2015 POOL C

[lastguyoffthebench]

Last year the Pool C broke down by the following:

New England: 4 (Amherst, Brandeis, Coast Guard, Wheaton (MA))
South Atlantic: 3 (Emory, Rutgers-Newark, Salisbury)
East: 3  (Brockport St, Cortland St, Rochester)
Mid Atlantic:  2  (Dickinson, F&M)
Central: 2 (Dominican, North Park)
North: 1 (Loras)
Great Lakes: 1 (OWU)
West:  1 (Texas-Dallas)


Likely Candidates from Stronger Conferences with high win percentages and solid SOS.

UW-W or UW-O will be snatching up a Pool C (Winner of this match-up will get the Pool B).
NESCAC Conference Finalist + one additional (at least 2 Pool C total)
NJAC Conference Finalist + one additional (at least 2 Pool C total)
UAA Conference Runner UP + one additional (atleast 2 Pool C total) possibility of 3 Pool C
Centennial Conference Finalist + one additional (at least 2 Pool C)
SUNYAC Conference Finalist + possibly one additional (atleast 2 Pool C total)
NCAC Conference Finalist + possibly one additional (atleast 1 Pool C total)
Liberty League Conference Finalist (atleast 1 Pool C)

That leaves 4-6 spots left throughout the nation, not even factoring in any upsets.

Very little room for error at this point in the season, unless your name is Dickinson.

[Flying Weasel]

New England: 5 (Amherst, Brandeis, Coast Guard, Wheaton (MA), Tufts)
South Atlantic: 3 (Emory, Rutgers-Newark, Salisbury)
East: 3  (Brockport St, Cortland St, Rochester)
Mid Atlantic:  2  (Dickinson, F&M)
Central: 2 (Dominican, North Park)
North: 1 (Loras)
Great Lakes: 1 (OWU)
West:  1 (Texas-Dallas)

There were 18 Pool C at-large berths?  You listed 17.  Are you forgetting about the national champion?

[lastguyoffthebench]

Yeah, just the Champion... no big deal.

With teams tallying up blemishes each passing week, this leads me to believe that it will be a year where the stronger conferences grab the Pool C's

[Flying Weasel]

Very little room for error at this point in the season, unless your name is Dickinson.

Last year Dickinson had an SOS over .600 which had them up there with NESCAC and UAA schools.  They also had three wins and a tie versus ranked teams, which was only bettered by five other Pool C candidates and only matched by an additional two Pool C swimmers.   Sure, they struggled (understatement) in the final three weeks going winless, but that isn't a criteria/consideration for at-large selection.  It's the full body of work.  By this point of the season last year, they had built their room for error (which they took full advantage of down the stretch) by having a 10-2-1 record, a 3-1-0 record vs. eventual ranked teams, and an SOS that was nearing .600 with conference foes F&M and Muhlenberg and the conference playoffs ahead to push that over .600.

[Mr.Right]

I do not see SUNYAC garnering 2 Pool C's...IMO both Oneonta AND Plattsburgh still have work to do

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Very little room for error at this point in the season, unless your name is Dickinson.

Last year Dickinson had an SOS over .600 which had them up there with NESCAC and UAA schools.  They also had three wins and a tie versus ranked teams, which was only bettered by five other Pool C candidates and only matched by an additional two Pool C swimmers.   Sure, they struggled (understatement) in the final three weeks going winless, but that isn't a criteria/consideration for at-large selection.  It's the full body of work.  By this point of the season last year, they had built their room for error (which they took full advantage of down the stretch) by having a 10-2-1 record, a 3-1-0 record vs. eventual ranked teams, and an SOS that was nearing .600 with conference foes F&M and Muhlenberg and the conference playoffs ahead to push that over .600.

But why do teams get punished for a bad start to a season but not a bad end? That makes no sense. I know it's a numbers game and we have had this discussion before, but the college basketball committee DOES factor in how teams are playing in the last couple weeks of the season because that is the team that will be playing in the NOW(present time). Does anybody disagree with that logic or am I just that insane to think that way?

[Mr.Right]

I can see both sides..

[lastguyoffthebench]

It definitely is harder for teams to break into the NCAA Regional Rankings as the season progresses...

[Flying Weasel]

Very little room for error at this point in the season, unless your name is Dickinson.

Last year Dickinson had an SOS over .600 which had them up there with NESCAC and UAA schools.  They also had three wins and a tie versus ranked teams, which was only bettered by five other Pool C candidates and only matched by an additional two Pool C swimmers.   Sure, they struggled (understatement) in the final three weeks going winless, but that isn't a criteria/consideration for at-large selection.  It's the full body of work.  By this point of the season last year, they had built their room for error (which they took full advantage of down the stretch) by having a 10-2-1 record, a 3-1-0 record vs. eventual ranked teams, and an SOS that was nearing .600 with conference foes F&M and Muhlenberg and the conference playoffs ahead to push that over .600.

But why do teams get punished for a bad start to a season but not a bad end? That makes no sense. I know it's a numbers game and we have had this discussion before, but the college basketball committee DOES factor in how teams are playing in the last couple weeks of the season because that is the team that will be playing in the NOW(present time). Does anybody disagree with that logic or am I just that insane to think that way?

In what sense do teams get punished for a bad start?  And in what sense do they not get punished for a bad finish.  Come selection Sunday, all games are in.  Your SOS is your SOS no matter when you played your toughest opposition.  Your win pct. is your win pct. no matter when you won and lost.  Your wins (and ties) versus ranked teams is what it is no matter when you picked those wins up.

Now, if you read the final paragraph in the Primary Selection Criteria section of the Manual, the selection committee may consider teams' win-loss pct. during the final 25% of the season if they deem it applicable and request and gain approval form the Championships committee.  I don't know if the D-III men's soccer committee is taking advantage of this or not.  I could imagine it being used more as a tie-breaker, but not an initial factor.  But who knows.

And think about this.  Teams from tougher conferences are going to get beat up down the stretch and pick up some blemishes while teams from softer conference have an easier home stretch.  So couldn't it be unfair to teams form the tougher conferences to weigh the last 25% more?  On the other hand, teams from weaker conferences need to schedule more challanging non-conference mathces to build up their SOS, but that might mean a tougher opening few weeks when they pick up most of their blemishes.  What I am getting at is that schedules vary so much with regard to when the toughest matches occurr that it's not really fair to count one portion more or less than another.

[Mr.Right]

Assuming Haverford keeps on winning and say loses 1 or 2 more, with their SOS  would they  host for RD64 / RD 32?

[Flying Weasel]

It definitely is harder for teams to break into the NCAA Regional Rankings as the season progresses...

The season is already 7 weeks old when the first NCAA rankings are issued.  That is, 70% of the regular season is in the books, and progressively more with the second and third rankings.  Sure it can be hard to break in, but that's because one or two weeks can't erase seven or more weeks of results.  It might compensate if you win 3 consecutive games versus ranked teams, but those first seven weeks are what they are. Teams are on the hook for how they did from week 1.

[backyarddawg]

I would guess Etown, F&M or Eastern would have a chance.

I think Haverford would need to finish 14-3 (win out) and lose in finals to host which would make them 15-4 heading into NCAA.

Assuming Haverford keeps on winning and say loses 1 or 2 more, with their SOS  would they  host for RD64 / RD 32?

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

What is the field size needed to host per NCAA Tournament regulations?

[backyarddawg]

1.1 Dimensions
1.1.1 The field of play shall be rectangular, the width of which shall not exceed the length.
1.1.2 The width shall not be more than 80 yards [73.15m] nor less than 65 yards [59.44m] and the length shall not be more than 120 yards [109.73m] nor less than 110 yards [100.58m]; however, fields of less than minimal dimensions may be used by prior written mutual consent of the competing institutions. The optimum size is 75 yards [68.58m] by 120 yards [109.73m].
New facilities shall be a minimum of 70 yards [64.01m] in width by 115 yards [105.15m] in length.
It is the responsibility of the home team to notify the visiting team, before the date of the game, of any changes in field dimensions (e.g., greater or lesser than minimal requirements), playing surface (e.g., from grass to artificial or vice versa) or location of the playing site. Further, it is recommended that teams agree on field dimensions before confirming contests or signing game contracts.

[TennesseeJed]

What is the field size needed to host per NCAA Tournament regulations?

From Page 22 of the NCAA Manual:

Section 2•6 
Site Selection criteria
The Division III Championships Committee has prioritized the fo
llowing site-selection criteria for all championships:
1. Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations;
2. Geographical  location  (which  may  include  such  factors  as  rotation  of  sites,  weather,  accessibility  and
transportation costs);
3. Seeding; and
4. Attendance history and revenue potential, which shall be consid
ered necessary to assure fiscal responsibility.
In addition, the soccer committees include the following site-selection deliberations:
●hosts for all rounds of the championship must have the ability to charge admission.
●preference is given to grass/grass-like surfaces.
●preference is given to playing surfaces 70 yards x 115 yards or larger. The minimum field size is 65 yards x
110 yards.
●hosts must be able to establish a barrier to separate the spectators from the field of play.
●The potential host must have played the majority of its home games on the field it is submitting for consideration.
A competing institution that cannot charge admission at its home facility and/or cannot establish a barrier to separate
the spectators from the field of play and/or does not have a field that meets minimum-size requirements (65 yards x 110
yards) may not serve as host