2026 ARTICLE 15: ACTUAL CURRENT RANKINGS AND OTHER DATA AFTER WEEK 7

This Article 15 provides current NCAA RPI, KPI, Balanced RPI, and Massey rankings based on the actual results of games played through Week 7 (through September 27) of the season, for teams, conferences, and regions.

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that contains all the information:

2026 RPI Report Actual Results Only as of 9.27.2026

To download the 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 drop down menu, click on Microsoft Excel (.xlsx).  This will download the Excel workbook.

The first page of the workbook is for Teams, the second for Conferences, and the third for Regions.  The data so far are based mostly on non-conference games, as we're now early in the conference season.  I consider these data very preliminary and expect significant changes over the remainder of the season, particularly in reation to how conferences and regions compare to each other.

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 still are large and show how unreliable the current rankings are, so far as how the NCAA Tournament bracket will end up is concerned.

As with Article 14 on the full season simulated rankings, starting this week, each week I'll highlight some data from the "actual games only" workbook that may be helpful to those interested in how the NCAA RPI works.  For this week, I'll cover some data related to regions.

As indicated in Article 13, I have organized the conferences into regions based on their historic non-conference scheduling patterns:

Autonomy (i.e., Power 4): ACC, Big Ten, Big Twelve, SEC

Middle: Horizon, MidAmerican, Missouri Valley, Ohio Valley, Summit

MidEast: Atlantic Ten, Big East, Colonial (now Coastal), Ivy

North: America East, Metro Atlantic, Northeast, Patriot

South: American, Southland, Southwestern, Sun Belt

Southeast: Atlantic Sun, Big South, Conference USA, Southern, United

West: Big Sky, Big West, Mountain West, Pac Twelve, West Coast

The following table is from the linked workbook's Regions page:

As you can see, to date teams from the Mideast region, in games against other teams from the region, have played a very high proportion of ties.  On the other hand, teams from the North have played a very low number.  In relation to the 2024 change in the NCAA RPI's Winning Percentage formula, going from treating a tie as half a win to a third of a win, this means the change has affected teams from the Mideast region the most negatively and teams from the North region the most positively.  If you compare this table to the similar table for the full season simulation in Article 14, you will see that the simulation projects that the spread in the above table will narrow.  That will be something to watch for to see if it does.

2026 ARTICLE 14: SIMULATED END-OF-SEASON RANKINGS AND NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKETS FOLLOWING WEEK 7

This article is based on the actual results of games played through Week 7 (ending September 27) 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.

Here is a link to an Excel workbook with the simulated full-season NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks -- and other important information -- for teams, conferences, and regions.

RPI Report as of 9.27.2026

2026 Article 8 has an explanation of the method I use to generate the simulated ranks and of the key information in the workbook.  Article 8 also has instructions on the best way to download 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 results.  The second data row, 2026 Team 1 Predicted Results, applies teams' simulated end-of-season RPI ratings to games actually played through September 27, to determine what Team 1's win, loss, and tie percentages should be if those ratings are correct.  The third data row then shows the difference between those predicted percentages and the actual percentages.  Thus, for example, the actual winning percentage for all Team 1s was 48.8%.  According to teams' end-of-season simulated ratings, the winning percentage should have been 50.0%.  The Actual Less Predicted Results row shows the difference between predicted and actual was -1.187%.

The last three 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 those ratings are correct.

As you can see, the simulation's current ratings are a 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.

Starting this week, each week I'll highlight here some data from the workbook that may be helpful to those interested in how the NCAA RPI works.  For this week, I'll cover some data related to regions.

I assign conferences to regions based on their scheduling patterns, i.e., Against which other conferences, over the years, have their teams tended to play their non-conference games?  This has led me to organize the conferences into the following regions:

Autonomy (i.e., Power 4): ACC, Big Ten, Big Twelve, SEC

Middle: Horizon, MidAmerican, Missouri Valley, Ohio Valley, Summit

MidEast: Atlantic Ten, Big East, Colonial (now Coastal), Ivy

North: America East, Metro Atlantic, Northeast, Patriot

South: American, Southland, Southwestern, Sun Belt

Southeast: Atlantic Sun, Big South, Conference USA, Southern, United

West: Big Sky, Big West, Mountain West, Pac Twelve, West Coast

The following table is from the linked workbook's Regions page:

This table shows the proportion of games each region's teams play against opponents from their own region and also against teams from each other region.  Among other things, this allows you to see how much "linkage" there is between regions.  Looking at the West region, as an extreme example, its teams play 85.1% of their games "in region" and 7.7% of their games against Autonomy teams, for a total of 92.8% of their games within those 2 regions.  That leaves 7.2% of their games spread among teams from the other regions.  That means each of the West teams on average plays a little over 1 game per year against opponents from all the other non-Autonomy regions combined.  In other words, the West region plays almost in isolation from the other regions except for the Autonomy region.

The next table shows the proportions of in-region ties:

Prior to 2024, the NCAA RPI formula for a team's Winning Percentage counted a tie as half a win.  In 2024, the Women's Soccer Committee changed this to a third of a win, thus reducing the value of a tie.  This table shows, for this year, who is likely to be hurt by and who benefits from this change.  As you can see, the MidEast teams are the most likely to be hurt and the North teams are most likely to benefit.

The next table is about the NCAA RPI's basic defect, from a regional perspective:

As I have shown elsewhere, how the NCAA RPI evaluates a team overall is different than how it evaluates that team when it comes to that team's contribution to an opponent's strength of schedule.  This leads to teams' NCAA RPI ranks being different than their NCAA RPI ranks as strength of schedule contributors.  In the above table, the first highlighted column shows the region's teams' NCAA RPI ranks less their NCAA RPI ranks as strength of schedule contributors.  A negative number means the NCAA RPI strength of schedule contributor rank is poorer than the overall NCAA RPI rank.  A postive number means it is better.

Using the Autonomy region as an example, its teams' NCAA RPI strength of schedule contributor ranks on average are 29.4 positions poorer than their actual NCAA RPI ranks.  In other words, if you play an Autonomy opponent, on average your own RPI is going to get credit for playing a signifcantly weaker opponent than the NCAA RPI itself says you should be getting.  Since Autonomy teams mostly play other Autonomy teams, this means that the NCAA formula on average undervalues those teams' strengths of schedule.

The table thus shows which regions benefit from and which are hurt by this NCAA formula defect.

The purpose of the Balanced RPI is to fix this NCAA RPI formula defect.  As the third column in the table shows, for all regions, there is almost no difference between how the Balanced RPI ranks regions' teams overall and how it ranks them as strength of schedule contributors.  Thus the Balanced RPI data in the workbook's Regions page show what happens when you eliminate the NCAA RPI's defect.  The following table shows what happens, from a regions perspective:

As you can see, Autonomy teams' average ranks suffer the most from the NCAA RPI defect, averaging 24 positions poorer than they should be as indicated by the Balanced RPI.  Next come teams from the West, averaging 18 positions poorer; and then the MidEast averaging 3 positions poorer.  All the other regions' teams, on average, are ranked better than they should be.

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.  Following those is a table showing how the two compare. (NOTE: For conference tournaments, I have used simulated conference tournaments based on the NCAA RPI.)  The information above, particularly the table just above, provides context for understanding what you will see in the comparison table.

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 are preliminary and will evolve throughout the season, so 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.  In relation to the regions data in the first part of this report, the comparison shows the effects of the NCAA RPI's defect in relation to strength of schedule and what happens if you eliminate the defect.

2026 ARTICLE 13: ACTUAL CURRENT RANKINGS AND OTHER DATA AFTER WEEK 6

This Article 13 provides current NCAA RPI, KPI, Balanced RPI, and Massey rankings based on the actual results of games played through Week 6 (through September 20) of the season, for teams, conferences, and regions.

Here is a link to an Excel workbook that contains all the information:

2026 RPI Report Actual Results Only as of 9.20.2026

To download the 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 drop down menu, click on Microsoft Excel (.xlsx).  This will download the Excel workbook.

The first page of the workbook is for Teams, the second for Conferences, and the third for Regions.  The data so far are based almost entirely on non-conference games.  A way to think about the data at this point in the season is that they are most reliable in showing how the regions stack up against each other, are reasonably reliable in showing how the conferences stack up, and are not very reliable in showing how the individual teams stack up.  How the individual teams stack up will be sorted out during conference play.

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.  As the color coding shows, teams with NCAA RPI ranks of #65 or better are potential #1 or #2 seeds.  Teams ranked #192 or better are potential candidates for all other seeds and for at large selections.  Only the top 5 teams appear assured of at large selections, which means the current at large bubble is teams ranked #6 through #192.  These numbers show how unreliable the current rankings are, so far as how the NCAA Tournament bracket will end up is concerned.

Mostly for illustration purposes, here are the current NCAA RPI Top 65 teams -- i.e., the potential #1 and #2 NCAA Tournament seeds, with some comments below:

Comment 1:  You may notice that some of the Balanced RPI ranks for teams are significantly different than the other systems' ranks.  The NCAA RPI formula, at this point in the season, weights teams' winning percentages at 42.9% and their opponents' strength of schedule at 57.1%.  This is different than what its weights will be at the end of the season, which will be approximately 50.0% and 50.0%.  The Balanced RPI, on the other hand, currently weights teams' winning percentages at 50.0% and their strength of schedule at 50.0% and will do so throughout the season.  (The systems calculate strength of schedule differently.)  Most of the significant differences are accounted for by the NCAA RPI's current de-emphasis on teams' winning perentages.

Comment 2:  Massey's rating formulas take into consideration teams' ratings over a number of past years.  As the season progresses, the weight of prior years' ratings decreases.  This accounts for some of the differences between his ratings and the other systems' ratings.

Comment 3:  Although there will be significant differences among the rating systems at the end of the season, particularly between the NCAA RPI and KPI systems on the one hand and the Balanced RPI and Massey on the other, the differences are likely to be significantly narrower than what you see today.

Actual Less Predicted Winning Percentages

This year, I have added data for each of teams, conferences, and regions, showing their actual winning percentages as compared to their expected winning percentages based on their current NCAA RPI ratings.  For Teams, these data are in the far right columns.

Using currently #1 rated Michigan State as an example, its Actual Winning Percentage so far is 74.1%.  Based on its current NCAA RPI rating and the current ratings of its opponents, however, its Expected Winning Percentage Based on NCAA RPI Rating is 80.8%.  The difference is -6.7%.

Compare this to North Carolina.  Its Actual Winning Percentage is 90.0%, its Expected Winning Percentage Based on its NCAA RPI Rating is 75.9%, and its difference is 14.1%.

These numbers suggest that currently, the NCAA RPI is overrating Michigan State and underrating North Carolina.

For Conferences, the Actual less Expected numbers are in column H and how conferences rank in terms of this difference is in column I.  For example, using the ACC as an example, the difference between its teams' Actual and Expected winning percentages is 4.5%, meaning the conference overall is underrated.  And, it is the 6th most underrated conference.

For Regions, the numbers likewise are in columns H and I.  Using the Autonomy region (all Power 4 teams) as an example, the difference between its teams' Actual and Expected winning percentages is 7.7% and it is the most underrated region.

Percentage of In-Region Ties

Of particular interest this week, column Q on the Regions page shows the proportion of each region's in-region games that are ties.  This likely is a measure of in-region parity.  Most notably, the MidEast region has had 30.2% of its in-region games to date end as ties.  That is extremely high, especially in relation to an historic norm around 21%.  This is significant because the NCAA in 2024 changed its RPI Winning Percentage formula to treat ties as only 1/3 of a win rather than the 1/2 of a win it had used in previous years.  As the percentage of in-region ties numbers show, this is having a disproportionate negative impact on MidEast region teams this year.

The MidEast region consists of teams from the Atlantic Ten, Big East, and Colonial (now Coastal) conferences and the Ivy League.

2026 ARTICLE 12: SIMULATED END-OF-SEASON RANKINGS AND NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKETS FOLLOWING WEEK 6

This week I begin posting two articles a week.  This Article 12 is based on my simulated end-of-season rankings.  Article 13 is based only on teams' actual games played through Week 6 and includes current NCAA RPI, Balanced RPI, KPI, and Massey ranks and other information.

------------

Here is a link to an Excel workbook with simulated full-season NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks -- and other important information -- for teams, conferences, and regions.  The ranks are based on the actual results of games played through Week 6 (ending Sunday, September 20) and simulated results of games not yet played.

RPI Report as of 9.20.2026

2026 Article 8 has an explanation of the method I use to generate the simulated ranks and of the key information in the workbook.  Article 8 also has instructions on the best way to download 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 second data row in the table, 2026 Team 1 Predicted Results, applies teams' simulated end-of-season RPI ratings to games actually played through September 20, to determine what Team 1's win, loss, and tie percentages should be if those ratings are correct.  The third data row then shows the difference between those predicted percentages and the actual percentages.  Thus, for example, the actual winning percentage for all Team 1s was 49.1%.  According to teams' end-of-season simulated ratings, the winning percentage should have been 50.3%.  The Actual Less Predicted Results row shows the difference between predicted and actual was -1.272%.

The last three 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 those ratings are correct..

As you can see, the simulation's current ratings are a 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 use of 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.

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.  Following those 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 in region order and in conference order 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:  The Comparison table is preliminary, so 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.  If you review carefully the data in the above linked RPI report, you will see that the NCAA RPI has discriminatory patterns in relation to regions and conferences, whereas the Balanced RPI eliminates these patterns.  Thus the table below shows the effect of eliminating the NCAA RPI's discriminatory patterns.

2026 ARTICLE 11: SIMULATED END-OF-SEASON RANKINGS AND NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKETS FOLLOWING WEEK 5

Here is a link to an Excel workbook with simulated full-season NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks -- and other important information -- for teams, conferences, and regions.  The ranks are based on the actual results of games played through Sunday, September 13, and simulated results of games not yet played.

RPI Report as of 9.13.2026

2026 Article 8 has an explanation of the method I use to generate the simulated ranks and of the key information in the workbook.  Article 8 also has instructions on the best way to download 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 table indicates that although individual teams' results may not be consistent with the ratings used for predictions, results of all the teams together are reasonably consistent with those ratings.  In other words, missed single game predictions tend to even out over the number of games already actually played.

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.  Following those 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 in region order and in conference order 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.

In reviewing the table, it may help to consider it together with the weekly RPI report linked in the first paragraph of this article.  If you review the data in that report, particularly the details of the data for conferences and regions -- the Autonomy region, in particular -- you will see that the NCAA RPI discriminates against the Autonomy conferences because of the way it measures Strength of Schedule.  The essence of the Balanced RPI is that it fixes this problem.  Thus the above table shows the effects of the discrimination and the effects of fixing it.

NOTE:  The Comparison tables are very preliminary, so it is not the details that are important but rather the overall impression in terms of the effects of the NCAA RPI's discrimination.  As a check against assigning too much weight to the details:

In 2025, the actual Top 57 in the end-of-season NCAA RPI rankings included 37 Autonomy teams and 20 teams from other conferences.  In 2024, the numbers were 39 and 18; in 2023, 34 and 23; and in 2022, 40 and 17.  Thus one could reasonably expect the number of Autonomy teams in the Top 57 to be between 34 and 40 and the number of other conference teams to be between 17 and 23.

In this week's 2026 projection, the NCAA RPI Top 57 include 32 Automony teams and 25 teams from other conferences.  Thus the number of Autonomy teams is below the range of past distributions.

And, in the above 2026 projection, the Balanced RPI Top 57 include 41 Autonomy teams and 16 teams from other conferences.  Thus the number of Autonomy teams is above the range of past distributions.

Comparing the NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI projected brackets, the NCAA RPI excludes from at large consideration 9 autonomy teams that the Balanced RPI says should be considered and instead substitutes for consideration 9 teams from other conferences.  In terms of at large selections, the projections indicate that under the NCAA RPI, 4 fewer Autonomy teams would receive at large selections than under the Balanced RPI.  Although I think the numbers may shrink some at the end of the season, I also think this is an indicator of the effect of the NCAA's persistence in using the NCAA RPI. 

2026 ARTICLE 10: SIMULATED END-OF-SEASON RANKINGS AND NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKETS FOLLOWING WEEK 4

Here is a link to an Excel workbook with simulated full-season NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks -- and other important information -- for teams, conferences, and regions.  The ranks are based on the actual results of games played through Sunday, September 6, and simulated results of games not yet played.

 2026 RPI Report as of 9.6.2026

2026 Article 8 has an explanation of the method I use to generate the simulated ranks and of the key information in the workbook.  Article 8 also has instructions on the best way to download 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 table indicates that although individual teams' results may not be consistent with the ratings used for predictions, results of all the teams together are reasonably consistent with those ratings.  In other words, missed single game predictions tend to even out over the number of games already actually played.  Perhaps of significance, although it may be too early to tell, there appears to be a little higher proportion of wins and lower proportion of ties than in the past.  It is possible, however, that this will change as conference play begins.

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.  Following those 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 in conference order so you can see how a change to the Balanced RPI would affect 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.

In reviewing the table, it may help to consider it together with the weekly RPI report linked in the first paragraph of this article.  If you review the data in that report, particularly the details of the data for conferences and regions -- the Autonomy region, in particular -- you will see that the NCAA RPI discriminates against the Autonomy conferences because of the way it measures Strength of Schedule.  The essence of the Balanced RPI is that it fixes this problem.  Thus the above table shows the effects of the discrimination and the effects of fixing it.

NOTE:  The Comparison tables are very preliminary, so it is not the details that are important but rather the overall impression in terms of the effects of the NCAA RPI's discrimination.  As a check against assigning too much weight to the details:

In 2025, the actual Top 57 in the end-of-season NCAA RPI rankings included 37 Autonomy teams and 20 teams from other conferences.  In 2024, the numbers were 39 and 18; in 2023, 34 and 23; and in 2022, 40 and 17.  Thus one could reasonably expect the number of Autonomy teams in the Top 57 to be between 34 and 40 and the number of other conference teams to be between 17 and 23.

In this week's 2026 projection, the NCAA RPI Top 57 include 35 Automony teams and 22 teams from other conferences.  Thus this is in the range of past distributions.

And, in the above 2026 projection, the Balanced RPI Top 57 include 45 Autonomy teams and 12 teams from other conferences.

Comparing the NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI projected brackets, the NCAA RPI excludes from at large consideration 10 autonomy teams that the Balanced RPI says should be considered and instead substitutes for consideration 10 teams from other conferences.  Although I think the number will shrink some at the end of the season, I also think this is an indicator of the effect of the NCAA's persistence in using the NCAA RPI. 

2026 ARTICLE 9: SIMULATED FULL SEASON RANKINGS AND PROJECTED NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKETS (NCAA RPI-BASED AND BALANCED RPI-BASED) FOLLOWING WEEK 3

SIMULATED FULL SEASON RANKINGS

Here is a link to an Excel workbook with simulated full-season NCAA RPI and Balanced RPI ranks -- and other important information -- for teams, conferences, and regions.  The ranks are based on the actual results of games played through Sunday, August 30, and simulated results of games not yet played.

 2026 RPI Report as of 8.30.2026.

2026 Article 8 has an explanation of the method I use to generate the simulated ranks and of the key information in the workbook.  Article 8 also has instructions on the best way to download 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 table indicates that although individual teams' results may not be consistent with the ratings used for predictions, results of all the teams together are almost exactly consistent with those ratings.  In other words, missed single game predictions even out over the number of games already actually played.

SIMULATED NCAA TOURNAMENT BRACKETS USING THE NCAA RPI AND USING THE BALANCED RPI

New this year, I have done some programming so that my Balanced RPI ratings have a range and value levels that match the range and value levels of the NCAA RPI ratings.  I have done this so that the Balanced RPI ratings would look to the Women's Soccer Committee just like the NCAA RPI ratings look, if the Committee were to use the Balanced RPI ratings as a basis for its NCAA Tournament seeds and at large selections.

My bracket formation program uses teams' NCAA RPI ratings and other inputs, and the Committee's historic decision patterns related to the ratings and other inputs, to produce predicted NCAA Tournament seeds and at large selections.  The program's seeds and at large selections come very close to matching the Committee's decisions.  Since my Balanced RPI ratings and other inputs would look to the Committee just like those using the NCAA RPI, it is reasonable to believe that the bracket formation program would be just as good at matching the Committee's decisions if the Committee were using the Balanced RPI.

With that in mind, here are currently simulated brackets, first based on the NCAA RPI and then based on the Balanced RPI.  Following those 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 following 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 in conference order so you can see how a change to the Balanced RPI would affect conferences' teams.

In the table, if the NCAA Tournament and Balanced Treatment cells are white, the two rating systems result in the same Committee decision for the team.  If the NCAA Treatment cell is green and the Balanced Treatment cell is salmon, the NCAA RPI produces a better treatment for the team than the Balanced RPI.  Conversely, if the NCAA Treatment column is salmon and the Balanced Treatment column is green, the Balanced RPI produces a better treatment.

In reviewing the table, it may help to consider it together with the weekly RPI report linked in the first paragraph of this article.  If you review the data in that report, particularly the details of the data for conferences and regions -- the Autonomy region, in particular -- you will see that the NCAA RPI discriminates against the Autonomy conferences because of the way it measures Strength of Schedule.  The essence of the Balanced RPI is that it fixes this problem.  Thus the above table shows the effects of the discrimination and the effects of fixing it.

NOTE:  The Comparison tables are very preliminary, so it is not the details that are important but rather the overall impression in terms of the effects of the NCAA RPI's discrimination.  As a check against assigning too much weight to the details:

In 2025, the Top 57 in the end-of-season NCAA RPI rankings included 37 Autonomy teams and 20 teams from other conferences.  In 2024, the numbers were 39 and 18; in 2023, 34 and 23; and in 2022, 40 and 17.  Thus one could reasonably expect the number of Autonomy teams in the Top 57 to be between 34 and 40 and the number of other conference teams to be between 17 and 23.

In the above 2026 projection, the NCAA RPI Top 57 include 32 Automony teams and 25 teams from other conferences.  Thus this probably understates what the final number of Autonomy teams will be and overstates the number of other conference teams, so far as the NCAA RPI is concerned.

And, in the above 2026 projection, the Balanced RPI Top 57 include 44 Autonomy teams and 13 teams from other conferences.