Rankings

[SoccaGuru]

I disagree with the NCAA ranking system, As far as I am aware it all works on votes???
If this is true then the ranking system is null and void in my opinion.
When I saw the teams in all brackets along with there ranking, I immediately started with a system I have seen be used before.
A realistic method is a simple 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. If teams have equal points, Goal difference now becomes a factor, If Goal difference are equal then look towards head 2 head record to put 1 of the 2 teams ahead of each other.
A perfect example I can use is Calvin Knights, In every round of there of thier District/Region Calvin were deemed underdogs in all the matches.
But when I used my everyday points system I had Calvin as favourites to win which exception of the game against Messiah. That I had as 60 points Calvin and 60 points Messiah. I knew that game was going to be end to end soccer. I also knew Calvin were going to win against Franklin and Marsh... Calvin had a 12 point advantage on F&M.
With the so called upsets of Chicago, Texas and Amherst. I now make Calvin favourites to win it. I just disagree with how the ranking system works and know my way is correct.
If anyone feels the need to comment please do, I welcome opinions and how others receive my criticism. 

[Nutmeg]

I disagree with the NCAA ranking system, As far as I am aware it all works on votes???
If this is true then the ranking system is null and void in my opinion.
When I saw the teams in all brackets along with there ranking, I immediately started with a system I have seen be used before.
A realistic method is a simple 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. If teams have equal points, Goal difference now becomes a factor, If Goal difference are equal then look towards head 2 head record to put 1 of the 2 teams ahead of each other.
A perfect example I can use is Calvin Knights, In every round of there of thier District/Region Calvin were deemed underdogs in all the matches.
But when I used my everyday points system I had Calvin as favourites to win which exception of the game against Messiah. That I had as 60 points Calvin and 60 points Messiah. I knew that game was going to be end to end soccer. I also knew Calvin were going to win against Franklin and Marsh... Calvin had a 12 point advantage on F&M.
With the so called upsets of Chicago, Texas and Amherst. I now make Calvin favourites to win it. I just disagree with how the ranking system works and know my way is correct.
If anyone feels the need to comment please do, I welcome opinions and how others receive my criticism. 

It's a ranking system, not a science. It always mixing apples and oranges. Especially d3 soccer where no one gets to see everyone play.....

[SoccaGuru]

It could be junior soccer and I would be saying the exact same thing. Gives everyone a clearer picture of whats actually happening. And I can assure you its not a science... its basic Math.
Thanks for the reply none the less Nutmeg.

[D3SoccerFan]

SoccaGuru,

I understand where you're coming from. The tournament this year proved almost all of the rankings wrong and raises some eyebrows at the system they use. However, if I am understanding you correctly, you would only be taking win-loss record into account. Strength of schedule is a huge factor in deciding rankings, and while I think too much weight is put on it currently, it is an important part of assessing which teams are for real or not. If a team's record is the only basis that rankings are taken from, schools would be rewarded for creating easy schedules for their teams just so they will have the best possible record come tournament time. For one, this wouldn't be good for any fans of D3 soccer, as we wouldn't be able to watch any great matchups during the regular season. And second, teams with more difficult schedules would be punished for trying to test their team.

Like I said though, I do think there is too much weight being put on strength of schedule. As you pointed out, Calvin is a great example of strength of schedule not telling the whole story. They have made as much noise as anyone in the tournament, knocking off four very solid opponents. They are handicapped by their round-robin + conference tournament schedule format, which they have no control over (I've heard rumours of the MIAA changing this in the near future, but who knows how long that will take). So they're basically getting punished for a system that they can't do anything about. However, teams with high strength of schedules usually do better in the National tournament every year, as they have gained valuable experience in the regular season when losing doesn't end their season.

All in all, I think the system puts too much weight of strength of schedule, but to get rid of it altogether seems a bit over the top. Then again, if there's anything I've learned with my experience with D3 soccer, rankings don't mean squat, and teams would be smart to not pay too much attention to where the committee thinks they should be put.

[SoccaGuru]

That is very well put, I too find the strength of schedule unrealistic.
I obviously understand there are a huge amount of teams nationally creating a logistical nightmare.
Possibly MIAA should join a few conferences that aren't so far apart in distance.
I just think there is a better way.
I will say this though... Although we are discussing D3 I must admit the soccer development in the US is improving rapidly.
I have also predicted that the USA will win 1 of the next 4 World Cups

[Ommadawn]

SoccaGuru -

Here's a couple of rating systems you might find of interest.  Both do what they can  to solve the "logistical nightmare" you described.  The results obtained from these systems overlap with those obtained from traditional poll methods (and each other), but sometimes yield dramatically different results that make good fodder for discussion.

http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=csoc2016&sub=11620

http://herosports.com/about-us

http://herosports.com/rankings/college-d3-mens-soccer

[SoccaGuru]

Thank you
Will look at each link independently and get back to you.
I love a little bit of Soccer Analysis, why not take it 1 step further.

[Flying Weasel]

It may help if you clarify which rankings you are talking about: the NSCAA poll (regional and national), the D3soccer.com Top 25, or the NCAA regional rankings.  They all work differently.

How does your "everyday points" system work when teams have played a different number of games.  For example, who has the advantage between Team A and Team B?
Team A (16-0-2)  >  >  >  (16 x 3) + (2 x 1) = 48 + 2 = 50 points
Team B (17-3-1)  >  >  >  (17 x 3) + (1 x 1) = 51 + 1 = 52 points

   

[SoccaGuru]

NCAA
That is a very valid point but also shows why a balance needs to be introduced.
You have teams going into a game who have played 3 more games than others, that's 270 mins more.
But defending my suggestion, If you are playing a team that has only played 17-2-2 and the other 20-2-0, the simple fact that the team that has dropped more points from less games than the team that has played more speaks volume.
I am still yet to go to through the strength of schedule system that was shown to me earlier... but that almost seems like we guessing how long a piece of string is.
My main aim here is to make the ranking system more user friendly for fans.
Secondly and I speak from experience if the conferences remain the same year in and year out there is no real improvement or progress, the quality pretty much remains as is. 
Example: When I played with a super league side for 2 years, then was asked to join a professional side on a 6 month try out... I improved as a player in leaps and bounds.
So basically and totally of my subject of rankings conferences should be balanced and alot more competitive. It seems that almost the same teams win there conferences year in and year out making them highly attractive choices for the better players.

[Mr.Right]

NCAA
That is a very valid point but also shows why a balance needs to be introduced.
You have teams going into a game who have played 3 more games than others, that's 270 mins more.
But defending my suggestion, If you are playing a team that has only played 17-2-2 and the other 20-2-0, the simple fact that the team that has dropped more points from less games than the team that has played more speaks volume.
I am still yet to go to through the strength of schedule system that was shown to me earlier... but that almost seems like we guessing how long a piece of string is.
My main aim here is to make the ranking system more user friendly for fans.
Secondly and I speak from experience if the conferences remain the same year in and year out there is no real improvement or progress, the quality pretty much remains as is. 
Example: When I played with a super league side for 2 years, then was asked to join a professional side on a 6 month try out... I improved as a player in leaps and bounds.
So basically and totally of my subject of rankings conferences should be balanced and alot more competitive. It seems that almost the same teams win there conferences year in and year out making them highly attractive choices for the better players.

I hate to be an ass but what the hell...This might be the dumbest suggestion I have read on here in a while..The answer to your problem is to have the MIAA only play one round not home and away. I imagine they do the home and away to save money and because there are very few teams to play in the region without some heavy travel. To get rid of SOS is not the answer. You would only be punishing teams in tough conferences. Springfield went 18-1-1 in a decent conference but their out of conference schedule was horrific. In your reasoning they should have been seeded maybe #2 in a region and get a good draw. You should not benefit from playing crap teams and they went out of the tournament rather easily to Tufts 2-0 w/o putting up much of a fight an Tufts was 9-5-2..Your argument has no merit but we could discuss ways to improve the SOS and home/away multipliers which need an overhaul

[SoccaGuru]

Thanks for the input and suggestion, as for the insult, Whatever.
The mere fact that you suggested an improvement on a system shows me you at least you agree that a change is needed.
The SOS system in my opinion is a joke. No other country in the world uses it. There is nothing accurate about it. NOTHING!

[OldCardinal]

The reason other countries don't use a strength of schedule in their pro leagues is because they don't need one.  All the teams play the same number of games against the same teams. When you try to compare teams across regions and between onferences of varying strength, you have to have some way to do that.  I don't like to SOS b/c it is flawed mathematically (I won't bore you with why) but it is still better than nothing.  On the Div I level, there is a reason the ACC gets so many bids.  The index they use is more accurate IMO.

One of the reasons Tufts has done so well in the NCAA is because they get tested in almost EVERY single game during the season.  There are a few other NESCAC teams sitting on the sidelines that could possibly have made the same NCAA run but they didn't get in.  I'm not saying they should have, just that they are very good also.  The AQ gives every team in the country a way to get into the tournament by winning their league.  The at-large process should be about getting the BEST of the remaining teams in and you need some kind of an SOS to do that. 

I'm not sure I would favor any of the remaining teams.  They are all really good and feeling extremely confident.  It will be fun to watch.

[Mr.Right]

Thanks for the input and suggestion, as for the insult, Whatever.
The mere fact that you suggested an improvement on a system shows me you at least you agree that a change is needed.
The SOS system in my opinion is a joke. No other country in the world uses it. There is nothing accurate about it. NOTHING!

I did not mean to insult you just to minimize how ridiculous your model of just basing everything on Wins and Losses would not work. IMO the biggest change needed is the home and away multipliers which make little sense to me. You are almost punished for beating a good team at home and given a ton of extra credit for beating a bad team with a good record from a bad conference on the road. This type of stuff can be bounced off one another and discussed now especially with our little break between games.

[Mr.Right]

The reason other countries don't use a strength of schedule in their pro leagues is because they don't need one.  All the teams play the same number of games against the same teams. When you try to compare teams across regions and between onferences of varying strength, you have to have some way to do that.  I don't like to SOS b/c it is flawed mathematically (I won't bore you with why) but it is still better than nothing.  On the Div I level, there is a reason the ACC gets so many bids.  The index they use is more accurate IMO.

One of the reasons Tufts has done so well in the NCAA is because they get tested in almost EVERY single game during the season.  There are a few other NESCAC teams sitting on the sidelines that could possibly have made the same NCAA run but they didn't get in.  I'm not saying they should have, just that they are very good also.  The AQ gives every team in the country a way to get into the tournament by winning their league.  The at-large process should be about getting the BEST of the remaining teams in and you need some kind of an SOS to do that. 

I'm not sure I would favor any of the remaining teams.  They are all really good and feeling extremely confident.  It will be fun to watch.

I agree with most of this except the D1 RPI and its own faults and their own selection process. To give Boston College an At-large berth out of the ACC with a record of 8-8-1 is ridiculous. I know they play in the toughest conference and did upset UNC in their tournament but to reward a team that went .500 with an At-Large is NUTS. I would like to see D3 go to a similar type RPI process but obviously it has its own flaws. BTW BC got beat by U.Albany 3-0 to end their season at .500. FWIW U.Albany about 5 years ago went 1-17-1 and fired their coach, they then hired the old Penn State coach Trevor Gorman's son to take over. He has don e a remarkable job to turn that once dormant program around to find itself in the NCAA Sweet 16. Same with Syracuse as they were once a doormat in the Big East but their new coach has turned them into a national power. Now Syracuse you could say would be easier to turn around the U.Albany just because of their facilities and "name". Syracuse dominated Dartmouth in the 2nd Round and have some real studs on that team that could take them to another Final 4.

[Mr.Right]

On a related topic I think it would be fantastic for 2017 if this site or FW could write a polite letter to the NCAA Committee Chair and see if we could get a "look inside" how the committee works the Final 4 weeks of the season. Maybe just a fair and unbiased story with no secrets shared about how the process works over Skype or Conference Calls and how each region proposes their teams and why / how they are ranked. Maybe just be a "fly on the wall" with no commentary during these meetings and no secrets shared for the story. Just a thought