New Website: RPI for Division I Women's Soccer

There was a posting on NCAA.com today from the chair of the selection committee that talked about the process they use for selection.

http://www.ncaa.com/blog/2009d1womenssoccer/2009/11/a-message-from-the-chair.html

When the committee does get behind closed doors in Indianapolis, the selection and seeding of teams for the championship will be driven by three primary criteria. The first is the team's RPI - which consists of their winning percentage and their strength of schedule, the second is their head-to-head results against other teams being considered for selection, and third is a comparison with other teams under consideration of their results against common opponents. The hardest call for the committee is in comparing teams with very similar profiles, but no head-to-head results and no common opponents. That is when we often have to turn to our secondary selection/seeding criteria which includes results against teams already selected for the tournament and late season performance (last 8 games).

It seems to confirm the view that they start with RPI and then look at the other criteria to see if there are reasons to override that ordering for selection and seeding.

In order to "bump" up, it appears the team much show it was superior in other criteria. What isn't clear to me is when secondary critera can override the RPI and when it can't. with often tenuous linkage between regions, it seems those comparisons often aren't valid. Even in the same regions that might be true.

One of the secondary criteria, for example, is results for the last 8 games. I submit that test is a lot easier if you play in the SWAC than in the ACC...

Geezaldinho wrote:There was a posting on NCAA.com today from the chair of the selection committee that talked about the process they use for selection. .... What isn't clear to me is when secondary critera can override the RPI and when it can't. with often tenuous linkage between regions, it seems those comparisons often aren't valid. Even in the same regions that might be true.

One of the secondary criteria, for example, is results for the last 8 games. I submit that test is a lot easier if you play in the SWAC than in the ACC...

Great catch, Geez. That's the kind of declaration I love to have in my files and to be able to quote on the RPI website in the material on how the process works.

What I interpret the criteria as saying, and what Bradshaw is saying, which is consistent with what my credible source has said, is that the Committee first tries to make a decision based on RPI, head-to-head, and teams' results against common opponents. But, suppose they can't make a decision based on those criteria. For example, suppose two teams' RPIs (and NCRPIs, which they use but talk about only in Appendix I of the Championship Manual) are very similar which is what I take Bradshaw to mean when he says the teams have "very similar profiles," they have no head to head game, and their results against common opponents are the same. At that point, they have no basis in the primary criteria for making a decision and have to go to the secondary criteria. Since the RPIs are essentially the same, the secondary criteria aren't over-riding the RPI, they're providing a needed other basis for making a decision.

Regarding the last 8 games, here is exactly what the criterion says: "Late season performance -- defined as the last eight games including conference tournaments (strength and results)." So, in addition to looking at the teams' records over the last eight games, the Committee also looks at the strength of the teams they played. In terms of strength, I assume they primarily look to the RPIs of those teams.

[quote="UPSoccerFanatic"]

Geezaldinho wrote: But, suppose they can't make a decision based on those criteria. For example, suppose two teams' RPIs (and NCRPIs, which they use but talk about only in Appendix I of the Championship Manual) are very similar which is what I take Bradshaw to mean when he says the teams have "very similar profiles," they have no head to head game, and their results against common opponents are the same. At that point, they have no basis in the primary criteria for making a decision and have to go to the secondary criteria. Since the RPIs are essentially the same, the secondary criteria aren't over-riding the RPI, they're providing a needed other basis for making a decision.

But that's just it-- the RPI's are NEVER exactly the same, are they? at least I don't see it. If the NCAA recognized a margin of error, then sure, but they don't. They treat the RPI as statistically accurate.

So that must mean RPI always trumps secondary criteria.

Last year Notre Dame jumped over the 4 top teams in the RPI based on the other two primary criteria, so we know That's possible.

Do you have an idea what teams jumped over people based on what must have been secondary criteria, and how big a leap in the RPI seeding did that encompass?

I haven't been able to find any cases in which it appeared that the NCAA used the secondary criteria to advance teams. From the detailed review I did of the 2008 tournament bracket, in those cases in which the NCAA "jumped" teams over teams with better RPIs, the secondary criteria wouldn't have justified it. The justification appeared to have been the Non-Conference RPI.

I guess if we get a case in which only the secondary criteria could have justified a "jump," then we'll know how small an RPI difference there must be in order for the Committee to turn to the secondary criteria. I'm guessing it's a pretty small difference. That probably would occur as to at large selections and would be less likely to occur as to seeds and particularly as to the four #1 seeds. This is because the RPI rating differences are greater at the top of the rankings (and at the bottom) than in the middle.

Looking at the the latest RPI update by UPSF I think we can hone in on what the bracket outline might look like. Seems like certain teams host annually.

By region:

Pacific NW. Portland to host with likes of maybe PSU and one of the pac 10 teams. U of O out on w/l record. Leaving either UW or OSU to be another partner. WSU as seed likely to get shipped unless EW wins Big Sky.

N. Cal: Stanford to host with likes of Cal Poly or SJ st. With SCU likely to get seed they could host with partner Cal.

S. Cal: UCLA to host with SD st and SD. USC gets shipped. Maybe A&M way.

You could have host in the Rockies: could be BYU or Col Coll or Den and maybe USC or WSU could be seed that goes there.

Great Lakes area:
We have group of teams not seeded that are in MIL, Wis, Marq that could have seeded team come there. Minn also in area

ND likely to host with lots of partners within 400 m (C. Mich--Mid Am, Pur or IND, Ill st (MVC) or Dayton (Alt 10).

Ohio St likely to host with similar partners

N.E.: BC likely to host. Several local partners BU, NE, Harvard, CCSU, Uconn

FL area: Could have FSU, FL and UCF all seeded. My thought is FSU hosts others get shipped as not enough teams in area to all host. Local partners for FSU could be LSU, Miss, Georgia, or Aub from SEC. and maybe samford or Atl sun representitive.

SE area

UNC likely to host with partner like S. Car, UNC-GR, Charlotte. WF should get seed, but will they bring in Loyola, OVC rep, WV, Georgia or Patriot rep who are all within 400 Mi?

Penn State: could host with WV, MD and some leftovers from Boston/ Conn area.

Texas area: I think texas is where someone like USC could land. You could have A&M host, plus Tex St, and bring in SWAC Grambling or Ark_PB.

VT probably hosts with some of the mid atl region teams.

I'll have update once we get lock on auto bids and final RPI. Not worth it to do a whole bracket now with so many auto bids outstanding.

Gnarly, absolutely fantastic contribution. Sounds like a lot of seeds traveling this year.

SoreKnees wrote:Is EWU within our travel distance? They are the #2 seed in the tournament with PSU.

Yes.

The schools in our 400 mile travel perimeter are the four PAC10 schools, Gonzaga, PSU, EWU, and Seattle. Seattle won't be tournament eligible until next year. Gonzaga can't come here in the first two rounds because they are in our conference.

What if UP put up a satellite campus elsewhere? Would that extend the radius...or is the radius to Merlo Field?

I like where Matty is going with this one.

With results we have so far I think we can be sure of NE foursome: (As sure as you can be with seeding committee that is).

BC will be seed along with Uconn and BU and Harvard. BC probably get Harvard in 1st round and Uconn gets BU since Harvard RPI around 90 and BU around 75. The BC rpi plus Uconn rpi totals in the 30's which is ideal since you prefer a 16 to be playing a 17 where sum is somewhere around 33 give or take 10 or so.

Also, I am wondering if there is a chance #1 Stanford get's shipped this year? SCU is in the area but likely to be seeded and Cal is another Pac 10 team. The other Cal teams might go UCLA way (SD St which is auto qualifier from Mt West, SD is on bubble, and from Big West it will be UC SB or Cal Poly. Cal Poly has come Stanford way before but there aren't a lot of Cal teams this year that are non-PAC 10. Do they bring in 2 teams for those brackets or ship one seed?

Looking at teams with RPI 9-16: S. Car, PSU, SCU, FL, VT, WF, WSU, AND USC. Are any likely to not get a seed? The next 4 teams down the RPI list are Georgia (UGA), LSU, Ohio St, and MD. MD beat SCU, VT, tied BC, and lost to UNC twice and to PSU. Ohio St beat USC and lost to PSU. LSU tied UCF, lost to UNC, beat UGA 6-0, beat S. Car and plays them again tomorrow. UGA split with S. Car and lost to FL.

Any chance any of the 4 jump to a seeded position based on the non-RPI criteria? MD seems to have some results to justify, but does a 20 RPI put them in range?

gnarly wrote:Looking at teams with RPI 9-16: S. Car, PSU, SCU, FL, VT, WF, WSU, AND USC. Are any likely to not get a seed? The next 4 teams down the RPI list are Georgia (UGA), LSU, Ohio St, and MD. MD beat SCU, VT, tied BC, and lost to UNC twice and to PSU. Ohio St beat USC and lost to PSU. LSU tied UCF, lost to UNC, beat UGA 6-0, beat S. Car and plays them again tomorrow. UGA split with S. Car and lost to FL.

Any chance any of the 4 jump to a seeded position based on the non-RPI criteria? MD seems to have some results to justify, but does a 20 RPI put them in range?

19 was the poorest RPI to get a seed in 2007 and 2008. That suggests to me that 20 might get a look for a seed. That's probably close to the limit.

PS - The Committee is not obligated to follow the criteria, so far as seeding is concerned. They use the criteria but apparently can consider whatever else they want.