2024 ARTICLE 13: POST-WEEK-11 ACTUAL RATINGS AND UPDATED PREDICTIONS

 Current Actual RPI Ratings, Ranks, and Related Information

The following tables show actual RPI ratings and ranks and other information based on games played through Sunday, October 27.  The first table is for teams, the second for conferences, and the third for geographic regions.  Scroll to the right to see all the columns.

Predicted Team RPI and Balanced RPI Ranks, Plus RPI and Balanced RPI Strength of Schedule Contributor Ranks

The following table for teams and the next ones for conferences and regions show predicted end-of-season ranks based on the actual results of games played through October 27 and predicted results of games not yet played, including conference tournament games.  The predicted results of future games are based on teams' actual RPI ratings from games played through October 27.

In the table, ARPI 2015 BPs is ranks using the NCAA's 2024 RPI Formula.  URPI 50 50 SoS Iteration 15 is using the Balanced RPI formula.

Predicted NCAA Tournament Automatic Qualifiers, Disqualified Teams, and At Large Selection Status, All for the Top 57 Teams

Below, I show predicted #1 through #8 seeds and at large selections based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic decision patterns.  With two weeks of regular season play left to go (including conference tournaments), there will be changes, possibly significant, from the predictions.  Nevertheless, we now are getting closer to where things will end up.

The first table below is for potential #1 seeds.  The #1 seeds always have come from the teams ranked #1 through 7 in the end-of-season RPI rankings, so the table is limited to the teams predicted to fall in that rank range.  The table is based on applying history-based standards to team scores in relation to a series of factors, all of which are related to the NCAA-specified criteria the Committee is required to use in making at large decisions.  For each factor, there is a standard that says, if a team met this standard historically, the team always has gotten a #1 seed.  I refer to this as a "yes" standard.  For most of the factors, there likewise is a standard that says, if a team met this standard historically, it never has gotten a #1 seed.  This is a "no" standard.  In the table, I have sorted the Top 7 RPI #1 seed teams in order of the number of yes standards they meet and then in order of the number of no standards.

This shows North Carolina and Mississippi State as clear #1 seeds.  Duke and Wake Forest have profiles the Committee has not seen before (meeting both "yes" and "no" standards), but are possitle #1 seeds.  Arkansas and Southern California likewise are possible #1 seeds.  The following table applies the "tiebreaker" for #1 seeds to the "possible" group.  (A "tiebreaker" is a factor that historically has been the best predictor for a particular Committee decision.)

As you can see, Duke and Southern California score best on the tiebreaker and so join North Carolina and Mississippi State as the predicted #1 seeds.

The candidates for #2 seeds are teams ranked through #14.  With the #1 seeds already assigned, this produces the following table:

This shows Wake Forest, Arkansas, and Florida State as clear #2 seeds.  Penn State and Stanford have profiles the Committee has not seen before, but are possitle #2 seeds.  Iowa and Michigan State likewise are possible #2 seeds.  The following table applies the "tiebreaker" for #2 seeds to the "possible" group.

As you can see, Iowa scores best on the tiebreaker and so joins Wake Forest, Arkansas, and Florida State as the predicted #2 seeds.

The candidates for #3 seeds are teams ranked through #23.  With the #1 and 2 seeds already assigned, this produces the following table:

This shows Penn State and Stanford as clear #3 seeds.  Notre Dame has a profile the Committee has not seen before, but is a possitle #3 seed.  Michigan State, UCLA, and Georgetown likewise are possible #3 seeds.  The following table applies the "tiebreaker" for #3 seeds to the "possible" group.

As you can see, Michigan State and Notre Dame score best on the tiebreaker and so join Penn State and Stanford as the predicted #3 seeds.

The candidates for #4 seeds are teams ranked through #26.  With the #1, 2, and 3 seeds already assigned, this produces the following table:

This shows no clear #4 seeds.  Virginia and Utah State have profiles the Committee has not seen before, but are possitle #4 seeds.  UCLA, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, TCU, and Auburn likewise are possible #4 seeds.  The following table applies the "tiebreaker" for #4 seeds to the "possible" group.

As you can see, Virginia, UCLA, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt score best on the tiebreaker and so are the predicted #4 seeds.

For # 5 through #8 seeds, the candidates are the not already seeded teams ranked #1 through #49.  Although the data are limited since we have had those seeds for only a few years, the best indicator of which teams will get those seeds is a combination of teams' RPI ranks and their Top 60 Head to Head results ranks:

Using this table, the #5 seeds are TCU, Utah State, Auburn, and Georgetown.  The #6s are Virginia Tech, Minnesota, Ohio State, and Xavier.  The #7s are St. Louis, Kentucky, Western Michigan, and West Virginia.  The #8s are Texas, Liberty, Wisconisn, and Santa Clara.

For the remaining At Large selections, the candidates run up to RPI #57, producing the following initial table:

Here, Oklahoma State, Georgia, Texas Tech, and BYU are clear At Large teams, with 7 additional spots to fill.  Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Memphis have profiles the Committee has not seen before and are candidates for those spots.  Pepperdine, Rutgers, Washington, and Arizona also are candidates for those spots.  Texas A&M would be a candidate but has a winning percentage below 0.500 due to a predicted conference tournament first round loss and thus is not a candidate,  The remaining teams are not at large selections.  Since there are only 7 eligible candidates to fill the 7 open spots, all of Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Memphis, Pepperdine, Rutgers, Washington, and Arizona fill those spots.

Based on the above, this produces the final compilation of seeds, Automatic Qualifiers, at large selections, and Top 57 teams not getting at large selections.  In the NCAA Seed or Selection column, the seeds are self explanatory, the 5s are unseeded Automatic Qualifiers, the 6s are unseeded at large selections, the 6.5 is disqualified, and the 7s are Top 57 teams not getting at large positions.

What If the Committee Were Using the Balanced RPI?

If the Committee were using the Balanced RPI, which does not have the NCAA RPI's problem of discrimination in relation to conferences and regions, the following teams would drop out of the RPI Top 57:

Fairfield, AQ, drops from RPI rank 37 to Balanced RPI rank 94; Liberty AQ 39 to 68; South Florida AQ 40 to 71; Dayton No At Large 41 to 62; James Madison AQ 44 to 64; Massachusetts No At Large 46 to 70; Columbia AQ 47 to 63; Army No AL 49 to 65; Buffalo Yes At Large 54 to 79; Texas A&M DQ 55 to 66.

The following teams would move into the Balanced RPI Top 57:

California 65 to 35; Colorado 58 to 40; Loyola Marymount 79 to 43; Tennessee 60 to 33; Illinois 98 to 51; UC Davis 80 to 52; Baylor 74 to 53; Connecticut 64 to 54; Kansas 64 to 56; Utah 86 to 57.

It's worth noting that these shifts primarily are teams from weaker conferences moving out of the Top 57 and teams from stronger conferences moving in.  In addition, no teams from the West geographic region move out of the Top 57 and five from the West region move in.

In terms of actual at large changes, it is likely that Oklahoma State, Memphis, and Buffalo would lose their predicted at large positions and would be replaced by California, Tennessee, and Colorado.