NCAA Proposal re Tournament Selection Criteria

[smoova]

Saw this posted on the DIII soccer board, but hadn't seen discussion here (mod's please delete if there is already a thread).

The NCAA is considering moving to a power index mechanism to select teams for DIII tourneys. Full report here: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/commit ... Report.pdf

Good twitter thread by the Denison Men's Soccer HC here: https://twitter.com/BMBianco/status/177 ... 79106?s=20

From my quick read, if adopted as proposed, the NPI metric will likely mean the end of coaches working to craft strong OOC schedules.

On a positive note, the report recommends an increase in the DIII men's lacrosse bracket from 38 to 40 teams.

[Motorman]

Saw this posted on the DIII soccer board, but hadn't seen discussion here (mod's please delete if there is already a thread).

The NCAA is considering moving to a power index mechanism to select teams for DIII tourneys. Full report here: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/commit ... Report.pdf

Good twitter thread by the Denison Men's Soccer HC here: https://twitter.com/BMBianco/status/177 ... 79106?s=20

From my quick read, if adopted as proposed, the NPI metric will likely mean the end of coaches working to craft strong OOC schedules.

On a positive note, the report recommends an increase in the DIII men's lacrosse bracket from 38 to 40 teams.

I would love to see NCAA expand tournament rosters to reflect current sizes. Seems unfair that teams are now carrying 40-50-55 players but tournament rosters are barely half that. Rather than expand field at least allow players who rostered all season not be forced to watch as a fan in the stands. If NCAA doesn’t want to pay, allow schools to cover cost if they choose to.

[thescottharris]

This seems bad if what the Denison soccer coach says, a selection of stuff from his Twitter thread...

High level, what does the Pairwise [the company doing the data] algorithm do?
1. It ranks every team in every sport #1 through whatever the sport membership is (like RPI)
2. It factors in WL%, SOS, Quality Wins
3. MOST IMPORTANT- it “adjusts” everyone’s schedule and removes games against “bad” opponents.

Had Pairwise been used last fall in soccer, W&L (Final Four team) who played the 10th-hardest schedule in the country (out of 415), won 70% of their games, and had 5 RvR would not have made the NCAA’s. In fact, they would have needed to jump 5 teams to just be the last team in!!!

Who would have gotten in over them? A team who played 53% of their schedule against teams #217+ (5 against teams in the 300’s!), with only 2 Top 100 wins (#45, 68). All other wins (13!) were #’s 179-365! This is just 1 example. There were more from last year just like this team.

4. THERE IS LESS INCENTIVE TO PLAY A COMPETITIVE SCHEDULE- “bad” games get dropped. My team plays Newport and Stevens this year for example- moving forward, there’s less incentive to play these.

8. If you play a great schedule and win a ton of games, you’ll always be fine. It’s that next “tier” that most likely will be affected most. The 12-3-3 high SOS team won’t be as competitive as the higher WL lower SOS. Again, more incentive to schedule wins moving forward.

[VTLaxGuy]

The only thing I can think of as to why this is being pushed so hard from the powers that be is the fact that for many teams it costs a lot of money to build a strong schedule with a top SOS.

How much money will schools save, department wide, when they play conference opponents and the schools within a few hours of them (instead of making overnight trips to find the strongest opponents possible)?

I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT THOUGHT PROCESS - but when trying to see why AD's and Presidents would get behind this proposal, that's what I keep coming back to.

[TucoBPJMRamirez]

This will likely mean the end of schools in competitive conferences scheduling a number of tough OOC games. The new metric will effectively ignore OOC wins against weak teams when calculating SOS for selection purposes ... resulting in a higher SOS for schools that already play a strong conference slate. Those schools are now incented to seek out very winable OOC games. Unlike soccer, lacrosse coaches still have some time to tweak their 2025 schedules once this new criteria is adopted (which appears virtually certain). Won't be surprised to see major downgrades in OOC opponents for schools in the LL, NESCAC, etc.

[StevieUAlum]

This will likely mean the end of schools in competitive conferences scheduling a number of tough OOC games. The new metric will effectively ignore OOC wins against weak teams when calculating SOS for selection purposes ... resulting in a higher SOS for schools that already play a strong conference slate. Those schools are now incented to seek out very winable OOC games. Unlike soccer, lacrosse coaches still have some time to tweak their 2025 schedules once this new criteria is adopted (which appears virtually certain). Won't be surprised to see major downgrades in OOC opponents for schools in the LL, NESCAC, etc.

Again I really hate to be the bearer of bad news but most teams in the LL and NESCAC don't really have that tough of OOC schedules unless you're Tufts or RIT.

Some teams have started to beef up the schedule a little bit. But those two consistently play the best OOC of the teams from the aforementioned leagues.

Most LL and NESCAC teams SOS comes from conference play.

[WhiteCarrera]

One note though, is that each sport committee has the ability to reflexively adjust the emphasis on win-loss record and SOS. If I understand the process, within the formula there is a combined factor of 1.00 for these two things. They can be viewed at .50/.50, or if the sport committed wanted to emphasize one over the other they could weight one at .75 and the other .25 (or any combination totaling 1.00). No doubt, there's some subjective trial and error, but there is definitely an ability to reward SOS if the committee so decides.

[ah23]

Again I really hate to be the bearer of bad news but most teams in the LL and NESCAC don't really have that tough of OOC schedules unless you're Tufts or RIT.

Some teams have started to beef up the schedule a little bit. But those two consistently play the best OOC of the teams from the aforementioned leagues.

Most LL and NESCAC teams SOS comes from conference play.

If you're looking at all 19 teams from both conferences then sure, but if you're only considering the teams that matter for the postseason (call it top seven in the NESCAC, top four in the LL) Wesleyan/Bowdoin/Hamilton are the only three teams that don't have really good OOC schedules.

# of preseason top 20 teams scheduled in OOC play this season:
FIVE
Tufts: #3 RIT, #4 CNU, #12 Union, #18 Stevens, #19 Babson

FOUR
Amherst: #8 Gettysburg, #9 Lynchburg, #15 Swarthmore, #17 RPI
Middlebury: #12 Union, #14 St. Lawrence, #17 RPI, #19 Babson
RIT: #2 Tufts, #7 W&L, #11 York, #15 Denison
RPI: #6 Middlebury, #11 York, #13 Amherst, #19 Williams
Union: #2 Tufts, #6 Middlebury, #19 Babson, #19 Williams
Williams: #4 CNU, #12 Union, #17 RPI, #19 Babson

THREE
St. Lawrence: #4 CNU, #6 Middlebury, #11 York

TWO
None

ONE
Hamilton: # 9 Lynchburg
Wesleyan: #18 Stevens
Bowdoin: #19 Babson

FWIW I used the preseason poll because it shows intent to schedule tough opponents. As far as I can tell using current rankings would move all NESCAC teams' SOS up and 3/4 of the LL teams' SOS down because NESCAC OOC opponents have almost all made big jumps (RPI +15, St.L +9, Union +4, Stevens +5, Babson +5, Endicott NR to 18) while York/Denison (and soon to be Middlebury) have dropped out of the polls entirely. Feel free to fact check me on this obviously, I didn't go into as much depth/actual tracking with the current rankings.

[DeepPocket]

My bad. Misread the post.

[droliver]

I think some people are misunderstanding the proposal. I presume the "bad" games to be removed from the formula are lower ranked wins. That would serve to encourage stronger scheduling like the RPI does in basketball in that your w/L is actually de-emphasized. The balancing act here is actually the opposite in that you don't want to alternately discourage top teams from playing the equivalent of mid-majors because it would hurt their SOS

Who is seeing something otherwise?

[SKUD]

This interview helps explain it the best if you have the time and patience to listen.

https://youtu.be/kMvVzjc6sNs?si=X5NxMCp4YFfKpAU5