2021 D3 Men's Soccer National Perspective

[PaulNewman]

Games to watch today....

The Main Event is Calvin @ Chicago 6:00 pm

The Undercard is headlined by RPI @ SLU (good video, beautiful field) at 4:00 pm; Carthage @ North Park 8:30 pm; F&M @ Muhlenberg 7:00 pm; Lycoming @ Messiah 7:00 pm; Otterbein @ Denison 7:00 pm

Sleeper tilts include Loras @ UW-Whitewater 7:00 pm; Ohio Northern @ Kalamazoo (superb video, nice field) at 7:00 pm; Lebanon Valley @ Elizabethtown 7:00 pm; Haverford @ Washington College 7:00 pm

[PaulNewman]

Looks like a lot of D3 teams play local non-league schedules...and the opponents are weak.  Would value this boards opinion on whether it makes sense for D3 teams to schedule tough non-conference opponents.  Does it help them get to the tournament?  There are enough good teams near each other to schedule each other.  Just not sure it's worth it.

Yes, strong schedule helps teams get in tournament as one of most key criteria (if not the most) is strength of schedule.  Of course getting more wins and draws in those tough games as opposed to mostly or all losses is a big key as well.  Roughly speaking, an 11-7 record with a brutal schedule serves a team better than going 16-1 with very few to no tough games.

[jknezek]

Looks like a lot of D3 teams play local non-league schedules...and the opponents are weak.  Would value this boards opinion on whether it makes sense for D3 teams to schedule tough non-conference opponents.  Does it help them get to the tournament?  There are enough good teams near each other to schedule each other.  Just not sure it's worth it.

Strength of Schedule and Results vs Regionally Ranked Opponents matter three different ways, all of which tie back to your Regional Ranking. Both are measures in how the Regional Committees rank the regions. If you win your conferences' automatic qualifier (AQ), then your Regional Ranking will help determine what pod you are in, who hosts the pod, and your tournament seeding. The higher your ranking, the more likely you are to host (though money and geography come into play also), and the more likely you are to get a lower ranked opponent.

If you don't win your conference AQ, then your Regional Ranking determines at what point you are put on the board to be talked about for an "at-large" or Pool C bid. The highest ranking team from each region without an AQ gets to the table first, and no other team from that Region can be discussed until that highest ranking team is selected. So the higher you are in the Regional Rankings, the more likely you are to be talked about. The only way to be selected is to be talked about.

Finally, if you do get an at-large, then your Regional Ranking goes into the calculation in the first paragraph. So yes, you benefit from a high regional ranking, and a large component of your regional ranking is your Strength of Schedule and your results against Regionally Ranked Opponents. If you schedule cupcakes, both of these factors will be bad. If you schedule hard, these factors may be good, but your w/l may be too bad. However, the thing to keep in mind is it is RESULTS against Regionally Ranked opponents. A close loss to a high RRO can be a good RESULT and help out. A blowout loss to a low RRO is generally a bad RESULT.

So it is not as clear cut as we'd like to think, but we have seen over the years that the Regional and National Committees don't tend to respect teams that schedule weak opponents. They do provide leniency to those who schedule strong and perform well in close to half of those tough games as well as winning against lesser opponents.

[PaulNewman]

I may be learning from the above as well.  I didn't know that magnitude of loss (scoreline) mattered in selection.  I thought a L was a L, period.

Secondly, I thought a win (or loss) against a regionally ranked out of region foe counts.

And of course there is the "ever ranked" regionally versus ranked in last or next to last ranking question, which if I was certain about I would say so.

[d4_Pace]

The score is not taken into account when looking at results and when they are evaluating teams RVR a win against the team ranked #1 is weighed the same as a team ranked #8.

[jknezek]

The score is not taken into account when looking at results and when they are evaluating teams RVR a win against the team ranked #1 is weighed the same as a team ranked #8.

Agreed on this. However, h2h results do matter. So a loss to #8 matters more than a loss to #1 by that criteria. I did summarize, so much may not have been perfectly clear and I'm happy to see the updates and clarifications on what I posted.
Looking back I did have lines about close and blowout that are simply incorrect. My fault and good catch guys!

And yes, all Regions RROs do count in your RRO, but here we have the h2h issue as well, either to get to the table in-region, or to get off the table out of region. If you are on the table, but lost to someone in another region who has yet to see the table, that can be a factor. As we all know, every committee is different in how important some criteria is vs. others.

Not sure on the ever ranked stuff. I know we've debated it, and don't want my memories of that to muddle the truth.

[PaulNewman]

Looks like a lot of D3 teams play local non-league schedules...and the opponents are weak.  Would value this boards opinion on whether it makes sense for D3 teams to schedule tough non-conference opponents.  Does it help them get to the tournament?  There are enough good teams near each other to schedule each other.  Just not sure it's worth it.

One final thought from me on this...

There are probably scenarios where scheduling tough games (especially of the punching way above your weight category) doesn't make a lot of sense unless a dollop or more of sadism is involved.  A middle of the road or even top team in a very weak conference isn't going to get much benefit from taking on the heavyweights within driving difference (unless the top team in weak conference is an anomaly who is on the level or near the level of area heavyweights).  Maybe having one or two just to see what it's like?  But getting pummeled by a handful of teams seems counter-productive.  For such teams their best bet is to win their conference tournament to make the NCAA tourney followed by an unceremonious exit.

[PaulNewman]

Regarding the new weekly poll some of us are participating in, I'll wait until after the poll is posted to share any details, but (and I knew this because I used to post my weekly top 25 or whatever) the task really is a challenge.  I got up to about #13 or #14 where I had a no brainer level of confidence.  However, when I got to the last 5-6 I had as many as 20-25 teams that could have filled those slots.  A Top 25 gives a little more wiggle room but I would have had similar difficulty with that as well.  The season progressing should help with weeding out the bubble category to some extent.

[Ron Boerger]

Here are the NCAA selection criteria used the last time playoffs were conducted.   These pretty much stay the same from year to year but there are minor changes on occasion.

Section 2•4 Selection Criteria

PRIMARY CRITERIA

The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents;
● Division III head-to-head competition;
● Results versus common Division III opponents;
● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included; and
● Division III strength of schedule;
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP);
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).

Note: Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.


SECONDARY CRITERIA

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against all other opponents, including those contests versus opponents from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

● Non-Division III won-lost percentage;
● Results versus common non-Division III opponents;
● Division III non-conference strength of schedule.

Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's won-lost percentage during the last 25% of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the championships committee.

Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the soccer committee. In order to be considered for selection for Pools B or C, an institution must play at least 70% of its competition against Division III in-region opponents. Coaches' polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not used as a criterion by the soccer committee for selection purposes.

[jknezek]

Looks like a lot of D3 teams play local non-league schedules...and the opponents are weak.  Would value this boards opinion on whether it makes sense for D3 teams to schedule tough non-conference opponents.  Does it help them get to the tournament?  There are enough good teams near each other to schedule each other.  Just not sure it's worth it.

One final thought from me on this...

There are probably scenarios where scheduling tough games (especially of the punching way above your weight category) doesn't make a lot of sense unless a dollop or more of sadism is involved.  A middle of the road or even top team in a very weak conference isn't going to get much benefit from taking on the heavyweights within driving difference (unless the top team in weak conference is an anomaly who is on the level or near the level of area heavyweights).  Maybe having one or two just to see what it's like?  But getting pummeled by a handful of teams seems counter-productive.  For such teams their best bet is to win their conference tournament to make the NCAA tourney followed by an unceremonious exit.

We are waiting on one poll. Though it's not due until midnight, so "waiting" is the wrong word. Hopefully will post tomorrow. And yes, I thought you guys agreed to a tough task.

[D3_Slack]

How do ties factor into all of this?  Is it better to have less wins, no losses and lots of ties...or more wins than losses (but a lot of wins)? 

Also, if a team is in a very tough conference (UAA, NESCAC, etc.) does it make more sense for them to rack up wins against easier non conference foes and take their chances either winning the league outright or winning enough games to be considered very good?

Thanks...detailed questions but I appreciate the dialogue.

[Gregory Sager]

How do ties factor into all of this?  Is it better to have less wins, no losses and lots of ties...or more wins than losses (but a lot of wins)?

For the NCAA's purposes, ties are calculated into a team's winning percentage as being 1/2 of a win and 1/2 of a loss.

[d4_Pace]

Yep the criteria really is fairly objective at first and then gets a little murky in terms of how everything is weighed out. In my opinion the three biggest things they look at are winning %, SOS which is also a percentage, then RVR. There are essentially minimum percentages for both record and strength of schedule for you really to be eligible. There is no firm cutoff but if you have a SOS in the low .500 or below it doesn't matter your win % and vice versa. Now if you are in the NESCAC, UAA etc it doesn't matter who you play out of conference your SOS is going to be high enough to be above that arbitrary cutoff. For that reason top conference teams are incentivized to try to get their winning % up with "easier" out of conference games. This however is a double edged sword because in doing so you limit your chance for ranked wins which is often the deciding tie breaker between teams with solid win % and SOS.

[PaulNewman]

How do ties factor into all of this?  Is it better to have less wins, no losses and lots of ties...or more wins than losses (but a lot of wins)? 

Also, if a team is in a very tough conference (UAA, NESCAC, etc.) does it make more sense for them to rack up wins against easier non conference foes and take their chances either winning the league outright or winning enough games to be considered very good?

Thanks...detailed questions but I appreciate the dialogue.

"Ranked games" are important to have, aside from Ws, Ls, and Ts.  A "ranked" tie and a loss is better than having no ranked games at all.  Of course, the more wins the better, and then the more ties rather than losses the better.

You won't really understand all this (and as you can see even some of us who have been around for a long time still get confused or trip on a detail or two) UNTIL you understand "ranked wins/ties/losses."  "Ranked teams" is attached to regional rankings (different from the coach poll regional rankings) that don't come into existence until the last 3-4 weeks of the season.  The first set that comes out in a few weeks doesn't include your "ranked results" as a factor because they haven't happened yet.  Thereafter "ranked results" plays a significant role in rankings the second and third weeks (and maybe the 4th week?).  And you may think you have a big ranked win based on what you see in first or second set of regional rankings that suddenly disappears (and that's where the "ever ranked" versus "last ranked" deal comes in). 

Anyway, there is a certain poster who frequents the site who likely will re-post a detailed explanation.

[PaulNewman]

BTW, I agree with D4 with one add-on.  Teams in the best conferences in general can rely on a good enough SoS.  However, teams have missed out on a NCAA bid imo when their good enough SoS isn't as good as a few other teams in their region or another region and get bumped out.  Off the top of my head, it seems that this has happened to Middlebury a couple of times, and Midd for a NESCAC has tended to have weaker non-conference schedules. 

The safest thing to say in general is schedule well and do well and/or win your league's AQ.