END OF REGULAR SEASON NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET SIMULATION 11.7.21

[Note:  In the below table, Xavier should be a #4 seed rather than Auburn.  Also, Santa Clara should be a 5 AQ rather than a 6.  And Further Note:  On relooking at why I originally had Auburn as a #4 seed, I realized the system I use has it as a clear Yes for a #4 seed, so it indeed should be a #4 seed and not Xavier.]

Here are my simulated NCAA Tournament seeds and at large selections, based on my more complex system described here.  The table also includes the Automatic Qualifiers.

1 = #1 seed, 2 = #2 seed, 3 = #3 seed, 4 = #4 seed, 5 = unseeded automatic qualifier, and 6 = unseeded at large selection.

Below the table, I will indicate next teams in line for seeds and at large selections.

Other possible seeds:

#1 seed:  Virginia, Arkansas

#2 seed: Georgetown

#3 seed: Princeton

#4 seed: Mississippi, Hofstra, Harvard

At Large:

Last in: NC State, Santa Clara, Providence, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Oregon

Next in line: Alabama, Colorado, Houston, St. Johns, Indiana

2021 RPI: 10.31.21 RPI RATINGS (ACTUAL CURRENT AND SIMULATED END OF SEASON), AND SIMULATED NCAA TOURNAMENT AT LARGE SELECTIONS AND SEEDS

  This week’s reports use actual results of games played through Sunday, October 31.  They are:

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for potential seeds and at large selections;

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played.  The simulated results are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings.  This report includes simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds based on the simple system described here.

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system described here.

For the tables below, you may need to scroll to the right to see the entire table. 

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for seeds and at large selections:

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows current RPI and other information for all teams.

In addition, here is a table from the workbook.  On the left, it shows which teams, based on past history, are in the current seed and at large selection ranges as of this stage of the season.  It also includes the next group of teams, that appear to be close but out of the range for an at large selection.  If you look at the At Large Bubble column, the highest ranked teams at the top of the list that are not color coded likely are assured of getting at large selections even if not conference automatic qualifiers, based on past history.

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played:

The simulated results of games not yet played are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings, as adjusted for home field advantage.  This report includes simple-system simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.  [NOTE:  I have more confidence in the more complex system simulated Tournament selections and seeds described in part 3 below.]

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows the information for all teams.

In addition, below is a table from the workbook that shows simulated simple-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.

I have put the table in RPI rank order this week for a particular reason.  The table includes (1) the Top 57 RPI teams, since all at large selections since 2007 have come from the Top 57, plus (2) the Automatic Qualifiers.  The simple system selects unseeded Automatic Qualifiers based on a formula that combines team RPI ranks and their ranks based on their good results against Top 50 opponents, with those two factors weighted equally.  The Top 50 results ranks are based on a scoring system that is very highly skewed towards good results (wins or ties) against very highly ranked opponents.  The simple system uses this dual factor because on average, over the years since 2007 (excluding 2020), the dual factor rank correctly matches all but 2 per year of the Committee unseeded at large selections.

In the At Large Selections column, the color coding shows the teams to which the simple system assigns at large selections.  If a team is neither an Automatic Qualifier nor color coded in the At Large Selections column, it is a team that is among the Top 57 but that the simple system does not assign an at large selection.  In the Seed columns, the color coding shows the teams that the system assigns seeds (with the seeds based on RPI ranks).

The table shows an interesting anomaly:  The simple system assigns Harvard a #3 seed (as the #11 RPI team -- which has dropped to #12 as of November 2), but does not assign it an at large selection since it falls too far down on the dual factor list due to having no good Top 50 results (wins or ties).  In response to this and because it will have educational value, here is a detailed analysis of Harvard’s record.

First, I looked to see whether the differences between Harvard’s RPI rating and its opponents’ ratings seemed appropriate based on game results.  One of the things my system does is compute the RPI rating difference between opponents as adjusted for home field advantage.  Then, based on that difference and historic data, it computes the likelihood of the higher rated team winning, tieing, and losing the game.  If I then combine all of those likelihoods for a team’s schedule, I can tell what the ratings say the team’s win-tie-loss results should be for those games if the ratings for the teams are correct in relation to each other.  I did this first for Harvard’s non-conference games and the RPI ratings say that Harvard’s record over the course of those games should have been 7 wins, 1 tie, and 0 losses (or possibly 7-0-1).  In fact, its actual record was 7-1-0, exactly what it should have been if it and its opponents are rated correctly in relation to each other.  I did this next for Harvard’s conference games, where the ratings say its record (so far) should be 5-0-1, whereas it actually is 4-0-2.  What this suggests is that Harvard is rated appropriately in relation to the non-conference teams it played but is overrated in relation to its Ivy League partners Brown and Princeton.

Second, I looked at Harvard’s results against opponents it had in common with other current Top 60 teams.  This showed the following, based on current RPI ranks as of November 2:

Harvard: win home v #60 St Johns who had a tie home v #30 Butler and a win home v #34 Providence

Harvard: win away v #106 Northeastern who had a win away v #25 Hofstra

Harvard: win home v #91 Kansas who had a win home v #45 West Virginia

Harvard: win home v #111 Penn who had a win home v #54 Rice

Harvard: loss home v #13 Brown who had a loss away v #25 Hofstra, a loss away v #15 Notre Dame, and a loss away v #34 Providence

Harvard: loss home v #18 Princeton, who had a tie away v #14 Georgetown and a loss home v #25 Hofstra

Harvard: win home v #128 Dartmouth who had a tie away v #14 Georgetown

Looking at the common opponent results as a whole, they suggest a Harvard rank in the vicinity of #25 Hofstra to #34 Providence, possibly closer to the Hofstra side of that range.

Putting these two detailed looks at Harvard together, it appears that Harvard’s current RPI rating and rank are too high.  Realistically, it probably should be outside the range for a seed.  On the other hand, it seems well inside the range for an at large selection.

The above analysis can give some insight into the process the Committee must go through.

Interestingly, my more complex system, as shown in the last table below, does not seed Harvard but gives it an at large selection.  An at large selection certainly would be consistent with the history of Committee decisions, which always have given at large selections to teams with RPI ranks of #30 or better.

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system:

Finally, below is a table that shows the simulated more-complex-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.

Of the at large teams, the last teams in are Butler, Wisconsin, Houston, and West Virginia.  The next teams in line are Oregon, Alabama, and Colorado.

1 = #1 seed, 2 = #2 seed, 3 = #3 seed, 4 = #4 seed, 5 = unseeded automatic qualifier, and 6 = unseeded at large selection.

2021 RPI: 10.24.21 RPI RATINGS (ACTUAL CURRENT AND SIMULATED END OF SEASON), AND SIMULATED NCAA TOURNAMENT AT LARGE SELECTIONS AND SEEDS

 This week’s reports use actual results of games played through Sunday, October 24.  They are:

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for potential seeds and at large selections;

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played.  The simulated results are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings.  This report includes simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds based on the simple system described here.

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system described here.

For the tables below, you may need to scroll to the right to see the entire table. 

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for seeds and at large selections:

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows RPI and other information for all teams.

In addition, here is a table from the workbook.  On the left, it shows which teams, based on past history, are in the current seed and at large selection ranges as of this stage of the season.  It also includes the next group of teams, that appear to be close but out of the range for an at large selection.  If you look at the At Large Bubble column, the highest ranked teams at the top of the list that are not color coded likely are assured of getting at large selections even if not conference automatic qualifiers, based on past history.

NOTE:  If you closely compare my ratings to those the NCAA has published, you will notice some minor differences.  This is because the October 24 game between Alcorn State and Grambling somehow dropped out of the NCAA data base.  Hopefully, that game will find its way back in.  In addition, the NCAA still has not adjusted the ranges for its two penalty adjustment tiers.  This has no significant effect, but also is causing some rating and ranking differences from mine, at the poorer end of the RPI.

Also, if you compare my ratings and ranks to the AllWhiteKit ratings, you may notice some very small differences.  The rating differences are due to our systems following different rounding conventions.  (For these differences, AllWhiteKit always will have a team rated 0.0001 higher than my rating.)  The ranking differences are due to the fact that when the AllWhiteKit system has teams with equal ratings when rounded to four decimal places, it puts them in alphabetical order.  My system puts teams in order based on calculations to 15 decimal places.  Ordinarily, these differences are inconsequential.

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played:

The simulated results of games not yet played are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings, as adjusted for home field advantage.  This report includes simple-system simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows the information for all teams.  (NOTE:  Due to a programming error (by me), the originally linked workbook had the wrong information.  The currently linked workbook has the right information.)

In addition, here is a table from the workbook that shows simulated simple-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds, plus the next teams in the RPI rankings down to #80 (some of which would not meet the NCAA Tournament 0.500 winning percentage requirement for at large selection).  (NOTE:  This is a corrected version of what I posted yesteray.)

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system:

Finally, below is a table that shows the simulated more-complex-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.  It is worth noting that since I started keeping data in 2007, no team ranked poorer than #57 (using the current RPI formula) has gotten an at large selection.

Of the at large teams, the last teams in are Washington State, Santa Clara, and South Carolina.  The next teams in line are Colorado, Butler, and Michigan State, followed by Oregon State, Georgia, Indiana, and Clemson.

1 = #1 seed, 2 = #2 seed, 3 = #3 seed, 4 = #4 seed, 5 = unseeded automatic qualifier, and 6 = unseeded at large selection.

2021 RPI: 10.17.21 RPI RATINGS (ACTUAL CURRENT AND SIMULATED END OF SEASON), AND SIMULATED NCAA TOURNAMENT AT LARGE SELECTIONS AND SEEDS

This week’s reports use actual results of games played through Sunday, October 17.  They are:

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for potential seeds and at large selections;

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played.  The simulated results are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings.  This report includes simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds based on the simple system described here.

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system described here.

For the tables below, you may need to scroll to the right to see the entire table. 

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for seeds and at large selections:

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows RPI and other information for all teams.

In addition, here is a table from the workbook.  On the left, it shows which teams, based on past history, are in the current seed and at large selection ranges as of this stage of the season.  If you look at the At Large Bubble column, the highest ranked teams at the top of the list that are not color coded likely are assured of getting at large selections, based on past history.

NOTE:  If you compare these ranks to those the NCAA has published, you will note that I have Duke and Arkansas ranked #2 and #3 respectively, whereas the NCAA has them in the reverse order.  Those two teams have nearly identical ratings and the difference in their order is due only to the NCAA and I using different rounding conventions.  This is an unusual occurence in this area of the ratings and I expect it will disappear in next week’s ratings and ranks.

In addition, if you get into comparing my ratings to the NCAA’s, you might notice that I have #70 Minnesota with an RPI rating of 0.5676 whereas the NCAA has them at 0.5670.  The reason for this is that Minnesota has accrued an RPI penalty for a tie against Illinois-Chicago.  There are two tiers of penalties, the higher penalties being for poor results against the bottom 40 teams and the lower penalties for results against the next-to-bottom 40.  As new schools sponsor soccer each year, it is necessary to adjusted the penalty tiers in the RPI calculation system to match the total number of teams sponsoring soccer.  I have done that, but this year the NCAA has not yet done it.  As a result, the NCAA is treating Minnesota as having accrued a penalty as though its poor result was against a bottom 40 team whereas it actually accrued the result against a next-to-bottom 40 team.  The NCAA has been aware for a couple of weeks that it needs to adjusted its penalty tiers and has said they will do it, but they have not done it yet.  There are 15 other teams, farther down in the rankings, that this likewise affects.  Ordinarily, it would not be a significant issue, but since Minnesota still is within at large selection range as of this stage of the season, it actually may become important that the NCAA make the needed correction.

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played:

The simulated results of games not yet played are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings, as adjusted for home field advantage.  This report includes simple-system simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows the information for all teams.

In addition, here is a table from the workbook that shows simulated simple-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds, plus the next ten teams:

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system:

Finally, below is a table that shows the simulated more-complex-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds, plus the next 9 teams.  It is worth noting that since I started keeping data in 2007, no team ranked poorer than #57 (using the current RPI formula) has gotten an at large selection.

1 = #1 seed, 2 = #2 seed, 3 = #3 seed, 4 = #4 seed, 5 = unseeded automatic qualifier, and 6 = unseeded at large selection.

2021 RPI: 10.10.21 RPI RATINGS (ACTUAL CURRENT AND SIMULATED END OF SEASON), AND SIMULATED NCAA TOURNAMENT AT LARGE SELECTIONS AND SEEDS

This week’s reports use actual results of games played through Sunday, October 10.  They are:

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for seeds and at large selections;

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played.  The simulated results are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings.  This report includes simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds based on the simple system described here.

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system described here.

For the tables below, you may need to scroll to the right to see the entire table. 

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for seeds and at large selections:

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows RPI and other information for all teams.

In addition, here is a table from the workbook.  On the left, it shows which teams, based on past history, are in the current seed and at large selection ranges as of this stage of the season.  If you look at the At Large Bubble column, the highest ranked teams at the top of the list that are not color coded likely are assured of getting at large selections, based on past history.

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played:

The simulated results of games not yet played are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings, as adjusted for home field advantage.  This report includes simple-system simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows the information for all teams.

In addition, here is a table from the workbook that shows simulated simple-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds, plus the next five teams.

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system:

Finally, below is a table that shows the simulated more-complex-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.  The next five teams in line for at large selections would be West Virginia, Old Dominion, South Florida, Butler, and Clemson.

It is worth noting that this sytem has Harvard ending up ranked #4 by the RPI but going unseeded.  If Harvard ends up ranked #4, it is unlikely to go unseeded.

1 = #1 seed, 2 = #2 seed, 3 = #3 seed, 4 = #4 seed, 5 = unseeded automatic qualifier, and 6 = unseeded at large selection.

ON LINE RESOURCES: DATA, RATINGS, AND BRACKETOLOGY

There are some excellent on line resources for data, ratings, and bracketology information about Division I women’s soccer.  Here are resources I recommend.

Data

I use three data sources:

NCAA Statistics  This link will take you to the daily Division I women’s soccer Scoreboard page of the NCAA Statistics system.  On that page, there are links to a number of other data resources.

At the beginning of each season, schools enter their schedules into the NCAA system.  Then, as they play games, they enter the results into the system, including box scores.  Once entered, the results appear on the Scoreboard page.  Links to the box scores also appear on the Scoreboard page.  And further, by clicking on a school name on the Scoreboard page, the system takes you to a page for that team that shows its entire schedule and results to date and has links to other data for the team and its players and coach.

At the top of each page are a number of tabs that take you to other areas of the NCAA statistics system.  Of particular note, the RPI/NET Rankings tab will take you to a page with links to what are called the Nitty Gritties for sports.  These are reports the NCAA sports committees use in making their decisions about NCAA Tournament seeding and at large selections.  From the RPI/NET Rankings page, you can navigate to the Women’s Soccer Nitty Gritty reports, which contain information about each team including its RPI rating and rank.  The NCAA publishes these reports weekly, starting with the sixth week of the season.

In addition, at the top of the Scoreboard page (and other system pages), you can use the Player Search tab to find data about a particular player and the Team Search box to go to a particular team’s page.

If you navigate around the NCAA Statistics system, you can find virtually all of the data within the system about teams, players, and coaches.

College Women’s Soccer Schedule (presented by All White Kit)  This link will take you to the Composite Schedule page of the College Women’s Soccer Schedule website.  This page gets updated with game results daily through the course of the season. 

At the top of the Composite Schedule page, if you clink on the Information tab, you will get a drop down menu from which you can navigate to other pages, such as the Adjusted RPI page.  As game results are entered over the course of the day, the system automatically updates, so if you go to the Adjusted RPI page you will get real time RPI ratings for teams.  And, if you click twice on the Adjusted RPI column header, it will place the teams in rank order from best to worst.

In addition, on the Adjusted RPI page (and some of the other pages), if you click on a team name, it will take you to a team page with the team schedule and results to date plus some information about the team’s opponents and some team past history information.  And, if you click on the box to the left of a team name, it will take you to the team schedule page at the school’s website.

If you navigate around this system, you will find it has lots of information about each team and a number of nifty bells and whistles.

School Athletics Websites  The women’s soccer pages at school athletics websites are the other place I go for data about teams.

 Ratings

NCAA Stastics  This report will take you directly to the NCAA Nitty Gritty reports for Division I women’s soccer, referred to above.  As stated above, these include team RPI ratings and ranks.  You can use the Thru Games box at the top of the page to go to the weekly reports the NCAA has published over the course of the season, including the most recent report. 

College Women’s Soccer Schedule (presented by All White Kit)  This link will take you directly to the Adjusted RPI page for the College Women’s Soccer Schedule website.  As stated above, this page has RPI ratings adjusted automatically as results are entered into the system over the course of each day.

Massey Ratings   This link will take you to ratings by a system developed and maintained by Kenneth Massey.  These are different than the RPI ratings, but are the best non-RPI on line ratings I know of.  In particular, they do a good job of rating teams from different conferences and geographic regions in relation to each other (which is an area of weakness for the RPI).

RPI, Bracketology, and Scheduling

Here are the best resources for information about (1) the structure of the RPI and how it works, (2) the process for forming the NCAA Tournament bracket, and (3) the factors teams must consider, in relation to the NCAA Tournament, when developing their non-conference schedules.

RPI for Division I Women’s Soccer  This link will take you to my website.  It includes a detailed explanation of the RPI formula and how it works, of the rules and process the Women’s Soccer Committee follows in filling out the NCAA Tournament bracket, the Committee historic patterns in filling out the bracket, and factors coaches must consider when doing non-conference scheduling with a view to NCAA Tournament seeding and at large selections.

 RPI and Bracketology for DI Women’s Soccer Blogspace  This link will take you to my blog.  Here, during the course of the season, I file weekly reports with information such as current RPI ratings and related information, simulated end-of-season ratings, and simulated NCAA Tournament brackets.  In addition, over the course of the year I publish other articles about ratings, the patterns of the Women’s Soccer Committee in filling out the NCAA Tournament bracket, scheduling, revisions that would improve the RPI, and similar topics.

Chris Henderson on Twitter  Chris Henderson maintains the College Women’s Soccer Schedule website referred to above.  In addition, he maintains a comprehensive data base and system for evaluating Division I women’s soccer teams, players, and coaches.  He publishes information ordinarily multiple times daily on Twitter and is one of the few people I follow there.

I hope you find these resources helpful.  If you are aware of other high level resources, please let me know by email: cpthomas@q.com

2021 RPI: 10.3.26 ACTUAL RPI RATINGS (ACTUAL CURRENT AND SIMULATED END OF SEASON), AND SIMULATED NCAA TOURNAMENT AT LARGE SELECTION AND SEEDS

 This week’s reports, using actual results of games played through Sunday, October 3, are:

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for seeds and at large selections;

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played.  The simulated results are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings.  This includes  simulated NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds based on the simple system described here.

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system described here.

For the tables below, you may need to scroll to the right to see the entire table. 

1.  Actual current RPI ratings and ranks, showing which teams are in the current ranges for seeds and at large selections:

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows RPI and other information for all teams.

In addition, here is a table from the workbook that shows the Top 100 RPI teams.  On the left, it shows which teams are in the current seed and at large selection ranges.  If you look at the at large selection column, the highest ranked teams at the top of the list that are not color coded likely are assured of getting at large selections, based on past history.

2.  Simulated RPI ratings and ranks based on the actual results of games played and simulated results of games not yet played:

The simulated results are based on opponents’ actual current RPI ratings.  This includes simulated simple-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that shows the information for all teams.

In addition, here is a table from the workbook that shows the simulated simple-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds, plus the next six teams:

3.  Simulated NCAA Tournament bracket based on the simulated RPI ratings and ranks, using the more complex system:

Below is a table that shows the simulated more-complex-system NCAA Tournament at large selections and seeds.  The next two teams in line for at large selections would be Washington State and UNC Wilmington.

1 = #1 seed, 2 = #2 seed, 3 = #3 seed, 4 = #4 seed, 5 = unseeded automatic qualifier, and 6 = unseeded at large selection.