[Spiny_Norman]

The NCAA released the bracket for the Women's Soccer national championship tournament - https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/soccer-women/d1/2018

Stanford is the overall #1 seed and will play Seattle in the 1st round. Winner plays the winner of Clemson vs. Ole Miss. The other seeds in Stanford's bracket are 2 Tennessee, 3 Texas A&M and 4 Boston College.

Other #1 seeds - Florida St, Georgetown and UNC.

USC dropped all the way to a 4 seed. UCLA is a 2 seed opposite 3rd seeded Santa Clara. None are in Stanford's regional bracket.

other P12 teams in the field - Arizona, WSU

[Spiny_Norman]

The NCAA released the bracket for the Women's Soccer national championship tournament - https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/soccer-women/d1/2018

Stanford is the overall #1 seed and will play Seattle in the 1st round. Winner plays the winner of Clemson vs. Ole Miss. The other seeds in Stanford's bracket are 2 Tennessee, 3 Texas A&M and 4 Boston College.

Other #1 seeds - Florida St, Georgetown and UNC.

USC dropped all the way to a 4 seed. UCLA is a 2 seed opposite 3rd seeded Santa Clara. None are in Stanford's regional bracket.

other P12 teams in the field - Arizona, WSU

[Viking_Guy]

Spiny-

Thread merging.

Stanford made out very well; they have a good road to the College Cup: v #200 (RPI) Seattle; then winner of #46 Clemson/#37 Ole Miss; then winner of #16 Memphis/Hofstra and Wisconsin/#23 BC.

But the Pac-12 as a whole got pretty hosed.  #5 RPI USC is a #4 seed - a #4 REGIONAL seed, in #6 Florida State's region (though the Semiholes beat UNC to win the ACC tourney).  Also featuring #2 seed #14 West Virginia and #3 seed #18 South Carolina.  They are seeded behind three teams that were ranked below them prior to their 3-2 2OT loss to UCLA (who is the #2 seed in UNC's bracket, so #7 overall, one would think).

More to the point, two teams that were top-40 RPI, #39 Colorado and #40 Arizona State, were left out entirely (they both lost 1-0 on the road at their rivals), but RPI (and ACC, which is definitely not a coincidence) #46 Clemson and #47 Louisville are both in the field.  That would be the #5 and #6 finishers in the ACC, and Louisville LOST their first round ACC tourney game to Virginia last week.

From the Pac-12, Stanford, SC, UCLA, Arizona, and WSU.  That's it.  Meanwhile, the ACC got TEN teams into the tournament.  Two of them, Wake Forest and NC State, finished below .500 in the ACC.  NC State was 3-5-2 in the ACC, but somehow ended up with a #21 RPI and in the tournament. Since September started, their best result was a 1-1 tie v. Duke.  And they host Northwestern, lined up to play Santa Clara in the second round

Oh, and sorry Mick, Santa Clara got seeded #3, lined up against UCLA in the round of 16.  Definite backhand for the #7 RPI, who won 7-0 last week, but they play 1 game at home (v UW-Milwaukee, who is 17-1, but only played 4 teams that ended with winning records), then would have to go on the road to Westwood unless the Bruins lose at home to San Jose State.

The other positive?  At least Stanford, SC, and UCLA can only play each other in the College Cup.  So better balanced bracket.

Stanford v. Seattle Friday night at 7 pm.  Looks like the Broncos against UWM on Saturday at 3 pm.

Hoping the Pac-12 has 3 teams in the College Cup, just to p*ss off the ACC even more,

VG

---

Looking over the ACC, the difference appears to be conference final standings, and they felt like the couldn't include NC State and Wake Forest (who finished #9 and #10 in the conference) without including 5 Louisville and 6 Clemson.  Of course, the difference in how you ended up in the ACC was in part determined by whether you got to play one or both conference bottom feeders Syracuse and Pitt (both finished 0-10).  The ACC has too many teams to play a true round-robin.

And how does the Big 10(?) with its highest ranked team being #25 Penn State, get 6 teams in, including # 53 Northwestern, which didn't even finish in the top-8 of the Big 10 to make their tournament?

Sheesh.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Spiny-

Thread merging.

Stanford made out very well; they have a good road to the College Cup: v #200 (RPI) Seattle; then winner of #46 Clemson/#37 Ole Miss; then winner of #16 Memphis/Hofstra and Wisconsin/#23 BC.

But the Pac-12 as a whole got pretty hosed.  #5 RPI USC is a #4 seed - a #4 REGIONAL seed, in #6 Florida State's region (though the Semiholes beat UNC to win the ACC tourney).  Also featuring #2 seed #14 West Virginia and #3 seed #18 South Carolina.  They are seeded behind three teams that were ranked below them prior to their 3-2 2OT loss to UCLA (who is the #2 seed in UNC's bracket, so #7 overall, one would think).

More to the point, two teams that were top-40 RPI, #39 Colorado and #40 Arizona State, were left out entirely (they both lost 1-0 on the road at their rivals), but RPI (and ACC, which is definitely not a coincidence) #46 Clemson and #47 Louisville are both in the field.  That would be the #5 and #6 finishers in the ACC, and Louisville LOST their first round ACC tourney game to Virginia last week.

From the Pac-12, Stanford, SC, UCLA, Arizona, and WSU.  That's it.  Meanwhile, the ACC got TEN teams into the tournament.  Two of them, Wake Forest and NC State, finished below .500 in the ACC.  NC State was 3-5-2 in the ACC, but somehow ended up with a #21 RPI and in the tournament. Since September started, their best result was a 1-1 tie v. Duke.  And they host Northwestern, lined up to play Santa Clara in the second round

Oh, and sorry Mick, Santa Clara got seeded #3, lined up against UCLA in the round of 16.  Definite backhand for the #7 RPI, who won 7-0 last week, but they play 1 game at home (v UW-Milwaukee, who is 17-1, but only played 4 teams that ended with winning records), then would have to go on the road to Westwood unless the Bruins lose at home to San Jose State.

The other positive?  At least Stanford, SC, and UCLA can only play each other in the College Cup.  So better balanced bracket.

Stanford v. Seattle Friday night at 7 pm.  Looks like the Broncos against UWM on Saturday at 3 pm.

Hoping the Pac-12 has 3 teams in the College Cup, just to p*ss off the ACC even more,

VG

---

Looking over the ACC, the difference appears to be conference final standings, and they felt like the couldn't include NC State and Wake Forest (who finished #9 and #10 in the conference) without including 5 Louisville and 6 Clemson.  Of course, the difference in how you ended up in the ACC was in part determined by whether you got to play one or both conference bottom feeders Syracuse and Pitt (both finished 0-10).  The ACC has too many teams to play a true round-robin.

And how does the Big 10(?) with its highest ranked team being #25 Penn State, get 6 teams in, including # 53 Northwestern, which didn't even finish in the top-8 of the Big 10 to make their tournament?

Sheesh.

VG

[oldalum]

I'm surprised: the NCAA committee did well by us, the easiest path to the Final Four (which we earned but have not always been given). I was surprised Tennessee was given a 2-seed given the overall mediocrity of the SEC this year (which they did not win, either the regular season or the tournament), but I'll take it for our sake. I give the committee props for spreading out the top 3 Pac-12 teams into 3 different regions. I also credit them for giving UCLA the respect it was due with the absences of Mace and Fleming. But agree that USC was under seeded and the rest of the Pac-12 was hosed: I think the committee mistook parity for mediocrity. I wonder if overall interconference play results led to the high accord given the B1G and not to the Pac-12.

[oldalum]

I'm surprised: the NCAA committee did well by us, the easiest path to the Final Four (which we earned but have not always been given). I was surprised Tennessee was given a 2-seed given the overall mediocrity of the SEC this year (which they did not win, either the regular season or the tournament), but I'll take it for our sake. I give the committee props for spreading out the top 3 Pac-12 teams into 3 different regions. I also credit them for giving UCLA the respect it was due with the absences of Mace and Fleming. But agree that USC was under seeded and the rest of the Pac-12 was hosed: I think the committee mistook parity for mediocrity. I wonder if overall interconference play results led to the high accord given the B1G and not to the Pac-12.

[Viking_Guy]

OA--

I took a quick glance at the Big Ten and SEC OOC schedules.  Not a lot of meat there - definitely no wins by ANYONE in the Big 10 over top 5 or 8 teams (one against West Virginia was probably the best).  Which naturally leads to no one in the top 25 of the RPI.

With the SEC, it's different.  Their normal standard-bearer Florida collapsed, South Carolina is not what it was last year, and Vanderbilt and Tennessee won the regular season, but both faltered in the tourney.  Vandy played Florida State and lost.  Tennessee best OOC result probably a 1-1 tie v. Wake Forest.  #3 Arkansas beat Baylor 3-2, which with TAMU's 4-0 anomaly against Santa Clara are probably the conference's best OOC wins.  But looking at the schedule, it really feels like the SEC does have a permanent RPI gaming consultant on call -- lots of games by all the teams against local smaller conference foes that do well in their own conferences, and 1 or 2 games at most OOC against other top schools.  And almost none of them (or at least no wins) against TOP top flight competition - no UNCs, no Dukes, no UCLAs, no Stanfords, no USCs (which beat both FSU and Florida on the road).  The Santa Clara game in College Station was probably the best win of the year.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

OA--

I took a quick glance at the Big Ten and SEC OOC schedules.  Not a lot of meat there - definitely no wins by ANYONE in the Big 10 over top 5 or 8 teams (one against West Virginia was probably the best).  Which naturally leads to no one in the top 25 of the RPI.

With the SEC, it's different.  Their normal standard-bearer Florida collapsed, South Carolina is not what it was last year, and Vanderbilt and Tennessee won the regular season, but both faltered in the tourney.  Vandy played Florida State and lost.  Tennessee best OOC result probably a 1-1 tie v. Wake Forest.  #3 Arkansas beat Baylor 3-2, which with TAMU's 4-0 anomaly against Santa Clara are probably the conference's best OOC wins.  But looking at the schedule, it really feels like the SEC does have a permanent RPI gaming consultant on call -- lots of games by all the teams against local smaller conference foes that do well in their own conferences, and 1 or 2 games at most OOC against other top schools.  And almost none of them (or at least no wins) against TOP top flight competition - no UNCs, no Dukes, no UCLAs, no Stanfords, no USCs (which beat both FSU and Florida on the road).  The Santa Clara game in College Station was probably the best win of the year.

VG

[oldalum]

thanks VG for the research (I was traveling or would have tried it myself). Like I said, Tennessee has no business being a 2-seed but I won't complain. The real problem with the NCAA committee is the over reliance on RPI which is a highly flawed statistic. I don't understand why we're still using it in the 21st century. I don't see why Tennessee is seeded so much higher than Vanderbilt (who they lost to), their only impressive win is 4-0 vs. A&M.

[oldalum]

thanks VG for the research (I was traveling or would have tried it myself). Like I said, Tennessee has no business being a 2-seed but I won't complain. The real problem with the NCAA committee is the over reliance on RPI which is a highly flawed statistic. I don't understand why we're still using it in the 21st century. I don't see why Tennessee is seeded so much higher than Vanderbilt (who they lost to), their only impressive win is 4-0 vs. A&M.

[Viking_Guy]

OA--

Here's one indicator that the SEC knows how to game the RPI: Mississippi State (who finished 2-6-2 in the SEC) - is not only in the NCAA tournament, they are hosting the first round.  Their RPI is around #17, which is astonishing.  As is the fact that their out of conference RPI is #1.

This is their OOC schedule, which they finished 7-0:
Southern Miss
Stephen F. Austin
Memphis
South Alabama
Central Arkansas
Austin Peay
Louisiana Tech

Not exactly a murderer's row.  Of those teams, only Memphis made the NCAA tournament.  Only Memphis was in the top 60 of the final RPI.  How the hell is that the number 1 non-conference schedule in the country?

Memphis finished 17-3 in the AAC.  (They played three teams that made the tourney, and lost two, only beating Ole Miss, whose SEC affiliation makes their quality suspect.) 
Southern Miss finished 13-6-1 in CUSA.
Stephen F. Austin finished 7-9-3 in the Southland.
South Alabama 8-9-2 in the Southland.
Central Arkansas finished 16-4-1 in the Southland.
Austin Peay finished 8-8-1 in the Ohio Valley.
Louisiana Tech finished 13-5-3 in CUSA.

So, you schedule good teams in bad conferences, who will have a high winning percentage, if not exactly against strong competition, because the opponent's record is a brobdingnagian part of the RPI calculation.  Maybe you'll occasionally get burned by a sleeper, but your RPI will soar.

It also helps when there are a lot of smaller conferences with local schools that play Division I sports, versus the limited pickings out West.  The Horizon, the OVC, the MAAC, the Southland, the Big South, the Sun Belt, the Southern, the Summit, the MEAC - there are 34 conferences that support some kind of Div I sports, and of those, only Pac-12, MWC, WCC, and WAC are really "western."  And the teams that will finish at the top of those leagues tend to be pretty good at women's soccer - Santa Clara, Pepperdine, BYU.  So you can't schedule teams that will finish 17-3, and win a minor conference regular season, with the same confidence that say scheduling a Central Arkansas gives Mississippi State.

Yep, the whole use of the RPI as a measuring stick needs to be revisited, given how easily it can be gamed.  The SEC has not only done so for football, but for other sports as well (witness their rankings and seedings vs. their results in the women's volleyball tournament.)

VG

[Viking_Guy]

OA--

Here's one indicator that the SEC knows how to game the RPI: Mississippi State (who finished 2-6-2 in the SEC) - is not only in the NCAA tournament, they are hosting the first round.  Their RPI is around #17, which is astonishing.  As is the fact that their out of conference RPI is #1.

This is their OOC schedule, which they finished 7-0:
Southern Miss
Stephen F. Austin
Memphis
South Alabama
Central Arkansas
Austin Peay
Louisiana Tech

Not exactly a murderer's row.  Of those teams, only Memphis made the NCAA tournament.  Only Memphis was in the top 60 of the final RPI.  How the hell is that the number 1 non-conference schedule in the country?

Memphis finished 17-3 in the AAC.  (They played three teams that made the tourney, and lost two, only beating Ole Miss, whose SEC affiliation makes their quality suspect.) 
Southern Miss finished 13-6-1 in CUSA.
Stephen F. Austin finished 7-9-3 in the Southland.
South Alabama 8-9-2 in the Southland.
Central Arkansas finished 16-4-1 in the Southland.
Austin Peay finished 8-8-1 in the Ohio Valley.
Louisiana Tech finished 13-5-3 in CUSA.

So, you schedule good teams in bad conferences, who will have a high winning percentage, if not exactly against strong competition, because the opponent's record is a brobdingnagian part of the RPI calculation.  Maybe you'll occasionally get burned by a sleeper, but your RPI will soar.

It also helps when there are a lot of smaller conferences with local schools that play Division I sports, versus the limited pickings out West.  The Horizon, the OVC, the MAAC, the Southland, the Big South, the Sun Belt, the Southern, the Summit, the MEAC - there are 34 conferences that support some kind of Div I sports, and of those, only Pac-12, MWC, WCC, and WAC are really "western."  And the teams that will finish at the top of those leagues tend to be pretty good at women's soccer - Santa Clara, Pepperdine, BYU.  So you can't schedule teams that will finish 17-3, and win a minor conference regular season, with the same confidence that say scheduling a Central Arkansas gives Mississippi State.

Yep, the whole use of the RPI as a measuring stick needs to be revisited, given how easily it can be gamed.  The SEC has not only done so for football, but for other sports as well (witness their rankings and seedings vs. their results in the women's volleyball tournament.)

VG

[BostonCard]

So, you schedule good teams in bad conferences, who will have a high winning percentage, if not exactly against strong competition, because the opponent's record is a of immense proportions part of the RPI calculation.  Maybe you'll occasionally get burned by a sleeper, but your RPI will soar.

Completely agree with this, and I have often maintained that one could game the system using exactly that method to game the RPI in basketball, and, I guess, other sports that use RPI to determine the post-season.

BC

[BostonCard]

So, you schedule good teams in bad conferences, who will have a high winning percentage, if not exactly against strong competition, because the opponent's record is a of immense proportions part of the RPI calculation.  Maybe you'll occasionally get burned by a sleeper, but your RPI will soar.

Completely agree with this, and I have often maintained that one could game the system using exactly that method to game the RPI in basketball, and, I guess, other sports that use RPI to determine the post-season.

BC

[Cardinal77]

I'm thinking USC's #4 seed will almost assuredly piss them off and allow them to play with a chip on their shoulder(perhaps a log) and fire them up to get to the playoff, vanquishing FSU again this year. Perhaps 3 P-12 teams in the Final Four not a longshot.

[Cardinal77]

I'm thinking USC's #4 seed will almost assuredly piss them off and allow them to play with a chip on their shoulder(perhaps a log) and fire them up to get to the playoff, vanquishing FSU again this year. Perhaps 3 P-12 teams in the Final Four not a longshot.

[oldalum]

so I just listened to an interview of the committee chair, and she said the Big 12 was their top-rated conference this year. (!) 
Comments? I think only 2 Big12 teams are in the top 25 of the soccer coaches ranking.

[oldalum]

so I just listened to an interview of the committee chair, and she said the Big 12 was their top-rated conference this year. (!) 
Comments? I think only 2 Big12 teams are in the top 25 of the soccer coaches ranking.