2019 NCAA Soccer Bracket Challenge

Mobile users may need to zoom out (typically through pinching the screen). Rankings are sorted by maximum possible score (purple column).

The Deadline to play is
6:00 PM (ET) Thursday, November 21st.

Welcome back to Everybody Soccer's sixth annual NCAA Soccer Bracket Challenge. Last year Sean Steffen came close as the first two-time champion but SBZipfan edged out the competition with the Akron pick, of which only two selected correctly!

2019 returns and all the scores are reset as we gear up for a new bracket challenge. Admission is free and the only prize is bragging rights. Student-athletes and the elderly are all welcome to play!

What Is the NCAA Tournament?

Every year NCAA soccer concludes their season with a 48 team tournament. 24 conference representatives are selected by either winning their respective conference or tournament. The remaining 24 spots are filled by teams earning at-large bids, regardless of conference affiliation. The first round features 32 teams facing off while the second round introduces the 16 seeded teams who were given a bye past the first round.

Click here to see the 2019 bracket

What Is the Bracket Challenge?

The bracket challenge is a free-to-enter competition with no prize, allowing student-athletes the option of playing. Simply make your predictions on each game in the national tournament then submit it before the first game kicks off, on Thursday night. The winner will be determined by who scores the most points. You can score a maximum of 176 points total (32 each round, except the first which is only 16). The rounds are weighted as such:

Round 1 - 1 point (16 games)
Round 2 - 2 point (16 games)
Round 3 - 4 points (8 games)
Quarterfinals - 8 points (4 games)
Semifinals - 16 points (2 games)
Final - 32 points (1 game)

Past Winners

2018 - SBZipfan
2017 - JR Eskilson
2016 - Sarah Dobrolowski
2015 - Sean Steffen
2014 - Liviu Bird

How to Play

There are a couple of different ways to submit a bracket.

1. The Fancy, Interactive Google Doc - I have created a fancy interactive tool through Google Docs but unfortunately does not work on phones. (You can only use it on a desktop or laptop computer.) 

• Click here to go to view the bracket template.

• You will not be able to edit the spreadsheet unless you download the document. Underneath "2019 NCAA Soccer Bracket Challenge Template" in the top left, click

  • File > Download As > Microsoft Excel (.xslx)

• The spreadsheet will download to your computer. Fill out column D, the blue and green cells. The rest of the document will automatically update itself. The spreadsheet has formulas to double check accuracy and spelling, so make sure you end up with smiley faces in the purple column.

• In the green column at the top, enter your name, state or country you represent, bracket name (can be anything serious or silly), and your twitter handle to appear on the scoreboard.

• Email me the file at: everybodysoccer@yahoo.com

• If something goes terribly wrong or you mess up the document, just go back to the link to re-download the document and start over.

2. Edit a Blank Bracket and Send It Over - You can either download the bracket and edit it on your phone or computer. The bracket is fairly clean so writing on it may be easier for you, depending on your phone. You can email me the final product at everybodysoccer@yahoo.com or tweet a picture @letsallsoccer. This doesn’t have to be super neat long. As I can tell who your selections, you’re in!

Click here to view the printable bracket

3. Draw It on a Napkin, Etc. - If you're having trouble downloading the bracket, you can always write down all your picks on a napkin, take a picture of it, and send it my way. It doesn't matter if you write it in crayon or spell it out with macaroni art, as long as I can read each pick, you're in!

Send in brackets to:
everybodysoccer@yahoo.com
or
@letsallsoccer

Deadline Is 6:00 PM (ET)
Thursday, November 21st.

 

Resources

RPIs and Schedules - Dan Gaucho has a great site for all your RPI and scheduling needs.

Media Coverage - Top Drawer Soccer has multiple articles on the tournament, rankings, and players to watch for.

History - Take a look at each school's history with the tournament. Teams were given points for how many rounds they went (Round Pts) and if they held a seed (Seed Pts).  "+/-" is gauging if they overperform or underperform in the tournament given their seed history.

Lastly, here are a few stats on how far average seeds advance in the tournament. Second seeds are the most successful while 14 seeds (who start in the second round) only advance half the time.

Performance by Seed
avg number of rounds completed, 1 to 7

1 - 4.2
2 - 5.7
3 - 4.3
4 - 3.4
5 - 3.8
6 - 3.3
7 - 3.3
8 - 3.9
9 - 3.5
10 - 3.0
11 - 3.1
12 - 3.1
13 - 2.9
14 - 2.5
15 - 2.6
16 - 3.1
unseeded - 1.7

7 Foreign Goalkeepers Who Would Be a Good Fit for MLS

MLS has long been a league that has tried to accommodate foreign players to elevate its level of play. However while field players have seen success with integrating foreigners, goalkeepers have remained the exception to the rule. Despite the league entering its 25th year in 2020, there have been so few productive foreign goalkeepers in MLS. While ideally MLS is focused on developing our domestic talent, which I’ve posted a thread on Twitter covering seven American goalkeepers who would be good enough for MLS, realistically it is the foreign talent that is more likely to earn a transfer fee for MLS teams. If MLS teams can circumvent the many hurdles of getting the right talent in the league, it’s in everyone’s interest.

Following last year’s list of goalkeepers who would be a good fit for MLS, the same three parameters have been applied for possible candidates: goalkeepers must be between 21-26 years old, listed under five million pounds on Transfermarkt, and have a sensible reason to transfer for both the player and club. For example, if a 22-year-old German goalkeeper is a backup in the Bundesliga, it’s not realistic to expect them to come to MLS as their willingness to make such a move is low and the opportunities for success are already present in their home country.

The seven goalkeepers listed below are ready for the level of play in MLS and are likely able to jump to an even higher league within two or three years, earning MLS teams a nice incoming transfer fee. Each goalkeeper is listed with their current club, age, demonym, their current listed price on Transfermarkt, and their potential selling fee an MLS team could make if the goalkeeper develops well.

1. Denis Scherbitski
BATE Borisov (Belarus)
23, Belarusian

Current TM Listing: $1,330,000
Potential Transfer Selling Fee: $12,000,000

Scherbitski sent some waves out earlier this year when the Belarusian goalkeeper stunned eventual Europa League runner-up Arsenal to a 1-0 win for BATE Borisov. While BATE would not advance past the round of 32, the shutout would momentarily put Scherbitski on clubs’ radars. Unfortunately a shoulder injury four months later sidelined him and has kept him away from the field since June. If he has returned to full strength, the fringe Belarusan national team starter would be a great pickup as a shot-stopper who is quick with his feet yet has the size most MLS teams are looking for in their number one.

2. Toma Niga
FCSB (Romania)
22, Romania

TM Listing: $167,000
Potential Transfer Selling Fee: $9,000,000

Romanian netminder Toma Niga is likely to be overshadowed by his peer Andrei Radu, another Romanian goalkeeper already making waves in Italy. However Niga possesses a spring in his dive that is reminiscent of the Robin Williams’ movie Flubber and controlled agility you don’t typically find in young goalkeepers. The 22-year-old is still searching for consistent playing time, although he may have trouble finding that in Europe as Romania isn’t high up on scouts’ list. MLS teams could sign him for cheap and immediately claim to have one of the best young goalkeepers in the league.

3. Tiepo
Chapecoense (Brazil)
21, Brazilian

TM Listing: $994,000
Potential Transfer Selling Fee: $12,000,000

After a long drought of elite goalkeepers, Brazil has seemingly found the secret to alleviating their problems in net. While Alisson and Ederson lead the way overseas, Tiepo is doing well for himself early into his professional career. Already with 25 starts in Brazi’s Série A, the 21-year-old is rarely caught guessing or wrong-footed. With a strong pair of impeccable balance and precise reactions, Tiepo is most likely going to reach a higher level sooner or later, whether due to MLS or not.

4. Dominik Greif
Slovan Bratislava, Slovakia
22, Slovak

TM Listing: $442,000
Potential Transfer Selling Fee: $15,000,000

Spoiler: Greif has been linked with Porto FC already so while he may be out of MLS’s reach, we’ll leave him in the list for now as he technically meets the requirements. But the interest from the Portuguese powerhouse adds up when you consider his recent performance against Wolverhampton, making several top-class saves in the 1-0 loss. Greif relies on his David de Gea frame and blazing reactions when facing shots for Slovan Bratislava. Whether Greif ends up at Porto or not, the young Slovak has greener pastures ahead.

5. Emre Koyuncu
Altay SK (Turkey)
23, Turkish

TM Listing: $193,000
Potential Transfer Selling Fee: $8,000,000

Koyuncu is currently in Turkey’s second division in order to receive playing time but he won’t be there long. The former Turkish YNT goalkeeper is a classic definition of a “gem in the rough” as his club is sitting mid-table in a largely uncovered league. Koyuncu’s play is similar to Tony Meola. He’s a little undersized - standing around 6’0” - but contains a lot of power in both his reactions and handling ability. MLS has a number of goalkeeping spots to fill with recent retirements and expansion teams entering 2020. Koyuncu’s asking price is at an all-time low but could easily be flipped for profit in two or three years time.

6. Vsevolod Ermakov
Shirak Gyumri (Armenia)
23, Russian

TM Listing: $166,000
Potential Transfer Selling Fee: $8,000,000

Ermakov has had somewhat of an odd journey to Armenia. After being sent out on loan as an 18-year-old from Russia’s third division, Ermakov bounced back and forth between Russia and Armenia for years until his current situation found him with Shirak Gyumri. While still young, it’s not uncommon for players to be stuck with a “damaged goods” label and if Ermakov stays in Armenia much longer, he may well be labeled as such. A move to the US would be a good fit for both the league’s and Ermakov’s level of play, as well as springboarding the Russian goalkeeper to the next step in his career.

7. Ezequiel Unsain
Defensa y Justicia
24, Argentine

TM Listing: $3,320,000
Potential Transfer Selling Fee: $8,000,000

Carried over from last year’s list, Unsain is somewhat ironically the antithesis to what MLS goalkeeper coaches are looking for yet the perfect example of types of goalkeepers who have found success in MLS. The young Argentine isn’t as technically proficient as some may wish, but his mobility and nose for the ball are reminiscent of Nick Rimando, Matt Reis, and Dan Kennedy. Unsain has 65 starts in Argentina’s premier league, the Superliga, and is ready for the next step in his career. With some fine-tuning, MLS could make a profit on another South American heading to Europe.

2019 NCAA Women's Goalkeeper Rankings

cover photo from hokiesports.com

Seniors

1. Mandy McGlynn (Virginia Tech)
2. Sophia Brown (Cal Poly)
3. Mikayla Krzeczowski (South Carolina)
4. Jalen Tompkins (Colorado)
5. Rylee Foster (West Virginia, Canada)
6. Haley Smith (Illinois State, Canada)
7. Jaelyn Cunningham (Illinois)
8. Sandy MacIver (Clemson, England)
9. Heather Martin (Texas State)
10. Amanda Fitzgerald (Fairleigh Dickinson)
11. Brittany Wilson (Denver)
12. Courtenay Kaplan (Radford)
13. Ella Dederick (Washington State)
14. Amanda Knaub (Monmouth)
15. Teagan Micah (UCLA, Australia)

Most improved: Sophia Brown. Often overlooked, Brown is akin to a Swiss Army knife. The 5'8” Mustang goalkeeper possesses a shocking range when stretching out to cover the post, as well as a surprising amount of quickness to put pressure on strikers in 1v1 situations. While her athleticism allows her to cover shots that many can’t reach, Brown does have a knack for overcomplicating plays by relying on brute force instead of technical or tactical foundations, most notably on crossing situations. The senior class is overflowing with talent this year - take note of the 15 goalkeepers who are all ready for the next level - but Brown has an upside that if properly tapped into, could make a run at the world’s top leagues.

Juniors

1. Sydney Schneider (UNC Wilmington, Jamaica)
2. Emily Alvarado (TCU, Mexico)
3. Hillary Beall (Michigan)
4. Kaylie Collins (USC)
5. Emma Roccaforte (McNeese State)
6. Laurel Ivory (Virginia)
7. Jessica Berlin (NC State)
8. Melody Jayroe (Liberty)
9. Shelby Hogan (Providence)
10. Madison Less (Cincinnati)

Most improved: Hillary Beall. Rewind back to August of 2018, Beall is being erased from the U20 World Cup roster at the eleventh hour due to an untimely injury. While she was able to return to the field before 2018 came to a close, the USYNT goalkeeper was already facing questions about her longevity just halfway through her collegiate. But building off a strong summer run with the LA Galaxy OC - also known as the current 2019 UWS champions - Beall was rewarded with 3rd Team All-Big Ten honors as she played every minute in goal for Michigan this fall. Beall still has some work to do in close range situations, where she can’t rely as heavily on her 5’11” frame to make the save, but if she can continue her healthy streak she’ll have her pick of doors to walk through this time next year.

Sophomores

1. Claudia Dickey (North Carolina)
2. Meagan McClelland (Rutgers)
3. Bridgette Skiba (Oregon State)
4. Hensley Hancuff (Villanova)
5. Mackenzie Wood (Northwestern)
6. Sydney Martinez (South Florida)
7. Kamryn Stablein (Delaware)
8. Brooke Bollinger (Florida State)
9. Anna Smith (USC)
10. Marisa Bova (Purdue)

Most improved: Bridgette Skiba. It’s hard to believe the Oregon State turned around a two-win 2018 season into just nearly missing the 2019 national tournament. The Beavers went 11-6-2, thanks in large part to Skiba’s NASA-esque statistical skyrocket. After finishing her freshman year with a 2.58 goals allowed average, Skiba returned for her sophomore year with a vengeance, posting a 0.98 GAA through 20 games. Skiba is now quicker, more intentional with her movement through the box, and has honed her reactions to cover every inch under the crossbar.

Freshmen

1. Kayza Massey (West Virginia, Canada)
2. Alisa Crooks (Alabama)
3. Lindsey Romig (Tennessee)
4. Angelina Anderson (California)
5. Marz Josephson (North Carolina)
6. Tatum Sutherland (SMU)
7. Lauren Kozal (Michigan State)
8. Anna Leat (Georgetown, New Zealand)
9. Kat Asman (Penn State)
10. Jenny Wahlen (Portland, Sweden)

Most improved: Alisa Crooks. Whoever was Crooks’ goalkeeper coach during her time through high school deserves some recognition. To walk into an SEC program as a true freshman and post a 6-3-2 record while spitting time with a junior is no easy task, yet Alabama witnessed it first-hand. Her movement in even the slightest actions is a result of countless hours of molding a specific technical and tactical game plan. Crooks has some work ahead of her to get to a level of athleticism that many of her peers are already at, but she’s certainly in the 1% when it comes to consistency, mechanics, and decision making when compared to the freshmen class.

Past Collegiate Goalkeeper Rankings

2019: Preseason
2018: Preseason and Final
2017: Preseason and Final
2016: Preseason and Final
2015: Preseason and Final

What is Goals Saved Above Replacement?

cover photo belongs to Jeff Swinger/USA Today Sports

Goals Saved Above Replacement was first created back in 2013. Originally a stat that was solely eye-test related, it has since grown to a series of formulas building off the idea of comparing one goalkeeper action against a standard average. For example, if a goalkeeper is scored on in a certain situation, GSAR gauges how difficult the shot was and the percent chance an average MLS goalkeeper would save the attempt on goal. Across a variety of other situations a goalkeeper faces, GSAR finds the goals saved in comparison to a replacement player. If the number is large, the goalkeeper saved several goals and did an outstanding job. The farther a goalkeeper’s GSAR is below zero, the worse they have performed. An even “0” represents a score a replacement player would earn.

What makes GSAR any different than another goalkeeping metric?

There are two main differences. First, GSAR is an all-encompassing statistic. While most goalkeeping stats are centered solely around shot-stopping, GSAR takes into account crossing, handling abilities, distribution, slotted balls, and other situations that don’t fit in a save percentage model. In each situation, the goalkeeper’s actions are based off expectations from an average of season performances. For example, completed and incompleted passes are weighted according to the chance of goal creation, whether for the goalkeeper’s team or the opposing one.

The second main difference is found in the shot-stopping element. When considering the few advanced shot-stopping statistics out there, they are still handcuffed by the problem of looking at where the shot enters the goal, as opposed to where the ball passes a goalkeeper’s line of attack. If a goalkeeper gets scored on from atop the 18 into an upper corner but the goalkeeper is at the penalty spot (only six yards from the shooter), then the ball passed the goalkeeper at a much closer distance than where the ball entered the goalmouth. Along with tracking the speed of the shot, GSAR helps understand the difficulty of a shot more accurately through reaction time and the distance from ball-to-goalkeeper.

What categories does GSAR track?

GSAR is built to value every touch a goalkeeper makes. To make it easy to digest for readers, we’ll use the 2018 goals saved as a starting point.

Each MLS goalkeeper has had their season broken down into seven categories.

1. Shots <10 - The first two columns are shots from inside and outside ten yards. The distance measured is from the shooter to the goalkeeper, not the shooter to the goal.

While traditional expected goal models focus on a shooter’s location on the field, GSAR focuses on different criteria: where the shot passes the goalkeeper and how long the goalkeeper had to react.

A shot’s difficulty is not deemed by where it enters the goalmouth but how far the ball was from the goalkeeper when it intersected the goalkeeper’s dive line. This angle is affected by a goalkeeper’s starting position as well as where the shooter is located on the field. If a shot is taken near the end line, the ball will pass the goalkeeper within a few feet even if it is hit the upper corner. Similarly, if a goalkeeper is closer to the shooter, they “cut down the angle” and cover more of the goalmouth, putting the ball’s path closer to their body.

2. Shots >10 - While the first category is largely impacted by a goalkeeper’s reaction abilities, the second has more emphasis on a goalkeeper’s ability to move his feet and general angle play. Typically older goalkeepers perform well with farther shots and struggle on close-range ones, while younger goalkeepers are the reverse.

3. Penalties - Penalties aren’t a large part of the MLS season - only occurring once every six or seven games - but they do carry a heavy weight. On average a penalty has a success rate of around 80% and can severely boost or tank a goalkeeper’s GSAR.

4. Crossing - This category takes into account if a goalkeeper punched, claimed, or (for a negative value) let a cross drop in a position they should have challenged for. The position has recently seen a swing towards favoring passive goalkeeping when it comes to crosses, which explains the relatively low ratings.

5. Error - Covering many different areas, only negative numbers will be found here. This can include gifting a poor rebound to the opposition, giving away a penalty, or other actions that result in creating another chance on goal.

6. Misc. - The miscellaneous tallies cover any non-tradition goalkeeping action. Slotted balls back to the center of the box are the most common, as well as any actions that don’t fit a proper formula, which are entered in by hand. Unique shot deflections and 1v1 situations (amongst other actions) can be found here. While hand-adjusted values aren’t ideal, they help cover bizarre situations that a formula doesn’t work for. These situations make up less than .1% of all goalkeeping actions.

7. Passing - Passing stats consider how often and where a goalkeeper completes a pass as well as where turnovers occur. A turnover at the other side of the field is negligible, while a turnover in front of one’s own goal returns a larger negative value.

Minutes and average GSAR/90 minutes are tacked on at the end.

Projected Salaries Based Off of GSAR

There are many hurdles to tacking a dollar amount to a goalkeeper’s GSAR. For starters, identifying a baseline or replacement-level for MLS goalkeepers is tricky with salaries and talent levels constantly swelling over the past twenty years. Matching a “0 GSAR” goalkeeper with the median salary of MLS goalkeepers in 2018 ($132,625.00) proved to be the easiest route. Using this standard, we’ll take a look at seven different categories to obtain an overall GSAR rating, as well as put a dollar amount on each MLS goalkeeper’s performance from 2018.

Howard’s multi-million DP salary and GSAR were excluded for normalcy’s sake.

Another challenge when considering this method is recognizing one team’s willingness to spend high on goalkeeping doesn’t necessarily mean the rest of the league will. To find a fair expected payment, the salaries and GSARs were listed in descending order to find a trend between the two. This brings up certain issues but overall it puts every goalkeeper on an even playing field when it comes to receiving payment for their services.

As some goalkeepers didn’t play the whole season - whether due to injury or a coach’s decision - finding a projected dollar amount would either have to extrapolate a goalkeeper’s stats for a full 34 game season or shrink down the corresponding payment. For example, Attinella only played two-thirds of the season but compiled a 4.74 GSAR. Should his projected GSAR-based salary be off what he could have done over 34 games or should it account for only the games he played? With a goalkeeper’s true impact being dependent on what they can bring to the field every game, I opted to extrapolate the dollar amount out to 34 games.

Categories are explained in more detail below. Goalkeepers are sorted by the difference ($$.diff) in their projected payment minus their actual. “$$.diff” is not what goalkeepers deserved to be paid, simply just the difference between actual and deserved.

1. m.GSAR/gm - Simply dividing a goalkeeper’s GSAR over the minutes they played, unless the goalkeeper played less than 900 minutes in the season. If this was the case, a goalkeeper was given either a positive or negative .03, depending on their GSAR. It’s not a great siphoning method, but +/- .03 keeps backup goalkeepers’ GSARs from getting out of hand with such a small sample size.

2. adj.GSAR - What a goalkeeper’s GSAR would have been had they played all 34 games (3060 minutes, excluding stoppage time).

3. gsar.$$ - How much a goalkeeper deserves to be paid, converted from a goalkeepers’ adj.GSAR. The conversation formula is based on the previous orange and white graph.

4. $$.diff - Goalkeepers are sorted by this column, which simply subtracts real.$$ from gsar.$$. Tyler Miller was underpaid by $333,503 while Andre Blake was overpaid by $410,805.

Have any questions? Head over to the contact page for any specific inquiries.