What kind of soccer fan are you? You are from Chicago and claim to know all this soccer stuff and you don't even follow the Illini? I really highly doubt Santa Clara played over their heads. They actually play with their feet! Kinda funny you should say that! Santa Clara is a team coached by a man that knows how to improve his teams as the season goes along and gets them to peak when it counts. Hopefully that will continue this weekend and into the next. I wish them the best!
No. I was actually trying to find the right word there when I was typing this. What I meant was maybe having someone as a coach who has been there as a player and coming from North Carolina can give Illinois a little extra in the mindset or Kharma or whatever you want to call it. Anything that can help. Jerry Smith, Anson Dorrance, Chris Petrucelli, and Len Tsantiris are in a league by themselves. It's hard to get an "edge" over these guys.
Janet is certainly a good coach with a good pedigree. She is one of the main reasons why the Illini are in the position they are in now, and why they are a team on the rise. The Illini were fortunate to land her when Jillian Ellis left to take the UCLA job. These two teams do not have many, if any (sorry, no time to look it up), common opponents this season. Scouting of each team will have to be based on past knowledge for the most part. Perhaps SCU has a slight edge, as their goalkeeper, Julie Ryder is a Chicago-area player, and has played with and against many of the Illini thorughout her HS, Club and ODP experiences. Likewise for Leslie Osborne (from Milwaukee area), though not to as great of an extent. I don't believe Illinois has any players with that type of background of the SCU team. I was able to attend the UNC/SCU game last week, and I don't beleive that SCU played over their heads. Surely they were "amped" more than usual, but that win can do nothing but boost their confidence. Jerry will be able to keep them from being overconfident, and their team resolve to prove the seeding committee wrong will not be completely satisfied until they (hopefully) win the national title. SCU will not underestimate the Illini, and they will be ready to play just as they were last week.
Actully South Bend, IN is closer to Chicago than Champaigne, IL. I grew up in Northwest Indiana as a Notre Dame sports fan and that carried over to soccer. Don't misunderstand me, I enjoy watching Santa Clara play, but I like UNC more. Two of the times I've seen them, one was at Notre Dame a few years ago during Thanksgiving weekend when Wagner played for SC and Anne Makinen played for ND. It was very cold and the grounds crew had to shovel snow off the field. ND won 2-1 to advance to the final four. Last year I drove from Chicago to Chapel Hill right after Thanksgiving dinner to see UNC beat SC in miserable cold and rainy weather. My wife thought I was crazy.
No one is mentioning that ONCE AGAIN, the top two seeds are playing each other in this round. Great job seeding committee.
Acutally, this is the only bracket where the committee's seeds held true. I don't think anyone would have predicted UNC, Penn State, and UVa to all be out at this point. I would make the argument that ND should have been the 2 or 3 seed. I would also argue that Portland should have been 6 or 7. That would have made it likely that those two still would have faced each other in this round regardless. In my view the teams left fall in this order (actual seed): Notre Dame (4) Santa Clara (16) Portland (5) Ohio State (6) UCLA (14) Princeton (7) Washington (15) To sum up the seeding farce. UNC is out because they had a much too early date with SCU. Two of the best four teams left have to play in the quarterfinals. Princeton or Washington will be in attendance at the College Cup, and while they are both quality teams, you would have a hard time convincing me that either are one of the best four in the country. The bottom line is that the seeding committee failed for the second year in a row. It's time for the NCAA to take a very close evaluation of the current seeding system.
Firstly, thanks to all for the lively discussions. I am a west coast fan , for those that don't know, and pretty upset about the NCAA's poor showing. See the entire REACTIONS thread for my arguments, which I won't repeat here. I would like to state that I am glad UNC lost.I think highly of them adn all that, but winning year after year is no fun for us non tarheel fans. I would say the same thing about UCONN w bball. Bring me new teams! I want to reiterate that I hope that 10 people show up to an all west coast final four and just shove the 200 bucks profit at the ncaa for running a tournamnet this poorly. What a shame. Please, please please, write, email or call anyone you can regarding this. LIke I mentioned in teh reactions thread, i used to sit on a seeding committee and after we apparently botched some seedings the first year, we heard about it, and boy were we more carefult the second year. None of us would admit to it, but I was sure more thoughtful and prepared in that second meeting. I saw UW play twice this year and while I am impressed with them, I think the parity out west is far more advanced than out east. I have seen every ivy league school play when they come out here and they get their lunches handed to them by our big west schools. prove me wrong princeton, but that bracket is a joke. SOmething needs to change with the NCAA. all in all, i am impressed with all of your interest in the game, passion, and knowledge. there are some great fans out there...it's great for the game! I'll be watching with interest this weekend..there are some phenominal players out there! Play hard and have fun ladies.
As many have said, this year's seeding truly is a farce. It's the most ridiculous seeding I have ever seen (and I'm including the DIII selection several years ago that left a top ten team out of the national tournament). As bad as last year's seeding and selection was, this year's is ten time worse. The way the NCAA does things - by committee and in secret - is horrible. When something is done that way it's virtually impossible to avoid at least the appearance of favoritism or conspiracy, whether those things exist in fact or not. Looking at the selection and seeding the last two years it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is a siginficant East Coast bias - I mean, come on! - they put in every bubble team from Virginia and none of the bubble teams from California. And they consistently seed good West Coast teams lower than they seed teams from the East - it's a frickin' joke! Seriously, if they're going to continue to have such an East Coast bias they should stop calling it a national tournament - call it what the selection committeee has made it: a 'teams from Virginia and nearby states' tournament. Another major problem is that the NCAA uses a totally meaningless calculation called RPI as one of the criteria for seeding and selection. I get tired of complaining about RPI but it is an embarassment to the NCAA that they use it. RPI is not based on any statistical theory or model. RPI has been accurately compared to something a grade-school class might come up with but, the truth is, the average grade-school student could probably come up with something considerably more meaningful than RPI. Three-fourths of a team's RPI rating has nothing to do with whether that team wins or loses. Significantly, the NCAA does not make the RPI ratings public, I'm sure because it might expose either the RPI or the seeding committees, or both, as the farces that they are. The seeding and selection process needs to be considerably more transparent than it is, as it is in the case of professional sports like tennis, or as it is in the NAIA where seeding and selection is based on Longo ratings. The system the NAIA uses is not perfect (and we can dispute the significance of Longo ratings) but the process the NAIA uses is at least transparent. Anyone with the time can calculate Longo ratings and find out exactly why teams were selected and seeded as they were. The NAIA also has a well-defined protest process (which was put to good use last season when a team that protested was added to the tournament). A review process of some kind is something the NCAA sorely needs. This year's seeding and selection is so bad that it's beyond belief. I might complain about it more if I could stop laughing at it. As I said, it's the worst seeding and selection I have ever seen. It's almost as if the selection committee was trying to sabotage the tournament - but probably not - it's more likely that they're just incompetent.
The ratings below are based on the November 16 Albyn Jones ratings. The higher rated team is listed first. The home field advantage is 60 rating points. At Santa Clara - Saturday, 1 pm PT __#16 Santa Clara vs. Illinois rank__team_________W-L-T rating (SE) _7 Santa Clara___ 16-4-2 1946 __(70) 29 Illinois______ 14-6-2 1789 __(70) ___difference____________ 157 +hf= 217 At Notre Dame - Friday, 7pm ET __#4 Notre Dame vs. #5 Portland rank__team_________W-L-T rating (SE) _2 Notre Dame____ 21-1-1 2043 __(85) _3 Portland______ 19-3-0 2037 __(82) ___difference______________ 6 +hf= 66 At Ohio State - Saturday, 12pm ET __#14 UCLA vs. #6 Ohio St. rank__team_________W-L-T rating (SE) _6 UCLA__________ 16-6-0 1987 __(72) 14 Ohio State____ 18-3-3 1874 __(72) ___difference____________ 113 -hf= 53 At Princeton - Friday, 7pm ET __#15 Washington vs. #7 Princeton rank__team_________W-L-T rating (SE) _8 Washington____ 16-4-1 1938 __(70) 10 Princeton_____ 17-2-0 1905 __(85) ___difference_____________ 33 -hf= 27 Scoreboards: Friday, Nov. 26 Saturday, Nov. 27
With all due respect to all these "ratings" and "index" formulas what bothers me most about the seeding is that the NCAA ignored league winners. What better way to evaluate how a team performed over the season than how they placed in their conference (in relation to the other teams in their conference)? So what does the NCAA do? UCLA gets a higher seed than Arizona after the Wildcats won the Pac10 and Portland gets a higher seed than SCU after the Broncos won the WCC. I would like to see (at the very least!) a new rule instituted that prevents this from happening again. If you win your league (regular season, not tournament) you should be guaranteed a higher seed than any other team in your league. What's so hard about this?
You said: "I would like to see (at the very least!) a new rule instituted that prevents this from happening again. If you win your league (regular season, not tournament) you should be guaranteed a higher seed than any other team in your league. What's so hard about this?" Let me get this straight -- you want a RULE. Okay, then what happens if a team plays a tremendously tough non-conference schedule, then rolls through the conference but loses one game. Let's put this team at 19-1-0 for the season with one loss to a team that got outshot 25-2 but finds one goal (it happens). Then here is team number two (who won the conference on that one good chance after being outshot 25-2). They play a weak non-conference schedule and lose to many of those weak teams. But they roll through the conference unscathed. Let's say they end up 12-6-2. But they won the conference. Does this happen regularly, no. Can it -- yes! So you want a RULE that guarentees team number 2 over team number 1 in seeding? I DON'T THINK SO!
casocrfan--Arizona (No. 13) was seeded higher than UCLA (No. 14). Boston Bob is absolutely right. The minute the committee starts implementing rules, putting together the NCAA tournament draw would become even more flawed. For example, if the committee completely abided by the idea that only teams with at least .500 records could go to the postseason, what would they do with teams that won their conference but were a game or two under .500? Weber State comes to mind regarding that matter. XYZ has again brought up some very good points regarding the methods that NCAA committees use (e.g. RPI). I have never understood what RPI is supposed to measure, and probably never will.
Congrats to Princeton and Notre Dame, the 1st 2 in the College Cup. Both advance with 3-1 wins over Washington and Portland, respectively.
Good job Notre Dame! You've justified your season long ranking. Hey Caligirl, I guess your prediction that Portland will stop ND's drive to the final four didn't come true. My turn to say OUCH! Now I do hope that Santa Clara will win Sunday just so that them two can face each other next Friday at SAS. I will be there. My ticket will be waiting for me at will call.
Predictions are just that, predictions. Portland will be back next year even stronger. Congrats to your advancement to the College Cup and Good Luck!
Thanks. I'm glad ND made it to the Final Four, as well as Santa Clara. I hope to see a great game next friday. I'm kind of surprised that there isn't more Notre Dame discussions on these threads. They have been ranked in the top five, year after year with some bad luck in the NCAA Tourney. I remember when they got eliminated by Michigan last year, ND controlled the ball 80% of the game and took about 50 shots on goal and nothing would go in. The shots would hit the goal post, players in the back, the blade of grass in front of the goal and the ball just refused to go in the goal. Michigan gets one corner kick, the ball bouces in front of the ND goal and a Michigan player being in the right place at the right time toes the ball in the net. They then go into a bunker for the rest of the game and that was it. The following week, Michigan gets creamed. I guess that's why we love playing this games as well as watching it. Predictions can often fall short.
NCAA Women's college cup schedule 12/3 Semifinal 1 : UCLA Vs Princeton at 2 PM ET. 12/3 Semifinal 2: Santa Clara Vs Notre Dame 4:30 PM ET. Championship game: Sunday 12/5 at 1 PM ET. ALL 3 GAMES WILL BE AIRED LIVE ON ESPN2. The games will be held at SAS Soccer Park in Cary, N.C. Hosts: North Carolina State University, Capital Area Soccer League and Town of Cary Ticket Information: 800/310-PACK Web Site: www.gopack.com
ND dominated Friday. The Portland goal came on a miscomunication/collision between the keeper and a defender. Sinclair walked it in. The field was in horrible condition, they shoveled the snow off that morning. The Portland keeper slipped early and almost let a goal in. She looked tentative the rest of the game, rarely came off her line. Katie T. was easily the best player on the field (1goal, 2assists). Her balance and low center of gravity really helped in the sloppy conditions. I started a Notre Dame thread earlier in the year but got tired of talking to myself. ND has had a great year and looks to have a good shot at the title. GO IRISH!
Does anyone else find it amazing the P-ton has made it to the final four without the benefit of athletic scholarships? Is this a testament to elite girls youth soccer having a disproportionate number of affluent families participate? After all coming up with 40K tuition, room, board, books and travel home is difficult (or not) but not a deal breaker for these families. In sports more heavily dominated by middle class kids competing at the final four level without scholarships would be very difficult.
While Princeton and the Ivy leagues do not offer athletic scholarships, most of their athletes are on academic and need-based scholarships. It's a little misleading in that sense.
The Notre Dame vs Santa Clara game should be a good one although both teams have lost players due to injury. We talk about Anson Dorrance and Jerry Smith. What about Randy Waldrum? He's done a fantastic job keeping this Irish team focused after a disappointing exit from the NCAA's last year. Maybe he deserves coach of the year.
Ummm, other than Mary Boland, what other players has Notre Dame lost to injury this year? Hadn't heard of any others. Please, inquiring minds want to know.