By Aaron O'Connell
The Pilots, though retaining home field advantage for what could be their first two games of the playoffs, have every right to be disappointed by their no. 2 seed.
Seeding for the playoffs is decided by a select committee of individuals, headed by Paul Bradshaw of Baylor, who dole out the seeds based on their perceptions of the teams overall performance.
The four number one seeds in the nation were Stanford (20-0-0), Florida (16-4-1), UCLA (17-2-1) and North Carolina (17-3-1).
The Pilots were ranked second in the nation by the National Soccer Coaches Association of America, third in RPI (Ratings Percentage Index) and finished with a better overall record than all three of the other no.1 seeds.
The committee's rationale? The Pilots failed to produce as well against "the very top of the field" as the other no. 1 selections.
Others are not so sure this is true.
Graham Hays, in a column for ESPN titled "5 Burning Questions: Soccer Bracket", asks aloud what many have been wondering.
His number one question is, "What the heck happened to Portland's seed?"
Hayes goes on to point out that the pilots have a 10-1-0 record against teams ranked in the top 50, the Pilots are 10-1-0 outscoring their opponents 24-5, three of those goals coming from the Pilots only loss of the season.
Additionally, the Pilots have an edge over UCLA. The Pilots posta 9-0-0 record against common opponents. While The Bruins notch an 8-0-1 record against these same teams. The Bruins also lost two other no.1 seeds this season, blown out by Stanford 7-2 and shutout by North Carolina 2-0.
North Carolina, on the other hand, has been defeated by unranked Miami, no. 17 Virginia, and no. 6 Florida State. The Pilots bested Miami with ease by a score of 2-0. The argument for the committee could have been their no.2 RPI rating, but why then was the Pilots no. 3 RPI ranking not given more weight?
There's also Florida State, who aside from their difficult conference, bring nothing particularly special to the table.
Yes, the ACC is a difficult conference in which to compete, but does not explain losses to an unranked Virginia and a tie with unranked Duke. The Seminoles trail the Pilots in both RPI and NSCAA rank.
But do these obstacles even matter?
Maybe, maybe not. Head Coach Garrett Smith is certainly not going to bother the Pilots with the trifles of the seeding committee. The Pilots won their first national championship as a no. 8 seed in 2002.
The number of games they need to play in order to win the championship doesn't change. But, in order to win, the Pilots may need to play both undefeated Stanford and (overrated?) UCLA.
Couple this with the untimely injury of senior WCC player of the year Michelle Enyeart, and the committee's seeding seems like an insult (because they're adding insult to injury. Get it? Ha-ha).
But a championship team will beforced to overcome the obstacles, and the Pilots are certainly a team capable of taking the championship.
And as much as Enyeart's injury may afflicts the Pilots, Smith seems confident that the Pilots will overcome the odds.
And why shouldn't they?
It's almost becoming tradition that the Pilots play without some of their most elite players, the Pilots have not had a full roster since 2005.
Last year the Pilots lost multiple players to injuries and national team commitments, but still clawed their way to the quarterfinals, losing a close game 1-0 against Stanford.
With any luck the Pilots are out to prove something this year to the selection committee and the NCAA.
At least we're at home for the first two games.
Aaron O'Connell is the Sports Editor of The Beacon.
He can be contacted at
oconnell11@up.edu
