NCAA Tournament Bracket: Did an NCAA Data Error Affect the Committee's Decisions?

One of my big concerns, the last week of the season before the NCAA Tournament, is that the NCAA will end up with a data error that affects, in a significant way, the "Selection" reports the NCAA staff provides to the Women's Soccer Committee.  These reports are the primary resource the Committee has when it is making its seeding and at large selection decisions.  It's a concern to me because the NCAA does not publish these reports as soon as they have entered the final games data into their system.  Rather, they publish them a few days after the Committee has made its Tournament decisions.  Thus there's no way for anyone to identify any data errors and give the staff a chance to correct the reports before the Committee has made its decisions, or at least tip the Committee off as to what the error is and of what its effects are.

On reviewing the NCAA's just-released reports -- two days after the Committee made its decisions -- it turns out there was such an error.

The error itself may seem inconsequential, on first glance.  A SWAC semi-final tournament game, between Howard and Arkansas Pine Bluff, got reported into the NCAA's system as a 3-1 win by Arkansas Pine Bluff.  In fact, the game was a 0-0 tie, with Arkansas Pine Bluff advancing on Kicks From the Mark.  As a result of the error, the NCAA's data show Arkansas Pine Bluff with a record of 9-7-1 (0.5588), rather than the correct 8-7-2 (0.5294).  They show Howard with a record of 13-5-2 (0.7000), rather than the correct 13-4-3 (0.7250).  What this means, in RPI terms, is that Arkansas Pine Bluff's opponents got more strength of schedule credit than they should have; and Howard's opponents got less.  And this effect rippled through the two teams' opponents' opponents' ratings.

So, whom did these teams play, outside their SWAC games?

• Arkansas Pine Bluff played Oral Roberts, Central Arkansas, UALR, and, Oklahoma State.
• Howard played Cleveland State, Radford, Mt. St. Mary's , Longwood, George Mason, Princeton, Robert Morris, VMI, and Navy.

And what effect did the data error have on the ARPI ratings and rankings of key teams?  What follows shows, in the middle, an ARPI rank.  On the left is the team the NCAA, with its data error, gave that rank.  On the right is the team the correct data would have given that rank.

Notre Dame  8  Connecticut

Connecticut  9  Notre Dame

The Committee gave Notre Dame a #2 seed and Connecticut no seed.  Question:  With the correct data, would the Committee have done the seeding differently?  Specifically, would it have seeded Connecticut and/or given Notre Dame a lower seed.

Oklahoma  12  Virginia

Virginia  13  Oklahoma  12

The Committee gave Virginia a #3 seed and Oklahoma no seed.  The correct rankings would not have changed this.

Florida State  15  Duke

Duke  16  Auburn

Auburn  17  Florida State

The Committee gave Florida State and Duke #3 seeds and Auburn a #4 seed.  Question:  With the correct data, would the Committee have done the seeding differently?  Specifically, would it have seeded Auburn ahead of Florida State?

Marquette  24  Ohio State

Ohio State  25  Marquette

This ranking error is inconsequential.  Both were at large selections.

Wisconsin  35  Kent State

Kent State  36  Wisconsin

This ranking error is inconsequential.  Wisconsin got an at large selection and Kent State was an Automatic Qualifier.

Missouri  43  South Alabama

South Alabama  44  Missouri

This ranking error is inconsequential.  Missouri got an at large selection and South Alabama was an Automatic Qualifier.

Loyola Marymount  51  Ball State

Ball State  52  Loyola Marymount

This ranking error is inconsequential.  Neither team got an at large selection.

DePaul  53  UCF

Northeastern 54  DePaul

UCF  55 Oklahoma State

Oklahoma State  56  Northeastern

Northeastern was an Automatic Qualifier.  DePaul and UCF did not get at large selections.  Oklahoma got an at large selection.  In my opinion, it's very unlikely that UCF's moving up two positions would have made a difference.  Thus it's most likely that this ranking error was inconsequential.

Thus overall, the data error may have had an effect on seeds.  We'll never know.  It seems very unlikely it had an effect on at large selections.  Nevertheless, sooner or later, an error like this will have an effect.  The NCAA has had data errors in the past, at one of least might have been significant, affecting #1 seeds.  It would be wise for the NCAA to develop a system for vetting its final data.  Otherwise, sooner or later the NCAA is going to be in a very embarrassing position.

2016 NCAA Tournament Bracket: Texas A&M and Oklahoma State "In" and DePaul and Iowa State "Out" -- Why?

I promised I would take a look at this question.

In the bracket simulation my computer produced, it had Iowa State and Oklahoma State "in" and DePaul and Texas A&M "out."  Here's how they came out in terms of meeting "in" and "out" standards.  (If you don't know what I mean by "standards," read the second preceding post about Princeton where I give an explanation.)  Here's how these four teams came out on the standards in general:

Iowa State:  met 4 "yes" standards; and no "no" standards

Oklahoma State:  met 5 "yes" standards; and 5 "no" standards

DePaul:  met 2 "yes" standards; and 11 "no" standards

Texas A&M:  met no "yes" standards; and 3 "no" standards

Based on this, the obvious computer choice was Iowa State "in" and Texas A&M "out."  This left a decision between Oklahoma State and DePaul, when looking at these four teams.  Both of these teams, with some "yes" and some "no" standards, presented profiles the Committee hasn't seen over the last 9 years.  My approach with teams like this is that the team with best "yes" to "no" comparison gets the selection, so as between Oklahoma State and DePaul, the decision went to Oklahoma State.   But, what underlies those numbers?

Here are the teams' "profiles."  For a description of what the non-obvious factor titles are referring to, again go to the second preceding post about Princeton.

Factor	Iowa State	Oklahoma State	DePaul	Texas A&M
ARPI	0.5789	0.5709	0.5721	0.5702
ARPI Rank	48	56	54	57
ANCRPI	0.5899	0.5897	0.5156	0.6085
ANCRPI Rank	46	47	130	29
Top 60 Results Score	548	144	7200	365
Top 60 Results Rank	35	41	23	40
Conference Standing	6	6	2.5	6.75
Conference ARPI	0.6010	0.6010	0.5492	0.5754
Conference ARPI Rank	1	1	6	4
Top 60 Head to Head Results Score	-1.00	-0.60	-0.60	-0.71
Common Opponent Results Score	-3.68	-4.70	-3.32	-4.35
Common Opponent Results Rank	55	59	51	57
Last 8 Games (Season Poor Results) Score	-8	-8	-12	-17

With those team profiles in mind, here are the "yes" and "no" standards the teams met:

Iowa State.  4 "yes" standards; and no "no" standards:

"Yes" standards:

Conference Standing <=6, together with Conference ARPI >=.5868

Conference Standing <=6.25, together with Conference ARPI >=.5930

Conference Standing <=6.75, together with Conference ARPI >=.5971

Conference Standing <= 6.75, together with Conference ARPI rank = 1

You'll note that the first three "yes" standards involve the same two factors.  What this means is that Iowa State met this paired factor "yes" standard by a significant margin.

Essentially, over the last 9 years, every team that had Iowa State's conference standing, conference ARPI, and conference rank profile has gotten an at large position in the Tournament.  Since Iowa State meets no "no" standards, the Committee's decision not to give Iowa State an at large selection was a break from past precedent.  It's possible that the Committee considered the size of the Big 12 conference -- 9 teams -- and felt that a 6th place finish was not sufficient to justify an at large selection, even if a 6.75 place finish would be sufficient for a team from a larger conference.  But see Oklahoma State.

And, it's worth noting that during Big 12 conference play, Iowa State beat Oklahoma State @ Oklahoma State.

Oklahoma State.  5 "yes" standards; and 5 "no" standards:

"Yes" standards:

Conference Standing <=6, together with Conference ARPI >=.5868

Conference Standing <=6.25, together with Conference ARPI >=.5930

Conference Standing <=6.75, together with Conference ARPI >=.5971

Conference Standing <= 6.75, together with Conference ARPI rank = 1

Conference ARPI rank = 1, together with Head to Head Results score >=-0.77

The first four of these match the four "yes" standards for Iowa State.  Iowa State and Oklahoma State were tied for 6th in the conference standings.  (For conference standings, my system averages the regular season standings with the conference tournament finishing position standings.)  With the two teams being tied, the Committee conceivably could have decided it would treat one team as the 5th in the 9-team Big 12 and the other as the 6th (they split the 5 and 6 positions in the regular season and went out in the Big 12 tournament quarterfinals).  And, whereas they may have felt the 6th place team was too far down in the ranks of a 9 teams conference for an at large selection, they might also have felt the 5th place team was high enough.

On the last of the "yes" standards, Oklahoma State's head to head results against Top 60 teams were better than Iowa State's.  The difference, however, was only slight:  Oklahoma State was 2-6-2 and Iowa State was 2-6-1.  This could have given the Committee a very slight basis for preferring Oklahoma State over Iowa State.

"No" standards:

ARPI Rank >=55, ANCRPI Rank >=31

ARPI Rank >=48, Top 50 Results score <=172

ARPI Rank >=55, Top 50 Results score <=380

ARPI Rank >=51, Top 50 Results Rank >=41

ARPI Rank >=55, Head to Head Results score <=-0.43

All of these standards indicate that given Oklahoma State's ARPI rank of #56, its team profile (apart from conference standing, conference rank, and Head to Head Results score combined with conference rank) historically would have been insufficient for an at large selection.

DePaul.  2 "yes" standards; and 11 "no" standards:

"Yes" standards:

Conference Standing <=2.5, Conference ARPI >=.5486

Conference Standing <=2.75, Conference Rank <=6

It's important to note that DePaul played #7 ARPI ranked and NCAA Tournament #2 seed Georgetown twice, winning the first time and tieing the second.  Before last year, the value of these results under the Top 60 Results factor might have been enough to secure DePaul an at large position.  Last year, however, the Committee's decisions on some teams meant that I had to eliminate some of the standards for "yes" decisions based on Top 60 Results.  In any event, based on the current standards (consistent with all decisions over the last 9 years), DePaul's results over Georgetown were not sufficient to meet any Top 60 Results standard for a "yes" at large selection decision.

"No" standards:

ANCRPI Rank >=129

ARPI Rank >=47, ANCRPI Rank >=115

ARPI Rank >=48, ANCRPI Rank >=87

ARPI Rank >=50, ANCRPI Rank >=78

ARPI Rank >=54, ANCRPI Rank >=76

ANCRPI Rank >=105, Top 60 Results Rank >=20

ANCRPI Rank >=102, Conference Standing >=2.5

ANCRPI Rank >=113, Conference Standing >=2.25

ANCRPI Rank >=102, Conference Rank >=6

ANCRPI Rank >=105, Conference Rank >=5

ANCRPI Rank >=91, Head to Head Results Score <=-0.40

With DePaul's Non-Conference ARPI Rank of 130, DePaul did not come close to having an ANCRPI Rank sufficient to meet the historic standards for an at large selection.  What this suggests, pretty clearly to me, is that from the Committee's perspective DePaul was done in by its poor non-conference results, notwithstanding its good results with Georgetown and its standing within the Big East.

Texas A&M.  0 "yes" standards; and 3 "no standards":

"No" standards:

ARPI <=0.5704

ARPI Rank >=55, Top 60 Results Score <=380

ARPI Rank >=55, Head to Head Results Score <=-0.43

It's important to note here that Texas A&M was close to avoiding these "no" standards, with its ARPI of 0.5702, its Top 60 Results Score of 365, and its Head to Head Results Score of -0.71.  Since Texas A&M got an at large selection, what this means is that once the dust clears I'll need to adjust my system's standards so that the above 0.5704 is reduced below 0.5702; the 380 is reduced below 365; and the -0.43 is reduced below -0.71.  Based on my experience, none of these is a significant adjustment.  Thus another way to look at Texas A&M would be as a team that meets no "yes" standards and likewise meets no "no" standards.  If that were the case, I would have had them in the same boat as Oklahoma State, with its 5 "yes" standards and 5 "no" standards (i.e., "yes" and "no" balancing out).  And, in that circumstance, one could consider that Texas A&M's 6.75 (top half) finish in the SEC with its 14 teams was a better finish than Oklahoma State's 6 (bottom half) finish in the Big 12 with its 9 teams.  This would be particularly true if the Committee relied on the Non-Conference Adjusted RPI in evaluating conference strength:

1  Pac 12  0.6077
2  Big 12  0.6051
3  ACC  0.6026
4  SEC  0.6005

This is part of the information the Committee receives.  They well might have referred to it, as the NCAA staff has suggested that the rationale for having the ANCRPI is that it gives a better picture of conference strength.  Based on my experience, these four average conference ANCRPIs are quite close, enough so to say that they indicate the four conferences are pretty much equal in average strength.  The Committee certainly may have felt that way.

My Opinion.  Based on all of the above, I think it's pretty clear that the Committee left DePaul "out" because of its very poor Adjusted Non-Conference RPI rank, which was far below the ANCRPI ranks of teams getting at large selections over the last 9 years.  People may disagree on that decision, but I believe it was a decision well within the Committee's discretion.

I also believe the Committee's decision on Texas A&M is defensible, with the Committee concluding (1) although it had no significant positives, it also had no significant negatives and (2) its finishing position in the SEC was better than the finishing positions of Iowa State and Oklahoma State in the Big 12, in relation to conference size.

As between Iowa State and Oklahoma State, however, I find it hard to find a good Committee rationale for selecting Oklahoma State.  Yes, the two were very close, but Iowa State looks like the choice more consistent with the criteria, to me.  I wouldn't say, however, that this was a major error by the Committee, rather a minor error and not something to be outraged about (unless you're Iowa State).

2016 NCAA Tournament Bracket: Princeton Part 2

There's another way to look at Princeton as an at large candidate, showing that sometimes it doesn't have to be as complicated as the ordinary process makes it.  Simply look at the ranks of teams Princeton beat, tied, and lost to.  Here's looking at it that way:

Wins:  Teams ranked 77, 86, 132, 133, 154, 165, 180, 222, 225, 288

Ties:  Teams ranked 46, 130, 138

Losses:  Teams ranked 2, 41, 66, 136

Do these suggest that Princeton is a #31 team?  Or do they suggest Princeton is somewhere in the range from 45 (where a tie was their best result) to 140 (where a loss was their worst result)?  Sometimes, it may help to use a simple "smell" test.

2016 NCAA Tournament Bracket: Princeton

One of the questions the Women's Soccer Committee probably is dealing with is what to do with Princeton:  Do they get an at large position in the Tournament or not?

Here is Princeton's profile:

ARPI: 0.5948

ARPI Rank:  #31

ANCRPI:  0.6442

Non-Conference ARPI Rank:  #18

Results Against Top 60 Teams Rank:  55

Standing Within the Ivy League:  5

Ivy League Average ARPI:  .5376

Ivy League ARPI Rank:  8

Head to Head Results Against Top 50 Teams Score and Rank:  -1.67/56

Common Opponent (With Other Top 60 Teams) Results Score and Rank:  -0.18/29

Last 8 Games Score:  -12

Several of these aspects of the profile are ones I've developed as surrogates for some of the NCAA's at large selection criteria.  I developed them in order to be able to create a computer program that will make objective decisions rather than relying on my own or others' subjective decisions.

• Results Against Top 60 Teams assigns values to wins and ties against Top 60 teams, with those teams broken down into subgroups by ARPI rank.  The higher the opponent's rank, the higher the score for a win or tie against the opponent.  The points awarded are on a geometric scale, so good results against very highly ranked teams are very valuable.  Apart from the ARPI, I have found this profile aspect to be the most consistent with the Committee's decisions.
• Head to Head Results assigns values to wins, ties, and losses in head to head games against Top 60 teams.  It then averages each team's scores for all head to head games based on the number of those games, to give an average score per head to head game.  This factor, unlike the Results Against Top 60 Teams, does not distinguish among the Top 60 teams based on their ranks.  A positive score is good and a negative score is bad.
• Common Opponent Results identifies each common opponent a team had with another Top 60 team, compares the two Top 60 teams' results against that opponent, and assigns scores based on the comparison to the two Top 60 teams' results.  It then averages each team's scores for all of its common opponent games based on the number of those games, to give an average score per common opponent game.  A positive score is good and a negative score is bad.
• Last 8 Games is a surrogate for an NCAA criterion.  The NCAA criterion looks at a team's results over the last 8 games.  I've found no evidence that the Committee actually uses that criterion, and I'm not sure what it is looking for, but my best guess is it's looking for poor results.  Based on that guess, as a surrogate my system looks at poor results over the course of the season, assigning negative values based on how poorly ranked the team is against which the poor result occurred.

When my system evaluates teams, it compares the aspects of their profiles, either as individual factors or as paired factors (such as ARPI rank combined with Top 60 Results rank), to the patterns of the Committee's decisions over the last 9 years.  The patterns are a set of "standards":

• A "yes" standard means that over the last 9 years, a team that met that standard always got a "yes" decision from the Committee either for a particular seed or for an at large selection.
• A "no" standard means that over the last 9 years, a team that met that standard always got a "no" decision from the Committee either for a particular seed or for an at large selection.

If a team this year meets both "yes" and "no" standards, what that means is the Committee has not met a team with this one's profile, over the last 9 years.  Princeton is in that position this year.

In terms of "yes" standards, the most obvious one for Princeton is ARPI Rank:  an ARPI rank of #34 or better is a "yes" standard.

Here are other "yes" standards that Princeton meets:

• ARPI Rank <=35 and ANCRPI >=0.6168
• ARPI Rank <=43 and ANCRPI Rank <=22
• ARPI Rank <=37 and Conference ARPI >=.5322
• ANCRPI Rank <=22 and Conference Standing <=6
• ANCRPI Rank <=19 and Conference Standing <=5.75
• ANCRPI Rank <=19 and Top 60 Common Opponent Score >=-2.21
• ANCRPI Rank <=22 and Top 60 Common Opponent Score >=-2.10

It's important to note that all of Princeton's "yes" standards are based on either the ARPI or the ANCRPI.

In terms of "no" standards, here are the ones Princeton meets:

• Top 60 Head to Head Results Score <=-1.37
• Top 60 Results Rank >=54.5 and Conference Standing >2
• Top 60 Results Rank>=45 and Last 8 Games Score <=-11
• Top 60 Results Rank >=46 and Last 8 Games Score <=-10
• Top 60 Results Rank >=51 and Last 8 Games Score <=-8
• Top 60 Results Rank >=54 and Last 8 Games Score <=-5
• Conference Standing >=3.75 and Top 60 Head to Head Results Score <=1.33
• Top 60 Head to Head Results Score <=-1.25 and Last 8 Games Score <=-4

Based on this evaluation, the Committee could go either way with Princeton.  They have the RPI in their favor.  Except for that, however, their profile is against them.

This raises the question of how the Committee members look at the RPI.  Princeton is an example of a problem the RPI has.  When one calculates the Strength-of-Schedule portion of the RPI (effectively weighted at 50% of the RPI itself), the formula gives an effective weight of 80% to the opposing team's winning percentage and only 20% to its opponents' winning percentages.  In other words, what Team A contributes to its opponents' strength of schedule is mostly Team A's winning percentage.  A result of this is that, if one compares a team's ARPI rank to its rank in terms of what it contributes to an opponent's strength of schedule, those two ranks can be quite different.  I ran some calculations this morning, and the ranks of Princeton's opponents in terms of what they contribute to its strength of schedule are roughly 9 positions better, on average, than their ARPI ranks.  In other words, Princeton is a beneficiary of this flaw in the RPI formula.  I ran some other very crude calculations and came up with an RPI-flaw-corrected rating of #38.  I haven't done this for the ANCRPI, but presumably Princeton's ANCRPI rank likewise would be poorer if flaw-corrected.  It's thus possible that with corrections Princeton would not meet any "yes" standards.  Whether the Committee members understand this RPI flaw, and if they do are willing to take it into account, is something I don't know.

Given all of this, in my Bracket Simulation, I had to make a choice of what I think the Committee will do about the previously unseen profile that Princeton presents.  My choice was that the Committee will not give Princeton an at large selection.  I most certainly, however, could be wrong.

2016 NCAA Tournament Bracket Simulation: End of Season -- FINAL -- Simulation

1 - #1 seed
2 = #2 seed
3 = #3 seed
4 = #4 seed

5 = unseeded automatic qualifier

6 = unseeded at large selection

7 = not getting at large selection, but next in line

Simulation isn't clear:

* = might do better than simulation says, based on numbers
** = might do poorer than simulation says, based on numbers

NCAA Seed or Selection	Automatic Qualifier	ARPI Rank	Team
1	AQ	1	Stanford
1	AQ	2	WestVirginiaU
1	**	3	SouthCarolinaU
1	**	6	SouthernCalifornia
2	AQ*	4	FloridaU
2		5	NorthCarolinaU
2	AQ	7	Georgetown
2		9	NotreDame
3	**	11	UCLA
3	**	12	VirginiaU
3	**	14	Clemson
3	AQ**	19	MinnesotaU
4	AQ	8	ConnecticutU
4	*	10	BYU
4		13	OklahomaU
4	AQ	17	FloridaState
5	AQ	33	Samford
5	AQ	35	KentState
5	AQ	38	Pepperdine
5	AQ	41	Harvard
5	AQ	43	SouthAlabama
5	AQ	46	Bucknell
5	AQ	47	LongBeachState
5	AQ	55	Northeastern
5	AQ	59	UNLV
5	AQ	72	FloridaGulfCoast
5	AQ	85	Charlotte
5	AQ	86	Monmouth
5	AQ	92	Liberty
5	AQ	93	Seattle
5	AQ	104	EasternWashington
5	AQ	120	Albany
5	AQ	121	NorthernKentucky
5	AQ	139	IllinoisState
5	AQ	141	Dayton
5	AQ	166	SouthDakotaState
5	AQ	174	SIUEdwardsville
5	AQ	214	StFrancis
5	AQ	220	HoustonBaptist
5	AQ	273	AlabamaState
6		15	Duke
6		16	Auburn
6		18	ArkansasU
6		20	NebraskaU
6		21	UtahU
6		22	Rutgers
6		23	KansasU
6		24	OhioState
6		25	Marquette
6		26	NorthwesternU
6		27	PennState
6		28	Memphis
6		29	ColoradoU
6		30	SMU
6		32	CaliforniaU
6		34	TCU
6		36	WisconsinU
6		37	SantaClara
6	**	42	TexasTech
6		44	MissouriU
6	**	45	NCState
6		48	IowaState
6	**	49	MichiganU
6	**	56	OklahomaState
7	*	31	Princeton
7	*	39	VirginiaTech
7	*	52	LoyolaMarymount
7	*	53	UCF
7	*	54	DePaul
7	*	57	TexasA&M
		40	StJosephs
		50	Rice
		51	BallState

Reports Summary: Games Through Friday, November 4

The post below this one is my updated NCAA Tournament bracket simulation, now based on games through Friday, November 4.  Here are a number of notes:

Seeds:  The #1 and #2 seeds are clearer, the #3 and #4 seeds not so clear.  There are unseeded teams that could receive seeds, the most likely of which is Florida State.  Connecticut also is a possibility for a seed, as are Duke, Rutgers, and Nebraska.  Of the seeded teams, the most likely to be bumped from seeding are Minnesota, Auburn, Arkansas, and Virginia.  This all is based on the simulation having North Carolina, Minnesota, and Florida winning their conference tournaments.

At Large "In":  There are some "iffy" teams getting at large selections.  Among -- but not all of -- them are:

#29 Princeton is relying almost exclusively on its ARPI and ANCRPI ranks.  Its best result is a tie against #48 Bucknell.  At #29, based on past history, it should be a lock for an at large selection, but based on a close review of its actual games, it looks undeserving of an at large selection.  Assuming Princeton wins its game tonight against Penn, Princeton will test the Committee's allegiance to the RPI.  If Princeton loses, it may make the Committee's job easier.

#45 NC State is relying mostly on some very good results, but also has a bunch of negatives.  Here, the test will be of the value the Committee assigns to very good results, especially in comparison to NC State's not-so-good position in the ACC.

#55 Oklahoma State has both positive and negative attributes.

#42 and #44 Texas Tech and Missouri have positive attributes, with Texas Tech also having a negative, but they are just on the right side of the border.

At Large "Out":  There are some other teams that might get at large selections.  Among -- but not all of -- them are:

#40 Virginia Tech has some positive attributes, but a poor position in the ACC.  Although it is not unheard of for the #9 team in a conference to get an at large selection, it is very difficult no matter how strong the conference.  And this year, the ACC is not the top conference according to the ARPI and the ANCRPI.

#39 and #51 Loyola Marymount and Michigan are relatively strong potential candidates for at large selections.  They don't have any strong positive attributes, but they don't have any strong negatives either.

#57 DePaul has a couple of positive attributes, but a bunch of negatives.

And, if one wants to drop down in the rankings to areas from which the Committee has not picked an at large selection over the last decade, #58 Texas A&M and #63 Baylor might receive some Committee consideration although each has negatives that probably are too strong.

2016 NCAA Tournament Bracket Simulation: Update Including Games Through Friday, November 4

1 = #1 seed
2 = #2 seed
3 = #3 seed
4 = #4 seed

5 = unseeded Automatic Qualifiers

6 = unseeded at large selections

7 = teams just missing at large selections

NCAA Seed or Selection	Automatic Qualifier	ARPI Rank	Team
1	AQ	1	Stanford
1	AQ	2	WestVirginiaU
1		3	SouthCarolinaU
1		6	SouthernCalifornia
2	AQ	4	NorthCarolinaU
2	AQ	5	FloridaU
2	AQ	7	Georgetown
2		8	NotreDame
3		12	UCLA
3		13	Clemson
3		14	VirginiaU
3		17	ArkansasU
4		10	OklahomaU
4		11	BYU
4		15	Auburn
4	AQ	21	MinnesotaU
5	AQ	9	ConnecticutU
5	AQ	31	StJosephs
5	AQ	35	Samford
5	AQ	37	KentState
5	AQ	41	Pepperdine
5	AQ	43	Harvard
5	AQ	46	SouthAlabama
5	AQ	47	LongBeachState
5	AQ	48	Bucknell
5	AQ	54	UNLV
5	AQ	56	Northeastern
5	AQ	73	FloridaGulfCoast
5	AQ	82	EasternKentucky
5	AQ	84	Charlotte
5	AQ	87	Monmouth
5	AQ	91	HighPoint
5	AQ	93	Seattle
5	AQ	98	EasternWashington
5	AQ	103	StephenFAustin
5	AQ	106	Milwaukee
5	AQ	121	Hartford
5	AQ	137	IllinoisState
5	AQ	146	OralRoberts
5	AQ	223	StFrancis
5	AQ	231	ArkansasPineBluff
6		16	Duke
6		18	FloridaState
6		19	NebraskaU
6		20	Rutgers
6		22	UtahU
6		23	KansasU
6		24	Marquette
6		25	OhioState
6		26	NorthwesternU
6		27	PennState
6		28	Memphis
6		29	Princeton
6		30	ColoradoU
6		32	SMU
6		33	CaliforniaU
6		34	TCU
6		36	WisconsinU
6		38	SantaClara
6		42	TexasTech
6		44	MissouriU
6		45	NCState
6		49	IowaState
6		55	OklahomaState
7		39	LoyolaMarymount
7		40	VirginiaTech
7		51	MichiganU
7		57	DePaul
		50	BallState
		52	Rice
		53	UCF
		58	TexasA&M
		59	CentralMichigan
		60	Providence
		61	NorthTexas
		62	BostonCollege
		63	Baylor