2018 Season - National Perspective

[hickory_cornhusker]

IMO, Chicago will be the top seed in the tournament.  That's probably a controversial selection in some people's mind.  Their head to head with Calvin has given them the top spot in the Central Region.  9-2-1 RvR.  It looks to me that the committee is seperating the top teams by head to head and RVR. 

If that is the case, will/can the committee put Calvin and Chicago in separate brackets?

Can? Absolutely, they separated Chicago and North Park last year (at least until the Final Four).

Will? I have no clue. I think they should, there is enough options in the area to build brackets with them separate but if you spend enough hours looking at something you can sometimes miss obvious things that are there.

[lastguyoffthebench]

A team that looks to be safe and a team that isn't even on the analysis for wrong side of the bubble.

Middlebury: 10-3-3 .719 WP / .571 SOS / 3-3-1

Camden: 13-5-2 .700 WP / .584 SOS / 2-3-1


I think teams like North Park, St. Norbert are going to get the shaft this year...  I'm also usually wrong.

Very deep pool of similar candidates.   Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[lastguyoffthebench]

By WIN % only to teams with .700 or better (Williams only exception at .639)
St. Norbert   0.921
Tufts   0.906
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.853
North Park   0.842
Oglethorpe   0.833
Cortland State   0.825
Rochester   0.813
Connecticut College   0.813
Case Western Reserve   0.806
Lycoming   0.8
Ithaca   0.8
St. Thomas   0.789
Ramapo   0.789
Hope   0.781
Gustavus Adolphus   0.781
Capital   0.778
Redlands   0.765
Franklin and Marshall   0.763
Johns Hopkins   0.75
Babson   0.737
Amherst   0.735
New York University   0.735
Augsburg   0.722
Middlebury   0.719
Carnegie Mellon   0.706
Rutgers-Camden   0.7
Williams   0.639

--------------------------------------------------
SOS (.540 and up with exception to C-M-S and NP)
Carnegie Mellon   0.639
Franklin and Marshall   0.613
Case Western Reserve   0.611
Johns Hopkins   0.6
Tufts   0.591
Rochester   0.591
Amherst   0.59
Williams   0.585
St. Thomas   0.584
Rutgers-Camden   0.584
Connecticut College   0.582
Augsburg   0.582
Babson   0.578
Cortland State   0.576
Middlebury   0.571
Capital   0.569
Hope   0.568
Oglethorpe   0.561
Ramapo   0.56
Gustavus Adolphus   0.558
New York University   0.557
Lycoming   0.549
St. Norbert   0.543
Ithaca   0.543
Redlands   0.541
North Park   0.536
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.531

[Ejay]

Why the cap at .700 and .540? Anyway, if you rank them by those two metrics and then combine their the totals (evenly weighted), you get:

1 .Tufts   
T2. Case Western Reserve   
T2. Rochester   
4. Connecticut College   
T5. Cortland State   
T5. Franklin and Marshall   
7. St Thomas
T8. Johns Hopkins   
T8. Oglethorpe   
10. St Norbert
11. Carnegie Mellon   
12. Amherst   
T13. North Park   
T13. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   
T15. Ramapo   
T15. Hope   
T17. Capital   
T17. Lycoming   
T19. Babson   
T19. Ithaca   
21. Augsburg   
T22. Williams   
T22. Gustavus Adolphus   
T22. Rutgers-Camden   
25. Middlebury   
T26. Redlands   
T26. New York University   

[NEsoccerfan]

IMO, Chicago will be the top seed in the tournament.  That's probably a controversial selection in some people's mind.  Their head to head with Calvin has given them the top spot in the Central Region.  9-2-1 RvR.  It looks to me that the committee is seperating the top teams by head to head and RVR. 

If that is the case, will/can the committee put Calvin and Chicago in separate brackets?

9-2-1 RVR is ABSURD. I'm not much of a historian, so does anyone know of any team that has ever come close or exceeded that?

[TheGreenKnight920]

Why the cap at .700 and .540? Anyway, if you rank them by those two metrics and then combine their the totals (evenly weighted), you get:

1 .Tufts   
T2. Case Western Reserve   
T2. Rochester   
4. Connecticut College   
T5. Cortland State   
T5. Franklin and Marshall   
7. St Thomas
T8. Johns Hopkins   
T8. Oglethorpe   
10. St Norbert
11. Carnegie Mellon   
12. Amherst   
T13. North Park   
T13. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   
T15. Ramapo   
T15. Hope   
T17. Capital   
T17. Lycoming   
T19. Babson   
T19. Ithaca   
21. Augsburg   
T22. Williams   
T22. Gustavus Adolphus   
T22. Rutgers-Camden   
25. Middlebury   
T26. Redlands   
T26. New York University   

I really like this as a metric, and for the purposes of this ranking, I see you weighted them evenly, but in reality, do you think that WL % and SOS should be weighted evenly? Do you think winning should be prioritized over how well you can concoct a schedule?

[jknezek]

Why the cap at .700 and .540? Anyway, if you rank them by those two metrics and then combine their the totals (evenly weighted), you get:

1 .Tufts   
T2. Case Western Reserve   
T2. Rochester   
4. Connecticut College   
T5. Cortland State   
T5. Franklin and Marshall   
7. St Thomas
T8. Johns Hopkins   
T8. Oglethorpe   
10. St Norbert
11. Carnegie Mellon   
12. Amherst   
T13. North Park   
T13. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   
T15. Ramapo   
T15. Hope   
T17. Capital   
T17. Lycoming   
T19. Babson   
T19. Ithaca   
21. Augsburg   
T22. Williams   
T22. Gustavus Adolphus   
T22. Rutgers-Camden   
25. Middlebury   
T26. Redlands   
T26. New York University   

I really like this as a metric, and for the purposes of this ranking, I see you weighted them evenly, but in reality, do you think that WL % and SOS should be weighted evenly? Do you think winning should be prioritized over how well you can concoct a schedule?

Concocting a schedule full of teams you can easily beat doesn't really tell anybody anything. SOS isn't perfect, but it does give some indication whether your record is earned because you are really good, or earned because the people you play are really bad. Given this only comes in to play if you fail to win your AQ, it's important that the schedule has at least some challenging components to judge the team against.

[PaulNewman]

GreenKnight, I'm pulling for you.....but how one "concocts" a schedule very definitely impacts winning %.  What if SNC had played Chicago, Calvin, Wash U and North Park?  Would you guess at least a couple more losses?  And in exchange you would have gotten a higher SoS.  As I've said, though, I think you got enough of a rise in SoS to at a minimum be forced solidly into the conversation.  And that, plus the ranked wins very well may get you in.

[lastguyoffthebench]

This is what I'm going with:

NE (4): Tufts, Conn, Amherst, Williams  (Middlebury should be worried)
East (3): Rochester, Cortland, NYU (Ithaca missed out)
MA (3): F&M, JHU, Lyco (the non loss to Messiah and bump in SOS could have salvaged Lyco season)
SA (2): Ramapo and Oglethorpe (Camden on the outside of the bubble)
GL (3):  CWRU, CMU, Capital
Central (2): Hope, NP
North (1): St. Thomas (i don't think St. Norbert did enough to jump the Tommies in final ranking)
West (1):  C-M-S   

North Park, C-M-S Lyco last three in

Ithaca, Middlebury, Camden first three out

[Ommadawn]

In combination with the electoral events slated for tomorrow, comments about the geographic distribution of one poster's proposed Pool C bids brought to mind an analogy that works for me. Whereas the AQs are like the Senate, with full geographic representation, the Pool Cs are more like the House of Representatives, with representation roughly proportional to the density of Division III institutions in various regions across the country.

[TheGreenKnight920]

GreenKnight, I'm pulling for you.....but how one "concocts" a schedule very definitely impacts winning %.  What if SNC had played Chicago, Calvin, Wash U and North Park?  Would you guess at least a couple more losses?  And in exchange you would have gotten a higher SoS.  As I've said, though, I think you got enough of a rise in SoS to at a minimum be forced solidly into the conversation.  And that, plus the ranked wins very well may get you in.

You're not wrong that a tougher schedule would potentially result in more losses, that's not the issue, the issue is even being able to schedule those games. At the end of the day, what should be considered most heavily is the team does on the pitch, not how well an AD or coach is able to fill out a non-conference slate. I'm not saying that SOS is not worthy of consideration at all, I'm saying that it is the most heavily overrated metric there is. Think UCF football last year. Undefeated, got no love from the committee, and trounced (the score was a lot closer than the actual game was) a traditional powerhouse in Auburn, who was barely out of tourney consideration. It seems like the committee, in both this and every other sport, factors in whether a team is a known commodity, versus if they are a fresh face. More often than not, the known commodity (in terms of team history) gets the nod for bids like this.

[Shooter McGavin]

This is what I'm going with:

NE (4): Tufts, Conn, Amherst, Williams  (Middlebury should be worried)
East (3): Rochester, Cortland, NYU (Ithaca missed out)
MA (3): F&M, JHU, Lyco (the non loss to Messiah and bump in SOS could have salvaged Lyco season)
SA (2): Ramapo and Oglethorpe (Camden on the outside of the bubble)
GL (3):  CWRU, CMU, Capital
Central (2): Hope, NP
North (1): St. Thomas (i don't think St. Norbert did enough to jump the Tommies in final ranking)
West (1):  C-M-S   

North Park, C-M-S Lyco last three in

Ithaca, Middlebury, Camden first three out

I agree and I think Lycoming will come in well above the .549 projection they have. Most likely closer to .560 than .549.

[Ommadawn]

Before the inevitable hubbub that will ensue after the selection show and release of the brackets, please indulge a brief moment of sentimentality. I genuinely appreciate the contributions of ALL posters on this board. The historical perspectives, inside information, statistical analyses, insightful comments, impassioned rants, and virtual fellowship provided by contributors greatly enhance my experience of a season that is already pretty great on its own.  Thank you and enjoy the dance!

[jknezek]

GreenKnight, I'm pulling for you.....but how one "concocts" a schedule very definitely impacts winning %.  What if SNC had played Chicago, Calvin, Wash U and North Park?  Would you guess at least a couple more losses?  And in exchange you would have gotten a higher SoS.  As I've said, though, I think you got enough of a rise in SoS to at a minimum be forced solidly into the conversation.  And that, plus the ranked wins very well may get you in.

You're not wrong that a tougher schedule would potentially result in more losses, that's not the issue, the issue is even being able to schedule those games. At the end of the day, what should be considered most heavily is the team does on the pitch, not how well an AD or coach is able to fill out a non-conference slate. I'm not saying that SOS is not worthy of consideration at all, I'm saying that it is the most heavily overrated metric there is. Think UCF football last year. Undefeated, got no love from the committee, and trounced (the score was a lot closer than the actual game was) a traditional powerhouse in Auburn, who was barely out of tourney consideration. It seems like the committee, in both this and every other sport, factors in whether a team is a known commodity, versus if they are a fresh face. More often than not, the known commodity (in terms of team history) gets the nod for bids like this.

Yes, but you're missing a key point here. UCF has no clear path to the playoffs at the start of the year. There is no AQ in FBS. Every DIII team, less those in Pool B, have a way to play themselves in. Regardless of how it is scheduled, regardless of win percentage, regardless of RvR or perception. There is a path. Don't fail on the path and nothing else matters.

However, if you fail on the path, then you are going to be compared. And teams that played harder competition deserve recognition for it. Teams that coasted through easy opponents are going to get looked at a little harder. Especially since despite the easy path they followed, they still couldn't close it out.

[lastguyoffthebench]

https://www.ncaa.com/video/soccer-men/2018-11-05/diii-mens-soccer-2018-selection-show