November 10, 2019
Women's at-large berth analysis and predictions
By Christan Shirk and Jim Hutchinson
The conference tournaments will wrap up Saturday and Sunday and 43 of the 64 berths in the NCAA women's tournament will have been claimed via automatic qualification (AQ). That leaves 21 at-large berths for the women's committee to award by selecting one team from Pool B and 20 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 20 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 2019 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 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 10.
- 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 6.
- 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 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 several years yields the following observations.
- In the last eight years (2011 through 2018) only one team that was unranked in the third weekly regional rankings (those released the Wednesday before the selections), has received a Pool C berth.
- There will probably be twice as many Pool C candidates in the rankings as available berths. For example, last year, after the AQ’s were earned, there were 43 Pool C women's teams in the third rankings but only 20 Pool C berths available. In the five years before that, the ratio was 41/20, 40/20, 43/20, 43/20, and 39/20.
- Regions generally have two to four ranked teams not selected, maybe one more or one less for the weakest and strongest regions in that particular year. Also, the regions with the larger number of ranked teams such as New England, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic generally have more ranked teams not selected. Most of the at-large selections come from the top half of each region's rankings.
- Within a region, rarely does a lower ranked team in the third weekly rankings get selected ahead of a higher ranked team. In fact, there have been no instances of this happening in three of the last five years with two cases in 2015 and just one occurrence in 2012,2013 and last year. These instances are explained by what occurred in the final week before the at-large selections.
- An extensive analysis of the last eight years indicates that Strength of Schedule and Wins vs. Ranked teams are highly correlated to selection. A high Win percentage alone does not guaranteed selection.
- 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
By Christan Shirk and Jim Hutchinson
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 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 we think may be ranked in the fourth rankings. 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 few percentage points.
| Classification of teams: | AQ (Pool A) | Pool B | Pool C |
| NEW ENGLAND REGION | 11/6 data sheet (for results thru 11/3) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | MIT | 19-1-2 (.909) | .594 | 7-1-2 | W3-0 Springfield (H); W3-0 WPI (H) |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | Middlebury | 13-2-3 (.806) | .597 | 5-2-2 | W2-0 Williams (H); L0-1 Amherst (H) |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Tufts | 12-3-2 (.765) | .631 | 6-3-2 | L0-1 Amherst (H) |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | Williams | 9-5-2 (.625) | .639 | 5-3-2 | L0-2 Middlebury (A) |
| 7 | 6 | 5 | Amherst | 14-3-1 (.806) | .584 | 6-3-1 | W3-0 Tufts (A); W1-0 Middlebury (A) |
| 4 | 4 | 6 | Wesleyan | 9-5-2 (.625) | .564 | 4-4-1 | D.N.P. |
| 10 | 7 | 7 | Hamilton | 10-5-1 (.656) | .574 | 1-5-1 | D.N.P. |
| 6 | 8 | 8 | Connecticut College | 10-5-1 (.656) | .570 | 2-4-1 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | 9 | WPI | 16-5-1 (.750) | .531 | 1-4-0 | W4-0 Wheaton (Mass.) (H); W4-0 Babson (H); L0-3 MIT (A) |
| 9 | 10 | 10 | Springfield | 11-6-3 (.625) | .562 | 1-5-2 | T0-0 Emerson (H); L0-3 MIT (A) |
| 8 | 9 | 11 | Brandeis | 11-7-0 (.611) | .627 | 2-7-0 | W1-0 New York University (H) |
| 11 | 11 | 12 | Emerson | 10-6-3 (.605) | .550 | 1-4-1 | T0-0 Springfield (A) |
| — | 12 | — | Trinity (Conn.) | 6-7-2 (.467) | .602 | 3-4-1 | D.N.P. |
| 12 | — | — | Wheaton (Mass.) | 8-6-4 (.556) | .578 | 0-5-1 | L0-4 WPI (A) |
| EAST REGION | 11/6 data sheet (for results thru 11/3) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | William Smith | 16-1-1 (.917) | .625 | 8-1-0 | W2-0 St. Lawrence (H); W1-0 Vassar (H) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Geneseo State | 15-3-1 (.816) | .561 | 2-2-0 | W3-2 Plattsburgh St. (H); L0-1 Cortland St. (H) |
| 7 | 7 | 3 | New York University | 11-7-0 (.611) | .629 | 3-6-0 | L0-1 Brandeis (A) |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | Rochester | 9-6-2 (.588) | .632 | 2-6-2 | L1-2 Emory (A) |
| 3 | 3 | 5 | RIT | 11-5-2 (.667) | .591 | 1-5-1 | L0-1 Vassar (H) |
| 6 | 6 | 6 | St. Lawrence | 12-5-0 (.706) | .589 | 1-4-0 | W2-0 RPI (H); L0-2 William Smith (A) |
| — | — | 7 | Vassar | 11-8-1 (.575) | .607 | 3-5-0 | W1-0 Union (H); W1-0 RIT (A); L0-1 William Smith (A) |
| 5 | 5 | — | Nazareth | 9-6-2 (.588) | .581 | 1-3-0 | L0-1 Hartwick (A) |
| — | — | — | Union | 9-7-1 (.559) | .553 | 0-4-1 | L0-1 Vassar (A) |
| — | — | — | Hartwick | 12-4-3 (.711) | .522 | 0-2-0 | W1-0 Nazareth (H); L0-1 Utica (H) |
| — | — | — | Plattsburgh State | 10-8-1 (.553) | .523 | 0-3-0 | L2-3 Geneseo State (A) |
| MID-ATLANTIC REGION | 11/6 data sheet (for results thru 11/3) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Messiah | 18-1-1 (.925) | .626 | 6-1-1 | W6-0 Albright (H); W3-0 Arcadia (H) |
| 5 | 4 | 2 | Dickinson | 14-2-4 (.800) | .626 | 5-2-2 | W3-0 Gettysburg (H); L0-2 Johns Hopkins (H) |
| 2 | 2 | 3 | Johns Hopkins | 14-2-4 (.800) | .671 | 7-2-3 | W1-0 Haverford (H); W2-0 Dickinson (A) |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | Arcadia | 15-3-3 (.786) | .605 | 4-2-1 | W2-0 Stevenson (H); L0-3 Messiah (A) |
| 6 | 5 | 5 | Stevens | 15-3-1 (.816) | .619 | 2-3-1 | W2-0 Wilkes (H); W2-0 Misericordia (H) |
| 9 | 7 | 6 | Gettysburg | 13-4-1 (.750) | .607 | 4-3-0 | W2-1 McDaniel (H); L0-3 Dickinson (A) |
| 4 | 6 | 7 | Haverford | 12-4-2 (.722) | .590 | 2-4-1 | L0-1 Johns Hopkins (A) |
| 7 | 8 | 8 | McDaniel | 13-6-0 (.684) | .593 | 2-5-0 | L1-2 Gettysburg (A) |
| 8 | 9 | 9 | Swarthmore | 12-5-0 (.706) | .623 | 2-5-0 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | 10 | Susquehanna | 14-4-2 (.750) | .521 | 0-0-0 | T0-0 Catholic (H); L0-3 Scranton (H) |
| 10 | 10 | — | Misericordia | 11-6-2 (.632) | .617 | 0-4-2 | W4-0 DeSales (H); L0-2 Stevens (A) |
| — | — | — | Franklin & Marshall | 10-6-1 (.618) | .582 | 1-5-0 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | — | Albright | 12-8-0 (.600) | .576 | 1-4-0 | W3-0 Hood (H); L0-6 Messiah (A) |
| — | — | — | Penn State-Berks | 14-6-0 (.700) | .545 | 0-4-0 | W6-0 Penn College (H) |
| — | — | — | Cabrini | 15-3-2 (.800) | .481 | 1-1-0 | W2-0 Wesley (A); W2-0 Marywood (A) |
| SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION | 11/6 data sheet (for results thru 11/3) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | TCNJ | 16-1-1 (.917) | .579 | 4-1-0 | W2-0 Rowan (H); W3-2 Montclair State (H) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Christopher Newport | 15-2-3 (.825) | .556 | 2-1-2 | L0-1 Mary Washington (H) |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | Centre | 20-0-0 (1.000) | .527 | 3-0-0 | W6-0 Berry (H); W3-0 Rhodes (H) |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | Emory | 13-4-0 (.765) | .658 | 5-4-0 | W2-1 Rochester (H) |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | Randolph-Macon | 20-0-1 (.976) | .544 | 1-0-0 | W4-1 Lynchburg (H); W1-0 Bridgewater (Va.) (H); T0-0 Virginia Wesleyan (H) |
| 7 | 7 | 6 | Montclair State | 13-6-2 (.667) | .603 | 2-4-0 | W2-0 Stockton (H); L2-3 TCNJ (A) |
| 6 | 6 | 7 | Roanoke | 13-6-1 (.675) | .599 | 0-3-0 | L1-2 Bridgewater (Va.) (A) |
| — | 8 | 8 | Salisbury | 13-3-3 (.763) | .530 | 1-2-1 | L1-2 York (Pa.) (H) |
| 8 | — | — | Lynchburg | 11-8-1 (.575) | .622 | 0-5-1 | W4-0 Eastern Menno. (H); L1-4 Randolph-Macon (A) |
| — | — | — | Washington and Lee | 16-2-2 (.850) | .523 | 1-0-1 | W4-0 Ferrum (H); L0-1 Virginia Wesleyan (H) |
| — | — | — | Bridgewater (Va.) | 12-7-2 (.619) | .582 | 2-3-2 | W2-1 Roanoke (H); L0-1 Randolph-Macon (A) |
| — | — | — | Rhodes | 12-6-0 (.667) | .591 | 0-4-0 | W3-0 Sewanee (H); L0-3 Centre (A) |
| — | — | — | Stockton | 14-4-3 (.738) | .530 | 0-2-1 | L0-2 Montclair State (A) |
| GREAT LAKES REGION | 11/6 data sheet (for results thru 11/3) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 2 | 2 | 1 | Case Western Res. | 13-5-0 (.722) | .596 | 4-5-0 | L1-3 Carnegie Mellon (H) |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | Ohio Northern | 16-2-2 (.850) | .568 | 4-2-1 | W1-0 John Carroll (H); W2-1 Otterbein (H) |
| 1 | 1 | 3 | Carnegie Mellon | 11-5-1 (.676) | .651 | 4-5-1 | W3-1 Case Western Reserve (A) |
| 7 | 7 | 4 | Capital | 14-6-0 (.700) | .570 | 2-4-0 | L1-2 Otterbein (H) |
| 4 | 4 | 5 | Otterbein | 16-4-1 (.786) | .564 | 3-3-1 | W2-1 Wilmington (H); W2-1 Capital (A); L1-2 Ohio Northern (A) |
| 6 | 6 | 6 | Wooster | 14-2-3 (.816) | .537 | 3-1-2 | W2-0 Denison (H); W1-0 DePauw (A) |
| 8 | 8 | 7 | DePauw | 12-6-2 (.650) | .563 | 0-3-2 | W2-1 Kenyon (H); L0-1 Wooster (H) |
| 5 | 5 | 8 | Denison | 8-7-4 (.526) | .622 | 2-5-3 | L0-2 Wooster (A) |
| CENTRAL REGION | 11/6 data sheet (for results thru 11/3) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Washington U. | 15-1-2 (.889) | .643 | 8-1-1 | T1-1 Chicago (A) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Wheaton (Ill.) | 16-1-2 (.895) | .616 | 5-1-1 | T0-0 Augustana (H) |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | Chicago | 12-2-3 (.794) | .661 | 5-2-3 | T1-1 Washington U. (H) |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | Illinois Wesleyan | 14-5-0 (.737) | .584 | 2-3-0 | W1-0 No. Central (Ill.) (H); W1-0 Augustana (H) |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | Adrian | 14-4-2 (.750) | .536 | 0-3-2 | W5-2 Albion (H); W4-0 Kalamazoo (H) |
| — | — | 6 | Concordia (Wis.) | 17-4-0 (.810) | .499 | 0-0-0 | W5-3 Illinois Tech (H); W2-1 Dominican (A) |
| — | 6 | — | North Central (Ill.) | 9-9-1 (.500) | .556 | 1-5-0 | L0-1 Illinois Wesleyan (A) |
| 6 | — | — | Webster | 15-4-1 (.775) | .496 | 0-1-0 | W1-0 Westminster (Mo.) (H); W1-0 Greenville (H) |
| NORTH REGION | 11/6 data sheet (for results thru 11/3) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | St. Thomas | 15-2-3 (.825) | .607 | 3-2-2 | W3-0 Bethel (H); T1-1 Augsburg (A) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Wartburg | 13-2-3 (.806) | .592 | 5-2-1 | W4-0 Dubuque (H); W2-0 Luther (H) |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | Augsburg | 14-3-2 (.789) | .591 | 5-1-1 | W5-1 Saint Benedict (H); T1-1 St. Thomas (H) |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | UW-Stevens Point | 11-4-3 (.694) | .567 | 3-2-0 | T1-1 UW-La Crosse (H) |
| 7 | 6 | 5 | Saint Benedict | 11-6-2 (.632) | .603 | 1-5-0 | W3-2 Carleton (H); L1-5 Augsburg (A) |
| — | 7 | 6 | Loras | 13-5-0 (.722) | .555 | 1-4-0 | L2-3 Luther (H) |
| 6 | — | 7 | Dubuque | 12-5-2 (.684) | .579 | 2-3-0 | L0-4 Wartburg (A) |
| — | — | 8 | UW-Eau Claire | 14-6-0 (.700) | .536 | 1-4-0 | L1-2 UW-River Falls (H) |
| 5 | 4 | — | UW-La Crosse | 12-7-3 (.614) | .584 | 1-5-2 | W1-0 UW-Oshkosh (H); T1-1 UW-Stevens Point (A); L1-4 UW-Whitewater (A) |
| — | 8 | — | UW-Whitewater | 14-5-3 (.705) | .558 | 2-3-0 | W3-1 UW-River Falls (H); W4-1 UW-La Crosse (H) |
| 8 | — | — | Carleton | 9-5-3 (.618) | .566 | 0-3-1 | L2-3 Saint Benedict (A) |
| WEST REGION | 11/6 data sheet (for results thru 11/3) | ||||||
| Rank | School | Division III | Past Week's Results (not accounted for in rankings) |
||||
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Record (Pct.) | SoS | RvR | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Pomona-Pitzer | 16-1-1 (.917) | .603 | 6-1-1 | W5-0 Occidental (H); W3-0 Cal Lutheran (H) |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | Cal Lutheran | 12-3-3 (.750) | .588 | 3-2-3 | W1-0 Occidental (A); W1-0 Chapman (H); L0-3 Pomona-Pitzer (A) |
| 2 | 4 | 3 | Trinity (Texas) | 13-3-1 (.794) | .598 | 1-2-0 | W2-0 University of Dallas (H); T0-0 Southwestern (H) |
| 6 | 3 | 4 | Claremont-M-S | 9-4-3 (.656) | .592 | 3-3-1 | D.N.P. |
| 4 | 5 | 5 | Hardin-Simmons | 16-2-1 (.868) | .552 | 0-2-1 | W4-0 Concordia (Texas) (H); W2-1 McMurry (H); W2-0 Mary Hardin-Baylor (H) |
| — | 6 | 6 | Chapman | 11-4-3 (.694) | .548 | 2-4-1 | L0-1 Cal Lutheran (A) |
| 5 | — | — | Texas-Dallas | 15-2-4 (.810) | .513 | 1-1-0 | T1-1 Belhaven (H); T0-0 Mary Hardin-Baylor (A) |
| — | — | — | Pacific Lutheran | 16-2-2 (.850) | .496 | 0-1-0 | T0-0 Puget Sound (H); L1-2 Linfield (A) |
| — | — | — | UC Santa Cruz | 6-1-1 (.813) | .507 | 0-1-1 | D.N.P. |
SoS - Division III Strength of Schedule (weighted OWP-OOWP)
RvR - Record versus Ranked Opponents (opponents ranked in the third weekly rankings released November 1.)
(for further explanation of how Strength of Schedule is calulated and Record versus Ranked Opponents is determined, read this or the Pre-Championships Manual, pgs. 22, 45.)
The Pool B Candidates
The third published NCAA regional rankings did not contain any of this season's 14 Pool B teams, most of which come from the second-year Atlantic East Conference (AEC) and the geographically disjointed American Collegiate Athletic Association (ACAA) which do not receive automatic berths to the tournaments. For comparison and discussion, the five Pool B candidates with at least a .500 winning percentage are listed in the following table.
| 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 | ||
| — | — | — | Cabrini | 15-3-2 (.800) | .481 | 1-1-0 | W2-0 Wesley (A); W2-0 Marywood (A) |
| — | — | — | UC Santa Cruz | 6-1-1 (.813) | .507 | 0-1-1 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | — | Finlandia | 10-6-1 (.618) | .397 | 0-1-0 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | — | Marywood | 9-8-0 (.529) | .496 | 0-0-0 | W2-0 Immaculata (H); L0-2 Cabrini (H) |
| — | — | — | Wesley | 8-8-0 (.500) | .477 | 0-0-0 | L0-2 Cabrini (H) |
The Pool C Candidates
The third published NCAA regional rankings contained 46 Pool C teams which is a higher than usual amount. More improtantly, it is well more than double the 20 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 20 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 20 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 | ||
| — | — | — | Albright | 12-8-0 (.600) | .576 | 1-4-0 | W3-0 Hood (H); L0-6 Messiah (A) |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | Arcadia | 15-3-3 (.786) | .605 | 4-2-1 | W2-0 Stevenson (H); L0-3 Messiah (A) |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | Augsburg | 14-3-2 (.789) | .591 | 5-1-1 | W5-1 Saint Benedict (H); T1-1 St. Thomas (H) |
| 8 | 9 | 11 | Brandeis | 11-7-0 (.611) | .627 | 2-7-0 | W1-0 New York University (H) |
| — | — | — | Bridgewater (Va.) | 12-7-2 (.619) | .582 | 2-3-2 | W2-1 Roanoke (H); L0-1 Randolph-Macon (A) |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | Cal Lutheran | 12-3-3 (.750) | .588 | 3-2-3 | W1-0 Occidental (A); W1-0 Chapman (H); L0-3 Pomona-Pitzer (A) |
| 7 | 7 | 4 | Capital | 14-6-0 (.700) | .570 | 2-4-0 | L1-2 Otterbein (H) |
| 8 | — | — | Carleton | 9-5-3 (.618) | .566 | 0-3-1 | L2-3 Saint Benedict (A) |
| 1 | 1 | 3 | Carnegie Mellon | 11-5-1 (.676) | .651 | 4-5-1 | W3-1 Case Western Reserve (A) |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | Case Western Res. | 13-5-0 (.722) | .596 | 4-5-0 | L1-3 Carnegie Mellon (H) |
| — | 6 | 6 | Chapman | 11-4-3 (.694) | .548 | 2-4-1 | L0-1 Cal Lutheran (A) |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | Chicago | 12-2-3 (.794) | .661 | 5-2-3 | T1-1 Washington U. (H) |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Christopher Newport | 15-2-3 (.825) | .556 | 2-1-2 | L0-1 Mary Washington (H) |
| 6 | 3 | 4 | Claremont-M-S | 9-4-3 (.656) | .592 | 3-3-1 | D.N.P. |
| 6 | 8 | 8 | Connecticut College | 10-5-1 (.656) | .570 | 2-4-1 | D.N.P. |
| 5 | 5 | 8 | Denison | 8-7-4 (.526) | .622 | 2-5-3 | L0-2 Wooster (A) |
| 8 | 8 | 7 | DePauw | 12-6-2 (.650) | .563 | 0-3-2 | W2-1 Kenyon (H); L0-1 Wooster (H) |
| 5 | 4 | 2 | Dickinson | 14-2-4 (.800) | .626 | 5-2-2 | W3-0 Gettysburg (H); L0-2 Johns Hopkins (H) |
| 6 | — | 7 | Dubuque | 12-5-2 (.684) | .579 | 2-3-0 | L0-4 Wartburg (A) |
| 11 | 11 | 12 | Emerson | 10-6-3 (.605) | .550 | 1-4-1 | T0-0 Springfield (A) |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | Emory | 13-4-0 (.765) | .658 | 5-4-0 | W2-1 Rochester (H) |
| — | — | — | Franklin & Marshall | 10-6-1 (.618) | .582 | 1-5-0 | D.N.P. |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Geneseo State | 15-3-1 (.816) | .561 | 2-2-0 | W3-2 Plattsburgh St. (H); L0-1 Cortland St. (H) |
| 9 | 7 | 6 | Gettysburg | 13-4-1 (.750) | .607 | 4-3-0 | W2-1 McDaniel (H); L0-3 Dickinson (A) |
| 10 | 7 | 7 | Hamilton | 10-5-1 (.656) | .574 | 1-5-1 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | — | Hartwick | 12-4-3 (.711) | .522 | 0-2-0 | W1-0 Nazareth (H); L0-1 Utica (H) |
| 4 | 6 | 7 | Haverford | 12-4-2 (.722) | .590 | 2-4-1 | L0-1 Johns Hopkins (A) |
| — | 7 | 6 | Loras | 13-5-0 (.722) | .555 | 1-4-0 | L2-3 Luther (H) |
| 8 | — | — | Lynchburg | 11-8-1 (.575) | .622 | 0-5-1 | W4-0 Eastern Menno. (H); L1-4 Randolph-Macon (A) |
| 7 | 8 | 8 | McDaniel | 13-6-0 (.684) | .593 | 2-5-0 | L1-2 Gettysburg (A) |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | Middlebury | 13-2-3 (.806) | .597 | 5-2-2 | W2-0 Williams (H); L0-1 Amherst (H) |
| 10 | 10 | — | Misericordia | 11-6-2 (.632) | .617 | 0-4-2 | W4-0 DeSales (H); L0-2 Stevens (A) |
| 7 | 7 | 6 | Montclair State | 13-6-2 (.667) | .603 | 2-4-0 | W2-0 Stockton (H); L2-3 TCNJ (A) |
| 5 | 5 | — | Nazareth | 9-6-2 (.588) | .581 | 1-3-0 | L0-1 Hartwick (A) |
| 7 | 7 | 3 | New York University | 11-7-0 (.611) | .629 | 3-6-0 | L0-1 Brandeis (A) |
| — | 6 | — | North Central (Ill.) | 9-9-1 (.500) | .556 | 1-5-0 | L0-1 Illinois Wesleyan (A) |
| 4 | 4 | 5 | Otterbein | 16-4-1 (.786) | .564 | 3-3-1 | W2-1 Wilmington (H); W2-1 Capital (A); L1-2 Ohio Northern (A) |
| — | — | — | Plattsburgh State | 10-8-1 (.553) | .523 | 0-3-0 | L2-3 Geneseo State (A) |
| — | — | — | Rhodes | 12-6-0 (.667) | .591 | 0-4-0 | W3-0 Sewanee (H); L0-3 Centre (A) |
| 3 | 3 | 5 | RIT | 11-5-2 (.667) | .591 | 1-5-1 | L0-1 Vassar (H) |
| 6 | 6 | 7 | Roanoke | 13-6-1 (.675) | .599 | 0-3-0 | L1-2 Bridgewater (Va.) (A) |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | Rochester | 9-6-2 (.588) | .632 | 2-6-2 | L1-2 Emory (A) |
| 7 | 6 | 5 | Saint Benedict | 11-6-2 (.632) | .603 | 1-5-0 | W3-2 Carleton (H); L1-5 Augsburg (A) |
| — | 8 | 8 | Salisbury | 13-3-3 (.763) | .530 | 1-2-1 | L1-2 York (Pa.) (H) |
| 9 | 10 | 10 | Springfield | 11-6-3 (.625) | .562 | 1-5-2 | T0-0 Emerson (H); L0-3 MIT (A) |
| 6 | 6 | 6 | St. Lawrence | 12-5-0 (.706) | .589 | 1-4-0 | W2-0 RPI (H); L0-2 William Smith (A) |
| — | — | — | Stockton | 14-4-3 (.738) | .530 | 0-2-1 | L0-2 Montclair State (A) |
| — | — | 10 | Susquehanna | 14-4-2 (.750) | .521 | 0-0-0 | T0-0 Catholic (H); L0-3 Scranton (H) |
| 8 | 9 | 9 | Swarthmore | 12-5-0 (.706) | .623 | 2-5-0 | D.N.P. |
| 5 | — | — | Texas-Dallas | 15-2-4 (.810) | .513 | 1-1-0 | T1-1 Belhaven (H); T0-0 Mary Hardin-Baylor (A) |
| — | 12 | — | Trinity (Conn.) | 6-7-2 (.467) | .602 | 3-4-1 | D.N.P. |
| 2 | 4 | 3 | Trinity (Texas) | 13-3-1 (.794) | .598 | 1-2-0 | W2-0 University of Dallas (H); T0-0 Southwestern (H) |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | Tufts | 12-3-2 (.765) | .631 | 6-3-2 | L0-1 Amherst (H) |
| — | — | — | Union | 9-7-1 (.559) | .553 | 0-4-1 | L0-1 Vassar (A) |
| — | — | 8 | UW-Eau Claire | 14-6-0 (.700) | .536 | 1-4-0 | L1-2 UW-River Falls (H) |
| 5 | 4 | — | UW-La Crosse | 12-7-3 (.614) | .584 | 1-5-2 | W1-0 UW-Oshkosh (H); T1-1 UW-Stevens Point (A); L1-4 UW-Whitewater (A) |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | UW-Stevens Point | 11-4-3 (.694) | .567 | 3-2-0 | T1-1 UW-La Crosse (H) |
| — | — | 7 | Vassar | 11-8-1 (.575) | .607 | 3-5-0 | W1-0 Union (H); W1-0 RIT (A); L0-1 William Smith (A) |
| — | — | — | Washington and Lee | 16-2-2 (.850) | .523 | 1-0-1 | W4-0 Ferrum (H); L0-1 Virginia Wesleyan (H) |
| 4 | 4 | 6 | Wesleyan | 9-5-2 (.625) | .564 | 4-4-1 | D.N.P. |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Wheaton (Ill.) | 16-1-2 (.895) | .616 | 5-1-1 | T0-0 Augustana (H) |
| 12 | — | — | Wheaton (Mass.) | 8-6-4 (.556) | .578 | 0-5-1 | L0-4 WPI (A) |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | Williams | 9-5-2 (.625) | .639 | 5-3-2 | L0-2 Middlebury (A) |
| — | — | 9 | WPI | 16-5-1 (.750) | .531 | 1-4-0 | W4-0 Wheaton (Mass.) (H); W4-0 Babson (H); L0-3 MIT (A) |
PART III
Pool B At-Large Berth Analysis and Prediction
Looking at the table of Pool B teams with at least .500 winning percentages, the at-large berth certainly goes to either AEC champion Cabrini (15-3-2) or ACAA champion UC Santa Cruz (13-3-2). At this late hour, we did not have time to confirm if Santa Cruz is eligible despite not playing 70% of its games against Division III in-region opponents as required, but we will assume an exemption was granted given that their men's team, who also failed to meet this threshold, was ranked regionally for one week indicating eligibility. Both Pool B candidates had high Division III winning percentages and both had extremely low Division III Strength of Schedules well below what would be required to garner a Pool C at-large berth. While Santa Cruz has the edge in both those criteria , the results versus ranked opponents favors Cabrini. We believe the at-large berth will go to Cabrini on the strength of their win over ranked Montclair State, the NJAC finalist. Santa Cruz counters with a tie against ranked Claremont-Mudd-Scripps who missed out on the SCIAC playoffs.
Pool C At-Large Berth Analysis and Predictions
LOCKS - NO DISCUSSION NEEDED (4)
|
1. Dickinson (14-2-4) 2. Wheaton (Ill.) (16-1-2) 3. Tufts (12-3-2) 4. Chicago (12-2-3) |
All four have a winning percentage greater than 0.750 and a Strength of Schedule greater than 0.625. Each has five or more wins versus ranked teams contributing to a winning percentage of 0.650 or better against ranked opponents. |
LOCKS - WITH RUBBER-STAMPING DISCUSSION (3)
|
5. Emory (13-4-0) 6. Augsburg (14-3-2) 7. Middlebury (13-2-3) |
All three have a winning percentage greater than 0.750, a Strength of Schedule greater than 0.600. Each has five wins versus ranked teams fostering a strong winning percentage against ranked opponents, or in the Emory's case, the second highest Strength of Schedule in the field. |
SAFE, NO WORRIES (2)
|
8. Gettysburg (13-4-1) 9. Arcadia (15-3-3) |
Both have a winning percentage greater than 0.750 with a Strength of Schedule marginally above 0.600. Both have four wins versus ranked teams and a winning record versus ranked opponents. |
IN GOOD SHAPE (3)
10. Christopher Newport (15-2-3) - Second highest winning percentage with a Strength of Schedule greater than 0.550. A 0.600 winning percentage versus ranked teams but only two wins. Only five matches against ranked opponents is reflected in the modest, for this group, Strength of Schedule.
11. Cal Lutheran (12-3-3) - Our first representative from the West Region meets both the winning percentage and Strength of Schedule thresholds of 0.750 and 0.575, respectively. Three wins versus ranked teams and a 3-2-3 recored overall seals the deal.
12. Williams (9-5-2) - A middle of the pack winning percentage is more than offset as it was acheved against the fourth highest Strength of Schedule of 0.639. Rounding out the resume are five wins versus ranked opponents and a 0.650 winning percentage against ranked sides.
PROBABLY OKAY, BUT STILL NERVOUS (2)
13. Geneseo State (15-3-1) - A very strong 0.816 winning percentage which is in the top five, slightly dimished by solid but not as strong Strength of Schedule compared to the teams in the categories above. Only four matches versus ranked teams with two wins; again, marginally lower than the four groups above.
14. Trinity (Texas) (15-3-1) - Quite similar to Geneseo State's profile with a lower winning percentage more than offset by a 0.598 Strength of Schedule depite only three ranked teams in their schedule.
RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUBBLE (4)
15. Otterbein (16-4-1) - Their winning percentage is only slightly lower than Trinity (Texas), but their Strength of Schedule is 34 points lower. Otterbein faced a relatively high seven ranked opponents—which implies there were several weaker teams on their calendar—and was even at 3-3-1.
16. Wesleyan (9-5-2) - Wesleyan could be on the "bubble" given they have the weakest winning percentage / Strength of Schedule combination of the teams in this group; however, they have a 4-4-1 record versus ranked teams and since 2011 only one of forty-eight teams with four or more ranked wins has not received a bid.
17. Carnegie Mellon (11-5-1) - The third highest Strength of Schedule more than offsets the 0.676 winning percentage. Their record verus ranked teams, at 4-5-1, is slightly below 0.500, but are only one of four teams that faced ten or more ranked opponents.
18. Case Western Reserve (13-5-0) - The Spartans lost to Great Lakes neighbor—and neighbor in this category—CMU in their regular season finale. Their winning percentage is approximately 50 points higher than CMU's but their Strength of Schedule is roughly 50 points lower. At 4-5-0, their record versus ranked teams is nearly identical. As already noted, four wins versus ranked opponents seems to be a key to earning an invite to the big dance.
SQUARELY ON THE BUBBLE (PICK 'EM 2 OF 4)
19. UW-Stevens Point (11-4-3) - Win% 0.694 / SoS 0.567 / RvR 3-2-0. Lower win percentage and SoS than others under consideration, but the best RvR of the remaining teams.
20. Haverford (12-4-2) - Win% 0.722 / SoS 0.590 / RvR 2-4-1. Middle of the pack win pct.; SoS above 0.575 threshold and two wins versus ranked.
21. Montclair State (13-6-2) - Win% 0.667 / SoS 0.603 / RvR 2-4-0.
22. Swarthmore (12-5-0) - Win% 0.706 / SoS 0.623 / RvR 2-5-0. But for the disappointing 2-5-0 record agains ranked teams, a case can be made to moved the Garnet up a group.
WRONG SIDE OF THE BUBBLE – ALTHOUGH I’VE BEEN WRONG BEFORE (6)
23. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (10-4-3) - Win% 0.656 / SoS 0.592 / RvR 3-3-1
24. Capital (14-6-0) - Win% 0.700 / SoS 0.590 / RvR 2-4-0
25. McDaniel (13-6-0) - Win% 0.684 / SoS 0.593 / RvR 2-5-0
26. New York University (11-7-0) - Win% 0.611 / SoS 0.629 / RvR 3-6-0
27. Dubuque (12-5-2) - Win% 0.684 / SoS 0.579 / RvR 2-3-0
28. Connecticut College (10-5-1) - Win% 0.656 / SoS 0.570 / RvR 2-4-1
PART IV
Some Final Observations and Comments
1:20 am EST. This was my second time through this exercise and I am ten hours earlier than the last year!!
This is a challenging exercise as you move down through the tiers. I'm glad I don't have to do this for real.
Comments or feedback for the authors? Email Jim Hutchinson and Christan Shirk.
