2009 Schedule?

That is a wise decision Sorry you wont be there, we'll cheer extra loud.

UPSF - Look like we have reversed positions, you being in the East and me being in Portland getting ready to go to a Pilots game, on a beautiful night, I might add. I should probably look for an empty seat in the expensive section.

UPSF

We'll cheer on your behalf. Hope all is well in DC.

HR

Yes, Harry, all is well in DC.

Fan from afar, not the really expensive seats. I leave those to the Geez.

Here's a continuation of how our opponents have done so far this year, compared to last year, covering all games played through the date of our seventh game (September 13). The results exclude any results against the Pilots, in accord with the RPI formula. A tie counts as half a win and half a loss, also in accord with the RPI formula:

2008: Opponents overall 71-43
2009: Opponents overall 68-41

2008: WCC 27-22
2009: WCC 28.5-16.5

2008: Opponents' overall average winning percentage (RPI Element 2) 0.62
2009: Opponents' overall average winning percentage 0.63

2008: WCC average winning percentage 0.55
2009: WCC average winning percentage 0.63

Great info, UPSF. Let's hope that our opponents continue to win. (And, of course, that we do, too!)

Do you have anything compiled on the record of our future non-conference opponents? TAMU and WSU should look OK by the end of the year, but SMU, OSU, and Montana might pull us down a bit.

SoreKnees wrote:Great info, UPSF. Let's hope that our opponents continue to win. (And, of course, that we do, too!)

Do you have anything compiled on the record of our future non-conference opponents? TAMU and WSU should look OK by the end of the year, but SMU, OSU, and Montana might pull us down a bit.

The numbers I provided include the current records of our future non-conference opponents. TAMU is 3-3-0, SMU is 1-4-0, Oregon State is 5-1-0 (!), Washington State is 4-2-0, and Montana is 1-6-0. I have no idea how SMU and Montana will do once they get to conference play. TAMU appears to be struggling a little, but could have a pretty good Big Twelve record. We'll have to see OSU play, but they could have a tough time in the Pac 10, which is looking pretty tough from top to bottom to me, except possibly for Arizona. WSU also will have a lot of hard battles on its hands.

Ahh, so you're figuring the whole schedule's record in even though we haven't played them yet. So a team with lots of hard games coming up (like the Pac 10, for example) will look good now because they are already getting credit for the quality of their opponents but have not yet seen the effects of the losses that they will likely suffer when they actually play these better teams.

Am I understanding this right, now?

SoreKnees, yes you're right. But, I'm doing this only for the Pilots and only to compare where we are this year to where we were last year, with reference to the question whether we have a tougher schedule this year than last. The pre-season thinking was that we had a significantly more difficult schedule last year. What I'm doing is comparing all of our this year's opponents' records, as of this point in the season, with all of last year's opponents' records, as of the comparable point last year. For a comparable point, I'm using the date when the Pilots had played the same number of games last year as they've played this year.

With that in mind, here's a last year to this year comparison as of the Pilots having played nine games:

2008, through 9/26 (date of Pilots' 9th game):

All opponents' combined records: 89-53-20
WCC opponents' combined records: 30-30-10

All opponents' average winning percentage against teams other than Pilots: 62.5%
WCC opponents' average winning percentage against teams other than Pilots: 50%

2009, through 9/20 (date of Pilots' 9th game):

All opponents' combined records: 89-45-10
WCC opponents' combined records: 35-18-6

All opponents' average winning percentage against teams other than Pilots: 65.3%
WCC opponents' average winning percentage against teams other than Pilots: 64.4%

For those who remember last year, the Pilots were ranked #1 by the RPI until they started conference play. Then, once the Pilots started incorporating WCC teams' winning percentages into their RPI, their RPI ranking started dropping. This was because the WCC teams as a group were contributing a 50% winning percentage to the Pilots' strength of schedule, which was not good.

Depending on what happens over the next two weeks, it appears that may not happen again this year. Our overall strength of schedule is on a par with last year, but our WCC component is much better than last year. So, if the Pilots are in a good RPI position going into conference play and can win all their conference games (which will be more difficult this year than last), they should at least maintain their RPI ranking position and may even improve it.

Continuing with the comparison of this year's schedule to last year's:

The average end-of-season RPI rank for the 18 teams the Pilots played last year was 83.7. That number was due, in significant part, to the relative weakness of the WCC. The average RPI rank of the Pilots' non-conference opponents was 62.5, but the average RPI rank of the WCC (not counting the Pilots) was 117.1 The WCC still was the 6th ranked conference in terms of average RPI, but as you may recall, once conference play began the Pilots' RPI rank slipped from #1 to #4 notwithstanding that they won all their conference games. This was because the teams passing them were from the ACC and Pac Ten, which were ##1 and 2 respectively in the conference average RPI rankings. Their average RPIs were roughly 0.07 and 0.06 higher than the WCC's average RPI. The other conferences ranked ahead of the WCC were the Big Ten, Big Twelve, and SEC. The higher a conference's average RPI, the better it is for conference teams' strength of schedule RPI elements.

The average RPI rank for the 19 teams on the Pilots' schedule this year, for games through 9/20, is 63.4. The average RPI rank of the Pilots' non-conference opponents is 60.0 (compared to last year's 62.5) and the average RPI rank of the WCC teams (other than the Pilots) is 69.1 (compared to last year's 117.1). The WCC currently is the 4th ranked conference in terms of average RPI. The WCC still is behind the Pac Ten and ACC, which are ##1 and 2 respectively, and also behind the SEC although only barely so, but it is ahead of the Big Ten and Big Twelve. Further, the differences between the Pac Ten's and ACC's average RPIs as compared to the WCC are smaller than last year, being roughly 0.05 and 0.03 this year.

Thus with the WCC being stronger this year, the conference games will be much better for the Pilots' strength of schedule RPI elements than last year. Of course, the price of that benefit is that the WCC games will be harder to win.

Also, if the Pilots' opponents continue to perform as they have so far this year, the Pilots will end up having played a significantly stronger schedule than they did last year. Surprised?

I am surprised. It seems like when I assessed this year's schedule as being relatively light-weight I was responding too much to the absence of top-5 opponents and not correctly assessing (or predicting) how many would be top-50. I'm glad that our RPI ranking is holding up this year. I just hope that the NCAA doesn't follow the logic that "Portland didn't beat anyone in the top 10 (or so), so how can we give them a #1 seed." Depending on how things fall out the rest of the way, that might be a convenient excuse to slide UCLA, Stanford, UNC, and someone else with a couple of big wins (say, another ACC team that beats UNC) in ahead of us.

considering UCLA's game against UNC, it probably won't be them.

Geezaldinho wrote:considering UCLA's game against UNC, it probably won't be them.

UCLA and Portland also will have a common opponent in San Diego. If the Pilots beat San Diego, that would give the Pilots a leg up on UCLA under the NCAA criterion of "results against common opponents."

This is a good place to point out/remind, however, that in seeding, the Women's Soccer Committee is not bound by the "at large selection" criteria.

Continuing with the comparison of this year's schedule to last year's, evaluating this year's schedule through the Sunday, September 27 games:

(1) As of the end of the season last year, the average RPI rank of the Pilots' opponents was as follows:

All opponents: 83.7
Non-conference opponents: 62.5
WCC opponents: 117.1

(2) As of 9/27, the average RPI rank of the Pilots' opponents:

All opponents: 62.2
Non-conference opponents: 63.6
WCC opponents: 59.9 (Note: This year, the worst RPI rank for a WCC team is San Francisco at #87. Compare this to last year's end-of-year average for the WCC of #117!)

(3) As of the comparable time in the season last year, for the Pilots' opponents:

Composite record (non-conference and WCC): 97-57-20
WCC composite record: 32-32-11
All opponents' average winning percentage: 63%
WCC opponents' average winning percentage: 50%

(4) As of 9/27 this year, for the Pilots' opponents:

Composite record (non-conference and WCC): 105-55-13
WCC composite record: 42-22-7
All opponents' average winning percentage: 65%
WCC opponents' average winning percentage: 64%

For this type of comparison, the critical numbers will be those after completion of this week's games. At that point, all conferences will be in conference play, including the Pac Ten and WCC. Those numbers will give us a pretty good fix on where the WCC will end up in the "strength of schedule" rankings and therefore how conference play will affect the WCC schools' (including the Pilots') strength of schedule. It looks to me like the WCC will end up as either the #4 (present position) or #3 conference, in terms of average strength.

It strikes me that we need to be paying almost as much attention to the PAC10 conference games as to the WCC games once conference starts - maybe more so.

We will have played 1/2 of that conference, so not only do we have a stake in the teams we played, but in all of the non-conference RPI of the PAC10 schools we played (element 2) and the whole PAC10 (element 3)

crazy.