The RPI valuing a win as twice the value of a draw has always been the case. And, so far as I know and going back at least to 2007, conferences always have valued a win as three times the value of a draw. This has nothing to do with the change to no overtimes. The doubling of the number of draws does affect the RPIs of individual teams, depending on how the draws are distributed among them. And it does affect standings within conferences. Overall, however, it does not affect average conference RPI strength very much for most conferences, but it does affect a few conferences significantly. An example is the Ivy League, where the change historically would have resulted in its teams having poorer average ranks by about 5.5 rank positions. On the other hand, its two most commong non-conference playing partners, America East and Patriot, have their average ranks improving by about 3.2 and 7.0 rank positions, respectively. This suggests (I have not looked game by game) that the Ivy historically has won an atypical number of overtime games when playing those two conferences. One can speculate about why and have subjective opinions whether this is good or bad. In terms of the RPI formula itself, the change does not affect the relative effective weights of the three RPI elements. It appears that it does, however, slightly compress the ranges of values that that each element will produce -- which means the RPI rating numbers will be slightly closer together than they have been in the past. From everything I have seen so far, in terms of RPI ratings overall -- and likely the NCAA Tournament seeding and at large selection process -- it looks like it will be business as usual. In other words, from what I am seeing in the data, nothing fundamental has changed from a rating and NCAA Tournament decision process perspective.
It will be very interesting what the NCAA committee will do with a tea like VCU.4-1-7 They have 7 draws and 2 of them bad URI and UMass. Why not take 1 game off the regular season number of games? Some of the greatest moments in NCAA soccer happened in OT
Just for illustration, as the ratings and ranks will change a lot before the end of the season: Looking at VCU, and if this were the end of the season and the Committee is looking at the data on which they must make their decision: They are ranked #41. They have a tie against #6 Virginia and a win over #8 Pittsburgh. Their RPI rank will get them into the pool of teams considered for at large selections (within the top 57, which is the historic cut off). Their results against Virginia and Pitt will get them selected. There is not much evidence that poor results will hurt a team -- unless it comes down to teams competing for a #1 seed. Rather, the evidence -- especially for at large selections -- says what matters is the level at which a team has shown it can compete successfully.
One of the things I look to see in evaluating different versions of the RPI is how close these two ranks are for teams: Rank by the version; and Rank by the version as a strength of schedule contributor. One of the problems of the RPI is that these can be very different. As a result of this, coaches have to be careful in non-conference scheduling to pay attention not only to the potential rank of an opponent but also to the opponent’s potential rank as a strength of schedule contributor. Thus if the coach wants to play an opponent likely to be in a particular rank range, the coach has to evaluate the teams in that rank range to see which are likely to be the best strength of schedule contributors. I just have compared the extent of this problem for the RPI under the old rule as compared to the RPI with no overtimes. The extent of the problem is just about the same for the two of them, with the RPI with no OTs having a very slightly greater problem but not enough to have a greater impact on scheduling.
I have to say that I miss OT. I certainly don't want players to get injured, but I think if coaches use their bench, and most do, sometimes liberally, I wonder if OT is really that much of a problem.
I don't miss OT too much but no question it makes it 20 minutes easier for a team to "play for the draw". About using the bench, the coach just has to use it better over the 90 minutes and really push to score late in the 2nd half if they think they have the better team or some matchup or tactical advantage. I can tell you it sure is nice to stay on schedule! Esp for teams that share fields. Will there be more healthy players available in the post-season? without the extra mileage from OT games? You assume that is true but seems very hard to prove it.
In the work I have been doing, I have seen something interesting. As context, on average over the years, teams from stronger conferences have performed better in relation to their RPI ratings than teams from weaker conferences. This is due to a combination of (1) there not being a high enough proportion of non-conference games and (2) the particular structure of the RPI as the NCAA has set it up. With no OT games, it turns out that for the most closely rated 20 percent of games, the level of discrimination against teams from stronger conferences is somewhat reduced. On the other hand, it also turns out that with no OTs, across the spectrum of all games, the level of discrimination against teams from stronger conferences is slightly increased. To be honest, I do not know what to make of this other than that on the issue of discrimination and whether the no OT rule will reduce of increase the discrimination, the evidence is inconclusive. So far as tactics are concerned, my hunch is that although the new rule may result in changes of game tactics, overall those changes are not going to make a big difference. As would have happened in the past if I simply eliminate OTs from games that actually went to OT, we should expect to see about 20 percent of games ending in ties rather than the actual 10 percent that we had with OTs. That is the percentage we actually are having so far this year, so if there already are tactical changes being made, they are not affecting the number of OT games that past history says we should expect. The bottom line, I think, is that going to no OTs will not have a big effect from a big picture point of view. Rather, aside from player safety considerations and looking at it from a fan perspective, it is simply a matter of taste. Some prefer having OTs and some prefer not having them.
I think it is way too small of a sample to draw many conclusions in terms of percentage of tie games, health of players and seeding/NCAA brackets. Let’s see what it looks like after a couple of years. I suspect we will see some fairly substantial differences both good and bad.
Except for the percentage of tie games this year -- a little over 20 percent -- my work uses all games played since 2010 (which is when the NCAA stats system first started showing overtimes in their game reports) -- some 33,000 games. I agree, however, that this year is far too small a sample, plus if there are going to be tactical changes that reduce the number of overtime games they may not have been made yet. Nevertheless, it also is worth it to note that the number so far this year is just about exactly consistent with the number of games in prior years that were tied at the end of regular time. So, I think the accurate thing to say is that what we are seeing this year is consistent with past years, but it is possible it will change some in the future as coaches adapt tactically to the new reality. In the future, there could be more ties than this year or there could be fewer. Only time will tell.
I will be interested to see if certain conferences or levels within D1 have more draws than others. Mid majors compared to the ACC and Big10.
It will interesting as we move in to later October if we see that adaptation. With league schedules hitting their zenith, many teams will have to chase 3 points where in non-league and early conference you may just take the tie. I’ll be interested if that tie rate goes down in October.
I just wish they would’ve kept the golden goal in for post season, honestly, I feel that’s one aspect of the college game that fifa should’ve adopted. It would grow the game to the more causal fan and that’s good for the game. Imagine a World Cup final ending in a golden goal in OT.
This is a good and interesting question, but considering the data properly is not so easy. Consider the following hypothetical to see why: Conference A and Conference B play 10 cross conference games. They are very close within the ratings and all of their cross-conference games are between teams that are very close in the ratings. Of their 10 non-conference games, 3 end up as ties. Conference C and D also play 10 cross conference games. They are not close in the ratings and all of their non-conference games are between teams that are well apart in the ratings. Of their 10 non-conference games, 1 ends up as a tie. So, does the difference mean that teams in Conferences A and B are tactically playing for ties to a greater extent than teams in Conferences C and D? Obviously (hopefully) not. The difference could be due solely to the rating differences between opponents. Or not. To consider the data properly, one would have to look at segments of games in relation to how closely the opponents are rated -- such as the most closely rated 10%, the second most closely rated 10%, and so on -- and, conference by conference, look to see if there are disparities in the number of ties within those segments. And, to make things more difficult, there are 33 conferences so that for a particular conference you are looking at roughly 3% of that 10%, thus 0.3% of all games. This means you have to have a massive data set to get reliable conclusions. This is how I evaluate the RPI in relation to whether it rates conferences properly in relation to each other, and I consider 30,000 games to be a sufficient data set from which to reach reliable conclusions. That is about 10 years worth of games.
I agree: I've never liked this FIFA rule that if tied in regulation, the teams must play a full 30 minutes more. Why? You've already played 100 minutes (including stoppage time, let's say) and been even. There is nothing unfair about the team to score first goal in OT being the winner.
The argument I’ve heard is that wind could play a factor if you go golden goal. Win the toss, get the wind and score before the other team has had a chance. But I agree with you. I like golden goal. And for post season, I’d much rather see games decided in the run of play instead of with PK’s.
But that same team would’ve had the wind for 45 min to score more goals than the other team. I just think it’s resistance to change, it’s the way it’s always been done at the highest level.
FIFA got rid of golden goal in large part because it didn’t have the desired effect of generating more offense. Teams didn’t attack more. They actually were worried about making that huge mistake or exhausted and shut down. Outside of a few notable cases it didn’t generate that many “golden goals.” While I agree with no overtime in regular season, I do lean towards “golden goal” in playoffs. College players aren’t pros. They aren’t going to or in most cases are capable of shutting up shop. Also, more liberal subs allow more open games late on.
That doesn't change the fact that on a windy day, one team could theoretically have more time with the wind than the other with the golden goal rule. We had golden goal for a time. Germany won a Euros Final with it. Not many people actually liked it, and it was scrapped.
it was in use by FIFA from 1993 through the 2003 Womens WC when Germany defeated Sweden 2-1 in the final on a header by Nia Kurtzer. That was the last Golden Goal in FIFA history. The last time the men used it was in their World Cup the year before and Turkey defeated Senegal in the quarterfinals on a golden goal. The first time it was used in a WC was in the France 1998 WC and the hosts won a quarterfinal match with one. and I also recall it was universally hated and that’s why we have the 2 overtime periods taken to conclusion for finals.
First - why do folks always want to compare International soccer with limited rosters and subs to US College soccer?? I understand there's a trickle down of rules and their reasoning but college soccer does NOT have to be like FIFA international soccer. Second - if golden goal was 'universally hated' then why was it in use for NCAA soccer until this year? Why do many many HS leagues/counties/States still use it? The 'fairness' issue about field conditions is weak. Each team did just have 45 minutes of those exact conditions and you're 50/50 going to get them again right away in the OT that has potentially 2 halves. If it reduces the use of PK's to determine the winner (really the advancing team) even by a small percentage, I think we should use it for US college soccer.
There is no virtue in making the college rules different just for the sake of being different. If you want to create a different game, fine. Call it Frisbee soccer or something. Soccer is an international sport. I don’t see any virtue in making college soccer different for the four brief years of a player’s career while before and after that window the sport is played by FIFA rules at the higher levels. It doesn’t help, for instance, if you see the college game as a stepping stone to the professional and international game. It maybe made a little sense when college soccer was the pinnacle of a player’s career and they retired to other careers, but since 1990 there are World cups and now pro leagues to compete in. Make the college game a better preparation for that. It’s what we should be doing if we want to stay on top of the international game. What has happened in the Men’s game is that the best players don’t play college soccer. They go directly to pro leagues of some kind because it offers better preparation for soccer careers. Two decades ago most national team players went to college. Now almost none do. Is that what you want for the women? Second: Soccer was NOT played to the golden goal rule always. You are either young or have a faulty memory. Several schemes have been used over the decades, from just declaring co-winners to endless overtimes. At least two championships were decided after 8 overtimes which took almost 6 hours to complete. One match was completed the next day, One match everyone just went home with no winner declared. The Golden goal in college began about the same time it did in FIFA, along with the back pass rule and assistant referees and cards shown. It just hung on longer for no special reason. It’s now reverting closer to fifa rules, which I think it should. the next step is to revise the substitution rules, which almost just happened until the rules committee chickened out. While I see some small virtue in allowing more players to play, that really doesn’t happen much in college soccer. Coaches put their best on the pitch and then substitute according to the roster the school can afford to field or travel with. I think the reentry reach half rule should be abolished. I can possibly see allowing each half to start fresh, substitution wise, but soccer with reentry allowed just looks like ice hockey or lacrosse. There is a conceptual distinction between best 11 team and 22 best players. I do think that the recent increase to 5 subs fifa allowed is good for players. It has brought college and FIFA levels of play closer together. But reentry is just platooning. It’s a way to cover for a coach’s por substitution decisions if he/she can just reverse things when the substitution doesn’t work out. As for the regular season, there is nothing wrong with a tie. it actually evens out the competition a bit, with a team with a restricted travel roster not being handicapped while a home team can have a full bench over a weekend, leading to the home team being more rested on Sundays. The finite game length evens thing out and the RPI is weighted to give a small bonus to the away team. Maybe it should be weighted more to even out the one goal or so statistical advantage the home team has. i see PK’s as actually preferable to overtime in tournaments. There is maybe a 10% chance that overtime will decide a contest, even with golden goal. Maybe a little less without golden goal. Time will tell. . Another 10% you have to go to PK’s anyway. What’s the point? All it does is give advantage over a weekend to the team who had the easy first day opponent and could rest players while two good teams matched up have to get more tired in overtimes for the next contest. The last couple WICC’s went directly to PKs. It worked out fine with plenty of drama without risking player injury due to fatigue the next contest two days later.
You lost me at "frisbee soccer". I usually like your takes but that's a ridiculous thing to say. I couldn't read any more. College sports are different than the pro version in almost every sport. Just like the youth and HS versions are different than college. There are very good reasons for this that everyone realizes and lives with. Golden goal is exciting and adds drama to a sport that I would guess is the lowest scoring of all college team sports, other than maybe field hockey. They use golden goal, as do lacrosse and ice hockey.
Absolutely agree with you. It is very exciting and a preferred alternative to deciding a game on PKs if possible. Would you decide an NCAA basketball game that was tied after regulation with free throws? Lol. As for the comment about not having different rules, that is a silly take. International Basketball has a different three point line and game length than college (or pro for that matter). It is possible to stay true to the game while adjusting to different situations. Maybe FIFA has it wrong?
Have you ever watched the last two minutes of a close college basketball game? That two minutes takes 20 and is all fouls and free throws.
Repeating something I wrote earlier, aside from questions related to player safety and fairness, preferences for and against OT simply are matters of taste. On matters of taste, there is no right and no wrong, simply which you prefer. X prefers OT with golden goal, Y prefers OT without golden goal, Z prefers no OT. So far as it is a matter of taste, none is more right than the others. As an aside, the question should be what is best for the players. That is who college sports are supposed to be for. What fans want should be pretty inconsequential.