Port-Tenn GK Stats Comparison

I know, stats on previous performance don't mean hay when the ball is kicked off. Anything can and will happen, and either team can win. However, I believe perusing stats after a full season can give you some general ideas and insight about the team you are facing.

For example, if you're facing a goalie with a .900 saves % and 15 shutouts, you know it's going to be extremely difficult to get one past her. Conversely, If you're facing a forward with 30 strikes on the season, better watch out for her! (Etc.,etc.,etc..)

Those are extremes, of course, so here is some cud to chew on:

Goalkeepers: Tenn. - Jaimel Johnson, played in all 21 games, goals allowed: 17, GAA: 0.78, Saves %: .853, shutouts: 10.

Port. - Kelsey Davis, played in 15 games, goals allowed: 5, GAA: 0.35, Saves % .868, shutouts: 8.

It's hard to compare goals allowed and Goals Against Average, because the stats don't take into consideration the relative strength of the defense in front of the GK or the relative weakness of the defense in front of the GK.

The saves average is probably the best reflection on the competancy of the GK. This % is simply calculated by dividing saves by SOG.

If you believe all this garbage I'm trying to sell you, then Jaimel's Saves % of .853 is very good. Kelsey's is slightly better but similiar at .868. (Translation: Every 10 SOG at Jaimel she saves 85% of the time. Pretty darn good! Every 10 SOG at Kelsey she saves 87% of the time. Looks like two very good GK Saturday night!)

***I am not a numbers person and just did the above off the cuff. I'm sure there are plenty of posters who will correct me if I am wrong or let me know if they differ with my stated opinion on measuring the competency of GK's.

As long as we're into stats here, and for what it's worth which may not be much, I'll deviate from the GK stats to provide some RPI info related to the upcoming games -- my RPI numbers through the end of the pre-tournament games.

First, as an example of how the Tournament Committee uses the RPI, all of the games are at the site of the team with the higher RPI. In most cases, this simply is the higher seed. But for the Duke-Indiana game, in which neither team has a seed, the game will be at Indiana. Assuming both teams put in bids for home games, Indiana has the higher RPI, which presumably is the reason it got the game.

In terms of the RPI differences between opposing teams in the upcoming games, here is how the games line up in order from greatest RPI difference to least RPI difference. The team with the higher RPI is listed first:

North Carolina v. Notre Dame [highest RPI difference]
Stanford v. Connecticut
UCLA v. Virginia
Penn State v. West Virginia
Indiana v. Duke
Florida State v. Texas
Portland v. Tennessee
USC v. Florida [lowest RPI difference]

Discounting the upsets of seeds, this is pretty much consistent with the placement of the seeds, with the differences from the placement of the seeds appearing to be due to the seeds not exactly following the RPI.

If I use only the unadjusted RPI (which may or may not be a better predictor of outcomes, I won't know until the tournament's over), the order is pretty much the same except that Stanford comes out with a wider margin than North Carolina and Portland with a wider margin than Florida State.

I have to say that this looks like a great bunch of games, with almost all the right teams in the mix. I think TAMU should be there, but isn't thanks to the NCAA's travel rule -- to be changed in the future to prevent second round inter-conference matchups like Texas-TAMU. It would have been great to see TAMU in Connecticut's spot. And, I would like to see Purdue there, although I think they were less obviously a team to make it through even though they went down at the hands of a fellow Big 10 team.

Fanatic,

I have heard several times about this new rule to ensure that conference teams do not play in the first 2 rounds. What are the implications of the impact this would have on the travel rule and ultimately our ability to host first and second round contests?

Here is the proposal that the NCAA Championships/Competition Cabinet recommended for approval to the NCAA Budget Committee. I haven't been able to find any verification that the Budget Committee approved it or, if so, beginning with what season.

"c. Women’s Soccer.

"· Pairing Policy.

"(a) Recommendation That the NCAA Division I Women’s Soccer Committee be permitted to avoid first- and second-round conference matchups, effective with the 2008 championships.

"(b) Rationale. Currently, the committee has the ability
to avoid first-round conference matchups in the
tournament. Based on a recommendation from the NCAA Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet Bracket/Format Subcommittee, the cabinet agreed that by avoiding both first- and second-round conference matchups, the championship will be more of a true national championship by not pairing teams that have already played multiple times in a season. This policy is currently in place for women’s volleyball and softball. After an analysis of the 2005 and 2006 brackets, there were a total of 11 sites over the two-year period where the potential for the second-round matchups occurred.

"(c) Estimated Budget Impact. $148,000.

"(d) Student-Athlete Impact. Additional teams likely would incur flights, however; they would not be missing any more class time than in previous years."

This policy, as an example, would have prevented the Texas A&M/Texax, Indiana/Purdue, and Stanford/Cal second round games. Given the estimated budget impact, it apparently would result in a significant amount of additional flying by teams. I can't tell for sure if it would mean 5 or 6 additional teams flying (half of the 11 teams that would have been affected in the two-year study period), although that seems possible. Or, it might mean 10 or 12 additional teams flying if each team that flies under this rule creates an opening in a foursome into which another team would have to fly "in the opposite direction."

The policy, in general, appears in response to the conferences that qualify large numbers of teams for the championship, especially those that frequently have qualifying conference teams within 350 miles of each other. Those conferences' unseeded teams would be flying more often, rather than playing fellow conference teams within 350 miles. With more teams flying, it might actually be beneficial to teams like Portland that get seeds but don't have other qualifying teams within 350 miles. With more teams flying, it seems like it would give the Tournament Committee more flexibility -- i.e., just fly three of the teams here. I'm not sure, however, if my thinking about that is right.

I do find it interesting that the Championships/Competition Cabinet chose to address this problem at a potential $150,000 budget cost and did not address the "seeded team must fly" problem at a much lower budget cost. If someone knows Buzz Stroud, you might ask him about that. Perhaps the conclusion was that this one change would give enough flexibility to solve both problems.