2017 South Atlantic

[1970s NESCAC Player]

The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Thanks.  It can be a tough crowd...

For the record, I would never argue that a bad to middling team with a great record in a weak conference should take a bid from a good team in a top conference (like, let's say, Mt. Aloysius) but a St Joe's at this point has demonstrated that it might be better or is better than some of those middling teams in strong conferences.  I assume these folks have seen the aftermath of the NCAA ball selections....

Again, what I'm saying is that your concern could be addressed within the process as it currently exists, without having to completely change the rules by adding conference winning percentage as a sixth criterion. What's needed is for there be an impetus within the committee to weigh winning percentage a bit more and SoS a bit less. That would cause, for instance, St. Joe's to rise within the Northeast Region rankings the next season, presuming that the Monks continue to run roughshod over every side they face.

Well done Greg!  Suggesting an improvement is better than defending an imperfect system in my view.

[Gregory Sager]

It's settled.  The system at present is perfect.  No tweaks needed or desired.

What he said, especially if Greg Sager and jknezek happen to be Russian bots . . .

что не вычисляет!

[jknezek]

The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Thanks.  It can be a tough crowd...

For the record, I would never argue that a bad to middling team with a great record in a weak conference should take a bid from a good team in a top conference (like, let's say, Mt. Aloysius) but a St Joe's at this point has demonstrated that it might be better or is better than some of those middling teams in strong conferences.  I assume these folks have seen the aftermath of the NCAA ball selections....

Again, what I'm saying is that your concern could be addressed within the process as it currently exists, without having to completely change the rules by adding conference winning percentage as a sixth criterion. What's needed is for there be an impetus within the committee to weigh winning percentage a bit more and SoS a bit less. That would cause, for instance, St. Joe's to rise within the Northeast Region rankings the next season, presuming that the Monks continue to run roughshod over every side they face.

Well done Greg!  Suggesting an improvement is better than defending an imperfect system in my view.

Except that's not really an improvement or change. It's already allowed. What criteria the committee chooses to put as the most important changes year to year with the membership of the committee. As an example, the flexibility exists to put W&L over Emory. They committee is choosing not to. You might think that is wrong. It's an opinion you have and that's fine.

My argument is with the idea of a wildcard. Compared to what we have, my opinion is that idea is not good.

[Gregory Sager]

The NCAA has worked very hard to get away from smoky backroom deals, reintroducing the possibility isn't going to be on the table.

Looks like you're missing the point that Mr. Right and Paul Newman are making.  They are talking about a legitimately tournament-worthy team getting left out because of overemphasis on some standardized criterion.  No one is suggesting that there should be backroom deals or that that standardized criteria should not be used, but blind application of the criteria, without also applying common sense, can lead to incorrect results.

Thanks.  It can be a tough crowd...

For the record, I would never argue that a bad to middling team with a great record in a weak conference should take a bid from a good team in a top conference (like, let's say, Mt. Aloysius) but a St Joe's at this point has demonstrated that it might be better or is better than some of those middling teams in strong conferences.  I assume these folks have seen the aftermath of the NCAA ball selections....

Again, what I'm saying is that your concern could be addressed within the process as it currently exists, without having to completely change the rules by adding conference winning percentage as a sixth criterion. What's needed is for there be an impetus within the committee to weigh winning percentage a bit more and SoS a bit less. That would cause, for instance, St. Joe's to rise within the Northeast Region rankings the next season, presuming that the Monks continue to run roughshod over every side they face.

Well done Greg!  Suggesting an improvement is better than defending an imperfect system in my view.

But I am defending the system. I'm in agreement with jknezek. What I'm saying is that the system itself provides for internal tweaking within the national committee. How each iteration of the committee chooses to weight and rank the five criteria is their own choice.

[Mr.Right]

Sometimes we're just having fun....a funny and sort of frightening tangential, true story...

I couple of months ago Dan Wetzel wrote an article about the kneeling thing, and I usually never do this, but I browsed through the comments section...and 95% of the comments all sounded the same and were ripping Wetzel and basically anything close to the kind of folks and agencies that are the intended recipients of all these bombs.  I chimed in to make a couple of comments, and I noted how similar all of the hateful and extremely partisan comments were, suggesting in jest that there were Russian bots.  Now I actually know what the whole probe is about and how elections can be turned by flooding these comments sections, social media, etc, etc.  Seriously, I was blown away that comments that should have been running 50-50 or at worst 60/40 were going 95% (and 95% horrifically nasty) in one direction.  THE VERY NEXT DAY, for the first time ever in my nearly 60 years, I received a phone call on my cell labeled as coming from Russia with the weird country code and the whole deal.  I didn't answer so don't know what would have happened if I did.  Totally true story.  And guess what the impact was?  I have never again posted in any comments sections for news articles or anything in that kind of genre, which I think was the point.

Maybe it was Putin wanting to discuss further the US Seal with the American eagle plucking all the olives from the branches leaving only arrows. Of course it also could have been a Russian Brides for sale call.

[PaulNewman]

Seems that semantics may be playing a significant role here.....one man's "wild card" is another man's "internal to the cmte 'flexibiity'."   And by "wild card" I didn't mean something willy-nilly, do whatever you want and without any oversight or approval.  A "wild card" provision could have all sorts of parameters, limits, layers of approval needed, including a provision to kick a decision or issue to the larger cmte that decides.  I at least didn't argue for a 6th criteria, and if there is room to weight the criteria in different ways then problem solved. 

As an aside, though, are there any rules, regulations, procedures, etc of the NCAA that you disagree with?

[jknezek]

Seems that semantics may be playing a significant role here.....one man's "wild card" is another man's "internal to the cmte 'flexibiity'."   And by "wild card" I didn't mean something willy-nilly, do whatever you want and without any oversight or approval.  A "wild card" provision could have all sorts of parameters, limits, layers of approval needed, including a provision to kick a decision or issue to the larger cmte that decides.  I at least didn't argue for a 6th criteria, and if there is room to weight the criteria in different ways then problem solved. 

As an aside, though, are there any rules, regulations, procedures, etc of the NCAA that you disagree with?

Yes. Their general ineptitude bothers me. Their hypocritical stance on amateurism is a joke. Their enforcement of their own rules is fairly random and incompetent. However, the system they have for selecting teams for the various DIII tournaments is one of the better things they do. It's generally well thought out and applicable to all sports, pretyty fair, and, and as far as I can tell, has not left a genuine competitor for the championship out on the cold. Has it left teams that could win a few games out? Sure. All the time. But a real championship contender? I can't think of one. That makes for an effective system.

[PaulNewman]

Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

[jknezek]

Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

[PaulNewman]

Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

You skipped half of the post.

Lynchburg was ranked as high as #5 in the country....to say they wouldn't be a 'contender' is pretty silly...I'll give you not a favorite.... but they've done enough to be in the friggin D3 soccer tournament.

[jknezek]

Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

You skipped half of the post.

Lynchburg was ranked as high as #5 in the country....to say they wouldn't be a 'contender' is pretty silly...I'll give you not a favorite.... but they've done enough to be in the friggin D3 soccer tournament.

Rankings at one point in a season are not real relevant. Especially the earlier in the season that they happen. Original ranking, opponent quality, and injury status play too much role. Lynchburg went on a good run against mediocre to good competition. When it mattered, in the ODAC season, they tied W&L at home and were well upset by a not great team. Rankings are guesses. Results are important. Lynchburg is a good team. As is W&L. But they are not a threat to the best teams in the country this year. The 5 ranking was wrong, as we saw with results. It happens regularly. Emory was ranked 4 I think at one point. They aren't the 4th beat team in their conference. Rankings are fun bits of talking points. Accuracy is not a hallmark, especially the earlier in the season it happens.

[PaulNewman]

Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

You skipped half of the post.

Lynchburg was ranked as high as #5 in the country....to say they wouldn't be a 'contender' is pretty silly...I'll give you not a favorite.... but they've done enough to be in the friggin D3 soccer tournament.

Rankings at one point in a season are not real relevant. Especially the earlier in the season that they happen. Original ranking, opponent quality, and injury status play too much actualbility role. Lynchburg went on actualbility good run actualbilitygainst mediocre to godo competition. When it mattered, in the ODAC season, they tied W&L at home and were well upset by a not great team. Rankings are guesses. Results are important. Lynchburg is a good team. As is W&L. But they are not a threat to the best teams in the country this year. The 5 ranking was wrong, as we saw with results. It happens regularly. Emory was ranked 4 I think at one point. They aren't the 4th beat team in their conference. Rankings are fun bits of talking points. Accuracy is not a hallmark, especially the earlier in the season it happens.

1) I agree with your general point about rankings.

2)  Are you saying the true bar for admittance to the NCAA tournament is having good odds to win the tournament or to make the final four?

3)  You don't think Lynchburg deserves to be in the tournament (and/or is not a NCAA tournament team)?  St. Joe's?  Are there only 4-5 teams with legit chances to win it all that you feel deserve bids?

[jknezek]

Let's say Lynchburg doesn't make it....you wouldn't consider them a contender?

For me, that is too high a bar anyway....making the tournament is huge for some schools, as is winning 2-3 games.  Surely the standard or bar in D3 of all places isn't likelihood of winning a national title.

No. I don't. If they don't make the tournament it's because they didn't win the regular season ODAC crown, which they didn't,  AND lost the AQ tournament. We aren't talking the UAA or NESCAC here. The ODAC has 2, maybe 3 good teams at a time. You can't win either of those, you aren't aren't a national competitor.

You skipped half of the post.

Lynchburg was ranked as high as #5 in the country....to say they wouldn't be a 'contender' is pretty silly...I'll give you not a favorite.... but they've done enough to be in the friggin D3 soccer tournament.

Rankings at one point in a season are not real relevant. Especially the earlier in the season that they happen. Original ranking, opponent quality, and injury status play too much actualbility role. Lynchburg went on actualbility good run actualbilitygainst mediocre to godo competition. When it mattered, in the ODAC season, they tied W&L at home and were well upset by a not great team. Rankings are guesses. Results are important. Lynchburg is a good team. As is W&L. But they are not a threat to the best teams in the country this year. The 5 ranking was wrong, as we saw with results. It happens regularly. Emory was ranked 4 I think at one point. They aren't the 4th beat team in their conference. Rankings are fun bits of talking points. Accuracy is not a hallmark, especially the earlier in the season it happens.

1) I agree with your general point about rankings.

2)  Are you saying the true bar for admittance to the NCAA tournament is having good odds to win the tournament or to make the final four?

3)  You don't think Lynchburg deserves to be in the tournament (and/or is not a NCAA tournament team)?  St. Joe's?  Are there only 4-5 teams with legit chances to win it all that you feel deserve bids?

No. I love the AQ system. It's a great reward for a great season.  There are, thankfully and necessarily to round out the field, a few spare bids for runners up. Since we insist on making soccer a tournament sport we need some second chances. But... that is what they are. Second chances. The very best teams, those with a real chance to win it who have proven it all season long and got unlucky in a conference tournament get a second chance. Because the criteria is pretty good at sorting the cream of the second chances. Where it starts to fall aprt is the bottom of the second chances. These are all teams with serious warts. Not just a conference tourney loss, but also either a weak schedule or a less impressive winning percentage. These warts are significant. And arguing over them doesn't matter to me because teams with those warts aren't really a threat to the best in the nation. They are good teams, no doubt, but good and National Champion quality are different things.

[Shooter McGavin]

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

[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.