2022 D3 Men's Soccer National Perspective

[Flying Weasel]

@jknezek, I agree with all of that except for maybe your estimate scenarios, and I assume we're agreeing that who we might vote for in a poll 1-15 or 20 is not necessarily who would say in our heart of hearts are the best 15-20 teams.  For instance, I am voting in some teams in my poll vote that I would not pick head to head with some teams below them, but results (and blemishes) demand something different of a poll voter (I think) than an assessment of who, records aside, are the best or most formidable teams.  As for my estimate of the NESCACs, I'd probably say in the end there will be three (not sure which ones yet) in the top 15 or so and 5 within the top 25 and then another two to three in the top 35-40.

^^^ You've said things to this effect before, and then as now I don't get it.  Standings must reflect results (wins, ties, and losses) by definition.  But a poll is, by definition, an opinion; it is subjective; it can take into account so many factors, like SoS, performance not just result, etc. as well as gut-feeling.  What is the purpose of a ranking if not to present who are the best teams, or, more precisely, who are thought/considered to be the best teams?  If on their ballots, voters are placing teams they think are better below other teams who they think are inferior on the basis of W-L-T records, then I'm not sure what's the point?  I'm not saying that one should be trying to predict/project how good a team will be at the business end of the season; but likewise I don't think one should be unduly restricted by and beholden to the past (i.e., the opening weeks of the season).  In my opinion, a weekly ranking should try to capture who is thought to be best at that point in time which is not the same as who has had the better season to date.  Now, in practice, I understand the challenge of making that distinction as you fill out your ballot, but I personally would want a ranking, particularly a poll-based ranking, to be striving for the former not the later.  Put another way, I prefer the "Week 5" ranking to tell me who is the best at the Week 5 point of the season.  Otherwise, it would be more accurate to call it the "Week 5 Season-to-Date" ranking.  My 2 cents.

[Domino1195]

First words out of Chris Brown's mouth as he shook Jay's hand: "it was a tale of two halves."

OWU has a lot of talent and they're seeking the right combination of players. They used another starting line up last night - freshman #31 just may have earned a few more starts. They have cut back on some of the defensive mistakes that cost them in earlier games.  ONU - long throw, flicked on, pinballs around and falls to an ONU striker at the top of the 6. 1-0 loss. First 15 minutes vs Hope - crossed ball settled nicely by an OWU back for the Hope forward to easily place in the net. 1-1.  JCU - two goals in the last minute before the end of the half - team switching off. The goal off the corner - OWU uses a zonal defense on corners and I hate it. JCU player makes a near post run - corner served short and nodded in near post. But the first JCU goal - and I saw this a few times last night: JCU player gets the ball just inside the attacking half, runs straight down Route 1 for about 30 yards and shoots from outside the 18. Thought the keeper could have done better, but what of the players in front of him who did nothing to stop the penetration??? When it happened last night I blurted out: "Why are you retreating?" - then sheepishly looked around in case the kid's parents were nearby.

On attack there are issues. As good as Guerra might be, he's a black hole: ball goes in and never comes out. His head is down and he tries to beat the entire opposition alone. And I believe he played 90 minutes last night. They have plenty of talent up front should they work with one another - as Kenyon does so well.

There aren't any superior teams in the GL region - Kenyon is the best. They are very fast with the ball - it's one thing to have sprinting superiority, but to run that fast and keep the ball!  I think the key to any run they might make after getting to the round of 16 is their CB #4. Second time I've seen him in person - just a great player. Not built like a soccer player - more like a rugby player. His lower torso resembles a 100 year old oak tree. He wins 90% of his duels - really haven't seen him lose one. He cleans up everything that gets through the front players. Everything. Once last night I thought he surely mistimed a challenge and was about to yield a break away:he got the ball, sliding from behind - no contact with the OWU player to even consider a foul. Advantage to seeing him in person is watching him gauge where to be. He reads the game so well. As long as he stays healthy he can be an X factor for them.

[PaulNewman]

@jknezek, I agree with all of that except for maybe your estimate scenarios, and I assume we're agreeing that who we might vote for in a poll 1-15 or 20 is not necessarily who would say in our heart of hearts are the best 15-20 teams.  For instance, I am voting in some teams in my poll vote that I would not pick head to head with some teams below them, but results (and blemishes) demand something different of a poll voter (I think) than an assessment of who, records aside, are the best or most formidable teams.  As for my estimate of the NESCACs, I'd probably say in the end there will be three (not sure which ones yet) in the top 15 or so and 5 within the top 25 and then another two to three in the top 35-40.

^^^ You've said things to this effect before, and then as now I don't get it.  Standings must reflect results (wins, ties, and losses) by definition.  But a poll is, by definition, an opinion; it is subjective; it can take into account so many factors, like SoS, performance not just result, etc. as well as gut-feeling.  What is the purpose of a ranking if not to present who are the best teams, or, more precisely, who are thought/considered to be the best teams?  If on their ballots, voters are placing teams they think are better below other teams who they think are inferior on the basis of W-L-T records, then I'm not sure what's the point?  I'm not saying that one should be trying to predict/project how good a team will be at the business end of the season; but likewise I don't think one should be unduly restricted by and beholden to the past (i.e., the opening weeks of the season).  In my opinion, a weekly ranking should try to capture who is thought to be best at that point in time which is not the same as who has had the better season to date.  Now, in practice, I understand the challenge of making that distinction as you fill out your ballot, but I personally would want a ranking, particularly a poll-based ranking, to be striving for the former not the later.  Put another way, I prefer the "Week 5" ranking to tell me who is the best at the Week 5 point of the season.  Otherwise, it would be more accurate to call it the "Week 5 Season-to-Date" ranking.  My 2 cents.

Yeah, FW, you may be right but I don't think I'm an outlier here.  I can think a team has underperformed and does not currently deserve to be ranked #12 in the country without concluding that they wouldn't beat UWEC or GAC or Gettysburg head to head.  How many voters, in ANY of the polls, truly believe Gettysburg is better than Tufts or Conn Coll and would win head to head?   Or that St Olaf isn't better than some ranked teams?  Are you suggesting that based on their results the first few weeks I should have had St Olaf in my top 15 if in my heart of hearts they are one of the best teams?  Should I ignore the results?  I think pollsters consider multiple factors.  UWEC isn't in the top 25 because a bunch of pollsters think they are truly top 25.  I watched them pile up wins for a few weeks and before putting them in the 20s myself I waited for something to at least temporarily counter the perception of 100% fools gold...and then they won against Loras.  Now I'll see what they do against St Olaf.

[PaulNewman]

@jknezek, I agree with all of that except for maybe your estimate scenarios, and I assume we're agreeing that who we might vote for in a poll 1-15 or 20 is not necessarily who would say in our heart of hearts are the best 15-20 teams.  For instance, I am voting in some teams in my poll vote that I would not pick head to head with some teams below them, but results (and blemishes) demand something different of a poll voter (I think) than an assessment of who, records aside, are the best or most formidable teams.  As for my estimate of the NESCACs, I'd probably say in the end there will be three (not sure which ones yet) in the top 15 or so and 5 within the top 25 and then another two to three in the top 35-40.

^^^ You've said things to this effect before, and then as now I don't get it.  Standings must reflect results (wins, ties, and losses) by definition.  But a poll is, by definition, an opinion; it is subjective; it can take into account so many factors, like SoS, performance not just result, etc. as well as gut-feeling.  What is the purpose of a ranking if not to present who are the best teams, or, more precisely, who are thought/considered to be the best teams?  If on their ballots, voters are placing teams they think are better below other teams who they think are inferior on the basis of W-L-T records, then I'm not sure what's the point?  I'm not saying that one should be trying to predict/project how good a team will be at the business end of the season; but likewise I don't think one should be unduly restricted by and beholden to the past (i.e., the opening weeks of the season).  In my opinion, a weekly ranking should try to capture who is thought to be best at that point in time which is not the same as who has had the better season to date.  Now, in practice, I understand the challenge of making that distinction as you fill out your ballot, but I personally would want a ranking, particularly a poll-based ranking, to be striving for the former not the later.  Put another way, I prefer the "Week 5" ranking to tell me who is the best at the Week 5 point of the season.  Otherwise, it would be more accurate to call it the "Week 5 Season-to-Date" ranking.  My 2 cents.

By your standard I would have JCU, CWRU, OWU, St Olaf, maybe C-M-S, maybe Otterbein, Trinity (TX), etc in my top 25.  And I suppose you would say I should vote that.  It's odd right when people are arguing strongly that NESCAC blemishes shouldn't be ignored even if they are against one another, and that a team that is, let's say 4-4-2, has to suffer those results to date to at least some degree. 

[PaulNewman]

Domino, thanks for all that info.

If you were talking about a Kenyon CB, they are Matt Nguyen #19 and Aidan Burns #20...unless you are talking about OWU #4.  Kenyon's #4 is small, speedy forward Sam Carson.  If you're talking about Nguyen he is built like you described and has been very good, as has Burns.  Nguyen is a transfer from Marshall (didn't get any time at Marshall in his one year there).

Btw, Domino, while you were there did you hear anything about injuries to Martinez for Kenyon or any other players?

[Domino1195]

Yes - sorry - meant #19. No word on injuries.
Interesting stat: OWU is tied for 8th nationally for number of YC received.

[Kuiper]

Wednesday/Thursday Roundup

Wednesday


7:00 pm -- Chapman @ Pomona-Pitzer (Please get Kuiper on line 1.)

10:00 pm -- Cal Lutheran @ C-M-S (Kuiper, just stay on the line.)

A couple of thoughts on the two big games in SCIAC today:

Chapman @ Pomona-Pitzer

This is a battle for the last playoff spot, although it's too early for that kind of talk.  Nevertheless, Pomona-Pitzer is in 4th and Chapman in 5th right now and SCIAC starts playoffs in the semifinals, so it's a good way for teams to gauge where things stand. Pomona-Pitzer is coming on a roll, having won three games in a row.  The last two - a 4-3 win over Redlands and a 1-0 victor against Cal Lutheran - are especially impressive especially since both games were on the road against teams with better pedigrees and who they haven't beaten or even tied in several years.  Chapman is harder to figure out.  The last game they beat La Verne 4-0 (a team that beat Pomona-Pitzer 1-0), but the game before that Chapman lost to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 4-0.  In the La Verne game, Chapman scored in the first 30 seconds and again in the 10th minute, so that certainly gave them confidence and changed any game plan La Verne had intended to play.  One wildcard in this game might be Pomona-Pitzer's sophomore GK Ethan Bae.  He was a regular starter last year, but suffered some kind of injury early this season and freshman Will Brooks deputized for him.  They brought Bae back for the Oxy game, but he let in a soft game winner for Oxy in a tight 1-0 contest.  Not sure whether they brought him back too early from injury or they benched him for performance reasons, but Brooks started the next three games.  In the Redlands game, though, Brooks let in 2 in the first half and looked really shaky on the second.  They started Bae in the second half.  Although he let in an early goal on a rebound, he appeared to settle things down defensively and PP went on to win.  Bae continued to start in the Cal Lutheran game and played solid.  I don't want to suggest Bae is a dominant GK - he's undersized and only a soph himself - but the team seemed to calm down when he was in there. If he can help hold Chapman's initial surge off, PP may be able to keep their run going.

Cal Lutheran @ C-M-S

This is a battle for a share of first place in SCIAC with Oxy (who is not playing today) and I'm sure the teams will be considering it as such.  Plus, they play each other again in two weeks, so both teams will want to establish superiority. Cal Lutheran is coming off that big loss to Pomona-Pitzer and C-M-S has won two in a row (against somewhat weaker competition in Cal Tech and Whittier, but Whittier just beat Redlands 2-1 on Saturday).  This game will be determined by C-M-S' offense against Cal Lutheran's defense and GK Davis Sharts.  Sharts is a JC transfer who is one of the stronger GKs in the conference thus far with a .61 GAA (.40 in conference) and a ~90% save rate in both.  Cal Lutheran has been shut out two weeks in a row (while only giving up 1 goal), while C-M-S has scored 5 the last two games.  If C-M-S has its shooting boots on early, it will be tough for Cal Lutheran.  I still think C-M-S is the class of the league, but it all depends upon their offense, which has been streaky. 

[PaulNewman]

Roundup (cont-)

Thank you, Kuiper!


Friday

Friday

7:00 pm -- St Thomas @ Southwestern (Before losing to Trinity I intended to highlight Southwestern as an under the radar team to watch.  They were 3-3-2 at the time with draws against C-M-S and St Thomas and also had a close loss to Rowan.  Southwestern is led by coach Dustin Norman who guided the program to its first NCAA appearance in his first year in 2018.  He was the assoc head coach at SMU for three season before Southwestern and also was an asst at Oregon State.  A 2005 Maryville graduate, Norman tallied 36 goals and 22 assists over his college career.  St Thomas, now 7-0-2 after the altitude game, is led by coach Ian Clerihew wo arrived in 2017 after three seasons as the first asst at Yale.  He previously was the head coach at D2 Franklin Pierce in NH with earlier stints as an asst at Villanova, Duke, and St John's.  As a player Clerihew won a D2 national title in 1993 with Seattle Pacific Univ.)

10:00 -- Pac Lutheran @ Puget Sound (I loved Pac Lutheran and lost...two years in a row...an unfaithful lover I was forced to abandon.  But now the Lutes are tempting me again as they have rebounded to 9-2.  And what to make of the Loggers of Puget Sound at 6-2-4 [2-2-2]?  In the coaching battle it's John Yorke in his 20th season at Pac Luth versus Reece Olney in his 28th campaign.  IDK, I just can't take the heartbreak.  Loggers 2-1.)

[Flying Weasel]

@jknezek, I agree with all of that except for maybe your estimate scenarios, and I assume we're agreeing that who we might vote for in a poll 1-15 or 20 is not necessarily who would say in our heart of hearts are the best 15-20 teams.  For instance, I am voting in some teams in my poll vote that I would not pick head to head with some teams below them, but results (and blemishes) demand something different of a poll voter (I think) than an assessment of who, records aside, are the best or most formidable teams.  As for my estimate of the NESCACs, I'd probably say in the end there will be three (not sure which ones yet) in the top 15 or so and 5 within the top 25 and then another two to three in the top 35-40.

^^^ You've said things to this effect before, and then as now I don't get it.  Standings must reflect results (wins, ties, and losses) by definition.  But a poll is, by definition, an opinion; it is subjective; it can take into account so many factors, like SoS, performance not just result, etc. as well as gut-feeling.  What is the purpose of a ranking if not to present who are the best teams, or, more precisely, who are thought/considered to be the best teams?  If on their ballots, voters are placing teams they think are better below other teams who they think are inferior on the basis of W-L-T records, then I'm not sure what's the point?  I'm not saying that one should be trying to predict/project how good a team will be at the business end of the season; but likewise I don't think one should be unduly restricted by and beholden to the past (i.e., the opening weeks of the season).  In my opinion, a weekly ranking should try to capture who is thought to be best at that point in time which is not the same as who has had the better season to date.  Now, in practice, I understand the challenge of making that distinction as you fill out your ballot, but I personally would want a ranking, particularly a poll-based ranking, to be striving for the former not the later.  Put another way, I prefer the "Week 5" ranking to tell me who is the best at the Week 5 point of the season.  Otherwise, it would be more accurate to call it the "Week 5 Season-to-Date" ranking.  My 2 cents.

Yeah, FW, you may be right but I don't think I'm an outlier here.  I can think a team has underperformed and does not currently deserve to be ranked #12 in the country without concluding that they wouldn't beat UWEC or GAC or Gettysburg head to head.  How many voters, in ANY of the polls, truly believe Gettysburg is better than Tufts or Conn Coll and would win head to head?   Or that St Olaf isn't better than some ranked teams?  Are you suggesting that based on their results the first few weeks I should have had St Olaf in my top 15 if in my heart of hearts they are one of the best teams?  Should I ignore the results?  I think pollsters consider multiple factors.  UWEC isn't in the top 25 because a bunch of pollsters think they are truly top 25.  I watched them pile up wins for a few weeks and before putting them in the 20s myself I waited for something to at least temporarily counter the perception of 100% fools gold...and then they won against Loras.  Now I'll see what they do against St Olaf.

By your standard I would have JCU, CWRU, OWU, St Olaf, maybe C-M-S, maybe Otterbein, Trinity (TX), etc in my top 25.  And I suppose you would say I should vote that.  It's odd right when people are arguing strongly that NESCAC blemishes shouldn't be ignored even if they are against one another, and that a team that is, let's say 4-4-2, has to suffer those results to date to at least some degree. 

No, you certainly are not an outlier.  I'm probably in the minority here that really thinks a poll is about opinion and that you should vote your opinion, not some perceived expectation that such-and-such a record to date requires putting a team ahead of another team who you genuinely believe is better now (not by season's end) despite their blemishes and would be the favorite if the two teams played tomorrow.  To me it is somewhat ridiculous to look at a poll-based ranking or someone's individual ballot and realize it does not serve to tell me who is thought to be more likely to win if two teams played now, today, tomorrow, this week. I'm personally not as interested in seeing a ranking of who's had the better season-to-date.

Using St. Olaf as an example, IF after their most recent loss to a team that has won less than half their games and leaves them with four losses halfway through the season including a loss to another team that's only won half their games and having only 1 win against a team with a winning record (and just 4-3-3, at that), . . . IF after accounting for all that, you still think they are currently playing better then all but 20 or so teams in the nation despite the results and would favor them against all but 20 or so teams in a game tomorrow, then, yes, you should put them on your ballot.  If that's your opinion, vote that.  I can disagree with you for reaching that conclusion on the evidence, but a poll is asking for your opinion, so give it. 

Continuing with St. Olaf more to make a general point than to specifically dissect where they should/shouldn't be ranked (I haven't watched them play at all this season nor studied their box scores, so this is for illustrative purposes).  I'm not sure what to make of St.Olaf this year.  Based on last season, which I am still of the opinion was not a fluke or aberration, I could think that they have the squad and coach needed to be very good, Top 25 quality, that can reach the second weekend of the NCAA's.  However, I could also think they are not in good form at the moment and not playing to their potential, and thus I could doubt, based on current form, their ability to get wins against Top 25 opponents at this point in time even if I think there's a decent chance they round back into form and could be very dangerous later in the season. I wouldn't rank them based on the way I "know" they can play, but rather upon how they are or aren't playing at the moment.

Just my way of looking at things and what I think rankings should ideally represent.   But many will have a different take on what rankings mean or should represent.

[PaulNewman]

I hope some other "voters" will chime in.

FW, you're right, I think we probably had this exact same discussion last year, and I'm now probably gonna repeat the same things I said before.

Yes, my opinion...but sounds like you're telling me it has to be my opinion of who would win head to head today.  My opinion but it has to narrowly answer this particular question.  I don't accept that.  I also don't accept that by voting my opinion about who currently is most deserving that that reduces to me to what I would agree would be a ridiculous/useless simple accounting exercise of counting up Ws, Ls, and Ts.  I don't.  That feels like a straw man.  In fact i and I think many others simply skip over some the teams with gaudy records who we know have played virtually no one.  Now you've added with the St Olaf example whether they currently need to be in good form?  But whether Tufts is in good form or not doesn't necessarily sway how I think they'll do tomorrow against Coast Guard or Clarkson or Catholic or GAC. 

And you're wanting to reduce what you think I'm doing to better season-to-date.  That's not what I'm doing.  If you want to say I'm doing deserving to date based on multiple factors then I guess OK.  Then you go on to bring in "playing better right now" and "would favor them over"....those are two very different things not always in sync.  I might not think St Olaf is playing better than GAC or Catholic or Willamette but that doesn't mean, if we're talking about my opinion, that St. Olaf wouldn't most likely beat those teams or two out of three of them.  Amherst could be in terrible form but that doesn't mean I wouldn't pikc them head to head over teams ranked higher.  Denison was ranked and still in the convo (while for whatever reason Otterbein hasn't been) and OWU is 3-4-3.  In my opinion OWU would beat Denison today.  I absolutely believe JCU is a top 20 team and yet almost no voters in any of the polls have put them there.  A counter-example, more in line what what you're saying, might be Cortland (although after being like 4-3-2 they've now maybe 7-3-2). 

Your statement that "I wouldn't rank them based on the way I "know" they can play, but rather upon how they are or aren't playing at the moment" I think is a false, forced choice.  I'm not arguing for putting Tufts ahead of someone because I know or think I know what they'll be like at the end of the season.  Even if they are in current poor form I can still think they would beat someone today or tomorrow.  But based on recent performance, on the deserving metric, I'm not going to put Tufts in my top 10 right now, and I doubt many other voters would either.

But your analysis does raise some questions that maybe go to the dynamics of how poll voters across sports and different levels of sports tend to vote.  Like, and these aren't the exact right words, so please give me a little latitude here, but I think the etiquette when a big team loses is to knock them down at least a few pegs.  When most of us dropped North Park from #2 or #3 to #8 or #9, I think there is an unconscious kind of rule that just moving them one or two spots isn't enough even though the loss was the the perceived #1 team in the country...sort of like there has to be a minimum penalty so to speak for losing.  That I think would be more legitimate from my point of view to go after.  I probably should have put North Park at #4 instead of #9 (as I had them at #2).  It will be interesting to see, if Kenyon prevails over Wabash (a real question btw), how much voters "punish" Kenyon for a draw against a team that is probably far better than voters will consider because they've had a tough start.  Anyway, this also brings up that there's a lot of great area, so it's not like I come to some truly definitive opinion and I doubt other voters do either.  Like do I really know if, even in just my own opinion, whether North Park is truly #3 or truly #11?  How could I know that with high confidence when they haven't actually played most of those teams.  There's fudge room where we all ultimately pin a gut feeling on things along with "harder data."

Now having said all that, I reckon most of us adhere to something close to what you're saying we should be doing for at least the top 10-12 (unlike the Coaches poll that ofrten puts someone for regional reasons in the top 8 that makes little sense).  The variations or divergences I would guess come in for most of us in the 14-15 and above range, and definitely the  18-25 range.

[PaulNewman]

TCNJ slips by Wash Coll 1-0.

And wow, didn't even include this one....Potsdam levels with Oneonta 1-1 with 13 seconds left.

I lost my Wednesday review trying to post the above.  Oh well.

[Saint of Old]

I said it before, best combined Route 11 season in history.
(Clarkson/SLU/Potsdam) all playing pretty good football at the same time for the first time in at least 30 years.... maybe ever.

[stlawus]

I said it before, best combined Route 11 season in history.
(Clarkson/SLU/Potsdam) all playing pretty good football at the same time for the first time in at least 30 years.... maybe ever.

Potsdam with a big result @Oneonta today snatching a draw in the final seconds.   Definitely the best collective soccer in the North Country that I can remember.

[PaulNewman]

Some interesting results...

CNU responds well in a 4-0 romp.

W&L equalizes in the last 2-3 minutes to draw with Lynchburg.

Otterbein equalizes even later in the 89th minute to draw with ONU.

Stevens 0 FDU-Florham 0?

Drew passes a good test against R-Newark.

MW beats Catholic 3-1.

North Central up 3-1 late on Wheaton.

Hopkins wins another 1-0 game.

[Kuiper]

The two big SCIAC games were crazy tonight.

Pomona-Pitzer blows a 3-1 lead at halftime to Chapman where they were clearly in control and loses 4-3 on a last second goal after the P-P coach had clearly yelled to the GK to slow the game down with less than a minute left and he did a quick punt instead.

C-M-S tied Cal Lutheran 3-3.  So much for it being an offense v defense game.  Both defenses took the night off.