1. Save 40-80% on great soccer jerseys. Shop today at BigSoccer Shop!

NCAA RPI

Discussion in 'College & Amateur Soccer' started by bisbee, Oct 15, 2012.

Moderators: Crimson Ace
  1. bisbee

    bisbee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010


  2. HoyaHooligan

    HoyaHooligan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2008
    BE looking pretty dominant. 6 of the top 11; 10 of the top 30.
     
  3. bisbee

    bisbee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    No kidding:cool: BE tournament is gonna be a real dog fight
     
  4. unnamedsource

    unnamedsource Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Well, don't think there's much question as to the top conference in college soccer this year.

    Interesting to me:

    13. Virginia 6-6-1
    14. North Carolina 11-1-1
     


  5. bisbee

    bisbee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    It's all about the ethereal SOS
     
  6. Sandon Mibut

    Sandon Mibut Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    I guess it's time to commence the annual moaning from the four western conferences about the RPI's unfairness. This isn't to suggest there isn't some merit to some of their complaints, but at the end of the day, it is what it is and what it is is the system of record.

    Here are the RPI ratings of the western schools with current winning records:

    Code:
    TEAM                    W-L-T    RPI        SOS^      CONF.
    UCLA           9-2-2                   7              12                Pac-12
    New Mexico      10-3-0  9              35                MPSF
    Washington        9-3-2      22          31                Pac-12
    Northridge        10-4-0  24          33                  Big West
    California            7-5-1      43          43                Pac-12
    UC Davis              6-4-4      47          36              Big West
    Santa Clara        8-5-0      54          76                WCC
    Sac State              7-4-2      56          87                Big West
    St. Mary’s            7-3-3      61          94                WCC
    UCSB                    8-2-3      65          123              Big West
    Bakersfield        6-3-4      66          83                    MPSF
    Denver                6-4-3      68          66                  MPSF
    Oregon St.          6-5-2      69          58                  Pac-12
    San Jose St.        6-5-1      79          75                    MPSF
    Riverside            8-5-0      81          108                  Big West
    Cal Poly        7-5-1      85          102                        Big West
    San Diego            7-6-0      89          105                WCC
     
    ^Per GauchoDan
     
    Pac-12 and WCC automatic bids go to the regular season champion;  Big West only allows top 2 teams in each division to their conference tournament; MPSF allows all 8 members to their conference tournament.
    Sorry about the tabs, with the new BS format, I can't get it to work as well as it used to.
    ,
     
  7. Sandon Mibut

    Sandon Mibut Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    Here it is without attempting to put it in codes.

    TEAM W-L-T RPI SOS^ CONF.
    UCLA 9-2-2 7 12 Pac-12
    New Mexico 10-3-0 9 35 MPSF
    Washington 9-3-2 22 31 Pac-12
    Northridge 10-4-0 24 33 Big West
    California 7-5-1 43 43 Pac-12
    UC Davis 6-4-4 47 36 Big West
    Santa Clara 8-5-0 54 76 WCC
    Sac State 7-4-2 56 87 Big West
    St. Mary’s 7-3-3 61 94 WCC
    UCSB 8-2-3 65 123 Big West
    Bakersfield 6-3-4 66 83 MPSF
    Denver 6-4-3 68 66 MPSF
    Oregon St. 6-5-2 69 58 Pac-12
    San Jose St. 6-5-1 79 75 MPSF
    Riverside 8-5-0 81 108 Big West
    Cal Poly 7-5-1 85 102 Big West
    San Diego 7-6-0 89 105 WCC

    ^Per GauchoDan

    Pac-12 and WCC automatic bids go to the regular season champion; Big West only allows top 2 teams in each division to their conference tournament; MPSF allows all 8 members to their conference tournament.

    ,
     
  8. Sandon Mibut

    Sandon Mibut Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    Formatting aside, the western conferences combined might not get more than one at-large bid.
     
  9. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Boy, has the Big East worked out how to game the RPI. This year, perhaps they won't humiliate themselves in the post-season.

    As for the west, the only surprise is that New Mexico is ranked as high as #9. GauchoDan has them down at #20.
     
  10. scoachd1

    scoachd1 Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    You mean looks like the Big East has some good teams and a very RPI friendly schedule.
     
  11. scoachd1

    scoachd1 Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    Read the RPI explained thread and you will understand a key part of the answer to your curiosity is Highpoint. Wait until Duke and Wake Forest pick up bonus away wins at Elon.
     
    Sandon Mibut repped this.
  12. scoachd1

    scoachd1 Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    Actually the committee doesn't have to go strictly by the RPI. Last year New Mexico had a season ending RPI of 6 and was given a 10 seed. UC Riverside had an RPI of 34 yet a far weaker (by more rational systems) UCF with an RPI of 42 got the bid. RPI is a poor system for determining a strength of the team, but it is the committee that has turned the tournament into a farce.
     
  13. scoachd1

    scoachd1 Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    Last year the 3 western conferences got just one at-large bid. They are not as good this year.
     
  14. SammyP

    SammyP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    The thing about the RPI system we currently have, so heavily weighted toward SOS, is that at this point in the season team's basically know if they have any shot at an at large or not - regardless of their results from here on in.

    If your conference has a number of teams ranked in the top 40 then the conference RPI will only get stronger because of the remaining games against, and between, top 40 teams. If your conference only has one team in that group, or none, then the conference RPI will only get weaker with remaining match-ups. It means, even if your team wins out there won't be a big enough jump to get in to at-large territory.

    Of course we need to encourage teams to want to have a good SOS, but the fact that a 1 win team (Harvard) is in the top 100 seems a bit silly. Lehigh & W&M being in the top 150 with only 2 wins is tough to justify. Siena (7-6) being rated below UMass (4-6-2), Buffalo (2-10-1), & Albany (4-9) despite beating all three of those teams head to head also makes you question all parts of the formula.

    But - it's what will determine everything this November!
     
  15. Sandon Mibut

    Sandon Mibut Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    Given the RPI's flaws, it's disappointing we don't hear coaches and ADs speak out against it.

    I mean, it would seem to benefit the few over the many and even if it didn't the few should still speak out.
     
  16. Teletubby

    Teletubby Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    If RPI/Conference heavy-weights gaming the system hasn't already started, then the addition of New Mexico(9) and ODU (16) to C-USA will surely jump start some interesting scheduling. Currently 18 of the Top 30 come from just 3 conferences ...ACC, Big East and C-USA(threw in ODU & NM). If you go .500 or so in these conferences and pick up a few home cupcake games, it should provide for a good recipe for an NCAA slot. Mid-major conferences and rising stars will suffer and low-level conferences will have to travel for the privilege to play higher RPI teams.
    Of course who can blame the better conferences?
    Would have to believe that with the almost imminent arrival of 5 or 6 "Super" BCS Football conferences that even more drastic changes are afoot!!
     
  17. Sandon Mibut

    Sandon Mibut Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    All the more reason for college soccer to go to D-I and 1-AA.
     
  18. Deadhorse0908

    Deadhorse0908 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Club:
    Charlotte
    Charlotte (12) moves to C-USA next year as well.....
     
  19. Halpurn

    Halpurn New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    It is time to expand the NCAA playoffs to a 64 team field from 48 teams and get rid of the unfair advantage for 16 teams to avoid playing the same number of teams to be crowned champions.
     
  20. No shinguards

    No shinguards Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    Location:
    The Moon
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Country:
    United States
    Im confused by the post....can you describe in different terms?
     
  21. xpowerout

    xpowerout Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    United States
    He's saying that the tournament should expand and do away with the top 16 teams earning a pass to the second round.
     
  22. espola

    espola BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    For comparison - NCAA D1 hockey has 56 schools competing, and there are 16 spots in the post-season tournament, 29%. D1 mens basketball - 344 and 68, 20%.

    Soccer has 203 and 48, 24%. Upping to 64 teams (as in the women's torunament) would raise participation to 32%. Not likely without more schools playing.
     
  23. Sandon Mibut

    Sandon Mibut Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    I just don't see the point of letting in 16 more average teams.

    It's not like these Next 16 teams that are currently excluded have a legit shot at winning a national title.

    It's not like the current size of the tournament is keeping a contender from getting a shot in the postseason.
     
  24. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Here are all of the unseeded teams that have made a final four run since the tournament expanded to 48 teams in 2001. Notably, all seven of them were given home field advantage in round one, meaning that they were effectively seeded between 17 and 32. In other words, nobody seeded below #32 has ever reached the College Cup.

    2011 Charlotte (round one at home) - national finalists
    2007 UMass (round one at home)
    2006 UCSB (round one at home) - NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
    2005 Clemson (round one at home)
    2005 SMU (round one at home)
    2004 Duke (round one at home)
    2003 Santa Clara (round one at home)

    Admittedly, I do have misgivings about writing the lower seeded teams off completely. Home field advantage makes a big enough difference that it's often a self-fulfilling prophecy. But even so, I tend to agree with Sandon. For me, the right way to get 2011 Washington into the tournament would've been with a better ranking system, not by expanding the field.
     
    Sandon Mibut repped this.
  25. scoachd1

    scoachd1 Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    There is one problem with your example, which is all but a few of those bottom 16 teams are automatic qualifiers. This means some, like Liberty or Loyola last year, are not in the top 100 whether by RPI or any more rational ranking system. The teams that would be added in the large majority of cases would not be worse than most of numbers 33-48 but instead often better than teams in the current 32. Furthermore eliminating the bye would reduce the big advantage that the top 16 teams currently have and would knock out more of the better teams.

    The biggest two biggest problems with the system right now are 1) Some good teams in the West like Washington and Riverside are getting shut out from participating and 2) The practice of keeping teams within their own region gives makes the path in some regions much easier than others. That is how a UMass can have a run like 2007.
     
Moderators: Crimson Ace

Share This Page