Mr.Rights Thoughts

[PickettStreetParty]

I said in an earlier post that POY often favors forwards due to the tangible scoring numbers.  Unfortunately, this prejudices defenders and midfielders to a degree.....

No doubt.  It's unfortunate, but the reality and I don't see that changing.  Even if Division III sports got more exposure and voters cold see more games/players beyond their schedule and their region, I still don't know if it would change.  This is an issue in sports in general.  In football, QB's especially and RB's and WR's are going to be MVP 90% of the time.  Increased exposure and coverage would help the situation.  But that needs to be much more than just the availability of live streaming video of games.  Coaches (and/or SIDs) are not going to have time (they have their own games and practices and scouting and game prep) to be watching games just for the sake of finding out about teams and players they otherwise would not see play.

Just thinking of All-Conference, All-Region, and All-American honors in general, I think defensive midfielders are the most overlooked players.  As a voter, how would you even know who was a defensive midfielder  when you see names from other regions and from teams you never saw play?  And so you have all midfielders (attacking central mids, outside mids, central mids, holding mids, defensive mids, etc...) lumped into one pot, and some of those employed in a more attacking role have these great stats (goals and assists) while a defensive mid has little or nothing that can be quantified into a list or table for the voter.

I thought POY was based on how many 1st team All-Region votes you get with SOS, record, and coach's nomination included.

[Mr.Right]

First of all 2 important points about Nescac compared to the other conferences and schools


1. NO SPRING SEASON

2. 4 DAY PRESEASON WITH 1 SCRIMMAGE

[Mr.Right]

Nescac play 15 games total. 10 in conference and 5 out of conference. Nescac is the toughest league in the country and I would say 90% of their games are BATTLES. Lets compare 3 schools without NCAA's or conference tournaments....Messiah, Wheaton MA and Williams


Wheaton MA

Overall: 17-4-2 - Conference: 6-0-1
8/29   vs. Illinois Wesleyan •   W, 4-1   BX
8/30   vs. St. Joseph's (Maine) •   W, 6-0   BX
9/3   vs. Western New England •   W, 2-0   BX
9/6   at Keene State •   W, 7-0   BX
9/9   vs. Emmanuel •   W, 4-0   BX
9/13   vs. Wesleyan •   T, 0-0   BX
9/16   vs. New England College •   W, 5-1   BX
9/20   at Springfield * •   W, 2-1   BX
9/24   at Roger Williams •   W, 3-2   BX
9/27   vs. WPI * •   W, 1-0   BX
9/30   at Brandeis •   L, 1-0   BX
10/4   vs. Babson * •   W, 3-1   BX
10/7   at Trinity (Conn.) •   L, 4-3   BX
10/11   at MIT * •   W, 1-0   BX
10/15   at Bridgewater State •   W, 4-0   BX
10/18   vs. Emerson * •   W, 5-2   BX
10/19   at Husson •   W, 2-0   BX
10/25   at Coast Guard * •   T, 0-0   BX
10/28   vs. Colby-Sawyer •   W, 5-0   BX
11/1   vs. Clark * •   W, 5-0   BX

Messiah

Overall: 21-1-1 - Conference: 7-0-1
8/29   vs. TCNJ •   W, 2-1   BX
8/30   at Rowan •   W, 3-0   BX
9/5   vs. Redlands   W, 4-0   BX
9/6   vs. Neumann •   W, 2-0   
9/10   at Gettysburg •   W, 3-0   BX
9/13   vs. Catholic •   W, 4-0   BX
9/16   vs. Dickinson •   W, 4-2   BX
9/20   at Montclair State •   W, 3-1   
9/24   vs. York (Pa.) •   W, 5-0   BX
9/27   at Misericordia •   W, 3-0   
9/30   vs. Elizabethtown •   Cancelled   LS V
10/4   vs. Widener * •   W, 3-0   
10/8   vs. Lycoming * •   W, 3-0   
10/11   at Lebanon Valley * •   W, 3-2   
10/14   at Stevenson * •   T, 0-0   BX
10/18   vs. Albright * •   W, 7-0   
10/22   vs. Hood * •   W, 5-0   BX
10/28   at Alvernia * •   W, 1-0   
11/1   at Arcadia * •   W, 3-0   

Williams

Overall: 8-6-2 - Conference: 6-3-1
9/7   vs. Colby * •   W, 2-0   BX
9/9   at Westfield State •   W, 4-0   BX
9/13   vs. Trinity (Conn.) * •   W, 3-1   BX
9/14   vs. Babson •   L, 1-0   BX
9/20   at Amherst * •   L, 4-1   BX
9/23   vs. RPI •   T, 1-1   BX
9/27   at Connecticut College * •   L, 2-1   BX
10/1   vs. Middlebury * •   W, 2-1   BX
10/4   at Skidmore •   L, 2-1   BX
10/5   vs. Endicott •   W, 1-0   BX
10/11   vs. Wesleyan * •   W, 2-1   BX
10/12   vs. Bowdoin * •   W, 2-0   BX
10/18   at Tufts * •   L, 1-0   BX
10/25   at Bates * •   T, 1-1   BX
10/29   at Hamilton * •   W, 1-0   BX


Just in the regular season Wheaton has played 20 games. Messiah has played(including ETOWN) 19 games and Williams 15 games. First off that is more than the 2 or maybe 3 games you claimed. So I was not exaggerating MUCH. The biggest point is the CUPCAKE games in between that Wheaton and Messiah play compared to Williams.


Williams has 3 CUPCAKES  Westfield St, Bates and Endicott.
Wheaton has 12 CUPCAKES. I will not even bother naming them all but legit games were against Brandeis, Babson, MIT, Trinity CT and Wesleyan.
Messiah has 8-9 CUPCAKES.


Point is SOS and Stats have a #1 HUGE impact. I could compare schools for days but only when schools play similar schedules can we actually vote on ALL American and POY. Until then and basically never will this voting be legit.

[1970s NESCAC Player]

MR, you are correct in your analysis, but I'm sure you will never convince any of the non-NESCAC readers . . .

[Flying Weasel]

First off, I'm not saying the voting is well done or that voters are able to fairly and accurately compare players from all different conference and regions playing different number of games in varying SOS. So there is a genuine difficulty for the voters to select the best players from a division of 400+ teams of which most voters will have only seen a game or two of a small percentage of teams.  On top of that, it appears to me that the NSCAA is certainly trying to achieve a certain level of regional balance with their national AA teams and a certain level of conference and team balance with their All-Region teams (i.e. sometimes spreading the honors around at the expense of honoring the most deserving).  So I largely agree with your closing statements.

And I also don't disagree that playing a tougher schedule will hold your stats down, and there's no doubt the NESCAC is either the toughest conference or one of the top 2 or 3 year-in, year-out.  On top of that I imagine if the NESCAC school could add a few more non-conference games to their schedule, they for the most part would be inferior teams that would help players boost their stats and put them on a more even playing field with a lot of other players who have those extra few games.  So I'm with you for the most part on those points.

But the thing is that you claimed the NESCAC players are disadvantaged because they play 6 or 7 less games.  In response to my questioning of your assertion, you diverted the topic to emphasize SOS, toughest conference, less cupcakes on the schedule, etc. (items I don't much disagree with) while only admitting to a slight exaggeration.  Even with this small concession on your part, I still think you overstate the difference in games played. 

If a NESCAC team reaches the NESCAC final they will have played 18 games.  For the great majority of teams, if they reach their conference final, they will have played 19 to 21 games.  That is a difference of 1 to 3 games.  For example, here's the number of games played prior to the NCAA tournament by the teams with NSCAA All-American forwards this year (except for the NESCAC's  Middlebury):

Messiah	20	reached conf. final
Whitworth	19	n/a
Brandeis	19	n/a
Calvin	21	reached conf. final
Chris. Newport	23	reached conf. final
Eastern	19	reached conf. final
Birmingham-So.	18	reached conf. final
SUNY Oneonta	20	reached conf. final
Montclair St.	21	reached conf. final
Kenyon	19	reached conf. final
Wheaton (Mass.)	21	conf. semifinals
Wheaton (Ill.)	21	reached conf. final
Wartburg	20	reached conf. final
average	20.08

If you remove the two teams without a conference tournament, add in Messiah's cancelled game against E-town, and add in the NEWMAC final that Wheaton (Mass.) missed, the average is 20.45 games for teams reaching their conference final.  So 20.45 games versus the 18 games a NESCAC finalist would have played is a 2.45 game difference. 

I'm not saying that's insignificant, especially since most of those 2.45 extra games will have been against weak opponents allowing for the chance of stats being padded, but "6 to 7 games less" is a big exaggeration.

And how do we know the voters base their vote entirely on stats, and how do we know they base them on raw totals versus "per game" averages?  How do we know they don't factor SOS into their evaluation of the stats?

Finally, didn't the NESCAC play fewer games than the rest of Division III back 10 to 20 years ago?  Yet from 2000 to 2003, the NESCAC (mainly Williams) averaged 3 NSCAA First Team All-Americans per year!  Was the NSCAA doing a better job of taking the NESCAC's fewer games and tougher SOS into account back then, but somehow in the past 10 or so years have lost that ability?

[Mr.Right]

Agreed. You are correct with the schedules evening out. Also, we both can agree that 85% of voters take nothing into account. Yes Williams did dominate those First team AA for about 4 years when they had some incredible teams that were loaded with talent. They just never won a title during those years. Think 2014 Messiah. Those AA included about 2 Legit MLSers and 4-5 USLers. Anyway, I will cede this one as your point was well made

[D3soccerwatcher]

First off, I'm not saying the voting is well done or that voters are able to fairly and accurately compare players from all different conference and regions playing different number of games in varying SOS. So there is a genuine difficulty for the voters to select the best players from a division of 400+ teams of which most voters will have only seen a game or two of a small percentage of teams.  On top of that, it appears to me that the NSCAA is certainly trying to achieve a certain level of regional balance with their national AA teams and a certain level of conference and team balance with their All-Region teams (i.e. sometimes spreading the honors around at the expense of honoring the most deserving).  So I largely agree with your closing statements.

And I also don't disagree that playing a tougher schedule will hold your stats down, and there's no doubt the NESCAC is either the toughest conference or one of the top 2 or 3 year-in, year-out.  On top of that I imagine if the NESCAC school could add a few more non-conference games to their schedule, they for the most part would be inferior teams that would help players boost their stats and put them on a more even playing field with a lot of other players who have those extra few games.  So I'm with you for the most part on those points.

But the thing is that you claimed the NESCAC players are disadvantaged because they play 6 or 7 less games.  In response to my questioning of your assertion, you diverted the topic to emphasize SOS, toughest conference, less cupcakes on the schedule, etc. (items I don't much disagree with) while only admitting to a slight exaggeration.  Even with this small concession on your part, I still think you overstate the difference in games played. 

If a NESCAC team reaches the NESCAC final they will have played 18 games.  For the great majority of teams, if they reach their conference final, they will have played 19 to 21 games.  That is a difference of 1 to 3 games.  For example, here's the number of games played prior to the NCAA tournament by the teams with NSCAA All-American forwards this year (except for the NESCAC's  Middlebury):

Messiah	20	reached conf. final
Whitworth	19	n/a
Brandeis	19	n/a
Calvin	21	reached conf. final
Chris. Newport	23	reached conf. final
Eastern	19	reached conf. final
Birmingham-So.	18	reached conf. final
SUNY Oneonta	20	reached conf. final
Montclair St.	21	reached conf. final
Kenyon	19	reached conf. final
Wheaton (Mass.)	21	conf. semifinals
Wheaton (Ill.)	21	reached conf. final
Wartburg	20	reached conf. final
average	20.08

If you remove the two teams without a conference tournament, add in Messiah's cancelled game against E-town, and add in the NEWMAC final that Wheaton (Mass.) missed, the average is 20.45 games for teams reaching their conference final.  So 20.45 games versus the 18 games a NESCAC finalist would have played is a 2.45 game difference. 

I'm not saying that's insignificant, especially since most of those 2.45 extra games will have been against weak opponents allowing for the chance of stats being padded, but "6 to 7 games less" is a big exaggeration.

And how do we know the voters base their vote entirely on stats, and how do we know they base them on raw totals versus "per game" averages?  How do we know they don't factor SOS into their evaluation of the stats?

Finally, didn't the NESCAC play fewer games than the rest of Division III back 10 to 20 years ago?  Yet from 2000 to 2003, the NESCAC (mainly Williams) averaged 3 NSCAA First Team All-Americans per year!  Was the NSCAA doing a better job of taking the NESCAC's fewer games and tougher SOS into account back then, but somehow in the past 10 or so years have lost that ability?

Flying Weasel - this is an absolutely fantastic post - well researched and very well presented.

[Brother Flounder]

Hmmmmm....2014 Player of the year voting poll has a FAITH BASED whiff to it.    7 of 20 players.....

I voted for big ole Sam Williams but I would have like to see  :               ****other

Tufts and Nescac get the shaft. When Nescac teams play about 6 or 7 games less than the others your stats will not be comparable. Disappointed to say the least.

Sam Williams gets my vote....

[Mr.Right]

Last guy you seem to know the NJAC better than anyone I forgot about this game but is there any other explanation?  6 goals in 16 minutes. 5 goals in 10 minutes. Maybe just one of those games. Haverford's Rineer is a former Serpone / Amherst assistant and Villinova assistant so I was curious to how they have been playing. I caught them once on Muhlenberg's CCC Final video which was like watching 22 ants moving in different directions

http://haverfordathletics.com/sports/msoc/2014-15/releases/2014100605znwf

[Ommadawn]

I think your "just one of those games" hypothesis is right on  target.  This game was an aberration for Haverford from an offensive standpoint.  They never scored more than 3 goals in any other game.  The game was also somewhat atypical defensively for Haverford, as they gave up as many as 3 goals in only four other games against top teams (Rutgers-Newark, Dickinson, Muhlenberg, and F&M).  Coach Rineer is quite active as a recruiter despite the admissions challenges he faces.  From what I've seen of the Haverford games online, the style of play is similar to that of Amherst.

[Mr.Right]

and the tree keeps on growing...thanks ommadawn

[Corazon]

Rineer is indeed a good recruiter and a hustler. I think the 'ford admissions office gives less lee way to athletes than NESCAC schools as I don't think they have a tipping system (I don't know this for sure). I do know one good freshman starter at a comparable school who had planned to go there but was turned away by their admissions.

[lastguyoffthebench]

Rutgers Camden looked like two different teams at times throughout the season;  passive or aggressive, and completely inconsistent (which they thrived on from 2011-2014). They lost more games this year (8) than they did from 2011-13. 

On to  the Haverford game... I expected a win,  given their phenomenal home record and Haverford early results in season vs other NJAC teams. Camden went with a different look than their traditional 4.2.3.1; deciding to open up the game and play with only one holding mid in a 4.1.4.1. In addition, the starting RB and CB were suspended and I'm not sure why. .

For the most part the 4.1.4.1 worked (first 35 min),  which I will address later, as they went up a goal on two occassions but could not maintain.  Six subs were made with 10 min left in 1H and Haverford was able to capitalize, finding the net twice.

The wide open play led to several chances for Haverford in transition and multiple set pieces which Haverford finished
(4 or 5 of the goals).  Once Camden went down 4-2 the obvious guess is they had to chase the game. After a 62nd min red card...game went to 5-3 near the last 15 and Rutgers pushed everyone forward to make 5-4 (as they did from around 65 min on)....thus paying the piper 7-3.  No difference in losing 5-3, 5-4 or 7-3 as its a big fat LOSS either way.

Haverford lost to Newark and Kean earlier in season and tied Swat with a second left in the game; 3 teams that Camden went 4-0 against.  I think it was just one of those nights, as they beat Haverford 2 of the last 3 years.  I think they will be playing again next season,  so we'll see. 

Going back to the 4.1.4.1 they wanted to see what they could get away with having Auleta and Hurff as ACMs. vs bigger and stronger teams, but it failed (letting up 15 goals between Haverford and MSU).  Had Camden won that game,  they probably would have been the last team in, but losses to Cabrini and Rowan pretty much sealed their fate.  They still closed out the year 9-2-1 with two road losses to MSU.

In a funny tree that keeps growing...Oz and Rineer were both Tom Carlin's asst (Oz at Arcadia and Rineer at Nova).  As far as the recruiting comment that was made comparing Haverford and Camden, it's pretty fair to say Coach Oz has 2 strikes against him,  being that his position is only PART TIME, and the school is in the fine streets of Camden!  However,  the admissions process is easier in comparison.

Not even sure what SJ guys are looking into Camden at this point for 2015... I will try and find out.

[Mr.Right]

Thanks Last Guy for the commentary

[lastguyoffthebench]

Are there any coaches that you are aware of in the NE region that are only part time?

I was browsing the web and the Stockton position was posted with starting salary of $51k but could be higher based on experience...  My guess is that Stockton will follow suit to Rowan and promote Greg Rutter (assistant coach).   Seems like a great gig near the beach and with decent facilities which could possibly have some DI assistants apply, but who knows...