A lot of the bracketing inconsistencies are driving me batty. If they were going for geographic ease as indicated by matchups like Texas A&M-LSU, why not put Kentucky against Louisville and Ohio State against Dayton? If they used avoiding rematches as a rationale for that, why give us things like Milwaukee against Illinois State and Florida against Florida Gulf Coast? If they wanted to maintain seed integrity, why are teams like LSU and William & Mary on the bottom line and facing seeded teams? It's like they settled somewhere in the middle, but a lot of the decisions that were made are puzzling.
Massey Rating looks like it focuses largely on SOS - making teams like Memphis, Boston and W&M even more intriguing. All three destroyed their conferences but the best team Memphis has played is LSU (36th ranked), Boston tied at Boston College (17th) and W&M's best team was Georgetown (47th). Conferences seem to take a toll on Boston and W&M's rating - Boston hasn't played a team in the top 100 since they beat first round opponent Harvard 3-0 and W&M has only played 3 teams in the top 100 all season(!). Not saying those teams should be better, but I'd assume their rating is less precise either up or down because of their schedules, and therefore I'm interested in seeing how they perform.
Pure conjecture, but I'd bet it has everything to do with which schools submitted decent bids to host, especially given the new first round format.
I understand we didn't have a lot of quality wins or a lot of opportunity to get them but with our RPI # and total # of wins we deserved to get in. 15 wins only 1 bad loss. We were the highest RPI team not to get in and we beat fellow bubble team ND @ ND. Criminal to rob these girls of a bid. Portland only had 2 such wins and they were the first two games of the season. Ohio St had 3 such wins Washington St. only had 1 such win Texas had 4 such win. ND had 2 such wins. Alabama had 4 such wins California had 3 such wins Georgia had 5 such wins Hoyas should have been in over ND, Portland, and Washington State easily. Georgetown finished above ND in the BE standings and finished 2nd only to Louisville. They deserved to be in. Someone justify putting Washington State, Portland and ND in over Georgetown. ND and Portland have name recognition that's the only reason I can see and that doesn't explain Washington state.
I'm curious, what was Georgetown's NCRPI? I suspect it's not good. That might be your answer as to why they didn't get in.
Based on the RPI, here are the closest games next weekend. The higher rated team is first, then the lower rated team, then the rating difference: Kansas v Georgia .0051 Maryland v La Salle .0145 (interesting game for the BCS v mid-level debate) UC Irvine v San Diego .0149 Oregon State v Portland .0183 Miami v Alabama .0194 South Carolina v Texas .0209 Dayton v Louisville .0270 (also interesting in the BCS v mid-level debate, plus a question about why this is at Louisville -- perhaps Dayton did not bid?) Boston U v Harvard .0283 West Virginia v Virginia Tech .0285 Illinois v Notre Dame .0348 Santa Clara v California .0363 Tennessee v Ohio State .0425 Kentucky v Washington State .0436 (I think this will be an interesting one) North Carolina v William & Mary .0477 Texas A&M v LSU .0487 Pepperdine v Long Beach State .0493
A check of the opponents' ratings for next weekend's games, in relation to game sites, says the NCAA is following past practice and siting the first round non-seed games at the higher RPI-rated school. (We already knew that the seeded teams would get to host their first-round games.) There is one exception to this, which is Dayton playing Louisville @ Louisville. Does anyone have any information about this? I'm wondering if Dayton, for some reason, did not submit a bid to have the game.
Can't wait for this weekend. Saturday night in Milwaukee for Sarah Hagen and UWM vs. Illinois St. Sunday in Champaign IL for Notre Dame vs. Illinois
I wouldn't say "heinous," that's a bit harsh Dem. It's a stretch, but they dominated Auburn both times they played (though lost Friday night) and Auburn was a 3. They beat my Gators 4-2 (and we're a 2 seed) and they beat Texas A&M, also a 2 seed. No bad losses on the year. Played UCLA tough, losing a late lead. I know there are teams that can make a better case (Maryland, West Va., etc), but I'll stick up for the SEC here. I think Tennessee has a nice team.
As my earlier "guess" of what the Committee would do indicates, I had Georgetown "in." Now that the Committee's made its decision, I've gone back and looked at how I handled the different criteria. Here's my new "guess" as to why Georgetown got left out. First, I think the Committee could not make a decision based on the primary criteria (RPI, NCRPI, conference finish when comparing teams from the same conference all combined as the first criterion; head-to-head results as the second criterion; and results against common opponents as the third). It is not unusual for the Committee not to be able to make a decision based on these criteria. The Committee then went to the second criteria. These are Results Against Teams Already Selected; and Results Over the Last Eight Games (including both record and strength of opponents). I've always wondered about what they are looking for with Results Over the Last Eight Games. I have thought they were looking simply at bad results, which is what I did in my earlier "guess," but based on the Committee's decision today I've concluded that's probably wrong. Now, I'm wondering if they are looking for a team that has had either a truly spectacular run over the last eight games or a team that has had an implosion over the last eight games. This year, none of the bubble teams had either of those, so maybe Results Over the Last Eight Games became pretty meaningless this year in the secondary evaluation process. If I'm right about that, then from my perspective it explains the Committee's decisions. They would have based them on the other secondary criterion of Results Against Teams Already Selected. You have to note that this is does not include results against other bubble teams (which already weren't sufficient to support a decision, in the Committee's mind -- with which I agree). Something to think about in considering results against teams already selected (as well as head-to-head results and results against common opponents) is how you evaluate ties. Example: Team A ties Team B at home. How do you handle this in comparing those teams? Team A tieing Team B at home suggests that Team B might beat Team A at a neutral site and might well beat Team A at Team B's home site. When I do my evaluations, I consider that Team A tieing Team B at home indicates Team B is better. Also, in looking at the bubble teams' records against teams already selected, I look at who had the best win or wins and tie or ties. One very good result can mean a lot. (From an NCAA policy perspective, this encourages teams to build tough schedules for themselves in order to get some very good wins or ties, rather than simply scheduling to the RPI.) So, after I saw the Committee's decision, I went and looked at how I had ranked the 15 bubble teams based on their Results Against Teams Already Selected. It turns out that my rankings matched the Committee's decision exactly. Here are my rankings of the teams, with their positive results against teams already selected and with their opponents' rankings: 1. Portland: beat Florida State (6) at home; beat Oregon State (37) at home. 2. Washington State: tied Virginia (4) away; tied UCLA (9) at home. 3. Alabama: beat Auburn (13) at home; beat Tennessee (24) at home; beat South Carolina (35) at home; beat Samford (58) away; tied New Mexico (72) at home. 4. California: beat Long Beach State (31) at home; tied UCLA (9) at home. 5. Texas: tied Oklahoma State (7) away. 6. Ohio State: beat West Virginia (17) away; beat Illinois (19) at home; tied Illinois (19) at neutral. 7. Georgia: beat Kentucky (25) away; beat South Carolina (35) at home; tied Auburn (13) away. 8. Notre Dame: beat Marquette (23) away; tied Santa Clara (18) away. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Richmond: beat Dayton (22) at home; beat William & Mary (34) at home. 10. BYU: tied Santa Clara (18) away. 11. North Carolina State: beat LSU (33) at home; tied Maryland (26) away; tied Miami (28) away. 12. Massachusetts: beat Boston U (32) at home; beat La Salle (36) at neutral. 13. Central Michigan: beat Louisville (38) away; beat Toledo (67) at home. 14. Stephen F. Austin: beat Texas State (71) away. 15. Georgetown: none.
To go along with San Diego (1743) also on the road against UC Irvine (1757) - and both in the same pod with UCLA (1914). That's 5 of the top 26 final Massey ranking teams.
A few thoughts. First, the NCAA is a joke all around, in all sports. In women's soccer now, its talking out of both sides of the mouth by 1) sometimes placing emphasis on conference tournaments (FSU and Auburn this year) and other years not (last year's ACC champion getting shipped to California as a low #4 seed 2) making decisions strictly based on finances, placing top teams together for convenience and not on blood, sweat and tears (first glance of Texas A&M v LSU.....two regular season, 2nd place BCS teams....is just not right folks) and 3) like Bobby Knight said, there are not enough "basketball people making basketball decisions" and, in women's soccer's case, there are not enough soccer people making important decisions (Georgetown not in, really????). I know some of you might spit out numbers, fractions and decimal points to justify things but I don't care....sometimes the naked soccer eye just works better.
Washington State and Portland and ND did not "beat out" Georgetown. Decisions must be made, and the RPI is a gatekeeper but not a free pass. On the RPI released 11/6, Notre Dame is a 41 and Georgetown is a 42. Portland is a 49. But you don't use RPI as a sole criteria, or else the selection criteria would be a no-brainer. As far as the field is concerned, those three RPI numbers are essentially the same tier, but it is hard to make the argument that ND surpassed Georgetown or vice versa. They can be used for relative seeding but they can't be used to say what team goes and what team stays home. cpthomas states the reasons the best when he shows the only 8 bubble teams that made it and on what criteria, THIS YEAR (he did not mention ND's history). Is Georgetown really one of the best 8 bubble teams in the country? They were one of the best 8 teams in the Big East, is all. The Big East mentality never fails! IF we let them all in, there would be no other bubble teams, it would be just a Big East celebration! If you want to complain about NCAA conference bias, the Big East is a great place to start. Villanova men's basketball should not have made the NCAA tournament last year, but perhaps they got in based on premise of their ancient history. It only extended their 8-game losing streak into a nine. But supposing that ND and Georgetown were tied which essentially they are in RPI, despite the head to head results, I like having last year's defending national champion back in the field. Of course I do. And you could understand that too if it were Georgetown's shoes on the ropes.
I heard from a UMass parent that he heard at the A-10 finals that Dayton did not submit a bid. That was well before the NCAA pairings came out so it might actually be true!
A lot of schools have posted reaction videos to the NCAA bracket. Interesting to watch and see teams process how they were seeded/placed in the tournament.
I try not to play the "what if" game but the Hoyas' loss to Louisville in double overtime at home looms large in the story of their season.
Maybe someone who has seen Memphis play will shoot this down, but I have to say a possible 3rd round game between Florida St and Memphis is unfortunate. Naturally it's hard to place as much stock in the ratings with a team like Memphis that doesn't have the kind of schedule most of the other seeded teams have but, given Memphis' consistency over the last few years, I'd have to guess that they're real. It's been them and UCF at the top of Conf USA the last few years and Memphis usually beats UCF who always plays Florida and Florida St pretty tough (and has results against them in the last few years if I recall) There is a much larger degree of error likely in the rating of a team with a near perfect record -- if I understand these things at all. There is a large discrepancy in my attempts to simulate Massey's rating of Memphis -- with Massey's rating being well below my attempts to reconstruct or simulate it. I'll try to come back to the issue of Memphis later on but I think they're a good example for the need for a "protective seeding" option as I mentioned before. *** I suppose I could've checked their schedule and results at NC-Soccer first... It's not like they played the entire SEC conference but still : wins over LSU and 'Bama, both of whom made the tournament as well as conference foe UCF. Also the sort of teams that the SEC playoff teams should beat: Vandy, Samford (in the tournament representing their conference), Mississippi, Rice, Tulsa, Colorado College -- all without a loss. Only blemish a tie against a decent SMU team So there's a moderate amount of direct evidence that they can play with the better teams of the SEC... and by extension quite possibly with Florida St. This, Memphis, is a dangerous unknown. There is reason to believe they are among the top 5 or 6 teams in the country and no evidence that refutes it. This is a team that should not be playing the top four teams, the #1 seeds, until the quarterfinals.
Other early matchups that shouldn't happen (from a Massey Ratings standpoint): OK St v Illinois (potential round 2) Penn St v Marquette (potential round 2) Wake Forest / Penn St (rd 3) Pepperdine/ Long Beach St (rd 1)
CPTHOMAS Do you have the updated RPI data to share with us (since finals)? Would like to see how it all shook out and see if sense can be made of those not making it. THanks! Enjoy your work!
Yes, I just posted it on the RPI for Division I Women's Soccer website: https://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/rpi-reports It's in a downloadable Excel spreadsheet attachment at the bottom of the page. It's also available on the nc-soccer website: http://www.nc-soccer.com/wsoccer/2011/index_arpi
I like this for an at large selection criterion: "What the naked eye tells you." The Women's Soccer Committee has 10 members. Each of eight regions appoints a member, and there are two at large members. Each region consists of several conferences, and I believe (but am not certain) that the conferences in a region get together to appoint that conference's representative. At least half of the members must be administrators; and 6 of the members must represent FBS schools and 4 FBC or other schools. This year, 7 of the Committee members are administrators and 3 are coaches. Each region's representative on the Committee has a Regional Advisory Committee. All of the RAC members are coaches. For more detail, including who the members are this year of both the Committee and the RAC, go here: https://sites.google.com/site/rpifordivisioniwomenssoccer/ncaa-bracket-procedure The evidence, at least as to at large selections, is that the Committee abides by the decision-making criteria it is mandated to follow. If you have a complaint, it's easy to blame the Committee members, but your complaint should be with the criteria. So, if you're really serious (vs just venting, which always is understandable), you should be proposing specific revisions to the current criteria. I guess "What the naked eye tells you" could be your first offer -- but I don't think it's likely to be approved!
Thanks, Nellie, you're always a great source for good information. The bid deadline was about a month ago, so you easily could be right. It's the only explanation I can think of, since we know their field is acceptable to the NCAA from past experience -- I think they've had NCAA tournament games there previously. And, there does not appear to be a scheduling conflict for next week. If this is right, I bet there are some embarrassed administrators and some not very happy player parents -- unless they all like the idea of a vacation in Louisville in November.
I think this is a very apt comment. When you get into trying to do a disciplined and detailed application of the criteria, in order to try to see what the Women's Soccer Committee might have done, you start to see how one game can make a very big difference. If you're a contender, every single game is critical.
The end of my original quote regarding all the math wasn't directed at you, CP. The work you do is great and needed by followers. Just venting some curiosity and disagreement. But, the "naked soccer eye" was a roundabout way of stating a revision: more soccer people making decisions!!!! Especially on those last few bubble teams and some of the matchups. 30% coaches isn't good enough in my opinion.
I'm not sure that the D2/D3 selection committees, where the percentage of coaches is higher, make better decisions. The problem is that there isn't ANYONE in the room (or anywhere else) who's qualified to talk about the "naked eye" test, I mean, how many people have seen all the bubble teams play at least once?