With the quarter-finals coming up, the higher seeds are the home teams. This is a significant advantage, which puts the Women's Soccer Committee's decisions on the #1 seeds among its most important.
According to my NCAA Tournament bracket formation program, this year three of the #1 seed decisions were easy:
Stanford met 37 "yes" standards for getting a #1 seed and 0 "no" standards. The Committee's pattern is for a team meeting any 1 of those 37 "yes" standards to get a #1 seed.
North Carolina met 31 "yes" standars and 1 "no" standard. I'll come back to that "no" standard.
Virginia met 10 "yes" standards and 0 "no" standards.
Thus my computer said those three teams would get #1 seeds, in the order of 1.1 Stanford, 1.2 North Carolina, and 1.3 Virginia -- and they did.
Being curious about how North Carolina met a "no" standard, I checked it out. They got their "no" on Standard #4, their Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank. The "no" score for that standard is >=25, which means that according to the Committee's pattern, a team with a NCRPI rank of #25 or poorer will not get a #1 seed. North Carolina's NCRPI rank was #28.
Over the last 12 years, of the 720 Top 60 teams, there have been 33 teams that, under the >=25 standard, would have been assured of "no" #1 seed but that, once I've changed the standard to >=29 to accomodate this year's #1 seed for North Carolina, no longer will have that "no" status. All of those 33 teams have been outside the #1 to #7 to #14 RPI rank levels, which have been the limits beyond which the Committee has not gone for #1 and #2 seeds respectively. In other words, the Committee previously has not seen a team with a #28 NCRPI rank that otherwise looked qualified for a #1 seed. In this context, North Carolina's getting a #1 seed indicates to me that the Committee does not place much weight on a team's NCRPI rank, in the #1 seed selection process.
After Stanford, North Carolina, and Virginia, there was not an equally obvious fourth #1 seed. Rather, there were two slightly "flawed" possibilities: Florida State with 1 "yes" standard and 2 "no" standards; and UCLA with 0 "yes" standards and 1 "no" standard. Here is some detailed information on these two.
Florida State
Florida State met 1 "yes" and 2 "no" standards.
Here is its "yes" standard:
Non-Conference RPI Rank and Conference RPI (Standard # 50)
This standard combines these two factors, each weighted at 50%. The "yes" #1 seed score for this standard is >=4.3058.
Florida State's Non-Conference RPI Rank was #1 and the ACC's RPI was .5942 (ranked #2), producing a standard score of 4.3273. If the Committee had not given Florida State a #1 seed, I would have to change the standard score to reflect the Committee's decision. Of the 48 teams getting #1 seeds over the last 12 years, this changed standard score would have taken only 1 team out of the "assured" #1 seed group. Thus it would have been a minimal change from the Committee's pattern. On the other hand, Florida State's score is the 3rd best score for this standard of those 48 teams and also the best score this year.
Here are Florida State's "no" standards:
Top 50 Results Score and Head to Head Score
I'm going to assume for this that readers have read my description, in the immediately previous article, of what these factors are.
The "no" #1 seed score for this standard is <=15,929.
Florida State's Top 50 Results Score was 1,924, which for a #1 seed is not very good -- of the 48 teams getting #1 seeds over the last 12 years, only 2 had a poorer Top 50 Results Score. Florida State's Head to Head Score was 0.57. Together they produce a score for this standard of 11,638. With Florida State getting a #1 seed, I will need to change this standard to accommodate that. Of the 720 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years, this means that 49 of those teams that previously were assured as "no" #1 seeds now no longer will have that status.
Top 50 Results Rank and Head to Head Score
The "no" #1 seed score for this standard is <=.9503.
Florida State's Top 50 Results Rank was #28, to go with its Head to Head Score of 0.57. Together, these produced a standard score of .7179. Since I'll need to change the "no" standard score to accommodate Florida State's #1 seed, this means that 38 of the 720 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years that previously fell within the "no" #1 seed category for this standard now no longer will have that status.
Florida State Comments
Florida State had a winning percentage of 0.7500, which is not great for a #1 seed. It had only the #28 Top 50 Results Rank, and it had a not outstanding Head to Head Score. Yet its RPI Rank was #4 and its Non-Conference RPI Rank was #1. How could that be?
Florida State's very high RPI and Non-Conference RPI Ranks were due to its strength of schedule. Its non-conference opponents' average RPI rank was 35. The next team in order was Florida at 46, followed by DePaul at 64. UCLA was 55 positions farther down at 90. Looking at conference and non-conference games and opponents' unadjusted RPIs, Florida State played the 2nd toughest schedule (just behind Duke). UCLA played the 5th toughest.
Thus there's a suggestion, in the Committee's giving Florida State the 4th #1 seed, that the Committee was rewarding Florida State for its having exposed itself to a very tough non-conference schedule.
UCLA
UCLA met no "yes" standards and 1 "no" standard.
Here is its "no" standard:
Non-Conference RPI Rank and Head to Head Score
The "no" #1 seed score for this standard is <=.9818.
UCLA's Non-Conference RPI Rank was #18 and its Head to Head Score was 0.71, producing a score for this standard of .9365.
If the Committee had given UCLA a #1 seed, in adjusting the standard score to accomodate this, 6 of the 720 Top 60 teams over the last 12 years that were in the assured of "no" #1 seed category under this standard would have moved out of that category.
General Comments about the Florida State or UCLA Decision
Given how the Committee placed Florida State and UCLA in the bracket, it's reasonably clear that Florida State was the 4th #1 seed (effectively seeded fourth) and that UCLA was the 1st #2 seed (effectively seeded fifth). Because Florida State got the #1 seed, it gets home field advantage against UCLA.
Home field is a significant advantage. In RPI rating terms, it is worth an 0.0150 adjustment in the rating difference between two opponents. In terms of win likelihoods, this means that:
With Florida State being the home team, based on the RPI rating difference between Florida State and UCLA, as adjusted for home field advantage, Florida State's win/tie/loss likelihoods are 62.8%/13.2%/24.0%.
At a neutral site, Florida State's win/tie/loss likelihoods are 57.8%/13.5%/28.6%.
With UCLA as the home team, Florida State's win/tie/loss likelihoods are 47.4%/15.5%/37.2%. In this scenario it is more likely the game will be an outright loss or a tie (going to Kicks from the Mark) than that Florida State will outright win.
Thus the Committee's decision to give Florida State the 4th #1 seed, rather than UCLA, was a big one with a potentially significant impact on the outcome of he Florida State v UCLA game. In my opinion, based on the above analysis it was a reasonable decision. On the other hand, based on the above analysis, giving UCLA the 4th #1 seed also would have been a reasonable decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment