REPORT 20: UPDATE INCORPORATING RESULTS THROUGH SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29

This is my  week eleven report for the 2023 season.

In the first table below, I show teams’ current RPI rankings, including showing teams in the history-based candidate groups as of this point in the season for NCAA Tournament #1 through #4 seeds and at large selections.  (I do not show candidate groups for #6 through #8 seeds, as there is only one year of data for those groups, which I do not believe is enough precedent to establish reliable groups.)  In addition, if you check the Team column, you will see some highlighted teams.  These are teams outside the current RPI Top 57, but inside the Balanced RPI Top 57.  Except for Washington State and Portland, which are in the current RPI candidate group for this week, they are teams that likely will not get at large selection consideration from the Committee due to its use of the current RPI even though, according to the Balanced RPI, they should get consideration.

In the other  three tables, I show, using the actual results of games played through October 22 and simulated results for games not yet played (including simulated conference tournaments):

1.  Teams’ simulated end-of-season ranks using the current NCAA RPI and my Balanced RPI;

2.  Based on the current NCAA RPI, teams in candidate pools for NCAA Tournament #1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds and for at large selections and where they fit within the pools; and

3.  Likely differences in at large selections for the NCAA Tournament if the Women’s Soccer Committee were to use the Balanced RPI rather than the current NCAA RPI.

The background for the information in the three tables is in 2023 Reports 1 through 4.  NOTE: In determining the simulated results of games not yet played, I use teams' current NCAA RPI ratings based on games played through October 29.

Summarizing the likely differences in at large selections for the NCAA Tournament in changing from the current NCAA RPI to the Balanced RPI, derived from the last table below:

At Large Candidate Teams:  Eleven teams that are not at large candidates under the current NCAA RPI are candidates under the Balanced RPI.  Of these, 1 is from the Middle, 0 from the North, 4 from the South, and 6 from the West regions.  Nine are from Power 5 conferences and 2 are not.  One of them, from the West and not from a Power 5 conference, is an Automatic Qualifier.

No Longer Candidate Teams:  Eleven teams that are at large candidates (or Automatic Qualifiers) under the current NCAA RPI are not candidates under the Balanced RPI.  Of these, 2 are from the Middle, 1 from the North, 7 from the South, and 1 from the West regions.  None is from a Power 5 conference, 11 are not.  Of the 11, 5 are Automatic Qualifiers.

Selected Teams: Five teams that either definitely (5 teams) or likely (0 teams) are not at large selections under the current NCAA RPI likely are at large selections under the Balanced RPI.  Of these, 1 is from the Middle, 0 from the North, 1 from the South, and 3 from the West regions.  Four are from Power 5 conferences and 1 is not.

No Longer Selected Teams: Five teams that likely are at large selections under the current NCAA RPI likely are not at large selections under the Balanced RPI.  Of these, 1 is from the Middle, 2 from the North, 2 from the South, and 0 from the West regions.  Two are from Power 5 conferences and 3 are not.

Current RPI Rankings

The first table below shows teams’ current RPI ranks, their strength of schedule contributor ranks, their opponents’ average RPI ranks, and their opponents’ average strength of schedule contributor ranks.  These will help you see the differences between team RPI ranks and strength of schedule contributor ranks -- in an ideal rating system, those ranks should be the same, but under the current NCAA RPI they are not and often are not by a wide margin.

In addition, the table shows the same rank items for my Balanced RPI.

And, on the left, the table shows teams that are potential #1 through #4 seeds and at large selections, at this stage of the season, based on Committee decisions since 2007.  The poorest ranked team in any candidate group is the poorest ranked team as of the current week that the Committee gave a positive decision to in its end of season decision process.

The second table shows average ranks for conferences, again allowing comparisons of average RPI ranks and average strength of schedule contributor ranks.  The third table is similar, but is for geographic regions.

Simulated End-of-Season Ranks

(ARPI 2015 BPs is the current NCAA RPI; URPI 50 50 SoS Iteration 15 is the Balanced RPI)

Simulated NCAA Tournament Seed and At Large Selection Candidate Pools (based on current NCAA RPI)

NOTE; Unless otherwise noted, in each table I will show the number of teams that as of the end of the season will be in the historic candidate group for the particular decision.

At Large (showing Top 57 teams)

#1 Seeds (showing Top 7 teams), most of which have significant negatives in their profiles, by historic standards:

#2 Seeds (showing Top 14 teams):

#3 Seeds (showing Top 23 teams):

#4 Seeds (showing Top 26 teams):

Simulated NCAA Tournament At Large Selections Using Current NCAA RPI As Compared To Balanced RPI