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.