2017 South Atlantic

[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.

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.

No one says "ONLY" games played. Games played and record against them are both important. How important varies from year to year. But regardless, the committee WILL look more favorable on 1-3 than 0-0 vs RRO. Whether it is favorable to be 1-5 or 2-0 is harder to distinguish.

[PaulNewman]

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.

Yes, I am pretty well versed after being here a handful of years and having worked through some things that were still confusing or whatever....I'm pretty sure I have a handle on it better than many readers here, and obviously every year these issues come up, some folks are new and pretty surprised, Shirk re-rusn his very good articles about all this, etc.  Now, I am not anywhere as knowledgeable as you, Sager, McHugh, Shirk, Harmanis, etc......

And to repeat, all I was looking for was a mild concession on an outcome occasionally can be unfortunate (even if how it happened makes sense).

What I did know is what I bolded above, which would enable the cmte to deal with a St. Joe's and all the repercussions of the Emory situation that you described IF it is true that the national cmte could boost St. Joe's while also dropping Emory down so that the identified deserving teams ranked by the region cmte below Emory could be boosted and not get stuck never reaching the table for discussion.

[jknezek]

What I did know is what I bolded above, which would enable the cmte to deal with a St. Joe's and all the repercussions of the Emory situation that you described IF it is true that the national cmte could boost St. Joe's while also dropping Emory down so that the identified deserving teams ranked by the region cmte below Emory could be boosted and not get stuck never reaching the table for discussion.

They can. It has been discussed in various other sports over the years. From our understanding, and keep in mind this part of the process is unfortunately opaque, something I do not like, it rarely happens. The National Committee generally takes what the Regional Committees give them and go from there. Given that the National Committee is made up of members of the Regional Committees, this makes sense. For soccer, I believe the Chair of the Regional Committee is the National Committee member, so the Regional Committees should not be making a mistake that would lead to the kind of problem that would have the National Committee reshuffle their results. Regardless, it is a re-ranking of what the Regional Committee gives them ONLY, not a redoing where new teams could be added or old teams subtracted.

[Flying Weasel]

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. 

It is nothing new to have teams with sub-.500 SOS's being ranked.  Obviously it doesn't happen often, but it does and has happened.  While a sub-.500 SOS is certainly frowned upon, there are only two definitive cases where a .500 SOS threshhold was actually applied.

(1) In 2010 an undefeated Dominican and undefeated Swarthmore (both highly ranked in the NSCAA and D3ssoccer.com polls) were left out of the first weekly rankings when their SOS's were below .500.  There was a lot of negative reaction to that and a week later the committee had already abandoned the threshold and Dominican and Swarthmore, despite ironically both picking up their first losses that week, were ranked #3 in the Mid-Atlantic and #2 in the Central regions.

(2) In 2014 Luther went from #2 in the North region in the first week's rankings to unranked the next week with their SOS going from a little above to a little below .500.  When asked by D3soccer.com, the NCAA committee denied there was any .500 SOS threshold to be ranked, but that was hard to accept because there was no other reasonable explanation for why Luther had dropped out from #2 when they had won both their games by shutout that week while several of the teams that moved ahead of them had lost and had little or no improvement in the SOS.

There may have been other times when the committee applied the .500 SOS threshhold that went undetected since it didn't result in an obvious, eye-catching omission or movement in and out from one week to the next.  But, there are many examples over the years of teams with sub-.500 SOS's being ranked.

[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.

No one says "ONLY" games played. Games played and record against them are both important. How important varies from year to year. But regardless, the committee WILL look more favorable on 1-3 than 0-0 vs RRO. Whether it is favorable to be 1-5 or 2-0 is harder to distinguish.

Then maybe I misunderstood what Gregory Sager wrote.  He said,

"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."

Cumulative number of games played rather than won-lost percentage . . . poor choice of words if "in addition to" was the intent.

[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.

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.

No one says "ONLY" games played. Games played and record against them are both important. How important varies from year to year. But regardless, the committee WILL look more favorable on 1-3 than 0-0 vs RRO. Whether it is favorable to be 1-5 or 2-0 is harder to distinguish.

Then maybe I misunderstood what Gregory Sager wrote.  He said,

"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."

Cumulative number of games played rather than won-lost percentage . . . poor choice of words if "in addition to" was the intent.

Huh. Yeah. I'd agree. I've never heard it discussed as an either/or, always an "and".

[Gregory Sager]

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....

That's not in the manual, and jknezek has pointed out some examples of sub-.500-SoS ranked teams.

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

That's not in the manual, either. In fact, on page 20 there's a bullet point under the heading Allocation of Berths that specifically states, "There will be no maximum or minimum number of berths from one region."

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.

No one says "ONLY" games played. Games played and record against them are both important. How important varies from year to year. But regardless, the committee WILL look more favorable on 1-3 than 0-0 vs RRO. Whether it is favorable to be 1-5 or 2-0 is harder to distinguish.

Then maybe I misunderstood what Gregory Sager wrote.  He said,

"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."

Cumulative number of games played rather than won-lost percentage . . . poor choice of words if "in addition to" was the intent.

Yeah, I'll concede that my wording was misleading, due to brevity (which is usually not one of my failings ). But "results" as it has been interpreted in different D3 sports with regard to RRO is a deliberately difficult term to encompass. It doesn't necessarily mean "in addition to", either. It could be a both/and in terms of W-L% and cumulative games. It could be an either/or in terms of W-L% and cumulative games. And if it's a both/and, the weight given to W-L% versus cumulative games could vary, as they might choose to interpret it 50/50, or 40/60, or 90/10, or however they like. That's the point; the use of the word "results" all by itself in constructing the manual was deliberate. By using as vague a term as possible without commentary, they've given the committee as much leeway as possible for them to parse it as they choose.

As jknezek said, it's typically a both/and, given that a bigger combination of variables tends to be more useful in making thorough comparisons than a smaller one.

The National Committee generally takes what the Regional Committees give them and go from there. Given that the National Committee is made up of members of the Regional Committees, this makes sense. For soccer, I believe the Chair of the Regional Committee is the National Committee member, so the Regional Committees should not be making a mistake that would lead to the kind of problem that would have the National Committee reshuffle their results.

I'm not 100% sure, and I'm not going to take the time to sift through D3's various championship manuals to find out, but I have the impression that this is the polity for all sports with regard to the composition of their respective national committees. For instance, I know that in men's basketball the national committee consists of the eight chairs of the regional committees, and that the same holds true for women's basketball. The manual for men's soccer doubles as the manual for women's soccer as well, and it indicates that the same eight regional committee chairs = national committee polity exists for women's soccer, too.

[PaulNewman]

I didn't realize NJAC tourney already underway....William Paterson knocks out Rutgers-Camden.

[Mr.Right]

That will give Willy P a 4th Win v Ranked and a probable Pool C especially if they can get 1 more Win. RUC looks to be on the wrong side of the bubble now. Rowan hosts Stockton at 5pm and I would guess Rowan is on the right side of the bubble with a .615 SOS but they have lost 2 in a row and are 11-6-0 so I do not think they want to lose that game.

[jknezek]

ODAC tournament has all favorites hold serve through the first games. Va Wes (8) beat RMC (9) 3-2 in the opening game. W&L (1) then beat Va Wes (8) 2-0, Lynchburg (2) beat Randolph (7) 3-0, Bridgewater (3) beat Ferrum (6) 2-0, and Roanoke (4) beat EMU (5) 2-1.

The tournament now breaks until Saturday. W&L faces Roanoke, Lynchburg faces Bridgewater. The Championship follows Sunday.

This format seems so awkward to me. If you are going to clear the opening games this past weekend, why not do the semis Wednesday night? Then finish with the finals the following weekend. It would be easier on the travel budgets as well by cancelling the overnight, though it would lesson the "tournament" feel.

Plus I'm not big on the back to back format. All 4 remaining ODAC teams played 2 back to backs all season, August 31 and Sept 1 and Sept 8 and 9, now they play it for all the marbles. I get why it's necessary for the NCAA tournament, but that doesn't make it a good format to use when you don't have to.

[Mr.Right]

It is good preparation for the NCAA's to get kids ready for the back to backs..Plus it gives the edge to teams that have the most depth or best fitness and for soccer I like it.

[NokeAlum15]

Jknesek,

Are you going on Saturday?  Think me and fam might make the trip to Lexington.

[jknezek]

Jknesek,

Are you going on Saturday?  Think me and fam might make the trip to Lexington.

No. Much too far from Birmingham AL. Plus I'm still on the coaching hook for my U8s. Last game for them is this weekend. If the weather is good, it's a great place to watch a game (you'll have to excuse me if I don't hope you are sticking around to watch your own team play 2!).

[NokeAlum15]

Jknesek,

Are you going on Saturday?  Think me and fam might make the trip to Lexington.

No. Much too far from Birmingham AL. Plus I'm still on the coaching hook for my U8s. Last game for them is this weekend. If the weather is good, it's a great place to watch a game (you'll have to excuse me if I don't hope you are sticking around to watch your own team play 2!).

Fair enough    Only a 30 min drive from Roanoke for me, so if we have to stick around until Sunday, I'm good with it.  However, I know going in you all are the better squad.  Maybe some Cinderella magic will take place.   

Good luck to your u8s!

[jknezek]

Jknesek,

Are you going on Saturday?  Think me and fam might make the trip to Lexington.

No. Much too far from Birmingham AL. Plus I'm still on the coaching hook for my U8s. Last game for them is this weekend. If the weather is good, it's a great place to watch a game (you'll have to excuse me if I don't hope you are sticking around to watch your own team play 2!).

Fair enough    Only a 30 min drive from Roanoke for me, so if we have to stick around until Sunday, I'm good with it.  However, I know going in you all are the better squad.  Maybe some Cinderella magic will take place.   

Good luck to your u8s!

Ha. It's been a long season for my team. I've got 9 players and 5 of them were born in December and one is playing up with a Jan birthday. I only had 2 kids born before June, and my last is October, so we are closer to being U7 than U8. Not really ideal and it's showed.

Enjoy the game and the campus visit if you haven't been. Some great restaurants in Lexington if you are going to get a bite to eat as well.