2022 D3 Men's Soccer National Perspective

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

I'll say it again, it does not feel right rewarding a team with a bid that won only a third of their games.  I get that other factors have to be considered, but what is the point of playing the games if winning them doesn't matter?   This isn't division 1 where every team has the resources to schedule games against whoever they want.

It all depends on how the NCAA and cmte views draws....which is the huge wild card that no one here has attempted a guess at.  Remember also that in addition to ranked wins the cmte also considers total number of ranked games.

PN-exactly! The ties are going to throw a wrench into things.

The good examples are Lycoming, Wartburg and some of the NESCACs like Tufts and Williams.

Lycoming comes in ranked 5th in Region 4 and boasts a 10-4-7 record with a nice SOS. They just took Stevens to the brink and lost in PKs in the conference final. They have 0 ranked wins (probably the ultimatum for them) but have played 9 ranked teams including 5 ties. Those ties include Hopkins, LBC, Gettysburg, Misericordia (won on PKs), Stevens (lost on PKs) and 4 losses to Rowan (NJAC champs), Messiah (Commonwealth Champs and #1 in the country), Misericordia and Stevens (Freedom champs and #4 in the country).

So how does the committee look at a team like this? 21 games played and only 4 losses, all of whom are ranked that include 3 conference champs and 2 of which are top 4 in the country with 0 combined losses between them. Technically zero ranked wins, as the PK advancement counts as a tie, but the win-loss % of the ranked opponents is similar and in some cases better when comparing to others like a Catholic, MSOE or Endicott. I've watched them play a handful of games, and maybe I've caught them on their good days, but I'd take them over many other bubble teams by just the eyeball test.

Wartburg is another example where they have only 2 losses all year in 18 games. They also come in ranked 5th in Region 9 and will be on the board at some point to be selected. The dagger for them is getting bounced so early in conference playoffs to Nebraska Wesleyan who they beat the week before. But, a solid SOS, 7-2-9 record and a decent 2-1-4 (probably 2-1-3) RvR should have them being considered. Ranked wins vs St. Olaf (MIAC champs) and Whitewater, ties with Gustavus (MIAC regular season champs), Platteville, Luther (ARC champs), and Loras (dropped out so this tie will drop off unless they jump back in final rankings) and the loss to undefeated North Central who won the CCIW.

How will committee value them once they get to the top to be compared with the other 9 regions? 9 ties but only 2 losses and clearly can compete with the best of the best as evidenced above. Another team where if I am being honest, should be ahead of teams like Catholic, Drew, Endicott, MSOE, most region 10 teams, etc.

I have seen 3 Wartburg games this year and similar to Lycoming, I think this team can play with just about anybody. Those others I mentioned...not so much.

Tufts/Williams are the next examples and while I think both will be dancing this afternoon, the ties for both teams are staggering. 7 for Tufts and 10! for Williams. Strong SOS for both teams and only a combined 3 losses. How will the committee view these ties? How will they view the minimal losses with a difficult schedule for all 4 of these teams we are comparing? We will find out at 1:30pm 

[Shooter McGavin]

I'll say it again, it does not feel right rewarding a team with a bid that won only a third of their games.  I get that other factors have to be considered, but what is the point of playing the games if winning them doesn't matter?   This isn't division 1 where every team has the resources to schedule games against whoever they want.

It all depends on how the NCAA and cmte views draws....which is the huge wild card that no one here has attempted a guess at.  Remember also that in addition to ranked wins the cmte also considers total number of ranked games.

PN-exactly! The ties are going to throw a wrench into things.

The good examples are Lycoming, Wartburg and some of the NESCACs like Tufts and Williams.

Lycoming comes in ranked 5th in Region 4 and boasts a 10-4-7 record with a nice SOS. They just took Stevens to the brink and lost in PKs in the conference final. They have 0 ranked wins (probably the ultimatum for them) but have played 9 ranked teams including 5 ties. Those ties include Hopkins, LBC, Gettysburg, Misericordia (won on PKs), Stevens (lost on PKs) and 4 losses to Rowan (NJAC champs), Messiah (Commonwealth Champs and #1 in the country), Misericordia and Stevens (Freedom champs and #4 in the country).

So how does the committee look at a team like this? 21 games played and only 4 losses, all of whom are ranked that include 3 conference champs and 2 of which are top 4 in the country with 0 combined losses between them. Technically zero ranked wins, as the PK advancement counts as a tie, but the win-loss % of the ranked opponents is similar and in some cases better when comparing to others like a Catholic, MSOE or Endicott. I've watched them play a handful of games, and maybe I've caught them on their good days, but I'd take them over many other bubble teams by just the eyeball test.

Wartburg is another example where they have only 2 losses all year in 18 games. They also come in ranked 5th in Region 9 and will be on the board at some point to be selected. The dagger for them is getting bounced so early in conference playoffs to Nebraska Wesleyan who they beat the week before. But, a solid SOS, 7-2-9 record and a decent 2-1-4 (probably 2-1-3) RvR should have them being considered. Ranked wins vs St. Olaf (MIAC champs) and Whitewater, ties with Gustavus (MIAC regular season champs), Platteville, Luther (ARC champs), and Loras (dropped out so this tie will drop off unless they jump back in final rankings) and the loss to undefeated North Central who won the CCIW.

How will committee value them once they get to the top to be compared with the other 9 regions? 9 ties but only 2 losses and clearly can compete with the best of the best as evidenced above. Another team where if I am being honest, should be ahead of teams like Catholic, Drew, Endicott, MSOE, most region 10 teams, etc.

I have seen 3 Wartburg games this year and similar to Lycoming, I think this team can play with just about anybody. Those others I mentioned...not so much.

Tufts/Williams are the next examples and while I think both will be dancing this afternoon, the ties for both teams are staggering. 7 for Tufts and 10! for Williams. Strong SOS for both teams and only a combined 3 losses. How will the committee view these ties? How will they view the minimal losses with a difficult schedule for all 4 of these teams we are comparing? We will find out at 1:30pm 

Wartburg is a good example and I actually overlooked them when picking my 20 Pool C teams. I didn't have them on my first 4 out either and probably should have. Nice catch! I agree with your post and also agree with Paul on the magnitude of ties and total ranked opponents. Time will tell how much weight these carry for the selections.

[Ejay]

I just can't reward 7 wins in 18 games. Winning less than 50% of games played is my line in the sand. Same for 10-4-7, at least that's a bit more respectable.

[Shooter McGavin]

I'll take a stab at the 16 host sites (without knowing who did and did not submit for hosting duties)

Messiah
Chicago
Amherst
Kenyon
Oneonta St
Stevens
Montclair
Hopkins
Wash Lee
John Carroll
North Central
Calvin
Gustavus
Middlebury
Ohio Northern
SLU/Babson/Bowdoin/Texas school

[Shooter McGavin]

I just can't reward 7 wins in 18 games. Winning less than 50% of games played is my line in the sand. Same for 10-4-7, at least that's a bit more respectable.

Well 7-2-9 when breaking out the ties is 11-6-1 right? So if you look at it from that perspective it might shed more light. And the 7 wins is low but the 2 losses is impressive. The ties, these dreadful ties, will be the key factor of how they are viewed.

[jknezek]

I just can't reward 7 wins in 18 games. Winning less than 50% of games played is my line in the sand. Same for 10-4-7, at least that's a bit more respectable.

Well 7-2-9 when breaking out the ties is 11-6-1 right? So if you look at it from that perspective it might shed more light. And the 7 wins is low but the 2 losses is impressive. The ties, these dreadful ties, will be the key factor of how they are viewed.

In terms of how it's counted as winning percentage... yes. In terms of what actually happened... no. They won 7 games, they lost 2. They didn't win 11 and lose 6. If we are accepting that it is better for the game for teams to have these records, instead of about half as many ties using the 2 OT system, then we can't just say they would have won 50% and lost 50%. That's simply not true. There needs to be a better way. Personally I don't think ties should count in winning percentage. Because it's called "winning" percentage. So if you are 7-2-9, your winning percentage is 7/18 or 38.88889%. We can add losing percentage also, and they are at 11.1111%. So if you want to look at those two numbers, I think that is actually better than what we do now. They are more likely to win then lose, but 50% of the time they can't do either.

I look at Williams, winning 6 games, and think that in order for them to win the National Title, they are going to have to almost double their total wins for the year, or go through a lot of PKs. And yet they are likely going to get a shot at it. I don't like it. If you can't flat out win more than 1/2 the times you step on the field, I'm just not real impressed with your resume. 

[PaulNewman]

Paul Newman, the UMass Boston story has more to it as they had a third starter suspended retroactively for the Tufts game for an off the ball incident that wasn't seen during the game.

Thanks, D4.  I knew there was a reason I was thinking of three players.

[SierraFD3soccer]

I'll take a stab at the 16 host sites (without knowing who did and did not submit for hosting duties)

Messiah
Chicago
Amherst
Kenyon
Oneonta St
Stevens
Montclair
Hopkins
Wash Lee
John Carroll
North Central
Calvin
Gustavus
Middlebury
Ohio Northern
SLU/Babson/Bowdoin/Texas school

I would say that maybe Messiah and/or JHU may not host men's as their women's teams have had great seasons.  JHU top in their region with Messiah second in womens.  JHU 2nd in country with 15 wins and no loses while Messiah is 5th with one loss.  I believe that womens would take priority, but clearly could be wrong.

[Hopkins92]

I thought in even years, the men have preference. But I'm not super detail-oriented, so I'm sure someone with better handle on that can chime in.

(I'm not all that sure Hop should be up for a hosting gig on the men's side, but that's a separate issue.)

[Flying Weasel]

In even-numbered years the men have hosting preference the first weekend (1st/2nd Rounds) and the women have hosting preference the second weekend (Sectionals).  In odd-numbered years it is reversed.

Messiah men will definitely be at home this weekend.  If they advance, the men could also be hosting Sectionals even if their women advance.  It depends who's in the women's sectional.  If Hopkins or Misericordia is in the Sectional, Messiah women would not be the high seed and probably wouldn't host.

[Flying Weasel]

With regard to the abundance of ties, we just don't know yet how the committee will evaluate that.  I tend to agree that treating them like in the calculation of winning pct. (a tie counts as half a win, half a loss) isn't how I think it should be done.  I think it should be more along the lines of how points for standings are done: 3 pts for a win, 1 pt for tie.  The 3:1 ratio is better IMO than the 2:1 ratio. 

It would be interesting to calculate winning percentages taking ties as 1/3 win, 2/3 loss and see how teams compare that way.

[Shooter McGavin]

I just can't reward 7 wins in 18 games. Winning less than 50% of games played is my line in the sand. Same for 10-4-7, at least that's a bit more respectable.

Well 7-2-9 when breaking out the ties is 11-6-1 right? So if you look at it from that perspective it might shed more light. And the 7 wins is low but the 2 losses is impressive. The ties, these dreadful ties, will be the key factor of how they are viewed.

In terms of how it's counted as winning percentage... yes. In terms of what actually happened... no. They won 7 games, they lost 2. They didn't win 11 and lose 6. If we are accepting that it is better for the game for teams to have these records, instead of about half as many ties using the 2 OT system, then we can't just say they would have won 50% and lost 50%. That's simply not true. There needs to be a better way. Personally I don't think ties should count in winning percentage. Because it's called "winning" percentage. So if you are 7-2-9, your winning percentage is 7/18 or 38.88889%. We can add losing percentage also, and they are at 11.1111%. So if you want to look at those two numbers, I think that is actually better than what we do now. They are more likely to win then lose, but 50% of the time they can't do either.

I look at Williams, winning 6 games, and think that in order for them to win the National Title, they are going to have to almost double their total wins for the year, or go through a lot of PKs. And yet they are likely going to get a shot at it. I don't like it. If you can't flat out win more than 1/2 the times you step on the field, I'm just not real impressed with your resume.

I don't disagree with you. Just stating that a tie is, on paper, half a win and half a loss. Is this how the committee will view it? I don't know, but it's a possibility.

This is also why they view other criteria. Would a 7 win team or a 6 win team get in last year? Probably not. But with the new tie rule (which should be banned for life) there has to be some sort of weight carried for the many, many teams that have historically more draws than ever before.

Can you fault a team for not losing because there is no regular season OT that could decide the deadlock after 90 minutes? I'd say no. Is Williams going to miss the dance with 1 loss all year? If you said a NESCAC team will have 1 loss all year and miss the tournament or be on the bubble everyone on the boards would call you crazy...but here we are 

[Shooter McGavin]

With regard to the abundance of ties, we just don't know yet how the committee will evaluate that.  I tend to agree that treating them like in the calculation of winning pct. (a tie counts as half a win, half a loss) isn't how I think it should be done.  I think it should be more along the lines of how points for standings are done: 3 pts for a win, 1 pt for tie.  The 3:1 ratio is better IMO than the 2:1 ratio. 

It would be interesting to calculate winning percentages taking ties as 1/3 win, 2/3 loss and see how teams compare that way.

This will be the debate of all debates until they switch back to the old OT rules for the regular season 

[4samuy]

Christian Shirk had made mention earlier on the boards, last week, I believe, that the women have hosting priority this year.  Now he did not say first or second weekend but he seemed to be pretty clear.  I'm not sure if the COVID year (yrs) had anything to do with some of change. Not sure.

[Maine Soccer Fan]

Has anyone found the correct link for the selection show? The one that I've found on the NCAA is broken.