November 8, 2021
Women's at-large berth analysis and predictions
By Christan Shirk and Jim Hutchinson
The conference tournaments will wrap up Saturday and Sunday and 44 of the 64 berths in the NCAA women's tournament will have been claimed via automatic qualification (AQ). That leaves 20 at-large berths for the women's committee to award, all being selected from Pool C this year now that Pool B has shrunk to just two 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 20 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 20 at-large selections are added to the 44 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 women'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 15% 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 around three times 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.
- 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
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. 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 are based on games through Sunday, October 31 (i.e., the results accounted for in the third weekly rankings). Later today (Sunday) we will update this data to account for the results this past week that were not accounted for in the third weekly rankings.
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Amherst | 14-1-2 (.882) | .575 | 5-1-2 | T2-2 Middlebury (H) |
| Y | 1 | 2 | Wesleyan | 14-1-2 (.882) | .586 | 6-1-2 | W2-0 Hamilton (N); T1-1 Middlebury (N) |
| Y | 2 | 3 | Hamilton | 13-2-2 (.824) | .602 | 6-2-1 | L0-2 Wesleyan (N) |
| Y | 4 | 4 | Middlebury | 12-3-3 (.750) | .631 | 5-3-3 | T2-2 Amherst (A); T1-1 Wesleyan (N) |
| Y | 5 | 5 | Connecticut College | 9-4-3 (.656) | .578 | 2-3-3 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 8 | 6 | Western Connecticut | 18-1-0 (.947) | .539 | 2-1-0 | W3-0 Southern Maine (H); W2-0 Mass-Boston (H) |
| — | 9 | 7 | Tufts | 8-7-0 (.533) | .630 | 3-6-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 6 | 8 | Bowdoin | 8-7-1 (.531) | .615 | 1-7-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | — | 9 | Johnson and Wales | 17-3-2 (.818) | .532 | 1-1-1 | W3-0 St. Joseph (Conn.) (H); W3-0 Lasell (H) |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | MIT | 19-1-1 (.929) | .577 | 6-1-1 | W3-0 WPI (H); W6-0 Springfield (H) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Brandeis | 11-4-2 (.706) | .653 | 5-4-2 | W2-1 New York University (A) |
| Y | 6 | 3 | Babson | 9-5-5 (.605) | .587 | 3-4-3 | T0-0 WPI (H) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | WPI | 11-6-3 (.625) | .559 | 2-3-2 | T0-0 Babson (A); L0-3 MIT (A) |
| — | 7 | 5 | Emerson | 10-6-0 (.625) | .576 | 1-5-0 | L0-1 Wheaton (Mass.) (H) |
| Y | 3 | 6 | Endicott | 11-4-2 (.706) | .548 | 0-1-0 | L1-3 Gordon (H) |
| Y | 4 | 7 | Clark | 11-7-0 (.611) | .527 | 2-4-0 | L0-1 Springfield (H) |
| 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 | William Smith | 16-1-1 (.917) | .588 | 7-1-1 | W3-0 RIT (H); W3-2 Ithaca (H) |
| Y | 6 | 2 | Ithaca | 14-4-0 (.778) | .572 | 4-2-0 | W3-0 Union (N); L2-3 William Smith (A) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Geneseo State | 15-2-1 (.861) | .532 | 2-2-0 | W3-2 Fredonia State (H); W1-0 Cortland State (H) |
| Y | 4 | 4 | Vassar | 9-7-1 (.559) | .596 | 3-6-1 | L0-1 Union (A) |
| Y | 2 | 5 | RIT | 10-5-3 (.639) | .574 | 1-5-1 | W2-0 Skidmore (H); L0-3 William Smith (A) |
| — | — | 6 | Union | 9-8-2 (.526) | .598 | 4-6-0 | W1-0 Vassar (H); L0-3 Ithaca (N) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | Rochester | 6-5-5 (.531) | .632 | 0-4-5 | T0-0 Emory (H) |
| Y | 5 | 8 | Plattsburgh State | 12-4-2 (.722) | .515 | 1-2-0 | L0-3 Cortland State (H) |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Misericordia | 18-1-0 (.947) | .602 | 6-1-0 | W5-0 Wilkes (H); W1-0 Stevens (H) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | TCNJ | 16-0-2 (.944) | .587 | 4-0-2 | W2-0 Stockton (H); T0-0 Rowan (H) |
| Y | 4 | 3 | New York University | 8-7-1 (.531) | .624 | 2-7-1 | L1-2 Brandeis (H) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Stevens | 9-6-4 (.579) | .636 | 3-5-2 | W2-1 DeSales (A); L0-1 Misericordia (A) |
| Y | 3 | 5 | Montclair State | 12-5-0 (.706) | .579 | 1-4-0 | L0-1 Rowan (H) |
| — | 7 | 6 | DeSales | 13-5-0 (.722) | .518 | 2-4-0 | L1-2 Stevens (H) |
| Y | 6 | 7 | Rowan | 14-4-1 (.763) | .547 | 1-3-1 | W1-0 Montclair State (A); T0-0 TCNJ (A) |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Johns Hopkins | 14-1-2 (.882) | .597 | 5-1-2 | L0-1 Franklin and Marshall (H) |
| Y | 1 | 2 | Scranton | 16-0-1 (.971) | .582 | 4-0-0 | W2-0 Moravian (H); W2-0 Elizabethtown (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | McDaniel | 17-1-1 (.921) | .588 | 8-1-1 | W3-0 Swarthmore (H); T0-0 Franklin and Marshall (N) |
| Y | 4 | 4 | Messiah | 16-2-1 (.868) | .583 | 4-2-1 | W6-0 Albright (H); W3-0 York (Pa.) (H) |
| Y | 5 | 5 | Gettysburg | 11-4-2 (.706) | .568 | 2-3-2 | L0-1 Franklin and Marshall (H) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Swarthmore | 9-5-2 (.625) | .572 | 1-4-2 | L0-3 McDaniel (A) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | Franklin and Marshall | 13-3-3 (.763) | .585 | 3-3-2 | W1-0 Gettysburg (A); W1-0 Johns Hopkins (A); T0-0 McDaniel (N) |
| Y | 8 | 8 | Lebanon Valley | 9-7-2 (.556) | .592 | 1-7-0 | L0-2 York (Pa.) (H) |
| — | 9 | 9 | York (Pa.) | 13-7-0 (.650) | .592 | 3-6-0 | W2-0 Lebanon Valley (A); L0-3 Messiah (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 | Christopher Newport | 16-0-1 (.971) | .574 | 5-0-0 | W2-0 Salisbury (A); W1-0 UC Santa Cruz (N) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Centre | 15-1-2 (.889) | .593 | 7-1-2 | T0-0 Sewanee (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Emory | 11-4-3 (.694) | .648 | 6-4-3 | T0-0 Rochester (A) |
| Y | 6 | 4 | Bridgewater (Va.) | 15-2-3 (.825) | .532 | 1-1-2 | W2-0 Randolph-Macon (H); L0-4 Lynchburg (H) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Lynchburg | 15-5-0 (.750) | .587 | 4-4-0 | W1-0 Guilford (H); W4-0 Bridgewater (Va.) (A); L0-1 Virginia Wesleyan (A) |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Washington and Lee | 13-3-2 (.778) | .560 | 1-3-1 | W2-1 Shenandoah (H); L0-1 Virginia Wesleyan (H) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | Virginia Wesleyan | 13-5-2 (.700) | .603 | 3-4-1 | W1-0 Roanoke (H); W1-0 Washington and Lee (A); W1-0 Lynchburg (H) |
| — | 8 | 8 | Rhodes | 12-2-2 (.813) | .519 | 3-2-1 | W2-1 Berry (N); W2-1 Sewanee (N) |
| Y | 9 | 9 | Berry | 11-6-0 (.647) | .536 | 1-4-0 | L1-2 Rhodes (N) |
| Y | — | 10 | Sewanee | 11-5-3 (.658) | .570 | 1-5-2 | T0-0 Centre (A); L1-2 Rhodes (N) |
| 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 | Case Western Reserve | 14-1-2 (.882) | .582 | 7-1-2 | W1-0 Carnegie Mellon (A) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Carnegie Mellon | 11-5-1 (.676) | .626 | 4-5-1 | L0-1 Case Western Reserve (H) |
| Y | 4 | 3 | Hanover | 13-1-4 (.833) | .531 | 3-1-3 | W2-1 Rose-Hulman (H); T1-1 Mount St. Joseph (A) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Ohio Northern | 13-4-3 (.725) | .573 | 6-3-1 | W2-1 Capital (H); W1-0 Otterbein (A) |
| Y | 3 | 5 | Denison | 11-5-0 (.688) | .561 | 1-3-0 | L0-1 Wittenberg (H) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Otterbein | 15-3-0 (.833) | .513 | 1-3-0 | W2-0 Baldwin Wallace (H); L0-1 Ohio Northern (H) |
| — | — | 7 | Mount St. Joseph | 11-7-3 (.595) | .523 | 3-4-1 | T1-1 Transylvania (H); T1-1 Hanover (H) |
| — | 9 | 8 | Rose-Hulman | 12-3-2 (.765) | .514 | 0-3-1 | L1-2 Hanover (A) |
| — | — | 9 | Capital | 9-8-2 (.526) | .571 | 0-7-1 | W3-1 Heidelberg (H); L1-2 Ohio Northern (A) |
| Y | 7 | 10 | Penn State-Behrend | 19-1-0 (.950) | .489 | 0-1-0 | W6-0 Penn State-Altoona (H); W2-0 Pitt-Greensburg (H) |
| 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 | Washington U. | 13-1-2 (.875) | .657 | 7-1-2 | T1-1 Chicago (H) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Chicago | 12-2-4 (.778) | .623 | 4-2-3 | T1-1 Washington U. (A) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Calvin | 13-3-1 (.794) | .577 | 2-3-1 | T0-0 Trine (H) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Trine | 15-4-2 (.762) | .572 | 3-3-2 | T0-0 Calvin (A); L1-3 Hope (A) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | MSOE | 16-4-0 (.800) | .539 | 3-3-0 | L1-2 Dominican (H) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Hope | 13-4-2 (.737) | .583 | 4-2-2 | T0-0 Albion (A); W3-1 Trine (H) |
| — | 8 | 7 | Albion | 10-2-2 (.786) | .554 | 3-1-2 | T0-0 Hope (H) |
| Y | 7 | 8 | Dominican | 18-2-2 (.864) | .534 | 1-2-2 | W2-1 MSOE (A); W2-1 Illinois Tech (H) |
| — | — | 9 | North Central (Ill.) | 12-7-1 (.625) | .577 | 1-4-0 | W6-3 Illinois Wesleyan (A); L0-2 Wheaton (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 | Loras | 18-0-1 (.974) | .559 | 4-0-1 | W1-0 Luther (H); W4-1 Wartburg (H) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | St. Catherine | 14-1-3 (.861) | .554 | 4-0-1 | W5-0 Gustavus Adolphus (H); W1-0 Saint Benedict (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | UW-La Crosse | 14-4-2 (.750) | .589 | 3-4-1 | W3-0 UW-Stevens Point (H); L1-2 UW-Oshkosh (A) |
| Y | 4 | 4 | Wartburg | 15-3-1 (.816) | .568 | 3-3-1 | W1-0 Simpson (H); L1-4 Loras (A) |
| Y | 5 | 5 | UW-Oshkosh | 16-2-1 (.868) | .522 | 5-1-0 | W3-2 UW-Eau Claire (H); W2-1 UW-La Crosse (H) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Saint Benedict | 11-4-3 (.694) | .557 | 1-4-1 | W3-2 Saint Mary's (Minn.) (H); L0-1 St. Catherine (A) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | UW-Whitewater | 11-7-0 (.611) | .558 | 3-6-0 | L0-1 UW-Eau Claire (H) |
| Y | 8 | 8 | Augsburg | 9-7-2 (.556) | .575 | 1-3-2 | L0-1 Gustavus Adolphus (A) |
| — | — | 9 | UW-Eau Claire | 10-9-2 (.524) | .583 | 2-6-1 | W1-0 UW-Whitewater (A); L2-3 UW-Oshkosh (A) |
| 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) | 14-1-1 (.906) | .566 | 3-1-1 | W2-0 University of Dallas (H); W5-0 Southwestern (N) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Southwestern | 15-2-1 (.861) | .512 | 2-1-0 | W4-0 Texas Lutheran (N); L0-5 Trinity (Texas) (N) |
| Y | 4 | 3 | Pomona-Pitzer | 15-1-2 (.889) | .545 | 2-0-1 | W2-1 Occidental (H); W2-0 Cal Lutheran (H) |
| Y | 3 | 4 | Puget Sound | 14-2-2 (.833) | .510 | 1-1-0 | L0-1 Pacific Lutheran (A); L0-1 Lewis and Clark (A) |
| Y | 5 | 5 | Pacific Lutheran | 17-2-0 (.895) | .539 | 2-1-0 | W1-0 Puget Sound (H); W1-0 George Fox (A) |
| Y | 7 | 6 | Cal Lutheran | 12-5-4 (.667) | .576 | 0-4-2 | W4-1 Chapman (H); L0-2 Pomona-Pitzer (A) |
| Y | 6 | 7 | Hardin-Simmons | 13-3-1 (.794) | .563 | 0-2-0 | W4-0 Texas-Dallas (H); W4-0 McMurry (H); T0-0 Mary Hardin-Baylor (H) |
The Pool B Candidates
The third published NCAA regional rankings did not contain a single Pool B team and there is no at-large berth for Pool B this year as eplained in Part I above.
The Pool C Candidates
The third published NCAA regional rankings include 58 Pool C teams. This is much higher than previously because of the expansion of the rankings from 15% to 20% of eligible teams. This means that there are nearly three times as many ranked Pool C teams (58) as available Pool C berths (20). So, which 20 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 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 | ||
| — | 8 | 7 | Albion | 10-2-2 (.786) | .554 | 3-1-2 | T0-0 Hope (H) |
| Y | 3 | 1 | Amherst | 14-1-2 (.882) | .575 | 5-1-2 | T2-2 Middlebury (H) |
| Y | 8 | 8 | Augsburg | 9-7-2 (.556) | .575 | 1-3-2 | L0-1 Gustavus Adolphus (A) |
| Y | 6 | 3 | Babson | 9-5-5 (.605) | .587 | 3-4-3 | T0-0 WPI (H) |
| Y | 9 | 9 | Berry | 11-6-0 (.647) | .536 | 1-4-0 | L1-2 Rhodes (N) |
| Y | 6 | 8 | Bowdoin | 8-7-1 (.531) | .615 | 1-7-0 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Brandeis | 11-4-2 (.706) | .653 | 5-4-2 | W2-1 New York University (A) |
| Y | 6 | 4 | Bridgewater (Va.) | 15-2-3 (.825) | .532 | 1-1-2 | W2-0 Randolph-Macon (H); L0-4 Lynchburg (H) |
| Y | 7 | 6 | Cal Lutheran | 12-5-4 (.667) | .576 | 0-4-2 | W4-1 Chapman (H); L0-2 Pomona-Pitzer (A) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Calvin | 13-3-1 (.794) | .577 | 2-3-1 | T0-0 Trine (H) |
| — | — | 9 | Capital | 9-8-2 (.526) | .571 | 0-7-1 | W3-1 Heidelberg (H); L1-2 Ohio Northern (A) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Carnegie Mellon | 11-5-1 (.676) | .626 | 4-5-1 | L0-1 Case Western Reserve (H) |
| Y | 1 | 1 | Case Western Reserve | 14-1-2 (.882) | .582 | 7-1-2 | W1-0 Carnegie Mellon (A) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Centre | 15-1-2 (.889) | .593 | 7-1-2 | T0-0 Sewanee (H) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Chicago | 12-2-4 (.778) | .623 | 4-2-3 | T1-1 Washington U. (A) |
| Y | 4 | 7 | Clark | 11-7-0 (.611) | .527 | 2-4-0 | L0-1 Springfield (H) |
| Y | 5 | 5 | Connecticut College | 9-4-3 (.656) | .578 | 2-3-3 | D.N.P. |
| Y | 3 | 5 | Denison | 11-5-0 (.688) | .561 | 1-3-0 | L0-1 Wittenberg (H) |
| — | 7 | 6 | DeSales | 13-5-0 (.722) | .518 | 2-4-0 | L1-2 Stevens (H) |
| — | 7 | 5 | Emerson | 10-6-0 (.625) | .576 | 1-5-0 | L0-1 Wheaton (Mass.) (H) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | Emory | 11-4-3 (.694) | .648 | 6-4-3 | T0-0 Rochester (A) |
| Y | 3 | 6 | Endicott | 11-4-2 (.706) | .548 | 0-1-0 | L1-3 Gordon (H) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | Franklin and Marshall | 13-3-3 (.763) | .585 | 3-3-2 | W1-0 Gettysburg (A); W1-0 Johns Hopkins (A); T0-0 McDaniel (N) |
| Y | 5 | 5 | Gettysburg | 11-4-2 (.706) | .568 | 2-3-2 | L0-1 Franklin and Marshall (H) |
| Y | 2 | 3 | Hamilton | 13-2-2 (.824) | .602 | 6-2-1 | L0-2 Wesleyan (N) |
| Y | 6 | 2 | Ithaca | 14-4-0 (.778) | .572 | 4-2-0 | W3-0 Union (N); L2-3 William Smith (A) |
| Y | 2 | 1 | Johns Hopkins | 14-1-2 (.882) | .597 | 5-1-2 | L0-1 Franklin and Marshall (H) |
| Y | 8 | 8 | Lebanon Valley | 9-7-2 (.556) | .592 | 1-7-0 | L0-2 York (Pa.) (H) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | Lynchburg | 15-5-0 (.750) | .587 | 4-4-0 | W1-0 Guilford (H); W4-0 Bridgewater (Va.) (A); L0-1 Virginia Wesleyan (A) |
| Y | 3 | 5 | Montclair State | 12-5-0 (.706) | .579 | 1-4-0 | L0-1 Rowan (H) |
| — | — | 7 | Mount St. Joseph | 11-7-3 (.595) | .523 | 3-4-1 | T1-1 Transylvania (H); T1-1 Hanover (H) |
| Y | 4 | 5 | MSOE | 16-4-0 (.800) | .539 | 3-3-0 | L1-2 Dominican (H) |
| Y | 4 | 3 | New York University | 8-7-1 (.531) | .624 | 2-7-1 | L1-2 Brandeis (H) |
| — | — | 9 | North Central (Ill.) | 12-7-1 (.625) | .577 | 1-4-0 | W6-3 Illinois Wesleyan (A); L0-2 Wheaton (Ill.) (A) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Otterbein | 15-3-0 (.833) | .513 | 1-3-0 | W2-0 Baldwin Wallace (H); L0-1 Ohio Northern (H) |
| Y | 5 | 8 | Plattsburgh State | 12-4-2 (.722) | .515 | 1-2-0 | L0-3 Cortland State (H) |
| Y | 3 | 4 | Puget Sound | 14-2-2 (.833) | .510 | 1-1-0 | L0-1 Pacific Lutheran (A); L0-1 Lewis and Clark (A) |
| Y | 2 | 5 | RIT | 10-5-3 (.639) | .574 | 1-5-1 | W2-0 Skidmore (H); L0-3 William Smith (A) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | Rochester | 6-5-5 (.531) | .632 | 0-4-5 | T0-0 Emory (H) |
| — | 9 | 8 | Rose-Hulman | 12-3-2 (.765) | .514 | 0-3-1 | L1-2 Hanover (A) |
| Y | 6 | 7 | Rowan | 14-4-1 (.763) | .547 | 1-3-1 | W1-0 Montclair State (A); T0-0 TCNJ (A) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Saint Benedict | 11-4-3 (.694) | .557 | 1-4-1 | W3-2 Saint Mary's (Minn.) (H); L0-1 St. Catherine (A) |
| Y | — | 10 | Sewanee | 11-5-3 (.658) | .570 | 1-5-2 | T0-0 Centre (A); L1-2 Rhodes (N) |
| Y | 2 | 2 | Southwestern | 15-2-1 (.861) | .512 | 2-1-0 | W4-0 Texas Lutheran (N); L0-5 Trinity (Texas) (N) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Stevens | 9-6-4 (.579) | .636 | 3-5-2 | W2-1 DeSales (A); L0-1 Misericordia (A) |
| Y | 6 | 6 | Swarthmore | 9-5-2 (.625) | .572 | 1-4-2 | L0-3 McDaniel (A) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | Trine | 15-4-2 (.762) | .572 | 3-3-2 | T0-0 Calvin (A); L1-3 Hope (A) |
| — | 9 | 7 | Tufts | 8-7-0 (.533) | .630 | 3-6-0 | D.N.P. |
| — | — | 6 | Union | 9-8-2 (.526) | .598 | 4-6-0 | W1-0 Vassar (H); L0-3 Ithaca (N) |
| — | — | 9 | UW-Eau Claire | 10-9-2 (.524) | .583 | 2-6-1 | W1-0 UW-Whitewater (A); L2-3 UW-Oshkosh (A) |
| Y | 3 | 3 | UW-La Crosse | 14-4-2 (.750) | .589 | 3-4-1 | W3-0 UW-Stevens Point (H); L1-2 UW-Oshkosh (A) |
| Y | 7 | 7 | UW-Whitewater | 11-7-0 (.611) | .558 | 3-6-0 | L0-1 UW-Eau Claire (H) |
| Y | 4 | 4 | Vassar | 9-7-1 (.559) | .596 | 3-6-1 | L0-1 Union (A) |
| Y | 4 | 4 | Wartburg | 15-3-1 (.816) | .568 | 3-3-1 | W1-0 Simpson (H); L1-4 Loras (A) |
| Y | 5 | 6 | Washington and Lee | 13-3-2 (.778) | .560 | 1-3-1 | W2-1 Shenandoah (H); L0-1 Virginia Wesleyan (H) |
| Y | 1 | 2 | Wesleyan | 14-1-2 (.882) | .586 | 6-1-2 | W2-0 Hamilton (N); T1-1 Middlebury (N) |
| Y | 5 | 4 | WPI | 11-6-3 (.625) | .559 | 2-3-2 | T0-0 Babson (A); L0-3 MIT (A) |
| — | 9 | 9 | York (Pa.) | 13-7-0 (.650) | .592 | 3-6-0 | W2-0 Lebanon Valley (A); L0-3 Messiah (A) |
PART III - Analysis and Predictions
“Coming Sunday.” Well, Monday actually, but still eight hours ahead of the Selection Show.
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.
Additional commentary will likely be added a little later, but here are the women's teams we believe the committee will select to fill the 20 Pool C at-large berths in the NCAA Championship tournament field.
LOCKS - NO DISCUSSION NEEDED (3)
1. Case Western Reserve (13-1-2) - Reg. VII / Win% 0.882 / SoS 0.582 / RvR 7-1-2
2. Centre (15-1-2) - Reg. VI / Win% 0.889 / SoS 0.593 / RvR 7-1-2
3. Johns Hopkins (14-1-2) - Reg. VI / Win% 0.889 / SoS 0.593 / RvR 7-1-3
SAFE, NO WORRIES (4)
4. Emory (11-4-2) - Reg. V / Win% 0.882 / SoS 0.597 / RvR 5-1-2
5. Wesleyan (13-1-1) - Reg. VI / Win% 0.694 / SoS 0.648 / RvR 6-4-3
6. Amherst (14-1-1) - Reg. I / Win% 0.882 / SoS 0.586 / RvR 6-1-2
7. Hamilton (13-1-2) - Reg. I / Win% 0.882 / SoS 0.575 / RvR 5-1-2
IN GOOD SHAPE (5)
8. Brandeis (10-4-2) - Reg. II / Win% 0.706 / SoS 0.653 / RvR 5-4-2
9. Chicago (12-2-3) - Reg. VIII / Win% 0.778 / SoS 0.623 / RvR 4-2-3
10. Carnegie Mellon (11-4-1) - Reg. VII / Win% 0.676 / SoS 0.626 / RvR 4-5-1
11. Ithaca (13-3-0) Reg. III / Win% 0.778 / SoS 0.572 / RvR 4-2-0
12. Lynchburg (15-4-0) Reg. VI / Win% 0.750 / SoS 0.587 / RvR 4-4-0
NERVOUS, BUT PROBABLY OKAY (3)
13. UW-La Crosse (14-3-2) - Reg. IX / Win% 0.750 / SoS 0.589 / RvR 3-4-1
14. Wartburg (15-2-1) - Reg. IX / Win% 0.816 / SoS 0.568 / RvR 3-3-1
15. Franklin and Marshall (13-3-2) - Reg. V / Win% 0.763 / SoS 0.585 / RvR 3-3-2
RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUBBLE (3)
16. Calvin (13-3-1) - Reg. VIII / Win% 0.794 / SoS 0.577 / RvR 2-3-1
17. MSOE (16-4-0) - Reg. VIII / Win% 0.800 / SoS 0.539 / RvR 3-3-0
18. Trine (15-3-2) - Reg. VIII / Win% 0.762 / SoS 0.572 / RvR 3-3-2
SQUARELY ON THE BUBBLE (PICK 'EM 2 OF 6)
19. Babson (9-5-5) - Reg. II / Win% 0.605 / SoS 0.587 / RvR 3-4-3
20. Stevens (9-5-4) - Reg. IV / Win% 0.579 / SoS 0.636 / RvR 3-5-2
21. Union (9-7-2) - Reg. III / Win% 0.526 / SoS 0.598 / RvR 4-6-0
22. Vassar (9-7-1) - Reg. III / Win% 0.559 / SoS 0.596 / RvR 3-6-1
23. UW-Whitewater (12-7-0) - Reg. IX / Win% 0.632 / SoS 0.558 / RvR 3-6-0
24. Gettysburg (11-4-2) - Reg. V / Win% 0.706 / SoS 0.568 / RvR 2-3-2
WRONG SIDE OF THE BUBBLE
UW-Whitewater (12-7-0) - Reg. IX / Win% 0.632 / SoS 0.558 / RvR 3-6-0
Gettysburg (11-4-2) - Reg. V / Win% 0.706 / SoS 0.568 / RvR 2-3-2
Connecticut College (9-4-3) - Reg. I / Win% 0.656 / SoS 0.578 / RvR 2-3-3
Tufts (8-7-0) - Reg. I / Win% 0.533 / SoS 0.630 / RvR 3-6-0
Southwestern (15-1-1) - Reg. X / Win% 0.861 / SoS 0.512 / RvR 2-1-0
New York University (8-6-1) - Reg. IV / Win% 0.53125 / SoS 0.624 / RvR 2-7-1
Comments or feedback for the authors? Email Jim Hutchinson and Christan Shirk.
