New Website: RPI for Division I Women's Soccer

In terms of the RPI, you may be correct. However, there are other criteria that will help the Pilots if they beat San Diego and Santa Clara. I don't have time to explain right now but will later. D0N'T LOSE HEART!

Massey has published new ratings for teams and for conferences, covering games through October 25. Use the following link: http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=csocw

Thanks for the link.

Very interesting that UP-A&M ranks as the biggest upset among ranked teams. (And PSU over OSU is in the top 10 as well.)

SoreKnees wrote:So UNC loses twice on the weekend and still has a substantial lead over us in RPI? (According to the nc-soccer site.) Florida State overtakes us and UCLA is on our heels and sure to by-pass us if they win their remaining games?

Can we possibly end up with a #2 seed even if we win out? Ugggh!

SoreKnees has spotted that it appears five teams are going to be competing for the four #1 seeds: Stanford, North Carolina, Florida State, Portland, and UCLA. Right now, that is those teams' order in the RPI rankings.

In addition, using the nc-soccer website's "projecting the RPI forward" feature, if UCLA wins out, it may pass the Pilots, just barely, in the RPI rankings, if the Pilots also win out. This is not absolutely certain, however, because it depends on how the two teams' opponents (already played and to be played) do over the balance of the season. Further complicating this is that UNC and FSU either will play each other again in the ACC tournament or that matchup will be avoided because one or both of them has lost an ACC tournament game either by outright loss or by shootout loss (which counts as a tie for RPI purposes). So, even if UNC and FSU win out for the balance of the regular season leading up to the ACC tournament, one or both of them is going to have at least a tie inserted into its record, which counts as half a win and half a loss for RPI purposes. The "projecting the RPI forward" feature can't figure that outcome into its projection.

However, in addition to considering the RPI (and it's cousin, the Non-Conference RPI), the NCAA also has two other primary criteria: (1) head to head results (against teams in competition, in this case, for a #1 seed) and (2) results against common opponents (again, against teams in competition for a #1 seed, in this case).

The Pilots will have no head to head results against the other four teams competing for a #1 seed. However, the Pilots and UNC will have a result against a common opponent, which is Miami, with the Pilots winning and UNC losing. This makes Miami's win yesterday very important, as it could justify a Portland seed ahead of UNC. Combine that with UNC's having beaten UCLA, giving a head to head result almost surely putting UNC ahead of UCLA, and you get a basis for having a Portland-UNC-UCLA order. Combine that with FSU's win over UNC and you get a reasonable seeding order of Stanford (1)-FSU (2)-Portland (3)-UNC (4)-UCLA (5). Whether Florida State holds that position depends on its last pre-ACC tournament games and how it does in the tournament.

By the end of the season, there will be another "results against common opponents" that will come into play, which will be UCLA's and the Pilots' results against San Diego. UCLA and San Diego tied, so if the Pilots defeat San Diego, that provides another basis for a seed ahead of UCLA.

If the Women's Soccer Committee, after considering these factors, still is undecided, then it also will look at both results over the last eight games (game outcomes and strength of opponents) and results against teams already selected for the bracket (but excluding results against teams ranked #76 or worse by the RPI).

I should mention, however, that whereas the above-described criteria are binding on the Committee for purposes of at large selections, they are not binding as to seeds. Still, the Committee considers them and I believe would follow them unless it thinks there's a very good reason to do otherwise.

What this all makes clear is that the next two games are HUGE. The Pilots must win against Santa Clara and they must win against San Diego. Which is exactly what we've thought all along.

There is another result against common opponent with UNC.

UNC beat TAMU, we lost to them, so we are even in that regard.

Geezaldinho wrote:There is another result against common opponent with UNC.

UNC beat TAMU, we lost to them, so we are even in that regard.

I missed that one, so there's no basis there for the Pilots being seeded ahead of UNC. That leaves up in the air the question of what happens in the ACC tournament, so far as UNC and Florida State are concerned. The San Diego game remains the key in relation to UCLA.

GO PILOTS!

I just have posted a new RPI report on the RPI website, including games through October 25. Use the following link to go to the home page and, from there, go to the RPI Reports page.

The new report is in the form of an Excel spreadsheet attachment at the bottom of the RPI Reports page. As an additional attachment, I have posted a Non-Conference RPI Report. The page, towards the bottom, also includes average RPI's by conference and by region.

For those who are trying to "predict the bracket," here are the guidelines I have developed based on what happened in 2007 and 2008. These most definitely are guidelines, and there can be exceptions:

The four #1 seeds likely will come from teams ranked 1-6

All seeds likely will come from teams ranked 1-30

Teams ranked 1-32 are likely to be in the bracket

Teams ranked 33-67 should be considered "bubble teams"

Here's the link: http://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/Home

For those of you who are interested, I've developed what I think is a pretty nifty tool for trying to predict the NCAA Tournament bracket. To access it, go to the RPI website home page and, from there, to the "Predicting the Bracket" page. Once there, I suggest you review the information on that page, particularly the information under the heading "Bonus Tool," and then download the tool itself. The tool is in the form of an Excel spreadsheet attachment titled "Bracket Formation Data" at the bottom of the "Predicting the Bracket" page. The tool contains all the information you will need to apply the NCAA decision-making criteria to the top 70 RPI teams as of October 25.

As a reminder:

The primary criteria are:

Adjusted RPI (including Non-Conference RPI);

Head-to-head results of teams competing for a seed or at large selection; and

Results against common opponents of teams competing for a seed or at large selection.

The secondary criteria are:

Results over the last eight games (results and strength of opponents); and

Results against teams already selected for the bracket but excluding automatic qualifiers with an RPI rank of 76 or worse.

Once again, here's the link for the RPI website: http://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/

gnarly wrote:Kansas and UAB have very low NCRPI (in the 20's)but at the end of the bubble teams on RPI. Any idea if how much weight that will get them to get in the tourney? Seems like they have done poorly in the last half of the season. Uof O played well a few years ago but didn't get in even with wins against the S. Cal teams the last weekend of league play.

My best guess is that if the Women's Soccer Committee sees two (or several) teams as close after reviewing the RPI, head-to-head results, and results against common opponents, then it may use the NCRPI as a basis for decision-making. If you go to the "NCAA Actual Tournament Practices" page on the RPI website, there's an analysis of the decisions the Committee made in 2007 and 2008. If you look at the part of the page on 2008 at large decisions, you'll see why I've concluded that the Committee may have used the NCRPI as a basis for advancing some teams ahead of others in the at large selection process. I have to warn you, though, that the analysis is a little tedious. But, if you're interested in this kind of stuff, I think the analysis shows pretty well how the Committee used the NCRPI.

My unofficial detailed RPI report for games through 11/1 now is posted on the RPI website: http://sites.google.com/site/rpiford...er/rpi-reports

Those interested can compare it to the NCAA's official interim RPI report. I'm hoping the Geez has posted the link to the official report. The two are quite close although not identical, since I'm only guessing the bonus and penalty amounts that go into the adjustment process. Also, there are a couple of data inconsistencies, which I lay out at the above link.

The link you have here doesn't work for me, though the one you have on BS does. Here it is:

http://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/rpi-reports

(scroll to the bottom)

I gave the link on the Polls thread for the NCAA version. here that is:

http://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/rpi-reports


The top 20 are very close between UPSF and NCAA,

except that FSU and UCLA , and also BC, and ND are muddled (4-5,6-7) there is only .0001 between FSU and UCLA, and .0005 between BC and ND.

I hadn't checked the size of the differences, but that confirms what I thought, which is that my differences from the NCAA probably are due to my not having exactly correct bonus amounts (and, farther down in the rankings, penalty amounts). It's also conceivable that the NCAA's error in the Jacksonville U v Mercer game result (tie rather than win/loss) is responsible for the difference.

After the season's over, maybe I'll take a run at coming up with better penalty amounts.

I think the Non-Conference RPI has less weight in the Committee members' minds than the RPI. It should have less weight, as it's less reliable as a representation of teams' accomplishments during the season. Nevertheless, you're right that it is the only explanation for Penn State not getting a seed last year.

Based on what happened in 2007 and 2008, it's likely that the 16 seeds will come from the top 19 teams in the current RPI ratings. There is the possibility of outliers getting seeds (#28 seems to be the outside limit), but that would be atypical. The four #1 seeds should come from the top 6.