The Div 1 Selection show will be televised: http://www.ncaachampionships.com/0,5920,1_782_0_23107,00.html For the first time, there is an explicit criterion that teams must have a 0.500 W-L record. It is not explicit how ties are considered, especially if a team has a few more losses than wins, with "quality ties". You could infer that Nebraska, Portland, and Duke's ties against UNC wouldn't be considered at all, as if they weren't even played (or, depending on your perspective, UNC's ties against those teams). The ties under that interpretation would only be considered if the team is over 0.500 in which case the tie would be factored in as strength of schedule for seeding. It is difficult to know if Conference Tournament games count in determining qualification, but I infer that a team with a 0.500 record who loses in the first round of their conference would still be eligible as the Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/soccer/2002/2002_d1_w_soccer.pdf) states that the games considered had to be on the team's original schedule and the Tournament games aren't listed on an original schedule (only participation in the tournament is listed on a team's original schedule--yes, I know this is a literal interpretation). On the other hand, the Handbook also says that games determined by a pK shootout for advancement will be considered ties (so where else would you have these other than a conference tournament?). This year, as the rule was passed after schedules were made, there is almost a guarantee that some teams with winning records will get in despite their having a less than stellar strength of schedule. Next year, you can be assured that teams like UNC and Santa Clara will have a tougher time finding the best non-conference competition. But, you will also have teams from the most competitive conferences having to schedule a few more "breathers" in order to get qualifying records. This is not good for us fans who want to see the best quality matches throughout the season, even if "our team" is at risk for a loss or a "quality tie". The rules are clear in that a Div 1 vs a Div 2 or 3 match counts in figuring out the 0.500 metric. This is really going to hurt the college football equivalent of the "mid-majors" who will have a precipitous drop in their strength of schedule as they get overlooked by the top teams; ultimately, it will affect their ability to recruit and they will be doomed to being less than mediocre. Here is the current listing of schools for the top 20 by strength of schedule (from Albyn Jones) Team North Carolina Southern Cal California Stanford Santa Clara UCLA Clemson Duke Notre Dame Portland St. Marys Virginia Florida Maryland Washington Penn State BYU Arizona State Purdue Duke, Notre Dame, St. Mary's, Florida, and Virginia (depending on how tournament games are counted) look to all be at risk for having a <0.500 record. Yes, you could say most of the above top 20 strength of schedule teams do have winning records so there is no problem with the rule and we should wait to see what happens at the end of the season. And, you could say that the 5 teams at risk above don't deserve to go because of their W-L record. But, it's a little too cavalier (no pun intended Virginia) to say it's just a simple matter of winning your games--opponents do matter if you have to meet an explicit W-L threshold.
I assume this does not apply to conference tournament champions (assuming a sub .500 overall record, but a good enough conference record to get to the conference tournament) - the automatic bid still applies despite the overall record?
That would be correct, if that is the team that the conference puts up for their automatic bid. I'm still not sure how they assess the Conference tournament games in regards to advancement by pk. The handbook states that "regular season" games determined by a pK shootout are considered ties. I don't know if the conference tournaments are "regular season" games.
I don't know when the new guidelines were written, but last spring there was a proposal to have a PK shootout after all regular season ties (and the two overtimes) which was NOT approved when the NCAA met to discuss it. The NCAA did, however, reduce the overtimes to 10 minutes each from 15, and did approve the first half substitution rule. So if these guidelines were written with the assumption that PKs were in the regular season, they would make sense.
Well, personally, the above .500 rule is a joke. Teams that might be just below .500, but have played a very tough schedule(i.e. Florida) are gonna get left out and replaced with teams that are above .500 but didn't play half the schedule they did. Why did they implement this rule this year? It's not a good thing, cause from here on out, teams aren't gonna make tough schedules, cause they know that if they do, they risk being left out of the tournament, even if they deserve to be there. Basically, my feeling is that this is going to reward teams with weaker schedules. They normally wouldn't get in, but with some teams not meeting the criteria, a slot opens up for them. It's total bs, but then again, the NCAA has always been screwed up, and they continue that trend. If Florida is under .500 and gets left out, it's wrong, cause while they aren't a great team, no one can tell me they don't belong in the tournament.
i think that the final four teams from the previous year should get an automatic bid...i dunno if they do already...but they should.
Do you really want teams with losing records in the national tournament? I don't. If a team has a losing record it means they've already lost a bunch of games. Give some other team a chance to lose to a good team. Strength of schedule is still one of the primary selection criteria: Teams won't want to Schedule more than 1 Division II or Division III team beacause it ruins their RPI. One game against a lower division school is ignored, but the second game counts against the RPI. I assume that conference tournament games count, becuase they are on a team's schedule. The schedule just doesn't name the opponent.
If Florida drops below .500, they will have lost 9 games. That's enough losses for one season, for any team. Virginia is 9-5-2, has only 2 regular season games left and can't end up with a losing record.
I'd much rather have teams with a losing record who have actually played tough competition in the tournament, over teams with gaudy records who have played and beaten no one. Yes, SOS is still a factor, but if teams with a tough SOS aren't above .500, their slots will be taken by teams with weaker schedules and "prettier" records and that's not how it should be. You should get rewarded for playing a tough schedule, but if you aren't above .500 because of it, then you can't be rewarded, so then what's the point of playing a tough schedule? The NCAA is contradicting itself. They want teams to play tough schedules, but in the end, playing tough schedules hurts some teams. It makes no sense. The best teams should be taken and just because a team has a losing record, doesn't mean they don't deserve a bid to the tournament. Now, Florida is right at .500(8-8-2), with 1 game left against Clemson then the SEC tournament.
UF Gator has a point--UF may not be as good as they were but they are still a heck of a lot better than some of the teams with winning records (who play pushovers) that may get in.
Since we don't know if conference games do or do not count in qualification for post season then technically Viriginia could still go to just slightly above .500. I am hoping/betting that won't be the case. However, Virginia is ranked 12th in strength of schedule by Albyn Jones, whom most everyone on BS seems to think is usually right on. That being the case it would seem to me one would be hard pressed to leave Virginia out of a list of 64 teams for post season consideration.
I'm not here to start an argument, so please just take this as my opinion. College soccer is not the World Cup. Teams in the World Cup USUALLY will be pretty stable as far as strength goes from year to year. I don't know FIFA regulations re: automatic bids, so this is the extent of my remarks there. On the other hand, college soccer can be so up and down it is not inconceivable for a Final Four team to do rather poorly the next year. To automatically include a Final Four team would just be inviting trouble. IMO.
St. Louis at 13-4-1 has played 1 ranked opponent this year (UConn and lost 0-2) before their final game against Charlotte (ranked #12). St. Louis is #76 in the Albyn Jones Ratings. Navy, ranked just ahead of them is #75 and 14-0-4 but are actually second in their conference (to Army who is 11-2-2). Depending on how many teams ahead of them are out because of a less than 0.500 record, both these teams could be in the NCAAs this year NOT because they had a high ranking or strength of schedule, but because teams ahead of them were <0.500. I know you can go through this each year and it is unfair to single out teams for examples, but what concerns me now is the impact this is going to have on scheduling down the road. I understand giving other teams a chance, but schools like St. Louis, Navy, Richmond, William and Mary, San Diego, and Harvard (too name quite a few) are going to find it tougher to get high quality non-conference competition.
There are plenty of quality opponents. Outside of the top 15 or so teams, there's not a nickel's worth of difference between any of the teams in the top 50. The power curve is FLAT from above 15 out well past 200. A team that loses 9 games (which Florida would have to do to have a losing record) does not belong in the national tournament- they will have already had their chance (if that's what happens). The solution for Florida is simple: win one of those nine games. Giving other teams a chance is the whole point of the auto-bids. There are conferences that get auto-bids that don't have any teams that could beat St. Louis or Navy, let alone a ranked team. So what? You win your conference, you get in - no matter how bad your conference is. You lose 9 games, you're out. No matter how tough your schedule was. It makes perfect sense. Having teams with losing records in the national tournament is just too ridiculous. Sure, if Florida is out, there will be a ton of teams that are in that aren't as good. You want the middle of the pack teams and weaker conferences to get better? Then give them a chance to be in the national tournament instead of teams with losing records. BTW, Cincinnati was ranked when St. Louis played them and, I'm not sure, but Marquette might have been too. St. Louis beat Cincinnati, which is more than Florida did. So, if Florida loses 9 games and you still want to argue which team belongs in the NT, I'll take that argument. St. Louis has never been in, and I consider them a real long-shot this year unless they win their conference, and they're underdogs for that. What the auto-bids do is insure that you won't get the top 64 teams in the national tournament. It spreads the opportunity around to teams that otherwise wouldn't have a chance. So you get some one-sided games in the first round. The way it works in DI is that no team with any real chance of winning the whole thing doesn't get left out. If you're talking about a real chance of winning the whole thing, that's probably less than 10 teams, but I doubt that any ranked team will be left out. Where I have a problem is Division III, which has over 300 teams and, incredibly, only 8 at-large bids. Last year Emory was ranked 6th in the last regular season poll; they play in the second toughest conference in the country (which only got 1 bid, the auto-bid); they played a very good schedule and had a good record. Emory was left out of the national tournament. The only problem I have with that is that Emory had a legitimate chance to win the whole thing. When a top 10 team, or even a top 20 team, gets left out of the DI tournament, let me know.
>>BTW, Cincinnati was ranked when St. Louis played them and, I'm not sure, but Marquette might have been too. St. Louis beat Cincinnati, which is more than Florida did. So, if Florida loses 9 games and you still want to argue which team belongs in the NT, I'll take that argument.<< And St. Louis lost to UConn, a team Florida beat. If that is the rationale you are gonna use, that is weak. Basically, if I understand you correctly, you'd rather have a team with the pretty record who has played a weak schedule, just because they have a winning record, over a team that has more losses because they actually had the balls to play good teams? That's just ridiculous. Yes, Florida could have won more games, they also could have played a weaker schedule to avoid being at or below .500, but they didn't, because that wouldn't have helped them get better. I've said it before, the NCAA used to reward teams for playing a tough schedule, but now it seems they don't care about that anymore, they just want teams that are at least .500. It might look good on paper, there's no way you can tell me that by doing that, they are getting the best teams possible in the tournament.
Come on, now. You're talking about losing 9 games! That's a lot of losses, no matter how tough the schedule was. Florida played a tough schedule, a lot tougher than St. Louis U ever played - I'll grant you that. But don't tell me that 9 losses should get a team in the national tournament. I'm not buying it. Yes, I'd rather have a team with a prettier record than that, because 9 losses is a lot of losses. You got me started More on Emory, and I don't even like Emory. They're bitter rivals, but if people are going to complain because teams with losing records might be left out of the national tournament, I can complain about one of the top ten teams in the country actually being left out (in Division III last year). Their record was 17-1-1. (no nine losses) That's right. Their record was 17-1-1 and were left out of the national tournament. They played a good schedule. I can't find their schedule last year, but their only loss was to the conference champion, Rochester.
I don't understand. Are you saying the job of the tournament selection is to enable weaker teams and weaker conferences to attract attention in order to become better? I thought the tournament selection was based on record, SOS, etc., etc., not enabling.
I'm saying that the argument that the .500 or better requirement will make it hard for teams in the pack to schedule good opponents is simply wrong. IF the goal is to make the middle of the pack teams better, then let them in the national tournament. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be auto-bids. Some conferences barely have any teams in the top 100. If you just want the best teams, then forget auto bids. Personally, I like the auto bids. If you just want to determine a national champion, then you don't need 64 teams. 16 teams would be plenty (some people would say 8 and I wouldn't argue too much) 24 would be more than enough. But, seeing that there are 64 teams in the NT, then there must be some other motivation than just determining a national champion. You want to talk enabling, then think about encouraging teams to have losing records. Playing a tough schedule is a calculated risk - it's great if you win, not so great if you lose. If Florida loses nine games, then they bit off more than they could chew. Whose fault is that? Strength of schedule is one of the primary factors the selection committee considers, as it should be. Teams get major credit for beating good teams, and don't get major deductions for losing to good teams. But losing nine times to great teams is still losing nine times. The irony is: people are complaining about something that hasn't even happened. Florida hasn't lost nine games, and they haven't been left out of the national tournament. It hasn't happened, and I don't think it will. But, I'll tell you what, if Florida does lose nine games, leave them out! They will have earned being left out. Strength of schedule is fine. Losing is losing. I don't understand why people think a team with a losing record should be in the national tournament. Why put them in? So they can have a chance to play a good team? Obviously they've already played a bunch of teams that are better than they are. Give somebody else a chance to do that. Even though they are arch-rivals, I see how Emory, with a 17-1-1 record last year against good competition, had a legitimate gripe. But a team with nine losses (if it happens)? Fughetaboutit! I have no sympathy.
I like autobids also because they do allow greater involvement and reward a school for winning their conference. But, what I won't like is seeing proprtionately fewer high quality regular season games which seems all but inevitable. It may not be apparent next year for schools that set their tough games already, but it is inevitable. This will happen not just to those teams that played tough schedules and were just under 0.500, but also to those that played tough schedules and were just at or over 0.500. Under the current format, strength of schedule and quality ties count for NOTHING unless you are at >=0.500. A tie against Santa Clara, Portland, or UNC doesn't count for a thing unless you meet the W-L threshold. So, XYZ's assertion that it is Florida's "fault" for overscheduling is exactly right--and they'll fix that by changing a few matches on their schedule. You simply shouldn't have a system where a win against Guilford helps "qualify" you for the tournament, but a tie against Portland counts for nothing (and that is exactly the way the rules read). Remember, strength of schedule is only considered AFTER you qualify with a 0.500 record. My main quibble with the current standard is that a) it doesn't reward ties, which in soccer can be meaningful, and b) is going to affect scheduling. A minor change could address my first point by giving a team 2 pts for a win, 1 pt for tie, and requiring them to average 1.0 pts/game would make the "0.500 rule" more acceptable to me.
The reason why the rule was made (no teams under .500 in the tourney) is pretty simple actually. Last year two very deserving teams, Ohio State and Arizona State, did not get into the tourney while Duke did with a losing record. The backlash nationally amongst coaches about this specific situation led to the rule.
I completely agree. I've always felt that the NCAA Tournament was an opportunity for teams with successful seasons (who might not play each other in the regular season) to play each other and see who ultimately earns the right to be called the best. If a team has already lost more than half of their games, then they likely aren't even one of the top teams in their conference. Try again next year! The tournament is about competing, it's not about giving schools that have already lost more than they've won one more chance. Do those schools with winning records who play in little conferences and can't get games against the big kids deserve to be in the tournament? Heck yeah! (Usually only the conference champion goes to the tournament from those little conferences, and, given relative lack of depth and competitiveness against the major conferences, that makes sense.) Those schools haven't had the opportunity to prove themselves against other teams yet--give them a chance! A team that has lost 9 games, however, has already had a chance to prove itself and obviously didn't. I know that playing in the tournament is a dream for many players, and I'd honestly love to see everyone on the planet live happily ever after and fulfill all their dreams. But playing in the tournament loses its meaning if a team gets in without earning a spot (which happens either by winning its conference tournament or getting a well-deserved at-large bid because of a successful season). Regarding the fact that the ties don't count, I wouldn't be surprised to see some shuffling of the rules in the future to account for ties. This is the first year for the .500 rule and, like anything, there will be kinks to be worked out. Still, I think worrying about adding points for ties so that sub-.500 teams get into the tournament is contrary to the point of the tournament. Again, those teams had a chance to win those games, and didn't. The opportunity for a team to prove itself was there, and they didn't get it done, so why should we be looking to give it another chance?
I'm don't disagree with you all, to a point; however, if you're going to put somebody into the tournament based on record, then do that. However, the powers that be are apparently relying on more than just schedule. How many teams have identical records at the end of the year? Tons. So it is decided ahead of time who deserves to go and who doesn't; who's the better team, and who's not. Part of that determination comes from not just record, but strength of schedule, wins against conference and regional foes, etc. If you just look at records and winning your conference, then just take the top team (or two) from every conference in the country and let them duke it out! [Boy, then we'd hear some yelling.]