Simulated Bracket for the 2017 Season - Pre-Season

Below are simulated #1, #2, #3, and #4 seeds, unseeded Automatic Qualifiers (conference champions, but not including those ranked poorer than 150), and simulated at large selections for the 2017 NCAA Tournament.  In the second preceding post, I explain the system I use to produce the simulation.  In the immediately preceding post, I set out all the teams with their simulated rankings.

[NOTE: If you are really serious about understanding how the bracket simulation system works, go to NCAA Tournament: Predicting the Bracket, Track Your Team at the RPI for Division I Women's Soccer website, read that page, and then follow the instructions for using the 2017 Website Factor Workbook Preseason attached at the bottom of the page.]

As I wrote in the introduction to the preceding post, the simulated rankings and related data tend to have mid-major teams ranked better than they really will be  at the end of the season and many major conference teams ranked poorer than they will be.  This shows up in the NCAA Tournament simulation, especially in the at large selections.  Over the course of the season, as I substitute actual game results into the system in place of simulated game results, this problem gradually will correct itself.

A good way to see this problem with the simulation is to look at the number of Automatic Qualifiers in the Top 60 teams, which ultimately will be the pool of teams the Women's Soccer Committee likely will look at for at large selections.  The simulation shows 22 Automatic Qualifiers among the Top 60 teams.  Over the last 10 years, however, the average number of Automatic Qualifiers in the Top 60 has been 15.5, and the numbers have been quite consistent.  Thus the simulation likely has 6 to 7 more Automatic Qualifiers among the Top 60 than actually will be there.  And, looking at where the Automatic Qualifiers fall within the Top 60, all of the "interlopers" are from conferences other than the major conferences.

The table below covers the top 150 teams and shows:

• In the NCAA Seed or Selection column, how the teams would fare with the Women's Soccer Committee if the Committee were using the simulated season data and were making decisions consistent with the ones it's made over the last 10 years. A "1" means the team gets a #1 seed; a "2" means a #2 seed; a "3" means a #3 seed; a "4" means a #4 seed; a "5" means the team is an unseeded Automatic Qualifier ranked within the Top 150; a "6" means the team gets an at large selection; a "7" means the team is in the Top 60 but does not get an at large selection; and a blank means the team is outside the Top 60 and does not get an at large selection.

• In the Automatic Qualifier column, the simulated conference champions (other than those outside the Top 150).

• In the ARPI Rank for Formation column, the teams' ARPI ranks.

• In the Teams for Formation column, the teams.

The teams within each numbered group are sorted in a way that helps place the teams that do not get an at large selection in close to the order in which they would come next in line for a selection.

At the bottom of the table, I'll indicate which teams likely would be next in line for seeds and at large selections.

NCAA Seed or Selection	Automatic Qualifier	ARPI Rank for Formation	Team for Formation
1	AQ	1	FloridaState
1	AQ	4	Stanford
1	0	2	NorthCarolinaU
1	AQ	3	WestVirginiaU
2	0	6	VirginiaU
2	AQ	5	FloridaU
2	0	8	NotreDame
2	0	7	UCLA
3	AQ	9	PennState
3	0	14	TexasA&M
3	0	13	Rutgers
3	0	10	SouthCarolinaU
4	AQ	11	Marquette
4	0	12	BostonCollege
4	AQ	15	UCF
4	0	18	SouthernCalifornia
5	AQ	16	BostonU
5	AQ	20	SantaClara
5	AQ	22	SouthAlabama
5	AQ	46	Samford
5	AQ	24	Northeastern
5	AQ	44	StephenFAustin
5	AQ	39	Harvard
5	AQ	40	LaSalle
5	AQ	35	SanDiegoState
5	AQ	38	NorthTexas
5	AQ	47	Buffalo
5	AQ	42	LongBeachState
5	AQ	51	MurrayState
5	AQ	50	Liberty
5	AQ	55	FloridaGulfCoast
5	AQ	64	Monmouth
5	AQ	81	WrightState
5	AQ	112	Denver
5	AQ	124	Albany
5	AQ	73	IllinoisState
5	AQ	95	FairleighDickinson
5	AQ	141	Seattle
6	0	28	Duke
6	0	19	VirginiaTech
6	0	25	Georgetown
6	0	17	ConnecticutU
6	0	21	CaliforniaU
6	0	37	BYU
6	0	26	OhioState
6	0	30	WisconsinU
6	0	31	OklahomaState
6	0	23	Auburn
6	0	33	TexasTech
6	0	29	Princeton
6	0	27	Baylor
6	0	48	WakeForest
6	0	32	TennesseeU
6	0	34	Troy
6	0	36	Memphis
6	0	49	Hofstra
6	0	41	WashingtonState
6	0	52	IllinoisU
6	0	43	William&Mary
6	0	57	PortlandU
6	0	53	Pepperdine
6	0	45	Rice
7	0	56	Clemson
7	0	58	KansasU
7	0	60	MiamiOH
7	0	59	SouthFlorida
7	0	54	Dayton
	0	74	UNLV
	0	96	MiamiFL
	0	123	StLouis
	0	68	TexasState
	0	63	MinnesotaU
	0	65	WashingtonU
	0	62	Bucknell
	0	61	UTEP
	0	67	ColoradoCollege
	0	69	Providence
	0	70	TexasU
	0	76	VCU
	0	75	WesternKentucky
	0	71	KentuckyU
	0	72	MissouriU
	0	66	MichiganU
	0	77	WesternMichigan
	0	78	UtahU
	0	79	OklahomaU
	0	84	Dartmouth
	0	85	NebraskaU
	0	86	LSU
	0	90	Brown
	0	100	ArkansasU
	0	87	JamesMadison
	0	92	Louisville
	0	94	StJohns
	0	98	Tulsa
	0	105	Marshall
	0	80	MississippiU
	0	108	ColoradoU
	0	111	ArizonaU
	0	118	UtahValley
	0	82	UtahState
	0	93	CalStateFullerton
	0	97	OregonState
	0	106	Vanderbilt
	0	110	Syracuse
	0	114	SanDiegoU
	0	109	GeorgiaU
	0	128	SanJoseState
	0	135	SamHoustonState
	0	102	Charlotte
	0	115	DePaul
	0	139	MissouriState
	0	142	EastCarolina
	0	83	HighPoint
	0	88	AbileneChristian
	0	121	CalStateNorthridge
	0	144	ArizonaState
	0	146	NorthwesternU
	0	89	CentralMichigan
	0	113	MiddleTennessee
	0	130	Mercer
	0	148	AlabamaU
	0	103	Navy
	0	91	Furman
	0	104	UNCGreensboro
	0	107	TennesseeMartin
	0	117	Colgate
	0	147	PennsylvaniaU
	0	99	UCIrvine
	0	122	Milwaukee
	0	132	BallState
	0	140	MichiganState
	0	145	NewMexicoU
	0	119	UNCWilmington
	0	127	SELouisiana
	0	101	AppalachianState
	0	120	JacksonvilleU
	0	125	GeorgeMason
	0	150	Columbia
	0	116	GeorgiaState
	0	138	UALR
	0	126	EastTennesseeState
	0	129	OralRoberts
	0	133	Campbell
	0	134	TCU
	0	136	Hartford
	0	143	OldDominion
	0	131	MassachusettsU
	0	137	Richmond
	0	149	Siena

Next in line:

• #1 seed:  Virginia, Florida

• #2 seed:  South Carolina, Penn State, Rutgers

• #3 seed:  Boston College, Virginia Tech, UCF, Southern California

• #4 seed:  Virginia Tech, Boston U

• At large selection, within Top 60:  Illinois, Clemson, Kansas, Miami OH

• At large selection, outside Top 60:  Miami FL, Minnesota, Washington, Bucknell, UTEP, Colorado College, Providence, Texas, VCU, Western Kentucky, Kentucky, Missouri, Michigan, Western Michigan, Utah, Oklahoma, Dartmouth, Nebraska, LSU, Brown, Arkansas

Simulated Rankings for the 2017 Season -- Pre-Season

Below are the pre-season simulated rankings of all teams as of the end of the 2017 season, including conference tournaments.  I described the system for producing the simulation in the preceding post, dated August 10, 2017.

Something will stand out to those of you familiar with teams' typical rankings over the years.  There are a lot more mid-major teams relatively high in the rankings and a lot fewer major conference teams relatively high in the rankings than is normal for end-of-season rankings.  There's a reason for this, and it illustrates the RPI's most significant flaw.  The problem is that the system I use assumes that all teams will win, lose, or tie their games in accord with their and their opponents' ratings, adjusted for home field advantage.   But in fact, that won't happen.  Instead, teams from major conferences on average will win or tie more games than the ratings say they should, and teams from mid-major conferences on average will lose or tie more games than the ratings say they should.  So, when the teams actually have played their games, the teams from major conferences on average will have better records than the simulation shows and teams from mid-majors will have poorer records.  As the season progresses and, weekly, I substitute actual game results for simulated game results, this problem gradually will correct itself.

With that warning as background, here are the simulated rankings for all teams as of the end of the season:

Team	ARPI Rank
FloridaState	1
NorthCarolinaU	2
WestVirginiaU	3
Stanford	4
FloridaU	5
VirginiaU	6
UCLA	7
NotreDame	8
PennState	9
SouthCarolinaU	10
Marquette	11
BostonCollege	12
Rutgers	13
TexasA&M	14
UCF	15
BostonU	16
ConnecticutU	17
SouthernCalifornia	18
VirginiaTech	19
SantaClara	20
CaliforniaU	21
SouthAlabama	22
Auburn	23
Northeastern	24
Georgetown	25
OhioState	26
Baylor	27
Duke	28
Princeton	29
WisconsinU	30
OklahomaState	31
TennesseeU	32
TexasTech	33
Troy	34
SanDiegoState	35
Memphis	36
BYU	37
NorthTexas	38
Harvard	39
LaSalle	40
WashingtonState	41
LongBeachState	42
William&Mary	43
StephenFAustin	44
Rice	45
Samford	46
Buffalo	47
WakeForest	48
Hofstra	49
Liberty	50
MurrayState	51
IllinoisU	52
Pepperdine	53
Dayton	54
FloridaGulfCoast	55
Clemson	56
PortlandU	57
KansasU	58
SouthFlorida	59
MiamiOH	60
UTEP	61
Bucknell	62
MinnesotaU	63
Monmouth	64
WashingtonU	65
MichiganU	66
ColoradoCollege	67
TexasState	68
Providence	69
TexasU	70
KentuckyU	71
MissouriU	72
IllinoisState	73
UNLV	74
WesternKentucky	75
VCU	76
WesternMichigan	77
UtahU	78
OklahomaU	79
MississippiU	80
WrightState	81
UtahState	82
HighPoint	83
Dartmouth	84
NebraskaU	85
LSU	86
JamesMadison	87
AbileneChristian	88
CentralMichigan	89
Brown	90
Furman	91
Louisville	92
CalStateFullerton	93
StJohns	94
FairleighDickinson	95
MiamiFL	96
OregonState	97
Tulsa	98
UCIrvine	99
ArkansasU	100
AppalachianState	101
Charlotte	102
Navy	103
UNCGreensboro	104
Marshall	105
Vanderbilt	106
TennesseeMartin	107
ColoradoU	108
GeorgiaU	109
Syracuse	110
ArizonaU	111
Denver	112
MiddleTennessee	113
SanDiegoU	114
DePaul	115
GeorgiaState	116
Colgate	117
UtahValley	118
UNCWilmington	119
JacksonvilleU	120
CalStateNorthridge	121
Milwaukee	122
StLouis	123
Albany	124
GeorgeMason	125
EastTennesseeState	126
SELouisiana	127
SanJoseState	128
OralRoberts	129
Mercer	130
MassachusettsU	131
BallState	132
Campbell	133
TCU	134
SamHoustonState	135
Hartford	136
Richmond	137
UALR	138
MissouriState	139
MichiganState	140
Seattle	141
EastCarolina	142
OldDominion	143
ArizonaState	144
NewMexicoU	145
NorthwesternU	146
PennsylvaniaU	147
AlabamaU	148
Siena	149
Columbia	150
EasternWashington	151
Longwood	152
IowaState	153
SoutheastMissouriState	154
Fordham	155
DelawareU	156
Yale	157
Cincinnati	158
WyomingU	159
KentState	160
SMU	161
NCState	162
IdahoU	163
GeorgeWashington	164
Radford	165
StJosephs	166
OregonU	167
StFrancis	168
CoastalCarolina	169
Rider	170
Army	171
LoyolaMarymount	172
EasternMichigan	173
Drake	174
Cornell	175
IowaU	176
Creighton	177
GeorgiaSouthern	178
Toledo	179
Butler	180
UCSantaBarbara	181
NewHampshireU	182
KennesawState	183
FIU	184
CalPoly	185
HoustonBaptist	186
MississippiState	187
WesternCarolina	188
Oakland	189
Elon	190
Valparaiso	191
Duquesne	192
NorthernColorado	193
IndianaU	194
CentralArkansas	195
NorthernArizona	196
CentralConnecticut	197
LouisianaTech	198
Evansville	199
FloridaAtlantic	200
Fairfield	201
Pittsburgh	202
GrandCanyon	203
MarylandU	204
BoiseState	205
Howard	206
Drexel	207
Lipscomb	208
SouthDakotaState	209
NorthwesternState	210
UCDavis	211
LouisianaLafayette	212
UCRiverside	213
Morehead	214
MaineU	215
RhodeIslandU	216
UMKC	217
StonyBrook	218
UTSA	219
UAB	220
MontanaU	221
HolyCross	222
Lehigh	223
Belmont	224
SanFrancisco	225
Purdue	226
Temple	227
CollegeofCharleston	228
Houston	229
LoyolaMD	230
StMarys	231
LouisianaMonroe	232
Winthrop	233
Detroit	234
KansasState	235
TexasSouthern	236
SIUEdwardsville	237
AustinPeay	238
CharlestonSouthern	239
SetonHall	240
StBonaventure	241
Quinnipiac	242
FresnoState	243
SouthernMississippi	244
Gonzaga	245
NorthernIllinois	246
Niagara	247
Wofford	248
NorthDakotaState	249
Stetson	250
Xavier	251
NorthernKentucky	252
Villanova	253
OhioU	254
TennesseeTech	255
Akron	256
Manhattan	257
JacksonState	258
SacredHeart	259
ArkansasState	260
LoyolaChicago	261
AirForce	262
Davidson	263
WeberState	264
IUPUI	265
Towson	266
TexasCorpusChristi	267
NichollsState	268
Lamar	269
Lafayette	270
EasternKentucky	271
Marist	272
Chattanooga	273
BowlingGreen	274
UNCAsheville	275
McNeeseState	276
HawaiiU	277
GardnerWebb	278
CalStateBakersfield	279
NevadaU	280
JacksonvilleState	281
Presbyterian	282
American	283
SouthernUtah	284
UMBC	285
PortlandState	286
NorthFlorida	287
ColoradoState	288
IndianaState	289
RobertMorris	290
UNOmaha	291
Wagner	292
VermontU	293
YoungstownState	294
PrairieViewA&M	295
SacramentoState	296
Binghamton	297
VMI	298
NewMexicoState	299
IncarnateWord	300
IdahoState	301
Citadel	302
WesternIllinois	303
UMassLowell	304
Canisius	305
TexasRGV	306
UNI	307
MississippiValley	308
Iona	309
IllinoisChicago	310
Pacific	311
ClevelandState	312
AlabamaState	313
MountStMary	314
USCUpstate	315
ArkansasPineBluff	316
SouthDakotaU	317
NJIT	318
GreenBay	319
EasternIllinois	320
Bryant	321
IPFW	322
SouthCarolinaState	323
LongIsland	324
NorthDakotaU	325
DelawareState	326
AlabamaA&M	327
Grambling	328
SouthernU	329
StPeters	330
ChicagoState	331
AlcornState	332
Hampton	333

Pre-Season Simulated RPI Ranks and NCAA Tournament Bracket

Now that all the teams' schedules are available, it's possible to provide simulated full-season data and Adjusted RPI ranks and a simulated NCAA Tournament bracket for the 2017 season.  I'll provide those in the two posts following this one.

I have a big caution about the simulations.  Don't get happy if they show your team doing well and don't get depressed if they show your team doing poorly.  They're pretty far from where the season will end up, as will be my weekly updated simulations until we get well into the season.

Here's how the system works:

First, I assign each team a pre-season ARPI rating.  The pre-season rating I assign to a team is that team's average ARPI rating (using the current ARPI formula) over a prior number of years.  The number of years that go into the average depends on how long the team's current head coach has been head coach -- the longer the coach has been head coach, the more prior years' ratings go into the average.  To be exact, for teams whose coaches have been in place for 9 or more years as of the 2016 season, the teams' pre-season ratings are the teams' average ARPI over the last 8 years; with coaches in place for 4 to 8 years, the pre-season ratings are the teams' averages over the last 6 years; and with coaches in place for 3 or fewer years, I use the averages over the last 3 years.  I use this method for assigning pre-season ratings because a study I did last year indicated those ratings, as compared to other possible ratings, will come the closest to matching up with actual game results.  This doesn't mean those ratings do a great job, because they don't, it just means they do a better job than other rating systems I considered.

Once I have teams' pre-season ratings, for each game I compare the two opponents' pre-season ratings, adjusted for game location, to produce the simulated game result (win, tie, or loss).  I do this for the entire schedule of games to produce simulated game results for the entire season.  The game location adjustment for the home team is an addition of 0.0060 to its pre-season ARPI rating and for the away team is a subtraction of 0.0060.  (I've done a study that shows that, for the current version of the ARPI, this is the average value of home field advantage.)  Based on the location-adjusted ratings, my system treats the higher rated team as the winner if its rating margin over the opponent is greater than 0.0052.  If the margin is 0.0052 or less, the system treats the game as a tie.  I use 0.0052 as the win/tie cutoff point because when the margin is 0.0052 or less, the higher rated team wins significantly fewer than 50% of the games:  to  be precise, the higher rated team wins 42.9% of the time, ties 17.6% of the time, and loses 39.5% of the time, so the games essentially are toss ups.

Once I have all the game results, I then compute teams' ARPI ratings to obtain the full season's simulated ARPI ratings, ranks, and so on.

As we go through the season, each week I replace my simulated game results with the actual results for that week's games.  Then, starting with the fourth week of the season, I stop using the pre-season ARPI ratings to produce the simulated results of future games and instead use teams' then-current actual ARPI ratings.  I do this beginning in the fourth week because the study I did indicates that is the point at which teams' actual ratings are more likely than the pre-season ratings to match game results.

I continue the weekly process of replacing simulated game results with actual results and updating teams' ARPI ratings as a basis for producing future game results, through the balance of the season.  What this means is that each week's simulated end-of-season ARPI ratings will come closer to what teams' actual end-of-season ratings will be.  And, when the regular season including conference tournaments is over, the simulated ratings will be the same as teams' then-current actual ratings.

For the end-of-season conference tournaments, each week I do simulated conference tournament brackets and results, with the seeding in each conference's bracket based on the simulated results of conference regular season games.

Regarding the NCAA Tournament bracket, I take each week's simulated end-of-season results and other data and plug them into a program I've developed that matches certain data with the Women's Soccer Committee's decisions over the last 10 years.  Based on how teams' simulated results match up with those data, I then determine who would get #1, #2, #3, and #4 seeds and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament if the Committee were using the simulated results and following its last 10 years' decision patterns.  I also indicate who are other potential seed and at large selections based on the week's simulation.  As with the ARPI ratings, with each passing week, the bracket simulation will come closer to what will happen if the Committee follows its historic patterns.

Again, as a reminder, don't take the initial simulations seriously.  They have a logical basis, but will produce some results that will look crazy.  I'll explain some of the craziness as we go through the season.  In addition, feel free to post a question or comment if you see something that doesn't look right and I'll see if I can explain why things came out that way.

How Many Top 60 Opponents Should We Schedule, for NCAA Tournament Purposes?

While most attention is on the 2017 season, I know that coaches are thinking about schedules throughout the year.  So, this is a little diversion from next month's first-of-the-season games to provide some information about how many Top 60 opponents a coach should try to schedule in order to achieve his or her NCAA Tournament seeding or at large selection goal.

To develop this information, I looked at all of the teams that received #1, #2, #3, and #4 seeds over the last 10 years, at all the teams that were not seeded but received at large selections, and at all the teams from the Top 60 that did not receive at large selections.  For each group, I determined the number of Top 60 teams they had played, using the end-of-regular-season (including conference tournaments) ARPI rankings (based on the current ARPI formula).  Here's what the numbers show:

Unseeded Teams That Received At Large Selections

3 teams @ 14 Top 60 Opponents (includes opponents played in conference tournaments)
11 @ 13
19 @ 12
32 @ 11
37 @ 10
39 @ 9
27 @ 8
38 @ 7
12 @ 6
12 @ 5
5 @ 4
1 @ 3
1 @ 2

The average number of Top 60 opponents, for the entire group, is 8.97, or essentially 9 Top 60 opponents.  For the teams in the Top 60 that did not get at large selections, the average was 6.41, or essentially 6.5 Top 60 opponents.  A point worth noting is that teams with fewer than 5 Top 60 opponents have only a very small chance of getting an at large selection.  And, teams with fewer than 7 Top 60 opponents have only about a 10% chance of getting an at large selection.  So, perhaps a reasonable rule of thumb would be to try to schedule so as to have at least the average that got at large selections -- 9 Top 60 opponents.

Also, from an historical perspective, teams with fewer than 2 Top 60 opponents do not get any at large selections.  And, one Top 60 team that played 14 Top 60 opponents did not get an at large selection, but all Top 60 teams with 15 or more Top 60 opponents not only got at large selections, they also got at least a #4 seed.

Teams That Received #1 Seeds

2 @ 18
3 @ 16
6 @ 15
2 @ 14
9 @ 13
4 @ 12
9 @ 11
2 @ 10
2 @ 9
1 @ 8

The average for #1 seeds is 12.80 or, essentially, 13 Top 60 opponents.  Interestingly, over the last 10 years all teams in the Top 60 that played 18 Top 60 opponents ("all" being 2 teams) received #1 seeds.  And, playing 7 or fewer Top 60 opponents has not been enough to get a #1 seed.

Teams That Received #2 Seeds

2 @ 16
1 @ 15
3 @ 14
7 @ 13
3 @ 12
6 @ 11
6 @ 10
6 @ 9
2 @ 8
3 @ 7
1 @ 6

The average for #2 seeds is 11.89 or, essentially, 12 Top 60 opponents.  All teams that played at least 16 Top 60 opponents received either a #1 or a #2 seed.  And, playing 5 or fewer Top 60 opponents has not been enough to get a #2 seed.

Teams That Received #3 Seeds

1 @ 15
1 @ 14
4 @ 13
10 @ 12
10 @ 11
7 @ 10
3 @ 9
3 @ 8
1 @ 5

The average for #3 seeds is 10.93 or, essentially, 11 Top 60 opponents.  Playing 4 or fewer Top 60 opponents has not been enough to get a #3 seed.

Teams That Received #4 Seeds

2 @ 15
1 @ 14
3 @ 13
5 @ 12
7 @ 11
8 @ 10
5 @ 9
5 @ 8
2 @ 7
2 @ 4

The average for #4 seeds is 10.18 or, essentially, 10 Top 60 opponents.  Playing 3 or fewer Top 60 opponents has not been enough to get any seed.