2017 Season - National Perspective

[Gregory Sager]

Oh, I certainly agree that intellectual and emotional dissonance are two separate things. I'm simply saying that I experience neither one in the context of 2017 Calvin soccer.

[PaulNewman]

Gosh, do we really have to wait until Friday for these games to begin?  I'm feeling some dissonance about that.

Mr. Sager, best of luck to you and your Vikings!

[PaulNewman]

Oh, I certainly agree that intellectual and emotional dissonance are two separate things. I'm simply saying that I experience neither one in the context of 2017 Calvin soccer.

Obviously not a Calvin booster, or a team concerned with playing Calvin at the moment 

And on the alleged improved transparency issue, I can't see how CMU could possibly feel their fate was more transparent than the prior process.  Were they less surprised when they didn't get in as a result of the new process?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Going to throw a few things at you guys have trying to scan through five pages of updates today (I am paying attention for a lot of reasons: I am advocate and cover DIII on the whole, not sure certain sports; I am going to be calling all the the games in Greesboro).

First off, how the vRRO and other data is used in the final rankings is a little more interesting than Christian has stated. I don't know if it's because no one realizes this or maybe the way I am reading it described isn't as in depth as I will put it.

For the final regional rankings, the regional committees can only consider the vRRO of Week 3. That is true across the board in all sports. Just as in Week 1 they CANNOT consider any vRRO considering there hasn't been any rankings to get that data from, they can only consider the previous week as a RAC. They then rank and hand those rankings to the national committee (by the way, they tend to do these rankings in the morning of the final day with other versions should certain games turn out differently). The national committee then makes adjustments as they see fit - as they always do.

Here is where things get interesting. These final rankings do then result in another data set of vRRO. The national committee will then consider that new set of vRRO and rearrange if they need to. This is how I understand all committees do in all sports. The fourth set of vRRO is considered and is used by the national committee to make any final changes to the final rankings. Basically, they create a fourth week's rankings, get a final data set of the vRRO, and make their final adjustments accordingly.

Not sure if that helps anyone, but that is how the fourth set of vRRO is used and, no, a fifth set is not suddenly created. It simply brings everything to a close.

I should also point out, the RACs only advise the national committee. They are "advisory" committees. Ultimately, the national committee decides the rankings based on their advice, but the national committee's efforts to keep the rankings as universal as possible.

Finally, no selection of any team is made with the idea of bracketing or travel costs. None. Bracketing is not considered until the teams are set and usually after a bit of a break by the national committee to refocus. It makes for a nice talking point, an easy explanation, and a place to put blame, but in no committee is the selection of a team ever done with the idea of reducing flights, easing a bracketing problem, etc. I have talked to more committee chairs (including men's soccer who I know well) in the NCAA and to a person they emphasis this "practice" as many fans think occurs is anything from true.

We can talk about costs and how it affects bracketing until we are blue in the face. I welcome all of you to listen to the D3football.com podcasts and our efforts at D3hoops.com, and especially Hoopsville, as we close in on each postseason. I, personally, have spent countless hours educating myself in hopes of educating everyone else on how this works. There are still problems. Women's volleyball this season, men's lacrosse nearly every season come to mind. However, we are so far removed from the old days, as Gregory Sager and others would remember, where there were a lot of things to question including the "old boys network" in play.

Is it perfect? No. It is Division III. There is a $30m operating budget 75% of goes to all the championships conducted with football, basketball, and soccer not surprisingly taking up the largest costs to run. DIII gets 3.18% of the entire NCAA budget and that isn't going to change. Considering those limitations, we do end up with some very solid brackets in a lot of sports now.

Let's enjoy it.

PS - anyone is welcome to PM me if they want more details, but don't want to bore everyone on this thread. LOL

[firstplaceloser]

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)

at first i also wanted lycoming in the final four and i don't know why i changed it tbh.

[Christan Shirk]

So they could publish that data as this site did but do it before the selections, the night before or that morning.

And based on what you are saying, teams STILL won't know if they are getting a Pool C because the new data will be considered region versus region.  I don't see the huge gain in terms of transparency if they are going to use the data for everything EXCEPT within region.

You are correct that the final RvR data for at-large consideration cannot be known precisely, but the new RvR definition doesn't allow for as big a change from what can be known.  By reducing the change that is possible, the chance for surprise is reduced.

For example, if from the third to the fourth ranking two teams drop out and, naturally, two new ones come in, a team's RvR could change dramatically if the RvR goes from being based on one ranking to being based on the other.  Let's say Team A had wins against Teams D and E who were in the third rankings.  And then in the final week Team A defeats Team D a second time in the conference playoff.  Then, when the fourth rankings come out Team D and E are replaced by Teams X and Y, who both defeated Team A during the regular season.  Team A's RvR based on the third ranking was an impressive 4-1-0.  But based on the fourth rankings they lose the two wins over Teams D and E (and don't pick up that 2nd win vs. Team D), and instead pick up the two loses vs. Teams X and Y, for a much less impressive RvR of 2-3-0.  That's the kind of swing that we can clearly agree could cost Team A an at-large berth.  Team A thought they were well-positioned for a berth and couldn't predict that both Team D and E would drop from the rankings, nor that two teams they lost to would be the ones to replace them.  They were surprised when they didn't hear their name called when the tournament field was announced. 

However, under the new RvR definition, Team A would have known that they would hold onto their 2 wins over Teams D and E and would have known they would pick up the second win vs. Team D as well.  They wouldn't have known they would be picking up the two loses to Teams X and Y.  Their RvR for at-large selections would end up being 5-3-0.  Having your RvR change from 4-1-0 to 5-3-0 is much less drastic and costly than going from 4-1-0 to 2-3-0.  The additional two losses could be the difference in being selected or not, but much less likely than losing the 2 (really 3) wins in addition to picking up the losses as under the  previous RvR definition.  Still dealing with some unknown, but less unknown.  Still not completely predictable, but more predictable.  Still could have surprise when the at-large selections are announced, but less chance of that.

This is what the new RvR definition was attempting to accomplish.

I just made up that example, because I was too lazy to look up the exact details of John Carroll's situation in 2014.  But it was something along those lines of going from a pretty good winning RvR to a losing RvR.  The change in the RvR data used for the regional rankings versus that used for the at-large selections is perhaps an unintended consequence of trying to avoid another large surprise like the John Carroll snub produced.

[Gregory Sager]

Obviously not a Calvin booster, or a team concerned with playing Calvin at the moment 

Two of my nephews and one of my nieces, as well as several friends of mine, are Calvin alumni. I certainly don't have anything against Calvin, that's for sure.

Gosh, do we really have to wait until Friday for these games to begin?  I'm feeling some dissonance about that.

Mr. Sager, best of luck to you and your Vikings!

Tack så mycket, as our Swedes say!

[truenorth]

Going to throw a few things at you guys have trying to scan through five pages of updates today (I am paying attention for a lot of reasons: I am advocate and cover DIII on the whole, not sure certain sports; I am going to be calling all the the games in Greesboro).

First off, how the vRRO and other data is used in the final rankings is a little more interesting than Christian has stated. I don't know if it's because no one realizes this or maybe the way I am reading it described isn't as in depth as I will put it.

For the final regional rankings, the regional committees can only consider the vRRO of Week 3. That is true across the board in all sports. Just as in Week 1 they CANNOT consider any vRRO considering there hasn't been any rankings to get that data from, they can only consider the previous week as a RAC. They then rank and hand those rankings to the national committee (by the way, they tend to do these rankings in the morning of the final day with other versions should certain games turn out differently). The national committee then makes adjustments as they see fit - as they always do.

Here is where things get interesting. These final rankings do then result in another data set of vRRO. The national committee will then consider that new set of vRRO and rearrange if they need to. This is how I understand all committees do in all sports. The fourth set of vRRO is considered and is used by the national committee to make any final changes to the final rankings. Basically, they create a fourth week's rankings, get a final data set of the vRRO, and make their final adjustments accordingly.

Not sure if that helps anyone, but that is how the fourth set of vRRO is used and, no, a fifth set is not suddenly created. It simply brings everything to a close.

I should also point out, the RACs only advise the national committee. They are "advisory" committees. Ultimately, the national committee decides the rankings based on their advice, but the national committee's efforts to keep the rankings as universal as possible.

Finally, no selection of any team is made with the idea of bracketing or travel costs. None. Bracketing is not considered until the teams are set and usually after a bit of a break by the national committee to refocus. It makes for a nice talking point, an easy explanation, and a place to put blame, but in no committee is the selection of a team ever done with the idea of reducing flights, easing a bracketing problem, etc. I have talked to more committee chairs (including men's soccer who I know well) in the NCAA and to a person they emphasis this "practice" as many fans think occurs is anything from true.

We can talk about costs and how it affects bracketing until we are blue in the face. I welcome all of you to listen to the D3football.com podcasts and our efforts at D3hoops.com, and especially Hoopsville, as we close in on each postseason. I, personally, have spent countless hours educating myself in hopes of educating everyone else on how this works. There are still problems. Women's volleyball this season, men's lacrosse nearly every season come to mind. However, we are so far removed from the old days, as Gregory Sager and others would remember, where there were a lot of things to question including the "old boys network" in play.

Is it perfect? No. It is Division III. There is a $30m operating budget 75% of goes to all the championships conducted with football, basketball, and soccer not surprisingly taking up the largest costs to run. DIII gets 3.18% of the entire NCAA budget and that isn't going to change. Considering those limitations, we do end up with some very solid brackets in a lot of sports now.

Let's enjoy it.

PS - anyone is welcome to PM me if they want more details, but don't want to bore everyone on this thread. LOL

This strikes me as a knowledgeable and rationale explanation.  Thanks for sharing and debunking some of the unsubstantiated suggestions in previous posts.

Also, I can only hope Calvin cruises to the national title given all the love and support that has been invested in recent posts on their behalf...

[PaulNewman]

If your conclusion was that the discussion was based on Calvin's behalf you kind of missed the point.

[PaulNewman]

Obviously not a Calvin booster, or a team concerned with playing Calvin at the moment 

Two of my nephews and one of my nieces, as well as several friends of mine, are Calvin alumni. I certainly don't have anything against Calvin, that's for sure.

Gosh, do we really have to wait until Friday for these games to begin?  I'm feeling some dissonance about that.

Mr. Sager, best of luck to you and your Vikings!

Tack så mycket, as our Swedes say!

You didn't overlook that what you said was a theoretical impossibility was in fact reality, right?  Calvin, Week 3, last year.

[Gregory Sager]

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Christan Shirk]

Here is where things get interesting. These final rankings do then result in another data set of vRRO. The national committee will then consider that new set of vRRO and rearrange if they need to. This is how I understand all committees do in all sports. The fourth set of vRRO is considered and is used by the national committee to make any final changes to the final rankings. Basically, they create a fourth week's rankings, get a final data set of the vRRO, and make their final adjustments accordingly.

Not sure if that helps anyone, but that is how the fourth set of vRRO is used and, no, a fifth set is not suddenly created. It simply brings everything to a close.

I know you know your stuff, so I am sure this is true.  And thanks for sharing your insight and knowledge.

So, than in essence their is a "fifth ranking", or call it a "modified fourth ranking" ("final changes" as you call it), or say it's merely the "at-large regional queue".  It's just semantics, I guess, except that the Pre-Championships Manual makes no mention of a fifth ranking or a modified fourth ranking, probably better to stick with the later description: "at-large regional queue".  Or I guess the initial fourth ranking could be considered a pre-fourth ranking, so that the final order is the official fourth ranking. 

Not sure why the Pre-Championship Manual couldn't spell the process out a bit more, a bit better.  If there is a sequence of two rankings/orderings of teams done Sunday afternoon/evening, than why not just say that in the manual.  And why not clearly say which ranking(s) the RvR data is based on for each of the four five rankings.

This leads to some questions. First, can these "final changes" involve teams moving in and out of the ranking/queue? Or is it only a matter of rearranging the same set of teams that were in the initial fourth ranking?

And, what are the rankings that they release after the tournament fields are announced?  The initial fourth rankings or the modified fourth rankings/fifth rankings/at-large qeue?

Anyway, Paul Newman, seems it does work the way you want it to.  That's fine with me, I just don't know what's so hard about spelling out the process in the Pre-Championships Manual.  And I'll concede that Ryan Harmanis may have been trying to relay to me the possibility of a "fifth" ranking or a reordering and I just couldn't be convinced enough to put that in writing on the website because nothing in the Pre-Championship Manual alluded to that extra step.  Of course the Manual doesn't explain that only one team for each region is on the board at one time.  It's seems to have become well known that it works like this, but again why not simply state that that's how the process works in the Pre-Championships Manual.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

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)

at first i also wanted lycoming in the final four and i don't know why i changed it tbh.

Here is mine!

Round of 32
NP
Platteville
NCW
MW
St. Thomas
Loras
Otterbein
Kenyon
Chicago
Capital
JC
Calvin
Lynchburg
Emory
Trinity
MHB
Tufts
St. Joe's
Rowan
Hopkins
Lyco
F&M
Brandeis
Newark
Messiah
Hobart
Cortland
Midd
Oneonta
UR
Amherst
Endicott

Sweet 16
NP
MW
Loras
Kenyon
Chicago
Calvin
Emory
Trinity
St. Joe's
Rowan
Lyco
Brandeis
Messiah
Midd
Oneonta
Amherst

Elite 8
NP
Kenyon
Chicago
Trinity
Rowan
Brandeis
Messiah
Oneonta

Final 4
Kenyon
Trinity
Brandeis
Messiah

Final
Trinity
Messiah

Champion
Messiah 2-1 OT

[Ejay]

                                                                  North Park                North Park       
Westmin. (Mo.) vs Wis.-Platteville                  Wisc-Platteville
                                                                                                                               W&L
N.C. Wesleyan vs Oglethorpe                        Ogelthorpe
Mary Washington vs Washington & Lee          W&L                         W&L     
                                                                                                                                                                 W&L
Wis.-Superior vs St. Thomas (Minn.)             St. Thomas                St. Thomas             
Cal Lutheran vs Loras                                  Loras
                                                                                                                               St. Thomas
Medaille vs Otterbein                                   Otterbein
Transylvania vs Kenyon                                Kenyon                      Kenyon

Chicago vs Lake Forest                                Chicago                      Chicago
Dominican vs. Capital                                  Dominican
                                                                                                                                Chicago
John Carroll vs OWU                                    John Carroll
Calvin vs Thomas Moore                              Calvin                         Calvin
                                                                                                                                                                 Lynchburg
Lynchburg vs. Penn St                                 Lynchburg                   Lynchburg
Dickinson vs. Emory                                    Dickinson

                                                                                                                                 Lynchburg
Trinity vs. Texas Tyler                                  Trinity                         Trinity
Mary Hardin vs. Willamentie                         Mary Hardin

                                                                 Tufts                           Tufts
St. Joe's vs Mitchell                                     St. Joes
                                                                                                                                   Rowan
Rowan vs Cabrini                                         Rowan                        Rowan
Johns Hopkins vs DeSales                            John Hopkins
                                                                                                                                                                  Rowan
Lycoming vs Lehman                                    Lycoming
F&M vs Drew                                               Drew                          Drew
                                                                                                                                   Drew
Brandeis vs West. Conn                                Brandeis
RNU vs Bowdoin                                          Rutgers-Newark          RNU


Messiah vs Castleton                                    Messiah                     Messiah
Buff State vs Hobart                                     Hobart
                                                                                                                                   Messiah
SUNY Cortland vs Mt. St. Mary                      Cortland                     Cortland
Middlebury vs Stevens                                  Middlebury
                                                                                                                                                                   Oneonta
SUNY Oneonta v WPI                                    Oneonta                    Oneonta
Rochester vs. Conn College                           Rochester
                                                                                                                                    Oneonta
Amherst vs Salem St                                    Amherst                     Amherst
Springfield vs Endicott                                  Springfield


SEMI-FINAL                       FINAL                  CHAMPION
W&L vs. Lynchburg             Lynchburg
Oneonta vs Rowan              Rowan                 Rowan

[PaulNewman]

Clarification on Calvin, and then perhaps I can avoid mentioning that word for the rest of the tournament (although that seems unlikely I suppose).

I was only using Calvin as an example, and as an example of a team actually could be regionally ranked last or not at all and end up being a favorite against a #1 or #2 seed in a quadrant.  [Mr. Sager, that's what I meant by looking at the Week 3 regional rankings of 2016.]  I don't feel bad for Calvin, or, for that matter, their potential opponents this year (although maybe a touch for JCU).  As my wife asks when watching any game, "who hasn't won in a long time?," and then she cheers for the team that has never "made it" to whatever (like the Final Four in this case).  Calvin has had more than their fill, and they've knocked my own team out in the Elite 8.  They've had a bunch of recent Final Fours.  I was also annoyed in 2014 when they allowed a late PK to OWU to tie things up and then failed in PKs.  That's not to say my team would have beaten Calvin that year (although of course I think so), but their not advancing set up a match that was not a good one for my team.  I'll be perfectly happy if Thomas More knocks off Calvin in the 1st round.  Give other teams a chance.  Which is I how I feel as a rival fan of OWU as they found a way to make the last two tournaments against very improbable statistical odds.  Let someone else have a chance once in a while.  Which is how I'll feel if Tufts marches on to yet another title.  Give a Rowan or Trinity or Kenyon or F&M a turn after the last handful of years of knocking on the door.

I will say I do have a deep respect for Calvin as a program and especially the coach.  I don't pretend to fully understand the faith-based mission (of Calvin or similar schools), and honestly, I even find it a little alienating.  That said, I can't think of any coach I'd rather my kid play for than Coach Souders.  And I say that even though his insistence on gushing about every team and program after games I find a little over the top and irritating, but he proved that he is genuine when even after losing to Tufts he kept trying to re-engage Shapiro to re-congratulate Shapiro and Tufts after a very painful double OT defeat.  I'll never forget when trailing at the half after being really outplayed by OWU at OWU's famed Roy Rike Field in 2015 he joined his team out on the field in the huddle just before the 2nd half kickoff.  Not sure why that sticks so much in my mind but I've never seen that.  Anyway, while I'm saying there are things about Calvin and Souder's style that don't necessarily resonate for me personally, my impression is that he is a phenomenal leader and teacher of young men.  A coach can't do much better than that....and then of course he wins too.