2018 Season - National Perspective

[lastguyoffthebench]

Snow and ice and highs in the mid 30s this weekend for the games at Calvin. 

Since Calvin likely to be hosting both weekends do you see any chance the games will be moved to Hope as they were a few years ago?  What condition is the field in now?

CWRU, IMO, is the higher seed, and likely the 4th overall seed, (Chicago #1, Tufts #2, Messiah #3)

CRWU #1 GLakes   .613 SOS and 6 RRwins
Calvin #2 Central   .578 SOS and 3 RRwins

I am assuming Chicago was the #1 overall... was this mentioned during the selection show?

[fan23]

Selection Process needs Rethinking

A selection system that rewards loosing needs to be examined. For example, take a look at St. Thomas (in) and St. Norbert (out).
SNC has a better record (17-1-1 for a winning percentage of .921 vs. ST at 14-3-2 for a .789). SNC accomplished 2 rank wins in only 2 games (RvR of 2-0-0 for 1.000) while it took ST 7 games to accomplish  2 ranked wins, loosing/tying the others (RvR of 2-3-1 for .357) BUT ST gets in because those ranked losses upped their SOS. In other words, by loosing to ranked teams they upped their SOS enough to get in over a team with better stats and the same number of ranked wins.  To say this system doesn't reward loosing is to ignore the numbers.

[jknezek]

Selection Process needs Rethinking

A selection system that rewards loosing needs to be examined. For example, take a look at St. Thomas (in) and St. Norbert (out).
SNC has a better record (17-1-1 for a winning percentage of .921 vs. ST at 14-3-2 for a .789). SNC accomplished 2 rank wins in only 2 games (RvR of 2-0-0 for 1.000) while it took ST 7 games to accomplish  2 ranked wins, loosing/tying the others (RvR of 2-3-1 for .357) BUT ST gets in because those ranked losses upped their SOS. In other words, by loosing to ranked teams they upped their SOS enough to get in over a team with better stats and the same number of ranked wins.  To say this system doesn't reward loosing is to ignore the numbers.

It could be simpler to say that it rewards scheduling challenging games and looks unfavorably upon teams that don't. But only if you fail to win the AQ, of course. The ONLY 3 games STU lost were to ranked opponents. SNC can't claim the same, losing to an unranked opponent. SNC also has a slight problem of losing to Knox, who STU beat, though it's fair to also note SNC was 1-1 against Knox and just lost the more important game.

It's just not as straight forward as people would like it to be, and it's never going to be straight forward for that last spot or three.

[PaulNewman]

Snow and ice and highs in the mid 30s this weekend for the games at Calvin. 

Since Calvin likely to be hosting both weekends do you see any chance the games will be moved to Hope as they were a few years ago?  What condition is the field in now?

CWRU, IMO, is the higher seed, and likely the 4th overall seed, (Chicago #1, Tufts #2, Messiah #3)

CRWU #1 GLakes   .613 SOS and 6 RRwins
Calvin #2 Central   .578 SOS and 3 RRwins

I am assuming Chicago was the #1 overall... was this mentioned during the selection show?

I think you are probably right, except I'm not sure a bye for Tufts means they are the #2 seed.

[Ommadawn]

Selection Process needs Rethinking

A selection system that rewards loosing needs to be examined. For example, take a look at St. Thomas (in) and St. Norbert (out).
SNC has a better record (17-1-1 for a winning percentage of .921 vs. ST at 14-3-2 for a .789). SNC accomplished 2 rank wins in only 2 games (RvR of 2-0-0 for 1.000) while it took ST 7 games to accomplish  2 ranked wins, loosing/tying the others (RvR of 2-3-1 for .357) BUT ST gets in because those ranked losses upped their SOS. In other words, by loosing to ranked teams they upped their SOS enough to get in over a team with better stats and the same number of ranked wins.  To say this system doesn't reward loosing is to ignore the numbers.

It could be simpler to say that it rewards scheduling challenging games and looks unfavorably upon teams that don't. But only if you fail to win the AQ, of course. The ONLY 3 games STU lost were to ranked opponents. SNC can't claim the same, losing to an unranked opponent. SNC also has a slight problem of losing to Knox, who STU beat, though it's fair to also note SNC was 1-1 against Knox and just lost the more important game.

I agree with jknezek's interpretation. The reward is conferred at the time the game is scheduled (or at least at the time the game kicks off). The result of the game, which comes later, confers additional reward (in the form of a boost to winning percentage and RvR) with a win or penalty (in the form of a hit to winning percentage and RvR) with a loss.

[D3Grad]

Hello all.  I have been a fly on the wall the past few years on this forum.  Your commentary on all the teams and conferences has been appreciated both from a reader's perspective and scouting purposes.  So, thank you!
Considering the recent pandemonium of this year's bracket draw I can provide some insight into the MIAC conference which I was a part of.  It is a very tough conference to play in.  The games are rarely pretty.  Often very gritty and come down to set plays, long throws, and fluke goals.  As I have noticed with the NESCAC any team can win on any given day.  Very EPL/Championship like.  What I don't understand about MIAC teams is their struggles with non-conference teams versus in conference.  They also schedule some serious cupcakes which muddies the North region rankings quite a bit. 
I would like other's input on this theory but maybe St. Thomas' recent success has put the MIAC on the map and maybe the committee found the conference competitive enough to draw 3 at large bids.  It surely is a blessing for the MIAC conference to show itself, so I am excited to see how it all plays out. 

[Londoner]

Following on from D3Grad, thought I'd drop some thoughts here also.

As a former player in the West Region I CANNOT believe that Southwestern were put in above Claremont. Somebody has already raised this, but I see absolutely no reason aside from saving money by not having to fly another team from California that Claremont missed out. Their defensive record this year speaks for itself and when you take into account everything else on their resume I can't  legislate for Southwestern jumping to #1 in the region. That's madness. But I will say its a huge moment for the southwestern program (who are vastly improved in recent years)  and a great opportunity for them to make a name for themselves. Though a team that will really hold a grudge on this will be Colorado College who have been overlooked in the past for a pool C bid with better candidacy than Southwestern has this year. Colorado's island status in the D3 landscape hurts them.

The D3 landscape is obviously heavily geographically slanted towards the eastern side of the country, but I will say that it was (and is) infuriating to constantly see the West overlooked year on year on the national scale. Largely, this comes down to strength of schedule which for me is considered WAY too highly in the selection process. Budgets are not endless. West region schools often can't fly across the country multiple times a season to challenge UAA or NESCAC schools and most are also hamstrung by double round robin formats, or single round robin conferences with too many teams. The West typically getting just one Pool C each year is very harsh on a number of talented teams in the region that suffers purely based on being on an island - relatively speaking.

[Bobcat1]

Snow and ice and highs in the mid 30s this weekend for the games at Calvin. 

Since Calvin likely to be hosting both weekends do you see any chance the games will be moved to Hope as they were a few years ago?  What condition is the field in now?

CWRU, IMO, is the higher seed, and likely the 4th overall seed, (Chicago #1, Tufts #2, Messiah #3)

CRWU #1 GLakes   .613 SOS and 6 RRwins
Calvin #2 Central   .578 SOS and 3 RRwins

I am assuming Chicago was the #1 overall... was this mentioned during the selection show?

I think you are probably right, except I'm not sure a bye for Tufts means they are the #2 seed.

I think this is likely accurate. Tufts higher SOS and RvR compared to Messiah could be a couple reasons for the bye. As I said on another tread, the committee could have sent Thomas College to Tufts, sent Western Conn to Conn College, and sent Baruch to play F&M. That would have given the bye to Messiah and been less travel on a combined basis for all. That's why I'm not buying the "geography" reason as the likely reason why Tufts got the bye. However, it doesn't really matter at this point. When they get to the round of 32, there are no "easy" games (actually there are not that many easy games in the round of 64 either, unless you get the bye).

[gustiefan04]

Hello all.  I have been a fly on the wall the past few years on this forum.  Your commentary on all the teams and conferences has been appreciated both from a reader's perspective and scouting purposes.  So, thank you!
Considering the recent pandemonium of this year's bracket draw I can provide some insight into the MIAC conference which I was a part of.  It is a very tough conference to play in.  The games are rarely pretty.  Often very gritty and come down to set plays, long throws, and fluke goals.  As I have noticed with the NESCAC any team can win on any given day.  Very EPL/Championship like.  What I don't understand about MIAC teams is their struggles with non-conference teams versus in conference.  They also schedule some serious cupcakes which muddies the North region rankings quite a bit. 
I would like other's input on this theory but maybe St. Thomas' recent success has put the MIAC on the map and maybe the committee found the conference competitive enough to draw 3 at large bids.  It surely is a blessing for the MIAC conference to show itself, so I am excited to see how it all plays out.

The MIAC always seems to produce a team or two in the tournament capable of making a run in the tournament. I began following the MIAC in the early 2000's. Since that time the MIAC has, with some regularity, had a team or two make a decent run in the NCAA's (Sweet 16 or better). MAC, GAC, Carleton all have had nice stretches of of 2-4+ years in a row making the tournament, and having some success and more recently the Thommies.

Its also not been uncommon for the MIAC to get 2 teams into the tournament. I can recall at least once when they've had 3 teams (MAC, GAC and Carleton in maybe 2011 or 2012?)...but never 4 teams.The selection committee has always viewed the MIAC pretty favorably on a national level, but never shown this much love...

As to the results in non-conference matches, a quick look at the four teams in the tournament, UST, GAC and Augs only lost 1 match outside of conference and Carleton was undefeated in non-conference matches. You can potentially call to question the quality of some of those opponents, but these teams all have solid records against non-conference teams. Perhaps programs like UWP and lither have just improved...

[PaulNewman]

Following on from D3Grad, thought I'd drop some thoughts here also.

As a former player in the West Region I CANNOT believe that Southwestern were put in above Claremont. Somebody has already raised this, but I see absolutely no reason aside from saving money by not having to fly another team from California that Claremont missed out. Their defensive record this year speaks for itself and when you take into account everything else on their resume I can't  legislate for Southwestern jumping to #1 in the region. That's madness. But I will say its a huge moment for the southwestern program (who are vastly improved in recent years)  and a great opportunity for them to make a name for themselves. Though a team that will really hold a grudge on this will be Colorado College who have been overlooked in the past for a pool C bid with better candidacy than Southwestern has this year. Colorado's island status in the D3 landscape hurts them.

The D3 landscape is obviously heavily geographically slanted towards the eastern side of the country, but I will say that it was (and is) infuriating to constantly see the West overlooked year on year on the national scale. Largely, this comes down to strength of schedule which for me is considered WAY too highly in the selection process. Budgets are not endless. West region schools often can't fly across the country multiple times a season to challenge UAA or NESCAC schools and most are also hamstrung by double round robin formats, or single round robin conferences with too many teams. The West typically getting just one Pool C each year is very harsh on a number of talented teams in the region that suffers purely based on being on an island - relatively speaking.

Thank you for posting.  It is important for people hear these views and see that maybe we shouldn't just knee-jerk accept the status quo of "the process is fine" or "as good as it can get" or "go win your AQ."  The C-M-S snub based on what we know makes no sense.  Maybe there is something we don't know that would make more sense.  It's also good to have more posters that are underrepresented on the site.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I am assuming Chicago was the #1 overall... was this mentioned during the selection show?

Never mentioned in a DIII selection/bracket show. Seeds/rankings don't exist in DIII. Committees may try and put some of the higher regionally ranked teams (per criteria) in particular places on a bracket, but it's also impossible to truly seed a DIII tournament.

[fan23]

Selection Process needs Rethinking

A selection system that rewards loosing needs to be examined. For example, take a look at St. Thomas (in) and St. Norbert (out).
SNC has a better record (17-1-1 for a winning percentage of .921 vs. ST at 14-3-2 for a .789). SNC accomplished 2 rank wins in only 2 games (RvR of 2-0-0 for 1.000) while it took ST 7 games to accomplish  2 ranked wins, loosing/tying the others (RvR of 2-3-1 for .357) BUT ST gets in because those ranked losses upped their SOS. In other words, by loosing to ranked teams they upped their SOS enough to get in over a team with better stats and the same number of ranked wins.  To say this system doesn't reward loosing is to ignore the numbers.

It could be simpler to say that it rewards scheduling challenging games and looks unfavorably upon teams that don't. But only if you fail to win the AQ, of course. The ONLY 3 games STU lost were to ranked opponents. SNC can't claim the same, losing to an unranked opponent. SNC also has a slight problem of losing to Knox, who STU beat, though it's fair to also note SNC was 1-1 against Knox and just lost the more important game.

It's just not as straight forward as people would like it to be, and it's never going to be straight forward for that last spot or three.

I agree with you that "it's never going to be straight forward for that last spot or three."  That's why it's important to keep the process as transparent as possible. This past weekend prior to the selections I had a conversation with a current player on a "bubble team" who said, "I'm not worried, our coach is on the committee. He's gong to make sure we get in." And they are.   A system were players believe (rightly or wrongly) their coach can pull the necessary strings to get in definitely needs examination.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

That player is completely misinformed or under completely the wrong impression.

His coach would have been completely removed from the process (whether it was regional or national) WHENEVER the team was discussed.

First off if the coach was on a regional committee, his "influence" would have been minimal at best. Even if he did try to lobby, each member of the committee then votes on their own on a computer - that influence ends once the voters hit the computers. Then, the regional rankings go to the national committee who will and have changed regional rankings if they don't agree with them. The regional committees only advise. The national committee can ignore it completely.

Second - if the coach is on the national committee, a couple of things:
- He wouldn't have voted in the regional rankings to begin with (while also being removed from the discussions as well).
- The NCAA liaison or committee chair (or both) would remove the coach from the national discussion (replacing him with another member of the regional committee) if his team was involved. There have been coaches who are chairs of committees who didn't participate in nearly the entire conversation about selections and/or are completely removed from bracketing so there is no influence or early information.

This student very likely has no idea what he is talking about. I certainly am not going to have his interpretation of their chances over how I know the system works. That player needs to be better educated. That isn't on the system, that's on people understanding how it works and teaching others. I know coaches who explain these things to their athletes; I know others who don't.

There are plenty of us who do educate, but we are shockingly ignored as well.

[lastguyoffthebench]

Dave,  I really appreciate the informative posts...  +K again.

[Mr.Right]

Following on from D3Grad, thought I'd drop some thoughts here also.

As a former player in the West Region I CANNOT believe that Southwestern were put in above Claremont. Somebody has already raised this, but I see absolutely no reason aside from saving money by not having to fly another team from California that Claremont missed out. Their defensive record this year speaks for itself and when you take into account everything else on their resume I can't  legislate for Southwestern jumping to #1 in the region. That's madness. But I will say its a huge moment for the southwestern program (who are vastly improved in recent years)  and a great opportunity for them to make a name for themselves. Though a team that will really hold a grudge on this will be Colorado College who have been overlooked in the past for a pool C bid with better candidacy than Southwestern has this year. Colorado's island status in the D3 landscape hurts them.

The D3 landscape is obviously heavily geographically slanted towards the eastern side of the country, but I will say that it was (and is) infuriating to constantly see the West overlooked year on year on the national scale. Largely, this comes down to strength of schedule which for me is considered WAY too highly in the selection process. Budgets are not endless. West region schools often can't fly across the country multiple times a season to challenge UAA or NESCAC schools and most are also hamstrung by double round robin formats, or single round robin conferences with too many teams. The West typically getting just one Pool C each year is very harsh on a number of talented teams in the region that suffers purely based on being on an island - relatively speaking.

I do feel that CMS got screwed as I mean CMS ended up 4-1-0 RvR and in the West that is like going 7-1-0 RvR in New England. I suppose as D-MAC has suggested it is possible that the committee already looks at the RvR more in depth than just the actual record but who exactly you are beating that is ranked. They beat Redlands twice who was ranked #4 in the West and Occidental once who was ranked #6 and Macalester once as they were ranked #7 in Week 3. So those 4 ranked Wins are against the bottom of ranked teams so that could possibly be the only explanation. Still to me they would still be on the right side of the bubble so if you have 3-4 teams you are looking at to fill the last 1-2 spots in the tournament I really cannot believe that the money/flights issue would not be lurking in the back of the committee's mind. I really do not believe that the committee is trying "to spend money" as every organization is on some kind of a budget. I mean if there were not budget constraints then Trinity TX would be hosting Sweet 16 / Elite 8 pods most years instead of getting shipped out to wherever is geographically convenient and the "cheaper" option for the Committee. To me that is just as much malpractice as not selecting CMS or West teams because of concerns about money. Frankly had Trinity TX hosted all those Sweet 16 / Elite 8 pods when they were deserving who knows how many National Championships they would have won. Maybe one or two more?