The Ivy League had the #5 average RPI among the conferences. Yet Ivy League champion Brown, with a #10 RPI rank, did not get a seed from the Women's Soccer Committee. The League had 3 other teams among the RPI's Top 50: Yale at #37, Harvard at #41, and Columbia at #49. Yet none of those teams got an at large selection. Why?
I'll start with Brown, then move on to the League, and then come back to Yale, Harvard, and Columbia.
No Seed for Brown
According to my bracket formation program, Brown had factors in its profile that met 3 "yes" standards for getting a #4 seed and 0 "no" standards. What a "yes" standard means is that over the last 12 years, every team with a profile factor meeting that standard got at least a #4 seed. Thus Brown's not getting a #4 seed was a break from the Committee's historic patterns. The question is, "Why?"
(Hereafter, when I refer to the Committee's pattern or use the word "historically," I'm meaning over the last 12 years, 2007 through 2018.)
Here are the "yes" standards Brown met, with some information about each of them:
Conference Standing and Conference RPI (Standard #71)
This standard looks at the team's standing within its conference put together with the conference's RPI. (For all combination standards, like this one, the two factors are weighted 50% each.) Under this standard, Brown's #1 conference standing combines with the Ivy League's 0.5629 average RPI to give Brown a score of 3.8707.
Under this standard, the "yes" standard for a #4 seed is a score of 3.8587. In other words, historically, teams with a score of >=3.8587 always have gotten at least #4 seeds. Since Brown's 3.8707 is a better score, history says Brown would get a #4 seed. But it didn't.
How big a change is this from the historic pattern? A way to measure that is to ask how many teams that historically were "assured" at least a #4 seed by the standard now will not be in the assured group because the standard has to be changed to incorporate Brown not getting a seed. The answer is, only 1 team, out of 192 seeded teams over the 12-year period. Thus this is a small change from the Committee's pattern.
Conference RPI and Head to Head Score (Standard #78)
"Head to Head Score" needs an explanation.
One of the factors the Committee is required to consider for at large selections and surely considers for seeds is Head to Head Results. It's up to the Committee to decide exactly what this means and how to apply it. Hopefully, it's not simply a matter of, "How did A and B do when they played each other," as that would miss out on the "A beat B," B beat C," and "C beat A" scenario.
The way I come up with a Head to Head Score is to look at every head to head game between Top 60 teams. Each team in a head to head game gets a positive or negative score based on the game outcome -- win, loss, tie -- and the game location -- home, away, neutral. I then determine each Top 60 team's average head to head score per head to head game played. This creates a picture of how a team did in all of its games against Top 60 opponents.
The "yes" score for this combined standard is >=14.3133.
The Ivy League's RPI was .5629. Brown's Head to Head Score was 1.60 per game (total head to head score of 8, averaged over 5 Top 60 games). These gave Brown a score for this standard of 14.5461, which indicates Brown would get at least a #4 seed.
Since Brown didn't get at least a #4 seed, how big a change is this from the Committee's pattern? Out of the 192 seeded teams over the last 12 years, 15 of them ( a little over 1 per year) would have been "assureds" under the 14.3133 standard but won't be once I've revised the standard to incorporate the Brown "no seed" decision.
Head to Head Score and Last 8 Games Score (Standard #88)
Last 8 Games Score needs an explanation. There are two "secondary" criteria the Committee can consider in at large selections, and almost certainly considers for seeds. One is results against teams already selected with an RPI rank of 75 or better (for which I use the surrogate of good results -- wins or ties -- against Top 50 teams, since that is what really seems to matter to the Committee). The other is results over the last 8 games (winning record and strength of opponents). I believe this second one primarily is looking for poor results towards the end of the season, and as a surrogate I look at poor results -- losses or ties -- against lower-ranked teams over the course of the entire season.
Brown's Last 8 Games Score, in my system, was -2. This was for a loss against a team ranked in the 56 to 100 range.
The "yes" #4 seed score for this combined standard is >=8.000. Brown's score was 10.8000, which indicates Brown would get at least a #4 seed.
Since it didn't, how big a change is this? In the move of this standard from 8.000 to a new score to accomodate Brown's 10.8000 not getting a seed, 24 teams out of the test period's 192 would not have been "assured" a #4 seed -- 2 per year. This is the biggest of the three changes.
Discussion
Based on the Committee's patterns, Brown would have gotten at least a #4 seed. And, it would have been a possible #3 seed, for which it met no "yes" standards but also no "no" standards. But it didn't get seeded.
Is there a likely explanation for this?
One possible explanation could have to do with Brown's good results against Top 50 teams, which seems to be a powerful factor in the Committee's decisions. I have a scoring system for these results -- wins and ties -- that is very heavily weighted towards good results against very highly ranked teams. The question the Top 50 Results Score addresses is, "At how high a level have you demonstrated you are able to compete?"
Brown's Top 50 Results Score, in my system, was 531. Of the 16 seeded teams, 15 of them had a better score than Brown, most of them a lot better. The only seeded team Brown outscored was Penn State with 501. Further, other teams in the bracket that didn't get seeded included Virginia Tech (548), NC State (11,664), Texas A&M (1,249), Florida (10,131), and Michigan (1,053). Indeed, Tennessee with 14,493 and Georgia with 14,490 didn't even get into the Tournament. Thus the Committee may have concluded that Brown's best results simply weren't good enough for it to be seeded.
There's also another possible explanation when you consider this: For two of the "yes" standards Brown met, one of the factors was the Ivy League's RPI. For the other "yes" standard, one of the factors was Head to Head Score in games against Top 60 teams, and three of the five Top 60 teams Brown played were #37 Yale, #41 Harvard, and #49 Columbia (2 wins and 1 tie). It's possible, especially when combined with Brown's comparatively weak Top 50 Results Score, that the Committee considered the Ivy League's RPI, and its teams' RPI ratings and ranks, to be suspect and that this affected its decision about Brown.
The Ivy League
As the non-conference part of the season moved along, it became apparent that the Ivy League was going to have a very high non-conference winning percentage and that this was going to translate into its ranking as the #5 RPI conference. This caused the raising of some eyebrows, including mine, since the League's rank as a conference since 2013 had been 8 (2013), 8, 11, 8, 7, and 9 (2018). Also, although not unheard of, it is unusual for a conference to move up 4 rank positions in one year.
Last February, I wrote an article, So Your Conference Wants More of Its Teams in the NCAA Tournament: How Much Attention Should Its Teams Pay to the RPI Formula? Answer: A Lot. In that article, I described in detail a non-conference scheduling strategy by which a mid-major conference's teams, working together, could make large improvements in their RPI ratings and ranks with no change in the teams' true strengths. A big part of the strategy was scheduling non-conference opponents that would allow all of the conference's teams, and thus the conference as a whole, to have a very high non-conference winning percentage. This strategy would take advantage of the current structure of the RPI formula. For an example, I took one of the top mid-major conferences and replaced its 2018 schedule with an alternative schedule implementing the non-conference strategy I described in the article. That included having the conferences' teams play significantly weaker opponents than they'd actually played and selecting those opponents with a view to their contributions to opponents' strengths of schedule. I then computed what the conference teams' RPI ratings and ranks would have been with this alternative schedule plugged into the 2018 season. The alternative schedule dramatically improved all of the conference teams' ratings and ranks and turned the conference into the #1 RPI conference. Same teams, but a different and significantly weaker schedule.
Coming back to the Ivy League this year, when I saw their high rank as a conference, I immediately looked at the Ivy teams' non-conference schedules to see if they fit the "high non-conference winning percentage" part of the strategy I'd described. They did. The result was that the League's overall non-conference winning percentage was .7391, giving it the third highest winning percentage among all the conferences behind only the Pac 12's record .8151 and the ACC's .7789. The fourth highest, well behind the Ivy League, was the SEC's .6778.
To give an idea of how the Ivy teams did this, one can look at the winning percentages of the non-conference teams they played as compared to those of other conferences. In this comparison, the League ends up having had the #19 ranked opponents' winning percentages, at .4707. And, those opponents' schedules weren't strong -- their winning percentage against their opponents ranked the League #10 in opponents' opponents' winning percentage. Thus the League as a whole achieved very good results against very weak opponents, who themselves played relatively weak opponents. And due to the RPI's structure, this greatly improved the Ivy League's teams' RPI ratings and ranks.
As an additional check, I looked at the average RPI rank of the League's non-conference opponents, as compared to other conferences' opponents' average RPI ranks. This had the League in 17th place among the conferences:
Simply put, the League's non-conference scheduling, put together with the structure of the RPI, resulted in the League's teams being overrated.
I'll start with Brown, then move on to the League, and then come back to Yale, Harvard, and Columbia.
No Seed for Brown
According to my bracket formation program, Brown had factors in its profile that met 3 "yes" standards for getting a #4 seed and 0 "no" standards. What a "yes" standard means is that over the last 12 years, every team with a profile factor meeting that standard got at least a #4 seed. Thus Brown's not getting a #4 seed was a break from the Committee's historic patterns. The question is, "Why?"
(Hereafter, when I refer to the Committee's pattern or use the word "historically," I'm meaning over the last 12 years, 2007 through 2018.)
Here are the "yes" standards Brown met, with some information about each of them:
Conference Standing and Conference RPI (Standard #71)
This standard looks at the team's standing within its conference put together with the conference's RPI. (For all combination standards, like this one, the two factors are weighted 50% each.) Under this standard, Brown's #1 conference standing combines with the Ivy League's 0.5629 average RPI to give Brown a score of 3.8707.
Under this standard, the "yes" standard for a #4 seed is a score of 3.8587. In other words, historically, teams with a score of >=3.8587 always have gotten at least #4 seeds. Since Brown's 3.8707 is a better score, history says Brown would get a #4 seed. But it didn't.
How big a change is this from the historic pattern? A way to measure that is to ask how many teams that historically were "assured" at least a #4 seed by the standard now will not be in the assured group because the standard has to be changed to incorporate Brown not getting a seed. The answer is, only 1 team, out of 192 seeded teams over the 12-year period. Thus this is a small change from the Committee's pattern.
Conference RPI and Head to Head Score (Standard #78)
"Head to Head Score" needs an explanation.
One of the factors the Committee is required to consider for at large selections and surely considers for seeds is Head to Head Results. It's up to the Committee to decide exactly what this means and how to apply it. Hopefully, it's not simply a matter of, "How did A and B do when they played each other," as that would miss out on the "A beat B," B beat C," and "C beat A" scenario.
The way I come up with a Head to Head Score is to look at every head to head game between Top 60 teams. Each team in a head to head game gets a positive or negative score based on the game outcome -- win, loss, tie -- and the game location -- home, away, neutral. I then determine each Top 60 team's average head to head score per head to head game played. This creates a picture of how a team did in all of its games against Top 60 opponents.
The "yes" score for this combined standard is >=14.3133.
The Ivy League's RPI was .5629. Brown's Head to Head Score was 1.60 per game (total head to head score of 8, averaged over 5 Top 60 games). These gave Brown a score for this standard of 14.5461, which indicates Brown would get at least a #4 seed.
Since Brown didn't get at least a #4 seed, how big a change is this from the Committee's pattern? Out of the 192 seeded teams over the last 12 years, 15 of them ( a little over 1 per year) would have been "assureds" under the 14.3133 standard but won't be once I've revised the standard to incorporate the Brown "no seed" decision.
Head to Head Score and Last 8 Games Score (Standard #88)
Last 8 Games Score needs an explanation. There are two "secondary" criteria the Committee can consider in at large selections, and almost certainly considers for seeds. One is results against teams already selected with an RPI rank of 75 or better (for which I use the surrogate of good results -- wins or ties -- against Top 50 teams, since that is what really seems to matter to the Committee). The other is results over the last 8 games (winning record and strength of opponents). I believe this second one primarily is looking for poor results towards the end of the season, and as a surrogate I look at poor results -- losses or ties -- against lower-ranked teams over the course of the entire season.
Brown's Last 8 Games Score, in my system, was -2. This was for a loss against a team ranked in the 56 to 100 range.
The "yes" #4 seed score for this combined standard is >=8.000. Brown's score was 10.8000, which indicates Brown would get at least a #4 seed.
Since it didn't, how big a change is this? In the move of this standard from 8.000 to a new score to accomodate Brown's 10.8000 not getting a seed, 24 teams out of the test period's 192 would not have been "assured" a #4 seed -- 2 per year. This is the biggest of the three changes.
Discussion
Based on the Committee's patterns, Brown would have gotten at least a #4 seed. And, it would have been a possible #3 seed, for which it met no "yes" standards but also no "no" standards. But it didn't get seeded.
Is there a likely explanation for this?
One possible explanation could have to do with Brown's good results against Top 50 teams, which seems to be a powerful factor in the Committee's decisions. I have a scoring system for these results -- wins and ties -- that is very heavily weighted towards good results against very highly ranked teams. The question the Top 50 Results Score addresses is, "At how high a level have you demonstrated you are able to compete?"
Brown's Top 50 Results Score, in my system, was 531. Of the 16 seeded teams, 15 of them had a better score than Brown, most of them a lot better. The only seeded team Brown outscored was Penn State with 501. Further, other teams in the bracket that didn't get seeded included Virginia Tech (548), NC State (11,664), Texas A&M (1,249), Florida (10,131), and Michigan (1,053). Indeed, Tennessee with 14,493 and Georgia with 14,490 didn't even get into the Tournament. Thus the Committee may have concluded that Brown's best results simply weren't good enough for it to be seeded.
There's also another possible explanation when you consider this: For two of the "yes" standards Brown met, one of the factors was the Ivy League's RPI. For the other "yes" standard, one of the factors was Head to Head Score in games against Top 60 teams, and three of the five Top 60 teams Brown played were #37 Yale, #41 Harvard, and #49 Columbia (2 wins and 1 tie). It's possible, especially when combined with Brown's comparatively weak Top 50 Results Score, that the Committee considered the Ivy League's RPI, and its teams' RPI ratings and ranks, to be suspect and that this affected its decision about Brown.
The Ivy League
As the non-conference part of the season moved along, it became apparent that the Ivy League was going to have a very high non-conference winning percentage and that this was going to translate into its ranking as the #5 RPI conference. This caused the raising of some eyebrows, including mine, since the League's rank as a conference since 2013 had been 8 (2013), 8, 11, 8, 7, and 9 (2018). Also, although not unheard of, it is unusual for a conference to move up 4 rank positions in one year.
Last February, I wrote an article, So Your Conference Wants More of Its Teams in the NCAA Tournament: How Much Attention Should Its Teams Pay to the RPI Formula? Answer: A Lot. In that article, I described in detail a non-conference scheduling strategy by which a mid-major conference's teams, working together, could make large improvements in their RPI ratings and ranks with no change in the teams' true strengths. A big part of the strategy was scheduling non-conference opponents that would allow all of the conference's teams, and thus the conference as a whole, to have a very high non-conference winning percentage. This strategy would take advantage of the current structure of the RPI formula. For an example, I took one of the top mid-major conferences and replaced its 2018 schedule with an alternative schedule implementing the non-conference strategy I described in the article. That included having the conferences' teams play significantly weaker opponents than they'd actually played and selecting those opponents with a view to their contributions to opponents' strengths of schedule. I then computed what the conference teams' RPI ratings and ranks would have been with this alternative schedule plugged into the 2018 season. The alternative schedule dramatically improved all of the conference teams' ratings and ranks and turned the conference into the #1 RPI conference. Same teams, but a different and significantly weaker schedule.
Coming back to the Ivy League this year, when I saw their high rank as a conference, I immediately looked at the Ivy teams' non-conference schedules to see if they fit the "high non-conference winning percentage" part of the strategy I'd described. They did. The result was that the League's overall non-conference winning percentage was .7391, giving it the third highest winning percentage among all the conferences behind only the Pac 12's record .8151 and the ACC's .7789. The fourth highest, well behind the Ivy League, was the SEC's .6778.
To give an idea of how the Ivy teams did this, one can look at the winning percentages of the non-conference teams they played as compared to those of other conferences. In this comparison, the League ends up having had the #19 ranked opponents' winning percentages, at .4707. And, those opponents' schedules weren't strong -- their winning percentage against their opponents ranked the League #10 in opponents' opponents' winning percentage. Thus the League as a whole achieved very good results against very weak opponents, who themselves played relatively weak opponents. And due to the RPI's structure, this greatly improved the Ivy League's teams' RPI ratings and ranks.
As an additional check, I looked at the average RPI rank of the League's non-conference opponents, as compared to other conferences' opponents' average RPI ranks. This had the League in 17th place among the conferences:
| Conferences | Non Conference Opponents Average ARPI Rank |
| BigTen | 111 |
| BigTwelve | 112 |
| ACC | 117 |
| SEC | 119 |
| BigEast | 125 |
| PacTwelve | 129 |
| WestCoast | 140 |
| BigWest | 143 |
| Colonial | 143 |
| American | 154 |
| MidAmerican | 168 |
| MissouriValley | 168 |
| BigSky | 169 |
| OhioValley | 170 |
| AtlanticTen | 170 |
| AtlanticSun | 174 |
| ConferenceUSA | 174 |
| Ivy | 179 |
Simply put, the League's non-conference scheduling, put together with the structure of the RPI, resulted in the League's teams being overrated.
A detailed look at each of the Ivy teams' schedules helps show this:
#10 Brown itself had a decent schedule, with an away tie against #21 Texas A&M and a home win against #16 Hofstra. After that, its next best result was a home win against #107 Providence.
#37 Yale's best non-conference result was a home win against #104 Fairfield.
#41 Harvard's best non-conference result was a home win against #122 UMass.
#49 Columbia's best non-conference result was a home win against #169 St. Joseph's.
#70 Princeton's best non-conference result was an excellent home tie against #13 Rutgers. After that, its next best result was a home tie against #69 Villanova. Princeton's tie with Rutgers and Brown's win against Hofstra and tie with Texas A&M were the League's only positive results against Top 50 teams.
#106 Dartmouth's best non-conference result was an away win over #150 Quinnipiac.
#108 Penn's best non-conference result was a home tie with #104 Fairfield.
#228 Cornell's best result was a home tie with #211 Binghamton.
All of this information says that the RPI, through a combination of its structure and how the League's teams did their non-conference scheduling, overrated the Ivy League and its teams. And all of this information was available to the Committee.
In this context, I think it's likely that the Committee did not believe the Ivy League really was the #5 ranked conference and that the Committee believed the League's teams were overrated. The Committee's decisions suggest that this was the case.
There's one other item to consider related to the Ivy League. It has to do with the number of non-conference games the League's teams play, as compared to the number of conference games they play.
To show why this is important, I took the 2018 season and eliminated all of the non-conference games. To make the illustration clearer, I also eliminated all of the conference tournament games. I then computed teams' RPI ratings, including the three elements of their ratings, and their RPI ranks. This produced the following as the Top 21 teams:
In the table, Element 1 is the team's winning percentage. Element 2 is its opponents' winning percentage. And Element 3 is its opponents' opponents' winning percentage.
There's one other item to consider related to the Ivy League. It has to do with the number of non-conference games the League's teams play, as compared to the number of conference games they play.
To show why this is important, I took the 2018 season and eliminated all of the non-conference games. To make the illustration clearer, I also eliminated all of the conference tournament games. I then computed teams' RPI ratings, including the three elements of their ratings, and their RPI ranks. This produced the following as the Top 21 teams:
| Team | Conference | RPI Element 1 | RPI Element 2 | RPI Element 3 | RPI Unadjusted | URPI Rank |
| Milwaukee | Horizon | 1.0000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6250 | 1 |
| CentralConnecticut | Northeast | 1.0000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6250 | 2 |
| Stanford | PacTwelve | 0.9545 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6136 | 3 |
| TennesseeMartin | OhioValley | 0.9500 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6125 | 4 |
| Georgetown | BigEast | 0.9444 | 0.5000 | 0.5039 | 0.6121 | 5 |
| Samford | Southern | 0.9444 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6111 | 6 |
| FloridaAtlantic | ConferenceUSA | 0.8500 | 0.5389 | 0.5156 | 0.6108 | 7 |
| StLouis | AtlanticTen | 1.0000 | 0.4478 | 0.5265 | 0.6055 | 8 |
| NorthCarolinaU | ACC | 1.0000 | 0.4500 | 0.5178 | 0.6044 | 9 |
| TexasState | SunBelt | 0.9000 | 0.5044 | 0.5034 | 0.6031 | 10 |
| CentralArkansas | Southland | 0.9091 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6023 | 11 |
| BowlingGreen | MidAmerican | 0.9091 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6023 | 12 |
| StJosephs | AtlanticTen | 0.8000 | 0.5589 | 0.4909 | 0.6022 | 13 |
| NorthTexas | ConferenceUSA | 0.8500 | 0.5167 | 0.5189 | 0.6006 | 14 |
| Grambling | Southwestern | 0.9000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6000 | 16 |
| Monmouth | MetroAtlantic | 0.9000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6000 | 16 |
| Radford | BigSouth | 0.9000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.6000 | 16 |
| Baylor | BigTwelve | 0.8889 | 0.5031 | 0.4991 | 0.5985 | 18 |
| BostonU | Patriot | 0.8889 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.5972 | 19 |
| BYU | WestCoast | 0.8889 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.5972 | 21 |
| SouthFlorida | American | 0.8889 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.5972 | 21 |
In the table, Element 1 is the team's winning percentage. Element 2 is its opponents' winning percentage. And Element 3 is its opponents' opponents' winning percentage.
The teams with 0.5000 for Elements 2 and 3 all are teams whose conferences play full round robins. For these conferences, the only thing that distinguishes teams from each other is their Elements 1. And for these teams, every conference game pulls their Elements 2 and 3 towards 0.5000. The explanation for this is simple: If I'm Team A and I play conference Teams B and C in my conference, the two of them are going to play each other. One will win and the other will lose, which means they together will contribute a net winning percentage of 0.5000 to my Element 2; or they will tie, making a similar combined contribution of 0.5000. The same thing will happen to Team B when it plays conference Teams C and D. And, since I've played Team B, Teams C and D then will be my opponent's opponents and together will contribute a winning percentage of 0.5000 to my opponents' opponents' winning percentage (Element 3).
The teams with Elements 2 and 3 above or below 0.5000 are from conferences that don't play full round robins. For them, the variations from 0.5000 are strictly a function of which teams they drew in conference play. And, for the conference as a whole, their Elements 2 and 3 will tend towards 0.5000.
The following table, based on my "conference games only" experiment, shows how this works for conferences as a whole:
The following table, based on my "conference games only" experiment, shows how this works for conferences as a whole:
| Conference | Conference ARPI Average |
| ACC | 0.5000 |
| AmericaEast | 0.5000 |
| American | 0.5000 |
| AtlanticSun | 0.4924 |
| AtlanticTen | 0.5036 |
| BigEast | 0.5028 |
| BigSky | 0.5000 |
| BigSouth | 0.5000 |
| BigTen | 0.4982 |
| BigTwelve | 0.5004 |
| BigWest | 0.5000 |
| Colonial | 0.5000 |
| ConferenceUSA | 0.5000 |
| Horizon | 0.5000 |
| Ivy | 0.5000 |
| MetroAtlantic | 0.5000 |
| MidAmerican | 0.5000 |
| MissouriValley | 0.5000 |
| MountainWest | 0.5000 |
| Northeast | 0.5000 |
| OhioValley | 0.5000 |
| PacTwelve | 0.5000 |
| Patriot | 0.5000 |
| SEC | 0.5000 |
| Southern | 0.5000 |
| Southland | 0.5000 |
| Southwestern | 0.5000 |
| Summit | 0.4949 |
| SunBelt | 0.5037 |
| WAC | 0.5000 |
| WestCoast | 0.5000 |
Withing each conference as a whole, teams' Element 1 winning percentages will balance out at 0.5000. And their Elements 2 and 3 likewise will balance out very close to 0.5000.
The fundamental lesson from this is that every conference game pulls the conference's teams' Elements 2 and 3 towards 0.5000.
Bccause of this, your proportion of conference and non-conference games matters. The higher the proportion of conference games, the more your rating gets pulled towards 0.5000. The lower the proportion, the less your rating gets pulled there.
The Ivy League is a relatively small conference, with a full 7-game round robin and no conference tournament. In 2018, which should be a fairly representative season, 43.8% of its games were conference games and 56.3% were non-conference. The Big Ten, on the other hand, is a large conference that plays an 11-game regular conference season and has a fairly large conference tournament. Altogether, 62.9% of its games were conference games and 37.1% were non-conference. Thus, slightly oversimplifying, the Ivy League had 43.8% of its games pulling its Elements 2 and 3 towards 0.5000 and the Big Ten had 62.9% of its games doing it. Thus the Ivy League's small size and lack of a conference tournament gives it a significant edge over the Big Ten in the RPI ratings race because it amplifies the value of the Ivy League's non-conference winning percentage.
When you put the Ivy League's relatively low proportion of conference games together with how the League's teams scheduled their 2019 non-conference opponents, and when you plug that into the RPI formula, it's easy to see how the RPI could have overrated the League's teams for the 2019 season.
Yale, Harvard, and Columbia
With that as context, what might the Committee have been thinking in not giving at large selections to Yale, Harvard, and Columbia?
Yale
#37 Yale met one "yes" standard, but 7 "no" standards. This means that Yale presented the Committee with a profile it has not seen over the last 12 years.
Here's the "yes" standard Yale met:
ARPI Rating and Top 50 Results Rank (Standard #18)
The "yes" standard for an at large selection here is a score >=3.3704.
Yale's RPI rating was 0.5982 and its Top 50 Results Rank was #30. Together, these produced a score for this standard of 3.3842, which under the Committee's pattern would have given it an at large selection.
Over the last 12 years, the Committee has made 280 at large selections involving unseeded teams. Of these teams, there are 15 that were "assured" under this standard going into the season, but that no longer will be assured with the standard revised to reflect Yale's not having gotten an at large selection. That amounts to a little over 1 team per year.
Here are the "no" standards Yale met:
Top 60 Head to Head Score (Standard #10)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-1.7000. In other words, under the Committee's pattern, a team with a score below that number will not get an at large selection.
Yale's score was -1.7500. This was based on four games: an away loss to Virginia Tech (#15), a home loss to Harvard (#41), an away loss to Columbia (#49), and a home tie with Brown (#10).
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there is only one team previously assured of a "no" decision under this standard that now would have been removed from that "no" position. That would have been a minimal change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and ARPI Rank (Standard #23)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-1.5615. Yale's score was -1.6392.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are 5 teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. This is about a team every other year, a very small change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank (Standard #52)
The "no standard for an at large selection is a score <=-1.6217. Yale's ANCRPI Rank was 57. Yale's score for the combined factors was 1.68.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there is only one team previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That would have been a minimal change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Top 50 Results Score (Standard #60)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-28,332. Yale's Top 50 Results Score was 1152. Yale's score for the standard was -28,598.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are only two teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That would have been a minimal change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Top 50 Results Rank (Standard #67)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=1.l5921. Yale's Top 50 Results Rank was #30. Yale's score for the combined standard was -1.6133.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are only two teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That would have been a minimal change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Common Opponents Score (Standard #86)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-11.6100. Yale's Common Opponents Score was -2.94. Yale's score for the combined standard was -12.2125.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are 8 teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That is 2/3 of a team per year and would have been a small change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Common Opponents Rank (Standard #87)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-1.5928. Yale's Common Opponents Rank was #51. Yale's score for the combined standard was -1.6696.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are 3 teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That would have been a minimal change.
Yale Conclusion
The one "yes" standard that Yale met was a combination standard, half of which relied on its RPI rating. All of its "no" standards involved its results against other Top 60 teams, with 3 of those 4 results being against Ivy League teams and its only Top 60 non-conference result being a loss. Whether the Committee gave Yale an at large selection or not, its decision would not have been a major change from past precedent.
It seems likely to me that the Committee felt Yale's RPI rating (and rank) was suspect and that, under that circumstance, it simply didn't have enough good results to merit an at large selection.
Harvard
#41 Harvard met 1 "yes" standard and 2 "no" standards. This means it had a profile the Committee hasn't seen over the last 12 years.
Here is the "yes" standard Harvard met:
Conference Standing and Conference Rank (Standard #72)
The "yes" standard for an at large selection is <=11.5. Harvard's Conference Standing was #2 and the Ivy League was the #5 conference. Harvard's score for the combined standard was 10.6, which historically would have gotten an at large selection.
With the Committee not giving Harvard an at large selection, there are 15 teams (of 280 unseeded at large selections) that in the past were assured under this standard that would not have been assured with the standard adjusted to reflect Harvard's not getting an at large selection this year. This is a little over 1 team per year.
Here are the "no" standards Harvard met:
Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and Top 50 Score (Standard #47)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is <=833.3. Harvard's ANCRPI Rank was #93 and its Top 50 Score was 20. The Top 50 Score came from its win at #37 Yale and its tie at #49 Columbia. Harvard's score for the combined standard was 773.
If the Committee had given Harvard an at large selection, there are 6 teams that previously were assured of "no" at large selection that would have changed that position, or 1/2 team per year. This would have been a small change.
Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and Top 50 Score Rank (Standard #48)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is >=259.6. Harvard's Top 50 Score Rank was #51. It's score for the combined standard was 276.6.
If the Committee had given Harvard an at large selection, there are 21 teams that previously were assured of "no" at large selection that would have changed that position. This is just short of 2 teams per year. This would have been a small to moderate change.
Harvard Conclusion
Harvard's one "yes" standard for an at large selection relied on the Ivy League's #5 rank. Harvard's non-conference results and its results against Top 50 opponents, on the other hand, worked against it. And overall, it appears to me that giving Harvard an at large selection would have been a slightly greater change from the Committee's pattern than not giving it a selection.
Further, it again seems likely to me that the Committee considered the Ivy League's rank to be overstated and even Harvard's relatively poor Top 50 Results to be overstated since they were achieved against Ivy League opponents.
Columbia
Columbia, #49, met no "yes" standards and 1 "no" standard. Here's the "no" standard it met:
Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and Top 50 Results Rank
The "no" standard for an at large selection is >=259.6. Columbia's ANCRPI Rank was #84 and its Top 50 Results Rank was #52. Its score for the combined standard was 271.2.
If the Committee had given Columbia an at large selection, 14 teams that previously had been assured of "no" at large selection now would be in a different position. This amounts to about 1 team per year and would have been a small change.
Overall Conclusion
None of the Committee's decisions on Brown, Yale, Harvard, and Columbia represents a big change from the Committee's patterns. In addition, it seems reasonably likely that the Committee felt that the Ivy League and its teams were overrated due to how they did their non-conference scheduling. All in all, I believe the Committee's decisions were reasonable.
Yale, Harvard, and Columbia
With that as context, what might the Committee have been thinking in not giving at large selections to Yale, Harvard, and Columbia?
Yale
#37 Yale met one "yes" standard, but 7 "no" standards. This means that Yale presented the Committee with a profile it has not seen over the last 12 years.
Here's the "yes" standard Yale met:
ARPI Rating and Top 50 Results Rank (Standard #18)
The "yes" standard for an at large selection here is a score >=3.3704.
Yale's RPI rating was 0.5982 and its Top 50 Results Rank was #30. Together, these produced a score for this standard of 3.3842, which under the Committee's pattern would have given it an at large selection.
Over the last 12 years, the Committee has made 280 at large selections involving unseeded teams. Of these teams, there are 15 that were "assured" under this standard going into the season, but that no longer will be assured with the standard revised to reflect Yale's not having gotten an at large selection. That amounts to a little over 1 team per year.
Here are the "no" standards Yale met:
Top 60 Head to Head Score (Standard #10)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-1.7000. In other words, under the Committee's pattern, a team with a score below that number will not get an at large selection.
Yale's score was -1.7500. This was based on four games: an away loss to Virginia Tech (#15), a home loss to Harvard (#41), an away loss to Columbia (#49), and a home tie with Brown (#10).
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there is only one team previously assured of a "no" decision under this standard that now would have been removed from that "no" position. That would have been a minimal change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and ARPI Rank (Standard #23)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-1.5615. Yale's score was -1.6392.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are 5 teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. This is about a team every other year, a very small change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank (Standard #52)
The "no standard for an at large selection is a score <=-1.6217. Yale's ANCRPI Rank was 57. Yale's score for the combined factors was 1.68.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there is only one team previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That would have been a minimal change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Top 50 Results Score (Standard #60)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-28,332. Yale's Top 50 Results Score was 1152. Yale's score for the standard was -28,598.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are only two teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That would have been a minimal change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Top 50 Results Rank (Standard #67)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=1.l5921. Yale's Top 50 Results Rank was #30. Yale's score for the combined standard was -1.6133.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are only two teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That would have been a minimal change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Common Opponents Score (Standard #86)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-11.6100. Yale's Common Opponents Score was -2.94. Yale's score for the combined standard was -12.2125.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are 8 teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That is 2/3 of a team per year and would have been a small change.
Top 60 Head to Head Score and Common Opponents Rank (Standard #87)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is a score <=-1.5928. Yale's Common Opponents Rank was #51. Yale's score for the combined standard was -1.6696.
If the Committee had given Yale an at large selection, there are 3 teams previously assured of a "no" decision that now would have been removed from that position. That would have been a minimal change.
Yale Conclusion
The one "yes" standard that Yale met was a combination standard, half of which relied on its RPI rating. All of its "no" standards involved its results against other Top 60 teams, with 3 of those 4 results being against Ivy League teams and its only Top 60 non-conference result being a loss. Whether the Committee gave Yale an at large selection or not, its decision would not have been a major change from past precedent.
It seems likely to me that the Committee felt Yale's RPI rating (and rank) was suspect and that, under that circumstance, it simply didn't have enough good results to merit an at large selection.
Harvard
#41 Harvard met 1 "yes" standard and 2 "no" standards. This means it had a profile the Committee hasn't seen over the last 12 years.
Here is the "yes" standard Harvard met:
Conference Standing and Conference Rank (Standard #72)
The "yes" standard for an at large selection is <=11.5. Harvard's Conference Standing was #2 and the Ivy League was the #5 conference. Harvard's score for the combined standard was 10.6, which historically would have gotten an at large selection.
With the Committee not giving Harvard an at large selection, there are 15 teams (of 280 unseeded at large selections) that in the past were assured under this standard that would not have been assured with the standard adjusted to reflect Harvard's not getting an at large selection this year. This is a little over 1 team per year.
Here are the "no" standards Harvard met:
Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and Top 50 Score (Standard #47)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is <=833.3. Harvard's ANCRPI Rank was #93 and its Top 50 Score was 20. The Top 50 Score came from its win at #37 Yale and its tie at #49 Columbia. Harvard's score for the combined standard was 773.
If the Committee had given Harvard an at large selection, there are 6 teams that previously were assured of "no" at large selection that would have changed that position, or 1/2 team per year. This would have been a small change.
Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and Top 50 Score Rank (Standard #48)
The "no" standard for an at large selection is >=259.6. Harvard's Top 50 Score Rank was #51. It's score for the combined standard was 276.6.
If the Committee had given Harvard an at large selection, there are 21 teams that previously were assured of "no" at large selection that would have changed that position. This is just short of 2 teams per year. This would have been a small to moderate change.
Harvard Conclusion
Harvard's one "yes" standard for an at large selection relied on the Ivy League's #5 rank. Harvard's non-conference results and its results against Top 50 opponents, on the other hand, worked against it. And overall, it appears to me that giving Harvard an at large selection would have been a slightly greater change from the Committee's pattern than not giving it a selection.
Further, it again seems likely to me that the Committee considered the Ivy League's rank to be overstated and even Harvard's relatively poor Top 50 Results to be overstated since they were achieved against Ivy League opponents.
Columbia
Columbia, #49, met no "yes" standards and 1 "no" standard. Here's the "no" standard it met:
Adjusted Non-Conference RPI Rank and Top 50 Results Rank
The "no" standard for an at large selection is >=259.6. Columbia's ANCRPI Rank was #84 and its Top 50 Results Rank was #52. Its score for the combined standard was 271.2.
If the Committee had given Columbia an at large selection, 14 teams that previously had been assured of "no" at large selection now would be in a different position. This amounts to about 1 team per year and would have been a small change.
Overall Conclusion
None of the Committee's decisions on Brown, Yale, Harvard, and Columbia represents a big change from the Committee's patterns. In addition, it seems reasonably likely that the Committee felt that the Ivy League and its teams were overrated due to how they did their non-conference scheduling. All in all, I believe the Committee's decisions were reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment