Well, don't think there's much question as to the top conference in college soccer this year. Interesting to me: 13. Virginia 6-6-1 14. North Carolina 11-1-1
I guess it's time to commence the annual moaning from the four western conferences about the RPI's unfairness. This isn't to suggest there isn't some merit to some of their complaints, but at the end of the day, it is what it is and what it is is the system of record. Here are the RPI ratings of the western schools with current winning records: Code: TEAM W-L-T RPI SOS^ CONF. UCLA 9-2-2 7 12 Pac-12 New Mexico 10-3-0 9 35 MPSF Washington 9-3-2 22 31 Pac-12 Northridge 10-4-0 24 33 Big West California 7-5-1 43 43 Pac-12 UC Davis 6-4-4 47 36 Big West Santa Clara 8-5-0 54 76 WCC Sac State 7-4-2 56 87 Big West St. Mary’s 7-3-3 61 94 WCC UCSB 8-2-3 65 123 Big West Bakersfield 6-3-4 66 83 MPSF Denver 6-4-3 68 66 MPSF Oregon St. 6-5-2 69 58 Pac-12 San Jose St. 6-5-1 79 75 MPSF Riverside 8-5-0 81 108 Big West Cal Poly 7-5-1 85 102 Big West San Diego 7-6-0 89 105 WCC ^Per GauchoDan Pac-12 and WCC automatic bids go to the regular season champion; Big West only allows top 2 teams in each division to their conference tournament; MPSF allows all 8 members to their conference tournament. Sorry about the tabs, with the new BS format, I can't get it to work as well as it used to. ,
Here it is without attempting to put it in codes. TEAM W-L-T RPI SOS^ CONF. UCLA 9-2-2 7 12 Pac-12 New Mexico 10-3-0 9 35 MPSF Washington 9-3-2 22 31 Pac-12 Northridge 10-4-0 24 33 Big West California 7-5-1 43 43 Pac-12 UC Davis 6-4-4 47 36 Big West Santa Clara 8-5-0 54 76 WCC Sac State 7-4-2 56 87 Big West St. Mary’s 7-3-3 61 94 WCC UCSB 8-2-3 65 123 Big West Bakersfield 6-3-4 66 83 MPSF Denver 6-4-3 68 66 MPSF Oregon St. 6-5-2 69 58 Pac-12 San Jose St. 6-5-1 79 75 MPSF Riverside 8-5-0 81 108 Big West Cal Poly 7-5-1 85 102 Big West San Diego 7-6-0 89 105 WCC ^Per GauchoDan Pac-12 and WCC automatic bids go to the regular season champion; Big West only allows top 2 teams in each division to their conference tournament; MPSF allows all 8 members to their conference tournament. ,
Boy, has the Big East worked out how to game the RPI. This year, perhaps they won't humiliate themselves in the post-season. As for the west, the only surprise is that New Mexico is ranked as high as #9. GauchoDan has them down at #20.
Read the RPI explained thread and you will understand a key part of the answer to your curiosity is Highpoint. Wait until Duke and Wake Forest pick up bonus away wins at Elon.
Actually the committee doesn't have to go strictly by the RPI. Last year New Mexico had a season ending RPI of 6 and was given a 10 seed. UC Riverside had an RPI of 34 yet a far weaker (by more rational systems) UCF with an RPI of 42 got the bid. RPI is a poor system for determining a strength of the team, but it is the committee that has turned the tournament into a farce.
The thing about the RPI system we currently have, so heavily weighted toward SOS, is that at this point in the season team's basically know if they have any shot at an at large or not - regardless of their results from here on in. If your conference has a number of teams ranked in the top 40 then the conference RPI will only get stronger because of the remaining games against, and between, top 40 teams. If your conference only has one team in that group, or none, then the conference RPI will only get weaker with remaining match-ups. It means, even if your team wins out there won't be a big enough jump to get in to at-large territory. Of course we need to encourage teams to want to have a good SOS, but the fact that a 1 win team (Harvard) is in the top 100 seems a bit silly. Lehigh & W&M being in the top 150 with only 2 wins is tough to justify. Siena (7-6) being rated below UMass (4-6-2), Buffalo (2-10-1), & Albany (4-9) despite beating all three of those teams head to head also makes you question all parts of the formula. But - it's what will determine everything this November!
Given the RPI's flaws, it's disappointing we don't hear coaches and ADs speak out against it. I mean, it would seem to benefit the few over the many and even if it didn't the few should still speak out.
If RPI/Conference heavy-weights gaming the system hasn't already started, then the addition of New Mexico(9) and ODU (16) to C-USA will surely jump start some interesting scheduling. Currently 18 of the Top 30 come from just 3 conferences ...ACC, Big East and C-USA(threw in ODU & NM). If you go .500 or so in these conferences and pick up a few home cupcake games, it should provide for a good recipe for an NCAA slot. Mid-major conferences and rising stars will suffer and low-level conferences will have to travel for the privilege to play higher RPI teams. Of course who can blame the better conferences? Would have to believe that with the almost imminent arrival of 5 or 6 "Super" BCS Football conferences that even more drastic changes are afoot!!
It is time to expand the NCAA playoffs to a 64 team field from 48 teams and get rid of the unfair advantage for 16 teams to avoid playing the same number of teams to be crowned champions.
He's saying that the tournament should expand and do away with the top 16 teams earning a pass to the second round.
For comparison - NCAA D1 hockey has 56 schools competing, and there are 16 spots in the post-season tournament, 29%. D1 mens basketball - 344 and 68, 20%. Soccer has 203 and 48, 24%. Upping to 64 teams (as in the women's torunament) would raise participation to 32%. Not likely without more schools playing.
I just don't see the point of letting in 16 more average teams. It's not like these Next 16 teams that are currently excluded have a legit shot at winning a national title. It's not like the current size of the tournament is keeping a contender from getting a shot in the postseason.
Here are all of the unseeded teams that have made a final four run since the tournament expanded to 48 teams in 2001. Notably, all seven of them were given home field advantage in round one, meaning that they were effectively seeded between 17 and 32. In other words, nobody seeded below #32 has ever reached the College Cup. 2011 Charlotte (round one at home) - national finalists 2007 UMass (round one at home) 2006 UCSB (round one at home) - NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2005 Clemson (round one at home) 2005 SMU (round one at home) 2004 Duke (round one at home) 2003 Santa Clara (round one at home) Admittedly, I do have misgivings about writing the lower seeded teams off completely. Home field advantage makes a big enough difference that it's often a self-fulfilling prophecy. But even so, I tend to agree with Sandon. For me, the right way to get 2011 Washington into the tournament would've been with a better ranking system, not by expanding the field.
There is one problem with your example, which is all but a few of those bottom 16 teams are automatic qualifiers. This means some, like Liberty or Loyola last year, are not in the top 100 whether by RPI or any more rational ranking system. The teams that would be added in the large majority of cases would not be worse than most of numbers 33-48 but instead often better than teams in the current 32. Furthermore eliminating the bye would reduce the big advantage that the top 16 teams currently have and would knock out more of the better teams. The biggest two biggest problems with the system right now are 1) Some good teams in the West like Washington and Riverside are getting shut out from participating and 2) The practice of keeping teams within their own region gives makes the path in some regions much easier than others. That is how a UMass can have a run like 2007.