Mid-Atlantic Region

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Messiah and Lycoming played one heck of a game last night and as many others have echoed across the boards over the year, these two teams are certainly worthy of competing in NCAA's. Messiah played beautifully last night but Lycoming never broke. It was a defensive clinic by the Warriors with some key saves from their GK and some incredible plays from Tueno. He showed why he will most likely repeat as an All-American this year, as he was one of the best, if not the best defensive player I have seen all year.

Messiah controlled large spells of the game and I think had more of the ball than the first match between the two. But Lycoming defended beautifully and created some nice opportunities as well. Both teams look to be playing some of their best soccer at the right time and PK's was the only way to decide this one as Messiah won with penalties.

I would expect Messiah to host straight through to the Final 4 if they advance and I would also expect Lycoming to get a Pool C bid as they strengthened their resume last night.

15-3-2 overall record, winning percentage of .800, SOS will jump to around .555 to .565 range, RvR of 2-2-1 with a quality result vs the top team in the country. I can't see how the committee would keep a resume like this out but will look more in depth this evening after the conclusion of some other finals this afternoon!

[Falconer]

I would expect Messiah to host straight through to the Final 4 if they advance and I would also expect Lycoming to get a Pool C bid as they strengthened their resume last night.

Unless I'm mistaken, this year the men host the first weekend and (assuming that both the men and the women make the Sweet Sixteen) the women host the second weekend--in which case the men would be on the road. I'm sure FW will let us know if I am mistaken.

[Mr.Right]

I would expect Messiah to host straight through to the Final 4 if they advance and I would also expect Lycoming to get a Pool C bid as they strengthened their resume last night.

Unless I'm mistaken, this year the men host the first weekend and (assuming that both the men and the women make the Sweet Sixteen) the women host the second weekend--in which case the men would be on the road. I'm sure FW will let us know if I am mistaken.

I think it is the other way around....

[Flying Weasel]

I would expect Messiah to host straight through to the Final 4 if they advance and I would also expect Lycoming to get a Pool C bid as they strengthened their resume last night.

Unless I'm mistaken, this year the men host the first weekend and (assuming that both the men and the women make the Sweet Sixteen) the women host the second weekend--in which case the men would be on the road. I'm sure FW will let us know if I am mistaken.

I think it is the other way around....

In even-numbered years, which this year is, the men have hosting preference for the 1st/2nd Round pods and the women have preference for Sectionals.  Vice versa for odd-numbered years.

[Mr.Right]

Gotcha....That possibly could have an impact on a couple teams that want to host in the Sweet 16/Elite 8 on the Men's side for sure.

[Flying Weasel]

I would expect Messiah to host straight through to the Final 4 if they advance and I would also expect Lycoming to get a Pool C bid as they strengthened their resume last night.

Unless I'm mistaken, this year the men host the first weekend and (assuming that both the men and the women make the Sweet Sixteen) the women host the second weekend--in which case the men would be on the road. I'm sure FW will let us know if I am mistaken.

Of course, this all depends on the women being the top seed in their Sectional if they advance--not a guarantee.

[daddyEzK]

95% of the fields in the Philadelphia area are closed for USSF today

Oh those pesky field conditions will be why Haverford loses today if that's the case...

Despite a muddy field on Saturday, Haverford prevailed.  Thank you for concern.

My point throughout  this discussion is that reliance on records without perspective to determine whether the "official" rankings were accurate is fool's gold.  First guy off the bench knows that weather conditions and pitch surfaces effect different teams differently. The teams performance against WPU was not an accurate way to compare them to F&M because of the circumstances of that game.

I also knew that their result in Lancaster would look different at historic Walton Field.

However, keep depending on your algorithms and formulas. I will continue to watch games to see if I agree with you experts who insisted that Hopkins and F&M were better than the Fords.

And you are more than welcome to join me this coming weekend, hopefully at Haverford.

[Shooter McGavin]

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

AQs: Messiah, Fords, Eastern, Etown, Keystone, Abington
Pool C: F&M, JHU, Lyco

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

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

AQs: Messiah, Fords, Eastern, Etown, Keystone, Abington
Pool C: F&M, JHU, Lyco

I think that is actually spot on Shooter. +K

[paclassic89]

95% of the fields in the Philadelphia area are closed for USSF today

Oh those pesky field conditions will be why Haverford loses today if that's the case...

Despite a muddy field on Saturday, Haverford prevailed.  Thank you for concern.

My point throughout  this discussion is that reliance on records without perspective to determine whether the "official" rankings were accurate is fool's gold.  First guy off the bench knows that weather conditions and pitch surfaces effect different teams differently. The teams performance against WPU was not an accurate way to compare them to F&M because of the circumstances of that game.

I also knew that their result in Lancaster would look different at historic Walton Field.

However, keep depending on your algorithms and formulas. I will continue to watch games to see if I agree with you experts who insisted that Hopkins and F&M were better than the Fords.

And you are more than welcome to join me this coming weekend, hopefully at Haverford.

How else do you expect the ranking committees to rank teams if they can't "depend on algorithms and formulas"?  Do you honestly think they should watch every single game played?  Also, the SOS and rvr are data points so that rankings aren't solely dependent on records.  This is why Haverford continued to climb the regional rankings.  Not everyone on this forum has a son who plays for a particular school so we have to rely on records, s.o.s, and rvr to inform our opinions. 

[FelixCloudy]

Surprised that Haverford is not getting a little more love.  Of its 4 losses, two were in terrible weather, playing on small turf fields.  Neither is conducive to its ball control style.  Beat Hopkins and lost to F&M in OT.  Not saying this team is final four material, but still should be considered a contender in the Centennial Conference.  Not bad for a new coach.  Wednesday's game against Muhlenberg should give us a sense of how they stack up in this competitive league.

daddyEZ noted way back that the Fords early blemishes for whatever reason, were not good indicators of the team's talent; before regional rankings, SOS, RvR were known.  Kudos to him for pointing this out at that time. Ultimately, the Fords validated his point of view in achieving a number one rank in the CC earning hosting honors for this weekend's tournament, and taking care of business to land the AQ.  Congratulations to the Fords.

[PaulNewman]

Surprised that Haverford is not getting a little more love.  Of its 4 losses, two were in terrible weather, playing on small turf fields.  Neither is conducive to its ball control style.  Beat Hopkins and lost to F&M in OT.  Not saying this team is final four material, but still should be considered a contender in the Centennial Conference.  Not bad for a new coach.  Wednesday's game against Muhlenberg should give us a sense of how they stack up in this competitive league.

daddyEZ noted way back that the Fords early blemishes for whatever reason, were not good indicators of the team's talent; before regional rankings, SOS, RvR were known.  Kudos to him for pointing this out at that time. Ultimately, the Fords validated his point of view in achieving a number one rank in the CC earning hosting honors for this weekend's tournament, and taking care of business to land the AQ.  Congratulations to the Fords.

That's not my recollection....which was that the poster complained about rankings and the mock rankings of another poster.  The poster seemed to suggest that rankings at that early point of time should have considered field conditions, as though that is something that has ever happened in any rankings anywhere.  The poster could have said Haverford was off to a slow start and could have even blamed the field, arguing that Haverford would turn things around, as it turns out they did.  But that's not what he did.  His reactions actually have muddied the waters about Haverford.  The Fords since those initial reactions have ripped off 10 or 11 straight wins and appear to be one of the hottest teams in country.  They are getting their just due and are being ranked accordingly.  That doesn't mean anyone should have ranked them more favorably in the early part of the season with some adjustment factor regarding weather and field condition.

[FelixCloudy]

That's not my recollection....which was that the poster complained about rankings and the mock rankings of another poster.

PN... it was why I went back and quoted the poster's very first post on the topic. He was offering his thoughts into the conversation in order to add the Fords to the mix of mid Atlantic teams one might consider for a top ten list - despite their albeit rocky early season start.  He'd seen the games... so could comment with authority.  Ultimately his opinion has been completely validated - the Fords have not lost a game since his first post on the topic.

[PaulNewman]

That's not my recollection....which was that the poster complained about rankings and the mock rankings of another poster.

PN... it was why I went back and quoted the poster's very first post on the topic. He was offering his thoughts into the conversation in order to add the Fords to the mix of mid Atlantic teams one might consider for a top ten list - despite their albeit rocky early season start.  He'd seen the games... so could comment with authority.  Ultimately his opinion has been completely validated - the Fords have not lost a game since his first post on the topic.

You're missing the point.  No one is contesting that his opinion that Haverford was better than its results at the time has proven to be correct (and we didn't even contest that at the time).  The point is his idea that rankings should have been more favorable at that time made no sense.  If Messiah started 0-3 we all would know that the Falcons would still be national contenders.  That doesn't mean we should "show more love" when they are 0-3.

[FelixCloudy]

You're missing the point.  No one is contesting that his opinion that Haverford was better than its results at the time has proven to be correct (and we didn't even contest that at the time).  The point is his idea that rankings should have been more favorable at that time made no sense.....

I really am not missing it, but I do agree that the best way to make one's point on a personal ranking projection is to make your own and not try to change somebody else', ESPECIALLY prior to the first regional ranking release, where one can be very influenced by the pre-season top 25 national teams ranking, which MANY on this board have commented frequently are sometimes not a very accurate way to forecast any team's next season (except maybe Messiah!).  When the first regional rankings were released, and the Fords started out on the list at #6, it did show the poster's point of view was completley warranted.  But it might have been better if s/he had just made their own top ten list and not try to persuade others to change theirs.