Mid-Atlantic Region

[Kuiper]

I think early season Massey is slightly wonky, of course.

But even knowing not to put a ton of stock in it... The Bullets higher than the Dips?

I dunno how that got worked up. I wasn't all that impressed with their approach to the game last season. (Relying on long-ball/quick counters and long throw-ins). Kind of taking F&M's version of chaos ball but not really all that effective.

It is what it is as to Massey.  All will be shuffled and guessing that Massey is basing it on strength of schedule and success of the teams from last year.  May be all a fallacy as some of the COVID kids have moved on, but some are still there.

One thing that I learned about Massey in 2022-23, much to my chagrin, is that the results of a program's previous season are baked in far more deeply than I had once thought. The best proof of this is in how Massey rates programs that have a wild swing in performance in either direction from one year to the next. North Park's men's basketball program had been dismal in 2021-22, and even worse than dismal for the four seasons previous. Thanks to a new coach, a lot of new players, and a new style of play, the Vikings turned their fortunes around immensely in 2022-23, going from 10-14 overall and a 5-11 seventh-place finish in the CCIW to 24-6, a CCIW tournament championship, a Sweet Sixteen appearance, and a 13-3 second-place finish in the CCIW. Yet Massey lagged so far behind in terms of recognizing NPU's turnaround that for the bulk of January and February -- in other words, more than halfway through the season -- it was predicting that the Vikings would win only one or two more games and would finish with a losing record, which gradually became a predicted-mediocre record, which gradually became an OK-they're-good-so-far-but-they're-definitely-going-to-start-losing-now record. Massey was predicting that teams that the Vikings had beaten by 20 points or more in the first go-round of the CCIW double round-robin would beat NPU in the return game.

It was astonishing to see, and a little bit disheartening as well, because I'd always put great stock in Massey as a reliable ratings source. My project this year is to examine the opposite side of the coin -- in other words, find some team that has had a good recent history of success that is obviously down at the heels this school year, and see if Massey holds that team up above where it should be.

This is a great point.  It's obvious in a pre-season rankings that they are going to use data from the prior year because otherwise they having nothing to go on, but it's useful to think about it more concretely.  There is one example from the Mid-Atlantic of your project for this year that I bolded from the above excerpt of your post - a team where prior strong seasons might be holding up a team above where it might be properly ranked, although it actually goes back more than one season, and probably multiple seasons, suggesting that the lag effect might be longer than you think

The example is Swarthmore in the Centennial.  In 2021, it was 11-5-2 overall and 6-2-1 in conference and lost in the NCAA tournament first round to Stevens 1-0.  In 2019, the last prior season (given 2020's cancellation), Swat was 11-4-5 overall and 4-3-2 on conference and lost in the third round of the NCAA tournament to Conn College 1-0 in OT after beating Roanoke in the first round and Christopher Newport in the second round (both on PKs). 

In 2022, by contrast, Swat was 6-7-4 overall and 1-6-2 in conference, finishing second to last in the Centennial.  Nevertheless, Massey has it ranked #73 in the country in the 2023 pre-season ranking, which is ahead of Dickinson, McDaniel, Haverford, and Ursinus.  All but Ursinus not only finished ahead of Swarthmore in conference in 2022 but beat Swat in head-to-head competition in 2022, and all but Haverford and Ursinus finished ahead of Swat in overall winning percentage.  So, the only way Swarthmore should be ranked ahead of all of those teams is if past success from 2021, and possibly from as long ago as 2019, is still driving the rankings.

Consider the Massey rankings, which are more relevant than the records and NCAA performance for predicting Massey rankings in future years

Team                   2019         2021         2022        2023

Swarthmore           34            53            109           73
Dickinson               36            206          74             87
McDaniel                110          227          111            142
Haverford               40           123          142            89
Ursinus                  160         128           223           194

It looks to me like Swarthmore is being propped up by 2019 and 2021 and Dickinson is being dragged down by 2021, even though Dickinson would be placed above Swarthmore if 2022 was the only year influencing things.  Similarly, McDaniel would be above Haverford if 2022 was the only year under consideration, but 2021 is dragging it down.  By contrast, the only way Haverford can be #89, so far ahead of McDaniel, is if 2019 is included and still propping it up.  None of these are based strictly on a straight average of either two or three years, but you can't arrive at a number close to this year's pre-season ratings without considering the prior three years, not just two and definitely not one.

I haven't closely followed the Centennial before, but Swarthmore may have just had a temporary drop last year, it may have had some bad luck with injuries, fluky goals, or referee errors, or it may have a great incoming class while the teams it jumped in the rankings without playing a game may have graduated their star players, but Massey is just an algorithm, so it isn't taking that stuff into account.  I'm not a statistician or a data guy per se (no surprise the basketball board would attract those types), but the only conclusion I can reach is that the algorithm is set to take three prior seasons into account in setting rankings.  That seems a bit odd and, as you say, subjective.  Nevertheless, it's not irrational given the four-year cycle of players and the idea of thinking about rankings of programs on traditional strength and not just one year anomalies.   

[soccerpapa]

unfortunately this is not exclusive to D3 sports.   IMO no rankings should be released until after non-conference games.   

Teams that start high (based on previous years record) don't fall far with a loss.   Teams that start low can have a great year and take forever to move up.   Then one loss will drop them significantly. 

In college sports rosters change significantly year to year - teams should be judged on the year in question - no on what previous years teams have done.  Rank after non-conference would be better.

[Gregory Sager]

This is a great point.  It's obvious in a pre-season rankings that they are going to use data from the prior year because otherwise they having nothing to go on, but it's useful to think about it more concretely.  There is one example from the Mid-Atlantic of your project for this year that I bolded from the above excerpt of your post - a team where prior strong seasons might be holding up a team above where it might be properly ranked, although it actually goes back more than one season, and probably multiple seasons, suggesting that the lag effect might be longer than you think

Oh, I definitely think that the Massey algorithm is set to include more than one past season. As I said in my previous post, North Park's men's basketball team had been even worse than dismal in the four seasons preceding 2021-22 than the 10-14, 5-11 record the Vikings posted that year. For each of those four preceding seasons (including the Covid-truncated 2020-21 season) you could count the number of overall games won by the Vikings on one hand.

Whether the lag effect is indeed three years, as Swarthmore's and McDaniel's results seem to indicate, or two, or four, or more than four, it seems pretty apparent that such a lag effect exists. But, as I said, I think that the detrimental nature of the lag effect upon Massey's accuracy is most easily exposed when you see a huge swing from really bad to really good, or from really good to really bad, in a program over the course of back-to-back seasons. There's less of a boiling-frog effect for the casual observer when you see a doormat turn into a powerhouse, or vice-versa, seemingly overnight.

I don't think that this invalidates Massey altogether. But I'd be really, really careful about putting too much stock in what Massey has to say about anything.

[jknezek]

This is a great point.  It's obvious in a pre-season rankings that they are going to use data from the prior year because otherwise they having nothing to go on, but it's useful to think about it more concretely.  There is one example from the Mid-Atlantic of your project for this year that I bolded from the above excerpt of your post - a team where prior strong seasons might be holding up a team above where it might be properly ranked, although it actually goes back more than one season, and probably multiple seasons, suggesting that the lag effect might be longer than you think

Oh, I definitely think that the Massey algorithm is set to include more than one past season. As I said in my previous post, North Park's men's basketball team had been even worse than dismal in the four seasons preceding 2021-22 than the 10-14, 5-11 record the Vikings posted that year. For each of those four preceding seasons (including the Covid-truncated 2020-21 season) you could count the number of overall games won by the Vikings on one hand.

Whether the lag effect is indeed three years, as Swarthmore's and McDaniel's results seem to indicate, or two, or four, or more than four, it seems pretty apparent that such a lag effect exists. But, as I said, I think that the detrimental nature of the lag effect upon Massey's accuracy is most easily exposed when you see a huge swing from really bad to really good, or from really good to really bad, in a program over the course of back-to-back seasons. There's less of a boiling-frog effect for the casual observer when you see a doormat turn into a powerhouse, or vice-versa, seemingly overnight.

I don't think that this invalidates Massey altogether. But I'd be really, really careful about putting too much stock in what Massey has to say about anything.

And this is where I tend to disagree. Because most of the teams that have been good, actually are good. Year after year. Especially in D3 where dynasties tend to reign. Most teams that are bad, tend to stay bad. Certainly there is movement, and teams get better or worse, especially in the middle of the division, but by and large, more than 50% of the top 25 teams in the country in any given sport are there year after year after year, and 75% of them are probably in consideration.

Now the example with North Park is a good one. And I tend to think when teams have a coaching change, counting their previous results as a weighted factor should go down. Especially in D3 where player volatility is enormous.

But I also think it's important to remember that, using soccer as an example, the top 5-10 teams are pretty interchangeable as a tier. Any one can usually beat one of the others on any given day. 6-15 about the same. 11-30 are very similar. 25-60. 50-100+. 80-200+. 200 to the bottom. These brackets are important, but the order of the teams within those brackets is fairly irrelevant (and yes, the brackets get wider as you go up for a reason).

So when looking at Massey I don't care who he puts 11 and who he puts 15. But I really don't care who he puts 70 and who he puts 90. Or 105 vs 160. That is really irrelevant because there simply is no way to tell.

D3 sports form the same bell curve as just about any other population. You have the fat tails of really, really good and really, really bad. Then you have your standard deviations of good, bad, and the vast majority in the indistinguishable middle.

Where I'm usually pretty careful is the spoilers. It's why I was so irritated that Western Conn didn't make the tournament. Those teams that go on runs, that clean up a season, maybe they don't get the benefit of the doubt to be top 10 because they don't play the best schedule or some of their better wins look a bit fluky, but those are the teams to pay attention to.

However, Williams proves the other side of that coin. Personally, I would not have had them in the tournament last year. They were the mediocre falling star. But historically, they got the benefit of the doubt and look what they did when it mattered.

Good teams tend to be good, year in and out. Bad teams tend to be bad. If you were one, you have to prove you are the other before people, and data, are going to show it. And that's not just a couple wins.

[Hopkins92]

Well, since we're swimming in Lake Mid-Atlantic, I'll just flag my dark horse favorite from last season: Widener. They had somewhat of a breakout season in 2022 (11-6-2), yet they are ranked 84. Like NPU basketball, their prior seasons were pretty bleak going back many years. I'll be interested to see what happens if they put up another solid run this fall. I don't know their entire roster, but I do see that Sean Fatiga, their star striker, is back, so... Baseline of having the dude that accounted for probably 75 percent of the offense is pretty high.

[SierraFD3soccer]

Well, since we're swimming in Lake Mid-Atlantic, I'll just flag my dark horse favorite from last season: Widener. They had somewhat of a breakout season in 2022 (11-6-2), yet they are ranked 84. Like NPU basketball, their prior seasons were pretty bleak going back many years. I'll be interested to see what happens if they put up another solid run this fall. I don't know their entire roster, but I do see that Sean Fatiga, their star striker, is back, so... Baseline of having the dude that accounted for probably 75 percent of the offense is pretty high.

I would also like to put Rosemont in that category.  If they play like last year, they could be really good.  FYI, Rosemont was women's college for many years and is right outside of Philly.  They won their league and made the NCAAs and lost to CNU 1-0 in the first round. When F&M played them, F&M won (4-1) which was F&M's  most lopsided close win ever.  It could have easily gone either way until the end. Rosemont was really fast and scrappy.  They play Widener, F&M, Swarthmore, Haverford, Ursinus and Dickenson this year.  On top of this, they are the Boise State of the mid-atlantic as they play on grey turf.  It was very, very disorienting. https://rosemont-ravens.com/sports/2014/1/9/GEN_0109143449.aspx

[Kuiper]

Well, since we're swimming in Lake Mid-Atlantic, I'll just flag my dark horse favorite from last season: Widener. They had somewhat of a breakout season in 2022 (11-6-2), yet they are ranked 84. Like NPU basketball, their prior seasons were pretty bleak going back many years. I'll be interested to see what happens if they put up another solid run this fall. I don't know their entire roster, but I do see that Sean Fatiga, their star striker, is back, so... Baseline of having the dude that accounted for probably 75 percent of the offense is pretty high.

I would also like to put Rosemont in that category.  If they play like last year, they could be really good.  FYI, Rosemont was women's college for many years and is right outside of Philly.  They won their league and made the NCAAs and lost to CNU 1-0 in the first round. When F&M played them, F&M won (4-1) which was F&M's  most lopsided close win ever.  It could have easily gone either way until the end. Rosemont was really fast and scrappy.  They play Widener, F&M, Swarthmore, Haverford, Ursinus and Dickenson this year.  On top of this, they are the Boise State of the mid-atlantic as they play on grey turf.  It was very, very disorienting. https://rosemont-ravens.com/sports/2014/1/9/GEN_0109143449.aspx

Speaking of Rosemont, the schedule on its website lists the CSAC playoffs, through the CSAC Finals, and then a "Cross-Over Finals" to come after that.  Is that a transition to the combined United East or is something else going on?

[Flying Weasel]

Well, since we're swimming in Lake Mid-Atlantic, I'll just flag my dark horse favorite from last season: Widener. They had somewhat of a breakout season in 2022 (11-6-2), yet they are ranked 84. Like NPU basketball, their prior seasons were pretty bleak going back many years. I'll be interested to see what happens if they put up another solid run this fall. I don't know their entire roster, but I do see that Sean Fatiga, their star striker, is back, so... Baseline of having the dude that accounted for probably 75 percent of the offense is pretty high.

I would also like to put Rosemont in that category.  If they play like last year, they could be really good.  FYI, Rosemont was women's college for many years and is right outside of Philly.  They won their league and made the NCAAs and lost to CNU 1-0 in the first round. When F&M played them, F&M won (4-1) which was F&M's  most lopsided close win ever.  It could have easily gone either way until the end. Rosemont was really fast and scrappy.  They play Widener, F&M, Swarthmore, Haverford, Ursinus and Dickenson this year.  On top of this, they are the Boise State of the mid-atlantic as they play on grey turf.  It was very, very disorienting. https://rosemont-ravens.com/sports/2014/1/9/GEN_0109143449.aspx

Speaking of Rosemont, the schedule on its website lists the CSAC playoffs, through the CSAC Finals, and then a "Cross-Over Finals" to come after that.  Is that a transition to the combined United East or is something else going on?

Yea, the two conferences are officially one entity for the 2023-24 season, using the name United East Conference and only having a single AQ berth to the NCAA Tournament in each sport for the 17 schools.  However, with schedules (conference and non-conference) largely already in place before the merger was finalized, the season will largely proceed as if the CSAC and UEC were still separate conferences, with each former conference being considered a division.  Each division will have playoffs to crown a division champion, with the two division champions meeting in the final to win the NCAA automatic berth.

It had not yet been determined what the conference configuration and championship format will be in future after this transitional year.

This merger seems to be the opposite of what happened with the ever-growing USA South Athletic Conference that finally broke into two conferences a year ago. 

The UEC was losing two schools after last academic year, dropping them to 7 institutions which was still enough for an AQ if all seven schools sponsored the sport.  But with the growing instability across Division III with schools closing their doors and conferences having to react to closures and departures in order to maintain numbers for automatic berths, this merger provides these 17 schools with some conference stability/security in at least the near future.  The cost is a reduced access ratio to the NCAA Tournament:  1 AQ berth for 16 men's and 17 women's soccer programs.

By the way, the formerly all-women Notre Dame of Maryland, begins it's first academic year with male students and is debuting men's soccer, men's basketball and men's cross-country this school year.  This addition increased the number of men's soccer programs in the CSAC to nine before the merger.

[Kuiper]

Well, since we're swimming in Lake Mid-Atlantic, I'll just flag my dark horse favorite from last season: Widener. They had somewhat of a breakout season in 2022 (11-6-2), yet they are ranked 84. Like NPU basketball, their prior seasons were pretty bleak going back many years. I'll be interested to see what happens if they put up another solid run this fall. I don't know their entire roster, but I do see that Sean Fatiga, their star striker, is back, so... Baseline of having the dude that accounted for probably 75 percent of the offense is pretty high.

I would also like to put Rosemont in that category.  If they play like last year, they could be really good.  FYI, Rosemont was women's college for many years and is right outside of Philly.  They won their league and made the NCAAs and lost to CNU 1-0 in the first round. When F&M played them, F&M won (4-1) which was F&M's  most lopsided close win ever.  It could have easily gone either way until the end. Rosemont was really fast and scrappy.  They play Widener, F&M, Swarthmore, Haverford, Ursinus and Dickenson this year.  On top of this, they are the Boise State of the mid-atlantic as they play on grey turf.  It was very, very disorienting. https://rosemont-ravens.com/sports/2014/1/9/GEN_0109143449.aspx

Speaking of Rosemont, the schedule on its website lists the CSAC playoffs, through the CSAC Finals, and then a "Cross-Over Finals" to come after that.  Is that a transition to the combined United East or is something else going on?

Yea, the two conferences are officially one entity for the 2023-24 season, using the name United East Conference and only having a single AQ berth to the NCAA Tournament in each sport for the 17 schools.  However, with schedules (conference and non-conference) largely already in place before the merger was finalized, the season will largely proceed as if the CSAC and UEC were still separate conferences, with each former conference being considered a division.  Each division will have playoffs to crown a division champion, with the two division champions meeting in the final to win the NCAA automatic berth.

It had not yet been determined what the conference configuration and championship format will be in future after this transitional year.

This merger seems to be the opposite of what happened with the ever-growing USA South Athletic Conference that finally broke into two conferences a year ago. 

The UEC was losing two schools after last academic year, dropping them to 7 institutions which was still enough for an AQ if all seven schools sponsored the sport.  But with the growing instability across Division III with schools closing their doors and conferences having to react to closures and departures in order to maintain numbers for automatic berths, this merger provides these 17 schools with some conference stability/security in at least the near future.  The cost is a reduced access ratio to the NCAA Tournament:  1 AQ berth for 16 men's and 17 women's soccer programs.

By the way, the formerly all-women Notre Dame of Maryland, begins it's first academic year with male students and is debuting men's soccer, men's basketball and men's cross-country this school year.  This addition increased the number of men's soccer programs in the CSAC to nine before the merger.

Thanks for the great information!  Incidentally, it seems like a coup for Notre Dame of Maryland to be able to hire an experienced DI coach like Olzsewski as HC to start the program.  It's also nice to see a new program to interrupt the steady trickle of schools closing, although I'm sure going co-ed was controversial and a reflection of broader demographic and enrollment trends that are concerning for a lot of small colleges.

[Hopkins92]

Oh man. I'm going to refrain from repeating it, but there was a pretty salacious saying when Notre Dame was the College of Notre Dame of Maryland. (They are now Notre Dame of Maryland University.)

[Freddyfud]

Oh man. I'm going to refrain from repeating it, but there was a pretty salacious saying when Notre Dame was the College of Notre Dame of Maryland. (They are now Notre Dame of Maryland University.)

Please do refrain.  My mother went there.  And my father went to Hopkins.  Back in the 60's but still...

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

MAF Regional Preseason Rankings

Region 4
1. Stevens
2. Montclair
3. NYU
4. Rowan
5. Misericordia
6. Rutgers-Newark
7. PSU-Harrisburg

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. F&M
4. Catholic
5. Lycoming
6. Gettysburg
7. Drew

[Kuiper]

Regional Preseason Rankings

Region 4
1. Stevens
2. Montclair
3. NYU
4. Rowan
5. Misericordia
6. Rutgers-Newark
7. PSU-Harrisburg

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. F&M
4. Catholic
5. Lycoming
6. Gettysburg
7. Drew

I don't see new Regional Rankings up on the NCAA website, preseason or otherwise.  Am I missing something or are these your predictions?

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Regional Preseason Rankings

Region 4
1. Stevens
2. Montclair
3. NYU
4. Rowan
5. Misericordia
6. Rutgers-Newark
7. PSU-Harrisburg

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. F&M
4. Catholic
5. Lycoming
6. Gettysburg
7. Drew

I don't see new Regional Rankings up on the NCAA website, preseason or otherwise.  Am I missing something or are these your predictions?

Just my best guess! Will edit the heading to reflect that 

[Ejay]

MAF Regional Preseason Rankings

Region 4
1. Stevens
2. Montclair
3. NYU
4. Rowan
5. Misericordia
6. Rutgers-Newark
7. PSU-Harrisburg

Region 5
1. Messiah
2. Hopkins
3. F&M
4. Catholic
5. Lycoming
6. Gettysburg
7. Drew

Some big games this first weekend:
Stevens v F&M
Montclair v. NYU
Messiah v. Catholic