Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'College & Amateur Soccer' started by espola, Nov 25, 2019.
Didn't seem to happen this year.
Or did I miss it?
The year's not over ...
I think the quarterfinals will bring the RPI (East-West) issue into sharper focus:
 SMU (AAC) @  Virginia (ACC)
 Stanford (Pac 12) @  Clemson (ACC)
 Washington (Pac 12) @  Georgetown (Big East)
[unseeded] UCSB (Big West) @  Wake Forest (ACC)
The top seven seeds are all through, but now the four eastern teams will remain as hosts, and the four western teams - including hard-charging outsider UCSB - will be on the road.
If the home teams win, you'll have to pick your poison - home field advantage or correct RPI seeding. To the extent the away teams win, the seeding may be called into question.
I'll add that the four B1G teams were exposed, not as pretenders but clearly not as strong as advertised. This coming just a year after three of four College Cup teams were from that conference.
Minor correction, 7 of the top 8 seeds are through as UCSB defeated #5 Indiana
Thanks, I knew that, and meant that, but failed to communicate that.
If UCSB had made the College Cup last year or next year, they would be playing at home. But no, they have to make a run in the in-between year when they'll have to travel to NC …
As for seeding: hard to do sginificantly better, IMO. And I've spent years fiddling around with various ranking systems such as hockey's KRACH, the Colley matrix, etc. It always comes down to win percentage vs strength of schedule. And, as much as I hate to admit it, losing to a few strong teams in the regular season is better prep for the tournament than beating a few less-tough teams.
As for "east coast bias", there are more strong teams in the east. That's a fact of life at present, and leads to better strength-of-schedule for eastern teams. If a western team wants to prove itself, it can just go out and win: e.g., Stanford's incredible 3-year run of championships.
I hate this discussion right now. It has shown up on Twitter since the final eight have been established.
Not only are there more strong teams in the east, there are more teams in the east...period! No reason for them to not have more of the share in the final eight. Doesn't mean there aren't strong teams there, as Stanford has shown. But, this is the tournament and it's a win and you keep playing structure. Sometimes the "better" teams don't advance.
The first round seeded bye is such a statistically overwhelming advantage. It is where the very structure of the competition affects the outcome the most. Playing twice in four days? Either expand the tournament to 64 teams or contract it to 32. I prefer the expansion, but I can live with the contraction.
Every year my conviction grows stronger on this point.
Well I don't think either is going to happen any time soon. There are 24 conferences, and the NCAA is firmly committed to the policy of an equal number of at-large teams. That's 48 total, which is 23% of the 206 DI teams. Based on other sports, the NCAA strives for somewhere between 20% and 25% in the tournament, with closer to 20 being preferred (see basketball). 64 would be 31%. It would mean adding teams like 9-7-1 Albany, RPI #51. Not to dis Albany in particular, but a 9-7-1 team whose best win is #16 New Hampshire, second best #52 Vermont, and who played 2/3 of their games against teams below 90 in RPI? Just doesn't make sense to me.
The much discussed (and sadly dismissed) split season would solve the short-rest problem.
I see the bye as fair as it rewards strong play before the NCAA Tournament starts. We want the regular season to mean something and this helps accomplish that.
I think that's somewhat important, but also the conference tournaments should mean something...IF they are going to make them qualifiers for the national tournament.
Teams that win their conference tournament should get some preference over teams that don't win conference OR their conference tournament. If that is an "automatic qualifier" then it should mean something. Or...and this is my preference...just do away with the conference tournament altogether and go with regular seasons. That puts more emphasis on the regular season results AND scheduling.
West coast showing out again in tourney. Would like to have seen Oregon State have a shot. The east coast bias in selection/seed is tough to overcome.
Oregon State has a soccer team? Not sure what you mean by 'east coast bias.'
I would not mind doing away with the conference tournaments, the only downside I see would relate to the crowd size and overall energy lost from the urgency of the games. Could that be translated to the conference regular season?
This year I was fortunate enough to attend the Patriot League Championship game at Lehigh. The crowd was 1700 plus and was one of the most electric I have seen in college soccer. The situation was perfect for a large crowd, Lehigh played Lafayette, which is their local rival (30 minute away), so both schools had large representation.
Two weeks earlier the two schools played at Lehigh during the regular season and the crowd size was 1/3rd the size. For Lehigh the regular season championship was still very much on the line.
I think an evaluation needs to be done. I know for some there are good crowds. For others...TERRIBLE. Nothing worse than seeing a 5v6 matchup at a neutral venue that's 3-5 hours from both teams who are playing in it. I've seen them. I've been to them. While the crowd is good at times, what's the cost for it? Players missing classes. Added travel times for many involved.
In 2017 and 2018, I was at the B1G tournament in Westfield, Indiana. Horrible conditions. Not awful crowds, but not great. Definitely not the most ideal location for it to be played in. I'm glad they moved it to a school (Maryland). At least you can count on more to be there -- for as long as that team is playing in it.
I do get it though...US fans are still enthralled with the "tournament" structure. Sigh.
Ten days earlier, I attended the Duke @ NC State first round of the ACC tournament game and there were less than 400 in attendance for that one.
I am not argue to keep the tournaments ( I am actually not a fan), just looking 360.
Oregon State beat UCLA & Stanford
Yes they hvae a team - about the same level as UCSB this year
The UCSB who has crashed the seed party
Oregon State lost to Coastal Carolina and Grand Canyon, which is why their RPI fell to 50. Win those games and they're 10-4-2 and likely get an at-large bid.
They also lost to Cal and UCSB, both of which got at-large bids.
In other words, they had plenty of chances to get in and didn't take advantage of them. That's not on the selection committee.
Also, beating UCLA hasn't mean much the past couple of years and OSU didn't beat Stanford, they tied them twice.
RPI isn't the issue now. It's travel expenses. Three west coast teams flying across the country all at once, and perhaps UCSB had to go home from Bloomington and then back across the country again in one week? So much for the NCAA's interest in keeping travel costs down
...and their home game vs. UC Davis was cancelled due to weather. Win or lose, that game would have helped their OSS.
Because of the pervasive tournament infrastructure in high school and college, for most players their last game is a loss.
You are a poet at heart. Perhaps you have missed your calling.
The escape is to win the last regular season game and not qualify or be eligible for any post-season tournament.
I confirm this… Even if it might technically be a draw (......PKs……)
In Maryland (at least) there is no such escape, as all teams, including win-less teams - or perhaps in your scenario one-win teams - make the playoffs/tournament. There are four divisions, so four brackets, and four State champions end the season with a victory. All the other teams end their season with a loss.