The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

[FiveHole12]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

How does the aggregator work? Is it taking the scenarios we are running as its data?
An how is it updated?

It shows MN as having a range for 8-14, but I've been getting them 15, 16 and 17 in different scenarios for over an hour now.

Maybe they should call it the Aggravator.

[Ed Trefzger]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

How does the aggregator work? Is it taking the scenarios we are running as its data?
An how is it updated?

It takes the scenarios everyone runs as its data. It's updated once a minute to avoid overloading the database.

[Nowheresville]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

It shows MN as having a range for 8-14, but I've been getting them 15, 16 and 17 in different scenarios for over an hour now.

I believe the 8-14 is the range of what they could be if they make the tournament. Any situation where they don't make the cut is not included, and MN can't make the tournament as a 15 or 16 seed because of autobids (unless there is some very weird situation where they win the B1G tourney and still drop to 15).

The second graphic shows the percentages of of each team actually making the tournament, with MN sitting around 70% based on the last time I looked. The other 30% are the ones where those 15-17 seeds are coming into play.

[JimDahl]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Alright, here are the results of my first attempt on running all the scenarios (not a sample). I'll do some more quality checks and more interesting stuff with the results, but this thread is usually my best quality check -- anyone find any final PWR rankings outside these ranges?

UND 1-2 (in)
Mankato 1-2 (in)
Denver 3-7 (in)
BU 3-7 (in)
MTech 3-7 (in)
UMD 3-7 (in)
Miami 3-10 (in)
UNO 8-11 (in)
BC 8-15
QU 7-17
SCSU 7-21
BG 7-17
UMN 8-18
Providence 10-17
Harvard 8-21
Colgate 9-21
UML 9-21
Yale 11-21
Vermont 9-23
StL 13-24
Mich 14-27
RMU 19-28

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

My swing at Bracketology for this week:

1. North Dakota
2. Minnesota State
3. Denver
4. Boston University
5. Michigan Tech
6. Minnesota-Duluth
7. Miami
8. Nebraska-Omaha
9. Boston College
10. Quinnipiac
11. St. Cloud State
12. Bowling Green
13. Minnesota
14. Providence
15. Harvard
16. Robert Morris

Big thing this week is that we're stuck in 2 vs. 3 matchups. Because there are 3 Nacho teams on the 2 line, and 1 on the 3 line, we're stuck with what we can do. Michigan Tech must play the Nacho team, St. Cloud State.

Fargo
1. North Dakota
2. Nebraska-Omaha
3. Quinnipiac
4. Robert Morris

South Bend
1. Minnesota State
2. Miami
3. Bowling Green
4. Minnesota

Providence
1. Denver
2. Minnesota-Duluth
3. Boston College
4. Providence

Manchester
1. Boston University
2. Michigan Tech
3. St. Cloud State
4. Harvard

All of the 3 seeds jumped around, to accommodate the MTU-SCSU matchup, and then a few other moves to reduce flights (BC to Providence, BGSU to South Bend). The only other move I made was swapping 4 seeded Minnesota with 4 seeded Harvard, to keep Harvard east, eliminating a flight. And it moves MN to South Bend, which may be seen as a attendance boost for that region.

[goofy gopher]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

I hate how the integrity of the tournament will be compromised because of stupid flights! You play All YEAR and you end up possibly playing a team with a seed above or below what you should be playing. I know the argument is these teams are so close when you crunch numbers and what is the real difference between 10,11 ect.. but there are intangibles at play! History between teams, past performances, recent play. Just go by the seeds, it's THE tournament for this sport. If it costs too much, too bad and the NCAA can suplement the cost from other revenues like they do with so many other sports.

[Patman]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

My swing at Bracketology for this week:

1. North Dakota
2. Minnesota State
3. Denver
4. Boston University
5. Michigan Tech
6. Minnesota-Duluth
7. Miami
8. Nebraska-Omaha
9. Boston College
10. Quinnipiac
11. St. Cloud State
12. Bowling Green
13. Minnesota
14. Providence
15. Harvard
16. Robert Morris

Big thing this week is that we're stuck in 2 vs. 3 matchups. Because there are 3 Nacho teams on the 2 line, and 1 on the 3 line, we're stuck with what we can do. Michigan Tech must play the Nacho team, St. Cloud State.

Fargo
1. North Dakota
2. Nebraska-Omaha
3. Quinnipiac
4. Robert Morris

South Bend
1. Minnesota State
2. Miami
3. Bowling Green
4. Minnesota

Providence
1. Denver
2. Minnesota-Duluth
3. Boston College
4. Providence

Manchester
1. Boston University
2. Michigan Tech
3. St. Cloud State
4. Harvard

All of the 3 seeds jumped around, to accommodate the MTU-SCSU matchup, and then a few other moves to reduce flights (BC to Providence, BGSU to South Bend). The only other move I made was swapping 4 seeded Minnesota with 4 seeded Harvard, to keep Harvard east, eliminating a flight. And it moves MN to South Bend, which may be seen as a attendance boost for that region.

in that situation I could see them swapping SCSU and QU

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

in that situation I could see them swapping SCSU and QU

And go with the all-Nacho matchup in Fargo? Yeah, they CAN do that, based on the guidelines, but I don't know if they would. It is possible that they would if there are 7 Nachos in the tourney.

[Patman]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

And go with the all-Nacho matchup in Fargo? Yeah, they CAN do that, based on the guidelines, but I don't know if they would. It is possible that they would if there are 7 Nachos in the tourney.

oh, right... this whole conference shuffling is still throwing me off

[purpleinnebraska]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

I hate how the integrity of the tournament will be compromised because of stupid flights! You play All YEAR and you end up possibly playing a team with a seed above or below what you should be playing. I know the argument is these teams are so close when you crunch numbers and what is the real difference between 10,11 ect.. but there are intangibles at play! History between teams, past performances, recent play. Just go by the seeds, it's THE tournament for this sport. If it costs too much, too bad and the NCAA can suplement the cost from other revenues like they do with so many other sports.

Exactly. Particularly when we make all these changes "for attendance," and then attendance stinks anyway. I'm also bugged when we try to accommodate a 3 or 4 seed in a regional by putting them closer to home, and give them a home field advantage over the 1 or 2 seed they're playing. You want BC closer to home? Maybe they should have beaten Vermont.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Exactly. Particularly when we make all these changes "for attendance," and then attendance stinks anyway. I'm also bugged when we try to accommodate a 3 or 4 seed in a regional by putting them closer to home, and give them a home field advantage over the 1 or 2 seed they're playing. You want BC closer to home? Maybe they should have beaten Vermont.

I agree with your opinions...but the NCAA does what the NCAA does.

[SJHovey]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

And go with the all-Nacho matchup in Fargo? Yeah, they CAN do that, based on the guidelines, but I don't know if they would. It is possible that they would if there are 7 Nachos in the tourney.

WMU and CC have been eliminated, so only 6 possible.

[purpleinnebraska]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

I agree with your opinions...but the NCAA does what the NCAA does.

True. I just question the wisdom of it. The lowest attended regional final last year was in Worcester, featuring 2 Mass. teams. Outdrawn even by Cincinnati, with 2 non-Ohio teams. It's one thing to do something that seems "unfair" to some people. It's a whole 'nother level of stupid to do something that doesn't even accomplish one the objectives you had for doing it.

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

True. I just question the wisdom of it. The lowest attended regional final last year was in Worcester, featuring 2 Mass. teams. Outdrawn even by Cincinnati, with 2 non-Ohio teams. It's one thing to do something that seems "unfair" to some people. It's a whole 'nother level of stupid to do something that doesn't even accomplish one the objectives you had for doing it.

1) And what would attendance have been without the two Mass teams in Worcester? We've seen these situations rear their ugly heads and that is a brutal alternative for the players, the fans, and the sport itself.

2) According to USCHO box scores, Worcester outdrew the Cinci regional slightly, which didn't have the disadvantage of a Sunday night game, by about 885 fans overall.

3) To be honest, I'm less concerned about the attendance issue as far as moving teams around to boost attendance than I am at some of their braindead ideas like setting a gametime in Worcester for 8 pm on a Sunday night while giving the regional out West the earlier game (2012 I believe). Makes you wonder if the folks that make these decisions have the appropriate number of chromosomes.

[aparch]

oh, right... this whole conference shuffling is still throwing me off

Omaha has been playing against NoDak and St, Clood for five years now.