Current Actual RPI Ratings, Ranks, NCAA Tournament Prospects, and Related Information
The following tables show actual RPI ratings and ranks and other information based on games played through Sunday, September 22. The first table is for teams and the second for conferences.
In this week's teams table, there are color coded columns. These show which teams, based on past history, are potential NCAA Tournament seeds and at large selections.
For example, the orange column for #1 seeds shows that historically, the poorest ranked team as of this stage of the season to ultimately receive a #1 seed is the currently ranked #22 team. No team ranked more poorly than #22 has received a #1 seed.
Also, in the column for at large selections, the color coding covers teams ranked #11 through 149. This means that as of this stage of the season, those can be thought of as "bubble" teams for at large selection. They might or might not ultimately get selected. On the other hand, teams ranked #1 through 10, if not automatic qualifiers, can be considered "locks" for at large positions, meaning that historically teams ranked #10 or better as of this stage of the season always have gotten at large positions.
Note: Scroll to the right to see all the columns.
Predicted Team RPI and Balanced RPI Ranks, Plus RPI and Balanced RPI Strength of Schedule Contributor Ranks
The following table for teams and the next one for conferences show predicted ranks based on the actual results of games played through September 22 and predicted results of games not yet played. The predicted results of future games are based on teams' actual RPI ratings from games played through September 22, which makes the predicted results pretty speculative.
Predicted NCAA Tournament Automatic Qualifiers, Disqualified Teams, and At Large Selection Status, All for the Top 57 Teams
The following table has the Top 57 teams in order from the most likely to the least likely to get at large positions in the NCAA Tournament. It uses the Top 57 because in the past, no team ranked more poorly than #57 as gotten an at large position.
No comments:
Post a Comment