I am sorry to be late with this week's report, but I had to spend time figuring out why my and the Chris Henderson/All White Kit ratings and ranks did not match the NCAA ratings and ranks published as of November 3. As it turns out, the culprit is either Duquesne or George Mason, with the wrong outcome for their October 27 game having found its way into the NCAA's RPI data base. The actual result was a 1-1 tie. The score in the data base was a 2-1 George Mason win. This had a ripple effect throughout the ratings and ranks. The NCAA stats staff became aware of this, corrected it, and as of Tuesday morning published corrected RPI ratings and ranks.
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, November 3. The first table is for teams, the second for conferences, and the third for geographic regions. 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 ones for conferences and regions show predicted end-of-season ranks based on the actual results of games played through November 3 and predicted results of games not yet played, including conference tournament games. The predicted results of future games are based on teams' actual RPI ratings from games played through November 3.
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, Seeds, and At Large Selection Status, All for the Top 57 Teams
Below, I show predicted #1 through #8 seeds and at large selections based on the Women's Soccer Committee's historic decision patterns. With one week of regular season play left to go consisting mostly of conference tournaments, there will be some changes from the predictions. Nevertheless, we now are getting close to where things will end up.
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 a series of 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" standard. 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" standard. In the table, I have sorted the Top 7 RPI #1 seed teams in order of the number of yes standards they meet and then in order of the number of no standards.
This shows Mississippi State as 1 clear #1 seed. Duke, North Carolina, and Penn State have profiles the Committee has not seen before (meeting both "yes" and "no" standards), but are possible #1 seeds. Arkansas, Southern California, and Florida State likewise are possible #1 seeds. The following table applies the "tiebreaker" for #1 seeds to the "possible" group. (A "tiebreaker" is a factor that historically has been the best predictor for a particular Committee decision.)
As you can see, Duke, Southern California, and Arkansas score best on the tiebreaker and so join Mississippi State as the predicted #1 seeds.
The candidates for #2 seeds are teams ranked through #14. With the #1 seeds already assigned, this produces the following table:
This shows North Carolina, Wake Forest, and Florida State as clear #2 seeds. Penn State has a profile the Committee has not seen before, but is a possitle #2 seed. There are no other possible #2 seeds. Given that, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Florida State, and Penn State are predicted #2 seeds.
The candidates for #3 seeds are teams ranked through #23. With the #1 and 2 seeds already assigned, this produces the following table:
This shows there are no clear #3 seeds. Notre Dame and Virginia have profiles the Committee has not seen before, but are possible #3 seeds. Iowa, Georgetown, UCLA, South Carolina, and Michigan State likewise are possible #3 seeds. The following table applies the "tiebreaker" for #3 seeds to the "possible" group.
As you can see, Iowa, Michigan State, Notre Dame, and UCLA score best on the tiebreaker and so are the predicted #3 seeds.
The candidates for #4 seeds are teams ranked through #26. With the #1, 2, and 3 seeds already assigned, this produces the following table:
This shows no clear #4 seeds. Virginia, Stanford, and Utah State have profiles the Committee has not seen before, but are possitle #4 seeds. Georgetown, South Carolina, Ohio State, and Texas likewise are possible #4 seeds. The following table applies the "tiebreaker" for #4 seeds to the "possible" group.
As you can see, Stanford, Ohio State, Virginia, and South Carolina score best on the tiebreaker and so are the predicted #4 seeds.
For # 5 through #8 seeds, the candidates are the not already seeded teams ranked #1 through #49. Although the data are limited since we have had those seeds for only a few years, the best indicator of which teams will get those seeds is a combination of teams' RPI ranks and their Top 60 Head to Head results ranks:
Using this table, the #5 seeds are TCU, Utah State, Georgetown, and St. Louis. The #6s are Auburn, Texas, Western Michigan, and BYU. The #7s are Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Rutgers. The #8s are Texas Tech, Xavier, Virginia Tech, and Liberty.
For the remaining At Large selections, the candidates run up to RPI #57, producing the following initial table:
In the NCAA Seed or Selection column, the 5s are the unseeded Automatic Qualifiers.
As the table indicates, Oklahoma State, Georgia, Pepperdine, and Wisconsin are clear At Large teams. This leaves 6 additional spots to fill. West Virginia and Pittsburgh have profiles the Committee has not seen before and are candidates for those spots. Tennessee, LSU, Washington, Kansas, and Colorado also are candidates for those spots. In addition, Massachusetts, Dayton, California, and Connecticut are close, so they may be additional candidates for the open spots if the Committee breaks its historic patterns. The remaining teams are unlikely: Oklahoma, Rice, and Army.
The following table applies the "tiebreaker" for the last at large candidates and also for the close candidates:
Based on the two above tables, the predicted unseeded at large selections go to Oklahoma State, Georgia, Pepperdine, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Pittsburgh, and Washington and either Massachusetts and Dayton if the Committee breaks with past patterns or LSU and Kansas if the Committee does not.
Based on the above, this produces the final compilation of seeds, Automatic Qualifiers, at large selections, and Top 57 teams not getting at large selections. In the NCAA Seed or Selection column, in addition to the seeds and at large selections, the 6s are unseeded at large selections, the 6.5s are the "edge of the bubble" group from which 2 teams will get at large positions with the ones getting them depending on whether the Committee breaks with its historic patterns, and the 7s are Top 57 teams not getting at large positions. And, of course, the Committee could break even more of its historic patterns, so one always must take that possibility into account.
What If the Committee Were Using the Balanced RPI?If the Committee were using the Balanced RPI, which does not have the NCAA RPI's problem of discrimination in relation to conferences and regions, the following teams would drop out of the RPI Top 57:
Fairfield, AQ, drops from NCAA RPI 39 to Balanced RPI 90; Liberty, AQ, 41 to 68; South Florida, AQ, 42 to 66; Massachusetts, 43 to 62; Dayton, 45 to 60; James Madison (AQ as of 11/3), 52 to 67; Army, 56 to 77; and Rice, 57 to 96.
The following teams would move into the Balanced RPI Top 57:
Arizona, 61 to 40; Loyola Marymount, 80 to 47; Baylor, 65 to 49; UC Davis, 76 to 53; Alabama, 85 to 54; Illinois, 101 to 55; Boston College, 71 to 56; and Nebraska, 111 to 57.
It's worth noting that these shifts primarily are teams from weaker conferences moving out of the Top 57 and teams from stronger conferences moving in. In addition, no teams from the West geographic region move out of the Top 57 and three from the West region move in. None of this is surprising given the RPI's discrimination problems.
In terms of actual at large changes, it is likely that Oklahoma State, West Virginia, and one spot from among Kansas, Massachusetts, and Dayton would lose their predicted at large positions and would be replaced by California, Colorado, and Baylor.
