2014 D3 Season: National Perspective

[PaulNewman]

Agree with your final conclusion about a fair result. Also agree that ref showed restraint on that Barnes play and could have given a 2nd yellow.  However, conceding that the GK play was outside the box I'm not sure about 2 more defenders.  Not 100% positive, but seemed there was no doubt Amolo would have scored there.  Kenyon also got a yellow on a call in the box for flopping on a player who would be one of the last players on the team anyone would imagine flopping.  Amolo got called for couple of shaky fouls when he had the ball right at top of the box.

Kenyon's offense is an issue, especially combining and finishing in final 3rd, and given the size they bring up for corners and set plays, and the number of corners and deep throws, they should have created better chances.  Kenyon when controlling play tends to get a little stretched and I thought some of OWU's best chances came on the counter when they were able to get into space and get into more of their usual trademark combination play in and around the box.

As regards a possible rematch, I would expect the offense of both teams to play better.  And Kenyon certainly is very familiar with Roy Rike field and in some ways might enjoy a win there even more. 

[Flying Weasel]

Kenyon played a definite role there - OWU likes to play through the middle and their center backs completely that shut down.

That sounds like Kenyon.  Against Messiah in last year's Sweet 16 match, Kenyon really crowded and clogged the middle in their defensive half of the field (not just a centerback thing, but the entire team), forcing Messiah to advance the ball upfield mainly out wide.  And while Messiah has very good wingers (some of the best in D-III), it made their attacks much more predictable and thereby easier to defend.  When there's space to attack up the middle, the defense has so much more to worry about as the player with the ball could slot the ball forward or lay it off left or right, or spray it out to either wing to quickly and unpredictably change the point of attack.  Forcing the play out wide meant the point of attack couldn't be changed as quickly or easily, thereby making it easier for defenders to track players and get their positioning right.  It certainly was effective as they (Kenyon) execute it very well.

[Durantula]

On the regional data sheets that just came out. Is the SOS for the teams whole season? Or just the games they have played so far?

[Mr. Ypsi]

On the regional data sheets that just came out. Is the SOS for the teams whole season? Or just the games they have played so far?

In both football and basketball, SOS is only for games already played.  I would assume soccer is the same.

[Christan Shirk]

The all-important NCAA Regional Rankings have been released.  Check them out here:

http://d3soccer.com/rankings/2014/Men/regional-rankings-1


If you're not sure what the significance of these rankings is or how they work, read this article:

http://d3soccer.com/rankings/2014/about

[Christan Shirk]

On the regional data sheets that just came out. Is the SOS for the teams whole season? Or just the games they have played so far?

Yes, the SOS only includes opponents and games to date.  To see how the SOS is calculated, scroll down to the Strength of Schedule section in this article: http://d3soccer.com/rankings/2014/about

[lastguyoffthebench]

101-3-5 the last 4.5 years.  Yeah, I'd agree. 


Because of OWP/OOWP... Centennial should dominate the NCAA Rankings:

1) Messiah
2) F&M
3) Dickinson
4) Haverford 
5) Muhlenberg
6) JHU
7) Eastern
8) Swat
---------------------
9) Miseri
10) Lycoming


What are your thoughts, FW

Not too far off on the mid-atlantic...   Had the Fords held on vs the Mules...



Also, very shocked to see Coast Guard come in at #2 in the NE Region and Luther as well in the North...

[wally_wabash]

Little Giants completely absent from these rankings.  Is this a product of the first rankings having incomplete data (specifically results against ranked teams) or is this a result of Wabash getting hammered for their schedule?  I can understand not being in the top 2 or 3 of the rankings, but to be absent entirely?  Seems like a clerical error. 

To whit, if the primary criteria are this (and they are):
•Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents
•Division III head-to-head competition
•Results versus common Division III opponents
•Results versus ranked Division III teams)
•Division III Strength-of-schedule

How can the GL RAC rank DePauw and not rank Wabash given Wabash's advantages in:
•Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents - .643 to .857 (massive advantage for Wabash)
•Division III head-to-head competition (TBD 10/29)
•Results versus common Division III opponents (Wabash wins vs. RHIT, Kenyon compared to DePauw's losses to those teams; Wabash has a draw with Franklin who DePauw lost to, DePauw beat Hanover who drew with Wabash)
•Results versus ranked Division III teams (apparently this wasn't counted this time around?)
•Division III Strength-of-schedule (0.567 DePauw, 0.489 Wabash- heavy advantage DePauw)

DPU has one advantage here.  I don't know how this adds up to DePauw being ranked 6th and Wabash being out entirely.  Would love to hear from folks who follow the soccer scene closer than I do, but on the surface this looks like a massive, massive whiff from the GL RAC. 

[lastguyoffthebench]

FW or Christan,

Does the SOS have to be over .500 or was that modified?

[Christan Shirk]

SOS is massively important to the committee.  A sub .500 SOS is a huge strike against a team.  (Several years ago, the committee temporary instituted a policy whereby any team with a sub .500 SOS was ineligible to be ranked and thereby ineligible to be selected for an at-large berth.  However, after the first and second regional rankings that year, they reversed course, probably due to the outcry as high-profil nationally ranked teams Dominican and Swarthmore, among others, were being excluded as a result.)

While the committee was still considering who to rank, there was no ranking to serve as basis for a record vs. ranked.  So until you've had an initial ranking, this criteria can not exist.  This will show up in the second and third rankings and be used for the final "secret" rankings that are used for making at-large selections.  Wabash's win over Kenyon will help them next week.  Record vs. ranked also seems to be very important to the committee.

Wabash is probably going to need some more wins over ranked teams to ovecome their low SOS.  And even then they would probably still be on the bubble.  Next week will give us a better feel once the record vs. ranked comes into play.

[Christan Shirk]

FW or Christan,

Does the SOS have to be over .500 or was that modified?

As I mentioned in my previous response, that policy was scrapped after two weeks of rankings, and as far as I can tell, never introduced again.  It was always a bit odd and fishy given it was not coming from the governing Championship Manual, so I'm not sure what their basis for thinking they could apply such a criteria was.

[wally_wabash]

SOS is massively important to the committee.  A sub .500 SOS is a huge strike against a team.  (Several years ago, the committee temporary instituted a policy whereby any team with a sub .500 SOS was ineligible to be ranked and thereby ineligible to be selected for an at-large berth.  However, after the first and second regional rankings that year, they reversed course, probably due to the outcry as high-profil nationally ranked teams Dominican and Swarthmore, among others, were being excluded as a result.)

While the committee was still considering who to rank, there was no ranking to serve as basis for a record vs. ranked.  So until you've had an initial ranking, this criteria can not exist.  This will show up in the second and third rankings and be used for the final "secret" rankings that are used for making at-large selections.  Wabash's win over Kenyon will help them next week.  Record vs. ranked also seems to be very important to the committee.

Wabash is probably going to need some more wins over ranked teams to ovecome their low SOS.  And even then they would probably still be on the bubble.  Next week will give us a better feel once the record vs. ranked comes into play.

Thanks for the insight, Christan.  I can understand why a committee would look at a team with a good W/L record and a poor SOS (.500 seems to be the arbitrary cutoff for good vs. bad SOS) and have concerns about the quality of the team in the absence of any quality wins.  But when that team does something like, say just hypothetically, beat the best team in the region, then that ought to offer some validation of their quality and of their record, SOS aside.  And the SOS differences still do not completely justify dismissal of the common opponent results between Wabash and DePauw;  those are about as apples-to-apples a comparison as we can make between two teams that haven't played each other yet.   

I'll spare you my rant about the NCAA's SOS metric, which I've made many times during the other football season (the one where you can and should use your hands), but we'll just say that it's not a particularly good measure of "strength" (made even less "good" by the silly and arbitrary home/away multiplier). 

But it is what it is.  Hopefully next Wednesday when the RAC can consider more data (like RRO results), Wabash will get their due.  And then immediately afterward, they can go beat DePauw by 15 at Mud Hollow.   

[Flying Weasel]

The combination of the simplicity of the SOS formula that is used and the seeming heavy weight the committee places on SOS, results in inaccurate assessment and ranking of teams at times, IMO.  I am all for considering strength of schedule, but I prefer it to be done with critical analysis and judgment not an overly-simplistic formula. But if you are going to rely (an heavily at that) on an SOS formula, you really should have something more sophisticated than what they have.  I'm not a fan of the Masey or Bennett rankings either, as they so often don't pass my smell test, but their SOS would probably be a better option combined with lowering how much weight you place on it.

[gobash83]

While I'm disappointed that Wabash didn't make the first Regional Ranking with a .857 winning pct. and the Kenyon win, I am not surprised given its .489 SOS. I think Wabash along with Rose-Hulman (.700 winning pct. and .515 SOS), Thomas More (.821 winning pct. and .498 SOS) and Penn St.-Behrend (.813 winning pct. & .496 SOS) are all in the hunt for a spot in future rankings depending how the rest of the season goes.

Personally, I would like to see Rose-Hulman work its way back into the ranking so that Wabash would have a chance at 2 wins over regionally ranked opponents (I suspect DePauw will drop out after Wabash beats them on 10/29  )

[PaulNewman]

The DePauw game is huge for Wabash and probably not as much for DePauw.  If Wabash doesn't win that one, and then doesn't get to at the least the final of the NCAC tourney, they are probably out.  DePauw, ironically, can be a little more free-wheeling because they can only get a bid most likely by winning the AQ.  I think that's going to be a tough game for Wabash with a dynamic similar to what Kenyon just had with OWU.  Sometimes not being the favorite is helpful.

All that said, I'll be honest and say I was shocked Wabash wasn't ranked regionally.