I know that people theorize about travel restrictions and so on affecting seeds, but I never have seen a case in which that was a good explanation for a Committee decision. Penn State was very close to getting a #4 seed according to my system but had one demerit that kept them from being there. I haven't had time to look yet to see what the demerit was, but one demerit in my system ordinarily isn't enough to say something other than their having earned a #4 seed was at play. I'll have a better idea after I've done a full analysis. One of the factors the Committee considers, by the way, is results over the last eight games -- both record and strength of schedule. I use a surrogate for that, since it's hard to program calculations based on each team's last 8 games, but this might have been a big factor in the seeding decision.
How did Colorado get in the tourney? How many quality wins did it have--one, over the 4th place team in the Pac 12? Gifted an NCAA berth? Seems like it.
The 400 mile NCAA travel restriction for round 1 is pretty strict, from what I've seen. I haven't looked at the RPI snubbed teams (high RPI, non-seeded teams list below), but I'd assume that travel played a big factor. RPI - Team - Conference - Overall Record - 1st Rnd Opponent - Distance 10 Brown - Ivy (14-1-2) -- Monmouth - ~233 miles 14 Duke - ACC 8-3-7 -- Utah - ~2,110 miles 15 Virg. Tech - ACC (12-4-2) -- Xavier - ~333 miles 16 Hofstra - CAA (15-3-2) -- Loyola Chicago - ~1,126 miles Looking at the last 8 matches for each team, here's what I found: Brown - 7 wins, 1 tie Duke - 2 wins, 2 losses, 4 ties VTech - 3 wins, 3 losses, 2 ties Hofstra - 7 wins, 1 tie
How do they justify the Cal v Santa Clara match every year? Just brutal that one of those teams isn’t getting out of the first round
RPI helped, although it went from 31 to 43 with the loss to Utah, seems like an overly big drop. 33 at large teams were selected, and eliminating conference winners already in, Colorado's RPI was #33. And it may have been a bit of a make-up call. Last year's team was better, finished fifth in the Pac-12, but the RPI never got far enough off the ground. There was some agreement that CU was the best team not selected and perhaps should have been. Not only are the Buffs in, they get a home game because Northern Colorado, 60 miles away, RPI 227, won the Big Sky tournament.
Travel restriction for first round games? Where is that restriction? There is a restriction that requires bus travel rather than air travel, and at least at one time it was if the game site is within 400 miles of the opposing team. The way the system works, the Committee does its seeding, then makes the remaining at large selections. Then the NCAA's travel program arranges the teams in pairings so as to minimize overall travel costs, subject to the "no in-conference 1st or 2nd round games" limitation. Somewhere in there (I don't know if it's before or after the data go to the travel program), the Committee decides which 16 teams, after the seeded ones, get to host. Since you've used the word "snubbed," I'm guessing you think some of the four teams you mentioned should have gotten seeds. Is that right? Which ones? (That's a serious question.) If you're looking for an explanation, I wouldn't go to travel issues. Instead, I'd look at the teams' detailed profiles. Or, if you let us know on which team or teams you think the Committee messed up, I'll include that in my detailed analysis of the Committee's decisions.
Utah 8-8-4 should not be in the NCAA. Colorado or Iowa either. Being a Power 5 is a huge plus behind closed doors. FAU and Harvard earned a bid
Travel only comes into play once field is selected. Colorado and Utah were both ridiculous selections. Zero good wins and sub par conference finishes. Two changes I’d make if I were named king of the world: National seeding. Seed the field 1-64. 1 plays 64, 2 plays 63 etc. It’s ridiculous some of the matchups. Colorado playing No Colorado while Cal plays Santa Clara? Just awful. Other one is you have to be .500 or better in conference play to be eligible for NCAA.
Iowa beat Notre Dame in South Bend, beat NC State in Raleigh, tied Wisconsin in Madison, and finished 15-4-1. What did FAU and Harvard do to "earn" a bid over Iowa?
Colorado beat Texas, Arizona, and Washington. All three teams are in the field. I think those are good wins, especially Washington. And, Arizona beat UCLA, TCU and Washington State, so they are no slouch. Utah surprised me. But they had two big wins the final weekend over Washington and Colorado.
I haven't reviewed Florida Atlantic yet, so I can't comment on that. But regarding Harvard, back in February I wrote an article SO YOUR CONFERENCE WANTS MORE OF ITS TEAMS IN THE NCAA TOURNAMENT: AS A GROUP, HOW MUCH ATTENTION SHOULD ITS TEAMS PAY TO THE RPI FORMULA? ANSWER: A LOT. The article explains some of the basics of the structure of the RPI. It then describes a strategy by which a conference's teams, working together, can effectively "game" the RPI through their non-conference scheduling -- specifically by scheduling not to play strong opponents but rather by playing relatively weak teams so that every conference team has a high non-conference winning percentage. I used the Big East conference as a test case, created a hypothetical schedule based on the strategy, and showed what the teams' rankings would have been in 2018 if its teams had played those schedules rather than the ones they actually played. The test showed that the teams would have vastly improved their rankings, indeed would have made the Big East the #1 conference according to the RPI. Same Big East teams, completely different rankings due to a completely different -- and much weaker -- schedule. (This kind of thing is one of the reasons the NCAA has stopped using the RPI for men's basketball.) I suggest you read that article first and then look at each Ivy team's non-conference schedule. You'll see that this year, their non-conference scheduling was right along the lines of the strategy I outlined. (The conference as a whole played only 9 games against Top 50 teams, with positive results in only 3 of them.) Combined with the fact that the Ivies' non-conference games are a relatively high proportion of their schedules, this significantly over-inflated their ratings and ranks. I don't know whether the Ivies did this intentionally or by accident. But whether by intent or by accident, they effectively gamed the RPI this year. Thus their RPI ranks simply aren't a good measure of how strong their teams are. It appears that the Women's Soccer Committee figured this out.
Take a look at the best results of Colorado, Utah, and Iowa (since others have criticized Utah's inclusion) and those of Harvard and Florida Atlantic (since they're ones mentioned as unfairly excluded). There's no comparison, Colorado's, Utah's, and Iowa's are far better. If you were king of the world, I assume that before seeding all 64, you first would turn women's college soccer into a revenue sport! But you're right, Cal and Santa Clara playing a first round game ... again ... is awful, that's two quite good teams and only one will get to the second round. There must be some reasonable middle ground. On the other hand, I think a .500 or better in conference requirement would be just plain dumb. That's assuming the objective is to have the at large teams be the top 33 that have demonstrated themselves to be the best over the course of the entire season.
That 4th place team (tied for third with USC and beat them in Los Angeles, not sure why that's 4th) had an RPI of #10 when both Colorado and Utah defeated them in Seattle two weeks ago.
For people with airline miles on American and United, short-notice domestic round-trips are available for as little as 10,000 miles on American and 15,000 (I think) on United. In my case, Grand Junction, Colorado to Raleigh, North Carolina to watch the Buffs and Tar Heels was $717 minimum, which means I’d be watching it on line. But I got the round trip for 10,000 miles on American. Just a thought, for anybody who would like to support your team in person but can’t or doesn’t want to pay the high short-notice airfare.
I'll do a review of why Colorado might have gotten in eventually. Based on a quick review, it looks like the Committee's historic pattern is that a team with an RPI rating greater than or equal to 0.5900 from the #1 conference always has gotten an at large selection. Colorado's RPI was .5914 and the Pac 12 was the #1 conference, so consistency with the Committee's historic pattern would give them an at large selection. And, Colorado's profile didn't have any disqualifying characteristics. However, derbarkasmann, the ratings/ranks of teams at the time Colorado played them isn't relevant. What matters is the ratings/ranks of those teams at the end of the season. Something to remember is that a team may look like a weak "at large" selection and it may be -- Colorado appears to have made it just under the wire based on the Committee's historic pattern. But, you also have to analyze the teams that almost made it but didn't get at large selections. The comparison may show that they were even weaker. That's the likely case here, but I'll see when I do a detailed review.
For those who'd like to watch the (free) live stream of the BYU v. Louisville match, it can be viewed on BYUTV.org/Livetv Clear footage, nice camerawork and live commentary - such a treat! Thank you, BYU.
We're spoiled here in Provo. Ironically, though, I was ready to pull my hair out tonight during the broadcast. The producers kept lingering on close angles and missing significant chunks of the actual play. The camera work itself was good, the production values high (for college women's soccer), but the editing decisions were, for the first time I can remember, terrible.
Did you watch the first game? The announcers (BYU people) clearly hadn't done even the barest research on NC State and Arkansas. They mixed up the two goalkeepers, called State 'NC' all game, and when Arkansas scored late, called them NC State a bunch of times. Tough to do two games in one night, granted.
I watched the majority of the first game, but on mute (trying to work as I watched). That's really frustrating to hear. I'm sure it's difficult to prepare for two unknown teams on less than a week's notice, especially with the second game afterwards. But why not adopt a minimalist approach to announcing in that situation? Or even just run a silent feed?
I actually liked their personalities and soccer commentary--but they did botch some names--and, as you note, when Arkansas scored late the lead announcer not once, not twice but three times said that NC State had just scored. I'm not sure how one botches that.
well for all the Arkansas fans that were complaining about their seed and its not fair they are put in with BYU and Stanford, you don't have to worry about it because you got bounced by NC State.
I've started doing my this year's analyses of the Women's Soccer Committee's decisions about seeds and at large selections for the NCAA Tournament. Although I usually start with the #1 seeds and work down from there, this year for my first article I started with the Ivy League and its teams ranked in the Top 50: #10 Brown (which did not get seeded); and #37 Yale, #41 Harvard, and #49 Columbia (none of which got at large selections). Because of the way the Ivy League did its non-conference sheduling this year, which I discuss in detail in the article, this seemed like a good place to begin my analyses. If you're interested, you'll find the article here: Women's Soccer Committee Bracket Decisions: Brown, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the Ivy League.
I've just published an article on the Committee's #1 seed decisions for the Tournament. It includes, in particular, an analysis of the Committee's decision to give Florida State, rather than UCLA, the 4th #1 seed. And, it provides some information on the significance of that decision in terms of win/tie/loss likelihoods for the Florida State v UCLA game this coming Friday. If you're interested, here's a link to the article: The #1 Seeds, Including: Florida State or UCLA?