With limited non-conference play, it is very difficult to determine what the committee will do regarding seeding and especially at-large selections. The assumption is that it will be based on current year performance while taking into account historical precedence of how many at-larges and seeds a conference gets. Automatic qualifier seedings should be based on RPI precedence from recent years, with slight adjustments.
So far as I know, there still is a requirement that a team must have a record of at least 0.5000 in order to receive an at large selection. If anyone knows this no longer is a requirement, please let us know, with a link to the source if possible. Assuming it still is a requirement, there are a number of teams in play for at large selections that are not yet guaranteed to meet it. Some of these teams are at large long shots: Wake Forest: currently 5-6-1. Remaining games: Louisville, Georgia, Appalachian State Virginia Tech: currently 7-8-0. Remaining games: Liberty, Auburn Notre Dame: currently 6-5-0. Remaining games: TCU, Oklahoma State, Missouri Louisville: currently 5-7-0. Remaining games: Wake Forest, Tennessee Northwestern: currently 5-5-0. Remaining games: Illinois and conference tournament Baylor: currently 4-4-3. Remaining games: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma California: currently 4-3-1. Remaining games: Stanford, UCLA, Southern California, Arizona State, Arizona Missouri: currently 5-5-3. Remaining games: Notre Dame, Kansas, Kansas Pepperdine: currently 5-3-1. Remaining games: BYU, BYU, Gonzaga, San Diego
Ok this is an honest question because I don’t know all the #’s and how the rpi and all of that jazz works. But based on the teams listed as in contention above why wouldn’t Pitt be considered one of them? They are are 11-5. They have one of the nations leading goal scorers and #1 in points in West. She also has those goals and points spread out not just all in 1 or 2 games. Their worst lost on their schedule and i guess in my mind the one keeping them out of consideration right now was 0-1 @ Wake Forest. Other then that 3 of their loses were against top ranked teams in Florida State, then @ Virginia OT loss and OT loss @ Clemson. They also picked up a really good player for the spring that i think has changed them. They no longer just rely on West like they did in the fall. They are probably hurt by not getting many spring games but they have looked really good in both of their games this spring. Mertz has 3 goals in those 2 games and adds another attacking option for them. Obviously they didn’t lose anyone from the fall like several of the teams that seem to be on the bubble. I’m sure they need some help but feel there should be some consideration considering they will be one of only a few power 5’s with 11 wins. Some schools wont even play 11 games
At least for women's volleyball, I am told that there is NO requirement for a .500 record for this season only. I found a link regarding women's basketball waiving the .500 record rule for this season: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resource...-s-basketball-championship-planning-announced I found another link regarding all NCAA sports. https://www.ncaa.org/about/resource...tion-committee-issues-waiver-minimum-contests
FYI, in case anyone is curious, this is what I found regarding Covid-related forfeitures. In the tournament, if someone wins their match but is unable to play in the next match to do COVID-related reasons, do they forfeit the next match? This is the specifics from the non-basketball release. 1. Before the announcement of the championship bracket. a. Should an automatic qualifier, as determined by each conference, be unable to meet the medical protocols and participate in its first game of the championship, then the conference may designate a replacement team, as determined by its AQ policy submitted by the deadline. b. The replacement AQ team will be appropriately seeded and placed into the bracket before announcement of the championship bracket. c. Any potential at-large team unable to meet the medical protocols and participate in its first game of the championship must notify the sport committee before the announcement of the bracket. 2. After the announcement of the championship bracket. a. Consideration to replace a team (AQ or at-large) unable to participate due to COVID-19 and confirmation of the replacement team must take place within 24 hours after the selection announcement. b. An eligible conference may replace its AQ, if the team is unable to meet medical protocols to participate, with its preapproved contingency replacement team. c. The replacement team must meet all medical protocols and will take the exact place in the bracket of the original conference AQ team. d. If the replacement team, based on the approved contingency plan, is already in the field, the committee will replace the AQ with the at-large team ranked first among those not selected. e. For any at-large team unable to meet medical protocols related to COVID-19: i. The at-large team ranked first among those not selected will be notified and must be able to meet all medical protocols. ii. The replacement team will take the exact place in the bracket of the original at-large team. iii. Bracketing principles pertaining to conference matchups will not apply if a replacement team is used. iv. No replacements will be made beyond 24 hours after the selection announcement. If a team must withdraw after competition has begun, opponents would advance via the NCAA’s no-contest rule. The replacement guidelines for Division I and National Collegiate individual/team championships are: • If an individual sport participant must withdraw from the championships (due to a positive COVID-19 test result or other limiting circumstance), the sport committee shall follow its standard procedure for individual replacements (i.e., medical scratch). • Replacement of an individual participant must occur within 24 hours after the selection announcement. Source: http://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d1/compoversig/2020-21D1COC_ReplacementPolicy.pdf
Pitt finished in 10th place in the ACC regular season standings. (They had their regular season competition in the Fall.) It is unusual for a team that far down in conference standings to get an at large selection, although the Committee has gone as far as #11. That is with a full bracket, which means with 33 at large positions. This year, there will be 19 at large positions. There is no way the Committee will give 9 of those positions to any conference, including the ACC (i.e., teams #2 through #10 in the conference). Typically, the only way a team at #10 in its conference gets a look from the Committee is if they have some really outstanding non-conference results. Looking at their non-conference results this season: (1) Their two wins against Appalachian State, two wins against Citadel, and win against Duquesne would not do anything for them even if this were a full bracket year, as they are weak teams; (2) Their win against Navy probably would not do anything for them in a full bracket year and will not do anything for them this year with only 19 at large teams; and (3) Their win against Kentucky is against the #13 team from the SEC and because of that would not do anything for them even if this were a full bracket year. Thus there is nothing in their non-conference results that will offset their finishing #10 in their conference. Given that, Pitt almost certainly will not even get a look from the Committee.
Great work, West Ender, I see the Oversight Committee definitely waived the 0.5000 requirement. It also reduced the minimum required number of games, to get an at large selection, to 6 (which includes conference tournament games).
Thanks cpthomas. I get that normal standings they wouldn’t have much of a chance. Just wondered in this weird year if they would have a chance to move up over some of the teams that finished ahead of them in standings because they haven’t done well this spring and Pitt has looked better with the new additions I didn’t think Pitt had a significant win. Their best bet for anything decent would be for Navy to win the patriot league then those wins may look a little better. At the end of the day I’m excited for the future of Pitt. I know they didn’t beat anyone big but 11 wins is the most in program history. They played all the ACC games tough this year except Florida State. Even though it was a weaker schedule Pitt has been known not to win those games so its nice to see them get beat who they are suppose to beat. Hell last year they lost to Liberty, UMASS, Dartmouth, and had ties with Rhode Island and Miami. Excited to see what they do next year
I have published two new articles at my RPI and Bracketology blog. They follow the two themes I have been working on: (1) Will the RPI be usable for this season? Everything still points to, "No," and I do not expect that to change; and (2) If the RPI is not usable, how can the Committee form the NCAA Tournament bracket? The first article is an update on whether the RPI will be usable: NCAA Tournament: Keeping the RPI Honest, Part 7. It allows you to evaluate the RPI based on games played through Sunday, April 4. The second article is on my alternative, non-RPI, method for forming the bracket, this time addressing seeding teams: NCAA Tournament: Seeding the Teams, Part 1. It covers the pods of #1, #2, #3, and #4 seeds, the seeding of additional top conference automatic qualifiers and otherwise unseeded at large selections, and seeding all the other conference automatic qualifiers. Only for fun -- since there still are significant games and conference tournaments to play -- here is what the non-RPI method would create as a tentative version of the bracket were the season to have ended after the April 4 games. The assignments of each conference’s positions to teams are based on current conference regular season standings using a points per game method; and the assignments of automatic qualifier status is based on current conference regular season standings except for the conferences that played their tournaments in the Fall. This tentative version would be subject to change where justified by a systematic review of actual game results this year, taking into consideration this season’s head-to-head results, results against common opponents, results against highly ranked opponents, and recent results. In considering results against highly ranked opponents, those opponents would be teams given spots in the tentative version of the bracket and ones that are serious competitors to displace them. I have not done that kind of systematic review this week but hope to do it next week. The teams in pods are not in order. #1 seed pod (positions #1 through #4): Florida State (AQ) North Carolina UCLA (AQ) Arkansas #2 seed pod (positions #5 through #8): Virginia Penn State (AQ) TCU (AQ) Arizona State #3 seed pod (positions #9 through #12): Duke Texas A&M South Carolina Santa Clara (AQ) #4 seed pod (positions #13 through #16): Clemson Ohio State West Virginia Southern California Pod of other top automatic qualifiers and remaining at large selections (positions #17 through #27): Vanderbilt (AQ) South Florida (AQ) Georgetown (AQ) Plus all but 3 of the following: Louisville Notre Dame Rutgers Wisconsin Oklahoma State Kansas Stanford Washington Tennessee BYU Memphis Potential longer shots to bump out some of the above teams (not in order): Virginia Tech Wake Forest Indiana Illinois Michigan Minnesota Baylor Texas Oregon California Missouri Auburn Mississippi Pepperdine East Carolina Butler Connecticut Other Automatic Qualifier Seeds (specific teams ultimately to be decided by conference tournaments): #28 ConferenceUSA, Rice #29 Colonial, UNC Wilmington #30 Patriot, Army or Navy (currently tied) #31 SunBelt, South Alabama #32 AtlanticTen, St Louis ....................................................................... (line splitting unseeded teams into two 16 team groups) #33 Southern, Samford #34 AtlanticSun, North Florida #35 MetroAtlantic, Siena #36 MidAmerican, Bowling Green #37 MountainWest, New Mexico #38 BigSouth, High Point #39 Horizon, Northern Kentucky #40 MIssouriValley, Loyola Chicago #41 Southland, Lamar #42 WAC, Utah Valley or Seattle (currently tied) #43 OhioValley, Murray State #44 BigSky, Montana #45 AmericaEast, UMass Lowell #46 Summit, Denver #47 Northeast, Central Connecticut #48 Southwestern, Alabama State
I have published a new article at my RPI and Bracketology blog, continuing the process of showing what I believe would be a reasonable and defensible system for producing the bracket for the upcoming NCAA Tournament: NCAA Tournament: Seeding the Teams, Part 2. Using the process, as develped in articles I have published this year including the linked one, here is the bracket I come up with at this point in the season. The teams are not in order within their pods; and I have not attempted at this point to adjust teams among my initial #1 through #4 seed pods: #1 seeds: Florida State North Carolina UCLA Arkansas #2 seeds: Virginia Penn State TCU Southern California #3 seeds: Duke South Carolina Texas A&M Santa Clara #4 seeds: Clemson Ohio State West Virginia Washington Teams #17 through #27: Notre Dame South Florida Georgetown Rutgers Oklahoma State Arizona State Colorado Stanford Tennessee Vanderbilt BYU Teams #28 through #48 (in order): #28 Conference USA (if Rice, could move up in order; and if not Rice, then Rice would get consideration to bump an at large team out of the #17 to #27 group) #29 Colonial #30 Patriot #31 Sun Belt #32 Atlantic 10 (if St. Louis, would move up at least to #27; and if not St. Louis, then St. Louis likely would bump Notre Dame out of the #17 to #27 group) #33 Southern #34 Atlantic Sun #35 Metro Atlantic #36 Mid American #37 Mountain West #38 Big South #39 Horizon #40 Missouri Valley #41 Southland #42 WAC #43 Ohio Valley #44 Big Sky #45 America East #46 Summit #47 Northeast #48 Southwestern
Just for fun, I have quickly run through my last table and seeded all of the teams I show as in the Tournament as of the completion of the Sunday, April 11 games. That includes some switching around of teams in the #1 through #4 seed pods. This is not to be taken seriously: 1 Florida State 2 North Carolina 3 UCLA 4 Arkansas (I have doubts about this, but am staying with the top SEC team) 5 TCU 6 Southern California 7 Virginia 8 Penn State 9 Clemson 10 West Virginia 11 Duke 12 South Carolina 13 Texas A&M 14 Ohio State 15 Santa Clara 16 Washington 17 Vanderbilt 18 Arizona State 19 St Louis 20 Rutgers 21 Colorado 22 BYU 23 Tennessee 24 Stanford 25 Oklahoma State 26 Rice 27 Notre Dame 28 Georgetown 29 South Florida 30 Colonial 31 Patriot 32 Sun Belt 33 Southern 34 Atlantic Sun 35 Metro Atlantic 36 Mid American 37 Mountain West 38 Big South 39 Horizon 40 Missouri Valley 41 Southland 42 WAC 43 Ohio Valley 44 Big Sky 45 America East 46 Summit 47 Northeast 48 Southwestern I do not know what the bracket set up protocol would be, but I could see this, which would provide for a bunch of great second round matches (plus a few clunkers): 1 Florida State 32 Sun Belt 33 Southern ........................................ 17 Vanderbilt 48 Southwestern 16 Washington.......................................... 9 Clemson 24 Stanford 41 Southland ........................................... 25 Oklahoma State 40 Missouri Valley 8 Penn State------------------------------------------------------- 5 TCU 28 Georgetown 37 Mountain West ............................................ 21 Colorado 44 Big Sky 12 South Carolina............................................. 13 Texas A&M 20 Rutgers America East ............................................. 29 South Florida 36 Mid American 4 Arkansas------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- 2 North Carolina 31 Patriot 34 Atlantic Sun .............................................. 18 Arizona State 47 Northeast 15 Santa Clara................................................ 10 West Virginia 23 Tennessee 42 WAC ................................................. 26 Rice 39 Horizon 7 Virginia----------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Southern California 27 Notre Dame 38 Big South .................................................... 22 BYU 43 Ohio Valley 11 Duke...................................................... 14 Ohio State 19 St Louis 46 Summit ....................................................... 30 Colonial 35 Metro Atlantic 3 UCLA
CPT, 1st roundIf I understand the tourney this year, the teams 1-16 sit out the first game. 2nd round That leaves 32 teams and 16 will survive this round. 3rd round Round of 16 which will cut it to 8 4th quarterfinals leaves 4 5th CC semifinals 6th CC championship ?
Here is a bracket I just found. Selection Show Monday April 19 First round Tuesday-Wednesday April 27-28 Second round Friday-Saturday April 30-May 1 Third round Wednesday May 5 Quarterfinals Sunday May 9 National semifinals Thursday May 13 National championship Monday May 17 The good news is that there are 4 days between games. In the past, correct me if I'm wrong, CC games were played on the 2nd day? In 19 the Semis were on the Dec 6th and finals on the 8th. Hopefully this is a permanent change going forward. The fans and the teams deserve enough recovery time so we see the best the teams have to offer.
I will do a full description of how the process I previously have described leads to this in a few days, but here is what it produces in terms of a bracket with all 48 teams seeded. This starts from a set structure based on history, from which I make variations based on actual game results this year. There are a couple of adjustments to avoid teams from the same conference potentially playing each other in the second round. First, I will show my seeding from 1 through 48 and then what the bracket might look like. The variations I have made from the history-based structure involving judgments based on limited games data, so I think others easily could reach different conclusions using the same method I have used. SEEDING 1 ACC, Florida State AQ 2 ACC, North Carolina 3 Pac 12, UCLA AQ 4 SEC, Arkansas 5 Pac 12, Southern California 6 Big 12, TCU AQ 7 ACC, Virginia 8 Big 10, Penn State 9 SEC, Texas A&M 10 SEC, South Carolina 11 Big 12, West Virginia 12 ACC, Duke 13 ACC, Clemson 14 SEC, Vanderbilt AQ 15 West Coast, Santa Clara AQ 16 Pac 12, Washington 17 Atlantic 10, St Louis AQ 18 Big 10, Iowa AQ 19 Pac 12, Colorado 20 Big 10, Ohio State 21 Pac 12, Stanford 22 Big 12, Oklahoma State 23 West Coast, BYU 24 Big 10, Wisconsin 25 Big 10, Rutgers 26 Pac 12, Arizona State 27 Conference USA, Rice AQ 28 Big East, Georgetown AQ 29 American, South Florida AQ 30 Colonial, Elon AQ 31 Patriot, Navy AQ 32 Sun Belt, South Alabama AQ 33 Southern, Furman AQ 34 Atlantic Sun, Liberty AQ 35 Metro Atlantic, Siena AQ 36 Mid American, Bowling Green AQ 37 Mountain West, New Mexico AQ 38 Big South, Campbell AQ 39 Horizon, Milwaukee AQ 40 Missouri Valley, Loyola Chicago AQ 41 Southland, SE Louisiana AQ 42 WAC, Utah Valley AQ 43 Ohio Valley, SIU Edwardsville AQ 44 Big Sky, Montana AQ 45 American East, Stony Brook AQ 46 Summit, Denver AQ 47 Northeast, Central Connecticut AQ 48 Southwestern, Alabama State AQ Just missed: Tennessee (SEC), Baylor (Big 12), Wake Forest (ACC), Missouri (SEC), Mississippi (SEC) BRACKET 1 Florida State, ACC 32 South Alabama, Sun Belt 33 Furman, Southern 17 St Louis, Atlantic 10 48 Alabama State, SWAC 16 Washington, Pac 12................................................... 9 Texas A&M, SEC 24 Wisconsin, Big 10 41 SE Louisiana, Southland 26 Arizona State, Pac 12 40 Loyola Chicago, Missouri Valley 8 Penn State, Big 10.................................................. 5 Southern California, Pac 12 28 Georgetown, Big East 37 New Mexico, Mountain West 22 Oklahoma State, Big 12 44 Montana, Big Sky 12 Duke, ACC........................................................ 13 Clemson, ACC 20 Ohio State, Big 10 45 Stony Brook, America East 29 South Florida, American 36 Bowling Green, Mid American 4 Arkansas, SEC-------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 North Carolina, ACC 31 Navy, Patriot 34 Liberty, Atlantic Sun 18 Iowa, Big 10 47 Central Connecticut, Northeast 15 Santa Clara, West Coast ................................................................. 10 South Carolina, SEC 23 BYU, West Coast 42 Utah Valley, WAC 25 Rutgers, Big 10 39 Milwaukee, Horizon 7 Virginia, ACC................................................................. 6 TCU, Big 12 12 Rice, Conference USA 18 Campbell, Big South 21 Stanford, Pac 12 43 SIU Edwardsville Ohio Valley 11 West Virginia, Big 12.................................................................... 14 Vanderbilt, SEC 19 Colorado, Pac 12 46 Denver, Summit 30 Elon, Colonial 35 Siena, Metro Atlantic 3 UCLA, Pac 12
Everything you need to know for the selection show When: The 2021 DI women's soccer championship selection show is scheduled for Monday, April 19 at 1 p.m. ET. Where: You can watch the selection show right here on NCAA.com. https://www.ncaa.com/live-updates/s...ship-bracket-scores-schedule-and-how-watch-di
Correct link: https://www.ncaa.com/video/soccer-women/2021-04-19/di-womens-soccer-2020-selection-show On right now.
Penn State got robbed of a seed (no Big Ten team was seeded) and was placed in the same subregional as # 1 seeded Florida St. Wow! I guess the committee punished them pretty harshly for losing to Iowa.
No ranked win. Why should they be seeded? UVa aren't seeded either. They finished above Clemson and Duke in the ACC. Can only assume the committee put a lot of emphasis on the Clemson games. It is what it is.
For me, I don't quite get how, for teams that played intra-conference only (spring season), they ranked teams. Obviously, they didn't rate the Big Ten very highly. From an RPI standpoint the highest team is Penn St at 44! Just not sure I understand what they used to consider the Big Ten teams as low as they did. I might be completely off, but after watching the games this Spring, I find it hard to believe Penn St would lose to Duke, Clemson and a few others in the top 16. We'll find out soon though.