Mid-Atlantic Region

[FelixCloudy]

Shooter's Top 10
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. Lyco
4. F&M
5. Eastern
6. Haverford
7. Dickinson
8. Leb Val
9. Drew
10. Etown

Shooter's NCAA Regional Projection
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. Eastern
4. F&M
5. Fords
6. Dickinson
7. Leb Val
8. Lyco
9. Swat
10. Catholic/Drew/Etown

Rookie here...but if you don't put yourself into the game... it isn't sportsman-like to be chippy about others!  Last week of regular season will have big impact.  Haverford now #1 in CC, win against the Mules on Thursday would give them CC conference tilts on Walton field.

Shooter - you are clearly thinking the NCAA committee doesn't pick the top ten in the region - thus you put up two lists?  Probably a stupid novice question, and I shouldn't go here - but why?  And Lyco above F&M and Eastern?  Their SOS is very low, and other than a loss to in-conference Messiah - haven't played any other ranked teams? 

FelixCloudy Top 10 AND NCAA regional picks

TEAM              Record
1.   Messiah    14-0-2   
2.   JHU          12-3-1   
3.   F&M         12-2-2   Loss to JHU will motivate them in CC tourney. 
4.   Eastern     13-2-1   
5.   Haverford   9-4      Shutout against Dickson moves them into first in CC   Win against Mules Thursday clinches it.
6.   Dickinson  10-4-2   Loss to Fords; tough final match on Saturday vs. JHU
7.   LVC           9-4-1    Big game against Lyco on Tuesday.
8.   Lyco         13-1-1   weak SOS hurts their ranking. 
9.   Swat          9-6-1    Fighting to secure the play-in game for CC tournament.  Need a win in final game against Haverford to hold on to spot.

10.   Getty      7-6-1      Getty loses 2 more, 3 losses to F&M, Dickinson and Swat move them down and almost out of the rankings. 
                                   But last CC match vs. Ursinus could give them them a shot in play-in game for CC tournament.
OR (tied)

10   Etown   7-4-3         2nd half of season turned it around.

[Shooter McGavin]

Shooter's Top 10
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. Lyco
4. F&M
5. Eastern
6. Haverford
7. Dickinson
8. Leb Val
9. Drew
10. Etown

Shooter's NCAA Regional Projection
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. Eastern
4. F&M
5. Fords
6. Dickinson
7. Leb Val
8. Lyco
9. Swat
10. Catholic/Drew/Etown

Rookie here...but if you don't put yourself into the game... it isn't sportsman-like to be chippy about others!  Last week of regular season will have big impact.  Haverford now #1 in CC, win against the Mules on Thursday would give them CC conference tilts on Walton field.

Shooter - you are clearly thinking the NCAA committee doesn't pick the top ten in the region - thus you put up two lists?  Probably a stupid novice question, and I shouldn't go here - but why?  And Lyco above F&M and Eastern?  Their SOS is very low, and other than a loss to in-conference Messiah - haven't played any other ranked teams? 

FelixCloudy Top 10 AND NCAA regional picks

TEAM              Record
1.   Messiah    14-0-2   
2.   JHU          12-3-1   
3.   F&M         12-2-2   Loss to JHU will motivate them in CC tourney. 
4.   Eastern     13-2-1   
5.   Haverford   9-4      Shutout against Dickson moves them into first in CC   Win against Mules Thursday clinches it.
6.   Dickinson  10-4-2   Loss to Fords; tough final match on Saturday vs. JHU
7.   LVC           9-4-1    Big game against Lyco on Tuesday.
8.   Lyco         13-1-1   weak SOS hurts their ranking. 
9.   Swat          9-6-1    Fighting to secure the play-in game for CC tournament.  Need a win in final game against Haverford to hold on to spot.

10.   Getty      7-6-1      Getty loses 2 more, 3 losses to F&M, Dickinson and Swat move them down and almost out of the rankings. 
                                   But last CC match vs. Ursinus could give them them a shot in play-in game for CC tournament.
OR (tied)

10   Etown   7-4-3         2nd half of season turned it around.

+K Felix for the Rookie part of your statement! Glad you are partaking in this fun exchange of opinions with us 

As for the NCAA rankings and committee it's a complicated topic that gets discussed year in and year out. The system used isn't the most ideal with selecting teams and can be seen throughout the nation each year that some of the very best end up in danger of missing out of NCAA's if they don't win the AQ. For example, Calvin has been, by many, a top 5 team over the last 5 years no questions asked yet if they failed to win their conference they more than likely would not have received an at-large bid due to the system the committee uses for selection criteria. There is no "set" way of knowing what the committee values most from the criteria but it is evident from the past that they strongly look at your SOS and RvR as the drivers followed by record/win percentage, and head to head contests. All of this coincides with the amount of blemishes a team has (losses and ties are blemishes in the committee's eyes).

For me, I believe Lycoming is one of the best teams in the region and has once again proven that this season. As MAF pointed out a few posts ago their SOS is low due to the lack of performance from some of their traditionally strong non-conference teams. One example that stands out is CNU, which is a very good team with a brutal schedule and is sitting at .500 right now (this really hurts Lyco's SOS). As others mentioned how do you know when scheduling these teams? It's a guessing game to who will perform and won't. Looking at the schedules at the beginning of the year I would have told you Lycoming's schedule or Leb Val's schedule would be way harder in terms of SOS than what Eastern had scheduled but now looking at the numbers Eastern has the strongest SOS of the three. So with all of that said I think from watching a lot of teams play year in and year out I can conclude that I believe how I have ranked the team's in my own Top 10 is the order of the best. If we are looking at how the committee has traditionally selected teams and placed teams I took my best guess at the week 2 regional rankings below my own top 10. Also Lyco is 13-2-1 and CMU is the other ranked team they played with Leb Val remaining. I think Gettysburg will drop out of the top 10 as they have as many blemishes at win and I feel you can't reward teams for being .500 which was a lot of the debate earlier in the season with Haverford when they were 4-4-0. Results do matter and 6 losses and 1 tie equaling 7 wins will not get it done for the Bullets. I think you will see one of the Landmark teams steal their spot at 9 or 10 depending if Swat bumps up to 9 or stays at 10 and the Landmark team jumps straight to 9.

The other noticeable team that is top 10 in both polls but left out all together of the regional rankings is Lynchburg. Anybody that watches them play or knows soccer can clearly see they are deserving of the top 10 ranking yet the NCAA committee did not even select them last week (while they were undefeated still) for the regional rankings because they had a subpar SOS. Strong SOS's should be favored but there comes a time where the eyeball test is all you need. The selection process is not ideal by any means and one other factor this year that may have affected teams is doing away with the multiplier used for home games vs road games. The NCAA now values them the same compared to past years but I think most would agree that playing on the road is harder than playing at home. Those would have significantly altered many teams SOS either for the good or bad but I digress.       

[futballfan20]

with the weak SOS and loss to Messiah last night it appears Lyco will have to win the conference tournament to make NCAA. That seems harsh given they are probably better than majority of teams that will get a berth. Wonder why they played a relatively weak schedule.

Lycoming typically plays one UAA school a year, and one or two Centennial.  Perhaps Centennial schools dropped them from the schedule?

After watching Lycoming maybe about 2-3 times every season for the past 3 years I can say with confidence they probably have some issues with scheduling non-conference games. Their direct style, athleticism at almost every position, pressing and physical play would definitely keep some Coaches from wanting to play them. UAA and Centennial teams I am guessing would rather not play an opponent like that because they muck up the game especially if they are running subs in on top of all the previous crap I mentioned. Amherst has the same reputation and if they were not in Nescac I can promise you more than half the league would not play them. More skilled teams see enough of that in the NCAA's so why deal with it in the regular season. Amherst also of course has all the bench antics, over coaching and berating of refs to go along with their unattractive style so it makes for an even more of a nuisance to play them if you do not have to.

That's putting it kindly...
2018 cumulative fouls thus far (Top 3 in MACC)
Lycoming 212
LVC 166
Messiah 98

2018 cumulative cards
Lycoming 21
LVC 9
Messiah 3

If you're a skillful out of conference centennial or UAA side, the risk of injury might outweigh the SOS upside when scheduling Lycoming

I was curious on how Lycoming's totals compared to the opponents they played in the categories you mentioned above.  We all know Lycoming plays physical.  They will always have a high foul total, which in most cases automatically means they will have a high card total.  That was evident in your post.  After some brief research on the stat pages of the Commonwealth teams: 

Lycoming is sitting at 20 YC and 1 RC
The total for cards against them.  20 YC and 1 RC. 
This would suggest if Lycoming is a dangerous team they must get everyone's most dangerous game of the season as well. 

When comparing fouls.  Lycoming has committed the most fouls at 233.  As a team they were fouled 194 times. Among the MAC Commonwealth that appears to be second only to Arcadia at 214.   For Lycoming's fast and physical approach to the game a difference of 39 fouls for/against can still be a point for argument, but this does seem to provide some insight for how the Lycoming games are reffed. 

[Ejay]

I believe SOS to be grossly overrated.  Proponents would say it prepares you for the tournament.  I would argue that a lower SOS and a great record would be equally helpful, as you would enter the tournament brimming with confidence.  For example take Drew last year.  They entered the tournament at 19-1-1 but with a terribly low SOS.  We even discussed the possibility of them missing out at 18-2-1 had they lost the AQ.  But once in, they then defeated F&M and Lycoming before falling to Brandeis 0-1.  I don't think you would have seen any different result had they played a more difficult regular season schedule.

Shooter mentioned the eyeball test and I would agree 100%. I tend to look at the field of teams and say "who would I not want to play" regardless of their SOS. And any team that's undefeated or just 1 loss would scare me - regardless of who they played. 

[Mr.Right]

Ya but they were totally outmatched in that Brandeis game as IIRC they did not have a sniff all game

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Ya but they were totally outmatched in that Brandeis game as IIRC they did not have a sniff all game

Brandeis was better that's why! Doesn't mean Drew shouldn't make it especially after beating two other teams that were probably better than them as well. I think SOS should be a portion of it but as Shooter and others have mentioned not all teams play in a strong conference like the UAA or Centennial and don't have the opportunity to schedule all really good non-conference opponents based on location etc. I know past history shouldn't play a role in the selection but I think sometimes it does and justifiably so and also sometimes it doesn't help as maybe a team gets in that shouldn't have but that's rare.

As for my rankings this week I think we will see the following from the NCAA:

NCAA Regional Rankings Prediction:
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. Eastern
4. F&M
5. Haverford
6. Dickinson
7. LVC
8. Lycoming
9. Swat
10. Etown

The toss up will be at 3 and 4 with Eastern and F&M. Both have great SOS and RvR but Eastern has H2H. Will be interesting to see what happens.

MAF Power Rankings
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. F&M
4. Lyco
5. Haverford
6. Dickinson
7. Eastern
8. LVC
9. Etown
10. Swat

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

I was curious on how Lycoming's totals compared to the opponents they played in the categories you mentioned above.  We all know Lycoming plays physical.  They will always have a high foul total, which in most cases automatically means they will have a high card total.  That was evident in your post.  After some brief research on the stat pages of the Commonwealth teams: 

Lycoming is sitting at 20 YC and 1 RC
The total for cards against them.  20 YC and 1 RC. 
This would suggest if Lycoming is a dangerous team they must get everyone's most dangerous game of the season as well. 

When comparing fouls.  Lycoming has committed the most fouls at 233.  As a team they were fouled 194 times. Among the MAC Commonwealth that appears to be second only to Arcadia at 214.   For Lycoming's fast and physical approach to the game a difference of 39 fouls for/against can still be a point for argument, but this does seem to provide some insight for how the Lycoming games are reffed.

This is an interesting way of looking at this topic. +K FutballFan.

Lycoming plays extremely physical and as a result it looks like they get fouled just as much which isn't something we discuss. I would be interested to see what those totals were like last year and previous years when they were being compared to other teams from the NJAC. 

[FelixCloudy]

+K Shooter (although I am a rookie, and can't do it officially), for my education on NCAA regional ranking the SOS effect.  As an avid fan, I was hoping that the SOS was a proxy for a team's desire to improve their skill in the beautiful game, as I grow pretty tired of watching games that are really rugby matches in disguise... or high school type soccer games with over the top punts and then a scramble in the box.  If the "eyeball test" is an evaluation of a team's touch, passing, game sense, and strategy and that could somehow be quantified - it would be great.  But I have a feeling an "eyeball test" is completely in the eye of the beholder... and also too subjective.  Thus... back to SOS. 

But the home vs. away differential is HUGE especially at this level.  Especially as the teams play on different field types and sizes.. and conditions.  Surprised that that differential doesn't count anymore.

[Falconer]

That's putting it kindly...
2018 cumulative fouls thus far (Top 3 in MACC)
Lycoming 212
LVC 166
Messiah 98

2018 cumulative cards
Lycoming 21
LVC 9
Messiah 3

If you're a skillful out of conference centennial or UAA side, the risk of injury might outweigh the SOS upside when scheduling Lycoming

I was curious on how Lycoming's totals compared to the opponents they played in the categories you mentioned above.  We all know Lycoming plays physical.  They will always have a high foul total, which in most cases automatically means they will have a high card total.  That was evident in your post.  After some brief research on the stat pages of the Commonwealth teams: 

Lycoming is sitting at 20 YC and 1 RC
The total for cards against them.  20 YC and 1 RC. 
This would suggest if Lycoming is a dangerous team they must get everyone's most dangerous game of the season as well. 

When comparing fouls.  Lycoming has committed the most fouls at 233.  As a team they were fouled 194 times. Among the MAC Commonwealth that appears to be second only to Arcadia at 214.   For Lycoming's fast and physical approach to the game a difference of 39 fouls for/against can still be a point for argument, but this does seem to provide some insight for how the Lycoming games are reffed. 

I don't think this has very much to do with how officials approach Lyco, except that those officials who prefer to "let them play" (which can vary from simply ignoring incidental fouls to swallowing the whistle for intentional cheap shots) will not add as much to their already high numbers.

Let's look at numbers from a few previous seasons, to see that Lyco is typically an outlier on the high end, both for fouls and for cards.

2014 (21 games): 303 fouls, 33 YC, 2 RC
2015 (22 games): 367 fouls, 43 YC[!], 1 RC
2016 (19 games): 277 fouls, 36 YC, 4 RC[!]
2017 (22 games): 354 fouls, 37 YC, 2 RC

The average is 15.5 fouls/game. This year they have 14.6, certainly in the same ball park.

For comparison, the NJAC teams have each played 8 conference games so far this year. Here's the numbers for fouls, YCs and RCs in those 8 games only--for which, perhaps, the set of officials might have a lot of overlap:

Kean         125   13-3
Montclair State   116   23-1
New Jersey City   104   13-2
Ramapo      122   17-1
Rowan      141   8-1
Rutgers-Camden 93   18-0
Rutgers-Newark   103   13-2
Stockton      109   10-2
TCNJ         106   9-3
WPU                   104   13-0

This comes to 14.0 fouls/game for "average" NJAC team. It's no secret that the NJAC has a reputation for being somewhat thuggish--whether deserved or not. This year's Warriors would fit right into this picture, and earlier Lyco teams would be in the top 2-3.

For comparison, consider the MACC statistics, again just for in-conference games. Lyco in 6 games has 95 fouls (almost 16 per game), which would put them below Rowan and above Ramapo in 2nd, but surprisingly just 1 YC and 1 RC in conference. Widener is next with 76 fouls in 6 games; the bottom dwellers are Hood (44 in 6 games) and Messiah (41 in 6 games). Overall, the MACC teams average just 10.6 fouls/game, and if we remove Lyco, then just 9.9 fouls/game.

This evidence, including for Lyco over a period of 5 years, strongly suggests that Lyco's numbers are what they are, not as a result of the whims of officials.

[Modified by moderator to fix format of quoted posts]

[Ejay]

If the "eyeball test" is an evaluation of a team's touch, passing, game sense, and strategy and that could somehow be quantified - it would be great.

Style is a whole other discussion.  My local HS team plays a beautiful possession game, but refuses to adjust based on game situation.  They recently lost their county tournament game to an inferior opponent because they refused to adjust their 3-6-1 against a team that played 9 behind the ball.  So while they owned 80% of the possession, it was "possession for the sake of possession" rather than "possession with a purpose". They played more backward passes than penetrating passes and ultimately got what they deserved because of the coach's stubbornness to only play "the right way". 

Come tournament time, it's "win or go home" and yet another reason I'll take a 1 loss team into the tournament any day, regardless of SOS. If you know how to win, you know how to win.  Just like the kid who scores 50 goals in HS against terrible teams.  He's still going to make me nervous playing against him...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think one of the reasons soccer got rid of the home and away weight is (a) some people just aren't convinced it does anything worthy to make a difference (in basketball, men have it and like it, women don't and don't care about it) and (b) with conference schedules not always double-round-robins (like the MIAA or you see in basketball), the weighted value takes on a bit of a good and bad side affect depending on the year. Teams are either rewarded or docked because the conference schedule has them playing a particular team at home or on the road ... out of their own control.

One of the reasons men's basketball likes the weight is (beyond the fact they play two games in conference, home and away)... it forced coaches to stop sitting in their own gyms in non-conference games and taking advantage of the home court. That continues to make sense as there are several coaches who haven't gotten the message. However in soccer, when you can't control the conference aspect, you are possibly unfairly rewarded or docked based on the conference schedule. I think they wanted to eliminate that, which I am sure was benefiting some teams in some years and hurting others. While at the same time I don't tend to see teams just camp out at home in their non-conference schedules that much in the game of soccer.

[FelixCloudy]

However in soccer, when you can't control the conference aspect, you are possibly unfairly rewarded or docked based on the conference schedule. I think they wanted to eliminate that, which I am sure was benefiting some teams in some years and hurting others.

Understood, especially when the #1 team hosts their conference tournament AND their field could be grass (or turf) - providing an additional advantage (or disadvantage) just in the games themselves.  Piling on if it also affected regional ranking.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

However in soccer, when you can't control the conference aspect, you are possibly unfairly rewarded or docked based on the conference schedule. I think they wanted to eliminate that, which I am sure was benefiting some teams in some years and hurting others.

Understood, especially when the #1 team hosts their conference tournament AND their field could be grass (or turf) - providing an additional advantage (or disadvantage) just in the games themselves.  Piling on if it also affected regional ranking.

Some would argue the #1 host hurts themselves by hosting with the weighted advantage. I don't think it ends up working out that way considering in most tournaments you end up playing top SOS numbers (unless forced to play the bottom of the conference in the first round).

The weighted number wasn't considering the turf type, just the "advantage" of being on your own campus and going through your normal routines and such (and of course knowing your own field).

I think there are good reasons to have a weighted measure on home and away games, but I can see how, especially in soccer, it may not have been getting the results they were looking for.

[Buck O.]

Shooter's Top 10
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. Lyco
4. F&M
5. Eastern
6. Haverford
7. Dickinson
8. Leb Val
9. Drew
10. Etown

Shooter's NCAA Regional Projection
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. Eastern
4. F&M
5. Fords
6. Dickinson
7. Leb Val
8. Lyco
9. Swat
10. Catholic/Drew/Etown

Rookie here...but if you don't put yourself into the game... it isn't sportsman-like to be chippy about others!  Last week of regular season will have big impact.  Haverford now #1 in CC, win against the Mules on Thursday would give them CC conference tilts on Walton field.

Shooter - you are clearly thinking the NCAA committee doesn't pick the top ten in the region - thus you put up two lists?  Probably a stupid novice question, and I shouldn't go here - but why?  And Lyco above F&M and Eastern?  Their SOS is very low, and other than a loss to in-conference Messiah - haven't played any other ranked teams? 

FelixCloudy Top 10 AND NCAA regional picks

TEAM              Record
1.   Messiah    14-0-2   
2.   JHU          12-3-1   
3.   F&M         12-2-2   Loss to JHU will motivate them in CC tourney. 
4.   Eastern     13-2-1   
5.   Haverford   9-4      Shutout against Dickson moves them into first in CC   Win against Mules Thursday clinches it.
6.   Dickinson  10-4-2   Loss to Fords; tough final match on Saturday vs. JHU
7.   LVC           9-4-1    Big game against Lyco on Tuesday.
8.   Lyco         13-1-1   weak SOS hurts their ranking. 
9.   Swat          9-6-1    Fighting to secure the play-in game for CC tournament.  Need a win in final game against Haverford to hold on to spot.

10.   Getty      7-6-1      Getty loses 2 more, 3 losses to F&M, Dickinson and Swat move them down and almost out of the rankings. 
                                   But last CC match vs. Ursinus could give them them a shot in play-in game for CC tournament.
OR (tied)

10   Etown   7-4-3         2nd half of season turned it around.

+K Felix for the Rookie part of your statement! Glad you are partaking in this fun exchange of opinions with us 

As for the NCAA rankings and committee it's a complicated topic that gets discussed year in and year out. The system used isn't the most ideal with selecting teams and can be seen throughout the nation each year that some of the very best end up in danger of missing out of NCAA's if they don't win the AQ. For example, Calvin has been, by many, a top 5 team over the last 5 years no questions asked yet if they failed to win their conference they more than likely would not have received an at-large bid due to the system the committee uses for selection criteria. There is no "set" way of knowing what the committee values most from the criteria but it is evident from the past that they strongly look at your SOS and RvR as the drivers followed by record/win percentage, and head to head contests. All of this coincides with the amount of blemishes a team has (losses and ties are blemishes in the committee's eyes).

For me, I believe Lycoming is one of the best teams in the region and has once again proven that this season. As MAF pointed out a few posts ago their SOS is low due to the lack of performance from some of their traditionally strong non-conference teams. One example that stands out is CNU, which is a very good team with a brutal schedule and is sitting at .500 right now (this really hurts Lyco's SOS). As others mentioned how do you know when scheduling these teams? It's a guessing game to who will perform and won't. Looking at the schedules at the beginning of the year I would have told you Lycoming's schedule or Leb Val's schedule would be way harder in terms of SOS than what Eastern had scheduled but now looking at the numbers Eastern has the strongest SOS of the three. So with all of that said I think from watching a lot of teams play year in and year out I can conclude that I believe how I have ranked the team's in my own Top 10 is the order of the best. If we are looking at how the committee has traditionally selected teams and placed teams I took my best guess at the week 2 regional rankings below my own top 10. Also Lyco is 13-2-1 and CMU is the other ranked team they played with Leb Val remaining. I think Gettysburg will drop out of the top 10 as they have as many blemishes at win and I feel you can't reward teams for being .500 which was a lot of the debate earlier in the season with Haverford when they were 4-4-0. Results do matter and 6 losses and 1 tie equaling 7 wins will not get it done for the Bullets. I think you will see one of the Landmark teams steal their spot at 9 or 10 depending if Swat bumps up to 9 or stays at 10 and the Landmark team jumps straight to 9.

The other noticeable team that is top 10 in both polls but left out all together of the regional rankings is Lynchburg. Anybody that watches them play or knows soccer can clearly see they are deserving of the top 10 ranking yet the NCAA committee did not even select them last week (while they were undefeated still) for the regional rankings because they had a subpar SOS. Strong SOS's should be favored but there comes a time where the eyeball test is all you need. The selection process is not ideal by any means and one other factor this year that may have affected teams is doing away with the multiplier used for home games vs road games. The NCAA now values them the same compared to past years but I think most would agree that playing on the road is harder than playing at home. Those would have significantly altered many teams SOS either for the good or bad but I digress.     

Now that you've explained your thoughts as to how the process works, can someone explain why it works this way?  It's awfully byzantine, and if it leads to results that everyone seems to agree don't make much sense (e.g., teams like Calvin and St. Joe's (ME) being in danger of missing the tournament if they slip up in their conference tournament), why doesn't it get changed? 

[futballfan20]

That's putting it kindly...
2018 cumulative fouls thus far (Top 3 in MACC)
Lycoming 212
LVC 166
Messiah 98

2018 cumulative cards
Lycoming 21
LVC 9
Messiah 3

If you're a skillful out of conference centennial or UAA side, the risk of injury might outweigh the SOS upside when scheduling Lycoming

I was curious on how Lycoming's totals compared to the opponents they played in the categories you mentioned above.  We all know Lycoming plays physical.  They will always have a high foul total, which in most cases automatically means they will have a high card total.  That was evident in your post.  After some brief research on the stat pages of the Commonwealth teams: 

Lycoming is sitting at 20 YC and 1 RC
The total for cards against them.  20 YC and 1 RC. 
This would suggest if Lycoming is a dangerous team they must get everyone's most dangerous game of the season as well. 

When comparing fouls.  Lycoming has committed the most fouls at 233.  As a team they were fouled 194 times. Among the MAC Commonwealth that appears to be second only to Arcadia at 214.   For Lycoming's fast and physical approach to the game a difference of 39 fouls for/against can still be a point for argument, but this does seem to provide some insight for how the Lycoming games are reffed. 

I don't think this has very much to do with how officials approach Lyco, except that those officials who prefer to "let them play" (which can vary from simply ignoring incidental fouls to swallowing the whistle for intentional cheap shots) will not add as much to their already high numbers.

Let's look at numbers from a few previous seasons, to see that Lyco is typically an outlier on the high end, both for fouls and for cards.

2014 (21 games): 303 fouls, 33 YC, 2 RC
2015 (22 games): 367 fouls, 43 YC[!], 1 RC
2016 (19 games): 277 fouls, 36 YC, 4 RC[!]
2017 (22 games): 354 fouls, 37 YC, 2 RC

The average is 15.5 fouls/game. This year they have 14.6, certainly in the same ball park.

For comparison, the NJAC teams have each played 8 conference games so far this year. Here's the numbers for fouls, YCs and RCs in those 8 games only--for which, perhaps, the set of officials might have a lot of overlap:

Kean         125   13-3
Montclair State   116   23-1
New Jersey City   104   13-2
Ramapo      122   17-1
Rowan      141   8-1
Rutgers-Camden 93   18-0
Rutgers-Newark   103   13-2
Stockton      109   10-2
TCNJ         106   9-3
WPU                   104   13-0

This comes to 14.0 fouls/game for "average" NJAC team. It's no secret that the NJAC has a reputation for being somewhat thuggish--whether deserved or not. This year's Warriors would fit right into this picture, and earlier Lyco teams would be in the top 2-3.

For comparison, consider the MACC statistics, again just for in-conference games. Lyco in 6 games has 95 fouls (almost 16 per game), which would put them below Rowan and above Ramapo in 2nd, but surprisingly just 1 YC and 1 RC in conference. Widener is next with 76 fouls in 6 games; the bottom dwellers are Hood (44 in 6 games) and Messiah (41 in 6 games). Overall, the MACC teams average just 10.6 fouls/game, and if we remove Lyco, then just 9.9 fouls/game.

This evidence, including for Lyco over a period of 5 years, strongly suggests that Lyco's numbers are what they are, not as a result of the whims of officials.

My argument was not that Lycoming was at the whims of the officials and that is why they get called for fouls.  Lycoming plays physical and fast and are going to get called for fouls and frankly that does not seem to bother them.  Your statement that there are intentional cheap shots I am not sure.  I do not watch every soccer game so can't say it never happens and I'll leave you to your opinion. 

As far as your breakdown in fouls I will break it down the same way I did in my first post.

               Lyco                                                                           Opponents
2014 (21 games): 303 fouls, 33 YC, 2 RC                2014 (21 games): 271 fouls, 25 YC, 0 RC                      Difference + 32 Lyco
2015 (22 games): 367 fouls, 43 YC[!], 1 RC            2015 (22 games): 331 fouls, 33 YC, 3 RC                      Difference + 36 Lyco
2016 (19 games): 277 fouls, 36 YC, 4 RC[!]            2016 (19 games): 248 fouls, 26 YC, 1 RC                      Difference + 29 Lyco
2017 (22 games): 354 fouls, 37 YC, 2 RC                2017 (22 games): 255 fouls, 30 YC, 3 RC                      Difference + 99 Lyco 

Now last year there appears to have been a more foul happy team on lyco but all in all the trend seems to hold true that while Lyco does get called for a good amount of fouls they earn a good amount as well.  The argument just comes to is the +30ish too much not the overall total number.  I will even throw in the argument that anyone watching Lyco games last year will admit that Adbi #9 only ever earned about 1 foul for every 10 that should have been called.  But I also know many teams can point to a player like that as well.

To continue your argument of fouls per game

15.5 fouls/game for Lycoming for 2014 - 2017.  Lycoming earned 13.15 fouls/game in that time. 

This year in the MACC Lyco averages 13.6 in the 6 games but earned 12.33.

My argument was just as MAF said.  While Lyco will always have a high foul count, the other side is they take a lot of fouls as well.   Is averaging a little more than 2 fouls more per game than you earned that bad? Or a little over 1 this season?

[Modified by moderator to fix format of quoted posts]