We still have the regular season, including conference tournaments, to play, but some of the conference tournaments start pretty soon and people already are starting to speculate about who's in the running and who's out of the running for seeds and at large selections for the tournament, so why not start concentrating the speculation in a thread? The NCAA will be coming out with its next official RPI report this coming Wednesday, October 19. Here are the guidelines I've developed, based on the 2007 through 2010 seasons, for how teams' RPI rankings in this particular report relate to the likely NCAA Tournament bracket. The purpose of the guidelines is to indicate what one reasonably could expect. There always can be exceptions. #1 seeds (four of them): likely will come from teams currently ranked #7 or better by the RPI. All seeds (sixteen of them): likely will come from teams currently ranked #37 or better. In the top group, but at reasonable risk of not getting an at large selection: ranked #30 or worse Outside the top group, but with a reasonable chance of getting an at large selection: ranked #74 or better
Big Ten teams based on cpthomas' criteria: #1 seeds (four of them): likely will come from teams currently ranked #7 or better by the RPI. No Big Ten teams in this group. Penn State is the closest at #12. All seeds (sixteen of them): likely will come from teams currently ranked #37 or better. Penn State (12) and Illinois (30) meet this criteria. In the top group, but at reasonable risk of not getting an at large selection: ranked #30 or worse Illinois also fits this criteria, so can't stop winning. Outside the top group, but with a reasonable chance of getting an at large selection: ranked #74 or better. This is where it gets interesting, as the Big Ten has a LOT of bubble teams. Wisconsin (47), Michigan State (48), Ohio State (51), Iowa (53), and Minnesota (71) has an outside shot, though right now they're two games below .500. It looks like Michigan (80) is in big trouble.
I should add that Michigan might be in a unique spot to move up IF they can win their final three regular season games, as they would get bonus rewards for all three (home Ohio State, home Penn State, at Illinois). Of course that's a tall order, but they finished very strong last season as well.
Regarding the sites of tournament games, the NCAA relatively recently issued its "Non-Predetermined Preliminary-Round Information and Bid Checklist." In general, there wasn't anything startlingly new. It starts with the following "Reminder": For non-revenue generating championships that seed a quarter of the bracket [Note: This covers Division I women's soccer.], sites will be awarded to the seeded teams who submit a bid that meets the requirements for hosting. In the event that a seeded team does not submit a bid that meets the requirements, the sports committee will maintain the current policy of geographic considerations when assigning those host sites. The committees will use the geographic considerations to help maintain the balance and integrity of the bracket. The committees will also separate first and second round conference opponents when assigning teams to sites. The document goes on to cover the information schools must submit as part of their bids to host games. One of the items a school must submit is a "Proposed Budget": An online proposed budget must be completed for each round of competition you wish to host. .... Please be sure to include projected ticket sales in the Receipts section. Here's a link to the document, for anyone who's interested in seeing it: http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/85b...ERES&CACHEID=85ba298048a4cf9494dfb74c8af46e6f The document mostly restates what we've already seen, which is that seeded teams will get to host if they submit appropriate bids. It still doesn't say what will happen when games are between teams that are not seeded. In terms of games where teams are not seeded, I'm wondering if the "Please be sure to include projected ticket sales in the Receipts section" has any significance. This could relate to half of the first round games, which will not involve seeded teams. Also, regarding the second/third round games that will involve foursomes at a single site on the second weekend of the tournament, I'm wondering if the "projected ticket sales" language could have significance where there are two seeded teams each wanting to host. Or, will the team with the better seed always get preference? Time will tell.
And here's what it looks like for the ACC right now... #1 seeds (four of them): likely will come from teams currently ranked #7 or better by the RPI. Wake Forest (1), Duke (4), UNC (6) and Virginia (7) All seeds (sixteen of them): likely will come from teams currently ranked #37 or better. Miami (12), Florida State (14), Boston College (18), Virginia Tech (27), Maryland (28) and NC State (36) In the top group, but at reasonable risk of not getting an at large selection: ranked #30 or worse NC State fits this criteria Outside the top group, but with a reasonable chance of getting an at large selection: ranked #74 or better. None
Where did you see this? In the link above? I've been to the men's college cup. I went in '10, and it drew something like 17,000 a match. That's the first I've bothered paying attention to College Cup attendance. What does it tend to be for the women's CC?
Based on my guidelines for this point in the season, and based on the RPI rankings for games through Sunday, October 23, here is what we reasonably can be anticipating for the NCAA Tournament: #1 seeds (four of them): Will come from the teams currently ranked #7 or better All seeds (sixteen of them): Will come from the teams ranked #30 or better Teams (that are not conference champions) at risk of not making the tournament: Teams ranked #36 or poorer Teams (that are not conference champions) with a reasonable chance of making the tournament: Teams ranked #68 or better
Looking at the Big East with the official RPI released today ND(#39), Georgetown(#40), Louisville(#44) I would think all 5 teams make it. It's funny that the order in terms of RPI for ND, GU, and LU is the exact opposite of their order of finish in the National Division of the BE.
Do a search for cpthomas' posts, particularly in the RPI thread. Sheesh. Also, the seeding works like this: the MAAC champ plays a good team and gets destroyed in the opening game of an east coast pod.
Here are my guidelines for predicting the NCAA Tournament bracket, as applicable to this week's RPI rankings (for games through Sunday, October 30): #1 seeds (four of them): Rank #7 or better. Any seed (16 of them): Rank #29 or better. At risk of not making the Tournament: Rank #36 or poorer. Possibility of making the Tournament: Rank of #68 or better.
What are #65 Penn's chances now with only Princeton left on their schedule, Harvard winning the head to head, and Princeton's RPI being so down this year? I thought from their record and all those shutouts that they were a definite shoo in, but the RPI might end in the 70s and that would be a difficult case. Do the judges look favorably on 8 shutouts in a row to end the season, if that is the case? I think Penn deserves to be there, but I'm a Philly guy so tell me who should be more deserving of their slot, if there is someone else on the bubble more qualified than Penn.
RPI is the primary criteria, so with an RPI of 65 and just one game left against a lesser opponent, I'd say their chances are very slim indeed. If they can get into the conversation based on their RPI, then they start looking at other criteria, including non-conference RPI and head-to-head results against top-40 RPI teams. It doesn't look good for Penn.
The RPI is such a flawed system, really. It separates teams into tiers better than winning percentage can, but should not make a final determination between #65 and #60 and #70 based on somebody else's records. I hope a 14-2 with 8 consecutive shutouts will be enough to get them in anyway. For example, as Penn is 0-0 against the Top40, and another hypothetical team is 0-2-1 against the Top40 and 11-6-2 overall, I would still want to select Penn.
This is the argument that people made on Denver's behalf last year. Denver didn't get in (from a significantly better position than Penn), but Auburn got in. Of course, Auburn had beaten #4 Florida and #13 Florida State. Denver hadn't beaten anyone even close to being of note. The coaches should know by now that having a really good win-loss record is not going to be enough. You've got to play some of the top teams, and you've got to have some good results against them. I'm betting a school like Penn could schedule a significant number of games against top teams. If they could, but choose not to do it, then that's their right but if it results in their not getting an at large selection it's not an injustice.
To be fair, Denver did try to schedule some good teams last year. It's just that the likes of Purdue and Washington State probably looked a whole lot more appealing when they signed the contracts for the games but then promptly went in the tank in 2010.
That's really unfair - as DMX has noted, Denver DID schedule quality opponents - but they didn't come through that year. And the bigger issue is what incentive is there for "quality opponents" to risk a loss against a mid-major like DU (or Penn).
2011 College Cup (Final Four) predictions: - (*Note* UNC loses in 2nd round to Georgetown, by a score of 6-1) Elite 8 Virginia Tech vs. Georgetown (Georgetown wins) Oklahoma State vs. Duke (Duke wins) Penn State vs. Texas A&M (Penn State wins) Stanford vs. Santa Clara (Santa Clara wins - in a major upset) Final Four (College Cup) Georgetown vs. Duke (Duke wins) Penn State vs. Santa Clara (Santa Clara wins) National Championship Final Duke vs. Santa Clara (Santa Clara wins in penalty kicks) Congrats to Santa Clara, your 2011 National Champions!!!
A lot of quality teams schedule games against top mid-majors. There is a lot of incentive to schedule those types of games, at least within your region. For instance, you're very likely to face those teams in the NCAA tournament. Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't. James Madison, UNCG, UCF, William & Mary, Boston University, Yale, etc. are all quality mid-major programs that get some decent playing time against ACC schools for instance (UNCG especially).