[NOTE: The information in this post is similar to the information in the December 15 2023 post. The information here, however, is based on some refinements to the calculation process that produced the earlier post.]
Historically, the Women's Soccer Committee's NCAA Tournament seeding and at large selection decisions have followed consistent patterns from year to year. This is not surprising, for a couple of reasons:
1. The NCAA restricts the data the Committee can use and mandates the factors it must consider for at large selections. One restriction is that the Committee must use the Rating Percentage Index as its rating system. The NCAA explicitly forbids the Committee to use any other rating systems or polls, with one exception: This year, the NCAA for the first time allowed the Committee to use the KP Index to supplement the RPI, in cases in which the Committee was not able to make a decision using only the RPI and the other NCAA-mandated factors.
2. The NCAA staff provides the Committee with the data the Committee must use in making its decisions. The data factors are the same from year to year and are based strictly on game results. In other words, how good or poor a team looks on the field or is on paper is not a factor the Committee can consider. It is only results that matter.
2. The NCAA requires the Committee, when it meets to make the final seed and at large selection decisions, to follow rigorous procedures intended to keep members from participating in discussions and decisions where they have potential conflicts of interest. The emphasis is on being as objective as possible based on the data provided to the Committee and the NCAA-mandated factors.
The following table shows how consistent the Committee has been. This is based strictly on the data the Committee received, the NCAA-mandated factors the Committee considers, and the decisions the Committee made, since 2007 and updated to include the 2023 season. There is an explanation below the table. (Scroll to the right to see the whole table.)
Some of the factors the Committee must consider already have mathematical formulas for assigning factor values to teams: The RPI ratings and ranks are examples. For factors that do not already have formulas, I have created formulas that assign factor values to teams: Results against common opponents is an example. I also pair each factor with each other factor, with each weighted at 50%, as a way to mimic how a Committee member might think. Altogether, this produces 118 factors.
The green highlighted area shows, for each decision, the most "powerful" factors for that decision and how close those factors come to matching all of the decisions since 2007. For example, there are 4 factors, each of which, if used alone, matches 84.4% of the Committee's #1 seed decisions. (See the second table below, which shows what those 4 factors are.)
And looking farther down in the green area, the paired factor of ARPI Rank and Top 50 Results Rank, by itself, matches 90.8% of the Committee's at large decisions (for teams not already given #1 through #4 seeds). That represents all but about 2 at large selections per year. Because of the power of this factor, when I help teams with non-conference scheduling in relation to getting an NCAA Tournament at large selection, I advise them to keep two things in mind: (1) They want an overall schedule that will allow their RPI rank to be in the right range for an at large selection (#57 or better), and (2) They must play enough strong opponents to get some good results (wins or ties) against Top 50 opponents.
The blue highlighted All Standards area is different. It looks at each of the 118 factors in relation to the Committee's decisions over the years. Using at large selections as an example, it says for a particular factor, "Yes,"every team that has scored better than the "Yes" standard on that factor has gotten an at large selection. And "No," every team that has scored more poorly than the "No" standard on that factor has not gotten an at large selection. By applying to each team the "Yes" and "No" standards for all of the factors, this approach identifies certain teams that do and other teams that do not get at large selections. Typically, this fills most of the at large positions. It also leaves a few teams that meet no "Yes" and no "No" standards. These teams are the candidates from which the system will fill any positions not already filled with "Yes" teams. Using at large decisions as an example, this method produces at large selections that match 82.4% of the Committee's selections over the years, leaving 17.6% of the at large positions yet to be filled and a candidate group to choose from in order to fill them.
The yellow highlighted area is a supplemental evaluation system to see how, after identifying the "Yes" and "No" teams, which of the remaining candidate teams will fill the remaining 17.6% of at large spots. The highlighted area shows which factor best fills those positions in a way that matches the Committee decisions. Again using the at large decisions as an example, using the ARPI Rating and Top 60 Common Opponents Score paired factor to make the final at large selections from among the remaining candidate group results in a 95.1% overall match with the Committee decisions. In effect, the Committee's decisions are consistent with this method of making at large selections for all but 1 at large position per year.
The table as a whole shows that the Committee decisions consistently follow the same patterns, year after year. The only exception is when it comes to the Committee deciding, after it has filled the #1 and #2 seed pods, how to assign teams to the #3 and #4 seed pods. There, although which teams will be in those two pods combined is reasonably clear, it is less clear how they will be divided between the pods.
In summary, from a broad perspective, the Committee consistently has followed the same patterns for its seed and at large decisions over the years.
There is a final note about where teams are placed in the bracket. With the #1 seed group of 4 teams, the Committee puts them in order and the NCAA places them in the bracket accordingly. The Committee also may be allowed to do this with the #2 through #4 seed groups. To the extent the Committee does this, it helps with the "integrity" of the bracket. For the remaining #5 through #8 seed groups and for the placement of unseeded teams, however, it appears that the NCAA's travel system assigns bracket positions (consistent with the proper placement of the #5 through #8 seeds) in order to minimize travel costs. This is unlike basketball, where the Basketball Committees seed all teams in order and place them in the bracket accordingly.
The next table is the same as the above one, but shows the specific factors that are the most powerful in the green and yellow highlighted areas.
It is important to note that every factor in this table is dependent in one way or another on the NCAA's RPI. Either teams' RPI ratings or ranks are part of the factor or their RPI ranks are integral to the factor (Top 50 Results, Top 60 Head to Head, Top 60 Common Opponents, Poor Results). Indeed, of the 118 factors, only teams' conference standings do not depend on the RPI. Thus the RPI infiltrates every aspect of the Committee's decisions. When one considers the significant RPI defects discussed in the February 1, 2024 post above, this means that those defects affect every aspect of the NCAA Tournament bracket formation process.,
No comments:
Post a Comment