The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

How do you get QWB added out of QWB adj RPI? That would be RPI adjusted for negative impact wins and QWB. Not QWB added. Note, my point still stand. The QWB must be based on RPI standings (adjusted for negative impact games), which I have now proved that it is...the problem is that SiouxSports.com (the only place I've found that breaks things down enough to calculate things yourself) lists QWB for results based on the "QWB adj RPI" which is flawed compared to how they actually calculate "QWB adj RPI." As best as I can tell the QWB is based on the rank of teams when sorted by "adj RPI" according to the titles on the link you provided.

I was using that phrasing because you couldn't seem to keep the different RPI's straight, so I wasn't going to throw another similar looking QWB adj RPI and confuse you even more. Now it is clear that you weren't looking at the USCHO RPI page, but at the time I didn't know that.

But I am glad that you ahve now proved to yourself that the QWB is based on RPI standings.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

I was using that phrasing because you couldn't seem to keep the different RPI's straight, so I wasn't going to throw another similar looking QWB adj RPI and confuse you even more. Now it is clear that you weren't looking at the USCHO RPI page, but at the time I didn't know that.

But I am glad that you ahve now proved to yourself that the QWB is based on RPI standings.

I always knew it was based on some form of RPI standings, just wasn't sure which one, and siouxsports compounded the confusion by reporting QWB based on the wrong thing even though that wasn't out their information was actually calculated it.

Also, being overly simplistic in your explanation is no way to get a point across with me. I understand this stuff...probably the biggest problem between us was you using uscho and me looking at CHN/siouxsports. I don't use USCHO for anything but the board and maybe the occasional source for stats/schedules, but not for data like PWR/RPI. Siouxsports provides a ton more detail and CHN has the modify results tab.

[Numbers]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

OK. Here is a big question. As of about 11:20 EST on Friday night, Feb 20, the bands would be:

1- Minn State Mankato, North Dakota, Minn-Duluth, Boston Univ
2- Mich Tech, Neb-Omaha, Miami, Denver
3- Providence, Bowling Green, Minnesota, Quinnipiac
4- Boston College, St Cloud State, Yale, Robert Morris

Presumably, the #1s would go: Mankato to South Bend, NoDakota to Fargo, UMD to Manchester, and BU to Providence (maybe the eastern ones reversed, sorry not to know about that)
Clearly, that means the first round games would be:
South Bend: Mankato v RoMo; Fargo: NoDak v Yale; Manchester: UMD v BC; Providence: BU v SCSU (Although there is the possibility that the eastern games might switch places).

Now it gets interesting: By bracket integrity, you would have Denver to South Bend, Miami to Fargo, and Omaha and MichTech going out east. HOWEVER, attendance would seem better if Denver went to Fargo, and Miami to South Bend.

And, what about the #3s? By bracket integrity, you would have Prov to South Bend, BGSU to Fargo, and Minny and Quinn out east. However, best attendance here would seem to be: Prov to Prov, BGSU to South Bend, Minny to Fargo.

But, then, Fargo and South Bend are reportedly already sold out. So, maybe the committee doesn't mess the bracket as much for attendance.

So, what do you think the committee actually would do?

[goofy gopher]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

It'so crazy that St.Cloud St. with a .500 record is in the tourney as of right now. Just crazy!

[willythekid]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

It'so crazy that St.Cloud St. with a .500 record is in the tourney as of right now. Just crazy!

Where are they NCHC doubters now? Oh I know, waiting for them to lose in the tourney.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Where are they NCHC doubters now? Oh I know, waiting for them to lose in the tourney.

Doubters? Who ever doubted the teams in that league were good? The doubt was in that this league would be a financial windfall for the teams and a conference tournament in a basketball arena could be a good idea...

[MN Magic]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

[willythekid]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Doubters? Who ever doubted the teams in that league were good? The doubt was in that this league would be a financial windfall for the teams and a conference tournament in a basketball arena could be a good idea...

The answer to your question is most fans from the new wcha and every tech fan that posts on USCHO. NoDak is rolling in it so what else matters... The money that UND makes in hockey revenue could probably buy up a large portion of michigan. But it would just be silly to waste hard earned money on such frivolous and frankly wasteful things.

[hockeyplayer1015]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Don't forget: SCSU has to finish .500 or above to make the tourney, regardless of pairwise ranking. Could be interesting to keep an eye on.

[burd]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Its probably a pipe dream, but how cool would it be to have Duluth drop a couple of spots and have a South Bend Regional consisting of 1 MN-Mankato vs 4 St Cloud St and 2 MN-Duluth vs 3 Minnesota

An all-Minnesota regional would be pretty amazing, no question.

A first for any state?

[darker98]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Don't forget: SCSU has to finish .500 or above to make the tourney, regardless of pairwise ranking. Could be interesting to keep an eye on.

Even if they were to win the NCHC tournament?

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

The answer to your question is most fans from the new wcha and every tech fan that posts on USCHO. NoDak is rolling in it so what else matters... The money that UND makes in hockey revenue could probably buy up a large portion of michigan. But it would just be silly to waste hard earned money on such frivolous and frankly wasteful things.

UND was making money hand over fist before the change, I'm talking about the money brought in by the conference. Is the frozen faceoff a success? Is the NCHC really getting buckets of money for their TV contract? Doubtful...

There was never any doubt that the cream of the NCHC was better off leaving for selfish reasons, but what really is amazing is the QWB and strong non-conference results make it possible for 6 of the 8 teams to "in" the tournament and 7 have a chance this late.

[The Exiled One]

Even if they were to win the NCHC tournament?

The worst they could do in that scenario is 4-6. They'd literally have to lose every game other than NCHC tourney games to finish under .500 yet still make the NCAA tourney.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Also, isn't the rule still that if there are 5 or more teams from the same conference, they arent protected against playing each other in the first round? I thought they made this change several years back when the WCHA was sending a bunch of teams to the tournament. Does anyone remember for sure?

[komey1]

Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Also, isn't the rule still that if there are 5 or more teams from the same conference, they arent protected against playing each other in the first round? I thought they made this change several years back when the WCHA was sending a bunch of teams to the tournament. Does anyone remember for sure?

I believe that is the case. However, I think that the committee still tries to avoid that if possible.