2025 ARTICLE 29: THE NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET - IT'S A NEW WORLD FOR THE COMMITTEE. WILL THEY BE UP TO IT?

In working on my "regular" end-of-season analysis of what the Women's Soccer Committee's NCAA Tournament seeds and at large selection might be, the numbers I am seeing have made something clear:  This year, there is nothing "regular" about what the Committee will be seeing.  Because of that, this article will include more and different details than what I have provided in earlier years, so you can see what the Committee will be facing and, once you have seen the Committee's actual decisions, you can decide whether the Committee has been "up to" the moment.

First, I'll start with some information on why this season is not "regular."

Proportions of Out-of-Region Games

The following table shows the historic proportions of games that the four regions' teams have played against out-of-region opponents.  I place each State's teams in the region in which the State's teams as a group play either the majority or plurality of their games.  To see the regions -- Middle, North, South, and West -- and the States within them, go to the RPI: Regional Issues page at the RPI for Division I Women's Soccer website.  The data in the below table are from the years 2013 through 2024 (excluding Covid-affected 2020).

The next table breaks down the historical out-of-region percentages by region, including showing the distribution of out-of-region games among the other regions:

This year, likely driven by the changed financial landscape for Division I sports. the out-of-region numbers have declined dramatically, notwithstanding the increased out-of-region travel for teams from conferences with recent major expansions of their geographic footprings:

 

Comparing this to the first table above, there has been a 28.5% reduction in out-of-region games.

Here are this year's breakdowns for the regions: 

Comparing this to the second table above, you can see the reduction in out-of-region travel for each region.  There is an 18.3% reduction for teams from the Middle, 29.3% for the North, 31.0% for the South, and 33.5% for the West.

In looking at these reductions, consider that for the NCAA RPI to function as a fully national rating system, there must be a large number of out-of-region games.  If there are not enough out-of-region games, then what you are seeing in the NCAA RPI ratings and rankings is how teams within a region compare to each other, but not how teams from a region compare to teams from other regions.

Levels of Parity Within Regions

An indicator of parity within a region is the proportion of in-region games that are ties.  The following table shows the historic proportions of ties, by region.  The data for the table are from the years 2010 through 2024 (excluding Covid-affected 2020), with all games that were ties at the end of regular time treated as ties (for those years when the rules provided for overtime games).

As you can see from this table, historically the West has had the highest proportion of ties, followed by the Middle and North, with the South having the lowest proportion of ties.  In terms of parity, the order is from the West with the greatest parity to the South with the least.

Here is the table for this year:

 As you can see, the proportions of in-region ties are higher for all regions.  In other words, it appears there has been an increase in parity within the regions.  Once again, the West has the greatest parity and the South the least, with the Middle and North switching places from the historic norm.

Diminished Value of Ties Within the RPI Formula

In 2024, the Women's Soccer Committee changed the RPI Formula.  This included a change in how the NCAA computes Element 1 of the RPI, which is a team's Winning Percentage (WP).  A way to express the formula for Winning Percentage is:

WP = (Wins + X*Ties) /(Wins + Ties + Losses)

Until 2024, in the formula X was 1/2.  In 2024, the Committee changed X to 1/3.  Thus the value of a tie went from 1/2 of a win to 1/3 of a win.

 As a result of this change, the Committee depressed many teams' ratings, since many teams have one or more ties.  As a presumably unintended side effect, the change also punished regions with higher levels of parity and thus more ties.

It appears that an effect of these changes has been to change many upper level teams' profiles enough that they now look poorer than they have in the past.  This relates to my annual process of considering what seed and at large decisions we can expect the Committee to make, if the Committee follows its historic decision patterns.  I'll go through the expected seeds and at large selections below and hopefully you will be able to see what I mean.

#1 SEEDS

Historically the #1 seeds always have come from the Top 7 teams in the NCAA RPI rankings.  Thus teams #1 through #7 are the #1 seed candidates.

Here is a table that relates to this year'sd #1 seed selection process:

Here is a detailed description of this table, as an introduction to the process I use and to the other tables I'll show below for the other seed levels and the at large selections.

I have identified 13 individual factors that the NCAA directs the Committee to consider in its at large selection process.  For each of those factors, either the NCAA provides a scoring system (for example, for a team's rating, the NCAA specifies the RPI as the scoring system) or I provide my own scoring system.  In addition to those individual factors, I also pair each factor with each other factor, with the scoring system weighting each factor in a pair at 50% of that "paired" factor's value.  Altogether this results in 105 paired factors plus the 13 individual factors or a total of 118 factors.

By comparing the factor scores for teams to the Committee's seed and at large selection decisions for teams over the years, for each decision the Committee must make -- #1 seed, #2 seed, etc., and at large selection -- I have identified two score standards for each factor.  A "yes" standard for a factor means that teams whose scores for that factor have been better than the "yes" standard always have gotten a positive decision from the Committee.  A "no" standard means that teams whose scores have been poorer than the "no" standard never have gotten a positive decision.  Using #1 seeds and the NCAA RPI Rating factor as an example:

The "yes" factor score is 0.6986.  This means that teams with NCAA RPI ratings better than 0.6986 always have gotten #1 seeds.

The "no" factor score is 0.6479,  this means that teams with NCAA RPI ratings poorer than 0.6479 never have gotten #1 seeds.

It is important to note that some teams will have NCAA RPI ratings between the "yes" score of 0.6986 and the "no" score of 0.6479.  These are possible, but not assured, #1 seeds based on the Committee's historic patterns.

For each required Committee decision, my system evaluates each team in relation to each factor.  The above table, in the 1 Seed Status Based on Standards column shows how this year's candidate group fared in the evaluation process.

As you can see if you look at the 1 Seed Total and No 1 Seed Total columns, Stanford and Notre Dame each meet a number of "yes" standards and no "no" standards.  This means that based on the Committee's historic patterns, Stanford and Notre Dame are clear #1 seeds.

On the other hand, if you look at Virginia and TCU, each meets at least 1 "yes" standard and at least 1 "no" standard.  This means each has a profile the Committee has not seen before (meaning not since 2007).  Based on my years of experience looking at numbers like this, I see something in the Virginia and TCU "no" numbers.  They are significantly higher than what I would expect to see for a profile the Committee has not seen before.

Further, if you look at Vanderbilt, Michigan State, and Kansas, they meet 0 "yes" standards and a high number of "no" standards.  Again based on years of experience, the "no" numbers are far higher than what I would expect to see for teams in the Top 7 of the NCAA RPI rankings.

Rather than seeing 5 of the 7 candidates for #1 seeds having significant numbers of "no" scores, what I would expect to see is at least several of them having no "yes" and no "no" scores.  These then would be the candidates for the remaining 2 #1 seed positions. 

The bottom line of this is that most of the RPI Top 7 teams' profiles are far poorer than what one should expect based on past history.

This same phenomenon appears throughout the decisions the Committee must make.  Because of this, I have concluded that this year, the changes I described above make it unwise to use the "no" factor scores as a basis for seeing if the Committee's decisions are consistent with the Committee's past decision patterns.  The "yes" factor scores should be fine, but not the "no" scores.  I have shown this in the 1 Seed Status Based on Standards column by identifying all of the teams other than clear #1 Stanford and Notre Dame as #1 seed Candidates.  Looking at the table, when I disregard the "no" scores, each of Virginia and TCU is left with at least 1 "yes" score.  Because of this, it appears to me that those teams receivinig #1 seeds would be most consistent with the Committee's historic decision patterns.

Unlike this year, in the past, when there have not been enough teams meeting only "yes" standards to fill a decision group, there have been teams that meet no "yes" and no "no" standards.  I then apply a tiebreaker to fill out the group.  The tiebreaker is the factor, from among all 118 of them, the scores of which historically have been most consistent with the Committee's decisions as to that group.  As it turns out for the #1 through #4 seeds, the factor most consistet with the Committee's decisions is teams' NCAA RPI ratings or ranks.  So if, for example, Virginia and TCU had met 0 "yes" standards this year, the Committee's historic decision patterns would have suggested picking from the 5 candidates the 2 teams with the best NCAA RPI ranks.  In that case, I would have looked at the 1 Seed Status Based on NCAA RPI Rank column, in which I entered "1 Seed" to indicate that those teams would get 1 seeds if needing to use the tiebreaker.  In that case, the Committee's historic patterns would have assigned the remaining 2 #1 seed positions to Virginia and Vanderbilt.

In the table, the #1 Seed Status Based on Standards and Tiebreaker Combined column shows the #1 seeds, based on this process, that would be most consistent with the Committee's historic patterns.

 #2 Seeds

With the #1 seeds most consistent with the Committee's historic patterns identified, next comes the #2 seeds using the same process as applied to the #2 seed candidate group, but excluding the already identified #1 seeds.  The candidate group is teams with NCAA RPI ranks of #13 or better.

Of the candidates, after disregarding the "no" scores, there are 4 teams that have at least 1 "yes" score: Vanderbilt, Florida State, Duke, and Georgetown.  So, given the constraints this year, those teams receiving #2 seeds would be most consistent with the Committee's historic patterns.

#3 Seeds

I will go through the remaining seeds in the same fashion as for the #2 seeds.

Kansas, Colorado, LSU, and Louisville as #3 seeds would be most consistent with the Committee's historic patterns.

#4 Seeds

There are three teams with at least 1 "yes" score: Michigan State, Tennessee, and Washington.  There still is one #4 seed position to fill.  Disregarding the "no" scores leaves all the other teams in the #4 seed candidate group (teams ranked #28 or better) as possibilities.  Since the tiebreaker is teams' NCAA RPI ranks, the best ranked remaining team is West Virginia, so it fills the remaining #4 seed position.

#5 Through #8 Seeds

The process for these seeds is the same as above, except that the Committee has done these seeds only for a few years and the data establishing Committee patterns are relatively limited.  Based on what the Committee has done for these seeds so far, the following changes appear to best identify the Committee's patterns:

1.  The tiebreaker for these seeds is a paired factor rather than simply their NCAA RPI ranks.  The paired factor is NCAA RPI Rank and Top 50 Results Score combined (the higher the score, the better); and

2.  The Committee's selection of the #5 through #8 seeds is more like the Committee's at large selections than the Committee's #1 through #4 seeds.  So the best standards references are to the standards for at large selections.

With that in mind, here are the tables for the #5 through #8 seeds (identified in the column headings as 4.5 through 4.8):

 

 

 NOTE: In the table, the lack of entries for Fairfield indicate that it played no opponents with NCAA RPI ranks of 60 or better.  That puts it out of consideration for an NCAA Tournament seed or at large position.

At Large Positions

The tiebreaker for at large positions is factor pair of NCAA RPI Rank and Top 50 Results Rank combined (the lower the score, the better).  The at large candidates are teams ranked #57 or better (that have not been seeded).

After the seeding, there are 8 additional at large positions to fill.  In the table, the At Large Status Based on Standards column shows the selection of 6 teams, each of which has at least 1 "yes" score: Penn State, Mississippi State, Ohio State, Clemson, South Carolina, and Illinois.  This leaves 2 positions to fill based on the tiebreaker.  The teams scoring best on the tiebreaker (lowest score) are California and Utah Valley, so their selection best matches the Committee's historic patterns.

Reminder and Summary

This year, for the reasons described above, I am disregarding the "no" scores.  How the Committee will treat the negative aspects of teams' profiles this year remains to be seen.  Maybe they will recognize that recent changes are causing teams' profiles to seem poorer than they have been in the past; but maybe they won't.

In the meantime, here is a summary of the above seeds and at large decisions.  In the Seed or At Large Selection column, #1 seeds are 1.0, #2s are 2.0, #3s are 3.0, #4s are 4.0, #5s are 4.5, #6s are 4.6, #7s are 4.7, and #8s are 4.8.  Unseeded Automatic Qualifiers are 5.0.  Unseeded at large selections are 6.0.  At large candidates from the Top 57 that do not get at large selections are 7.0.  (The order of teams within the different groups does not have any significance.)

2025 ARTICLE 28: NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET PROJECTIONS AFTER WEEK 12 GAMES

Below in this week's bonus article, I show predicted NCAA Tournament brackets based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic patterns (1) with the Committee using the NCAA RPI as its rating system and (2) as if the Committee were using the Balanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI.  I also include Chris Henderson's projected bracket so that you can compare all three.

The NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI predictions are based on the actual results of games played through Sunday, November 1, and predicted results of games not yet played including conference tournament games.  The predicted results are based on teams' current NCAA RPI ratings, in other words what the results would be if all teams perform exactly in accord with their ratings as adjusted for home field advantage.

For a case study showing why changes occur in a change from the NCAA RPI to the Balanced RPI, see 2025 Article 26

PROJECTED BRACKET COMPARISON

The following table shows projected brackets.  Below the table, there is a summary of the at large differences between the NCAA RPI and the Balanced RPI:

There are two differences in at large selections between using the NCAA RPI and using the Balanced RPI:

Using the NCAA RPI, Kansas State at #59 is outside the Committee's historic at large candidate group, which is teams #57 and better.  Using the Balanced RPI, Kansas State is #52 and gets an at large position.

Using the NCAA RPI, Georgia at #41 does not get an at large position.  Using the Balanced RPI it is at #27 and gets an at large position.

Those two teams bump Oklahoma and Saint Louis out of at large positions.  Oklahoma is #54 in the NCAA RPI and #44 in the Balanced RPI, so it loses its position notwithstanding its better Balanced RPI rank.  Saint Louis is #25 in the NCAA RPI and #45 in the Balanced RPI.

There are additional changes in the candidate groups (Top 57) between using the NCAA RPI and the Balanced RPI:

Teams dropping out of the Top 57 when going from the NCAA RPI to the Balanced RPI, some of which are Automatic Qualifiers and some of which do not get at large positions using the NCAA RPI:

Fairfield, AQ:  goes from 29 to 79

Charlotte, not at large:  42 to 65

South Alabama, AQ:  46 to 59

James Madison, not at large:  51 to 58

Samford, AQ:  52 to 86

Lipscomb, AQ:  56 to 108

Denver, AQ:  57 to 64

Teams (additional to Kansas State) entering the Top 57 candidate group when going from the NCAA RPI to the Balanced RPI, but not getting at large positions using the Balanced RPI:

Arizona State: 66 to 41

Southern California:  69 to 47

Seattle:  77 to 51

Houston:  84 to 57

Nebraska:  96 to 54

Portland:  98 to 53

2025 ARTICLE 27: RPI REPORTS AFTER WEEK 12 GAMES

This week's article has updates of the following reports:

Rankings and other data based on the results of games actually played to date;

Ratings and other data based on the results of games actually played to date PLUS predicted results of games not yet played.

In a bonus Article 28 this week, I'll post a predicted NCAA Tournament bracket based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic patterns (1) with the Committee using the NCAA RPI as its rating system and (2) as if the Committee were using the Balanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI.  The bonus article also will include Chris Henderson's projected bracket so that you can compare all three.

THIS WEEK'S TABLES

1.  Actual Current Ranks.  These are based only on games already played, through Sunday, November 2.  Teams' actual ranks in these reports (and the ratings on which the ranks are based) match those published by the NCAA at the NCAA's RPI Archive (except that the NCAA mistakenly is imposing penalty adjustments for losses and ties against non-Division 1 opponents), and also those published at Chris Henderson's 2025 Division I College Women's Soccer Schedule website.  These reports also include teams' current KPI, Massey, and Balanced RPI ranks so you can compare those systems' ratings, except that the Massey ratings are not yet available this week so they are not included.

2.  "Predicted" End-of-Season Ranks.  These are RPI reports based on the actual results of games already played PLUS predicted results of games not yet played, including in conference tournaments.  The reports now are close to where teams will end up at the end of the regular season.  The reports show both NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks.

The result predictions for future games use teams' actual current NCAA RPI ratings as the basis for the predictions.  So these reports show where teams will end up if they all perform exactly in accord with their current NCAA RPI ratings in their remaining games

ACTUAL CURRENT RANKS

 Here are the actual current NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks for teams.  For an Excel workbook containing these data, use the following link: 2025 RPI Report Actual Results Only After Week 12.

NOTE:  If you use the link, you will see the workbook in a Google Sheets format, which will be difficult or impossible to read.  Rather than trying to use that workbook, take the following steps to download the workbook as an Excel workbook:

Click on File in the upper left.

In the drop down menu, click on Download.

In the drop down menu, click on Microsoft Excel (.xlsx).

This will download the workbook as an Excel workbook.

In the tables, be sure to note the differences between teams', conferences', and regions' NCAA RPI ranks and their ranks, within the NCAA RPI formula, as strength of schedule contributors to their opponents' ratings.  You also can see the same information for the Balanced RPI.  Also check the the salmon-highlighted columns showing the differences between actual winning percentages and probable winning percentages.  The probable winning percentages are based on current NCAA RPI ratings.

Also, for each of teams, conferences, and regions, these reports show current KPI and Massey (not this week) ranks so you can compare them to the NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks.

In the Teams table, the color coded columns on the left show, based on past history, the teams that are potential seeds and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament, given their NCAA RPI ranks at this point in the season.

Here are the actual current ranks for conferences:

And here are the current actual ranks for the regions.  Note that at the right end of the table are the distributions of each region's games among the different regions.  Next to that, you will see the proportion of tie games when teams from a region are playing opponents from the same region, which is an indicator of the level of parity within the region:

"PREDICTED" END-OF-SEASON RANKS

Here are the predicted end-of-season NCAA RPI  and Balanced RPI ranks for teams.  For an Excel workbook containing these data, use the following link: 2025 RPI Report After Week 12.

The color coded columns on the left show, based on past history, the teams that would be candidates for NCAA Tournament seed pods and at large positions if these were the final NCAA RPI ranks:

Here are the predicted end-of-season ranks for conferences:

And here are the predicted end-of-season ranks for the four geographic regions:

2025 ARTICLE 26: NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET PROJECTIONS AFTER WEEK 11 GAMES AND IN/OUT CASE STUDY

Below in this week's bonus article, I show a predicted NCAA Tournament bracket based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic patterns (1) with the Committee using the NCAA RPI as its rating system and (2) as if the Committee were using the Balanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI.  I also include Chris Henderson's projected bracket so that you can compare all three.  The Henderson bracket projection will not quite give an apples-to-apples comparison, as his data includes a couple of games from Monday, October 27.

The NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI predictions are based on the actual results of games played through Sunday, October 26, and predicted results of games not yet played including conference tournament games.  The predicted results are based on teams' current NCAA RPI ratings, in other words what the results should be if all teams perform exactly in accord with their ratings as adjusted for home field advantage.

In addition, I am including a case study showing why the Committee likely would include Saint Louis as an at large team if using the NCAA RPI but instead would include Kansas State if using the Balanced RPI and how the difference relates to the way the NCAA RPI computes strength of schedule.

PROJECTED BRACKET COMPARISON

The following table shows projected brackets.  Scroll to the right for a key:

Saint Louis or Kansas State Case Study

In this week's table, there is only one team that gets an at large position using the NCAA RPI -- Saint Louis -- that does not get one using the Balanced RPI, and one team that gets an at large position using the Balanced RPI -- Kansas State -- that does not get one using the NCAA RPI.  So the question for today is: Why the Saint Louis/Kansas State switch?  The key is in how the NCAA RPI computes the teams' strengths of schedule.

NCAA RPI Formula, Rank

Saint Louis

                        RPI Rank:  27

                        Opponents' Average Rank/Rank as Strength of Schedule Contributors:  127/139

                        Conference Opponents' Av Rank/Rank as SoS Contributors:  115/114

                        NonConference Opponents' Av Rank/Rank as SoS Contributors:  147/180

Kansas State:

                         RPI Rank:  54

                        Opponents' Average Rank/Rank as Strength of Schedule Contributors:  102/122

                        Conference Opponents' Av Rank/Rank as SoS Contributors:  56/91

                        NonConference Opponents' Av Rank/Rank as SoS Contributors:  174/171

In the above information, the important thing to note is that Saint Louis' opponents' ranks as strength of schedule contributors to its RPI are 12 positions poorer than their actual RPI ranks whereas Kansas State's are 20 positions poorer.  In other words, although the RPI appears to be understating Saint Louis' strength of schedule, it is understanding Kansas State's strength of schedule by significantly more.

Here are the comparable numbers for the Balanced RPI:

Balanced RPI Formula, Rank

Saint Louis

                        RPI Rank:  46

                        Opponents' Average Rank/Rank as Strength of Schedule Contributors:  140/140

                        Conference Opponents' Av Rank/Rank as SoS Contributors:  139/139

                        NonConference Opponents' Av Rank/Rank as SoS Contributors:  141/142

Kansas State:

                         RPI Rank:  48

                        Opponents' Average Rank/Rank as Strength of Schedule Contributors:  85/85

                        Conference Opponents' Av Rank/Rank as SoS Contributors:  41/41

                        NonConference Opponents' Av Rank/Rank as SoS Contributors:  155/155

Note here that the teams' opponents' RPI ranks and ranks as strength of schedule contributors are essentially the same, rather than having the differences of the NCAA RPI.

The result of using the Balanced RPI is that Kansas State moves up in the rankings from 54 to 48.  And the bigger result is that Saint Louis moves down from 27 to 46.  Why does Saint Louis drop so far?  Because there are more teams than Kansas State that are in the same opponents' strength of schedule situation as Kansas State and when those teams' opponents' strengths of schedule are corrected, they move ahead of Saint Louis in the rankings.

In addition to the change in RPI rank, there is another change using the Balanced RPI that is a prime contributor to Kansas State displacing Saint Louis as an at large team.  That change is in the teams' good results against Top 50 opponents, which when paired with the RPI is the prime driver of the Women's Soccer Committee's at large decisions (as demonstrated by the Committee's historic decision patterns in relation to the data it sees).

NCAA RPI Formula, Top 50 Results (Good Results)

Saint Louis

                        #20 Dayton Win Away, Points 144

                        Total Top 50 Results Points 144, Total Points Rank 60

Kansas State

                        #13 Colorado Tie Away, Points 576

                        #35 UCF Tie Away, Points 12

                        Total Top 50 Results Points 588, Total Points Rank 44

Note: Under the NCAA RPI, Saint Louis' RPI is better than Kansas State's, but Kansas State's Top 50 Results Score is better than Saint Louis'.  However, Kansas State's Top 50 Results are not enough to overcome Saint Louis' better RPI.

Balanced RPI Formula, Top 50 Results (Good Results)

Saint Louis

                        #43 Dayton Win Away, Points 4

                        Total Top 50 Results Points 4, Total Points Rank 96

Kansas State

                        #8 Colorado Tie Away, Points 2880

                        #23 UCF Tie Away, Points 90

                        Total Top 50 Results Points 2970, Total Points Rank 33

Note: Under the Balanced RPI:

(1) Dayton's rank is poorer, for reasons similar to why Saint Louis' rank is poorer.  As a result, Saint Louis' Top 50 Results score and rank are poorer. 

(2)  Colorado's and UCF's ranks are better, for reasons similar to why Kansas State's rank is better.  As a result, Kansas State's Top 50 Results score and rank are better. 

(3)  The net effect is that Kansas State, rather than Saint Louis, gets an at large position.

Thus once the RPI's defective way of computing strength of schedule is corrected, Kansas State gets an at large position and Saint Louis does not. 

2025 ARTICLE 25: RPI REPORTS AFTER WEEK 11 GAMES

This week's article has updates of the following reports:

Rankings and other data based on the results of games actually played to date;

Ratings and other data based on the results of games actually played to date PLUS predicted results of games not yet played.

Predicted NCAA Tournament bracket based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic patterns (1) with the Committee using the NCAA RPI as its rating system and (2) as if the Committee were using the Balanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI.  This also includes Chris Henderson's projected bracket so that you can compare all three.

 In a bonus article this week, I'll post a predicted NCAA Tournament bracket based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic patterns (1) with the Committee using the NCAA RPI as its rating system and (2) as if the Committee were using the Balanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI.  The bonus article also will include Chris Henderson's projected bracket so that you can compare all three.  And finally, it will include a case study showing why the Committee likely would include Saint Louis as an at large team if using the NCAA RPI but instead would include Kansas State if using the Balanced RPI and how the difference relates to the way the NCAA RPI computes strength of schedule.

THIS WEEK'S TABLES

1.  Actual Current Ranks.  These are based only on games already played, through Sunday, October 26.  Teams' actual ranks in these reports (and the ratings on which the ranks are based) match those published by the NCAA at the NCAA's RPI Archive (except that the NCAA mistakenly is imposing penalty adjustments for losses and ties against non-Division 1 opponents), and also those published at Chris Henderson's 2025 Division I College Women's Soccer Schedule website.  These reports also include teams' current KPI, Massey, and Balanced RPI ranks so you can compare those systems' ratings.

2.  "Predicted" End-of-Season Ranks.  These are RPI reports based on the actual results of games already played PLUS predicted results of games not yet played, including in conference tournaments.  The reports now are getting close to where teams will end up at the end of the regular season.  The reports show both NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks.

The result predictions for future games use teams' actual current NCAA RPI ratings as the basis for the predictions.  So these reports show where teams will end up if they all perform exactly in accord with their current NCAA RPI ratings.

ACTUAL CURRENT RANKS

 Here are the actual current NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks for teams.  For an Excel workbook containing these data, use the following link: 2025 RPI Report Actual Results Only After Week 11.

NOTE:  If you use the link, you will see the workbook in a Google Sheets format, which will be difficult or impossible to read.  Rather than trying to use that workbook, take the following steps to download the workbook as an Excel workbook:

Click on File in the upper left.

In the drop down menu, click on Download.

In the drop down menu, click on Microsoft Excel (.xlsx).

This will download the workbook as an Excel workbook.

In the tables, be sure to note the differences between teams', conferences', and regions' NCAA RPI ranks and their ranks, within the NCAA RPI formula, as strength of schedule contributors to their opponents' ratings.  You also can see the same information for the Balanced RPI.  Also check the the salmon-highlighted columns showing the differences between actual winning percentages and probable winning percentages.  The probable winning percentages are based on current NCAA RPI ratings.

Also, for each of teams, conferences, and regions, these reports show current KPI and Massey ranks so you can compare them to the NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks.

In the Teams table, the color coded columns on the left show, based on past history, the teams that are potential seeds and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament, given their NCAA RPI ranks at this point in the season.

Here are the actual current ranks for conferences:

And here are the current actual ranks for the regions.  Note that at the right end of the table are the distributions of each region's games among the different regions.  Next to that, you will see the proportion of tie games when teams from a region are playing opponents from the same region, which is an indicator of the level of parity within the region:

"PREDICTED" END-OF-SEASON RANKS

Here are the predicted end-of-season NCAA RPI  and Balanced RPI ranks for teams.  For an Excel workbook containing these data, use the following link: 2025 RPI Report After Week 11.

The color coded columns on the left show, based on past history, the teams that would be candidates for NCAA Tournament seed pods and at large positions if these were the final NCAA RPI ranks:

Here are the predicted end-of-season ranks for conferences:

And here are the predicted end-of-season ranks for the four geographic regions:

2025 ARTICLE 24: RPI REPORTS AFTER WEEK 10 GAMES

 This week's article has updates of the following reports:

Rankings and other data based on the results of games actually played to date;

Ratings and other data based on the results of games actually played to date PLUS predicted results of games not yet played.

Predicted NCAA Tournament bracket based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic patterns (1) with the Committee using the NCAA RPI as its rating system and (2) as if the Committee were using the Balanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI.

THIS WEEK'S TABLES

1.  Actual Current Ranks.  These are based only on games already played, through Sunday, October 19.  Teams' actual ranks in these reports (and the ratings on which the ranks are based) match those published by the NCAA at the NCAA's RPI Archive (except that the NCAA mistakenly is imposing penalty adjustments for losses and ties against non-Division 1 opponents), and also those published at Chris Henderson's 2025 Division I College Women's Soccer Schedule website.  These reports also include teams' current KPI, Massey, and Balanced RPI ranks so you can compare those systems' ratings.

2.  "Predicted" End-of-Season Ranks.  These are RPI reports based on the actual results of games already played PLUS predicted results of games not yet played.  The reports suggest where teams might end up at the end of the regular season.  The reports show both NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks.

The result predictions for future games use teams' actual current NCAA RPI ratings as the basis for the predictions.  So these reports show where teams will end up if they all perform exactly in accord with their current NCAA RPI ratings.  As each week passes, the predictions come closer and closer to where teams will end up.

ACTUAL CURRENT RANKS

 Here are the actual current NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks for teams.  For an Excel workbook containing these data, use the following link: 2025 RPI Report Actual Results Only After Week 10.

NOTE:  If you use the link, you will see the workbook in a Google Sheets format, which will be difficult or impossible to read.  Rather than trying to use that workbook, take the following steps to download the workbook as an Excel workbook:

Click on File in the upper left.

In the drop down menu, click on Download.

In the drop down menu, click on Microsoft Excel (.xlsx).

This will download the workbook as an Excel workbook.

In the tables, be sure to note the differences between teams', conferences', and regions' NCAA RPI ranks and their ranks, within the NCAA RPI formula, as strength of schedule contributors to their opponents' ratings.  You also can see the same information for the Balanced RPI.  Also check the the salmon-highlighted columns showing the differences between actual winning percentages and probable winning percentages.  The probable winning percentages are based on current NCAA RPI ratings.

Also, for each of teams, conferences, and regions, these reports show current KPI and Massey ranks so you can compare them to the NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks.

In the Teams table, the color coded columns on the left show, based on past history, the teams that are potential seeds and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament, given their NCAA RPI ranks at this point in the season.

Here are the actual current ranks for conferences:

And here are the current actual ranks for the regions.  Note that at the right end of the table are the distributions of each region's games among the different regions and the proportion of tie games when teams from a region are playing opponents from the same region:

"PREDICTED" END-OF-SEASON RANKS

Here are the predicted end-of-season NCAA RPI  and Balanced RPI ranks for teams.  For an Excel workbook containing these data, use the following link: 2025 RPI Report After Week 10.

The color coded columns on the left show, based on past history, the teams that would be candidates for NCAA Tournament seed pods and at large positions if these were the final NCAA RPI ranks:

Here are the predicted end-of-season ranks for conferences:

And here are the predicted end-of-season ranks for the four geographic regions:

PREDICTED NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET

I also have used my bracket formation program to show the currently projected NCAA Tournament bracket using the NCAA RPI as compared to what it would be if the Women's Soccer Committee were using the Balanced RPI.  I won't go into a detailed explanation here of how the program works, except to say it is based on the Committee's decision patterns from 2007 to the present and by the end of the season its predictions have been on average within 1 position of the Committee's at large selections.  I believe the current comparison paints a good general picture of the difference between the NCAA RPI and the Balanced RPI.  Remember, the NCAA RPI discriminates against some conferences and regions and in favor of others.  The Balanced RPI eliminates most of the discrimination.

The following table shows how the systems' NCAA Tournament brackets compare.  It has teams arranged by region and then by conference, as I believe this gives the best picture of what happens when the Balanced RPI removes the NCAA RPI's discrimination.  To the right of the table is a key to the entries in the Status columns.

Peruse the table and draw your own conclusions.  I recommend that rather than focusing on specific teams, you focus on the regions and conferences with teams moving up or down in the seeds, in or out of the at large candidate group, and in and out of the at large selections in the shift from the NCAA RPI to the Balanced RPI.

2025 ARTICLE 23: RPI REPORTS AFTER WEEK 9 GAMES

This week, I've added a new item to the RPI Report that is limited to games already played.  The new item compares teams', conferences', and regions' actual winning percentages so far (using the NCAA winning percentage formula) to what one would expect their winning percentages to be based on their current NCAA RPI ratings.  This allows you to see which teams, conferences, and regions have performed better or more poorly than their NCAA RPI ratings say they have performed.  In other words, they show where the current NCAA RPI ratings overstate or understate teams', conferences', and regions' ratings.

Ths article also will include projected NCAA Tournament seeds and at large selections based on the Committee using the NCAA RPI, as compared to projected seeds and at large selections if the Committee were using the Balanced RPI.

THIS WEEK'S TABLES

Below are the following reports, after completion of Week 9 of the season:

1.  Actual Current Ranks.  These are based only on games already played, through Sunday, October 12.  Teams' actual ranks in these reports (and the ratings on which the ranks are based) match those published by the NCAA at the NCAA's RPI Archive (except that the NCAA mistakenly is imposing penalty adjustments for losses and ties against non-Division 1 opponents), and also those published at Chris Henderson's 2025 Division I College Women's Soccer Schedule website.  These reports also include teams' current KPI, Massey, and Balanced RPI ranks so you can compare those systems' ratings.

2.  "Predicted" End-of-Season Ranks.  These are RPI reports based on the actual results of games already played PLUS predicted results of games not yet played.  The reports suggest where teams might end up at the end of the regular season.  The reports show both NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks.

The result predictions for future games use teams' actual current NCAA RPI ratings as the basis for the predictions.  So these reports show where teams will end up if they all perform exactly in accord with their current NCAA RPI ratings.  As each week passes, the predictions come closer and closer to where teams will end up.

ACTUAL CURRENT RANKS

 Here are the actual current NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks for teams.  For an Excel workbook containing these data, use the following link: 2025 RPI Report Actual Results Only After Week 9.

NOTE:  If you use the link, you will see the workbook in a Google Sheets format, which will be difficult or impossible to read.  Rather than trying to use that workbook, take the following steps to download the workbook as an Excel workbook:

Click on File in the upper left.

In the drop down menu, click on Download.

In the drop down menu, click on Microsoft Excel (.xlsx).

This will download the workbook as an Excel workbook.

In the tables, be sure to note the differences between teams', conferences', and regions' NCAA RPI ranks and their ranks, within the NCAA RPI formula, as strength of schedule contributors to their opponents' ratings.  You also can see the same information for the Balanced RPI.  Also check the the salmon-highlighted columns showing the differences between actual winning percentages and probable winning percentages.  The probable winning percentages are based on current NCAA RPI ratings.

Also, for each of teams, conferences, and regions, these reports show current KPI and Massey ranks so you can compare them to the NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks.

In the Teams table, the color coded columns on the left show, based on past history, the teams that are potential seeds and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament, given their NCAA RPI ranks at this point in the season.

Here are the actual current ranks for conferences:

And here are the current actual ranks for the regions.  Note that at the right end of the table are the distributions of each region's games among the different regions and the proportion of tie games when teams from a region are playing opponents from the same region:

"PREDICTED" END-OF-SEASON RANKS

Here are the predicted end-of-season NCAA RPI  and Balanced RPI ranks for teams.  For an Excel workbook containing these data, use the following link: 2025 RPI Report After Week 9.

The color coded columns on the left show, based on past history, the teams that would be candidates for NCAA Tournament seed pods and at large positions if these were the final NCAA RPI ranks:

Here are the predicted end-of-season ranks for conferences:

And here are the predicted end-of-season ranks for the four geographic regions:

PREDICTED NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKET

I also have used my bracket formation program to show the currently projected NCAA Tournament bracket using the NCAA RPI as compared to what it would be if the Women's Soccer Committee were using the Balanced RPI.  I won't go into a detailed explanation here of how the program works, except to say it is based on the Committee's decision patterns from 2007 to the present and by the end of the season its predictions have been on average within 1 position of the Committee's at large selections.  I believe the current comparison paints a good general picture of the difference between the NCAA RPI and the Balanced RPI.  Remember, the NCAA RPI discriminates against some conferences and regions and in favor of others.  The Balanced RPI eliminates most of the discrimination.

The following table shows how the systems' NCAA Tournament brackets compare.  It has teams arranged by region and then by conference, as I believe this gives the best picture of what happens when the Balanced RPI removes the NCAA RPI's discrimination.  To the right of the table is a key to the entries in the Status columns.

Peruse the table and draw your own conclusions.  I recommend that rather than focusing on specific teams, you focus on the regions and conferences with teams moving up or down in the seeds, in or out of the at large candidate group, and in and out of the at large selections in the shift from the NCAA RPI to the Balanced RPI.