Current Actual RPI Ratings, Ranks, and Related Information
The following tables show actual RPI ratings and ranks and other information based on games played through Sunday, October 6. The first table is for teams and the second for conferences.
As an item of interest, during the non-conference phase of the season, the percentage of tie games was relatively low as compared to the historic percentage of entire season tie games. Now that the conference phase of the season has begun, however, the percentage of tie games is increasing and appears likely to end up in the vicinity of the historic entire season percentage. This suggests that the percentage of tie games tends to be higher for in-conference competition than for non-conference competition. If one thinks of the conferences as groupings of relatively comparable teams and of the non-conference phase as allowing competition among less comparable teams, it makes sense there would be more ties during the conference season.
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 end-of-season ranks based on the actual results of games played through September 29 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 October 6. I consider the current RPI ratings still to be speculative, but they should become better game result predictors each week as the season progresses.
In the table, ARPI 2015 BPs is ranks using the NCAA's 2024 RPI Formula. URPI 50 50 SoS Iteration 15 is using the Balanced RPI formula.
Predicted NCAA Tournament Automatic Qualifiers, Disqualified Teams, and At Large Selection Status, All for the Top 57 Teams
Starting this week, I will show the candidate groups for #1 through #4 seeds and for at large selections, placed in order based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic decision patterns.
The first table below is for potential #1 seeds. The #1 seeds always have come from the teams ranked #1 through 7 in the end-of-season RPI rankings, so the table is limited to the teams predicted to fall in that rank range. The table is based on applying history-based standards to team scores in relation to 118 factors, all of which are related to the NCAA-specified criteria the Committee is required to use in making at large decisions. For each factor, there is a standard that says, if a team met this standard historically, the team always has gotten a #1 seed. I refer to this as a "yes" factor. For most of the factors, there likewise is a standard that says, if a team met this standard historically, it never has gotten a #1 seed. This is a "no" factor. In the table, I have sorted the Top 7 RPI #1 seed teams in order of the number of yes factors they meet and then in order of the number of no factors. For each of the other seed tables and for the at large table, I have followed a similar pattern.
As I said in the preceding paragraph, I use 118 factors for the yes decisions but fewer for the no decisions. In the past, I have used all 118 for both yes and no decisions. I am using fewer for the no decisions due to the NCAA this year having reduced the value of ties from 1/2 a win to 1/3 a win when computing the Winning Percentage portion of the RPI formula. This change will result in almost all teams having lower RPI ratings than they have had in the past. Each of the "no" factors I am not using this year is a factor that incorporates teams' RPI ratings. For example, historically, no team with an RPI rating less than 0.6433 has gotten a #1 seed, so <0.6433 is the standard for a "no" #1 seed decision. This year, however, with ratings as a whole being lower, that standard most likely is too high. I can review and re-set all of the no standards that incorporate RPI ratings, but that is too big and time-consuming a task to do during the season, so it will have to wait until after the season is over. In the meantime, the best approach is simply to not use the no standards that incorporate RPI ratings. I still use, however, all the other no standards including those that incorporate RPI ranks (as distinguished from RPI ratings).
Here is the #1 seed table:
In the table, the 1 Seed Total column shows the number of yes standards a team met. The No 1 Seed Total shows the number of no standards it met. The table suggests that currently, North Carolina and Wake Forest look like sure #1 seeds and Mississippi State looks a strong possibility. After that, it could be any of Duke, Penn State, Arkansas, or Iowa, whose order in the table is not necessarily the order of likely selection.
This is the table for #2 seeds. The historic candidates are teams ranked #1 through 14. The table includes the teams that are candidates for #1 seeds.
This is the table for #3 seeds, with the historic candidate group being teams ranked #23 or better.
This is the table for #3 seeds, with the historic candidate group being teams ranked #26 or better.
The final table is for at large selections, with the historic candidate group being teams ranked #57 or better:
There will be 34 at large teams. One way to look at this table is to count down the list until you get to the 34th team that is not an Automatic Qualifier. That takes you to Wisconsin, with 0 yes and 0 no standards. Since Minnesota, below Wisconsin on the list, also is 0-0, the list suggests that currently the most likely at large teams are all of teams from Georgia and above that are not Automatic Qualifiers, plus all but one of the 0-0 teams from Texas A&M to Minnesota. The one question mark of the teams from Georgia and above is Santa Clara with 2 yes and 3 no standards.
Note: If you expected to see a team on the list and it is not there, it is because the current prediction has the team ending with a rank poorer than #57. Also, as you can see, the current prediction has SMU ending as the #53 RPI team but with a Winning Percentage below 0.500 and thus being disqualified from getting an at large position.
No comments:
Post a Comment