Below, I have provide links to two Exel workbooks. To download a workbook, use the following steps:
1. Click on the workbook link.
2. The link takes you to a Google spreadsheet, which you will not want to use. On the Google spreadsheet, to the left, click on File, which will bring up a drop down menu.
3. In the menu, click on Download, which will bring up another drop down menu.
4. In the menu, click on Microsoft Excel (.xlsx). This will download the Excel workbook.
ACTUAL CURRENT RANKINGS AND OTHER DATA AFTER WEEK 10
The first workbook provides current NCAA RPI, KPI, Balanced RPI, and Massey rankings and other data based on the actual results of games played through Week 10 (through October 18) of the season, for teams, conferences, and regions. Here is a link to the workbook:
2026 RPI Report Actual Results Only as of 10.18.2026
The first page of the workbook is for Teams, the second for Conferences, and the third for Regions. The data include almost all the non-conference games for the season and the conference games played through Sunday, October 18. There still is room for significant changes in where teams finally will end up, but the ranges within which teams will finish is narrowing.
On the Teams page, on the left, are color coded columns. These columns are based on past history. They show which teams, based on their current ratings, are potential seeds (by seed level) and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament and which already appear assured of getting at least at large selections. The seed and at large candidate groups remain large, so there still is room for significant change in the rankings and how the NCAA Tournament bracket will end up.
Here is what the Teams page shows, so far as potential NCAA Tournament seeds and at large selections are concerned:
SIMULATED END-OF-SEASON RANKINGS AND NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKETS FOLLOWING WEEK 10
The second workbook is based on the actual results of games played through Week 10 (ending October 18) and simulated results of games not yet played, including conference tournament games. It projects where teams will end up at the end of the season, but before the NCAA Tournament, and provides other important information related to teams, conferences, and regions. Here is a link to an the workbook:
2026 Article 8 has an explanation of the method I use to generate the simulated ranks and of the key information in the workbook.
For purposes of evaluating the usefulness of the ratings the simulation currently uses to predict the results of games not yet played:
The table's reference to Team 1 is to the home team or, if a neutral site game, the team whose name comes first alphabetically.
The first data row in the table, 2026 Team 1 Actual Results, shows Team 1's actual win, loss, and tie percentages in games played through October 18. The second data row, 2026 Team 1 Predicted Results, Simulated NCAA RPI, applies teams' simulated end-of-season RPI ratings to games played through October 18, to determine what Team 1's win, loss, and tie percentages should be if those ratings are correct. The third data row -- 2026 Actual Less Predicted Results -- shows the difference between the actual percentages and the predicted percentages. Thus, for example, the actual winning percentage for all Team 1s is 47.2%. According to teams' end-of-season simulated ratings, the winning percentage should be 48.5%. The Actual Less Predicted Results row shows the difference between predicted and actual is -1.304%.
The last two data rows are similar, but instead of using teams' simulated end-of-season RPI ratings, it uses teams' actual current NCAA RPI ratings to determine what the percentages should be if the actual current NCAA RPI ratings are correct. Here, the Actual Less Predicted Results row shows that predicted results based on actual current NCAA RPI ratings miss the winning percentage actual results by 1.414%.
The comparison suggests that the simulation's current ratings are a slightly better match with actual results than are the actual current NCAA RPI ratings. Because of this, for now I will continue using the simulation's ratings to predict future game results rather than converting to using the NCAA RPI's current ratings. In the upcoming weeks, I will continue doing this until the NCAA RPI's current ratings perform better than the simulation's current ratings.
The following table is from the workbook. If teams end up where the simulation currently says they will end up, it shows the teams -- if historic patterns hold -- that will be candidates for each seed level and for at large selections. It also shows, in the At Large Bubble column, which teams are at ranking levels that historically always have gotten at large selections (if not Automatic Qualifiers) -- the Top 26 in the NCAA RPI rankings. Thus the at large bubble teams are #27 through #57 (if not AQs). The table also shows which teams the simulation currently projects as Automatic Qualifiers.
SIMULATED NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKETS USING THE NCAA RPI AND USING THE BALANCED RPI
Here are currently simulated NCAA Tournament brackets, first based on the NCAA RPI and then based on the Balanced RPI. The simulations use the Women's Soccer Committee's historic decision patterns and likely are very close to what the Committee would decide based on the game results to date and simulated results of games not yet played, depending on which rating system the Committee is using.
Following the two brackets is a table showing how the two compare. (NOTE: For conference tournaments, I have used simulated conference tournaments based on the NCAA RPI.)
Here is a key to the tables:
The first table shows the projected NCAA Tournament bracket based on the Committee's using the NCAA RPI:
The next table shows the projected bracket based on the Committee's using the Balanced RPI:
The final table compares the projected brackets. It shows the teams sorted first by region and within regions by conference so you can see how a change to the Balanced RPI would affect regions' and conferences' teams. Salmon highlighting means the team gets a poorer treatment by the rating system and green means the team gets better treatment. No highlighting means the treatment is the same.
NOTE: My weekly Comparison tables evolve as the season progresses. At this point in the season, it is not the details that are important but rather the overall impression in terms of the difference between using the NCAA RPI as compared to the Balanced RPI.
Looking at the table, you can see that the ACC and, especially, the Big 10 are hurt by the NCAA RPI relative to the Balanced RPI. In contrast, the non-Autonomy (i.e., non-Power 4) conferences are helped by the NCAA RPI relative to the Balanced RPI. This is not surprising since, as I have shown elsewhere, the NCAA RPI discriminates against stronger conferences and regions and in favor of weaker ones whereas the Balanced RPI does not. In addition, regarding the Big 10, as I showed in 2026 Article 19, its NCAA RPI ratings are hurt by its playing a 12-game in-conference schedule.
It remains to be seen over the rest of the season whether the pattern shown by the comparison table will remain as clear as it is now. It is worth noting, however, that so far the pattern has been consistent from week to week.
No comments:
Post a Comment