2014 D3 Season: National Perspective

[Off Pitch]

Final Mock Pool C

New England:  Brandeis, Wheaton, Coast Guard, Amherst, Tufts.

East:  Cortland St, Rochester, Brockport St

Mid Atlantic:  F&M, Haverford, Dickinson

South Atlantic:  Emory, Rutgers-Newark

Great Lakes:  John Carroll, OWU

Central:  Kalamazoo

North:  Loras, UWO

My trusty spreadsheet agrees with a couple of exceptions.  I have RPI, Salisbury and North Park in, Kalamazoo, UWO and Brockport St. out.

My last teams in are John Carroll and Cortland.  My first three out are UWO, Brockport St and WPI.

[Ryan Harmanis]

At-Large Predictions

New England (5)
Brandeis
Wheaton (Mass.)
Coast Guard
Amherst
Tufts

East (2)
Cortland State
Rochester

Mid-Atlantic (3)
F&M
Dickinson
Haverford

South Atlantic (3)
Emory
Salisbury
Rutgers-Newark

Great Lakes (2)
Ohio Wesleyan
John Carroll

Central (1)
North Park

North (2)
Loras
UW-Oshkosh

West (0)

[PaulNewman]

Final Mock (Until change my mind)

Brandeis
Wheaton
Amherst
Coast Guard
Tufts

Cortland
Rochester
Brockport (good SOS, 10-3-6, 1-3-2 vs ranked but this spot could go to Kzoo or North Park)

F&M
Dickinson (Same SOS and better ranked than Haverford and less blemishes -- 3-3-1 vs 2-5)

Emory
Rutgers-Newark
Salisbury

OWU
John Carroll (Christan has listed as 2-1 vs ranked but I think it's 4-1 and decent SOS and do not see strong argument for CMU here)

Kalamazoo (not sure on SOS but best record vs ranked against rest of these candidates with 3 wins over Hope, win over Chicago, and tie with Calvin, and although long forgotten North Park could get this with only has 6 blemishes, very high SOS but only 2-4 vs ranked )

Loras

Pool B -- UWW

Just miss --  North Park, UWO, Haverford, Camden

[lastguyoffthebench]

Three or four byes this year?    Messiah, Brandeis, Wheaton IL to host all the way to KC if they?

[Off Pitch]

For the official record:

New England (5)
Brandeis
Wheaton (Mass.)
Amherst
Coast Guard
Tufts

East (3)
Rochester
RPI
Cortland State

Mid-Atlantic (3)
F&M
Dickinson
Haverford

South Atlantic (3)
Emory
Rutgers-Newark
Salisbury

Great Lakes (2)
Ohio Wesleyan
John Carroll

Central (1)
North Park

North (1)
Loras

West (0)

Last 2 in: Cortland St, John Carroll
First 3 out: UWO, Brockport St and WPI

[Soccergeek]

I'll add my predictions to the mix:

New England (4)
Brandeis
Wheaton (Mass.)
Coast Guard
Amherst

East (2)
Cortland State
Rochester

Mid-Atlantic (2)
F&M
Dickinson

South Atlantic (3)
Emory
Salisbury
Rutgers-Newark

Great Lakes (2)
Ohio Wesleyan
John Carroll

Central (2)
North Park
Kalamazoo

North (2)
Loras
UW-W

West (1)
Texas-Dallas

[chelseafc30]

How do the first round byes work exactly? Are they based on region?

[PaulNewman]

Mr.Right?  Predictions?

Very interested how North Park hasn't been mentioned in days and now all of the sudden N. Park is voted in or at least mentioned in almost every mock submission.

[lastguyoffthebench]

How do the first round byes work exactly? Are they based on region?

I would think most deserving and ability to host with regard to money being spent .     Last year it was owu, Camden, loras...

[lastguyoffthebench]

Must be basing North Park on stability of the region and history of the NCAA rankings.   What's the point of conference finals if there is very little movement in said rankings?  The conference tournaments should make or break teams!   

[Christan Shirk]

I'm flattered that my prediction column produces such interest year after year.  I honestly feel that other fans that have followed D-III soccer for a number of years like some posters on this board could do an equally good job as I or better.  I think what I have done best in past years is to try not to over-think it.  The committee is fairly predictable, so just go with the obvious most times.  And just don't ever let your own opinion of who you think deserves it more come into it at all.

Anyway, my personal/family life has taken my attention off the site more than would be idea at this juncture of the season, so I am scrambling to dig into the at-large landscape without the benefit of having had time over the past several days to do a lot of the prep work.  So, word of warning, stay up late trying to see my predictions at your own risk, as they might only get posted early tomorrow.  Sorry!

That said, there's been comments about the record versus ranked.  In the Pre-Championships Manual, there is no longer any language to suggest that once a team is regionally ranked once they always count towards your record versus ranked.  The language was as follows: "Once a team is ranked in the sport's official rankings, it is always considered ranked."  However, sometime in the past few years that language was removed from the manual.  The statement with no qualification is currently: "Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection."  I take that to mean that when evaluating teams for the third weekly rankings, the second weekly rankings are the basis for who is considered a ranked opponent.  And therefore tonight, the third weekly rankings would serve as the basis as they ranked the teams to aid their at-large decisions.  So that's how I updated the record versus ranked, before remembering to try to confirm if that's how it was really being done be taking a look at the third weekly data sheets.  Spot-checking, it appears that maybe they are continuing with a once ranked, always ranked approach.  Not sure I will have time to go back an correct that or not.  Anyone else have insight on how the record versus ranked is being handled?  Any more spot-checking of the third weekly data sheets to confirm one way or another?

Diggin' in for a late night!  Sugar and caffeine, please!

[WarhawkFan]

I know in the third weekly data sheet UWW had 3-1-1 for record versus ranked, which means they kept their win over North Central even when North Central was dropped out of the rankings after the first week.  I took that to mean they were continuing the once-ranked always-ranked, although it's interesting that they took that language out.  I would definitely be interested to get confirmation on that.

Also, cheers for doing the prediction column! Always look forward to it.

[dontshootthegoose]

Thank you for all you do Christian!  Would just like to mention that UWW is 3-2-1 vs ranked, if that makes your case for pool b any clearer.

[Christan Shirk]

I know in the third weekly data sheet UWW had 3-1-1 for record versus ranked, which means they kept their win over North Central even when North Central was dropped out of the rankings after the first week.  I took that to mean they were continuing the once-ranked always-ranked, although it's interesting that they took that language out.  I would definitely be interested to get confirmation on that.

That's the most obvious "spot-check" that has me thinking I goofed in my updates.  I personally think they should update it weekly and remove results against teams that are no longer ranked.  And the current manual makes no suggestion of the once-ranked, always-ranked approach.  But, that very well maybe what they are still doing.  Ughh!  Maybe I'll re-do it before morning.

[Christan Shirk]

OK, I've done more spot-checking and I have concluded that the record for ranked does not typically include results against teams previously but not currently ranked.  That is, my spot-checking suggests that a once ranked, always ranked appraoch is NOT being used.  Here are four examples:

Messiah
2nd Weekly Data Sheet:  3-0-0 record vs. ranked (wins over Dickinson, Montclair St., Lycoming)
3rd Weekly Data Sheet:  3-0-0 record vs. ranked (wins over Dickinson, Montclair St., Catholic)
If the once ranked, always ranked appraoch was being used, the win over Lycoming (no longer ranked in second week) would not come off, but it must have as the previous win versus the newly ranked Catholic would have been added yet the total wins stayed at 3.

Rochester
2nd Weekly Data Sheet:  2-2-1 record vs. ranked (wins over Brandeis, St. Lawrence, losses to Lycoming, Chicago, tie with Oneonta)
3rd Weekly Data Sheet: 3-2-1 record vs. ranked (wins over Brandeis, St. Lawrence, Carnegie Mellon, losses to Chicago, Emory, tie with Oneonta)
If the once ranked, always ranked appraoch was being used, the previous loss to Lycoming (no longer ranked in second week) would not come off, but it must have as the new loss versus Emory  would have been added yet the total losses stayed at 2.

Ohio Wesleyan
2nd Weekly Data Sheet:   2-2-2 record vs. ranked (wins over Hope, DePauw, losses to Calvin, Capital, ties with Centre, Kenyon)
3rd Weekly Data Sheet:   2-2-2 record vs. ranked (wins over Hope, Ohio Northern, losses to Calvin, Capital, ties with Centre, Kenyon)
If the once ranked, always ranked appraoch was being used, the previous win over DePauw (no longer ranked in second week) would not come off, but it must have as the previous win versus the newly ranked Ohio Northern would have been added yet the total wins stayed at 2.

Connecticut
2nd Weekly Data Sheet:   1-4-0 record vs. ranked (win over Williams, losses to Middlebury, Amherst, Coast Guard, Tufts)
3rd Weekly Data Sheet:   2-5-0 record vs. ranked (wins over Williams, Tufts, losses to Middlebury, Amherst, Coast Guard, Tufts, Eastern Connecticut)
If the once ranked, always ranked appraoch was being used, the new loss to previously ranked Wesleyan would have been added bringing the total losses to 6, but only the previous loss to newly ranked Eastern Connecticut could have been added to reach a total of only 5 losses.

These examples are consistent with a plain understanding of the Manual which makes no mention any more of a once ranked, always ranked approach.  So, I think there was a clerical error in the case of UW-Whitewater and that the win over North Central (Ill.) should have been removed in the 3rd Weekly data sheet.  The updated records versus ranked in my prediction column will remain as I originally adjusted them to remove results against teams that fell out of the rankings.