Since my ARPI+Conf Standards+Conference Rank had a decent score, I'll explain where it came from and what it is. One of the things I've observed about the Committee's seeds and selections is that there are some patterns that show up related to conference standing and conference ARPI rank. By conference standing, I mean the average of a team's regular season conference standing and its finishing position in the conference tournament. The pattern, which shows up frequently but not always, involves a combination of a team's conference standing and its conference's rank. The formula I use to "rank" teams gives them a rating of Conference Standing + Conference Rank. Thus, the #1 team in the #1 conference gets a rating of 2. The 11th team from the 31st conference gets a rating of 42. Or, looked at differently, the #8 team from the #1 conference gets a rating of 9; as do the #7 team from the #2 conference; the #6 team from the #3 conference; and so on. I wanted to combine the Conference Standing + Conference Rank ratings with teams' ARPIs, so as to weight them at 50% each. In order to do this in a workable way, for the Conference Standing + Conference Rank piece, I use the formula: 1/(Conference Standing + Conference Rank) Fortuitously, although the absolute values this produces are lower than the absolute values for teams' ARPIs, the spread between the high and low Conference Standing + Conference Rank values is nearly identical to the spread between the high and low ARPI values. Thus by using simply the following formula for this rating system, each factor has a weight of 50%: ARPI + 1/(Conference Standing + Conference Rank) I developed this formula to see if it would help solve the RPI's problem of underrating teams, on average, from strong conferences and overrating teams from weak conferences. When I ran the formula through my correlation tests, it performed well: 1. Its ratings correlate with game results just as well as the ARPIs and just as well as virtually any other system's; and 2. It completely solves the RPI's conference discrimination problem -- meaning that there is no pattern of discrimination in relation to conference strength. 3. There also is an RPI problem of discrimination in relation to regional strength. This new formula still has that problem, but to a somewhat lesser degree than the RPI. What I like about this new formula is that it's elegantly simple. And, it solves the conference discrimination problem. So, I'm curious to see how well it competes with the other formulas and us humans.
The computer generated and the statistics driven entries also came in about 2 points above last years' results. I should add that there is a lot of shuffling in these next two rounds both in the Human and Computer division. After the elite 8 is picked, the last three rounds are about the leaders holding off those who have the correct final four and champion picked. Last year the eventual winner was in the cat bird seat leading the score at the end of round three and then called the final four correctly to build a commanding lead of 19 points going into the semifinals. At the end he discovered that he had not called any of the last three games while the #2 and #3 had a statistical shot. He ended up winning by three points as the runner up failed to call one of the semifinals. The year before (2014) there was a gaggle of 10 right near the top after the elite 8 round. The leader ended up in 16th place while the #3 coming out of the third round won the contest by nine points. Finally, this is a humbling contest. A contestant who finished in 4th only a single call short of the championship in 2014 (and also placed 4th in 2014) fell to almost dead last in 2015. And I, having come in second in 2011, ended up near the bottom in 2013. On the other hand we've had some real consistent players: Kolabear comes to mind who finished in second place two years running. (In 2013 he missed being on top by only one point.) Finally, there are those who have decided that they don't get much enjoyment out of this little exercise and just drop out, but on the other hand there are those of us who keep trying. Thank goodness that there is no money involved... bruised egos are less expensive.
The computer generated and the statistics driven entries also came in about 2 points above last years' results. I should add that there is a lot of shuffling in these next two rounds both in the Human and Computer division. After the elite 8 is picked, the last three rounds are about the leaders holding off those who have the correct final four and champion picked. Last year the eventual winner was in the cat bird seat leading the score at the end of round three and then called the final four correctly to build a commanding lead of 19 points going into the semifinals. At the end he discovered that he had not called any of the last three games while the #2 and #3 had a statistical shot. He ended up winning by three points as the runner up failed to call one of the semifinals. The year before (2014) there was a gaggle of 10 right near the top after the elite 8 round. The leader ended up in 16th place while the #3 coming out of the third round won the contest by nine points. Finally, this is a humbling contest. A contestant who finished in 4th only a single call short of the championship in 2014 (and also placed 4th in 2014) fell to almost dead last in 2015. And I, having come in second in 2011, ended up near the bottom in 2013. On the other hand we've had some real consistent players: Kolabear comes to mind who finished in second place two years running. (In 2013 he missed being on top by only one point.) Finally, there are those who have decided that they don't get much enjoyment out of this little exercise and just drop out, but on the other hand there are those of us who keep trying. Thank goodness that there is no money involved... bruised egos are less expensive.
1) Indeed. We have all seen games like this. What made me chuckle was recalling the ACC championships when Notre Dame was the team that was completely outplayed but scored a very unlikely goal in the 88th minute. 2) The game was evenly fought when Minnesota had the wind. NC State did a good job of dominating when they had the wind. 8-2 in shots on goal, I believe it was said that it was the most activity in goal the Gopher goalie had had in her career. 3) UConn/Auburn, two mediocre teams so it is hard to pick. I have UConn but think I made a mistake, Auburn's tougher SOS will make the difference. Both benefited from the "luck of the draw because neither is a sweet 16 team. PSu/Virginia, a fun match up. Virginia is a top 5 team if they bring their A game. PSU is a top 10 team if they bring it. This is like a final 4 match up. Virginia is at home so go with them. Pepperdine/NC State, the travel, lack of depth coupled with just coming off a a 110 minute match 1,000 miles from home and injuries make Pepperdine the logical choice. That said, bet State. Why? Chemistry and athleticism.
On the gopsusports.com site they say that the Penn State - Virginia match will be played in DC. "The Penn State women's soccer team will play No. 3 seed Virginia in the second round of the NCAA Tournament Friday, Nov. 18, at 11 a.m. The match will take place at Shaw Field in Washington, D.C." That is Georgetown's home field. Any idea why it is being played there?
Georgetown is the highest seed in this quadrant (#2), so rounds 2 and 3 will be played in DC for all teams in the quadrant.
Assuming the higher seeds win their next games, I most look forward to Southern Cal. vs. Florida State, followed by Virginia vs. Georgetown (although Rutgers may have something to say about that) in a matchup of the rich and richer. As far as an upset - I am going with Colorado over the 'other' USC. As far as my B1G goes, I believe Northwestern WILL win and Wisconsin MIGHT beat Florida (if they use one of the best attacking players in the country in that capacity - same gripe, different thread). Not enough scoring on the field for NW to get by Duke. If Wisconsin does happen to win, they could win Sunday as well. Just my thoughts - I have been wrong way more than right; just sayin'!
I like UVA but don't think they are a top 5 team this year--definitely have fallen off a bit this year from last two years. Good but not great. Shaffer is one of the best players in the country but they got whupped by UNC in the ACC tourney. But that should be an excellent game. I would not call auburn mediocre--they've got a good team in attack and solid in the back. Have not seen UConn but auburn might be a tournament sleeper....
Watching the Penn State - UVA game at Georgetown... That field is in horrible condition. Looks like they are playing on dirt.
I know. Granted my picture quality wasn't good, but why was the field brown? Was it grass that had turned its winter color? In any case, UVA looked great and Penn State, surprisingly, looked terrible. Did not see the first 20 minutes, during which UVA scored 2 goals, but UVA completely bossed the game.
Well my team lost, but my bracket pick won. Mixed result.... No telling what this PSU team could have done with the 6 players off to U20 World Cup! We will know next year as they only lose one starting senior, Dreese.
You must not have been following Penn State this season. They did not have a good year, and played down in several matches. Having said that, I didn't expect them to go far either. I actually picked UVA to win this match in the bracket prediction contest. Too many players missing to the U-20 WWC. Next year will be another story, however, and you can bet they'll be in the mix. Congrats to UVA and their fans; good luck in your future matches. .
Yep. Luckily, I only had Minnesota advancing past the 2nd round (they lost in round 1) in the bracket prediction contest, so at least my bracket prediction results are looking good.
You certainly had more foresight than me. I didn't think they would under-perform that badly, especially with home field advantage. Oh well.
I knew Pa. State was missing 5 or so U20 players and not as strong as last year, of course. But they were also 12-5 on the year and 7-1 or whatever in the conference. I'm not surprised at the outcome, but I was surprised at how uncompetitive they were.
Big Ten was soft this year, so conference record was not representative of their quality. Also, PSU didn't have a very tough schedule before conference play began, and it showed in their RPI. Next year will be much different for PSU; they should be one of the top 5 teams in the country.
Well, well, well. Santa Clara just knocked off Stanford, so I guess it's time to post the Round Two results. (See below.) It appears from the stats that the Broncos "parked the bus" infront of the goal and scored the magic goal in the second over time. I believe that by the end of the first OT, Stanford had out shot SCU by 30 to 6 (and shots on goal 14-2). But the second over time was when the Broncos pulled it out! That's Soccer!! Now, for the purposes of this contest, in this second round it was the Georgetown/Rutgers and especially the NC State/Pepperdine game that generated serious shifts in the contest scoring. These were the games that had significant differences of opinion and changed the pecking order whereas the the Stanford/Santa Clara, Virginia/PSU, Utah/FSU, Clemson/Arkansas, and OK/BYU games were lopsidedly uncontroversial in that only one contestant out of 24 disagreed with the majority and consequently the scores did not change much in relative order. Be that as it may, the 5 contestants who pucked NC State in the second round looked good, and the 7 who picked Rutgers got to move down a notch in the scoring. The bottom line is that we have a brand new leader and second place contestant, with seven others in a good position to challenge in the next round. So, here are the Human Division second round 2016 scores. (I'll enter and post the computer/statistical scores in a half hour or so.) Enjoy or weep! 67 Kurt Kline 66 HeadSpun 64 cpthomas 64 MILLENNIUM 64 TWSWBC 62 mentor5959 62 mpr2477 61 Merlin 13 60 Persin 60 RtD! 60 Soccerhunter 60 sweepsit 60 the guru 59 Glove Stinks 59 Ingoldsby 59 KickitHard 59 NilamCA 58 castate 57 Got Jukes? 57 Jim Halpert 57 Liesse00 56 REGION 1 52 dmthomas49 50 ziggy1010
Second Round Scores for Computer/Statistical Entries Unlike the Human Division, the "less heart" more "calculating" entries of this division are more compact and in lock-step with each other. In scoring this round, there was complete agreement in all picks except and even split (4v4) regarding the UConn/Auburn winner. The average Second Round score for this division stands at 61.0 which represents an increase in its lead over the Human Division from the First Round. The lead coming to this round was 26.88 to 26.3 (0.58) and is now 61.0 to 59.71 (1.29). This is consistent with last years scores as the machine scores are more compact around their mean and steadily open a lead against the Human contestants. On the other hand, it looks like the leaders of the Human Division are once again starting to out distance the top scoring machines (and at the bottom end falling well behind the machines!) Kinda reminds be of a large gambling enterprise where the house always wins the big bucks while most individuals lose and a few at the top win some money. ...And like that institution, those at the top are not the same ones year after year. The Second Round Scores 63 Non-Conf ARPI 63 Iteration 5 URPI 62 Standards 61 Top Drawer Rankings 61 Massey 60 ARPI+Conf Stand+Conf Rank 59 NCSAA Coaches Poll 59 ARPI
Just a note that the NSCAA Coaches Poll isn't a computer/statistical entry. It would be more interesting to see how it fares in competition with the individuals. I don't know about the Top Drawer Rankings, and I can't find anything about how they do the rankings on their website, but I'm guessing they're not a computer/statistical system either.
Yes, you are, of course, correct. However, I would argue that that such polls (or internal construction, such as Top Drawer) are not the same as an individual filling in a sheet for a contest. A poll of coaches is not aimed a predicting the result of a tournament and might be considered a statistical exercise based on some of the same data that the rpi uses plus some human hunches too. Nor, do I suspect that the Top Drawer folks are thinking of winning a tournament contest but mostly how to generate interest in their website. But, your point is well taken.
Third round results should really give some separation to the leader(s). Come on USC and WVU, you gotta make it to round 4 for me.