NCAA Tournament Bracket Formation

[quote="UPSoccerFanatic"]

Geezaldinho wrote:
Geez, do you think the rules prohibit that line of reasoning?

The way I read it, the "in priority order" phrase is key. It seems to me that means if you have a clear determination by RPI you are done.

I don't see how a lesser priority can override the greater priority. Perhaps if both lesser priorities overrode, I could see that you could reverse the rpi determination, but the rule isn't even clear on that.

Geezaldinho wrote:Do we have any determination of what the phrase "in priority order" in the excert in my last post means?

If the first priority is RPI, how do lesser priorities trump that?

I'm looking right now at the 2008 Division 1 Women's Soccer Championship Handbook, page 10 (updated 9/15/2008). It says:

"Selection Criteria

"The following criteria shall be employed by a governing sports committee in selecting participants for NCAA championships competition [Bylaw 31.3.3; Criteria for Selection of Participants]:

"* Won-lost record;

"* Strength of schedule; and

"* Eligibility and availability of student-athletes for NCAA championships [which I think refers to academic eligibility, etc., etc.];

"In additionto Bylaw 31.3.3, the women's soccer committee has received approval from the Division 1 Championships/Competition Cabinet [recently reconstituted under a different name] to consider the following criteria in the selection of at large teams for the soccer championship (not necessarily in priority order:

"Primary Criteria

"* Adjusted Rating Percentage Index (RPI); (See Appendix I of the 2008 NCAA Division 1 Omen's Soccer Championship Handbook).

"* Results versus common opponents; and

"* Head-to-head competition."

"Secondary Criteria

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated.

"* Results versus teams already selected to participate in the field (including automatic qualifiers with an RPI of 1-75)

"* Late season performance -- defined as the last eight games including conference tournaments (strength and results)."

I'm not sure where your quote "in priority order" comes from, but it seems directly to what the Manual says.

Hmm.. that's different than the one I'm reading. I must have an older version of the 2008 handbook.


OK, accepting your version, I still see problems:

Looking at your A,B,C,D example again, the linkage is broken between D and A because A didn't play C. Therefore it is not permitted under the rules to use C in the common opponent link.

C can't make a claim against A based only on the common opponent link
since A and C didn't meet, it seems clear that there is no third comparison without a head to head to break the tie, so it appears we go to secondary criteria.


So it's comparison against other teams in the tournament (1-75) and last 8 games.

I assume that means won-loss-tie record against those top 75 teams getting into the tournament?

But since what you are doing is CREATING the tournament field, how do you determine the proper teams to use for comparison?

That logic could possibly be defended IF all the teams had RPIs and records very close to each other. However, both Floridas are significantly below the top five teams, since they've each lost twice and tied at least twice.

As for what I'd do, I'd put
ND over UCLA (on basis of records, and common opp Santa Clara);
UCLA over Stanford (records, and head to head)
Stanford over UP (very close, but RPI, and somewhat better scores against common opps)
UP over NC (very close again; records, and linkage via the 2 Floridas, and I don't spot any strong linkage to warrant NC ranking above any of those top 3)
NC over the Floridas (RPI, records)

So that's my top 5, but what the hell. I just checked the Massey and Jones ratings, and if you throw in the coaches ratings and the RPI, you get those top 5 teams in almost any order. Massey still has Stanford at #2 somehow, after ND; I'm curious as to what mechanism could put Stanford above UCLA at this point. Jones has UP at #3, below ND and NC but above UCLA.

But back to reality. Are the above-quoted rules, involving head-to-head and common opps, supposed to be used only in deciding at-large entries? Or also in deciding seeds? I thought I once read (doubtless in a post by UDSF) that the "adjustments" to RPI are bonus and penalty points for remarkable upsets achieved by away teams? Well, I guess I haven't seen any of those upsets affecting the top five teams. UCLA was tied, not beaten, and neither tie was at home in LA.

dwm wrote:
...


As for what I'd do, I'd put
...


Stanford over UP (very close, but RPI, and somewhat better scores against common opps)
UP over NC (very close again; records, and linkage via the 2 Floridas, and I don't spot any strong linkage to warrant NC ranking above any of those top 3)
NC over the Floridas (RPI, records)

.

Here's how I see it
The rule talks about results, not scores, so you can't have Stanford over UP based solely on the score.

Since they didn't meet, you have to go to secondary criteria.
There, UP has a better record against the tournament teams in the top 75, since Stanford tied UNC

Also, they have a loss in the last 8 games, where UP doesn't

Therefore, UP is ranked over Stanford.

I'll do UNC next

The only common opponent I see between UNC and Portland is Santa Clara. Both schools won. UNC has the higher RPI, so we welcome UNC in the #1 seed club.

dwm wrote:
As for what I'd do, I'd put
ND over UCLA (on basis of records, and common opp Santa Clara);
.

The criteria isn't record, it's RPI , common opponents and head to head.

UCLA wins on the RPI, ND wins on the common opponents

That one goes to secondary criteria

They have both won their last 8 games, so I guess it goes t tournament teams in the top 75.


You can't do that until the field is selected. How many tournament teams in the top 75 did ND play? (Same question for UCLA)

Hmm.. Forget all that stuff, I guess.

As I read the rules as just posted by UPSF, there is nothing there that pertains to seeding.

DWM is right. All those criteria are for

the selection of at large teams for the soccer championship

So It's not only not for for seeding but for selection, but a strict reading says it isn't to be used with the automatic qualifiers at all.

They don't have any published seeding criteria that I see. They do talk about Pairings, and say the top 16 teams will be seeded. but they don't say how the top 16 teams will be determined.

Pairings
[Reference: Bylaw 31.1.3 in the NCAA Division I Manual.]
The top 16 teams identified by the committee will be seeded in the bracket. The
seeded teams will compete at separate first and second round sites. The committee
has been given approval by the Championships/Sports Management Cabinet to place
the top 16 seeds in pods of four. There will be four number ones, four number twos,
four number threes, and four number fours. The remaining 48 teams will be paired
geographically. First- and second-round conference matchups will be avoided. The
committee will use the NCAA’s mileage calculator located on the travel Web site at
http://www1.ncaa.org/finance/travelindex.html. when establishing the mileage for
travel. Teams within 400 miles of each other will be required to drive.

Near as I can tell, Seeding is whatever the committee says it is.

How about them apples?

uuuhhhhh....... I just woke up. Did I miss the Bracket, RPI, Seeding lecture by the math professors?

(Or is it the 'statistical physics' professors?)

How of a drop will FSU make after yesterdays utter failure. Do you think we can still get a 2 seed? Also should we be cheering for Virginia to win the ACC Tournament, since they are the only ACC team to beat us during the regular season?

UPSoccerFanatic wrote:
"* Eligibility and availability of student-athletes for NCAA championships [which I think refers to academic eligibility, etc., etc.];

We have three prominent student-athletes who are widely known not to be available for the NCAA championship. Should we be worried about this criterion?

SoreKnees wrote:
We have three prominent student-athletes who are widely known not to be available for the NCAA championship. Should we be worried about this criterion?

Only if we can't field an 11 to put on the pitch.

We have a report, which I consider very reliable, from a person who has been involved in the actual process on a regional advisory committee at the D3 level, that the NCAA uses the same criteria for seeding as it does for at large selections. That also fits with the little analysis I've done of the seeding last year.

Our missing the U20s is not a factor, so far as I know. For one thing, they could change their minds and be here. The U20s could be bumped early and they could be here for the Final Four (I hope that doesn't happen). I think player availability and eligibility has to do with other things.

Also, regarding game outcomes -- win-loss-tie vs scores. Our expert with experience at the D3 level says that almost always the question is win-loss-tie. Scores are not important, with the possible exception when there's absolutely no other way to make a decision.

FSUfan wrote:How of a drop will FSU make after yesterdays utter failure. Do you think we can still get a 2 seed? Also should we be cheering for Virginia to win the ACC Tournament, since they are the only ACC team to beat us during the regular season?

I just posted an updated RPI through yesterday's games (the 11.5.2008 games) on the BigSoccer website. You can use the following link to access it: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=650592

Florida State dropped two positions to #6, behind Portland and Notre Dame. Because of Portland's and FSU's common result against Florida, FSU probably was going there anyway. So, they really haven't lost much. Florida is just behind them and close in the RPI, so Florida probably will move ahead based on their head to head result. That would put FSU at #7. Right now, unless the RPI does something really weird I'm not expecting, and if teams win the games they're supposed to win, I'm guessing FSU gets one of the four #2 seeds.

Washington State beat Arizona today 1-0. It's looking pretty for WSU to get into the tournament. I think a tie against Arizona State will do it. I think Arizona is out of the picture.