Mid-Atlantic Region

[PaulNewman]

I am neutral on the Fords but this is the third or fourth time I have heard about these field conditions for Haverford. I hate to break it to you but the committee doesn't care about your field conditions. Last time I checked the other team they faced played the in the same conditions on the same field. Haverford also has 4 losses and at the time of your argument to have them in the top 10 was 4-4...a measly .500 win percentage. That doesn't cut it no matter how difficult the schedule is. So a team that's 1-9 but played the toughest schedule in the country should be regionally ranked? Makes no sense. If you don't get results it doesn't matter. They are however starting to turn the corner and I think they will be in the top 10 in the first rankings but I hope you realize how the rankings work. I am fairly neutral on this region and enjoy watching and discussing all the teams but don't be too much of a homer if you can't back it up and have to resort to poor field conditions as an excuse.

Wish I knew what team you supported, it would be fun to compare the relative merits.  However, if you followed soccer for any period of time, close loses in adverse conditions ARE a factor in determining if a team is better than its record.  Also there is a difference, as my thighs can attest, between a natural and turf field team.  I don't think that any of this makes a difference in the NCAA rankings since the voters have not seen the games, but it is pertinent on a discussion board of fans who are throwing around their opinions.  You can be neutral on Haverford, but this senior class has won their conference two out of three years and have gone as far as the eights in the NCAAs.  They have beat 3 teams that that folks on this board had ranked ahead of them.  My point was that they deserve to be considered.  Hope you can do that.

Here's the more sympathetic response.  Even if MAF or any of us felt horrible about the adverse conditions, bad luck, adjustment to coaching change, etc....the fact remains that none of that has any bearing on how teams are going to be regionally ranked, and I think most of us who do mock poll type of stuff or attempt to guess at what the real rankings will be try to consider what we know the people with real votes actually consider.  I think that is what he was trying to communicate.  We know that Haverford has been a big-time program over the past several years.  And if they go on a major run with their typical SoS they may be in business or they may win the Centennial tournament.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Hmm seems a bit unfair to force this new conference to wait 2-3 years to get an AQ. I recognize all these teams and I am guessing they all have been longtime D3 members and in fact just looking most of them came from the same conference. Unless there is a school that is not considered a full D3 member as of yet and all these schools did was shuffle around conferences they should be allowed to get an AQ. Teams change conferences all the time without waiting 2-3 years, the only difference here is that it is a brand new conference. I suppose I could see giving the conference a full year to figure things out and get organized but 2 years seems a bit excessive especially since all these schools are dues paying members already.

The system is in place so that conferences just don't form randomly trying to grab AQs. It also makes sure schools don't jump out of conferences and form new ones just trying to find an easier avenue to the AQ because they can't do anything about it in their conference (relatively speaking).

Teams can change conferences, but for a vast majority of those conferences a school has to wait two years OR they have to pay a fine (the MAC is I think the only one in the Mid-Atlantic with no financial fine, but there is a bigger reason for that). When a school decides they want to change conferences, they have to decide if they want to be in an established conference that has an AQ or not ... they also have to be accepted into that conference. That isn't always as simple as people think. PSU Harrisburg wanted to leave the CAC for the CSAC ... they were denied and find themselves heading back to the NEAC. There are plenty of other examples of schools who want to be in conferences and are not accepted.

Furthermore, those schools already have access to the AQ in one conference. Changing conferences to one that has an AQ doesn't change that equation. For that reason, I am not sure why your comparison is thus relevant.

The biggest reason for two years is it takes about that long for things to settle down - especially for the AEC who threw this conference together in about a year's time. They only hired their commissioner a few months ago, their assistant commissioner is currently doing two jobs, their website and social media just showed up in August, etc., etc., etc.

DIII membership wants to make sure conferences are doing what they should and are reputable with good intentions before they place another AQ in the hands of a conference. That is always why they have a minimum of seven members (in good standing) for those two years. I can think of several scenarios where those two years and beyond are very unstable (ACAA currently).

BTW, if conferences LOSE members and go below the AQ benchmark for a sport, they also have two years to find new members to stabilize things before they lose the AQ. So this does work in the other direction to the benefit of conferences (see CAC next year).

BTW - it takes at least four years for a school to become a full fledged member of DIII, this is half the time. Also, Pool B exists in all sports (even those who don't have the numbers) for these type of situations. AEC has the chance at an at-large bid BEFORE the Pool C group does. AEC will most likely get a bid to the tournament in the two years they are waiting for their best team.

[Mr.Right]

makes sense.....jeez what a waste of a Pool B if one of these teams get it..None of these schools would ever come close to getting a Pool C otherwise and am I right that if a Pool B is used it subtracts from the total # of Pool C's?

Anyhow....I am more curious on what you did not want to get into...When you have some time please post some schools that were rejected by different conferences...That is always a great kind of gossipy getting stuck in the weeds of D3 conversation. I remember someone posting that St.A's(NH) wanted to drop to D3 and thought it would perfectly fit nice and snug in the Newmac but were shot down by the conference. I'd love to hear a couple others preferably from schools on the East Coast.

[Mr.Right]

Also, I never realized there was a financial fine....how much are we talking on average? and why does the MAC not charge it? I feel like the juicer parts of your post were left out in almost a tease like fashion and now I am curious.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

makes sense.....jeez what a waste of a Pool B if one of these teams get it..None of these schools would ever come close to getting a Pool C otherwise and am I right that if a Pool B is used it subtracts from the total # of Pool C's?

You can look at it as a waste of a Pool B ... but if they had an AQ they are in anyway, right? It is just a different process. If there are a number of other schools in that Pool B group, maybe they don't get it and have to rely on the Pool C only.

And yes, it subtracts from the number of Pool Cs. That number is getting reduced by one whether an additional Pool B bid is provided or an additional AQ.

Anyhow....I am more curious on what you did not want to get into...When you have some time please post some schools that were rejected by different conferences...That is always a great kind of gossipy getting stuck in the weeds of D3 conversation. I remember someone posting that St.A's(NH) wanted to drop to D3 and thought it would perfectly fit nice and snug in the Newmac but were shot down by the conference. I'd love to hear a couple others preferably from schools on the East Coast.

Yeah... I can't get into it right now for a LOT of reasons (some of them include, prepping for a D1 football game and soccer game at two different campuses this weekend, grinding to get my basketball show ready for air in a few weeks, and lots of other things).

I can say this about St. A's... it appears they shot themselves in the foot. They decided to mention a number of NEWMAC schools they are "perfect" for (my wording) when they announced their decision to move to DIII. From what I was told, prior to that it was a rubber stamp for them to join the NEWMAC, but the cockiness apparently shown in the announcement when coming to DIII and calling out schools they would be a fit for didn't go over well in the NEWMAC. St. A's was contacted and told to remove the names and reference - which they did. However, the die had been cast and the NEWMAC ended up voting against St. A's joining the conference (do not know the vote tally). St. A's had to retreat to DII.

As for Harrisburg, the vote the CSAC had to make was whether to change the by-laws and accept state schools. Now, I was told by a reputable source who would know that the state-school rule would change (unrelated conversation to Harrisburg). I am not sure if the Harrisburg vote took place BEFORE that source's confidence in the state-school rule being changed or it didn't pass and that is why Harrisburg was left out of the CSAC. If it is the first option, there is a chance the CSAC will still allow state schools ... and maybe Harrisburg ends up joining after all. I think it happened the other way around and the vote that left Harrisburg out was a vote in the CSAC that squashed the idea, for now, that state schools should be in the conference.

As for other rumors and such ... I promise only one thing: I will post what I know and not spread things that are just rumors. There is too much crap that I have to wade through or gets thrown around for me to add to it. If I tell you a story, it's because I got it vetted.

For another time ...

Also, I never realized there was a financial fine....how much are we talking on average? and why does the MAC not charge it? I feel like the juicer parts of your post were left out in almost a tease like fashion and now I am curious.

I don't know the figures as each conference is different. I do know that those who left for the AEC ... some lost their "bonds" in their previous conference (i.e. the "deposit") and those tend to be five figures worth of money. However, I can't be absolutely sure about that. It can be significant enough that it does cause schools to carefully weigh their options on whether they want to pull a trigger prior to leaving or not. Stevens will be taking a financial hit for moving out of the Empire 8 and into the MAC Freedom next year, I just don't know how much.

As for the MAC not doing it ... they will tell you, publicly, that they don't believe it in because schools should want to be in their conference and remain in the MAC. I get that to some degree, but I think it has a bigger role ... they can't move schools between the Commonwealth and Freedom (as they are prone to do and is rumored if there is further expansion) if they have a fine in place. The NCAA has told the MAC they have to operate those two conferences as two difference conferences (even if they have a common office). That has been the compromise for the rest of the division who continues to get frustrated that the MAC gets two bids in a lot of sports (grandfathered in to the rule). If they had fines in place, then movement between the Commonwealth and Freedom would have to be a two-year process to make it work properly, or would require waiving the fee (which I think would further incense other DIII members), etc., etc. By not having a financial penalty in place, my belief is it allows the MAC greater freedom to move things as they need or see fit when needed.

[Mr.Right]

Excellent stuff....+k.......had no idea that the MAC shuffles teams to a point where other D3 members get frustrated...also the St.A's stuff is interesting as it seems a bit stiff to shut them out for a single press release..I have always thought a bunch of those NE-10 schools should be in its own conference in D3 like Stonehill, St. A's, St. M's, Bentley, Merrimack. Then leave the rest in D2 or like Bryant they could pursue D1 which is very costly so they probably wouldn't do it. Adelphi used to be D1 at least in Men's Soccer. I just never understood what the schools I just listed have in common with their other conference counterparts like So.Conn, New Haven, etc....

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Excellent stuff....+k.......had no idea that the MAC shuffles teams to a point where other D3 members get frustrated...also the St.A's stuff is interesting as it seems a bit stiff to shut them out for a single press release..I have always thought a bunch of those NE-10 schools should be in its own conference in D3 like Stonehill, St. A's, St. M's, Bentley, Merrimack. Then leave the rest in D2 or like Bryant they could pursue D1 which is very costly so they probably wouldn't do it. Adelphi used to be D1 at least in Men's Soccer. I just never understood what the schools I just listed have in common with their other conference counterparts like So.Conn, New Haven, etc....

Per the MAC... the frustrations is what I have gathered. The MAC has moved schools often, but there are conferences like the USA South, ASC, and others who have a lot of members. They can move them in their divisions with no issues, but those conferences have ONE AQ even though they are huge (not advocating they get an extra bid). They see the MAC shift teams around like the Commonwealth and Freedom are divisions (which is how they were treated, officially, in their history despite two bids) and it rubs badly on those conferences and others. They think the MAC, especially with a single office and commissioner, is taking too much of an advantage of their grandfather clause.

I suspect the St. A's thing didn't come down to just the release, but I do know the paragraph existed at one point and then was deleted. Was that the one thing that did it? Probably not. Was it the straw the broke the camel's back for some? Maybe. Who knows. I didn't try and dig too much into it after it was clear St. A's didn't have a suitor in DIII anymore.

FYI Merrimack is headed to D1 now.

The biggest problem for a lot of those schools, especially St. A's, is hockey. They have programs, but there is nothing in DII for them. I thought the St. A's move would open the flood gates for more transfers to DIII. It didn't happen. I also thought, if a group of them got smart, they would come into DIII and create their own conference (as you mentioned), but that hasn't happened, either.

For the most part the commonality is proximity and such. Not much more. I have heard from plenty that they are frustrated with the NE-10 and the direction it has gone ... but they haven't pulled the trigger to do much about it.

[Buck O.]

And, of course (given the recent discussion), Haverford's game vs. Washington College has been postponed to Sunday, presumably due to field conditions.

I believe that's the Fords' seventh game this year that won't be played at the originally scheduled time and location for reasons that are directly or indirectly due to the weather. 

- Cabrini was delayed and moved
- Wesleyan was delayed by a couple of hours
- Wm. Paterson was moved
- Muhles was postponed
- Gettysburg was delayed by a day
- RUC was postponed indefinitely

It really is something else.

[daddyEzK]

I am neutral on the Fords but this is the third or fourth time I have heard about these field conditions for Haverford. I hate to break it to you but the committee doesn't care about your field conditions. Last time I checked the other team they faced played the in the same conditions on the same field. Haverford also has 4 losses and at the time of your argument to have them in the top 10 was 4-4...a measly .500 win percentage. That doesn't cut it no matter how difficult the schedule is. So a team that's 1-9 but played the toughest schedule in the country should be regionally ranked? Makes no sense. If you don't get results it doesn't matter. They are however starting to turn the corner and I think they will be in the top 10 in the first rankings but I hope you realize how the rankings work. I am fairly neutral on this region and enjoy watching and discussing all the teams but don't be too much of a homer if you can't back it up and have to resort to poor field conditions as an excuse.

Wish I knew what team you supported, it would be fun to compare the relative merits.  However, if you followed soccer for any period of time, close loses in adverse conditions ARE a factor in determining if a team is better than its record.  Also there is a difference, as my thighs can attest, between a natural and turf field team.  I don't think that any of this makes a difference in the NCAA rankings since the voters have not seen the games, but it is pertinent on a discussion board of fans who are throwing around their opinions.  You can be neutral on Haverford, but this senior class has won their conference two out of three years and have gone as far as the eights in the NCAAs.  They have beat 3 teams that that folks on this board had ranked ahead of them.  My point was that they deserve to be considered.  Hope you can do that.

Here's the more sympathetic response.  Even if MAF or any of us felt horrible about the adverse conditions, bad luck, adjustment to coaching change, etc....the fact remains that none of that has any bearing on how teams are going to be regionally ranked, and I think most of us who do mock poll type of stuff or attempt to guess at what the real rankings will be try to consider what we know the people with real votes actually consider.  I think that is what he was trying to communicate.  We know that Haverford has been a big-time program over the past several years.  And if they go on a major run with their typical SoS they may be in business or they may win the Centennial tournament.

Really appreciate all of you learned folks explaining the facts of life to me.  Of course, I never suggested that the committee looks at anything.  My intent was merely to influence the discussion on this Board.  Sorry to break up your private conversation.  and yes I'm a homer.  Glad to be so unique among the objective commentary.

[PaulNewman]

Oh, so that's all you wanted.  Yes, Haverford is an excellent team, fantastic school, and their field situation is very unfortunate.  You may well get the last laugh as Haverford storms into the NCAA tournament.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

On a side note, when is the first set of regional rankings released? Has anything changed with the criteria from the NCAA?

I believe the first NCAA regional ranking comes out this Wednesday, October 17.  Christian Shirk did a great explanation last season of the process. http://www.d3soccer.com/columns/christan-shirk/2017/the-rankings-that-matter and I don't know if anything has changed a lot for 2018 - smarter folk here will have to chime in.  SOS certainly has an impact on the ranking which is what daddyEzK was pointing out, thus Lastguy's data on Massey's SOS calculation is interesting.  But ultimately winning is what counts... no matter the field conditions or the SOS. 

I am sure "field conditions" will be looked into as part of the selection process criteria in the coming years if daddyEzK pushes for it 

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

I am neutral on the Fords but this is the third or fourth time I have heard about these field conditions for Haverford. I hate to break it to you but the committee doesn't care about your field conditions. Last time I checked the other team they faced played the in the same conditions on the same field. Haverford also has 4 losses and at the time of your argument to have them in the top 10 was 4-4...a measly .500 win percentage. That doesn't cut it no matter how difficult the schedule is. So a team that's 1-9 but played the toughest schedule in the country should be regionally ranked? Makes no sense. If you don't get results it doesn't matter. They are however starting to turn the corner and I think they will be in the top 10 in the first rankings but I hope you realize how the rankings work. I am fairly neutral on this region and enjoy watching and discussing all the teams but don't be too much of a homer if you can't back it up and have to resort to poor field conditions as an excuse.

Wish I knew what team you supported, it would be fun to compare the relative merits.  However, if you followed soccer for any period of time, close loses in adverse conditions ARE a factor in determining if a team is better than its record.  Also there is a difference, as my thighs can attest, between a natural and turf field team.  I don't think that any of this makes a difference in the NCAA rankings since the voters have not seen the games, but it is pertinent on a discussion board of fans who are throwing around their opinions.  You can be neutral on Haverford, but this senior class has won their conference two out of three years and have gone as far as the eights in the NCAAs.  They have beat 3 teams that that folks on this board had ranked ahead of them.  My point was that they deserve to be considered.  Hope you can do that.

For the sake of this discussion, it should be irrelevant what team I support? If you would look back through the boards I believe I am fairly neutral and say what I find true for the region as a whole. I have no beef with Haverford as you apparently think and I am sure will soon claim. They are a talented squad in a tough conference. For me 4-4 isn't worthy of a top 10 spot. Yes they played tough competition but results do matter and yes they matter more than poor field conditions. No one is attacking the senior class of Haverford either...calm down. Plenty of teams beat other teams in the region that may be ranked higher than them at the time. That's why we have rankings and that's why they change each week. As I mentioned before, I am sure Haverford will be ranked especially if they continue to pick up some wins, but when you started this discussion of "no love for Haverford" when they are sitting at 4-4 and only because of field conditions well that's not ranking worthy at the point in the season. They certainly deserve to be considered and at least from my perspective I have considered them in most of my mock polls since they have started to turn the corner. Take a deep breath and simmer down...it's a long season 

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

I am neutral on the Fords but this is the third or fourth time I have heard about these field conditions for Haverford. I hate to break it to you but the committee doesn't care about your field conditions. Last time I checked the other team they faced played the in the same conditions on the same field. Haverford also has 4 losses and at the time of your argument to have them in the top 10 was 4-4...a measly .500 win percentage. That doesn't cut it no matter how difficult the schedule is. So a team that's 1-9 but played the toughest schedule in the country should be regionally ranked? Makes no sense. If you don't get results it doesn't matter. They are however starting to turn the corner and I think they will be in the top 10 in the first rankings but I hope you realize how the rankings work. I am fairly neutral on this region and enjoy watching and discussing all the teams but don't be too much of a homer if you can't back it up and have to resort to poor field conditions as an excuse.

Wish I knew what team you supported, it would be fun to compare the relative merits.  However, if you followed soccer for any period of time, close loses in adverse conditions ARE a factor in determining if a team is better than its record.  Also there is a difference, as my thighs can attest, between a natural and turf field team.  I don't think that any of this makes a difference in the NCAA rankings since the voters have not seen the games, but it is pertinent on a discussion board of fans who are throwing around their opinions.  You can be neutral on Haverford, but this senior class has won their conference two out of three years and have gone as far as the eights in the NCAAs.  They have beat 3 teams that that folks on this board had ranked ahead of them.  My point was that they deserve to be considered.  Hope you can do that.

Here's an idea.  Make your own regional top ten list. Your pal felix can help out.  You do realize that MAF's list has absolutely zero influence on the actual ncaa regional rankings right?  Most on this board will agree that he does a pretty good job of accurately ranking teams however.  I'm not sure why you're so insistent on repeating the same points ad nauseam.

Thanks for that! 

[lastguyoffthebench]

Lastguy NCAA Mid-Atlantic Regional Ranking Predictions FIRST RELEASE

1. Messiah
2. JHU
3. F&M
4. Eastern
5. Haverford
6. Lycoming
7. Dickinson
8. Gettysburg
9. Swat
10. LVC

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

MAF Top 10 (not my guess at the regional rankings)
1. Messiah (12-0-2)
2. Lyco (12-1-1)
3. Hopkins (10-3-1)
4. F&M (10-2-2)
5. Dickinson (9-3-2)
6. Eastern (10-2-1)
7. Fords (7-4-0)
8. Gettysburg (7-4-1)
9. LVC (7-4-1)
10. Drew (9-4-0)

Others: Swat (8-5-1), Catholic (7-5-0)