2023 D3 Men's Soccer National Perspective

[PaulNewman]

Imo a weakness in the Pool C selection process is that there is no provision for differentiating between the quality/weighting of ranked wins.  A win (or loss) counts exactly same in the selection "algorithm" whether the opponent was in the #7 spot in the RR or in the #1 spot. 

Moreover, all regions aren't created equally.  There are some like Region I and Region VII where at least this year you could make a strong case for all seven ranked teams.  For several other regions, I think most would say at least five out of seven are deserving.  Now let me be clear -- and despite back to back draws with Clark and Coast Guard who are well below .500 -- that I view Babson as a worthy, deserving team and a lock for a Pool C if they don't win the NEWMAC tourney.  They beat Amherst and drew with Tufts.  That said, four of their five ranked wins came against other teams in Region 2, all of whom are around .500 or below in terms of winning pct (and with Babson being the only team in the region with a well above average SoS.  Four ranked wins is a ton and I doubt there are many examples of teams with four or more ranked wins who didn't get bids historically.  And the teams that the Beavers got those four ranked wins against almost certainly would not have been regionally ranked in any of the other nine regions in the country.  To me, that's a flaw in the system.

[PaulNewman]

Paul Newman's Pool C snapshot....

***Some of these will end up being AQs which will open up Pool C spots...

Pool C Locks...

Middlebury, Conn Coll, Amherst, Tufts...Babson...Cortland St...Montclair St...Messiah, F&M, Washington Coll...Mary Washington, Christopher Newport, W&L...Calvin, North Central, Chicago...St Olaf, Carleton, UW-Platteville...Colorado Coll

Pool C Likely with dash of anxiety...

Bowdoin...Oneonta St, Brockport St...Wartburg...

Pool C Bubble...Buffalo St, Rochester, New Paltz...Stockton, Steven/LVC loser, Kean, Rowan...Hopkins...Lynchburg, Oglethorpe, VWU...MSOE, Wheaton (Ill)...UW-Whitewater, Macalester, Loras...

For me Regions VII and X are currently "too close" and/or "too early" to call...

Region VII is a bit more decipherable as long as Denison, DePauw and/or Capital do not win their conference tournaments.  Denison seems like has the best chance but still a daunting task to win the next two.  Assuming that none of those three earn AQs, I think you'll see Pool Cs coming from the Kenyon/OWU loser and the three remaining OAC teams that don't win the AQ (so three out of four from Otterbein, ONU, Mt Union, and John Carroll).  That would mean four at large bids going to Region VII which is a lot but I believe justifiable....and that would mean CWRU likely would fall on the wrong side of the bubble.

Region X is similarly difficult.  This region often gets no more than one Pool C and rarely if ever more than two.  Could this be the year for more than two?  Colorado Coll appears safely in so it would be good for the others if someone other than CC wins the SCAC tourney.  Very difficult to pick from Trinity, TX-Lutheran, and St Thomas...and now Southwestern also.  I'm gonna note this in the other thread, but a bid for TX-Lutheran (who has no more games now as long as UST wins today) could come down to whether Occidental gets ranked.

[BlueJay95]

@PaulNewman - explain the difference between Mules and Hop? How are they not on your bubble but Hop is?

[PaulNewman]

@PaulNewman - explain the difference between Mules and Hop? How are they not on your bubble but Hop is?

Without doing a deep dive....Hopkins already was in the higher position in the official NCAA regional rankings...and Muhlenberg has zero ranked wins whereas Hopkins has at least two.  The Mules can hope Hobart gets ranked but don't see that happening, and that by itself wouldn't be enough.  Hopkins also jsut before the last loss yesterday would have been in the locks or likely categories...and they may well be closer to likely than bubble although they won't want to lose the next one too.

Reminder that I am just a fan.  Please, please (to all) post your content and thoughts.  Having folks confront the takes of those of us who do post is absolutely fine...but post some stuff yourselves and explain your objections in a way that goes beyond superficial gut reactions.

Addendum...Hopkins SoS as of last week was .601 and Muhlenberg was .563.  Their two games this week aren't going to change that gap significantly.

[Kuiper]

Imo a weakness in the Pool C selection process is that there is no provision for differentiating between the quality/weighting of ranked wins.  A win (or loss) counts exactly same in the selection "algorithm" whether the opponent was in the #7 spot in the RR or in the #1 spot. 

Moreover, all regions aren't created equally.  There are some like Region I and Region VII where at least this year you could make a strong case for all seven ranked teams.  For several other regions, I think most would say at least five out of seven are deserving.  Now let me be clear -- and despite back to back draws with Clark and Coast Guard who are well below .500 -- that I view Babson as a worthy, deserving team and a lock for a Pool C if they don't win the NEWMAC tourney.  They beat Amherst and drew with Tufts.  That said, four of their five ranked wins came against other teams in Region 2, all of whom are around .500 or below in terms of winning pct (and with Babson being the only team in the region with a well above average SoS.  Four ranked wins is a ton and I doubt there are many examples of teams with four or more ranked wins who didn't get bids historically.  And the teams that the Beavers got those four ranked wins against almost certainly would not have been regionally ranked in any of the other nine regions in the country.  To me, that's a flaw in the system.

This issue plays out in Region X as well.  The SCAC is like the NESCAC this year because a lot of teams' results against regionally ranked teams are against other SCAC teams in conference.  The one exception for most of the SCAC is Mary Hardin-Baylor, which is ranked #6 in the latest Region X regional rankings.  Problem is every top SCAC team that played MHB beat MHB (the only MHB win against a SCAC team was against Austin College which is in 6th out of 9 in the SCAC).  In fact, I think that most top SCAC teams that played ASC teams beat or at least tied the ASC teams this year (except, ironically, Colorado College, which lost to UT Dallas).  So, winning against MHB isn't as impressive as it might be otherwise.  The only SCAC teams with RvR results outside of the ASC or SCAC are Colorado College, which has a win against Christopher Newport and a tie against Ohio Northern and Texas Lutheran, which has a win against Occidental, although Oxy is on the outside looking in on the regional rankings at the moment unless it replaces MHB after its win over Redlands and MHB's loss to Concordia. And, of course, if MHB drops out of the regional rankings, all of the SCAC schools other than Colorado College lose a RvR win.

[PaulNewman]

Anyone who really wants to understand the selection process should read or re-read articles about the process that still can be found at D3soccer.com and that Christan Shirk posted links for I think in the NESCAC thread within the past few days.

Here is one key paragraph...

Comparison of the regional data sheets with the rankings (and the eventual at-large selections) has shown over the past decade and more that the committee highly values strength of schedule. The other criteria that can be deduced to be very important is results against ranked teams, and especially wins over ranked opponents. Losses to ranked teams don't seem to be penalized as much as wins are rewarded. In other words, the committee wants teams to play challenging schedules and doesn't mind if a team drops some of their toughest games if they demonstrate in other games that they also can win against top opposition. So, if you do not understand why one team isn't ranked and another team is, or why one team is ranked higher than another, it very likely is related to SOS and results against ranked teams.

The one caveat or caution is that RvR can be a bit of a moving target...so don't assume that your team that had three "ranked" wins after week 2 of the regional rankings will still have three in weeks 3 and/or 4.  They may have less or more depending on factors most of us would never think of unless prompted....like a team in another region getting ranked in the final rankings that you played earlier in the year...or a team in any region that (at the time) was a huge win for your team and maybe initially a "ranked" win for your team that disappears because of a late season slump or because the team you beat loses a couple of "ranked" wins.

SoS can also be a bit of moving target, although usually less dramatically and less impact than changes in RvR.  For example, see a team like Southwestern with a low (and potentially disqualifying) SoS a this week that by next week may have a SoS that popped into a more acceptable range because of back to back matches with teams with very strong records (like TLU yesterday followed by a SCAC semi with Trinity next week).  And you get the benefit of the SoS bump whether you win those games or not.

[PaulNewman]

APB for FW...

FW, I feel like this was discussed last year but I can't find anything and I honestly can't remember...

How are draws calculated for SoS?  For example, I assume 1-2-4 (think Bowdoin) is better than 1-4-2, but what about 1-2-4 versus 2-4-1?  Do two draws equal one win?  And therefore 1-2-4 might be considered superior to 2-4-1 or even 2-3-1?

ERROR:  That second paragraph should instead read "How are draws calculated by cmtes for assessment of RvR?"

[camosfan]

Draws are .5 of a win in NESCAC, not sure about the wider picture.

[paclassic89]

That's correct for the NCAA rankings as well. FW made a post a couple of weeks ago with some changes being considered and one of them was making a draw worth a third rather than a half of a win.

[PaulNewman]

That's correct for the NCAA rankings as well. FW made a post a couple of weeks ago with some changes being considered and one of them was making a draw worth a third rather than a half of a win.

Oh, OK....so for this year a ranked draw counts as a half?  That's good news for a Bowdoin...and Wartburg, maybe Oneonta, Stockton, CWRU, etc.

[stlawus]

Where did the idea that individual ranked wins aren't considered come from?  The committee considers individual wins.  The criteria simply gets you to the table.  So even if a team is ranked high in another region they are not going to be picked over a team with fewer yet much higher quality wins against regionally ranked opponents.    It's why West Conn wasn't given an at large bid last year.

[camosfan]

That's correct for the NCAA rankings as well. FW made a post a couple of weeks ago with some changes being considered and one of them was making a draw worth a third rather than a half of a win.

Technically in a system that gives 3 points for a win, a draw is 1 point or one-third, so just using a point system would solve that.

[PaulNewman]

Where did the idea that individual ranked wins aren't considered come from?  The committee considers individual wins.  The criteria simply gets you to the table.  So even if a team is ranked high in another region they are not going to be picked over a team with fewer yet much higher quality wins against regionally ranked opponents.    It's why West Conn wasn't given an at large bid last year.

Not sure I follow.  Are you saying the cmte doesn't discriminate among ranked wins in deciding whether you are #2 or #6 in a particular region, but then when pulling names off the board after those positions are set that the cmte then considers the relative quality of those ranked wins?  That would be great to clarify.  I don't recall that distinction but could be true.  I certainly could see that happening in cases of virtual ties among competing teams to come off the board and/or maybe when they get to the very last few bids.  I just don't recall that being part of any formal protocol.  Are you also suggesting they then could consider when in the season a win or loss occurred, like weighting latter stage of season differently than the opening weekend for example?

[PaulNewman]

Where did the idea that individual ranked wins aren't considered come from?  The committee considers individual wins.  The criteria simply gets you to the table.  So even if a team is ranked high in another region they are not going to be picked over a team with fewer yet much higher quality wins against regionally ranked opponents.    It's why West Conn wasn't given an at large bid last year.

West Conn didn't get a bid because of a lack of ranked wins (only Vassar iirc) and low SoS. 

[stlawus]

Where did the idea that individual ranked wins aren't considered come from?  The committee considers individual wins.  The criteria simply gets you to the table.  So even if a team is ranked high in another region they are not going to be picked over a team with fewer yet much higher quality wins against regionally ranked opponents.    It's why West Conn wasn't given an at large bid last year.

Not sure I follow.  Are you saying the cmte doesn't discriminate among ranked wins in deciding whether you are #2 or #6 in a particular region, but then when pulling names off the board after those positions are set that the cmte then considers the relative quality of those ranked wins?  That would be great to clarify.  I don't recall that distinction but could be true.  I certainly could see that happening in cases of virtual ties among competing teams to come off the board and/or maybe when they get to the very last few bids.  I just don't recall that being part of any formal protocol.  Are you also suggesting they then could consider when in the season a win or loss occurred, like weighting latter stage of season differently than the opening weekend for example?

I do not think they give different weight to what you've done late in the season in terms of a trend.  As far as I'm aware, quality of ranked wins are also used in the regional rankings.  The usual criteria are used, but so are head to head results and results against common opponents.  It's not simply the amount of RR wins or SOS.   Weaker regions are not given any extra advantage.  There is a process for differentiating wins.  The algorithm simply tells you the number of ranked wins, not the quality.  The committee gives weight to the quality.   Now, there of course are plenty of criticisms as far as ranking the teams in the first place.  But the committee is not just using the algorithm to rank teams, they certainly use h2h and common opponents.