Men's at-large berth analysis and predictions
By Christan Shirk and Jim Hutchinson
PART I
The conference tournaments will wrap up Saturday and Sunday and 43 of the 64 berths in the NCAA men's tournament will have been claimed via automatic qualification (AQ). That leaves 21 at-large berths for the men's committee to award, all being selected from Pool C this year now that Pool B has shrunk to just three teams. (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 21 Pool C 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 2021 Division III Soccer Pre-Championships Manual (pg. 23). 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. Regular season and conference postseason matches are considered.
|
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 ten-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 7.
- 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, November 3.
- 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.
- With no Pool B at-large berths available this year, the process jumps to Pool C at-large selections.
- 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 21 Pool C at-large berths have been awarded.
The 21 at-large selections are added to the 43 teams who were awarded their conference's automatic berth, completing the 64-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 decade and more yields the following observations (for an expanded discussion of these observations, go here).
- In the past decade, only one men's team that was left out of the third weekly rankings (those released the Wednesday before the selections) received an invite to the NCAA tournament. With the rankings expanded from 16% to 20% of eligible teams this year, the chances of a new team entering the final (Week 4) rankings and getting selected presumably will be slimmer yet in most regions and no better in the strongest/deepest regions.
- Historically, there have been approximately twice as many will probably be twice as many Pool C candidates in the rankings as available berths. With the expanded rankings this year, there will be at least two and a half as many Pool C candidates as spots available.
- Regions generally have had two or three ranked teams not selected, maybe one more or one less for the weakest and strongest regions in that particular year. With the expanded rankings and the regional realignment into ten regions (previously eight), expect three to five ranked teams in each region to be left out, maybe one more or one less in the weakest and strongest regions. Most of the at-large selections have come from the top half of each region's rankings, and that should prove even more true now.
- Teams do not usually move up or down more than a spot, maybe two, in the rankings in the last week (from the third to the fourth/final rankings), and when it has happened it was usually easily explained by what occurred in the final week. Consequently, there won't be too many instances of a lower ranked team in the third weekly rankings get selected ahead of a higher ranked team, although we have seen this happen more in recent years.
- There has been no indication 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 very slim chances of receiveing 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. We'll list the teams as ranked in the third published rankings followed by previously ranked 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 |
| REGION I | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 2 | 1 | Tufts | 13-1-3 (.853) | .631 | 8-1-2 | W1-0 Middlebury (N); W2-0 Connecticut College (A) |
| Y | 1 | 2 | Amherst | 12-2-2 (.813) | .635 | 6-2-1 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Connecticut College | 14-4-0 (.778) | .600 | 4-4-0 | W1-0 Colby (H); L0-2 Tufts (H) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Middlebury | 10-4-3 (.676) | .599 | 3-3-2 | L0-1 Tufts (N) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Wesleyan | 10-3-3 (.719) | .570 | 4-3-2 | D.N.P. |
| — | 6 | 6 | Bowdoin | 9-5-2 (.625) | .578 | 2-4-1 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 8 | 7 | Mass-Boston | 13-4-1 (.750) | .542 | 1-2-0 | L0-1 Western Connecticut (N) |
| Y | 9 | 8 | St. Joseph's (Maine) | 16-1-2 (.895) | .533 | 0-1-1 | W3-1 St. Joseph (Conn.) (H); W1-0 Norwich (H) |
| — | — | 9 | Hamilton | 7-7-1 (.500) | .609 | 2-5-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 7 | — | Williams | 7-7-2 (.500) | .603 | 2-7-2 | D.N.P. |
| Y | — | — | Norwich | 14-3-1 (.806) | .508 | 0-3-0 | W6-0 Johnson and Wales (H); L0-1 St. Joseph's (Maine) (A) |
| REGION II | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 4 | 1 | WPI | 10-5-3 (.639) | .613 | 3-4-2 | L0-2 Coast Guard (A) |
| Y | 1 | 2 | MIT | 13-4-2 (.737) | .555 | 4-3-1 | T0-0 Coast Guard (H); L1-4 Babson (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Babson | 11-4-3 (.694) | .584 | 5-3-1 | W1-0 Springfield (N); W4-1 MIT (A) |
| Y | 2 | 4 | Coast Guard | 12-4-2 (.722) | .569 | 3-4-1 | W2-0 WPI (H); T0-0 MIT (A) |
| Y | 6 | 5 | Wheaton (Mass.) | 12-5-0 (.706) | .570 | 2-4-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Springfield | 10-7-0 (.588) | .553 | 2-7-0 | L0-1 Babson (N) |
| REGION III | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 1 | 1 | Cortland State | 16-2-1 (.868) | .574 | 4-1-1 | W2-1 Buffalo State (H); W6-0 Oswego State (H) |
| Y | 3 | 2 | Vassar | 11-4-2 (.706) | .574 | 3-1-0 | L0-2 St. Lawrence (H) |
| Y | 4 | 3 | Oneonta State | 10-3-3 (.719) | .579 | 2-3-2 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 6 | 4 | New Paltz State | 12-5-0 (.706) | .571 | 1-4-0 | L0-1 Oswego State (H) |
| Y | 2 | 5 | Rochester | 9-3-4 (.688) | .593 | 3-3-1 | W2-1 Emory (H) |
| Y | 7 | 6 | RIT | 10-4-4 (.667) | .559 | 2-2-0 | L0-1 Skidmore (H) |
| Y | 5 | 7 | RPI | 11-5-2 (.667) | .583 | 0-3-1 | L0-2 St. Lawrence (H) |
| Y | 8 | 8 | Buffalo State | 13-6-1 (.675) | .558 | 1-2-1 | L1-2 Cortland State (A) |
| REGION IV | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 2 | 1 | New York University | 10-5-1 (.656) | .633 | 5-3-0 | L0-1 Brandeis (H) |
| Y | 1 | 2 | Montclair State | 16-3-1 (.825) | .566 | 4-3-0 | L0-1 Rowan (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Rowan | 12-3-2 (.765) | .597 | 3-3-1 | W1-0 Montclair State (A); T0-0 Kean (A) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Rutgers-Newark | 12-4-4 (.700) | .555 | 3-2-1 | T1-1 Kean (H) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Stevens | 12-6-2 (.650) | .584 | 2-3-1 | W3-0 Wilkes (H); W1-0 Arcadia (A); T0-0 Misericordia (A) |
| — | 6 | 6 | Kean | 12-4-3 (.711) | .554 | 1-3-2 | T1-1 Rutgers-Newark (A); T0-0 Rowan (H) |
| — | — | 7 | Penn State-Harrisburg | 15-1-1 (.912) | .491 | 1-1-0 | W2-0 Penn State-Abington (H); W3-1 Lancaster Bible (H) |
| Y | 7 | — | Misericordia | 12-4-1 (.735) | .517 | 1-0-1 | W1-0 King's (A); T0-0 Stevens (H) |
| Y | — | — | Lycoming | 7-8-3 (.472) | .575 | 1-3-2 | D.N.P. |
| REGION V | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 1 | 1 | Messiah | 16-1-2 (.895) | .578 | 5-1-0 | W2-0 Stevenson (H); W2-1 Lebanon Valley (H) |
| Y | 6 | 2 | Franklin and Marshall | 14-3-1 (.806) | .606 | 4-3-1 | L0-1 Washington College (A) |
| Y | 2 | 3 | Johns Hopkins | 11-4-2 (.706) | .574 | 4-3-0 | L1-4 Gettysburg (H) |
| Y | 3 | 4 | Washington College | 13-4-1 (.750) | .609 | 5-3-1 | W1-0 Franklin and Marshall (H); W2-0 Gettysburg (N) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Swarthmore | 11-4-2 (.706) | .574 | 3-3-1 | L1-2 Gettysburg (H) |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Gettysburg | 13-5-2 (.700) | .591 | 3-4-2 | W2-1 Swarthmore (A); W4-1 Johns Hopkins (A); L0-2 Washington College (N) |
| — | 8 | 7 | Lebanon Valley | 14-5-0 (.737) | .566 | 1-4-0 | W2-1 Alvernia (H); L1-2 Messiah (A) |
| Y | — | 8 | Eastern | 10-5-2 (.647) | .574 | 1-2-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 7 | — | Alvernia | 14-5-0 (.737) | .556 | 1-4-0 | L1-2 Lebanon Valley (A) |
| REGION VI | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 1 | 1 | Washington and Lee | 14-1-2 (.882) | .595 | 4-0-2 | L2-3 Randolph (H) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Emory | 9-3-4 (.688) | .638 | 5-2-3 | L1-2 Rochester (A) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Christopher Newport | 10-4-2 (.688) | .629 | 5-4-2 | W2-1 UC Santa Cruz (N); W2-1 Mary Washington (H) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Lynchburg | 14-4-1 (.763) | .587 | 2-4-1 | W3-0 Virginia Wesleyan (H); W1-0 Randolph (H) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Mary Washington | 9-5-2 (.625) | .601 | 3-3-1 | W2-1 UW-Whitewater (H); L1-2 Christopher Newport (H) |
| — | — | 6 | UW-Whitewater | 15-5-1 (.738) | .523 | 4-4-0 | W3-0 Finlandia (N); L1-2 Mary Washington (A) |
| — | 6 | 7 | Roanoke | 9-4-5 (.639) | .562 | 0-2-2 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 7 | 8 | Covenant | 11-3-4 (.722) | .551 | 0-2-1 | W4-3 William Peace (A); T0-0 North Carolina Wesleyan (N) |
| Y | 8 | — | Randolph-Macon | 9-4-3 (.656) | .544 | 0-2-1 | D.N.P. |
| Y | — | — | Maryville (Tenn.) | 12-3-1 (.781) | .510 | 0-1-1 | D.N.P. |
| REGION VII | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 1 | 1 | Ohio Wesleyan | 14-2-2 (.833) | .580 | 5-2-2 | L0-1 Denison (H) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Otterbein | 14-1-4 (.842) | .570 | 3-1-4 | W1-0 Ohio Northern (H); L0-1 John Carroll (A) |
| Y | 4 | 3 | John Carroll | 12-3-4 (.737) | .601 | 5-1-2 | W4-1 Capital (H); W1-0 Otterbein (H) |
| Y | 3 | 4 | Kenyon | 15-2-1 (.861) | .553 | 4-2-1 | W8-0 Wabash (H); L0-1 Denison (H) |
| — | 7 | 5 | Ohio Northern | 9-7-3 (.553) | .600 | 1-6-3 | W4-0 Marietta (H); L0-1 Otterbein (A) |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Denison | 12-4-2 (.722) | .574 | 3-3-1 | W1-0 Ohio Wesleyan (A); W1-0 Kenyon (A) |
| Y | 8 | 7 | Hanover | 13-4-2 (.737) | .526 | 1-4-1 | W4-2 Bluffton (H); T0-0 Defiance (H) |
| — | 9 | 8 | Wilmington | 12-3-3 (.750) | .507 | 3-2-0 | L3-4 Capital (H) |
| — | — | 9 | Wabash | 11-6-2 (.632) | .544 | 1-6-0 | L0-8 Kenyon (A) |
| — | — | 10 | Rose-Hulman | 12-5-1 (.694) | .505 | 2-3-0 | L0-1 Defiance (H) |
| Y | 6 | — | Case Western Reserve | 6-8-2 (.438) | .609 | 0-7-2 | L1-2 Carnegie Mellon (A) |
| Y | 10 | — | Mount Union | 10-5-2 (.647) | .524 | 1-4-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | — | — | Carnegie Mellon | 7-6-3 (.531) | .572 | 1-6-0 | W2-1 Case Western Reserve (H) |
| Y | — | — | Capital | 10-8-1 (.553) | .560 | 1-7-0 | W4-3 Wilmington (A); L1-4 John Carroll (A) |
| REGION VIII | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 1 | 1 | Chicago | 12-5-1 (.694) | .648 | 9-3-1 | L0-1 Washington U. (A) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Washington U. | 12-2-1 (.833) | .619 | 5-2-1 | W1-0 Chicago (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | North Park | 13-5-0 (.722) | .584 | 4-4-0 | L1-2 Wheaton (Ill.) (H) |
| Y | 6 | 4 | North Central (Ill.) | 18-1-1 (.925) | .536 | 3-1-0 | W2-1 Illinois Wesleyan (H); W1-0 Wheaton (Ill.) (H) |
| — | 4 | 5 | Calvin | 13-3-2 (.778) | .546 | 4-2-1 | L0-1 Trine (H) |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Hope | 11-4-3 (.694) | .561 | 3-4-2 | L0-2 Kalamazoo (A) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | Carthage | 12-6-2 (.650) | .576 | 2-4-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | — | 8 | Kalamazoo | 10-4-2 (.688) | .549 | 2-3-2 | W2-0 Hope (H); L0-2 Trine (H) |
| Y | 8 | — | Wheaton (Ill.) | 10-7-1 (.583) | .570 | 3-4-0 | W2-1 North Park (A); L0-1 North Central (Ill.) (A) |
| REGION IX | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 1 | 1 | St. Olaf | 17-2-1 (.875) | .564 | 4-2-1 | W2-1 St. John's (H); L1-2 Carleton (H) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Gustavus Adolphus | 14-5-0 (.737) | .567 | 3-3-0 | L1-2 St. John's (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Carleton | 13-3-2 (.778) | .540 | 2-2-0 | W1-0 Macalester (H); W2-1 St. Olaf (A) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | UW-Platteville | 13-5-2 (.700) | .527 | 3-2-0 | L1-3 UW-Eau Claire (H) |
| — | 8 | 5 | Dubuque | 13-4-1 (.750) | .515 | 3-3-0 | W3-0 Luther (H); L0-1 Loras (H) |
| Y | 4 | 6 | Luther | 10-7-3 (.575) | .588 | 1-7-1 | L0-3 Dubuque (A) |
| — | — | 7 | Augsburg | 12-6-1 (.658) | .527 | 1-3-0 | L2-3 Macalester (H) |
| — | 6 | 8 | Loras | 13-6-2 (.667) | .526 | 1-5-1 | W3-0 Simpson (A); W1-0 Dubuque (A) |
| Y | 7 | — | St. John's | 8-8-1 (.500) | .564 | 3-4-1 | W2-1 Gustavus Adolphus (A); L1-2 St. Olaf (A) |
| Y | — | — | UW-Eau Claire | 15-4-0 (.789) | .514 | 3-2-0 | W3-1 UW-Platteville (A) |
| Y | — | — | Wartburg | 7-7-3 (.500) | .568 | 1-5-3 | D.N.P. |
| REGION X | 11/3 data sheet (for results thru 10/31) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| Y | 1 | 1 | Trinity (Texas) | 16-1-1 (.917) | .596 | 6-0-0 | W6-2 Colorado College (N); L0-1 St. Thomas (Texas) (N) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Mary Hardin-Baylor | 13-4-0 (.765) | .547 | 0-3-0 | W2-1 East Texas Baptist (H); L0-2 Hardin-Simmons (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Colorado College | 11-5-1 (.676) | .551 | 2-3-1 | L2-6 Trinity (Texas) (N) |
| Y | 4 | 4 | Claremont-Mudd-Scripps | 14-1-3 (.861) | .533 | 1-1-0 | W2-1 Chapman (H); L1-2 Redlands (H) |
| Y | 5 | 5 | Willamette | 12-4-1 (.735) | .527 | 1-1-0 | W1-0 Linfield (H) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Southwestern | 10-3-4 (.706) | .554 | 0-2-1 | L0-1 St. Thomas (Texas) (N) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | Redlands | 15-2-1 (.861) | .541 | 1-1-0 | W2-0 Cal Lutheran (H); W2-1 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (A) |
The Pool B Candidates
The third published NCAA regional rankings did not contain a single Pool B team. UW-Eau Claire was ranked in the first weekly rankings, but not since. That said, there is no at-large berth for Pool B this year as eplained in Part I above. Therefore, UW-Eau Claire and the other two Pool B teams go into Pool C for at-large consideration.
The Pool C Candidates
The third published NCAA regional rankings contains 58 Pool C teams. This is much higher than previously because of the expension of the rankings from 16% to 20% of eligible teams. This means that there are almost three times as many ranked Pool C teams (58) as available Pool C berths (21). So, which 21 of the ranked teams in blue above will the NCAA committee select? Let's start by grouping those Pool C candidates in the table below. The 21 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 | ||
| Y | 1 | 2 | Amherst | 12-2-2 (.813) | .635 | 6-2-1 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | 7 | Augsburg | 12-6-1 (.658) | .527 | 1-3-0 | L2-3 Macalester (H) |
| — | 6 | 6 | Bowdoin | 9-5-2 (.625) | .578 | 2-4-1 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 8 | 8 | Buffalo State | 13-6-1 (.675) | .558 | 1-2-1 | L1-2 Cortland State (A) |
| — | 4 | 5 | Calvin | 13-3-2 (.778) | .546 | 4-2-1 | L0-1 Trine (H) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | Carthage | 12-6-2 (.650) | .576 | 2-4-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 1 | 1 | Chicago | 12-5-1 (.694) | .648 | 9-3-1 | L0-1 Washington U. (A) |
| Y | 4 | 4 | Claremont-Mudd-Scripps | 14-1-3 (.861) | .533 | 1-1-0 | W2-1 Chapman (H); L1-2 Redlands (H) |
| Y | 2 | 4 | Coast Guard | 12-4-2 (.722) | .569 | 3-4-1 | W2-0 WPI (H); T0-0 MIT (A) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Colorado College | 11-5-1 (.676) | .551 | 2-3-1 | L2-6 Trinity (Texas) (N) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Connecticut College | 14-4-0 (.778) | .600 | 4-4-0 | W1-0 Colby (H); L0-2 Tufts (H) |
| — | 8 | 5 | Dubuque | 13-4-1 (.750) | .515 | 3-3-0 | W3-0 Luther (H); L0-1 Loras (H) |
| Y | — | 8 | Eastern | 10-5-2 (.647) | .574 | 1-2-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Emory | 9-3-4 (.688) | .638 | 5-2-3 | L1-2 Rochester (A) |
| Y | 6 | 2 | Franklin and Marshall | 14-3-1 (.806) | .606 | 4-3-1 | L0-1 Washington College (A) |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Gettysburg | 13-5-2 (.700) | .591 | 3-4-2 | W2-1 Swarthmore (A); W4-1 Johns Hopkins (A); L0-2 Washington College (N) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Gustavus Adolphus | 14-5-0 (.737) | .567 | 3-3-0 | L1-2 St. John's (H) |
| — | — | 9 | Hamilton | 7-7-1 (.500) | .609 | 2-5-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Hope | 11-4-3 (.694) | .561 | 3-4-2 | L0-2 Kalamazoo (A) |
| Y | 2 | 3 | Johns Hopkins | 11-4-2 (.706) | .574 | 4-3-0 | L1-4 Gettysburg (H) |
| Y | — | 8 | Kalamazoo | 10-4-2 (.688) | .549 | 2-3-2 | W2-0 Hope (H); L0-2 Trine (H) |
| Y | 3 | 4 | Kenyon | 15-2-1 (.861) | .553 | 4-2-1 | W8-0 Wabash (H); L0-1 Denison (H) |
| — | 8 | 7 | Lebanon Valley | 14-5-0 (.737) | .566 | 1-4-0 | W2-1 Alvernia (H); L1-2 Messiah (A) |
| Y | 4 | 6 | Luther | 10-7-3 (.575) | .588 | 1-7-1 | L0-3 Dubuque (A) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Mary Hardin-Baylor | 13-4-0 (.765) | .547 | 0-3-0 | W2-1 East Texas Baptist (H); L0-2 Hardin-Simmons (H) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Mary Washington | 9-5-2 (.625) | .601 | 3-3-1 | W2-1 UW-Whitewater (H); L1-2 Christopher Newport (H) |
| Y | 8 | 7 | Mass-Boston | 13-4-1 (.750) | .542 | 1-2-0 | L0-1 Western Connecticut (N) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Middlebury | 10-4-3 (.676) | .599 | 3-3-2 | L0-1 Tufts (N) |
| Y | 1 | 2 | MIT | 13-4-2 (.737) | .555 | 4-3-1 | T0-0 Coast Guard (H); L1-4 Babson (H) |
| Y | 1 | 2 | Montclair State | 16-3-1 (.825) | .566 | 4-3-0 | L0-1 Rowan (H) |
| Y | 6 | 4 | New Paltz State | 12-5-0 (.706) | .571 | 1-4-0 | L0-1 Oswego State (H) |
| Y | 2 | 1 | New York University | 10-5-1 (.656) | .633 | 5-3-0 | L0-1 Brandeis (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | North Park | 13-5-0 (.722) | .584 | 4-4-0 | L1-2 Wheaton (Ill.) (H) |
| — | 7 | 5 | Ohio Northern | 9-7-3 (.553) | .600 | 1-6-3 | W4-0 Marietta (H); L0-1 Otterbein (A) |
| Y | 1 | 1 | Ohio Wesleyan | 14-2-2 (.833) | .580 | 5-2-2 | L0-1 Denison (H) |
| Y | 4 | 3 | Oneonta State | 10-3-3 (.719) | .579 | 2-3-2 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Otterbein | 14-1-4 (.842) | .570 | 3-1-4 | W1-0 Ohio Northern (H); L0-1 John Carroll (A) |
| Y | 7 | 6 | RIT | 10-4-4 (.667) | .559 | 2-2-0 | L0-1 Skidmore (H) |
| — | 6 | 7 | Roanoke | 9-4-5 (.639) | .562 | 0-2-2 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 2 | 5 | Rochester | 9-3-4 (.688) | .593 | 3-3-1 | W2-1 Emory (H) |
| — | — | 10 | Rose-Hulman | 12-5-1 (.694) | .505 | 2-3-0 | L0-1 Defiance (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Rowan | 12-3-2 (.765) | .597 | 3-3-1 | W1-0 Montclair State (A); T0-0 Kean (A) |
| Y | 5 | 7 | RPI | 11-5-2 (.667) | .583 | 0-3-1 | L0-2 St. Lawrence (H) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Rutgers-Newark | 12-4-4 (.700) | .555 | 3-2-1 | T1-1 Kean (H) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Southwestern | 10-3-4 (.706) | .554 | 0-2-1 | L0-1 St. Thomas (Texas) (N) |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Springfield | 10-7-0 (.588) | .553 | 2-7-0 | L0-1 Babson (N) |
| Y | 1 | 1 | St. Olaf | 17-2-1 (.875) | .564 | 4-2-1 | W2-1 St. John's (H); L1-2 Carleton (H) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Swarthmore | 11-4-2 (.706) | .574 | 3-3-1 | L1-2 Gettysburg (H) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | UW-Platteville | 13-5-2 (.700) | .527 | 3-2-0 | L1-3 UW-Eau Claire (H) |
| — | — | 6 | UW-Whitewater | 15-5-1 (.738) | .523 | 4-4-0 | W3-0 Finlandia (N); L1-2 Mary Washington (A) |
| Y | 3 | 2 | Vassar | 11-4-2 (.706) | .574 | 3-1-0 | L0-2 St. Lawrence (H) |
| — | — | 9 | Wabash | 11-6-2 (.632) | .544 | 1-6-0 | L0-8 Kenyon (A) |
| Y | 1 | 1 | Washington and Lee | 14-1-2 (.882) | .595 | 4-0-2 | L2-3 Randolph (H) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Wesleyan | 10-3-3 (.719) | .570 | 4-3-2 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 6 | 5 | Wheaton (Mass.) | 12-5-0 (.706) | .570 | 2-4-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 5 | 5 | Willamette | 12-4-1 (.735) | .527 | 1-1-0 | W1-0 Linfield (H) |
| — | 9 | 8 | Wilmington | 12-3-3 (.750) | .507 | 3-2-0 | L3-4 Capital (H) |
| Y | 4 | 1 | WPI | 10-5-3 (.639) | .613 | 3-4-2 | L0-2 Coast Guard (A) |
PART III
Pool C At-Large Berth Analysis and Predictions
Given the committee's selection process (top remaining Pool C candidate from each of the ten regions on the table at a time), we considered how the committee's final rankings (that we are not privy to yet) might differ from their third weekly rankings to set the stage for our predictions. While we might not have completely agreed with the third weekly rankings, our consideration was whether the results from last week could have convinced the committee (not us) to change the order of teams. Our knowledge and analysis of selections over the past several years informed our evaluation of the data and predictions. Within the groupings we provide below in our predictions, the order is not necessarily indicative of the exact order we anticipate them being selected as that is not all that important until getting down to the final few selections. In other words, the numbering is a count up to the 21 at-large berths available, not a precise "ranking" of the Pool C at-large candidates.
Here are the men's teams we believe the committee will select to fill the 21 Pool C at-large berths in the NCAA Championship tournament field.
LOCKS - NO DISCUSSION NEEDED (2)
1. Chicago (12-5-1) - Reg. VIII | .694 Win Pct. | .648 SoS | 9-3-1 RvR
2. Amherst (12-2-2) - Reg. I | .813 Win Pct. | .635 SoS | 6-2-1 RvR
Chicago played what might be the toughest schedule in the nation and collected nine wins against ranked opponents! Amherst is near the top in winning percentage, strength of schedule, and results versus ranked teams in the nation, not just in Pool C.
LOCKS - RUBBER-STAMPING DISCUSSION (2)
3. Ohio Wesleyan (14-2-2) - Reg. VII | .833 Win Pct. | .580 SoS | 5-2-2 RvR
4. Washington and Lee (14-1-2) - Reg. VI | .882 Win Pct. | .595 SoS | 4-0-2 RvR
Both these teams were ranked No. 1 in their regions entering the final week, they have among the highest winning percentages in Pool C, and Ohio Wesleyan has 5 wins against ranked opponents while Washington and Lee hasn't lost in six matches versus ranked teams. With that on their resumes, it doesn't matter that their strength of schedules are a little below that of the teams in the next group.
SAFE, NO WORRIES (2)
5. Emory (9-3-4) - Reg. VI | .688 Win Pct. | .638 SoS | 5-2-3 RvR
6. New York University (10-5-1) - Reg. IV | .656 Win Pct. | .633 SoS | 5-3-0 RvR
These are among the highest strength of schedules in the nation, and both sides have collected five wins against ranked teams. That more than compensates for the high number of blemishes.
IN GOOD SHAPE (6)
7. Franklin and Marshall (14-3-1) - Reg. V | .806 Win Pct. | .606 SoS | 4-3-1 RvR
8. St. Olaf (17-2-1) - Reg. IX | .875 Win Pct. | .564 SoS | 4-2-1 RvR
9. Montclair State (16-3-1) - Reg. IV | .825 Win Pct. | .566 SoS | 4-3-0 RvR
10. Connecticut College (14-3-0) - Reg. I | .778 Win Pct. | .600 SoS | 4-4-0 RvR
11. Kenyon (15-2-1) - Reg. VII | .861 Win Pct. | .553 SoS | 4-2-1 RvR
12. Otterbein (14-1-4) - Reg. VII | .842 Win Pct. | .570 SoS | 3-1-4 RvR
Conference tournament losses are just a bump in the road for these teams. We see Kenyon moving ahead of Otterbein (and both behind AQ John Carroll) in the final rankings as the Kenyon's results versus ranked opponents improves (adds a fourth win along with a loss) while Otterbein's drops (loses a win, picks up a loss).
NERVOUS, BUT PROBABLY OKAY (2)
13. Rowan (12-3-2) - Reg. IV | .765 Win Pct. | .597 SoS | 3-3-1 RvR
14. North Park (13-5-0) - Reg. VIII | .722 Win Pct. | .584 SoS | 4-4-0 RvR
You could make a case that these teams belong in the group above, but you could also argue that there's very little to separate them from the teams we have on the bubble. North Park is nervous because of their 5 loses and a lower strength of schedule than the two UAA's teams, Chicago and NYU, who will certainly get in with 5 losses.
RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUBBLE (3)
15. Johns Hopkins (11-4-2) - Reg. V | .706 Win Pct. | .574 SoS | 4-3-0 RvR
16. Wesleyan (10-3-3) - Reg. I | .719 Win Pct. | .570 SoS | 4-3-2 RvR
17. Calvin (15-3-2) - Reg. VIII | .778 Win Pct. | .546 SoS | 4-2-1 RvR
We do consider these teams on the bubble and as such would not be overly surprised if any or all of them get left out in favor of teams in the group below. Johns Hopkins' four wins versus ranked opponents lands them on the right side of the bubble, but they are backing into the tournament. We have Wesleyan, who had the week off, just slipping above Middlebury in the final rankings due to picking up a fourth win versus a ranked opponent when Hamilton made the rankings last week. Calvin was a very tough call, but with Kalamazoo getting ranked last week, they now have four wins against ranked opposition and have the highest winning percentage of the bubble teams.
SQUARELY ON THE BUBBLE (PICK 'EM 4 OF 6)
18. MIT (13-4-2) - Reg. II | .737 Win Pct. | .555 SoS | 4-3-1 RvR
19. Gustavus Adolphus (14-5-0) - Reg. IX | .737 Win Pct. | .567 SoS | 3-3-0 RvR
20. Middlebury (10-4-3) - Reg. I | .676 Win Pct. | .599 SoS | 3-3-2 RvR
21. Vassar (11-4-2) - Reg. III | .706 Win Pct. | .574 SoS | 3-1-0 RvR
22. WPI (10-5-3) - Reg. II | .639 Win Pct. | .613 SoS | 3-4-2 RvR
23. Gettysburg (13-4-2) - Reg. V | .700 Win Pct. | .591 SoS | 3-4-2 RvR
We think that Babson, with their run to claim the NEWMAC AQ, will leap-frog their conference rivals MIT and WPI and into the the top spot in final Region II rankings, but still think there's a chance the committee invites a second NEWMAC team. It's extremely hard to pick between the two--WPI has better strength of schedule and won head-to-head, while MIT has better winning percentage and results versus ranked teams--but their results versus common conference foe Coast Guard could inch MIT (1-0-1) ahead of WPI (0-2-0).
As mention above, we feel that Middlebury might fall behind Wesleyan in the pecking order, meaning they get to the table later in the process while most of the other bubble teams except Gettysburg will have been under consideration earlier if not from the beginning. Shouldn't matter, but could. However, with two head-to-head wins against Wesleyan, maybe Middlebury stays ranked higher and should be in the previous group while Wesleyan is later coming to the table.
Gustavus Adolphus and Vassar will be hoping that the committee isn't going to go three-deep in the NEWMAC and that Gettysburg has too much catching-up to do after being ranked 6th in Region V last week and not getting to the table until late after Johns Hopkins is selected. However, we can't rule out Region III (Vassar), and Region II (MIT/WPI) for that matter, being shut-out of at-large berths to the tournament.
Gettysburg made up a lot of ground in the last week that saw them pick up two wins in the Centennial tournament before losing in the final. With all three games coming against teams ahead of them in the regional rankings, all their stats, especially results versus ranked (from 1-3-2 to 3-4-2), improved to likely move them above Swarthmore and onto the bubble.
WRONG SIDE OF THE BUBBLE
Swarthmore (11-4-2) - Reg. V | .706 Win Pct. | .574 SoS | 3-3-1 RvR
Coast Guard (12-4-2) - Reg. II | .722 Win Pct. | .569 SoS | 3-4-1 RvR
Rutgers-Newark (12-4-4) - Reg. IV | .700 Win Pct. | .555 SoS | 3-2-1 RvR
Mary Washington (9-6-2) - Reg. VI | .625 Win Pct. | .601 SoS | 3-3-1 RvR
Rochester (9-3-4) - Reg. III | .688 Win Pct. | .593 SoS | 3-3-1 RvR
Hope (11-4-3) - Reg. VIII | .694 Win Pct. | .561 SoS | 3-4-2 RvR
We believe that these teams will be ranked behind other teams on the bubble in the committee's final rankings, and thus either won't make it to the table, or only very late. But with so little separating these teams from the those in the previous group, hearing any of their names called won't be a big surprise.
WEST COAST LOVE
Colorado College (11-5-1) - Reg. X | .676 Win Pct. | .551 SoS | 2-3-1 RvR
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (14-2-3) - Reg. X | .861 Win Pct. | .533 SoS | 1-1-0 RvR
Our evaulation of the data doesn't quite get these two California schools into the conversation. However, we could imagine the committee being understanding of the scheduling challenges for west coast schools that put them at a disadvantage in building a strong schedule with numerous games against ranked opponents and wouldn't be completely surprised if they gave an at-large berth to Region X. We do believe that both Colorado and Claremont will climb above Mary Hardin-Baylor in the final rankings, but whether Claremont's 1-0-1 week versus Colorado's 0-1-0 week can put the Stags ahead is impossible to know.
Comments or feedback for the authors? Email Jim Hutchinson and Christan Shirk.