I don't know why they use 1-40 and 41-80, and I've never seen an explanation for it -- and I've looked hard to find anything explaining the RPI. It would be possible, certainly, to use other tiers and other bonus amounts, as you suggest. It's important to remember, though, that the RPI is only one factor. It's probably the most powerful at defining groups of teams for consideration -- whether for particular seeds or for at large selections. My sense, however, is that once the Committee has used the RPI to define a group of teams for consideration, the Committee then looks at other factors. The work I've done suggests that the most powerful other factor is results against teams already selected for the bracket, including automatic qualifiers ranked #75 or better. [Question: if the bonuses are for good results against top 80 teams, why limit the "results against teams already selected" to the top 75?] To me, it's looked like the Committee, when considering results against teams already selected, breaks the teams into smaller groups and values results against highly ranked teams much more than results against less highly ranked teams. In fact, I've found that the following point system seems to provide a pretty good indication of how the Committee ends up valuing those results: I don't mean that I think the Committee does it this way. Rather, the Committee's decisions have been pretty consistent with applying the criterion this way. I actually use this table to rank teams for this criterion using their results against Top 60 opponents, rather than using "teams already selected." This is particularly useful as a way to identify bubble teams likely to get at large selections. It's especially useful if I pair ARPI rank and Results Against Top 60 Teams rank: The better a team's ARPI rank, the more it can get away with a poorer Top 60 Results rank. So, it looks to me like the Committee does have a way, although not explicit, of valuing results based on opponents' ranks that is more refined than the RPI bonuses. But again, the Committee could use a more refined bonus system.
Stanford - Pac 12 conference champions Cal 1 - 4 Stanford Lots of goals. Even Cal's Nice to see a few of the frosh get meaningful PT. Tran, in particular, was able to create space for herself out right and terrorize that flank with some velocity. For an edition needing a boost in team speed and penetration, she's a welcome addition. Hope Malatskey's not too banged up; I really like how she's shored up that position. Nice to see Beattie get a goal after Cal failed to clear their lines with a couple of seconds left. Tournament selections will be unveiled Monday 1330 PST. Hard to figure out who likely 1st-round opponents are coz they still have to determine champions in the Big West, Big Sky, among others. But last night my crystal ball unveiled its final Tournament seeds 1_Stanford_______2_Notre Dame_____3_Oklahoma__________4_BYU 1_West Virginia____2_Georgetown_____3_Arkansas [v UConn]___4_Virginia 1_South Carolina___2_North Carolina___3_Clemson___________4_Auburn 1_Southern Cal____2_Florida_________3_FSU______________4_UCLA
Do you think that the ACC champion should have high seed? You might want to speak to your crystal ball. The final is on Sunday FSU Vs UNC...
I think you're doing pretty well here. My simulation agrees with your #1s and 2s. On the #3s and 4s, which are much "iffier," my simulation doesn't necessarily agree on which teams are #3s and which #4s, but of that group of 8 teams, the simulation agrees on 7. The one it doesn't agree on is Florida State. Instead of FSU, it has Minnesota getting a seed. But, it easily could substitute FSU. (The simulation has UNC beating FSU tomorrow; and Minnesota beating Rutgers.)
1st-rd opponent will be Houston Baptist. Game to be played Fri 1900 PST. Looking at the bracket, advancing to the 2nd-rd means playing the winner of Santa Clara-Beach. Satan Clara are awarded a 1st-rd game for their mediocrity. They are a tough out coz they have this added incentive of advancing to the College Cup that's being played within walking distance of them. Advancing to the 3rd round could mean playing 4-seed Minnesota vs. the winner of Pepp-Cal. Why are Cal going to Malibu and not the other way around? Perhaps Cal did not bid to host a game? Better practice those PKs. Unlike last season, aim for the low inside corners, not a yard outside the posts