Here is the key to the numbers in the NCAA Seed or Selection column:
1 = #1 seed (for all of the seeds, I've put them 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, etc., to indicate the order in which my system places them)
2 = #2 seed
3 = #3 seed
4 = #4 seed
5 = unseeded automatic qualifier
6 = unseeded at large selection, with * meaning the team was tied with the 6.5 group but with better results against Top 50 teams, giving it the at large selection
6.5 = Top 60 team tied with last teams "in" but not getting a selection due to poorer results against Top 50 teams
7 = Top 60 team not getting an at large selection, in order starting with the closest to getting a selection
| NCAA Seed or Selection | Automatic Qualifier | ARPI Rank for Formation | Team for Formation |
| 1.1 | AQ | 1 | Stanford |
| 1.2 | AQ | 2 | NorthCarolinaU |
| 1.3 | 0 | 3 | VirginiaU |
| 1.4 | 0 | 4 | FloridaState |
| 2.1 | AQ | 5 | SouthCarolinaU |
| 2.3 | 0 | 8 | SouthernCalifornia |
| 2.2 | 0 | 7 | UCLA |
| 2.4 | AQ | 9 | KansasU |
| 3.1 | 0 | 6 | ArkansasU |
| 3.2 | AQ | 12 | BYU |
| 3.4 | 0 | 11 | OklahomaState |
| 3.3 | AQ | 10 | Brown |
| 4.2 | 0 | 14 | Duke |
| 4.1 | 0 | 13 | Rutgers |
| 4.3 | 0 | 18 | WashingtonU |
| 4.4 | 0 | 17 | WisconsinU |
| 5 | AQ | 16 | Hofstra |
| 5 | AQ | 22 | PennState |
| 5 | AQ | 50 | Milwaukee |
| 5 | AQ | 24 | SouthFlorida |
| 5 | AQ | 42 | Xavier |
| 5 | AQ | 56 | LoyolaChicago |
| 5 | AQ | 38 | StLouis |
| 5 | AQ | 44 | Monmouth |
| 5 | AQ | 63 | SouthAlabama |
| 5 | AQ | 90 | Navy |
| 5 | AQ | 102 | CalStateFullerton |
| 5 | AQ | 84 | BowlingGreen |
| 5 | AQ | 87 | Lamar |
| 5 | AQ | 119 | Seattle |
| 5 | AQ | 149 | CentralConnecticut |
| 5 | AQ | 47 | NorthTexas |
| 5 | AQ | 76 | BoiseState |
| 5 | AQ | 110 | StonyBrook |
| 5 | AQ | 112 | Lipscomb |
| 5 | AQ | 118 | SouthDakotaState |
| 5 | AQ | 58 | Samford |
| 5 | AQ | 139 | Radford |
| 5 | AQ | 217 | Belmont |
| 5 | AQ | 224 | NorthernColorado |
| 5 | AQ | 246 | PrairieViewA&M |
| 6 | 0 | 15 | VirginiaTech |
| 6 | 0 | 30 | CaliforniaU |
| 6 | 0 | 33 | Vanderbilt |
| 6 | 0 | 21 | TexasA&M |
| 6 | 0 | 28 | Louisville |
| 6 | 0 | 19 | NCState |
| 6 | 0 | 20 | TexasTech |
| 6 | 0 | 23 | FloridaU |
| 6 | 0 | 27 | WashingtonState |
| 6 | 0 | 36 | Clemson |
| 6 | 0 | 25 | MichiganU |
| 6 | 0 | 29 | SantaClara |
| 6 | 0 | 46 | Pepperdine |
| 6 | 0 | 26 | Memphis |
| 6 | 0 | 31 | WestVirginiaU |
| 6 | 0 | 35 | Georgetown |
| 6 | 0 | 32 | FloridaAtlantic |
| 6 | 0 | 34 | NotreDame |
| 6 | 0 | 40 | ArizonaU |
| 6 | 0 | 53 | TennesseeU |
| 6 | 0 | 43 | ColoradoU |
| 6* | 0 | 48 | TexasU |
| 6* | 0 | 55 | TCU |
| 6.5 | 0 | 39 | AlabamaU |
| 6.5 | 0 | 45 | IowaU |
| 7 | 0 | 57 | GeorgiaU |
| 7 | 0 | 41 | Harvard |
| 7 | 0 | 37 | Yale |
| 7 | 0 | 49 | Columbia |
| 7 | 0 | 51 | UtahU |
| 7 | 0 | 54 | MississippiU |
| 7 | 0 | 52 | OregonState |
| 7 | 0 | 60 | DePaul |
| 7 | 0 | 59 | Furman |
I base this on the factors the NCAA says the Women's Soccer Committee must use in making its at large selections. For each factor, and for various combinations of factors, I have a scoring system that assigns a score to each team. I've matched the factor scores with the Committee's decisions over the last 12 years. I assign a "yes" and a "no" standard to most factors. For a factor, a "yes" standard means that the Committee always has made a decision in favor of a team with that score or better. A "no" standard means that the Committee always has made a decision against a team with that score or poorer. When a team meets both "yes" and "no" scores, it means the team has a profile the Committee hasn't faced over the last 12 years. After each year, I adjust the factor standards as needed to be sure that every standard is consistent with all of the Committee's past decisions.
Here are a few comments:
Tennessee came in #11 in the SEC regular season competition. Although Mississippi State last year broke the #11 barrier for getting an at large selection, its rank and rating and Non-Conference rank and rating were so high it made it virtually impossible for the Committee not to give it an at large selection. Tennessee does not come close to matching the numbers that Mississippi State had last year. Nevertheless, Tennessee meets 4 "yes" standards and 3 "no" standards. That gives it 1 more "yes" than "no" standards. I treat this the same as a team that meets 1 "yes" standard and no "no" standards. In my system, this year this qualifies Tennessee for an at large selection. I will not be surprised, however, and I will not criticize the Committee, if Tennessee does not get an at large selection.
Georgia, on the other hand, came in ahead of Tennessee in the SEC regular season competition but meets 2 "yes" and 3 "no" standards. I treat this the same as a team that meets no "yes" and 1 "no" standards. In my system, this leaves Georgia without an at large selection. Since they came in ahead of Tennessee in the SEC regular season competition, however, it will not surprise me and I will not criticize the Committee, if Georgia gets an at large selection. And, it will not surprise me to see them flipped with Tennessee.
With Tennesee "in" and Georgia "out," there were 2 positions left to fill and 4 teams that meet no "yes" and no "no" standards. This is not unusual for filling the last at large spots. The four teams are Texas, TCU, Alabama, and Iowa. In that situation, I give the empty at large spots to the teams that have the best results (wins or ties) against Top 50 teams, based on a scoring system that is very heavily weighted towards good results against very highly ranked teams. My scoring system valued Texas' and TCU's Top 50 results much more highly than Alabama's and Iowa's, so Texas and TCU received the selections.
My system leaves the Ivy League with only Brown in the Tournament. If the Committee gives an at large selection to one or more other Ivy teams -- possibly Harvard, Yale, or Columbia -- I will have more comments to post.
No comments:
Post a Comment