Division 3 - 2018

Last week of September is NOT a good week for undefeated ranked teams, first Chicago and last night Christopher Newport falls to Lynchburg in a close battle.

 

Wheaton 1 Illinois Wesleyan 0

Being in the Chicago area I've got to see some Chicagoland teams play as well as other regional teams. Yesterday I watched a good bit of the Wheaton at Illinois Wesleyan match. I had watched Wheaton beat U of Chicago game earlier in the week, 2-1, and was pretty impressed with both sides. UC played more possession and went through the midfield while Wheaton was much more direct in their style and tried to link up with their strong forwards. My impression is that if a team can play possession even better than what UC did that they will beat Wheaton. Unfortunately, Wheaton seems to make teams play to their style. That was my impression of them in past years and it still is. They also put up a lot of shots though many of them are of low quality.

In the Wheaton @ IWU game, there was more of the direct style that Wheaton plays. When I had seen IWU play earlier in the year I noticed that they seemed to play more of a possession game than what they played under Dave Barrett (now at Fairfield U in CT). Barrett seemed to really like the direct style that I equate to "bootball." What isn't a possession style is that IWU's keeper will still boot the ball into the midfield into a 50/50 that IWU usually loses. Far too many teams do this instead of playing the ball out of the back. IWU will also do that on kickoffs. Wheaton also plays a lot of bootball and that is their weakness. Against Wheaton, IWU seemed to revert back to their old style. IWU's midfield gave up the ball far too often and IWU's chances were not finished. The defense was under far too much pressure. The final score ended up being 1-0, Wheaton, and Wheaton outshot IWU 15 (5 SOG) to 4 (2 SOG). It could have easily ended as a 1-1 draw in regulation as IWU had a good chance but could not even get a shot off on. Wheaton also could have had another goal, though, as IWU's keeper was dangerously caught off of her line twice but nothing became of it.

Both of these sides can be good and have the potential to make deep runs in the tournament. Both teams are also very young so the future looks good for them. As I mentioned earlier, IWU seems to play more possession than what I have seen them play in prior years but that was not evident yesterday. It starts with IWU's kickoffs. They will, as most teams do, play it back at the start. And then, instead of passing it around and trying to get an attack going and looking for high quality possession and passes, they will boot the ball up to their attacking 1/3 before an IWU player is there. The result is that they give up possession immediately. Wheaton is guilty of the same thing. It's bad soccer and I hate watching any team do it. I can't understand it. It would be the same as a basketball player passing it from his team's backcourt to his team's frontcourt & to the other team. What basketball team does that? Not a single one so why does it happen in soccer? IWU's keeper, as I mentioned before and what I've seen in the past, never plays goal kicks out of the back. They're randomly kicked down the field into a 50/50 that the team doesn't fight hard enough to win and doesn't make a lot of effort to win back. Those two things are two of my biggest peeves when watching soccer and IWU is guilty of both of them. But to be fair, a lot of teams are guilty of it.

Wheaton also continues to put up a lot of random shots and doesn't utilize the midfield enough. When I had seen them play Chicago the forwards seemed to be working for high quality shots but that was not evident vs IWU. There was just a lot of kickball and chaos. The game was very unsettling to watch due to neither team keeping the ball on the ground and stringing passes together. IWU would have had a much better chance to win if they had played possession and kept Wheaton from their direct style. As I said, both teams have the potential to make deep runs but both must also play much better than they did yesterday. I would have also liked to have seen both sides get the outside backs involved in the attack but that didn't happen. IWU couldn't do it because the midfield and forwards couldn't hold possession and getting up the field nearly impossible. Wheaton didn't do it because it seems that the backs of Wheaton are primarily utilized to boot the ball in the attacking 1/3. It really would be frustrating to be a midfielder in that system. Anyway, good luck to both teams moving forward.

 

Playsimple I enjoyed reading your analysis above and liked the comparison to basketball. I have not seen enoght college soccer ⚽️ to be an expert however most of what I have seen at the collegiate level is basic kickball. And I think that type of soccer is “good enough” to do well in most conferences if you have excellent athletes. However, I think the direct style teams get exposed and consistently trounced when they face the elite possession based teams in the tournament. I wonder if you or others see the same pattern??

 

The direct style and kickball is just really a big pet peeve of mine. I've always hated watching it. What other possession based sport does it? It doesn't happen in hockey, lacrosse, field hockey, American football, basketball, team handball, or any other similar sport as often as it does in soccer. What football quarterback intentionality throws a football to the opposition? I made the basketball analogy above. If any sport sees it happen as much as soccer it would probably be field hockey and even then it's not to the same degree. Interestingly, soccer and field hockey are the sports that are the most similar to each other, IMHO. There's even a discrepancy between the guys and gals in soccer. The passes aren't even passes to space. Passing to space is not a concept that is unique to soccer. I'm talking about the intentional kicking of the ball to the other side. What is the purpose of doing that and giving up possession or, at best, playing the ball into a 50/50? It happens in D1, 2, 3, NAIA, or whatever. No division or league is immune to it. I will often quit watching a game of bootball because I hate it so much.

You are right. A team that is patient and plays possession can more often than not beat a team that doesn't. Often those teams that play a direct style are taking chances and hoping to find their big and fast forwards. That was my take away in watching Wheaton. They played that style a lot in the past and seem to be having a hard time getting away from it. It will be their undoing in the tournament. As I mentioned, they can make a run in the tournament but sooner or later a team that possesses the ball will expose them. They mere fact that a team does possess the ball will not allow Wheaton to play kickball. I noticed the same thing with IWU. Under the old coach they played a lot of bootball. When I've seen them with the new coach it hasn't been as apparent except against Wheaton. In order for them to make a deep run in the tournament they'll need to get back to a possession game. Patience pays dividends in soccer.

 

My only quibble with your analogy is with ice hockey. “Clearing the zone” happens quite often, in man-down situations and in regular line shifts. The two sports share a goal-rarity characteristic, and because of that, mistakes come at a premium cost. Therefore, kicking the ball to no-one to clear the ball from the scoring zone certainly creates obstacles to scoring your own goals, BUT it does prevent (to some short-term effect) allowing a goal to be scored.

Now, a team that is composed on defense, secure in its ball-handling skills will possess out of the back line, that team will by default create more scoring opportunities of its own, regardless of whether or not their scoring style is direct or possession based. So I guess I agree with most of your thesis.

 

Your point is well-taken. "Clearing the zone" in hockey or getting the ball out of your opponent's attacking 1/3 in soccer are good examples of when it is OK to perhaps "randomly" hit a puck or kick a ball. In soccer there are instances when a defensive player is caught too far up the field and is able to recover in time but may not be able to compose himself or herself to make a timely and accurate pass. That is probably another acceptable instance of clearing the ball. The defense may get broken down and unorganized or, for whatever reason, the keeper is poorly positioned. It's better to kick the ball down the field or perhaps over the touch line until the defense can get organized.

What I was also seeing in the Wheaton vs. IWU game I described above, was the lack of the midfield "showing" of working to get open in order to receive a pass. In those instances players that are in their defending 1/3 are often not given a lot of options except to "swat" the ball if they get under pressure or to carry the ball while a player gets open for a pass or, perhaps, they can get a cross off to someone. In my observation of the game it seemed as if Wheaton's midfielders are, perhaps, "conditioned" not to work to get open because they are so used to that system of play. IWU's midfielders just don't seem like they worked hard enough to show for a pass and were a bit lazy.

The point that I was trying to make above, excepting the instances when it is acceptable to randomly kick the ball, is that both sides would randomly kick the ball, thus giving up possession, when they did not need to. What is the point of, at the start of a game, in kicking the ball back to a teammate and that teammate randomly kicks the ball to the opposition? If that is the plan, those wing players or outside MFs had better be running like Usain Bolt in trying to get to the ball or creating pressure on the ball. I did not see that happening. If that is the plan a team would be better off, instead of kicking it back to a teammate at the kickoff, to just kick the ball to the opposition. I've seen teams do that before. I can't understand whey they do it but they do. It goes back to my analogy of a quarterback intentionally throwing an interception or a basketball player intentionally passing to the opponent. There isn't a difference. A lot of players committing these types of errors are good players so why do they do it? It is all too reminiscent of recreational soccer and systems where "send it" is the mantra.

 

Week 4

1 Washington University (Mo.) 1 10-0-0
2 Williams College 2 8-0-1
3 Messiah College 4 8-1-0
4 Middlebury College 5 9-0-0
5 Johns Hopkins University 6 9-1-0
6 The College of New Jersey 7 7-1-0
7 William Smith College 8 7-2-0
8 Hardin-Simmons University 9 7-1-0
9 Hope College 13 8-0-1
10 Brandeis University 12 8-0-0
11 Centre College 15 11-0-0
12 Carnegie Mellon University 10 6-2-1
13 Wheaton College (Ill.) 22 8-2-0
14 Misericordia University 16 6-2-1
15 University of St. Thomas 17 8-1-0
16 Amherst College 19 7-1-1
17 Trinity University (Texas) 21 7-1-1
18 University Of Chicago 3 8-1-1
19 Swarthmore College 20 9-0-1
20 University of Lynchburg NR 9-1-0
21 Christopher Newport University 11 6-1-0
22 Ithaca College RV 8-0-2
23 Tufts University RV 6-2-1
24 Arcadia University 23 6-2-1
25 Bridgewater College RV 9-1-0


Can’t believe the penalty the pollsters administered to UChicago!! 15 spot drop for a close loss to a ranked team?! The

 

I agree and it's why I don't put a lot of stock in the polls. Chicago will get a chance to show that the polls are not that reliable because they have matches remaining vs Carnegie Mellon, Brandeis, and WashU - all teams that are ranked above them. I would expect them to take care of CM & Brandeis. The game against WashU will be a battle.To exemplify the worthlessness of the polls, look at CM's ranking. They dropped one spot after losing to NYU - a 5-4-0 team on the year. Don't get me wrong, CM is a good team but not deserving to be ranked ahead of Chicago.

Also, Centre is very overrated. Centre plays a soft schedule and is in a soft league. They very well can win their conference and perhaps go undefeated but they will be exposed once tourney play starts. That is what happens to teams that are in weak conferences when they play weak out of conference schedules.

I think that the D3soccer.com rankings are a little more accurate:

# School (1st Pl. Votes) Record Pts. Prev.
1 Washington U. (13) 10-0-0 991 1
2 Messiah (2) 8-1-0 936 4
3 Williams (2) 8-0-1 925 2
4 Hope 8-0-1 880 5
5 Chicago 8-1-1 793 3
6 Johns Hopkins 9-1-0 769 7
7 Hardin-Simmons 7-1-0 760 6
8 William Smith 7-2-0 699 10
9 TCNJ 7-1-0 664 8
10 Lynchburg 9-1-0 624 12
11 Swarthmore 9-0-1 581 13
12 Middlebury 9-0-0 569 15
13 Brandeis 8-0-0 546 14
14 Wheaton (Ill.) 8-2-0 451 23
15 Chris. Newport 6-1-0 428 9
16 Centre 11-0-0 414 17
17 Amherst 7-1-1 353 20
18 Trinity (Texas) 8-1-1 325 16
19 Carnegie Mellon 6-2-1 323 11
20 St. Thomas 8-1-0 264 19
21 Illinois Wesleyan 7-2-1 158 18
22 Misericordia 6-2-1 157 25
23 UW-La Crosse 7-2-1 78 —
24 Calvin 6-2-1 66 —
25 Ithaca 8-0-2 45 —
Dropped out: No. 21 MIT, No. 22 Tufts, No. 24 Emory

 

I watched #13 Wheaton battle unranked Augustana into their second overtime period where Wheaton (ill) scored off of a chaotic scramble in the box to defeat Augustana 2-1. I thought both teams tried to play possession but that their rate of play was slow especially considering the high ranking of Wheaton (ill). I did not see as much kick ball as I was expecting based upon the comments above. Maybe thats because it's easier to play posession against a weaker slower opponent.

 

I think that the former #24 Emory would be higher ranked if they were in any other conference than UAA!

 

Middlebury took its first blemish on its perfect record. I wonder if the pollsters will administer a 15 point penalty to them?

 

He must think, to edit Cruyff, "You coach football with your mouth, and her legs are there to help you."

 

The D3soccer.com rankings are more accurate, IMHO. Centre as #9 is laughable. Centre's conference is very weak and the out of conference schedule that they play is soft. They'll probably end the season undefeated and with a high ranking and the first solid team that they play in the post-season will beat them.

The same could be said for Hanover. Hanover probably plays a softer schedule than Centre. It's amusing to see them at #19 and some of the teams that they are ranked ahead of. The same thing will happen to them in the tournament as what will happen to Centre - they'll get drilled.

Both Centre and Hanover play in leagues that have league tournaments and if they happen to win those tournaments, they will automatically get berths into the NCAA tournament. Those are the established rules in all divisions of soccer and I accept them. The issue is that deserving teams that may not have won their conference are always left out of the post-season due to weaker teams from weak conferences getting automatic berths. It is what it is, though.

# School (1st Pl. Votes) Record Pts. Prev.
1 Washington U. (15) 11-0-0 995 1
2 Messiah (2) 10-1-0 962 2
3 Williams 9-0-2 887 3
4 Johns Hopkins 11-1-0 833 6
5 Chicago 10-1-1 816 5
6 William Smith 9-2-0 753 8
7 Hardin-Simmons 9-1-0 751 7
8 Wheaton (Ill.) 10-2-0 722 14
9 TCNJ 9-1-0 659 9
10 Middlebury 10-0-1 614 12
11 Hope 8-1-2 598 4
12 Centre 13-0-0 534 16
13 Chris. Newport 8-1-0 504 15
14 Amherst 8-1-1 433 17
15 Brandeis 9-1-0 401 13
16 St. Thomas 11-1-0 382 20
17 Trinity (Texas) 10-1-1 376 18
18 Lynchburg 10-2-0 364 10
19 Swarthmore 10-1-1 363 11
20 Misericordia 8-2-1 234 22
21 Illinois Wesleyan 8-2-1 198 21
22 MIT 9-2-2 184 —
23 UW-La Crosse 9-2-1 171 23
24 Carnegie Mellon 7-3-1 61 19
25 Rowan 9-1-1 60 —


http://www.d3soccer.com/top25/women/2018/week6

 

One poll at #9 and another at #12 hardly seems like a "laughable" difference.

 

They're both laughable.

My comment that the D3soccer.com poll is more accurate is referring to the overall poll in general.

Was the intent of my statement really that difficult for you to figure out?

 

You all might want to track Kenneth Massey's ratings, as of the purely stats-based rating systems his, based on studies I've done, is the best. By the "best," I mean that his ratings (as adjusted for home field advantage) have the best match with actual game results and do the best at rating teams from different conferences well in relation to each other.

 

Completely agree. Massey rocks.

 

Massey ratings are laughable, they have Centre at #12.

 

You're a tool.

 

I'll add a little comment about stats-based ratings/rankings by computers as compared to rankings by humans. The computers will do a better job than the humans most of the time. A few humans may do better than the computers -- either because they are extremely well informed about all of the teams or because they are at the lucky end of the bell curve.

 

I like the Massey ratings also and use them as a component in a betting pool that I enter every year for the college pointyball bowl games.

This is an anecdotal story about computer models and off the topic of futbol but a friend of mine organizes a confidence pool for the college football bowl games. For those that haven't entered a confidence pool, there is a set number of games that are picked. My friend that organizes the pool usually picks about 20 games to pick. Entrants select the winners of the games and then assign point values, 1 through 20, to the games. The game the entrants are most confident in get 20 points and the values are then assigned to each game down to the selection of the game with the least confidence and that game gets a value of 1. Points of the correctly picked games are added up and the winner has the most points. The payout is pretty nice. There are usually around 100 people that enter and the entry fee is $50. 1st prize is 75% of the pot, 2nd 15%, and 3rd gets 10%. I've done the pool for 6 years. In my first 3 years I was out of the money - not even close. I decided that I needed some sort of method to be competitive. In the past I mulled over stats, games against common opponents, injury reports, blah, blah, blah.....it was a waste of time. Hopefully none of my fellow competitors will read this but since I came up with a "system", I have been in the money every year.

My system uses the Massey ratings, the "Predictor" component of Jeff Sagarin's College football ratings, and Vegas odds. Essentially what I do is I add up the margins from all three of those components and assign my point values from there. The largest total margin is my 20 point game and I assign the points accordingly on down to the 1 point game. I believe that Massey is a better model than Sagarin's so it gets the most weight. I give Massey's spread 40% of the total, Sagarin's gets 30%, and Vegas is the other 30%. Therefore, the computer model component is 70% of the weighting in total. This method works great for me and one year I won nearly $4000 - not a bad return on $50. I also use a variation of this technique for the NCAA basketball tournament though it really only works well for the 1st round games. The hardest part for me is when I am forced to pick against sentimental favorites. It's hard for me to leave my heart out of it and that is one of the reasons that I do not bet often.

 

Great post!

This is one of the reasons the computer usually beats the humans. The computer is heartless.

 

Carnegie showed they earned their 24 spot with a close loss to Chicago. Had it not been for an unlucky handball and PK conversion, they would have earned the draw. CMU had the better run of play, if only slightly, and controlled the middle much better than the Maroons.

Unlike last year when the top teams regularly stomped opposition, it seems there is much more parity throughout the rankings. Williams has had its share of calls, as has Hopkins (winning games with just a PK as the decider). Wash U faces their tough stretch in the next 2 weeks.