2017 Season - National Perspective

[PaulNewman]

Texas Tyler getting in was an absolute crime. Luther, Gettysburg, CMU, and Haverford all have much better resumes than them. I am sure those teams are bitter towards the committee.

Washington & Lee is hosting as the #5 team from their region? But Newark is ahead of them and has to travel to Boston to play Bowdoin and potentially Brandeis??? Someone explain that one to me. What a blunder. It gets better though. Ogelthorpe is ahead of both of them regionally and gets matched up with W&L at W&l!!! How is that even possible?  Also how Newark isn't ahead of Ogelthorpe in the region is another head scratcher. The South Atlantic is a mess.

Two words (or four)...Geographic convenience, travel costs.

Last year they sent much higher ranked (and I mean by the NCAA) Trinity to Tufts.  And yes, that's an advantage.

[Shooter McGavin]

Texas Tyler getting in was an absolute crime. Luther, Gettysburg, CMU, and Haverford all have much better resumes than them. I am sure those teams are bitter towards the committee.

Washington & Lee is hosting as the #5 team from their region? But Newark is ahead of them and has to travel to Boston to play Bowdoin and potentially Brandeis??? Someone explain that one to me. What a blunder. It gets better though. Ogelthorpe is ahead of both of them regionally and gets matched up with W&L at W&l!!! How is that even possible?  Also how Newark isn't ahead of Ogelthorpe in the region is another head scratcher. The South Atlantic is a mess.

Two words (or four)...Geographic convenience, travel costs.

Last year they sent much higher ranked (and I mean by the NCAA) Trinity to Tufts.  And yes, that's an advantage.

No doubt. I am more flabbergasted by W&L hosting the easiest grouping that includes a team which is 2 slots ahead of them in their own region yet that team isn't hosting  AND Newark being sent to NE.

[blooter442]

Texas Tyler getting in was an absolute crime. Luther, Gettysburg, CMU, and Haverford all have much better resumes than them. I am sure those teams are bitter towards the committee.

Washington & Lee is hosting as the #5 team from their region? But Newark is ahead of them and has to travel to Boston to play Bowdoin and potentially Brandeis??? Someone explain that one to me. What a blunder. It gets better though. Ogelthorpe is ahead of both of them regionally and gets matched up with W&L at W&L!!! How is that even possible?  Also how Newark isn't ahead of Ogelthorpe in the region is another head scratcher. The South Atlantic is a mess.

I think there are a lot more considerations going on than we know about, but I am inclined to agree with you. Including this year's, RUN will have been to Eastern Massachusetts three of its four years -- two years at Brandeis (2013 and 2017) and one at Babson (2014) -- in the NCAA tournament, albeit the trip to Babo was because Cortland was scheduled to host but couldn't. Another NJ school, Stevens, came to Brandeis in 2015, and RPI (who never should have gotten a bid, but that's another story) also came to Gordon Field, bypassing Amherst, which is 1 1/2 hours closer to Rensselaer. Of course, Amherst requires getting off I-90 (or I-91, I guess) and driving a bit on back roads, but it's still much closer to that part of NY than is Waltham, so certainly a bit of a head-scratcher. Meanwhile, Tufts has had to go to NJ for the first two rounds the last two years. I understand seeding certainly has something to do with it, and in no way to I profess to be an expert on site selection, but -- given that these schools have all offered to host -- it is a bit perplexing to me, as well, that a number of teams have had to travel past other host sites to get to where they're going if geography and costs are key.

[jknezek]

Texas Tyler getting in was an absolute crime. Luther, Gettysburg, CMU, and Haverford all have much better resumes than them. I am sure those teams are bitter towards the committee.

Washington & Lee is hosting as the #5 team from their region? But Newark is ahead of them and has to travel to Boston to play Bowdoin and potentially Brandeis??? Someone explain that one to me. What a blunder. It gets better though. Ogelthorpe is ahead of both of them regionally and gets matched up with W&L at W&L!!! How is that even possible?  Also how Newark isn't ahead of Ogelthorpe in the region is another head scratcher. The South Atlantic is a mess.

I'm wondering if Ogelthorpe didn't apply to host. Otherwise there were plenty of options to build them a pod. NC Wes, W&L, Lynchburg, Emory, Thomas More... all within driving distance.

[PaulNewman]

Texas Tyler getting in was an absolute crime. Luther, Gettysburg, CMU, and Haverford all have much better resumes than them. I am sure those teams are bitter towards the committee.

Washington & Lee is hosting as the #5 team from their region? But Newark is ahead of them and has to travel to Boston to play Bowdoin and potentially Brandeis??? Someone explain that one to me. What a blunder. It gets better though. Ogelthorpe is ahead of both of them regionally and gets matched up with W&L at W&l!!! How is that even possible?  Also how Newark isn't ahead of Ogelthorpe in the region is another head scratcher. The South Atlantic is a mess.

Two words (or four)...Geographic convenience, travel costs.

Last year they sent much higher ranked (and I mean by the NCAA) Trinity to Tufts.  And yes, that's an advantage.

No doubt. I am more flabbergasted by W&L hosting the easiest grouping that includes a team which is 2 slots ahead of them in their own region yet that team isn't hosting  AND Newark being sent to NE.

I'm agreeing with you, but same region doesn't necessarily mean close.  Atlanta and Lexington, VA are quite far apart and without looking I'm guessing Lexington, VA is closer to the other two schools in the pod (and/or Oglethorpe has poor hosting facilities...like no hotels in the Greater Atlanta area).

[Shooter McGavin]

Great point Blooter. Even aside from the costs, just seeding alone makes no sense. How does the #5 team from the SA host with the #3 team from SA travelling there and the #4 team go to NE?

[Shooter McGavin]

Ogelthorpe not applying to host would make a lot of sense.

[jknezek]

Ogelthorpe not applying to host would make a lot of sense.

To my mind it's the only thing that makes sense. Then W&L gets that pod because sending Ogelthorpe to W&L is nicer to the Petrals than sending them to Lynchburg. Once you establish that, W&L is the natural host over NC Wes, a bit of a geographic orphan and not ranked, and Mary Washington, also behind W&L but more importantly more than 500 miles from Ogelthorpe.

[Shooter McGavin]

Okay I will be the first to do it! Here is the perfect bracket 

Round of 32
North Park (given)
Westminister
Ogelthorpe
W&L
St. Thomas
Loras
Otterbein
Kenyon
Chicago
Capital
OWU
Calvin
Lynchburg
Dickinson
Trinity
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Tufts (given)
St. Joes
Rowan
Hopkins
Lyco
Drew
Brandeis
Bowdoin
Messiah
Buff St
Cortland St
Stevens
Oneonta St
CT College
Amherst
Springfield

Sweet 16
NP
W&L
St. Thomas
Kenyon
Chicago
Calvin
Lynchburg
Trinity
Tufts
Hopkins
Lycoming
Brandeis
Messiah
Cortland
Oneonta
Amherst

Elite 8
NP
St. Thomas
Calvin
Lynchburg
Tufts
Lycoming
Messiah
Amherst

Final 4
St. Thomas
Calvin
Lycoming
Amherst

Final
St. Thomas
Lycoming

Champion
Lycoming 2-2 (wins in PK's 5-4)

[PaulNewman]

Given their low regional ranking I wasn't sure how CNU was going to fare in the poll when I voted for them.  Surprised to see they have a significant lead for most snubbed.  If I saw their schedule before the season and you told me they'd go 14-3-1, I'd say they had a 90-95% chance of getting a bid.  A schedule that out of conference included Rowan, W&L, Camden, NC Wes (canceled), Greensboro and Virginia Wesleyan. 

[Flying Weasel]

Yes, when it comes to bracketing, there is info we don't have.  Who did or did not bid to host being among that info we are not privy to.  And sometimes we can forget about rotating hosting priority when both men's and women's teams are in NCAA's.  Sometimes the host is picked because they are the central team in the pod that doesn't require anyone to fly.

As to the limited budget and wanting to limit travel and flights, well, first, any complaints about not opening the purse strings more goes need to go to a different higher level of the NCAA than complaints specific to seeding and bracketing which are the responsibility of the D-III men's and women's soccer committees.  In other words, those imposing the financial constraints are not the same people who have to operate within those constraints in administrating the tournament.

Given the financial constraints imposed upon the D-III men's and women's soccer committees, I have much fewer complaints than others about the bracketing each year. Back in the 80's, 90's and into the 00's, the first two (or three) rounds were originally strictly regional and later roughly regional with the same teams meeting time and time again over the years. Around the same time that the tournament field really expanded in the mid-00's there was also a notable shift in bracketing with more and more inter-regional match-ups in the early rounds.  The expanded field made that possible, but given the travel cost concerns, it was not inevitable or necessary to mix things up like they started doing.  So I credit the committees for that. Yes, teams would drive past other host sites to get to where they were playing.  It was a great change to break up the stale repeated match-ups of both regular season games and previous NCAA tournaments.  It was a very welcomed development that made the tournament more interesting with match-ups that otherwise wouldn't happen.  It almost seems like there is some complaining now about sending teams to mixed-region pods.  Do you really want the alternative. 

Now I get wanting the top seeds to be rewarded with hosting or whatever gives them an advantage that they apparently have earned (such as a shorter drive if not hosting).  But for all the complaining about not enough money being made available for the tournament, why would we complain when they do spend some money to mix things up and create inter-regional match-ups in round 1 and 2?

[blooter442]

Yes, when it comes to bracketing, there is info we don't have.  Who did or did not bid to host being among that info we are not privy to.  And sometimes we can forget about rotating hosting priority when both men's and women's teams are in NCAA's.  Sometimes the host is picked because they are the central team in the pod that doesn't require anyone to fly.

As to the limited budget and wanting to limit travel and flights, well, first, any complaints about not opening the purse strings more goes need to go to a different higher level of the NCAA than complaints specific to seeding and bracketing which are the responsibility of the D-III men's and women's soccer committees.  In other words, those imposing the financial constraints are not the same people who have to operate within those constraints in administrating the tournament.

Given the financial constraints imposed upon the D-III men's and women's soccer committees, I have much fewer complaints than others about the bracketing each year. Back in the 80's, 90's and into the 00's, the first two (or three) rounds were originally strictly regional and later roughly regional with the same teams meeting time and time again over the years. Around the same time that the tournament field really expanded in the mid-00's there was also a notable shift in bracketing with more and more inter-regional match-ups in the early rounds.  The expanded field made that possible, but given the travel cost concerns, it was not inevitable or necessary to mix things up like they started doing.  So I credit the committees for that. Yes, teams would drive past other host sites to get to where they were playing.  It was a great change to break up the stale repeated match-ups of both regular season games and previous NCAA tournaments.  It was a very welcomed development that made the tournament more interesting with match-ups that otherwise wouldn't happen.  It almost seems like there is some complaining now about sending teams to mixed-region pods.  Do you really want the alternative. 

Now I get wanting the top seeds to be rewarded with hosting or whatever gives them an advantage that they apparently have earned (such as a shorter drive if not hosting).  But for all the complaining about not enough money being made available for the tournament, why would we complain when they do spend some money to mix things up and create inter-regional match-ups in round 1 and 2?

I do agree that inter-regional matchups are exciting and a nice change of pace. I enjoy seeing good teams that I haven't gotten to see before, and particularly enjoyed seeing Rutgers-Newark back in 2013. Yet while the RPI driving past Amherst to get to Brandeis was just one example, Amherst vs. RPI would in and of itself be an inter-regional matchup, no?

My view is simply that, if costs and geography are important -- while recognizing that potential matchups are contingent on the geography of those teams admitted (and acknowledging that controversial selections that appear to be tied to geography happen) -- it just seems a bit counter-intuitive to be having out-of-region teams travel further when there are host sites (whether in or out of a given region) in closer proximity. Even so, I can understand that applying that rule to the letter of the law would result in some pairings that probably wouldn't make for a structured bracket. And, it's funny to think how you can have two schools in close proximity be "out of (one another's) region," such as (random example) WConn. and SUNY Purchase. Different regions, but a 45-minute drive, so closer than the distance between many schools in a given state (unless you live in Rhode Island ).

Regardless, it fully makes sense that the cost constraints are contingent on the decisions of a higher level of the NCAA, and I don't think there can be any complaints directed at those in charge of seeding and devising the bracket. I can't say I'd do a better job.

[jknezek]

I know when it comes to the football tournament the implication we've been given by interviews with past committee members is that they should try and limit the first and second round flights as strictly as possible. That is done 2 or maybe 3 first round flights, and pods generally built to limit flights as much as competitively possible, through the first 3 rounds. So we usually end up with the geographic orphan conferences, the ASC, SCIAC, and NWC getting somewhat screwed in the early rounds as they play against each other, regardless of their true committee rankings, to limit flights in the first two rounds.

However, for the rest of the teams, so long as they are inside the 500 mile cut off for flying, teams can be sent just about anywhere to try and provide as fair a competition as the committee can design. So for each of the 4 8 team brackets, outside the orphan pod, the goal is to get a 1 seed as close to an 8 seed match up as the 500 miles can allow and so on for 2-7, 3-6, 4-5.

The committee does not seem constrained by mileage under 500 in setting up these possibilities, so teams generally teams will drive past possibilities to set up balance. A few years ago W&L went 492 miles or so, by the NCAA's TES system, to play Hobart. I don't know how many closer games they could have played, but that set up the "fairest" match up, according to the National Committee's seeding and views on the two teams.

I'd assume soccer works similarly. The National Committee is told to avoid as many flights as possible early in quite strong terms, but told that within the flight limit they should set up as fair a tournament as they think can be done with reasonable possibilities of avoiding flights in the later rounds.

[PaulNewman]

I frankly haven't seen an inordinate amount of complaining. The questions raised and examples referenced seem perfectly understandable as questions. And the explanations are always helpful and appreciated. Also, mentioning that costs are a factor isn't necessarily a criticism, but more a statement of realities. And there are realities for a Trinity or Redlands or Whitworth that are, well, realities. And sometime brackets fall in unexpected ways. It wasn't Tufts' fault that hosting fell in their lap, but one can still make a comment that the good fortune wasn't necessarily "deserved," which, again, is different than blaming anyone. I didn't expect the NCAA to fly 3 teams to Trinity, but they did have to fly 2 teams to Boston. And then there are unforeseen events like Kenyon's field being overtaken by some grass ailment.  All of the elements of the tournament are fun to toss around. At NCAA March Madness time fans love to complain and obsess over all manner of things. These few weeks go by fast. I'll enjoy them even when it seems like I'm not.

[Christan Shirk]

Wow, so OWU didn't get ranked.   Capital jumped CMU without that extra win.  Calvin is denied a win and therefore has none. Kenyon doesn't get another win but keeps the Heidelberg loss even though Heidelberg dropped out.  A single variable can have a large ripple effect.

Yes Paul, and if OWU gets ranked, Otterbein probably doesn't hop JCU and their spots are probably flipped. Big implications if JCU runs into Calvin in the 2nd round.

Well, I think Otterbein might have jumped them anyway with a 7-1 RvR vs even a 5-2-2 for JCU.  Hard not to feel like that is a little inflated for Otterbein but they won all of their games, so that's the deal when you get to count the teams that drop out after being ranked in Week 3 and then add wins for teams that enter in Week 4.  JCU I think was unfortunate more for the double hit of OWU and Calvin, a huge rivalry game with a perennial power and then Calvin, another perennial power and #1 in two polls.  Will you be shocked, though, if JCU beats OWU and Otterbein loses to Medaille?

You need to remember that when developing the fourth regional rankings, the RvR data available to the committee is results versus teams ranked in the third weekly rankings. You can't have RvR based on the fourth rankings when the fourth rankings haven't been completed yet.  So which teams eventually end up being ranked in the fourth rankings can't and does not impact the process for ranking/ordering the teams for the fourth rankings.

Which teams are ranked in the fourth ranking only impacts/changes one thing: the RvR data the committee uses for comparison across regions when making the at-large selections.  Teams do not get re-ordered/re-ranked based on this updated RvR that includes results against any new teams that entered the fourth rankings.

So, OWU getting ranked in the fourth ranking would not have impacted who was #1 and #2 in the region in the fourth ranking. Marietta getting ranked is not why Otterbein climbed to #1 and John Carroll dropped to #2. That happened becaue after JCU was eliminated by Capital and Otterbein defeated Marietta and Capital, Otterbein had a .895 win pct. and 5-1-0 RvR while JCU had a .842 win pct. and 3-2-2 RvR, and Otterbein won the head-to-head match.  Pretty straightforward to put Otterbein ahead of John Carroll based on the criteria being used. The updated RvR of 7-1-0 that includes Otterbein's two wins over Marietta would only have come into play if they were in Pool C instead of the AQ and were being compared against the Pool C teams from the other regions.

Now, when you look at data sheets that accompany the fourth rankings (and the data D3soccer.com includes for your convenience on our NCAA regional ranking tables), you are seeing what the national committee had when deliberating their at-large selections, not what the committees had when putting together the fourth rankings. That is, the data sheets that are released have the updated RvR which includes results against any new teams that entered the fourth rankings.  In D3soccer.com's At-Large Analysis and Predictions piece, you can find the RvR's that would have been under consideration when developing the fourth rankings.