2017 South Atlantic

[Shooter McGavin]

To say Lynchburg isn't a top 62 team and isn't good enough to be in the tournament is just silly.

I didn't say that. But the AQs make sure it's not the top 62. The question is are they among the top Pool C teams if they drop to it. And if, when we look at those Pool C teams, are they at the top of that group or the bottom? If the bottom, does it matter if they get in over someone else on a slightly different interpretation of best avaliable? My thought is no. And  that is what arguing over the criteria devolves to. Those last 2 or 3 second chance teams. That really aren't a threat to the teams that compete for the title.

I disagree due to the glitches that need worked out involving the way SOS is calculated and the way RvR is viewed. It is more beneficial to pick up a blemish versus a team that isn't ranked compared to a picking up a blemish against a team that is ranked because is not only hits your overall record negatively but it then hurts the RvR piece as well. So a team is getting punished twice. How does that make any sense at all? You really think that the system doesn't need fixed at all....I disagree. 

[jknezek]

To say Lynchburg isn't a top 62 team and isn't good enough to be in the tournament is just silly.

I didn't say that. But the AQs make sure it's not the top 62. The question is are they among the top Pool C teams if they drop to it. And if, when we look at those Pool C teams, are they at the top of that group or the bottom? If the bottom, does it matter if they get in over someone else on a slightly different interpretation of best avaliable? My thought is no. And  that is what arguing over the criteria devolves to. Those last 2 or 3 second chance teams. That really aren't a threat to the teams that compete for the title.

I disagree due to the glitches that need worked out involving the way SOS is calculated and the way RvR is viewed. It is more beneficial to pick up a blemish versus a team that isn't ranked compared to a picking up a blemish against a team that is ranked because is not only hits your overall record negatively but it then hurts the RvR piece as well. So a team is getting punished twice. How does that make any sense at all? You really think that the system doesn't need fixed at all....I disagree.

That's not correct. You are better off being 0-1 against Ranked than 0-0. The criteria is clear about that. In soccer this is less apparent than football, but it is very clear in football that it matters you played ranked opponents than ducked them. The criteria is the same for soccer. It gets tricky if you are say 1-5 or 2-1, but the criteria is biased toward playing ranked opponents as well as winning against them.

[Gregory Sager]

What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

[lastguyoffthebench]

Montclair St (W 5-0 Kean, BYE)
Mary Washington (W 10-0 Southern VA, vs Southern Va)
Oglethorpe (vs Hendrix)
Rowan (L 0-2 TCNJ, vs Stockton)
Emory (vs CMU, vs CWRU)
Rutgers-Camden (W 1-0 Stockton, vs William Paterson)
St. Mary's MD (L 1-2 CNU, vs PSU-Harrisburg)
William Paterson (L 2-3 Ramapo, @ Rutgers-Camden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salisbury L to York 0-5
Ramapo beating WPU helps their case

ODAC – looking like a one bid league
Lynchburg still getting no love and with an SOS of .509 it's seemingly win or bust.  Unfortunate that the games vs Oglethorpe and Berry were CANCELLED. 
W&L (W 3-0 EMU).   

NJAC - looking like a two bid league, potentially three:  Semis are MSU vs winner of Rowan/Stockton,  Ramapo vs winner of Camden/WPU

UAA - Emory could be 1-6 in conference play, but at 10-7-1 with RvR 4-5, SOS near .650.  I think they should be in.     

CAC is a two bid league if UMW fails to win the AQ.

SAA is a one bid league, IMO.   Could be tricky if Ogelthorpe fails to earn the AQ.

[Ejay]

I'm sorry but if Emory is 10-7-1, no way should they be in. That's barely a .500 team

[jknezek]

I'm sorry but if Emory is 10-7-1, no way should they be in. That's barely a .500 team

I mostly agree with this. If you are the 4th or best team in your conference, you are way out on the bubble. We are pretty sure you aren't a contender if you go 1-6 versus other contenders. I'd rather a team that finished second in a conference get that bid and have a shot at doing better than 1-6 or whatever they end up with versus other contenders. However, it really depends on who is on the table.

For example, I don't really have a problem with Emory keeping W&L from reaching the discussion since there is a h2h. I also don't have a problem if the committee looks at that h2h and decides it was a) early in the season that W&L later rolled and Emory flopped, b) was a double overtime game and c) was at Emory and decides that W&L should hit the table first because the game was as close to a tie as you can get despite adverse factors for W&L.

Either interpretation of that data is fine with me. Though as a W&L grad, I'd obviously prefer the latter.

[PaulNewman]

What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Based on what the official D3soccer.com folks have said over the past few years, this is my understanding.....

0-2 on RvR might be marginally better than 0-0, but not much, as the cmtes look for at least 1 ranked win or at least a couple of draws.  I'm not sure having a RvR of 0-2 would be considered a tiebreaker in a close call.  But of course I may be totally wrong.

What is disconcerting in these discussions is the apparent unwillingness to concede any points.  On a word scale from "criminal, against the rules, unfair, unfortunate, tough break for those guys, etc, etc" it seems to me that you all could at least concede in some scenarios to "unfortunate." 

Some of us do understand the criteria and generally how the process works, and there still seems to be room where all of us are unsure.  You've said the cmtes have flexibility and could have emphasized one criterion more than another, and our W&L friend said just yesterday that the cmte could have kept W&L in the rankings if they wanted (or Lynchburg).  Maybe you're saying they can only emphasize one over the other year to year and that all cmtes have to agree, or are you saying each cmte can adjust as they see fit?

I also completely disagree with this thesis that the last few teams in (or not in) are irrelevant in the big picture because they can't win the tournament.  1) I'm not sure perceived ability to win the tournament is the overriding thing, and as I said yesterday just making the tournament for some is considered a big deal; and 2) That standard isn't even true!  Tufts at least once and maybe both times was viewed by a significant consensus here as the last team in or one of the very last teams in 2014 and 2016 when they won the tournament.  They didn't host in even the first round either year, and they only hosted a sectional in 2016 because of fluky issues like Trinity (TX) was too far away for the other 3 teams and Kenyon had a field problem and UMass-Boston was in after the debacle with Haverford (who would have hosted), and so there were already 2 teams in the Boston area.  Anyway, in at least one of those years Tufts very easily could have been left out of the tournament, period.

[PaulNewman]

It's not really up to the committee, either. They're confined to using the criteria that are listed in the handbook, and thus they don't have the option of drawing outside the lines. Your beef is with the D3 membership at large, which is what put the primary and secondary criteria in the handbook in the first place.

I would assume we can agree, though, that occasionally there can be unfortunate results from the process....that none of us would prefer to see a team 1-6-1 even from a very good conference get in while Lynchburg, W&L or any of our own preferred teams with an outstanding record/season didn't.

Perfect example above.  I don't see any real reason to disagree with the bolded, other than to just be disagreeing.  IF, and say IF, we really knew the 1-6-1 team is "better" than St. Joe's or W&L or whoever, then OK, but you say later you want the strongest field.  Being in a strong conference does not by definition make you better than a team from a weaker conference.  If St. Joe's doesn't make it, many of us won't feel bad just because they suffer from being in a weak conference or because we're feeling bad for the "little guy."  A decent portion here would actually believe (based on all available data, 2 straight NCAA appearances where they showed well, and a still undefeated record which included wins over Bowdoin, Endicott and Gordon and (73 GF, 1 GA)...that St. Joe's "deserved" a bid over a team that is 1-7 in conference.

I'll try again....IF Calvin had been left out the two years they made the Final Four (I assume that qualifies for serious contender), are we truly not in agreement that that would have been at least "unfortunate"?

Now, if Emory gets in at 1-7 in their conference, and North Park doesn't, you may not have any reaction at all or at least not consider that unfortunate, but I will certainly feel that it was unfortunate on your behalf as a Vikings fan.

[jknezek]

What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Based on what the official D3soccer.com folks have said over the past few years, this is my understanding.....

0-2 on RvR might be marginally better than 0-0, but not much, as the cmtes look for at least 1 ranked win or at least a couple of draws.  I'm not sure having a RvR of 0-2 would be considered a tiebreaker in a close call.  But of course I may be totally wrong.

What is disconcerting in these discussions is the apparent unwillingness to concede any points.  On a word scale from "criminal, against the rules, unfair, unfortunate, tough break for those guys, etc, etc" it seems to me that you all could at least concede in some scenarios to "unfortunate." 

Some of us do understand the criteria and generally how the process works, and there still seems to be room where all of us are unsure.  You've said the cmtes have flexibility and could have emphasized one criterion more than another, and our W&L friend said just yesterday that the cmte could have kept W&L in the rankings if they wanted (or Lynchburg).  Maybe you're saying they can only emphasize one over the other year to year and that all cmtes have to agree, or are you saying each cmte can adjust as they see fit?

I also completely disagree with this thesis that the last few teams in (or not in) are irrelevant in the big picture because they can't win the tournament.  1) I'm not sure perceived ability to win the tournament is the overriding thing, and as I said yesterday just making the tournament for some is considered a big deal; and 2) That standard isn't even true!  Tufts at least once and maybe both times was viewed by a significant consensus here as the last team in or one of the very last teams in 2014 and 2016 when they won the tournament.  They didn't host in even the first round either year, and they only hosted a sectional in 2016 because of fluky issues like Trinity (TX) was too far away for the other 3 teams and Kenyon had a field problem and UMass-Boston was in after the debacle with Haverford (who would have hosted), and so there were already 2 teams in the Boston area.  Anyway, in at least one of those years Tufts very easily could have been left out of the tournament, period.

But they weren't left out. So the system worked. That's the point you keep skipping over. The system works as it is. If you want to suggest tweaks that's fine. I'm not opposed to them. But I am opposed to tweaks that create ambiguity in how the committees work. We understand, pretty well, what they are doing. Therefore it is pretty clear what teams need to do. For me to consider a tweak or change of value, it absolutely has to fall inside this kind of framework.

I don't see people suggesting tweaks in this thread other than one suggestion to give committees "a wildcard". Other than that, I see people that want to complain and don't like that people aren't joining in on the complaining. It was explained why we switched to this system from a previous one and why it is better now.

If you have a tweak that makes sense, throw it out there. Most of us will happily discuss why it might or might not work. But don't expect a vague idea like "a wildcard" to get much traction from those of us who have watched this process for many years.

[PaulNewman]

What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Based on what the official D3soccer.com folks have said over the past few years, this is my understanding.....

0-2 on RvR might be marginally better than 0-0, but not much, as the cmtes look for at least 1 ranked win or at least a couple of draws.  I'm not sure having a RvR of 0-2 would be considered a tiebreaker in a close call.  But of course I may be totally wrong.

What is disconcerting in these discussions is the apparent unwillingness to concede any points.  On a word scale from "criminal, against the rules, unfair, unfortunate, tough break for those guys, etc, etc" it seems to me that you all could at least concede in some scenarios to "unfortunate." 

Some of us do understand the criteria and generally how the process works, and there still seems to be room where all of us are unsure.  You've said the cmtes have flexibility and could have emphasized one criterion more than another, and our W&L friend said just yesterday that the cmte could have kept W&L in the rankings if they wanted (or Lynchburg).  Maybe you're saying they can only emphasize one over the other year to year and that all cmtes have to agree, or are you saying each cmte can adjust as they see fit?

I also completely disagree with this thesis that the last few teams in (or not in) are irrelevant in the big picture because they can't win the tournament.  1) I'm not sure perceived ability to win the tournament is the overriding thing, and as I said yesterday just making the tournament for some is considered a big deal; and 2) That standard isn't even true!  Tufts at least once and maybe both times was viewed by a significant consensus here as the last team in or one of the very last teams in 2014 and 2016 when they won the tournament.  They didn't host in even the first round either year, and they only hosted a sectional in 2016 because of fluky issues like Trinity (TX) was too far away for the other 3 teams and Kenyon had a field problem and UMass-Boston was in after the debacle with Haverford (who would have hosted), and so there were already 2 teams in the Boston area.  Anyway, in at least one of those years Tufts very easily could have been left out of the tournament, period.

But they weren't left out. So the system worked. That's the point you keep skipping over. The system works as it is. If you want to suggest tweaks that's fine. I'm not opposed to them. But I am opposed to tweaks that create ambiguity in how the committees work. We understand, pretty well, what they are doing. Therefore it is pretty clear what teams need to do. For me to consider a tweak or change of value, it absolutely has to fall inside this kind of framework.

I don't see people suggesting tweaks in this thread other than one suggestion to give committees "a wildcard". Other than that, I see people that want to complain and don't like that people aren't joining in on the complaining. It was explained why we switched to this system from a previous one and why it is better now.

If you have a tweak that makes sense, throw it out there. Most of us will happily discuss why it might or might not work. But don't expect a vague idea like "a wildcard" to get much traction from those of us who have watched this process for many years.

Fine....delete that "wild card" was ever mentioned although that was defined in more detail.  You still yesterday insisted that the last few team in or out were irrelevant.  Tufts was the last or one of the last teams. 

Still not sure you or Sager are really endorsing this or not.....but IF the cmtes really do have flexibility and could address St. Joe's, Lynchburg, Calvin, fill in the blank with any situation in recent years that seemed 'unfortunate' then there's nothing to debate or discuss.

The insistence that a team has to have the ability to win the tournament seems rather odd.  Obviously with the AQ system that isn't the case from the jump.  And completely dismisses what it means to some programs to make the tournament, sometimes for the first or second time in their histories.  And also presumes a ton. How many times have NCAA bball teams reached the Sweet 16, Elite 8 and even the Final Four that most didn't expect to even get out of the first round.  On Butler's first trip to the title game with Stevens and Hayward and crew, I doubt there was a person on the planet who thought Butler would get to the national title game.

[lastguyoffthebench]

UAA is the anomaly due to geography.  When you have teams spread across various regions that are also top of the rankings, conference to me means very little.  They are winning games vs teams within their respective regions.

Chicago #1 Central
Rochester #1 East
CWRU #1 Great Lakes
CMU #3 Great Lakes
NYU #4 East
Emory #5 South Atlantic
Brandeis #8 New England

Barely a .500 you say, but 9-10 games vs Regionally Ranked teams out of 18.    Emory scheduled W&L, Rowan, Camden, Oglethorpe outside of the UAA grueling schedule, going 3-1.   If they maintain a #4 or #5 ranking within the NCAA Region.   Chances are very high they make it...

I'm also going to say that Brandeis has an outside chance if they are 9-7-2 (5-4-1 RvR Projection).   Just my thoughts, gentleman.

[PaulNewman]

And btw I wasn't looking for any particular idea to gain traction.  I'm not invested in any particular tweak or change, and like I said I'm fine if there truly is leeway within the system as is.  What I was and am looking for is just a basic "yes, occasionally the outcome may be 'unfortunate' [or even just 'tough'] for a team or two....like a few years ago when John Carroll was 17-4-1 and missed out.  There are examples every year where saying 'unfortunate' doesn't seem like a stretch.

[lastguyoffthebench]

The committee must have flexibility because St. Joe's SOS is .495.   

It was my understanding that teams needed a .500 to even be eligible....

St. Joe's just beat Salem State (11-2-2), SOS of .409!   With Emmanuel on the schedule, that SOS drops even more.   

I also believe that teams MUST be regionally ranked by NCAA in order to receive consideration for Pool C.   


It's not St. Joe's fault they're in a weak conference, and they did try to play a few strong out-of-conf games.   So please just win the conference and do not get upset by J&W or Norwich. 

[jknezek]

Still not sure you or Sager are really endorsing this or not.....but IF the cmtes really do have flexibility and could address St. Joe's, Lynchburg, Calvin, fill in the blank with any situation in recent years that seemed 'unfortunate' then there's nothing to debate or discuss.

I'm curious about how much you really understand about what the committees do and how the tournament selection actually works. The Regional Committees, one member from each conference, set up their rankings. The part of the current process I like least is the final ranking is not required to be disclosed. However, from those rankings, the highest ranking team not in the field is placed on a table with all the other highest ranking teams not in the field from each region. The National Committee, which is distinct from the Regional Committees but made up of one member from each regional committee, then debate the merits of the teams on the table, and ONLY the teams on the table. One team is selected, and the next team in the rankings from that region joins the teams already on the table from the previous round.

One thing that can be done, but as far as we know is not generally done, is the National Committee is allowed to change the order of the Regional Rankings when they receive them. So the process actually involves several levels of review and refinement if you include the several weeks of Regional releases.

The criteria is not required to be applied the same way by each Regional Committee. One Region can emphasize SOS, another can emphasize RRO, and a third can emphasize win percentage. The National Committee may then prefer one method or the other, boosting the odds of teams from one region who got the order more in line with the National Committee a better chance to get more teams through.

For example, if the South Region puts Emory pretty high in the rankings but the National Committee prefers win percentage this year, it is possible Emory blocks other South Atlantic teams from getting to the table by languishing round after round. It could also be that guidance has come down that the National Committee prefers SOS this year, and a different region that went with win percentage but weak SOS will have a team that blocks their follow ons from getting to the table because they emphasized the wrong thing.

It is important to remember that all the committees change every year. So criteria that was emphasized one year, may not be emphasized the next. It is also important to remember that the committee members are all well versed in doing this. They are coaches and ADs primarily, and they each remember teams they were high on in the past that went in and flopped or that snuck in and conquered. That will color their choices as well in how they prefer to rank teams.

So yes. The Regional Committees can vary the teams by emphasizing different criteria. The National Committee can restructure the teams if they choose. And the National Committee can choose to provide guidance on what criteria they prefer to be emphasized. All of this will give wiggle room in how teams are ranked. Once the ranking is finalized, it becomes important ONLY how the teams look against the ones they are compared to when they reach the table. If they don't reach the table, they are never discussed by the National Committee. So getting the criteria right, for how the National Committee will evaluate the teams in the end, is very important. Otherwise you could have quality teams that never see the table and, therefore, are never discussed.

So a Ranking Committee that blows off the criteria to boost Lynchburg or St. Joes or someone else over an Emory may be doing significant damage to not just that top team to hit the table, but the more rounds that top team sits on the table, the more damage is done to EVERY team that follows in the ranking by diminishing their chances of either getting to the table or being selected.

[Flying Weasel]

What jknezek says is correct. Note the wording of the primary criteria in the manual, which can be found on page 22. The third criterion reads, Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceeding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included. Note that it doesn't say "won-lost percentage versus ranked Division III teams" -- it merely says "results". I don't know if it's true among the various national committees that have put together the D3 men's soccer tournaments over the years, to be specific about one sport in particular, but D3 national committees can, and have, interpreted the word "results" in that criterion to mean the cumulative number of games played against ranked teams rather than the won-lost percentage achieved against ranked teams. Football was the sport that jknezek cited, but I know for a fact that it's been interpreted that way before in at least one season that the men's basketball Pool C berths were awarded.

Sure, "results" could be interpreted (or evaluated) in many ways--win pct., number of wins, number of wins & ties, etc.--but how could it possibly mean the number of games played against ranked opponents?  This isn't a complicated concept that's hard to clearly communicate in written words.  If that was the intent it would (or certainly should) say "number of games played against ranked Division III teams" not "Results against ranked Division III teams". 

The regional data sheets provide the W-L-T record versus ranked opponents, not merely the number of games played against ranked opponents.  If the men's and women's soccer committees were only interested in number of games against ranked opponents and did not want to be influenced by the actual results in those games, then they shouldn't have the W-L-T records in the data sheet.

My observations have lead me to believe that the men's soccer committee is looking for a combination of positive results (wins, but also ties) versus ranked teams and number of games played versus ranked teams.  That is, loses aren't that damaging to your chances (and decreasingly so), as a team's positive results and total games played versus ranked team increase.