2015 D3 Season: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

[Flying Weasel]

Comparison: D3soccer.com and NSCAA final rankings
(Rankings in parantheses list D3Soccer.com first, NSCAA second)

Ranked by D3soccer.com, unranked by NSCAA: Middlebury (19/--), Elizabethtown (20/--), Thomas More (22/RV), Colorado College (23/RV).

Ranked by NSCAA, unranked by D3soccer.com: St. Olaf (RV/15), Macalester (RV/20), Chicago (RV/23), Washington U. (RV/24)

Difference in ranking for 19 teams is 3 spots or less.

Biggest differences:
Middlebury (19/--)
Elizabethtown (20/--)
St. Olaf - 14 spots (RV/15)
Macalester - 10 spots (RV/20)
Washington U. - 8 spots (23/RV)
Thomas More - 6.5 spots (22/RV)
Ohio Wesleyan - 6 spots (12/18)
Colorado College - 5.5 spots (23/RV)
St. Lawrence - 4 spots (15/11)



Some thoughts/reactions/questions . . .

• With only 15 first place votes indicated, some of the unexpected movement may be due to some panelists not voting and thus creating a little inconsistency/disconnect from prior polls.

• What's the point of the NSCAA and D3soccer.com doing rankings if they can only rank the teams the NCAA ranking/selection commitee says they can rank?  How do you ask someone to to give their personal opinion (cast a ballot), but then put restrictions on their opinion? I disagree that only NCAA participants should be eligible for the rankings and that winners of certain conference tournaments must be ranked. Rankings should be independent opinions.

• Making only NCAA participants eligible for the rankings is just a short step away from tying the rankings into tournament finish (which is basically what the NSCAA does in practice even if not by presctription) and soon you have something more akin to standings rather than rankings/opinions.

• If you "have" to be ranked because of a certain advancement in the tournament (regardless of the full season and body of work), how far do you want to take the relationship between tournament finish and rankings? Does a Messiah (2011) or Ohio Wesleyan (2013), who were upset and went one-and-out, all of a sudden no longer merit Top 25 consideration (or, at best, just 20 to 25) due to tournament finish despite being undefeated and ranked #1 entering the tournament? Not sure you can have it both ways--if you "have" to reward tournament advancement regardless of the overall body of work, then don't you "have" to punish the lack of advancement regardless of the overall body of work?

• Also, not all tournament brackets/pathes to the Final Four are created equal which is a big reason I can't even begin to understand or accept tying the rankings into tournament finish.  Deserving Top 10 tens can meet other deservingTop 10 teams in the second round or Sweet 16 already. Only one can advance. That shouldn't disqualify the other from being considered for the Top 10. Most think it's critical and absolutely necessary to consider SOS when evaluating a team's record/win pct., so why should that change when evaluating tournament results? Why should the strength of the opponent, the scoreline, the competitiveness/non-competitiveness of matches no longer be considered for tournament results, and instead just blindly allow tournament advancement to tier teams for the rankings.

• Conference tournament winners can be a result of upsets, one team catching fire for a weekend and/or a favorite having an off weekend, etc.  I cannot agree that winning a post-season tournament of a power conference should gaurantee a team a Top 25 vote.

• Sound like some of you think the final Top 25 should be a November 2015 Top 25 not a 2015 Top 25.  And that's on top of the issue of what the Top 25 is should be trying to capture, measure, and indicate.  Is it about who has performed the best over the course of the season to date, who is performing the best at the moment, who you think is the best even if results haven't always reflected that (i.e. who would your money be on if they played this week at a nuetral site), etc. There are different ways to look at is, and none are necessary right while the others are wrong. Throw in the NCAA tournament finish, and you are going to have a variety of perspectives on what the a final Top 25 should be communicating and thus how to vote for it.

• A poll is a collection of opinions.  Opinions are subjective.  Seems like there's a lot of suggestions for moving more in the direction of curbing opinion and subjectivety.  If you want more formulaic outcomes, you can do rankings that way, but not a true poll-based ranking. Not saying all opinions are going to be better than a formula, just saying that a poll is a poll. You can't start putting a lot of rules and limitations on it and still have a true poll.

[blooter442]

While I believe that the points you two have made have been spot on, there is one situation that comes to mind that could make for an interesting case.

Teams A, B, C, D are in the Final Four.

Team A beats Team B 1-0 in OT.
Team C beats Team D 2-1.

So then for the title, Team A beats Team C 5-1.

Would you automatically rank Team C better than Team B, despite the lopsided loss?

Just something to consider.

Good question, and certainly an interesting situation. Personally, I would, based on my own aforementioned principle, simply because C made it to the final and thus, losing the final, is the #2 team in the country. That said, you could certainly make a case for ranking B over C for the reasons you mentioned, and I wouldn't say it was invalid. Could really go either way.

Now, if say A won the final over C 1-0, B lost its semi to A 1-0 in OT, but D lost to C 5-1. Even without a third-place game as is customary in WC, Euros, etc., I think there would be an easier decision to make for #3 vs #4.

[blooter442]

• Sound like some of you think the final Top 25 should be a November 2015 Top 25 not a 2015 Top 25.  And that's on top of the issue of what the Top 25 is should be trying to capture, measure, and indicate.  Is it about who has performed the best over the course of the season to date, who is performing the best at the moment, who you think is the best even if results haven't always reflected that (i.e. who would your money be on if they played this week at a nuetral site), etc. There are different ways to look at is, and none are necessary right while the others are wrong. Throw in the NCAA tournament finish, and you are going to have a variety of perspectives on what the a final Top 25 should be communicating and thus how to vote for it.

I still maintain my position that NCAAs should be tied into the rankings, simply because not doing so is too idealistic in my humble opinion. However, I completely agree with the above point, and think the balance of best over the season, best at the moment, and best even if results haven't reflected that, are additional considerations on which valid arguments — all of which can differ in thesis — can be based upon and still be considered sound arguments.

[Flying Weasel]

Not sure I exactly expressed this in my longer post above, but what could possibly be the purpose of a final Top 25 ranking if it has to strictly follow tournament finish (i.e. champ has to be No. 1, runner-up has to be No. 2, and so on).  If I want to know how teams did in the tournament, I simply look at the tournament results or brackets. What need of a ranking do I have if that's mainly all it will tell me?

Soccer more than any other sport is prone to one-off results not being reflective of who the better team is.  Is Wesleyan better than Amherst just because they beat them in the NESCAC tournament?  Should Wesleyan have been ranked higher than Amherst in the Week 9 Top 25? I don't think anyone thinks so. So why with the NCAA tournament should a single result (who advanced, who didn't in a one-off) dictate ranking?

I am very surprised at some of the perspectives on this.

[blooter442]

Soccer more than any other sport is prone to one-off results not being reflective of who the better team is.

Will say that regardless of my viewpoint that I 100% agree with this.

[lastguyoffthebench]

My beef is with the 16-RV.  A solid team with a tough draw in round of 32 ends up RV or NR, whereas a weaker team with a more favorable draw catapults in these final rankings.


UWW ahead of Tufts (A team who had a top 5 SOS)
DePauw at 17?  A team that was 3rd in Conf standings and didn't win NCAC title?
Whitworth at 21? Weak SOS and bounced in 1st round by unranked Redlands?
TMC at 23 after being bounced in the first round?  How are they ahead of Chicago (RV) if there is so much stock in how these teams tier in a sense from tournament results?


In reference to Lyco, I think 13-14 is on point.  I believe Massey had them at 14.

[lastguyoffthebench]

Had to look at Massey:

DePauw at 40.

TMC at 41.   

Colorado at 43.

Whitworth at 54.


Middlebury, Bowdoin, Williams, Conn, Wesleyan all highly ranked as they should be, because of the strength of conference.

Cinderella St Olaf at 38, Macalester at 39.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Preach it MAF ^^^^

I don't necessarily have any issue with the D3soccer top 25, but as much as I usually have qualms with the NSCAA poll I did find it to be pretty on-point this year, particularly from the later weeks of October onward.

My own personal belief — a team should have to make it to the round with X teams left in order to be ranked X or higher at the end of the season. Just out of principle. I think that saying Team A is better than Team B even though Team B has a better record is justifiable perhaps in September and October, but not in November when one-and-done becomes the motto.

A great example: Brandeis. They were a Sweet 16 team, and while No. 8 in the D3soccer poll isn't an outlandish rank, that they didn't make the Elite 8 yet were still ranked ahead of Wheaton was something I disagreed with. Personally, I would have flip-flopped Brandeis and Wheaton, so it was not an egregious mistake. In another forum, I argued that No. 9 in the NSCAA poll was the perfect ranking for Brandeis, as I didn't think they were quite an Elite 8 team, yet I think they were better than any other Sweet 16 team (MIT, SLU, Tufts, etc.) based on their body of work throughout the season. Now, one could make the argument that one of those teams was more talented than Brandeis, and I wouldn't reject it, but I'd have Brandeis above a team that finished 11-5-3 (Tufts) or an identical 18-3-1 with a significantly weaker schedule (MIT). SLU's 16-4-2 is comparable, so I would imagine the argument there would be stronger, but would still take the Judges. Disclaimer: could just be the homer in me.

Regardless, I think a team should make the Sweet 16 to be ranked 16th or higher, the Elite 8 to be 8th or higher, etc. Ultimately, there may be more talented teams out there, and things could flip-flop based on overachieving/underachieving squads, but hypothetical situations should never be given much credence when the facts (rounds that a team makes it to) are right there for all to see.

++++Karma. Well said and I agree 100%!

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

My beef is with the 16-RV.  A solid team with a tough draw in round of 32 ends up RV or NR, whereas a weaker team with a more favorable draw catapults in these final rankings.


UWW ahead of Tufts (A team who had a top 5 SOS)
DePauw at 17?  A team that was 3rd in Conf standings and didn't win NCAC title?
Whitworth at 21? Weak SOS and bounced in 1st round by unranked Redlands?
TMC at 23 after being bounced in the first round?  How are they ahead of Chicago (RV) if there is so much stock in how these teams tier in a sense from tournament results?


In reference to Lyco, I think 13-14 is on point.  I believe Massey had them at 14.

I agree with you as well LastGuy. And Lycoming 10-14 is fair IMO.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Comparison: D3soccer.com and NSCAA final rankings
(Rankings in parantheses list D3Soccer.com first, NSCAA second)

Ranked by D3soccer.com, unranked by NSCAA: Middlebury (19/--), Elizabethtown (20/--), Thomas More (22/RV), Colorado College (23/RV).

Ranked by NSCAA, unranked by D3soccer.com: St. Olaf (RV/15), Macalester (RV/20), Chicago (RV/23), Washington U. (RV/24)

Difference in ranking for 19 teams is 3 spots or less.

Biggest differences:
Middlebury (19/--)
Elizabethtown (20/--)
St. Olaf - 14 spots (RV/15)
Macalester - 10 spots (RV/20)
Washington U. - 8 spots (23/RV)
Thomas More - 6.5 spots (22/RV)
Ohio Wesleyan - 6 spots (12/18)
Colorado College - 5.5 spots (23/RV)
St. Lawrence - 4 spots (15/11)



Some thoughts/reactions/questions . . .

• With only 15 first place votes indicated, some of the unexpected movement may be due to some panelists not voting and thus creating a little inconsistency/disconnect from prior polls.

• What's the point of the NSCAA and D3soccer.com doing rankings if they can only rank the teams the NCAA ranking/selection commitee says they can rank?  How do you ask someone to to give their personal opinion (cast a ballot), but then put restrictions on their opinion? I disagree that only NCAA participants should be eligible for the rankings and that winners of certain conference tournaments must be ranked. Rankings should be independent opinions.

• Making only NCAA participants eligible for the rankings is just a short step away from tying the rankings into tournament finish (which is basically what the NSCAA does in practice even if not by presctription) and soon you have something more akin to standings rather than rankings/opinions.

• If you "have" to be ranked because of a certain advancement in the tournament (regardless of the full season and body of work), how far do you want to take the relationship between tournament finish and rankings? Does a Messiah (2011) or Ohio Wesleyan (2013), who were upset and went one-and-out, all of a sudden no longer merit Top 25 consideration (or, at best, just 20 to 25) due to tournament finish despite being undefeated and ranked #1 entering the tournament? Not sure you can have it both ways--if you "have" to reward tournament advancement regardless of the overall body of work, then don't you "have" to punish the lack of advancement regardless of the overall body of work?

• Also, not all tournament brackets/pathes to the Final Four are created equal which is a big reason I can't even begin to understand or accept tying the rankings into tournament finish.  Deserving Top 10 tens can meet other deservingTop 10 teams in the second round or Sweet 16 already. Only one can advance. That shouldn't disqualify the other from being considered for the Top 10. Most think it's critical and absolutely necessary to consider SOS when evaluating a team's record/win pct., so why should that change when evaluating tournament results? Why should the strength of the opponent, the scoreline, the competitiveness/non-competitiveness of matches no longer be considered for tournament results, and instead just blindly allow tournament advancement to tier teams for the rankings.

• Conference tournament winners can be a result of upsets, one team catching fire for a weekend and/or a favorite having an off weekend, etc.  I cannot agree that winning a post-season tournament of a power conference should gaurantee a team a Top 25 vote.

• Sound like some of you think the final Top 25 should be a November 2015 Top 25 not a 2015 Top 25.  And that's on top of the issue of what the Top 25 is should be trying to capture, measure, and indicate.  Is it about who has performed the best over the course of the season to date, who is performing the best at the moment, who you think is the best even if results haven't always reflected that (i.e. who would your money be on if they played this week at a nuetral site), etc. There are different ways to look at is, and none are necessary right while the others are wrong. Throw in the NCAA tournament finish, and you are going to have a variety of perspectives on what the a final Top 25 should be communicating and thus how to vote for it.

• A poll is a collection of opinions.  Opinions are subjective.  Seems like there's a lot of suggestions for moving more in the direction of curbing opinion and subjectivety.  If you want more formulaic outcomes, you can do rankings that way, but not a true poll-based ranking. Not saying all opinions are going to be better than a formula, just saying that a poll is a poll. You can't start putting a lot of rules and limitations on it and still have a true poll.

I'm sorry FW but I disagree with most of your assessment. I see your viewpoint with it being a total body of work for 2015 not just based off of the NCAA tournament finish. But then why even play the NCAA tournament if it's not going to matter how you finish? There is no way that St. Olaf should not be in the top 25 after their NCAA performance. No way. If you disagree you are wrong I am telling you that right now. I watched them twice and they were a very solid team to my surprise. 8 losses yeah sure but they clicked at the right time and had a great run. How they aren't in the top 25 is ABSURD!!!! They do deserve to be ahead of Etown, Colorado, Middlebury, etc.

Same thing that Blooter referenced with Brandeis ahead of Wheaton. IMO Wheaton is head over heels better after watching both and I think Brandeis was a bit overrated all season. They are not top 10 quality after watching a few of there games and were fortunate to make it to the third round.

And I will go back to my OWU and MSU complaint too. No way the should be ahead of Lycoming, Tufts, or St. Lawrence.

NCAA finish might not be the main priority when ranking the final poll, but it should carry heavy significance in the committee's minds.

There are some glaring errors and omissions. Just my thoughts. I will put out my top 25 later today. Can't remember if I put one out before the final or not but I will do one now after my mind has cleared from the NCAA buzz when I did my previous poll(if I did one).     

[PaulNewman]

Thought I was done for the season, but I also am very surprised at both the interest level in these final rankings and also the reactions.

Is a fan 3-4 years from now really going to care if his team finished #14 or #15 instead of RV?

And what is the argument about?  Some complaining the NCAA tourney isn't given enough weight and some claiming too much weight?  Seems very simple that the NCAA results should figure into the equation, especially at the top end, while also allowing for season-long performance.  We see the top 4 matching the final 4 and the next 4 pretty much matching the Elite 8.

Brandeis over Wheaton is an issue?  Are you kidding?  Brandeis played one of the toughest schedules in the country and was 18-3-1.  Two of those losses were to Trinity. Wheaton was a team we all thought was better than their record but for most of the season were not deserving of a ranking.  There is no way Wheaton is a clear-cut choice to be ranked ahead of Brandeis and given that Wheaton was not ranked at all prior to the tourney where they landed is VERY generous.  There is a difference between where a team deserves to be ranked and how good we think they are.  I think that accounts for a lot of the confusion here.  Tufts should be ahead of Montclair?  On what planet, if you consider the full body of work?  St Olaf turned into a great story but RV is about right for them.  They had to play a 4v5 conference game just to get to their conference semis.  I would argue that if anything the NCAA tourney is weighed too heavily.  I tried to tell anyone who would listen that Kenyon was overranked all year, but to be #1 several weeks and top 4-5 pretty much the whole season, and then drop to #7 or #8 after a 1-0 loss in the Elite 8 on a 84th minute goal seems a bit harsh.  How could Midd, E'town, and TMC not deserve to be ranked based on factoring in the entire season???

For me, the only bone of contention is what to do with the teams that were snubbed.  They obviously can't move up but I don't see any clear reason to seriously downgrade them either if indeed they were snubbed.

[Flying Weasel]

Thought I was done for the season, but I also am very surprised at both the interest level in these final rankings and also the reactions.

Is a fan 3-4 years from now really going to care if his team finished #14 or #15 instead of RV?

And what is the argument about?  Some complaining the NCAA tourney isn't given enough weight and some claiming too much weight?  Seems very simple that the NCAA results should figure into the equation, especially at the top end, while also allowing for season-long performance.  We see the top 4 matching the final 4 and the next 4 pretty much matching the Elite 8.

Brandeis over Wheaton is an issue?  Are you kidding?  Brandeis played one of the toughest schedules in the country and was 18-3-1.  Two of those losses were to Trinity. Wheaton was a team we all thought was better than their record but for most of the season were not deserving of a ranking.  There is no way Wheaton is a clear-cut choice to be ranked ahead of Brandeis and given that Wheaton was not ranked at all prior to the tourney where they landed is VERY generous.  There is a difference between where a team deserves to be ranked and how good we think they are.  I think that accounts for a lot of the confusion here.  Tufts should be ahead of Montclair?  On what planet, if you consider the full body of work?  St Olaf turned into a great story but RV is about right for them.  They had to play a 4v5 conference game just to get to their conference semis.  I would argue that if anything the NCAA tourney is weighed too heavily.  I tried to tell anyone who would listen that Kenyon was overranked all year, but to be #1 several weeks and top 4-5 pretty much the whole season, and then drop to #7 or #8 after a 1-0 loss in the Elite 8 on a 84th minute goal seems a bit harsh.  How could Midd, E'town, and TMC not deserve to be ranked based on factoring in the entire season???

For me, the only bone of contention is what to do with the teams that were snubbed.  They obviously can't move up but I don't see any clear reason to seriously downgrade them either if indeed they were snubbed.

Whew! I thought I was all alone!  I agree with basically all of this.  This line of thinking and perspective makes sense to me.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Thought I was done for the season, but I also am very surprised at both the interest level in these final rankings and also the reactions.

Is a fan 3-4 years from now really going to care if his team finished #14 or #15 instead of RV?

And what is the argument about?  Some complaining the NCAA tourney isn't given enough weight and some claiming too much weight?  Seems very simple that the NCAA results should figure into the equation, especially at the top end, while also allowing for season-long performance.  We see the top 4 matching the final 4 and the next 4 pretty much matching the Elite 8.

Brandeis over Wheaton is an issue?  Are you kidding?  Brandeis played one of the toughest schedules in the country and was 18-3-1.  Two of those losses were to Trinity. Wheaton was a team we all thought was better than their record but for most of the season were not deserving of a ranking.  There is no way Wheaton is a clear-cut choice to be ranked ahead of Brandeis and given that Wheaton was not ranked at all prior to the tourney where they landed is VERY generous.  There is a difference between where a team deserves to be ranked and how good we think they are.  I think that accounts for a lot of the confusion here.  Tufts should be ahead of Montclair?  On what planet, if you consider the full body of work?  St Olaf turned into a great story but RV is about right for them.  They had to play a 4v5 conference game just to get to their conference semis.  I would argue that if anything the NCAA tourney is weighed too heavily.  I tried to tell anyone who would listen that Kenyon was overranked all year, but to be #1 several weeks and top 4-5 pretty much the whole season, and then drop to #7 or #8 after a 1-0 loss in the Elite 8 on a 84th minute goal seems a bit harsh.  How could Midd, E'town, and TMC not deserve to be ranked based on factoring in the entire season???

For me, the only bone of contention is what to do with the teams that were snubbed.  They obviously can't move up but I don't see any clear reason to seriously downgrade them either if indeed they were snubbed.

Thanks for whoever gave me the negative karma...the one time I actually speak my mind on an issue. Petty. Anyways I do not think those teams should be ranked that didn't make NCAA's. They should RV.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

And St. Olaf was in the final 16 this year...I just don't get how they were not ranked at least 25th. They honestly could have went to the Elite 8. Played a great game in the third round. 

[lastguyoffthebench]

Is a fan 3-4 years from now really going to care if his team finished #14 or #15 instead of RV?

I was thinking of terms in using a National Ranking as leverage for recruiting purposes.