2021 NCAA Regional Rankings

[PaulNewman]

Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Just to clarify a little further, the regional rankings are NOT a reliable way to figure out "who is better."  Simply how teams grade out on the rankings criteria.  There is no hard or medium hard correlation.  One of the best examples in recent years is Calvin, who often because of a round robin conference schedule found themselves with a low SoS despite efforts to schedule well out of conference.

Which is why you want to win your conference and avoid the vagaries of the Pool C selection process.

Precisely....but no one wants to see their team that had a stellar season be on the outside looking in after a PK loss.

[jknezek]

Just a few quick reactions to the Regional Rankings --

Looking at Region X I'm not convinced Mary Hardin-Baylor deserves too much hype as they lost to/were outplayed by Franklin & Marshall earlier this season. F&M is a team I don't rate very highly and while MH-B's losses to Trinity TX and Messiah make sense the rest of their schedule is so weak it's tough to tell if they're worthy of that #2 spot. I would take both CMS and Colorado College over them and I'm confident Redlands > Southwestern and possibly Willamette.

Region IX looks pretty solid but other than SOS it's tough to understand Luther's spot at #4 and Dubuque all the way down at #8. Dubuque beat Luther 2-0 earlier this season outshooting them 22-5 and Luther's RvR is 0-5...

I would swap North Central IL and Hope in Region VIII.

Otterbein > Kenyon is questionable and Wilmington's SOS kills them as they are much better than #9 in Region VII.

The top half of the rankings look solid, if I wanted to get picky I'd swap St Joe's ME and Mass-Boston but the rest looks pretty good.

Just to clarify a little further, the regional rankings are NOT a reliable way to figure out "who is better."  Simply how teams grade out on the rankings criteria.  There is no hard or medium hard correlation.  One of the best examples in recent years is Calvin, who often because of a round robin conference schedule found themselves with a low SoS despite efforts to schedule well out of conference.

Which is why you want to win your conference and avoid the vagaries of the Pool C selection process.

Precisely....but no one wants to see their team that had a stellar season be on the outside looking in after a PK loss.

Kind of why I wish more conferences would go to a single table, no tournament AQ...

[WUPHF]

The conference tournament gives more teams the hope of a postseason...

[PaulNewman]

The cruelest example in my experience was the 1974 ACC basketball tourney where #1 or #2 NC State beat #2 or #3 Maryland in the final with the only NCAA bid on the line....obviously before a conference could get more than one bid.   Game went to one or two OTs with NC State winning like 103-102.  David Thompson, the greatest college bball player I ever saw including Jordan, went on to the lead NC State to the national title against Bill Walton and UCLA breaking UCLA's string of seven or eight titles in a row.  The Wolfpack also had 7'4 Tommy Burleson and 5'7 Monte Towe pulling the strings at point guard.  Back then the ACC tourney was one of the great events in college athletics or athletics period, and and has remained prominent over the decades although there is no longer the pressure over having to win it. 

At any rate, I get the benefits of more teams having a shot and Colby is probably the best example in recent memory, and now they have that chance again.  But maybe the instead of the AQ the tourney winner should get an at large with the regular season winner getting the AQ.

More to the point, does our Wash U expert wish their was a UAA tournament to decide the AQ?


Addendum:  My heart says David Thompson.  My brain grudgingly says Lew Alcindor.

[Hopkins92]

I'm by no means a purest -- I get why Pro-Rel doesn't really work (yet) in America, for example.

But I also think putting an end-of-the-year tournament above an entire body of work built up over 8-10 weeks is silly. I don't think a team that finished 5th in a league of 8 or 10 teams should be able to wash away that body of work with a 3 game run in the course of a week (or so.) Or a 4th seed going on a two-game run over 3 days.

I have a similar problem with the Wild Card round in MLB. Either reward them or don't, but a 1 game playoff after 162 games is a crapshoot.


=

[WUPHF]

More to the point, does our Wash U expert wish their was a UAA tournament to decide the AQ?

You must be talking about someone else here, but I'll just say, I would have preferred a tournament back when I started following the Bears, but I love the drama that comes with every league game and builds throughout the season.  This last weekend is the perfect example.

But, historically, Washington University Men's Soccer is the program that always feels just outside of tournament contention so maybe I would if it was tried.

As for my point, I was thinking more about a conference such as the SLIAC.  Webster went undefeated in league play and established themselves as the heavy favorite early on.  If you are one of the other programs, you definitely want a conference tournament.

[PaulNewman]

WUPHF, you noted above that a conference tournament gives more teams a chance at the postseason so just wondered if you would favor a tourney for the UAA.

I have the exact opposite reaction to your example, which for me is an argument against tournaments deciding the AQ...conferences which are almost certain to be one bid leagues.  Imagine Webster or St Joe's (ME) being like 19-2-1 after completely dominating their conference and then miss out because some 6-10-3 team advances in PKs.

[jknezek]

I've always found this odd in our sports. We will play a significant long regular season for the minimal reward of home field in a tiny, compressed tournament season to determine the major reward of a championship (or AQ).

Now it makes perfect sense when you have 400 teams and are trying to whittle down to 1. The NCAA tournaments must be played this way because there are too many teams. But it makes no competitive sense for conference regular seasons except we prefer the drama and unpredictability of a tournament when really we should be rewarding the excellence of a long season.

If we must keep the conference tournaments, the AQ should go to the regular season champion with the tournament as a way to better a Pool C resume or your seeding by being hot against the best teams in your conference at the right time. It's so much more logical to do it this way for almost all sports.

Now if you have too big of a conference to do a full round robin, having a 2 team, 2 leg playoff is a simple solution when needed. But in general, I really think conference tournaments are idiotic ways to decide the AQ.

[WUPHF]

I have the exact opposite reaction to your example, which for me is an argument against tournaments deciding the AQ...conferences which are almost certain to be one bid leagues.  Imagine Webster or St Joe's (ME) being like 19-2-1 after completely dominating their conference and then miss out because some 6-10-3 team advances in PKs.

I understand...I was joking about the expert part.

I agree 100% in the case of Webster, but I think in the SLIAC, the coaches would unanimously vote to retain the postseason tournament. 

I know at least one coach who would say that even qualifying for the conference tournament is a benchmark for the season that he used when went for his performance evaluation.  But I know very few coaches so...

I do prefer the status quo in the UAA.

[PaulNewman]

I have the exact opposite reaction to your example, which for me is an argument against tournaments deciding the AQ...conferences which are almost certain to be one bid leagues.  Imagine Webster or St Joe's (ME) being like 19-2-1 after completely dominating their conference and then miss out because some 6-10-3 team advances in PKs.

I understand...I was joking about the expert part.

I agree 100% in the case of Webster, but I think in the SLIAC, the coaches would unanimously vote to retain the postseason tournament. 

I know at least one coach who would say that even qualifying for the conference tournament is a benchmark for the season that he used when went for his performance evaluation.  But I know very few coaches so...

I do prefer the status quo in the UAA.

LOL....well, at least until another Wash U supporter emerges, you are the de facto expert.  How about aficionado?

[Ejay]

I favor the conference tournament to determine AQ. In theory, it rewards the teams who can succeed in a win-or-go-home scenario. It could also be said it rewards the better coaches who learned from regular season match-ups and made the necessary adjustments to win a second meeting. As a coach, my strategy with the regular season would be to develop my new players, tinker with the roster to find best combinations, yet still do well enough to qualify for the conference tournament. It's a fine line to do all that successfully, but those who do should be rewarded.

[PaulNewman]

I favor the conference tournament to determine AQ. In theory, it rewards the teams who can succeed in a win-or-go-home scenario. It could also be said it rewards the better coaches who learned from regular season match-ups and made the necessary adjustments to win a second meeting. As a coach, my strategy with the regular season would be to develop my new players, tinker with the roster to find best combinations, yet still do well enough to qualify for the conference tournament. It's a fine line to do all that successfully, but those who do should be rewarded.

One of the reasons I disagree with this is that other than possibly playing on a home field the psychology of the tournament especially in one bid leagues is almost wholly on the side of the underdogs who get rewarded rather than punished for "achieving" an underdog role.  These are the kind of games where the heavy favorite who was undefeated in conference play has 85-90% of possession, outshoots the opponent 30-4, and loses 1-0 or via PKs.  The favorite has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose...which should not be the "reward" for being outstanding all season.

[Ejay]

I favor the conference tournament to determine AQ. In theory, it rewards the teams who can succeed in a win-or-go-home scenario. It could also be said it rewards the better coaches who learned from regular season match-ups and made the necessary adjustments to win a second meeting. As a coach, my strategy with the regular season would be to develop my new players, tinker with the roster to find best combinations, yet still do well enough to qualify for the conference tournament. It's a fine line to do all that successfully, but those who do should be rewarded.

One of the reasons I disagree with this is that other than possibly playing on a home field the psychology of the tournament especially in one bid leagues is almost wholly on the side of the underdogs who get rewarded rather than punished for "achieving" an underdog role.  These are the kind of games where the heavy favorite who was undefeated in conference play has 85-90% of possession, outshoots the opponent 30-4, and loses 1-0 or via PKs.  The favorite has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose...which should not be the "reward" for being outstanding all season.

Just different philosophies I guess. The D3 season is so condensed that I view it as largely inconsequential, with the goal of simply getting into the playoffs - where it counts.  I'm not trying to run the table - I'm more interested in setting up my team for success in the tournament.  It's all about the who wins the final game.

[PaulNewman]

In my scenario, the team you're talking about is going to get crushed 1st round.  Still won't agree, but can see your point more if you're talking about a Gettysburg or Swat who gets into the conference tourney, wins the AQ, and then goes on a nice run or wins the NCAA title.

[Hopkins92]

As is often the case on this board, I'm finding myself really seeing things from a perspective I hadn't really examined before. I'd still fall on the side of the regular season being more consequential than a conference tourney, BUT... That's a very interesting point about using the regular season to set yourself up for a November run.

I guess I just never approached it that way as a player, and as a coach (high-level youth travel) we were either playing to win the league (with no playoff involved) or to win a tournament (a de facto playoff over any given weekend.) But I do see validity in the philosophy of using the regular season to prepare for November.

With that said, the thing you can't really prepare for, IMO, is how the kids are going to react to the very specific type of pressure and environment of a one-and-done situation. Not to mention having to deal with that on someone else's home field.