferences and I am interested to see if they get in.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

I still think RPI should have gotten in over Dickinson or Salisbury. Just my opinion. And Lycoming or John Carroll should have been considered more than they were. Thank you for all your info though, it is really helpful and clears up things a bit!

[Flying Weasel]

Mid-Atlantic Fan,

A couple points. 

(1) I am not defending the criteria the selection committee is prescribed to use, nor am I defending their application of that criteria and the selections they make.  I am merely suggesting how the committee most likely arrived at their decisions within the framework of the criteria they are tasked with applying.

You raise some good points and considerations.  I also have a variety of concerns and questions about the criteria and the process.  For just one example, I question whether the committee makes any considerations for the difference in quality of ranked opponents.  We all know there can be a big difference between playing the #1 ranked team in a region as opposed to playing the #8 ranked team in a region, and yet the "record vs. ranked teams" in and of itself can't reflect that.  A team could manage a nice 3-0-1 record vs. ranked opponents having only played teams in the bottom half of the regional rankings (not representative of the avg. tournament opponent past the first round) while another team may have played teams from the top half (representative of tournament opponents) and gone 1-2-1.  But that win and tie may be more indicative of that team's chances in the tournament than the other team's 3 wins and 1 tie.  The "record vs. ranked teams" also can't capture the difference between a close fought 1-goal loss, a loss despite being the "better" team, and a loss where you were outplayed, and likewise for wins and ties.

We don't kow how much the committee does or does not dig deeper than the data they have complied and provided to them.  But their selections often give the impression they learn towards formulaic, quantitative decisions, rather than subjective discernment/judgment. 

(2) http://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2014/at-large-analysis-and-predictions  If you haven't already read this annual piece on D3soccer.com, it may be helpful for understanding how things work (even if you do not like the way they work).

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Mid-Atlantic Fan,

A couple points. 

(1) I am not defending the criteria the selection committee is prescribed to use, nor am I defending their application of that criteria and the selections they make.  I am merely suggesting how the committee most likely arrived at their decisions within the framework of the criteria they are tasked with applying.

You raise some good points and considerations.  I also have a variety of concerns and questions about the criteria and the process.  For just one example, I question whether the committee makes any considerations for the difference in quality of ranked opponents.  We all know there can be a big difference between playing the #1 ranked team in a region as opposed to playing the #8 ranked team in a region, and yet the "record vs. ranked teams" in and of itself can't reflect that.  A team could manage a nice 3-0-1 record vs. ranked opponents having only played teams in the bottom half of the regional rankings (not representative of the avg. tournament opponent past the first round) while another team may have played teams from the top half (representative of tournament opponents) and gone 1-2-1.  But that win and tie may be more indicative of that team's chances in the tournament than the other team's 3 wins and 1 tie.  The "record vs. ranked teams" also can't capture the difference between a close fought 1-goal loss, a loss despite being the "better" team, and a loss where you were outplayed, and likewise for wins and ties.

We don't kow how much the committee does or does not dig deeper than the data they have complied and provided to them.  But their selections often give the impression they learn towards formulaic, quantitative decisions, rather than subjective discernment/judgment. 

(2) http://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2014/at-large-analysis-and-predictions  If you haven't already read this annual piece on D3soccer.com, it may be helpful for understanding how things work (even if you do not like the way they work).

Definitely know you weren't defending the criteria that is why I thanked you for your info that you provided. Didn't think I came across as pointing the finger? Sorry if you took it that way. I will check out the link. I don't think I have been on it yet. Thanks!

[Mr.Right]

Excellent and detailed post by Weasel...+k....I would guess he understands the criteria better than half of the committee. Now we need to push for him to get in that room and start helping to change the system a bit

[Flying Weasel]

Didn't take it as finger-pointing, Mid-Atlantic Fan.  Just clarifying in case it wasn't clear.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Excellent and detailed post by Weasel...+k....I would guess he understands the criteria better than half of the committee. Now we need to push for him to get in that room and start helping to change the system a bit

Agreed. Very knowledgeable!

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Didn't take it as finger-pointing, Mid-Atlantic Fan.  Just clarifying in case it wasn't clear.

Just making sure! Hard to read people through text sometimes. Just clarifying as well

[Mr.Right]

Did any of you SLU guys catch the Rowan at SLU game? I am trying to get a feel for Rowan this year...Also, how about RPI. Did anyone catch their games with Patterson and Stockton?

[Sandy]

I watched the game online. Rowan didn't play particularly well. It was tied at half but SLU was in control and then went ahead and dominated the rest of the game scoring 4 unanswered. I don't remember them being particularly dangerous either. They might have a few decent half chances though. They hit the crossbar from distance in the first half from outside the box. That was the closest they got though I believe. Their #11 (I think) seemed to be their most dangerous player from what I can recall, which isn't too much.

That's all I can really remember and I may have gotten some of that wrong.

[Saint of Old]

Clarkson v. Buff State

This game should tell us a lot about Clarkson.
the league schedule wont be easy, there are 7 legitimate contenders for 4 spots, as I have said since pre-season, I think only Skidmore has the chance of overtaking one of last season's tourney teams... but which one.

SLU v. Cortland

This game should tell us a lot about SLU.
Again, early season injuries has hampered what I think could be a special team.
St. Lawrence rises or falls this year on the strength of its freshman class.

[Mr.Right]

What about Hobart? They are quietly taking care of business against some decent competition. I hate the LL tourney as I have been saying for years they should take 6 teams to their conference tournament especially after adding RIT and Bard even though Hamilton left.