ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
USER GUIDE (FEBRUARY 2024)
2
3
The purpose of this workbook is to show the likely changes in at large selections for the NCAA Tournament if the NCAA were to change from using the current NCAA RPI to the Balanced RPI as the rating tool the Women’s Soccer Committee uses when making at large selections. This is based on the Balanced RPI simplified formula.
4
5
Comparison by Year Worksheet
6
7
This worksheet has data from the years 2007 through 2023 (excluding Covid-affected 2020). For each year, for each team it shows the team’s geographic region (Middle, North, South, or West) and conference, its rank based on the current NCAA RPI formula and on the Balanced RPI formula, its Top 50 Results Rank based on the NCAA RPI rankings and on the Balanced RPI rankings, and its combined RPI and Top 50 Results ranks based on the NCAA RPI rankings and the Balanced RPI rankings. The Top 50 Results rankings are based on a scoring system described at the RPI for Division I Women’s Soccer website. The reason this workbook includes the combined RPI and Top 50 Results ranks is that those ranks alone, since 2007, on average have correctly matched all but 2 of the Committee’s at large selections per year. Thus for the Balanced RPI, those ranks are a good predictor of what the Committee’s decisions would have been in past years had the Committee used the Balanced RPI rather than the current NCAA RPI.
8
9
The worksheet also shows for each year which teams were Automatic Qualifiers, which teams were disqualified from at large selection due to having winning percentages below 0.500, and the NCAA Tournament decision the Committee made as to each team within the top 57 in the RPI rankings. This workbook looks at the top 57 because, since 2007, no team ranked outside the top 57 has received an at large selection, which means that for practical purposes all at large selections are almost certain to come from among the top 57.
10
11
Finally, there is a Category column in which there is a letter category assigned to each team.
12
13
To the right of the data table is a Key table. In the data table, some of the cells are color coded. The Key table explains what the different letter categories and colors mean. In addition, the Key table explains what the numbers in the NCAA Tournament Seed or Selection for Comparison column mean.
14
15
Assuming that the top 57 would continue to be the candidates for at large selections, the Comparison by Year worksheet is sorted in a manner that makes it relatively easy to see what the overall effect on at large selections likely would have been if the NCAA had used the Balanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI when making its at large decisions over the years since 2007.
16
17
Teams
18
19
This worksheet draws from the Comparison by Year worksheet and shows what the likely cumulative impact would have been on each team over the period from 2007 to the present if the NCAA had used the Baanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI. The page is sorted with the teams in order of impact, with the teams that would have been better off with the Balanced RPI at the top and the teams that would have been poorer off at the bottom.
20
21
Conferences
22
23
This worksheet draws from the Comparison by Year worksheet and shows what the likely cumulative impact would have been on each conference over the period from 2007 to the present if the NCAA had used the Baanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI. The page is sorted with the conferences in order of impact, with the conferences that would have been better off with the Balanced RPI at the top and the conferences that would have been poorer off at the bottom.
24
25
Regions
26
27
This worksheet draws from the Comparison by Year worksheet and shows what the likely cumulative impact would have been on each region over the period from 2007 to the present if the NCAA had used the Baanced RPI rather than the NCAA RPI. The page is sorted with the regions in order of impact, with the regions that would have been better off with the Balanced RPI at the top and the regions that would have been poorer off at the bottom.
28
29
Instructions for Comparison by Year Worksheet
30
31
1. From the year's Master Data and Ratings workbook, copy and paste, values only, the data to fill out the columns.
32
33
2. Sort by Year, Balanced RPI Rank.
34
35
3. In Column N, color code blue and enter A for the Top 26 in the BRPI ranks.
36
37
4. In Columns H and N, color code green for teams in the BRPI Top 57 that are outside the RPI Top 57. In Column N, enter D for those teams.
38
39
5. Sort by Year, RPI Rank.
40
41
6. In Columns H and N, color code red for teams in the RPI Top 57 that are outside the BRPI Top 57. In Column N, enter F for those teams.
42
43
7. Sort by Year, Automatic Qualifier (largest to smallest),Balanced RPI Rank and Balanced RPI Top 50 Results Rank (smallest to largest).
44
45
8. Count down the in Column J the number of teams needed to fill out the at large field, color coding those teams in light gray in Column J. Skip teams that are outside the Balanced RPI Top 57 and that are disqualified (but not AQs). In Column N color code dark gray and enter G for teams that are disqualified.
46
47
9. For the Column J gray teams, if they are an actual Committee at large selection, in Column N color code orange and enter B.
48
49
10. For the Column J gray teams, if they are not an actual Committee at large selection, in Column N color code tan and enter C.
50
51
11. For teams that are an actual Committee at large selection, but are not a Column J gray team, in Column N color code gray and enter E.
52
53
12. Remove the light gray color coding in Column J.
54
55
13. Sort by Year, Category, NCAA Seed or Selection, Automatic Qualifier (largest to smallest)
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100