How the hell does Wisconsin win the Big Ten conference (regular season title) in 2015, and not get in to the NCAA tournament that year? (that team had Rose Lavelle to boot) And Mississippi State finishes 2-6-2 in the SEC this year, they finish in 12th place in the SEC (out of 14 teams), and didn't even make the SEC tournament, but yet they get a bid in to the NCAA tournament this year? Wisconsin (2015) - Big Ten Regular Season Champions Miss. State (2018) - 12th place in the SEC conference (no SEC tourney) Wisconsin = OUT Mississippi State = in the Tournament F* the committee.
FYI This is the selections thread, the predictions thread is separate. Sorry but I have to point it out lest it keep happening. (Now I can go back to pretending we don't have a use for moderators.)
For Mississippi State you have to look at their whole body of work. Too much is being made about Miss St and Northwestern not making their conf tournaments. IMO, that doesn't matter as much. Your 2015 example of a Big Ten team being shunned is intriguing. I also thought there was another recent case of the Big ten busting some brackets as well. I will try to find this.
Northwestern beat Illinois late in the season--that had to have been a big blow to the NCAA chances of Illinois, which ended up with a 50 RPI compared to, I believe, 47 for Northwestern and 40 for Ohio State. Illinois also lost to Ohio State during the season.
They were a bubble team. And they were hurt when Minnesota beat Penn State in the Big 10 Final. That enabled Minnesota to get in, as Penn State was already going to get in.
Everyone they played except for 2 losses and 2 ties. Did they have a monster schedule like FSU? No, but apparently the PAC is very top heavy and middle down light. You play who is in front of you. Having played USC, I can tell you FSU will treat that game (assuming it happens) with great respect.
everyone respects USC, but the comments suggest they were hard done by. teams who are challenged deserve the benefit of that.
I have. I also watched every game of the SEC tournament. If they couldn't make that conference tourney, they really are not very good. Some of the ugliest soccer I have witnessed in a long time. If you ask me, Butler got stiffed. Very good team that lose twice to Georgetown (an even better team). Northwestern is better than Illinois I admit, but finishing 9th in your conference is not something you should be rewarded for. If Minnesota doesn't with the tourney, the Illini probably get in. Rutgers v. Duke the best match of the first round by far.
Unfortunately the RPI really liked the SEC this year for some reason. The committee isn't sitting around watching games and judging quality of play. You have to get results and play a schedule that allows you to get some stand out results.
They had a schedule and results to get them an RPI Of 8. 6 weeks as nations number 2. Lost in ot to Stanford. Lost in 2ot to UCLA. DREW #1 seed FSU. Beat Arizona and WSU (at the Palouse). Could easily have gone unbeaten. Why should a 5 loss Baylor team be a 2 seed?
Go back and look at Wisconsin's schedule and results and it will tell you why they didn't get in that year. A loss to #189 RPI will pretty much ruin you when you don't have any big wins. Beating Ohio State or Penn State that year might have helped them, but they didn't do either.
I think you can at least sort of see the logic in the committee's thinking with the USC seeding. I agree they are terribly underrated here, but its clear that the committee applied the same logic to USC as they did to other teams. Results against top competition matter in addition to RPI. I think USC was just unlucky that Florida, Pepperdine and LBSU weren't that strong this year.
Butler wasn't even close. Northwestern wasn't rewarded for finishing 9th in conference, they were rewarded for results in non-conference play.
This is a terrific observation about Southern Cal's getting a #4 seed rather than a better one. I just looked at my system for ranking teams based on their results against Top 50 teams. It has them ranked #14 in terms of those results, which is consistent with a #4 seed.
With all due respect, that same system has Baylor as a high #2 seed? They lost to Arizona, Arkansas, WVU, Texas, and USF. Their good wins were WVU one time Butler? How that justifies a 2 seed is a bridge too far for me.
Baylor beat #6 WVU and #19 TCU and #23 Kansas and #34 Texas Tech (twice) and #38 Butler and #45 Arizona St. Yes they have a lot of losses, but no bad losses. The strongest 2 seed resume? No. But enough results and a strong enough RPI to justify it. The committee doesn't penalize good losses. Like the SEC, the Big 12 was ranked highly this year too for some reason. Don't ask me why.
It will all wash out. Just think it’s horrible to sentence one of the few teams this year to actually garner #1 votes multiple weeks in the coaches poll to 3 weeks on the road to college cup
The thing that some have trouble with is that the Big 12 is the #1 rated conference in the RPI. SEC is #2. ACC is #3. Pac 12 is #4. So, based on the info that the Committee has, Baylor was the #1 team in the #1 conference's regular season competition. And, it was the #2 team in the #1 conference's tournament. In relation to the ACC, that's as compared to North Carolina at #1 in the #3 conference's regular season and #2 in its tournament; and Florida State, at #7 in the #3 conference's regular season and #1 in its tournament. They both got #1 seeds. In that context a #2 seed for Baylor looks fine. The challenge for fans of the ACC, the SEC, and the Pac 12 is to set aside the predispositions they have about which are the best conferences, in analyzing the Committee's decisions. That's hard to do. And, assuming your response is to criticize the RPI, I'll note that Massey, who has the best system I know of, has #1 Pac 12, #2 Big 12, #3 ACC, #4 SEC.
D1 soccer for Nov 4 has USC #8. That would equate to low 2 seed, not a 4 seed. Looking at the RPI rankings, I see that outside of the teams USC lost to or tied, the schedule was weak. The PAC 12 was very weak middle down this year.