November 4, 2018
Men's at-large berth analysis and predictions
PART I
The conference tournaments will wrap up Saturday and Sunday and 42 of the 62 berths in the NCAA men's tournament will have been claimed via automatic qualification (AQ). That leaves 20 at-large berths for the men's committee to award by selecting one team from Pool B and 19 from Pool C. (For a full explanation of the Pool B and Pool C classifications and the allocation of berths see the column AQ's, Pool B and Pool C? What does it all mean?) So who's in the running for the 19 Pool C and 1 Pool B at-large berths? Who will be dancing and who's season has come to a close?
Selection Criteria
Well, first let's quickly review the criteria the committee uses to evaluate teams and make the at-large selections. The selection criteria are found in Section 2.4 of the 2018 Division III Soccer Pre-Championships Manual (pg. 22). The criteria is divided between primary and secondary criteria, the latter only being considered if the former does not enable a distinction to be made between schools. Two changes were made prior to the 2017 season: non-conference strength-of-schedule was added as a secondary criterion and what constitutes a ranked opponent for the results versus ranked teams primary criterion was modified. This year, non-Division III strength-of-schedule has been dropped as a secondary criterion after five years of use.
|
Primary Criteria (not listed in priority order)
|
For further explanation of the criteria, including Strength of Schedule, results versus ranked teams, and a list of secondary criteria, go here or here.
Beyond the selection criteria, note the following principles concerning at-large selections.
- Teams are selected on a national basis, using in-region selection criteria.
- There will be be no predetermined regional allocations for Pools B and C.
- There will be no maximum or minimum number of berths from one region.
Selection Committee
The NCAA championship tournament is administrated by the eight-member NCAA Division III Men's Soccer Committee which is composed of the chairs of their respective regional advisory committees. These committees make the at-large selections to complete the tournament field, assisted in the evaluation of teams by the Regional Advisory Committees. These are the same national and regional committees which release the pre-tournament weekly NCAA Regional Rankings. The members of these committees can be found on pages 9-13 of the Pre-Championships Manual.
At-Large Selection Timeline and Process
The process of making the at-large berth selections for the NCAA tournament starts with weekly NCAA regional rankings mentioned above. These rankings are done following the fourth last, third last, second last and last week prior to the tournament selections being made. The first three of these weekly rankings are, by design, a direct foreshadowing of the at-large selections because they are (1) done by the same committee that makes the at-large tournament selections and (2) done by applying the at-large selection criteria. You can learn more about the NCAA Regional Rankings here or here.
Following the release of the third weekly regional rankings the process is as follows.
- Conference championships are completed by 6:00 p.m. ET, Sunday, November 5.
- The NCAA compiles the data corresponding to the at-large selection criteria (win-loss-tie percentage against Division III opponents, results versus ranked Division III teams, Division III Strength-of-schedule) and provides it to Regional Advisory Committees.
- The Regional Advisory Committees do their fourth regional rankings in the same manner as the previous three weeks. The results versus ranked Division III teams (RvR) criteria is based on who was ranked in the third regional rankings that were released on Wednesday, October 31.
- The national committee makes adjustments to the regional rankings as they see fit but does not publish them until after they have announced the tournament field (including the at-large berth selections).
- An updated RvR is developed based on opponents were ranked in either the third or the just completed fourth regional rankings. This is the RvR that the national committee will use when comparing teams across regions on a national basis.
- Pool B teams (independent institutions and institutions that are members of conferences that do not receive an automatic berth in the tournament) in the final regional rankings are identified.
- The highest ranked Pool B candidate from each region is placed "on the board", the teams are discussed, and one team is selected for the lone Pool B berth.
- Pool C teams (teams who were not awarded their conference's automatic berth and unselected Pool B teams) in the final regional rankings are identified.
- The highest ranked Pool C candidate from each region is placed "on the board", the eight teams discussed, and one team is selected. The next highest ranked Pool C candidate from the selected team's region is added to the board and the process repeats until all 19 Pool C at-large berths have been awarded.
The 20 at-large selections are added to the 42 teams who were awarded their conference's automatic berth, completing the 62-team field at which point the committee begins the process of grouping the teams and developing the tournament bracket with geographical proximity playing a major role. You can read more about that here.
Background: Observations from the Past
The third NCAA weekly regional rankings, the last rankings published prior to the tournament field being announced, will be used as the starting point to evaluate the Pool B and Pool C landscape. The reason for this is that these rankings are done by the same national and regional committees which make the at-large selections and are done by applying the same criteria that is used for making the at-large selections. Therefore, by design, the NCAA regional rankings are a direct foreshadowing of the at-large selections, providing a certain level of transparency to the at-large selection process. It is for this reason that these rankings are so important and insightful. (Note: A fourth ranking is done Sunday night after all conference championships are complete and serves as the basis for the at-large selections, but those rankings will only be published after the tournament field is announced.)
Furthermore, a comparison of the at-large selections and third weekly regional rankings over the past several years yields the following observations.
- In the past eleven years (2007-2017) no men's team that was unranked in the third weekly regional rankings (those released the Wednesday before the selections) was selected.
- There will probably be twice as many Pool C candidates in the rankings as available berths. For example, last year there were 42 Pool C men's teams in the third rankings but only 19 Pool C berths available. In the five years before that, the ratio was 41/19, 39/18, 38/18, 44/19, and 38/20.
- Regions generally have two or three ranked teams not selected, maybe one more or one less for the weakest and strongest regions in that particular year.
- Within a region, rarely does a lower ranked team in the third weekly rankings get selected ahead of a higher ranked team. Last year there were three instances of this which exceeded the one or two occurrences seen most years, but as usual all three instances were easily explained by what occurred in the final week before the at-large selections.
- Most of the at-large selections come from the top half of each region's rankings.
- There has been no indication that that conference tournament results are weighted extra because they are the most recent results nor because they may be considered "big" games, and they shouldn't as the primary and secondary selection criteria makes no such allowance.
This leads to the following conclusions:
- A team that is not ranked in the third regional rankings has virtually no shot at a Pool C berth.
- Many ranked teams will not be participating in the tournament. It isn't good enough to simply be ranked to gain an at-large berth.
- In fact, a team usually needs to be in the top half to two-thirds of their regional rankings to be selected for an at-large berth.
- Do not expect big jumps or falls due to the final week's results (mostly conference tournaments), which makes sense as one week only represents about 10% of the total schedule and conference tournament results are not weighted extra. Furthermore, any team in need of an at-large berth presumably lost or tied in the final week minimizing chances they would climb the rankings.
PART II
Using the Regional Rankings as a Guide
Well, that was quite the introduction. Let's now take a look at the teams that were ranked this year as well as a few others, especially any teams that we think may be ranked in the fourth regional rankings. We'll list the teams as ranked in the third published rankings followed by previously ranked teams and the additional teams. The teams are color-coded according to their Pool: Pool A (AQ), Pool B, and Pool C. The Division III record, winning percentage, and record versus ranked teams have been updated to account for the results this past week that were not accounted for in the third weekly rankings. The Strength-of-Schedule (SoS) value is an approximate updated value that should be within a several percentage points.
| Classification of teams: | AQ (Pool A) | Pool B | Pool C |
| NEW ENGLAND REGION | 10/31 data sheet (for results thru 10/28) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | Tufts | 13-0-3 (.906) | .591 | 5-0-2 | D.N.P. |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | Connecticut College | 12-2-2 (.813) | .582 | 4-2-2 | D.N.P. |
| 4 | 4 | 3 | Amherst | 12-4-1 (.735) | .590 | 4-3-1 | L3-1 Colby (H) |
| 8 | 3 | 4 | Babson | 12-3-4 (.737) | .578 | 0-2-2 | W2-0 Wheaton (Mass.) (H); L1-0 Springfield (H) |
| 7 | 5 | 5 | Middlebury | 10-3-3 (.719) | .571 | 3-3-1 | D.N.P. |
| 10 | 7 | 6 | Williams | 10-5-3 (.639) | .585 | 5-3-1 | W2-0 Hamilton (H); T0-0 Colby (H) |
| 5 | 9 | 7 | Endicott | 10-6-2 (.611) | .609 | 2-3-0 | L1-0 Roger Williams (H) |
| — | 6 | 8 | Bowdoin | 9-5-2 (.625) | .588 | 2-4-2 | D.N.P. |
| 12 | — | 9 | Hamilton | 9-7-1 (.559) | .593 | 2-7-1 | L2-0 Williams (A) |
| 11 | 12 | 10 | St. Joseph's (Maine) | 20-0-0 (1.000) | .503 | 3-0-0 | W2-0 Colby-Sawyer (H); W1-0 Johnson and Wales (H) |
| — | — | 11 | Gordon | 12-6-1 (.658) | .597 | 0-3-0 | W4-2 Salve Regina (A); W1-0 Roger Williams (H) |
| — | — | 12 | WPI | 12-3-3 (.750) | .522 | 0-1-1 | L1-0 Springfield (A) |
| 9 | 8 | — | Brandeis | 7-9-2 (.444) | .649 | 2-9-1 | L1-0 New York University (A) |
| 3 | 10 | — | Roger Williams | 16-5-0 (.762) | .556 | 3-2-0 | W1-0 Endicott (A); L1-0 Gordon (A) |
| 6 | 11 | — | Springfield | 14-4-1 (.763) | .578 | 3-3-1 | W1-0 WPI (H); W1-0 Babson (A) |
| EAST REGION | 10/31 data sheet (for results thru 10/28) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Rochester | 12-2-2 (.813) | .591 | 3-2-1 | T0-0 Emory (H) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Cortland State | 15-2-3 (.825) | .576 | 2-1-3 | T1-1 Oneonta St. (H); L2-0 Brockport St. (H) |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | St. Lawrence | 12-2-3 (.794) | .559 | 1-1-2 | W3-2 Hobart (H); T1-1 Ithaca (H) |
| 3 | 4 | 4 | New York University | 12-4-1 (.735) | .557 | 3-4-1 | W1-0 Brandeis (H) |
| 7 | 6 | 5 | New Paltz State | 11-6-1 (.639) | .576 | 2-2-0 | L2-0 Brockport St. (H) |
| 5 | 7 | 6 | Oneonta State | 10-4-5 (.658) | .607 | 1-4-2 | T1-1 Cortland St. (A) |
| 8 | — | 7 | Ithaca | 14-2-4 (.800) | .543 | 1-0-3 | W1-0 Skidmore (H); W1-0 RPI (A); T1-1 St. Lawrence (A) |
| — | 8 | 8 | Stevens | 17-2-1 (.875) | .515 | 1-2-0 | W5-0 St. John Fisher (H); W2-0 Nazareth (H) |
| 6 | 5 | — | Vassar | 9-7-0 (.563) | .606 | 1-4-0 | L4-2 Hobart (A) |
| — | — | — | Brockport State | 15-4-2 (.762) | .548 | 2-2-2 | W2-0 New Paltz St. (A); W2-0 Cortland St. (A) |
| MID-ATLANTIC REGION | 10/31 data sheet (for results thru 10/28) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Messiah | 16-0-3 (.921) | .573 | 4-0-3 | W1-0 Stevenson (H); T0-0 Lycoming (H) |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | Franklin and Marshall | 13-3-3 (.763) | .613 | 7-3-1 | W2-0 Johns Hopkins (A); L3-2 Haverford (A) |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | Johns Hopkins | 13-4-1 (.750) | .600 | 3-3-1 | L2-0 Franklin and Marshall (H) |
| 3 | 4 | 4 | Eastern | 17-2-1 (.875) | .540 | 2-1-1 | W5-2 Misericordia (H); W3-0 King's (H) |
| 6 | 5 | 5 | Haverford | 14-4-0 (.778) | .593 | 5-4-0 | W1-0 Dickinson (H); W3-2 Franklin and Marshall (H) |
| 5 | 6 | 6 | Dickinson | 11-6-2 (.632) | .592 | 1-5-1 | W1-0 Gettysburg (H); L1-0 Haverford (A) |
| 9 | 8 | 7 | Lycoming | 15-3-2 (.800) | .549 | 2-2-1 | W2-0 Lebanon Valley (H); T0-0 Messiah (A) |
| 8 | 7 | 8 | Lebanon Valley | 10-6-1 (.618) | .569 | 0-4-1 | L2-0 Lycoming (A) |
| 10 | 9 | 9 | Swarthmore | 9-7-1 (.559) | .587 | 0-5-1 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | 10 | Catholic | 11-6-1 (.639) | .541 | 0-1-0 | W2-1 Drew (H); L1-0 Elizabethtown (A) |
| 7 | 10 | — | Gettysburg | 8-8-1 (.500) | .565 | 2-7-0 | L1-0 Dickinson (A) |
| — | — | — | Elizabethtown | 10-4-4 (.667) | .530 | 2-1-2 | W2-1 Moravian (H); W1-0 Catholic (H) |
| SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION | 10/31 data sheet (for results thru 10/28) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Montclair State | 17-1-2 (.900) | .558 | 6-1-1 | W4-3 Rowan (H); W5-0 Ramapo (H) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Mary Washington | 14-1-4 (.842) | .525 | 2-0-0 | T0-0 Frostburg St. (H); W1-0 St. Mary's (H) |
| — | — | 3 | Ramapo | 14-3-2 (.789) | .560 | 4-2-1 | W2-1 William Paterson (H); L5-0 Montclair St. (A) |
| — | 3 | 4 | Oglethorpe | 12-2-1 (.833) | .561 | 1-2-0 | W3-2 Berry (H); T2-2 Centre (H) |
| 4 | 4 | 5 | Rowan | 12-7-0 (.632) | .609 | 3-4-0 | L4-3 Montclair St. (A) |
| — | 8 | 6 | William Paterson | 12-7-1 (.625) | .594 | 4-6-0 | L2-1 Ramapo (A) |
| 3 | 6 | 7 | Rutgers-Camden | 13-5-2 (.700) | .584 | 2-3-1 | D.N.P. |
| 8 | — | 8 | Washington and Lee | 14-3-1 (.806) | .559 | 1-1-0 | W4-0 Roanoke (H); W3-0 Bridgewater (H) |
| 5 | 5 | — | Emory | 9-7-2 (.556) | .629 | 3-6-1 | T0-0 Rochester (A) |
| — | 7 | — | St. Mary's (Md.) | 11-4-4 (.684) | .560 | 1-3-0 | W1-0 Salisbury (H); L1-0 Mary Washington (A) |
| 6 | — | — | Salisbury | 11-4-3 (.694) | .536 | 2-0-0 | L1-0 St. Mary's (Md.) (A) |
| 7 | — | — | York (Pa.) | 10-6-2 (.611) | .560 | 1-3-1 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | — | Lynchburg | 13-2-2 (.824) | .517 | 1-0-2 | L1-0 Bridgewater (Va.) (H) |
| — | — | — | Centre | 13-4-2 (.737) | .526 | 0-2-1 | W3-0 Millsaps (H); T2-2 Oglethorpe (A) |
| GREAT LAKES REGION | 10/31 data sheet (for results thru 10/28) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Case Western Reserve | 14-3-1 (.806) | .611 | 6-3-0 | L3-1 Carnegie Mellon (A) |
| 6 | 5 | 2 | John Carroll | 13-4-2 (.737) | .597 | 4-3-2 | W2-1 Mt. Union (H); T0-0 Ohio Northern (H) |
| 5 | 3 | 3 | Carnegie Mellon | 11-4-2 (.706) | .639 | 3-3-2 | W3-1 Case Western Reserve (H) |
| 2 | 2 | 4 | Kenyon | 16-1-2 (.895) | .572 | 2-1-2 | W1-0 Wabash (H); W4-0 Ohio Wesleyan (H) |
| 3 | 4 | 5 | Capital | 14-4-0 (.778) | .569 | 2-4-0 | L2-1 Ohio Northern (H) |
| 7 | 7 | 6 | Mount Union | 13-4-1 (.750) | .535 | 3-2-0 | W2-1 Marietta (H); L2-1 John Carroll (A) |
| 4 | 6 | 7 | Ohio Wesleyan | 13-4-2 (.737) | .557 | 2-3-1 | W2-1 Denison (H); L4-0 Kenyon (A) |
| 8 | 8 | 8 | Ohio Northern | 12-7-2 (.619) | .562 | 2-5-1 | W1-0 Otterbein (A); W2-1 Capital (A); T0-0 John Carroll (A) |
| — | — | — | Penn State-Behrend | 14-3-2 (.789) | .491 | 1-1-0 | W5-2 Franciscan (H); W3-1 Medaille (H) |
| — | — | — | DePauw | 10-4-3 (.676) | .507 | 1-1-1 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | — | Wabash | 12-4-3 (.711) | .518 | 0-4-0 | L1-0 Kenyon (A) |
| — | — | — | Grove City | 14-2-4 (.800) | .495 | 0-1-1 | W3-1 Wash. & Jeff. (H); L1-0 Westminster (H) |
| CENTRAL REGION | 10/31 data sheet (for results thru 10/28) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Chicago | 15-2-1 (.861) | .637 | 9-2-1 | W3-1 Washington U. (A) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Calvin | 16-1-0 (.941) | .571 | 3-1-0 | W5-0 Hope (H); W2-1 Adrian (H) |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | Hope | 12-3-1 (.781) | .568 | 2-2-0 | L5-0 Calvin (A) |
| 6 | 5 | 4 | North Park | 16-3-0 (.842) | .536 | 2-2-0 | W6-2 No. Central (H); L3-2 Carthage (H) |
| — | — | 5 | Washington U. | 7-7-2 (.500) | .645 | 2-4-2 | L3-1 Chicago (H) |
| — | 7 | 6 | Wheaton (Ill.) | 10-7-1 (.583) | .542 | 2-4-0 | L3-0 Carthage (A) |
| — | 6 | 7 | Carthage | 11-8-1 (.575) | .577 | 3-6-0 | W3-0 Wheaton (H); W3-2 North Park (A) |
| 4 | 4 | — | Millikin | 8-7-1 (.531) | .534 | 1-3-1 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | — | Dominican | 14-5-1 (.725) | .522 | 0-1-1 | W3-2 Aurora (A); W4-1 MSOE (A) |
| — | — | — | Trine | 12-3-1 (.781) | .485 | 1-1-0 | T1-1 Adrian (A) |
| — | — | — | MSOE | 15-4-0 (.789) | .496 | 0-1-0 | W2-1 Concordia (Wis.) (H); L4-1 Dominican (H) |
| NORTH REGION | 10/31 data sheet (for results thru 10/28) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 2 | 2 | 1 | Luther | 16-3-1 (.825) | .559 | 3-2-0 | W2-0 Wartburg (H); W2-1 Loras (A) |
| 4 | 4 | 2 | St. Thomas | 14-3-2 (.789) | .584 | 1-3-1 | T0-0 Augsburg (H) |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | UW-Platteville | 12-2-3 (.794) | .571 | 1-1-0 | L3-0 UW-Whitewater (A) |
| 1 | 1 | 4 | Gustavus Adolphus | 12-3-1 (.781) | .558 | 2-1-1 | L1-0 Augsburg (H) |
| 5 | 6 | 5 | Carleton | 14-1-3 (.861) | .531 | 2-1-1 | W1-0 Macalester (H); T1-1 Augsburg (H) |
| — | 7 | 6 | St. Norbert | 17-1-1 (.921) | .543 | 2-0-0 | W2-0 Lake Forest (H); L2-1 Knox (H) |
| 7 | — | 7 | Macalester | 11-6-3 (.625) | .587 | 2-5-1 | W3-1 Hamline (H); L1-0 Carleton (A) |
| 6 | 5 | — | Augsburg | 11-3-4 (.722) | .582 | 2-2-3 | T0-0 St. Thomas (A); W1-0 Gustavus Adolphus (A); T1-1 Carleton (A) |
| — | — | — | UW-Whitewater | 13-5-1 (.711) | .541 | 3-2-0 | W3-0 UW-Platteville (H) |
| — | — | — | Knox | 16-4-1 (.786) | .526 | 1-2-0 | W1-0 Cornell (H); W2-1 St. Norbert (A) |
| — | — | — | UW-Superior | 18-2-1 (.881) | .495 | 0-2-0 | W6-2 Crown (H); W3-1 St. Scholastica (H) |
| — | — | — | Loras | 13-6-0 (.684) | .543 | 2-3-0 | W3-0 Central (H); L2-1 Luther (H) |
| WEST REGION | 10/31 data sheet (for results thru 10/28) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 5 | 4 | 1 | Claremont-Mudd-Scripps | 14-2-1 (.853) | .531 | 3-0-0 | T0-0 Chapman (H) |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | Trinity (Texas) | 13-1-3 (.853) | .528 | 2-0-3 | W2-1 Tx. Lutheran (H); T1-1 Southwestern (H) |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | Mary Hardin-Baylor | 15-3-1 (.816) | .519 | 1-0-0 | W2-0 McMurry (H); W2-1 Concordia (H) |
| 1 | 2 | 4 | Redlands | 13-4-0 (.765) | .541 | 0-2-0 | L1-0 Occidental (H) |
| — | — | 5 | Colorado College | 11-6-1 (.639) | .544 | 0-4-1 | L1-0 Southwestern (H) |
| 4 | — | 6 | Southwestern | 11-4-2 (.706) | .556 | 3-2-1 | W2-0 Austin (H); W1-0 Colorado Col. (A); T1-1 Trinity (Tx.) (A) |
| 6 | 5 | — | Texas-Dallas | 13-3-2 (.778) | .513 | 2-1-0 | W2-1 Hardin-Simmons (H); W1-0 East Tx. Bapt. (H); L1-0 Mary Hardin-Baylor (H) |
| — | 6 | — | University of Dallas | 7-8-0 (.467) | .535 | 2-5-0 | L5-1 Texas Lutheran (A) |
| — | — | — | Occidental | 12-5-0 (.706) | .531 | 2-3-0 | W1-0 Redlands (A); L1-0 Chapman (H) |
| — | — | — | Chapman | 11-7-1 (.605) | .549 | 0-4-1 | T0-0 Claremont-M-S (A); W1-0 Occidental (A) |
The Pool B Candidates
The third published NCAA regional rankings contained just one Pool B team which matches perfectly with the one Pool B at-large berth available. For comparison purposes, however, we'll add the other Pool B teams with winning records.
| POOL B CANDIDATES (listed alphabetically) | |||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results(not accounted for in rankings) | ||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 3 | 3 | 3 | UW-Platteville | 12-2-3 (.794) | .571 | 1-1-0 | L3-0 UW-Whitewater (A) |
| — | — | — | UW-Whitewater | 13-5-1 (.711) | .541 | 3-2-0 | W3-0 UW-Platteville (H) |
| — | — | — | Neumann | 11-4-2 (.706) | .504 | 0-1-0 | W3-0 Immaculata (H); W3-1 Cabrini (H) |
| — | — | — | Cabrini | 11-7-1 (.605) | .530 | 1-2-0 | W2-1 Wesley (H); L3-1 Neumann (A) |
| — | — | — | Wesley | 14-4-1 (.763) | .429 | 0-1-0 | W2-1 Marywood (H); L2-1 Cabrini (A) |
| — | — | — | Pine Manor | 8-3-3 (.679) | .407 | 0-0-0 | L2-1 SUNY Delhi (H) |
The Pool C Candidates
The third published NCAA regional rankings contained 46 Pool C teams, which a little higher than typical. More importantly, it is well more than double the 19 available Pool C berths. To those 46 we will add a few other Pool C teams that could be ranked in the fourth rankings. So, which 19 of the ranked or potentially ranked teams in blue above will the NCAA committee select? Let's start by grouping those Pool C candidates in the table below. The 19 at-large selections will come from this list.
| POOL C CANDIDATES (listed alphabetically) | |||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 4 | 4 | 3 | Amherst | 12-4-1 (.735) | .590 | 4-3-1 | L3-1 Colby (H) |
| 6 | 5 | — | Augsburg | 11-3-4 (.722) | .582 | 2-2-3 | T0-0 St. Thomas (A); W1-0 Gustavus Adolphus (A); T1-1 Carleton (A) |
| 8 | 3 | 4 | Babson | 12-3-4 (.737) | .578 | 0-2-2 | W2-0 Wheaton (Mass.) (H); L1-0 Springfield (H) |
| — | 6 | 8 | Bowdoin | 9-5-2 (.625) | .588 | 2-4-2 | D.N.P. |
| 3 | 4 | 5 | Capital | 14-4-0 (.778) | .569 | 2-4-0 | L2-1 Ohio Northern (H) |
| 5 | 3 | 3 | Carnegie Mellon | 11-4-2 (.706) | .639 | 3-3-2 | W3-1 Case Western Reserve (H) |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Case Western Reserve | 14-3-1 (.806) | .611 | 6-3-0 | L3-1 Carnegie Mellon (A) |
| — | — | 10 | Catholic | 11-6-1 (.639) | .541 | 0-1-0 | W2-1 Drew (H); L1-0 Elizabethtown (A) |
| 5 | 4 | 1 | Claremont-Mudd-Scripps | 14-2-1 (.853) | .531 | 3-0-0 | T0-0 Chapman (H) |
| — | — | 5 | Colorado College | 11-6-1 (.639) | .544 | 0-4-1 | L1-0 Southwestern (H) |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | Connecticut College | 12-2-2 (.813) | .582 | 4-2-2 | D.N.P. |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Cortland State | 15-2-3 (.825) | .576 | 2-1-3 | T1-1 Oneonta St. (H); L2-0 Brockport St. (H) |
| 5 | 6 | 6 | Dickinson | 11-6-2 (.632) | .592 | 1-5-1 | W1-0 Gettysburg (H); L1-0 Haverford (A) |
| 5 | 5 | — | Emory | 9-7-2 (.556) | .629 | 3-6-1 | T0-0 Rochester (A) |
| 5 | 9 | 7 | Endicott | 10-6-2 (.611) | .609 | 2-3-0 | L1-0 Roger Williams (H) |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | Franklin and Marshall | 13-3-3 (.763) | .613 | 7-3-1 | W2-0 Johns Hopkins (A); L3-2 Haverford (A) |
| 1 | 1 | 4 | Gustavus Adolphus | 12-3-1 (.781) | .558 | 2-1-1 | L1-0 Augsburg (H) |
| 12 | — | 9 | Hamilton | 9-7-1 (.559) | .593 | 2-7-1 | L2-0 Williams (A) |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | Hope | 12-3-1 (.781) | .568 | 2-2-0 | L5-0 Calvin (A) |
| 8 | — | 7 | Ithaca | 14-2-4 (.800) | .543 | 1-0-3 | W1-0 Skidmore (H); W1-0 RPI (A); T1-1 St. Lawrence (A) |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | Johns Hopkins | 13-4-1 (.750) | .600 | 3-3-1 | L2-0 Franklin and Marshall (H) |
| 8 | 7 | 8 | Lebanon Valley | 10-6-1 (.618) | .569 | 0-4-1 | L2-0 Lycoming (A) |
| 9 | 8 | 7 | Lycoming | 15-3-2 (.800) | .549 | 2-2-1 | W2-0 Lebanon Valley (H); T0-0 Messiah (A) |
| — | — | — | Lynchburg | 13-2-2 (.824) | .517 | 1-0-2 | L1-0 Bridgewater (Va.) (H) |
| 7 | — | 7 | Macalester | 11-6-3 (.625) | .587 | 2-5-1 | W3-1 Hamline (H); L1-0 Carleton (A) |
| 7 | 5 | 5 | Middlebury | 10-3-3 (.719) | .571 | 3-3-1 | D.N.P. |
| 7 | 7 | 6 | Mount Union | 13-4-1 (.750) | .535 | 3-2-0 | W2-1 Marietta (H); L2-1 John Carroll (A) |
| 7 | 6 | 5 | New Paltz State | 11-6-1 (.639) | .576 | 2-2-0 | L2-0 Brockport St. (H) |
| 3 | 4 | 4 | New York University | 12-4-1 (.735) | .557 | 3-4-1 | W1-0 Brandeis (H) |
| 6 | 5 | 4 | North Park | 16-3-0 (.842) | .536 | 2-2-0 | W6-2 No. Central (H); L3-2 Carthage (H) |
| — | — | — | Occidental | 12-5-0 (.706) | .531 | 2-3-0 | W1-0 Redlands (A); L1-0 Chapman (H) |
| — | 3 | 4 | Oglethorpe | 12-2-1 (.833) | .561 | 1-2-0 | W3-2 Berry (H); T2-2 Centre (H) |
| 8 | 8 | 8 | Ohio Northern | 12-7-2 (.619) | .562 | 2-5-1 | W1-0 Otterbein (A); W2-1 Capital (A); T0-0 John Carroll (A) |
| 4 | 6 | 7 | Ohio Wesleyan | 13-4-2 (.737) | .557 | 2-3-1 | W2-1 Denison (H); L4-0 Kenyon (A) |
| 5 | 7 | 6 | Oneonta State | 10-4-5 (.658) | .607 | 1-4-2 | T1-1 Cortland St. (A) |
| — | — | 3 | Ramapo | 14-3-2 (.789) | .560 | 4-2-1 | W2-1 William Paterson (H); L5-0 Montclair St. (A) |
| 1 | 2 | 4 | Redlands | 13-4-0 (.765) | .541 | 0-2-0 | L1-0 Occidental (H) |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Rochester | 12-2-2 (.813) | .591 | 3-2-1 | T0-0 Emory (H) |
| 3 | 10 | — | Roger Williams | 16-5-0 (.762) | .556 | 3-2-0 | W1-0 Endicott (A); L1-0 Gordon (A) |
| 4 | 4 | 5 | Rowan | 12-7-0 (.632) | .609 | 3-4-0 | L4-3 Montclair St. (A) |
| 3 | 6 | 7 | Rutgers-Camden | 13-5-2 (.700) | .584 | 2-3-1 | D.N.P. |
| 6 | — | — | Salisbury | 11-4-3 (.694) | .536 | 2-0-0 | L1-0 St. Mary's (Md.) (A) |
| 4 | — | 6 | Southwestern | 11-4-2 (.706) | .556 | 3-2-1 | W2-0 Austin (H); W1-0 Colorado Col. (A); T1-1 Trinity (Tx.) (A) |
| — | 7 | — | St. Mary's (Md.) | 11-4-4 (.684) | .560 | 1-3-0 | W1-0 Salisbury (H); L1-0 Mary Washington (A) |
| — | 7 | 6 | St. Norbert | 17-1-1 (.921) | .543 | 2-0-0 | W2-0 Lake Forest (H); L2-1 Knox (H) |
| 4 | 4 | 2 | St. Thomas | 14-3-2 (.789) | .584 | 1-3-1 | T0-0 Augsburg (H) |
| 10 | 9 | 9 | Swarthmore | 9-7-1 (.559) | .587 | 0-5-1 | D.N.P. |
| 6 | 5 | — | Texas-Dallas | 13-3-2 (.778) | .513 | 2-1-0 | W2-1 Hardin-Simmons (H); W1-0 East Tx. Bapt. (H); L1-0 Mary Hardin-Baylor (H) |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | Tufts | 13-0-3 (.906) | .591 | 5-0-2 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | 5 | Washington U. | 7-7-2 (.500) | .645 | 2-4-2 | L3-1 Chicago (H) |
| — | 7 | 6 | Wheaton (Ill.) | 10-7-1 (.583) | .542 | 2-4-0 | L3-0 Carthage (A) |
| — | 8 | 6 | William Paterson | 12-7-1 (.625) | .594 | 4-6-0 | L2-1 Ramapo (A) |
| 10 | 7 | 6 | Williams | 10-5-3 (.639) | .585 | 5-3-1 | W2-0 Hamilton (H); T0-0 Colby (H) |
| — | — | 12 | WPI | 12-3-3 (.750) | .522 | 0-1-1 | L1-0 Springfield (A) |
PART III
Pool B At-Large Berth Analysis and Predictions
As mentioned above, only one Pool B team has been ranked this season. UW-Platteville (12-2-3) was slotted in at No. 3 in all three weekly North Region rankings. That position combined with no other Pool B team being ranked, should mean this doesn't require a discussion, or even a decision. However, if you look at the table of Pool B teams with winning records, there's reason to hesitate. Off the radar all season following a 1-3-1 start, UW-Whitewater (13-5-1) has a case that should be heard. Due to changes in who was ranked form the second the third weekly rankings, Whitewater's record against ranked opponents changed from 1-3-0 to 3-2-0 while Platteville's remained 1-1-0. And to close out the regular season, Whitewater beat Platteville 3-0 to have the head-to-head in their favor. Those two advantages for Whitewater, which did not exist when the third rankings were determined, are countered by Platteville's superior winning percentage (.794 to .711) and strength of schedule (.571 to .541). With those numbers, Whitewater certainly has a great chance to jump into the final rankings, but can they catch Platteville who may or may not slide from their spot at No. 3. So, the Pool B selection will be . . .
UW-Whitewater (13-5-1) - Maybe just to make it interesting, maybe because I really think it's plausible, I'm going to ignore my own admonishment and say that the Warhawks do what hasn't been done since at least 2006 and earn an at-large berth despite not being ranked the week prior. Three wins against ranked teams will be something the committee really likes and may be enough to make up for the SOS deficit to Platteville, and the head-to-head win is more compelling than the difference in winning percentage.
In either case, the unselected team will have a reasonable second chance to be selected from Pool C.
Pool C At-Large Berth Analysis and Predictions
In Part I above I make the case to not deviate much from the third weekly rankings when making at-large berth predictions. That advice may prove to be less valuable this year than in has been in years past. After the top one to three teams in most regions, there seems less to distinguish and differentiate the teams in the following pack than I can remember. I think this year we will see an above average number of instances in which higher ranked teams in the third weekly rankings miss out to lower ranked teams. And who knows, maybe we will even see an unranked team (in the third rankings) earn a berth for the first time in over a decade.
As such, this feels like a year that, even with a good sense of the committee's selection history and what they seem to value, one's predictions could up in flames or they could make you look really smart when in fact you just got luckier than the majority. But rather than play it safe and throw out a bunch of teams to pick from for the final several spots, I will narrow my choices and go on record with specific teams for all but the nineteenth and final berth. It's my imperfect and humble attempt to sort it all out. We'll see if it holds up to past prediction success—this year's landscape makes it hard to feel confident that it will.
LOCKS - NO DISCUSSION NEEDED (3)
1. Tufts (13-0-3) - The unbeaten Jumbos, ranked first in the past two New England regional rankings, are one of just five teams (three with AQ's) to have a winning percentage over .900 this season and have the highest SOS of that group. Oh, and an undefeated record against seven ranked opponents (5-0-2), to boot.
2. Case Western Reserve (14-3-1) - Ranked first in all three Great Lakes regional rankings, the Spartans have the third most wins versus ranked opponents (6-0-3 R-v-R) to accompany a winning percentage over .800 and SOS over .600.
3. Franklin and Marshall (13-3-3) - Three losses and three ties might seem like a lot for a stone cold lock, but the Diplomats have the second most wins versus ranked teams in the nation at 7 (and that would grow to 8 if Elizabethtown makes the final rankings), having a SOS over .600.
LOCKS - WITH RUBBER-STAMPING DISCUSSION (2)
4. Rochester (12-2-2) - The Yellowjackets occupied the top spot in the East Region rankings all three weeks with a wining percentage over .800 against a .591 SOS, going 3-2-1 against ranked opponents and giving the UAA their second at-large entrant in the big dance.
5. Connecticut College (12-2-2) - A winning percentage over .800 for the Camels playing a .582 SOS with a solid 4-2-2 record versus ranked teams gives the NESCAC their second berth to keep pace with the UAA.
SAFE, NO WORRIES (5)
6. Johns Hopkins (13-4-1) - With a .750 winning percentage, a .600 SOS, and 3-3-1 R-v-R, the Blue Jays did enough to sleep easy ahead of the tournament field announcement and give the Mid-Atlantic as second selection.
7. Ramapo (15-3-2) - A 4-2-1 record against ranked opponents has the Roadrunners safely positioned for an invite as the first South Atlantic team taken even if their .789 winning percentage and .560 doesn't distinguish them as much.
8. Carnegie Mellon (11-4-2) - The Tartans played one of the toughest schedules (.639 SOS) and did take some lumps as their modest .706 winning percentage reflects, but they did go 3-3-2 versus ranked opposition which makes them the second Great Lakes team and third UAA member taken.
9. Cortland State (15-2-3) - Solid, if not overly impressive, marks all across (.825 win pct., .576 SOS, and 2-1-3 R-v-R) should guarantee the consistent runner-up in the East Region rankings their place in the NCAA tournament, all the more so if Brockport State gets ranked to give them another win-vs-ranked (and another loss).
10. Amherst (12-4-1) - Not to be outdone by the UAA, Amherst will make it three NESCAC teams in the dance as their four wins versus ranked opponents (4-3-1 R-v-R) and .590 SOS compensates for a relatively modest .735 winning percentage.
IN GOOD SHAPE (1)
11. Williams (10-5-3) - Their win percentage will probably be the lowest of any of the at-large selections, but the Ephs' five wins against ranked opposition is impressive and should have them next in line from the New England region and from the NESCAC which now has four at-large berths.
PROBABLY OKAY, BUT STILL NERVOUS (4)
12. Hope (14-3-1) - The Dutchmen have consistently been third in the Central Region rankings a second lop-sided loss to MIAA rival Calvin, no one below them in the region did enough in the final week to pass them and their numbers on paper aren't too shabby: .781 win pct., .568 SOS, and 2-2-0 R-v-R.
13. Middlebury (10-3-3) - In the third New England regional rankings, the NESCAC occupied five of the top six places, and the combination of 8th-seed Colby winning the conference tournament and Babson's R-v-R going from 2-2-1 last week to 0-2-2 for the final rankings, means it's quite possible that the Panthers make it five at-large berths and six total teams from the NESCAC. Middlebury sits with a .719 winning pct., a .571 SOS, and very solid 3-3-1 record against ranked teams.
14. New York University (12-4-1) - Ranked 4th in the third East Region rankings, the Violets should remain ahead of Ithaca in the final rankings based their three wins and a tie in eight games against ranked opponents. That combined with a .735 winning percentage and .557 SOS should keep them an arms length away from the bubble and give the UAA a fifth (and last) tournament participant, four by at-large selection.
15. Capital (14-4-0) - The Crusaders .569 SOS is among the highest of remaining teams with at least a .750 win pct. and at least a pair of wins over ranked opposition. So it should be a third Great Lakes team pulled from Pool C.
RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUBBLE (3)
16. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (15-2-1) - The Stags already are guaranteed three wins versus ranked teams, but if Occidental ends up ranked the team that was No. 1 in the third West Region rankings could be boasting a 4-0-0 R-v-R to accompany a .853 winning percentage, both about the highest among remaining candidates which should compensate for the low SOS of .531.
17. Ithaca (14-2-4) - Since Brockport State is likely to be included in the final East Region rankings, the Bombers should have a second win versus ranked teams when being compared nationally. If so, a unbeaten 2-0-3 R-v-R should land the Liberty League runner-up on the right side of the bubble despite a .543 SOS.
18. St. Norbert (17-1-1) - Very tough to predict who will be the top ranked Pool C team in the North Region, but let's go with the 1-loss Golden Knights to edge it with the highest winning percentage in Pool C and a 2-0-0 R-v-R allowing them to also nab a ticket to the dance.
SQUARELY ON THE BUBBLE (PICK 'EM 1 OF 3)
Oglethorpe (13-2-1) - Because none of the Pool C teams below them in last week's South Atlantic rankings did enough to leap over them, the Petrels can be expected to be second in line from the region. They have one of the top winning percentages (.833) among teams still waiting on a berth and their .561 SOS compares favorably to most of the remaining candidates as well. The question mark is the 1-2-0 R-v-R.
Lycoming (15-3-2) - The Warriors can be expected to climb a couple spots in the Mid-Atlantic rankings and be third in line for selection from the region. Their .800 win pct., .549 SOS, and 2-2-1 R-v-R is enough to get them on the bubble, but maybe not enough to ease on down the right side of it.
North Park (16-3-0) - The Vikings have the second highest winning percentage of the bubble teams (.842), but that is offset by one of the lowest strengths of schedule (.536). Their current 2-2-0 R-v-R is decent, but if UW-Whitewater gets ranked that would increase to 3-2-0 which could give them the edge for the final berth.
WRONG SIDE OF THE BUBBLE (3)
Southwestern (12-5-3) - The Pirates have good 3-2-1 R-v-R thanks to three wins over Colorado who was still ranked last week and a decent SOS (.556) among the bubble teams. Their winning percentage just barely over .700 might be why they come up just a bit short for a ticket to the dance.
Mount Union (13-4-1) - The Purple Raiders 3-2-0 R-v-R is very solid, but the SOS is low (.535) and their winning percentage (.750) doesn't set them apart from the other bubble teams.
St. Thomas (14-3-2) , UW-Whitewater (13-5-1) / UW-Platteville (12-2-3) , Gustavus Adolphus (14-3-1) - As already mentioned, it's very difficult to distinguish between the North Region Pool C candidates, and anyone of these, including whichever Pool B candidate is passed over, could be in St. Norbert's place on the other side of the bubble. Chances are slim, but I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibilities that Whitewater pulls off two extreme rarities: (1) go from unranked to selected and (2) be a second Pool B team selected in a year.
Comments or feedback for the author? Email Christan Shirk.
