2023 D3 Men's Soccer National Perspective

[Ejay]

Is the Massey SoS rankings accurate? For all the scheduling hate they get, Union is 21.

[Gregory Sager]

SoS is ultimately a function of the overall rating system itself.

I remain agnostic for now with regard to Massey vis-a-vis D3 men's soccer, but I was greatly disillusioned by Massey last year with regard to D3 men's basketball once I discovered that Massey's power-rating algorithm took multiple past seasons into consideration and thus applied an ongoing poison pill to the rating of any team that was quickly rising to national prominence after having experienced several dreadful seasons (e.g., North Park). Given that D3's men's soccer is a bit more static than D3 men's basketball in terms of teams rising and falling (which should come as no surprise for a sport that has eleven players rather than five, meaning that you can't really flip a program's fortunes overnight with the gain or loss of only a couple of outstanding players in soccer the way that you can in basketball), I'm hopeful that Ken Massey's algorithm is better suited for this sport than it is for hoops.

[Dark Knight]

SoS is ultimately a function of the overall rating system itself.

I remain agnostic for now with regard to Massey vis-a-vis D3 men's soccer, but I was greatly disillusioned by Massey last year with regard to D3 men's basketball once I discovered that Massey's power-rating algorithm took multiple past seasons into consideration and thus applied an ongoing poison pill to the rating of any team that was quickly rising to national prominence after having experienced several dreadful seasons (e.g., North Park). Given that D3's men's soccer is a bit more static than D3 men's basketball in terms of teams rising and falling (which should come as no surprise for a sport that has eleven players rather than five, meaning that you can't really flip a program's fortunes overnight with the gain or loss of only a couple of outstanding players in soccer the way that you can in basketball), I'm hopeful that Ken Massey's algorithm is better suited for this sport than it is for hoops.

I read Massey's documentation at one point several years ago, and I believe at that time it took last year's results into account but nothing further back. Over the course of the season, last year's results have less and less effect, so that by the end of the season only this year's results affect the ranking.

The purpose, presumably, is to give the ranking a little more stability at the beginning of the season, figuring that last year's team will be somewhat close to this year's team. I think human polls do that too.

[WUPHF]

I read Massey's documentation at one point several years ago, and I believe at that time it took last year's results into account but nothing further back. Over the course of the season, last year's results have less and less effect, so that by the end of the season only this year's results affect the ranking.

The purpose, presumably, is to give the ranking a little more stability at the beginning of the season, figuring that last year's team will be somewhat close to this year's team. I think human polls do that too.

I remember thinking last season that this must be the case because of the way Massey tracks one of the other men's basketball ratings.

North Park finished the season rated No. 21 which was probably not that far off considering that this included 6 losses and a 7th against a Division I team.

[WUPHF]

In looking at the Massey FAQ, the ratings use an extrapolation recent years' results, tuned to fit historical trends and regression to the mean, but that this data is purposefully diminished over the course of a season before it is phased out entirely.


How do you generate preseason ratings?
The BCS compliant ratings do not use preseason information, so everyone starts at zero. A team's rating may look funny or fluctuate wildly until there is enough evidence to get a more precise measurement of the team's strength. As games are played, the computer gradually 'learns' and the cream rises to the top.

For the main version, preseason ratings compensate for the lack of data early in a given season. They give the computer a realistic starting point from which to evaluate teams that have played zero or few games. This limits dramatic changes that could be caused by isolated results not buffered by the context of other games.

The effect of the preseason ratings gradually diminishes each week. When every team has played a sufficient number of games to be accurately evaluated based on this year alone, the preseason bias will be phased out.

Preseason ratings are based on an extrapolation recent years' results, tuned to fit historical trends and regression to the mean. A team's future performance is expected to be consistent with the strength of the program, but sometimes there may be temporary spikes.

Other potentially significant indicators (ex. returning starters, coaching changes, and recruiting) are ignored. Therefore, preseason ratings should not be taken too seriously,

[Coach Jeff]

In looking at the Massey FAQ, the ratings use an extrapolation recent years' results, tuned to fit historical trends and regression to the mean, but that this data is purposefully diminished over the course of a season before it is phased out entirely.


How do you generate preseason ratings?
The BCS compliant ratings do not use preseason information, so everyone starts at zero. A team's rating may look funny or fluctuate wildly until there is enough evidence to get a more precise measurement of the team's strength. As games are played, the computer gradually 'learns' and the cream rises to the top.

For the main version, preseason ratings compensate for the lack of data early in a given season. They give the computer a realistic starting point from which to evaluate teams that have played zero or few games. This limits dramatic changes that could be caused by isolated results not buffered by the context of other games.

The effect of the preseason ratings gradually diminishes each week. When every team has played a sufficient number of games to be accurately evaluated based on this year alone, the preseason bias will be phased out.

Preseason ratings are based on an extrapolation recent years' results, tuned to fit historical trends and regression to the mean. A team's future performance is expected to be consistent with the strength of the program, but sometimes there may be temporary spikes.

Other potentially significant indicators (ex. returning starters, coaching changes, and recruiting) are ignored. Therefore, preseason ratings should not be taken too seriously,

Thanks for the information....

[Hopkins92]

And the slipper fits...

Congrats to Hopkins on his prescience with this Widener team.  Wow.  Felt like no way Stevens could lose, then felt like worst case would be settling with a draw, and then they do lose on a goal off a corner leaving 12 seconds on the clock.  Kenyon-Trine vibes.

So full disclosure, Widener was routinely on Hopkins' schedule back in the day, and they were pretty routinely seen as a fairly easy win. And while they've popped in with the occasional head slightly above .500 record, they have been just as likely to post a 3 win season over the last decade. So, there was a slightly tongue in cheek nature to the whole thing last year.

But, when Sean Fatiga started pouring in goals, I started chiming in on the Mid-Atlantic thread around this time. And then a quick scan of the roster and the bulk of the team was coming back this year. So... Not rocket science but definitely a slightly random team to jump on.

Kind of like you with Kenyon, nice to have other teams to birddog when your team is having a sketchy start to the season.

And for those not hopping on regional threads, Widener is 8-0 to Messiah's 7-0-1. I haven't checked Massey but I'm sure they are still pretty far apart given SOS. But for now, they are technically in first place in the MAC-C. (I guess?)

Had a minute.

Messiah #1 in Massey
Widener #15

[SimpleCoach]

In case anyone wants to know... from my FAQ's

How does SimpleCoach come up with his ratings ?

He doesn't.  Jackie does.

SC.

[Coach Jeff]

In case anyone wants to know... from my FAQ's

How does SimpleCoach come up with his ratings ?

He doesn't.  Jackie does.

SC.

Well let's hear it for Jackie... 

[Dark Knight]

In looking at the Massey FAQ, the ratings use an extrapolation recent years' results, tuned to fit historical trends and regression to the mean, but that this data is purposefully diminished over the course of a season before it is phased out entirely.


How do you generate preseason ratings?
The BCS compliant ratings do not use preseason information, so everyone starts at zero. A team's rating may look funny or fluctuate wildly until there is enough evidence to get a more precise measurement of the team's strength. As games are played, the computer gradually 'learns' and the cream rises to the top.

For the main version, preseason ratings compensate for the lack of data early in a given season. They give the computer a realistic starting point from which to evaluate teams that have played zero or few games. This limits dramatic changes that could be caused by isolated results not buffered by the context of other games.

The effect of the preseason ratings gradually diminishes each week. When every team has played a sufficient number of games to be accurately evaluated based on this year alone, the preseason bias will be phased out.

Preseason ratings are based on an extrapolation recent years' results, tuned to fit historical trends and regression to the mean. A team's future performance is expected to be consistent with the strength of the program, but sometimes there may be temporary spikes.

Other potentially significant indicators (ex. returning starters, coaching changes, and recruiting) are ignored. Therefore, preseason ratings should not be taken too seriously,

I'd actually noticed a change in the last couple of years -- with a new season's preseason rankings not exactly matching the final rankings of the previous season. So this description makes good sense.

[Chargers96]

Not sure this belongs in the this thread, but an interesting game in NC.  NC Wesleyan vs. Barton (DII school).  Looking at the rosters, there may be as few as 5 American born players on the field between both teams.  However, one of the goal scorers for Barton is a former club teammate of my son -- so that's kinda cool.

[jknezek]

I've watched a chunk of the W&L vs Roanoke game. All I have seen from W&L is sending the ball long from the back 4. The midfield has been invisible. This is a far cry from what I'm used to seeing. W&L have been a somewhat direct team the last few years, but this chunk has just been miserably, pointlessly, long ball after long ball. Just not real impressed.

[Kuiper]

I've watched a chunk of the W&L vs Roanoke game. All I have seen from W&L is sending the ball long from the back 4. The midfield has been invisible. This is a far cry from what I'm used to seeing. W&L have been a somewhat direct team the last few years, but this chunk has just been miserably, pointlessly, long ball after long ball. Just not real impressed.

I've been feeling the same watching a bunch of games this year and then I saw Chicago tie up Calvin on a sequence of passes  today leading to a goal that renewed my faith in humanity it was so beautiful.  The game ended 1-1.

[Freddyfud]

I've watched a chunk of the W&L vs Roanoke game. All I have seen from W&L is sending the ball long from the back 4. The midfield has been invisible. This is a far cry from what I'm used to seeing. W&L have been a somewhat direct team the last few years, but this chunk has just been miserably, pointlessly, long ball after long ball. Just not real impressed.

Credit where credit is due.  Goals and assists are one thing.  But the battle of the midfield is often overlooked and underestimated.

[Another Mom]

All right. Im coming on here to say that I will refrain from posting in the national thread now. The W&L team was -- compared to the last two years -- terrible.  The long balls (which the coach likes) were not great. But the midfield didn't win the ball, or if they did, they turned it over immediately.  Our forwards are struggling, to put it mildly. Much of it is mental, although Paul Newman disagrees with me. They lacked urgency and intensity. I am thoroughly disgruntled and grumpy. The one silver lining is my son getting a shout out from the announcers

So, see ya on what, the Mid-Atlanticthread?.