PDA

View Full Version : Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

TonyTheTiger20
01-20-2016, 09:52 PM
EDIT: HERE'S A DIRECT LINK TO THE NEW PAIRWISE RANKINGS (http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-college-womens-hockey/2016/1/21/10805218/ncaa-pairwise-criteria-womens-hockey-boston-college-bc-eagles-minnesota-gophers-wisconsin-badgers)

--
--
--

I was putting together an early Bracketology post for BC Interruption, and I pulled up this season's and last season's NCAA championship manuals.

It looks like the selection criteria is dramatically different. Did anyone know about this?

Here is last year's selection criteria (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MANUAL_15NC_WIH_PreChamps_120315_KAW.pdf):


In addition to Bylaw 31.3.3, the Women’s Ice Hockey Committee has received approval from the Division I Championships/
Sports Management Cabinet to consider the following criteria in the selection of at-large teams for the Women’s Ice Hockey
Championship (not necessarily in priority order):

● *Rating Percentage Index (RPI) [won-lost record (30 percent), opponents’ winning percentage (24 percent) and
opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage (46 percent)];
● Head-to-head competition;
● Results versus common opponents; and
● Results versus teams under consideration (defined as those teams with an RPI of 50.00 or better).

*If points awarded for any win lower a team’s average RPI, those points will not count toward the RPI.

That's all what we've been used to -- RPI, H2H, CoOpp, and TUC being used for comparisons.

Now, here's this season's selection criteria (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016NCWIH_PreChampsManual_20151201.pdf):


In addition to Bylaw 31.3.3, the Women’s Ice Hockey Committee has received approval from the Division I Competition
Oversight Committee to consider the following criteria in the selection of at-large teams for the women’s ice hockey
championship (not necessarily in priority order):

● *Rating Percentage Index (RPI) [won-lost record (30 percent), opponents’ winning percentage (24 percent) and
opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage (46 percent)]; including quality win bonus**
● Head-to-head competition; and,
● Results versus common opponents.

*If points awarded for any win lower a team’s average RPI, those points will not count toward the RPI.
**Quality win bonus awarded for wins over the top 12 championship eligible teams in the final selection RPI.

There are two huge changes here:

--One is that TUC record appears to have been removed entirely from the selection criteria.
--Two is that they have added a "quality win bonus" for wins against teams in the top 12 of the RPI.

Did anyone know about this? That's going to definitely affect tournament selection.

TonyTheTiger20
01-20-2016, 10:02 PM
UPDATE: I confirmed with a source that this is accurate. That mean's USCHO's PWR is wrong because it's using last year's criteria. I'll try to create a new spreadsheet with an accurate PWR before I go to sleep. We'll see how it goes.

Eeyore
01-20-2016, 10:51 PM
Good. I like the concept of record vs. TUC, but the execution of it has been even worse than that of RPI itself. It's a calculation that absolutely must be weighted by the quality of the TUC that a team has played. However, without more of an explanation of what, exactly, the Quality Win Bonus is, it may amount to the same thing.

TonyTheTiger20
01-20-2016, 10:55 PM
However, without more of an explanation of what, exactly, the Quality Win Bonus is, it may amount to the same thing.
It's almost certainly going to be exactly the way the men do it (just with a sliding scale over 12 teams, not 20):


Quality Win Bonus (QWB): A "Quality Win Bonus" was added for the 2013-14 season. For any win against the top 20 of the RPI, a team is awarded "bonus points" on a sliding scale from 1-20. In other words, a team is given a .050 RPI bonus for defeating the No. 1 team, sliding down to .0025 bonus for defeating the 20th team. The total bonus for the season is divided by the amount of games played (weighted for home-road), to give a final bonus figure.

From CHN's men's FAQ (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=pwcrpi).

Short answer: Yes, sliding scale weighted by how highly ranked your opponent is.

TonyTheTiger20
01-21-2016, 12:30 AM
UPDATE: The correct Pairwise Rankings based on the new 2016 criteria can be found here (http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-college-womens-hockey-2015-2016/2015/10/11/9503165/2016-ncaa-womens-hockey-pairwise-predictor-minnesota-boston-college-harvard-wisconsin). Note that the rankings spreadsheet on the page will take a few seconds to open (it's pulling up a pretty big file) but give it a minute and it will come up.

There are two clarifications I need in order to make sure this is perfect:

1) I need to know what the sliding scale is for the Quality Win Bonus. The men use 0.050 broken out over the top 20 teams (i.e. a win over 1st place gives a bonus of 0.050 and a win over 20th place gives a bonus of .0025), and I think the women will do the same over the top 12 teams (i.e. a win over 1st place gives a bonus of 0.050 and a win over 12th place gives a bonus of .004167). I have an email out to someone on the committee; if I find out the scale is different then I'll update the rankings accordingly but it should only have a marginal effect.

2) I need to know if now that TUC is gone, if ALL teams will be compared to each other, or if only teams with an RPI > 0.500 will be compared. Right now I'm doing it only with RPI > 0.500 but I have a separate spreadsheet saved for if ALL teams are being compared (that is, does BC win 37 comparisons or does it only win 17?).

This should not affect the rankings, but there's a chance it could, so I want to make sure my assumption is correct. Men's hockey now compares all teams, but the women's criteria still specifies that only teams with an RPI > 0.500 are eligible for at-large berths... so there's ambiguity there. Anyway, once I hear back from the person I emailed, I'll update accordingly.

The link above is the same link as is in my signature. As far as I'm aware, these links are the only place on the internet with correct KRACH and PWR for women's hockey.

ARM
01-21-2016, 01:00 AM
As far as I'm aware, these links are the only place on the internet with correct KRACH and PWR for women's hockey.The North Koreans have had this capability for some time now.

TonyTheTiger20
01-21-2016, 01:08 AM
The North Koreans have had this capability for some time now.
HA -- if only they opened up their internet to the rest of the world, we could have accessed their rankings all this time!

Eeyore
01-21-2016, 05:58 AM
The North Koreans have had this capability for some time now.

Well, they've had the capability, but unfortunately, the database calls they use to grab the data only specify "hockey," so for the schools that play both, they are grabbing the records for the women's field hockey team. So, their rankings page is a mess. Or so my intelligence sources tell me.

TonyTheTiger20
01-21-2016, 11:35 AM
MORE UPDATES! It looks like I broke USCHO:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/


Women’s Division I PairWise Rankings
USCHO has learned of changes to the selection criteria for the Division I women's NCAA tournament for the 2015-16 season, which made our existing PairWise Rankings and Ratings Percentage Index not representative of the current process. We are working on a solution and hope to have the updated PairWise and RPI available soon.

updated: January 21, 2016, 10:26 am CT
Oh my God that is a highlight of my internet life. "USCHO has learned..." lolllllllllllll

In addition, I did get clarification on the QWB as well as number of comparisons from the chair of the selection committee:


Using the same magnitudes you indicated for the men, the QWB scale for the women starts at a .060 RPI bonus for a win against #1 and descends .005 per team, ending in a .005 bonus for a win against #12.

With respect to your follow-up, like the men, all eligible teams are now compared, as reflected in your first chart.

I'll make these changes to the PWR calculator right now

KTDC
01-21-2016, 11:39 AM
MORE UPDATES! It looks like I broke USCHO:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/



In addition, I did get clarification on the QWB as well as number of comparisons from the chair of the selection committee:


I'll make these changes to the PWR calculator right now

Props :D

TonyTheTiger20
01-21-2016, 12:03 PM
Alright folks -- BCI's Pairwise Rankings (http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-college-womens-hockey/2016/1/21/10805218/ncaa-pairwise-criteria-womens-hockey-boston-college-bc-eagles-minnesota-gophers-wisconsin-badgers) have been fully tweaked and should now match the NCAA selection criteria exactly.

Timothy A
01-21-2016, 12:24 PM
MORE UPDATES! It looks like I broke USCHO:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/


Oh my God that is a highlight of my internet life. "USCHO has learned..." lolllllllllllll

In addition, I did get clarification on the QWB as well as number of comparisons from the chair of the selection committee:


I'll make these changes to the PWR calculator right now

You poached this info off the USCHO before they could post it, then they had to acknowledge it came from somewhere else, you ARE good.

TonyTheTiger20
01-21-2016, 12:29 PM
You poached this info off the USCHO before they could post it, then they had to acknowledge it came from somewhere else, you ARE good.

:D:D:D

I got lucky because I was going to write an article about bracketology and needed to copy/paste the handbook. I wonder when we would have found out about this? Imagine if the new criteria leaves a team out that would have been in and they were using USCHO to figure they were in. :eek:

robertearle
01-21-2016, 01:04 PM
Imagine if the new criteria leaves a team out that would have been in and they were using USCHO to figure they were in. :eek:


Imagine it? Wisconsin and North Dakota lived it in 2013, when they changed how the 'Common Opponent' calculation was calculated from overall won-lose percent to a summing of team-by-team percents. Old way (and the way USCHO had shown it for the entire season) UW in and UND out, new way UND played in the tournament and UW stayed home. Literally the night before of the selection, the teams still thought otherwise.

Good job catching this change so 'early'.

OnMAA
01-21-2016, 08:42 PM
--Two is that they have added a "quality win bonus" for wins against teams in the top 12 of the RPI.

Did anyone know about this? That's going to definitely affect tournament selection.

Now that "Cup Cake schedule" could come back to haunt. :D :D :D

TonyTheTiger20
01-21-2016, 08:55 PM
Now that "Cup Cake schedule" could come back to haunt. :D :D :D
Au contraire, mon frere! BC's QWB is actually 4th in the country right now :cool:

Ted Knight
01-22-2016, 10:07 AM
Alright folks -- BCI's Pairwise Rankings (http://www.bcinterruption.com/boston-college-womens-hockey/2016/1/21/10805218/ncaa-pairwise-criteria-womens-hockey-boston-college-bc-eagles-minnesota-gophers-wisconsin-badgers) have been fully tweaked and should now match the NCAA selection criteria exactly.


who has the cupcake schedule now? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
too funny

EastFan1
01-22-2016, 10:40 AM
So did any team make a jump up or down based on the new system?

robertearle
01-22-2016, 10:40 AM
In addition, I did get clarification on the QWB as well as number of comparisons from the chair of the selection committee:

Using the same magnitudes you indicated for the men, the QWB scale for the women starts at a .060 RPI bonus for a win against #1 and descends .005 per team, ending in a .005 bonus for a win against #12.



Grant, I'm not clear on how you are getting the "QWB" number in your table, based on the statement above. Can you please explain?

Looking at Wisconsin (of course), they have two wins over Minnesota, currently at #3. That should be worth 2 x 0.05 = 0.10. And they have four wins over Bemidji, currently at #9 in adjusted RPI and #8 in unadjusted RPI. If I use #9, that's 4 x 0.02 = 0.08, and if I use #8, that is 4 x 0.025 = 0.010.

So shouldn't UW's QWB be either 0.18 or 0.20? You have 0.008, which makes no sense to me at all.

TonyTheTiger20
01-22-2016, 11:26 AM
Grant, I'm not clear on how you are getting the "QWB" number in your table, based on the statement above. Can you please explain?

Looking at Wisconsin (of course), they have two wins over Minnesota, currently at #3. That should be worth 2 x 0.05 = 0.10. And they have four wins over Bemidji, currently at #9 in adjusted RPI and #8 in unadjusted RPI. If I use #9, that's 4 x 0.02 = 0.08, and if I use #8, that is 4 x 0.025 = 0.010.

So shouldn't UW's QWB be either 0.18 or 0.20? You have 0.008, which makes no sense to me at all.
You're just missing the last step which is to divide the total bonus earned by total number of games played -- see below for CHN's primer on the QWB calculation on the men's side (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=pwcrpi):


Quality Win Bonus (QWB): A "Quality Win Bonus" was added for the 2013-14 season. For any win against the top 20 of the RPI, a team is awarded "bonus points" on a sliding scale from 1-20. In other words, a team is given a .050 RPI bonus for defeating the No. 1 team, sliding down to .0025 bonus for defeating the 20th team. The total bonus for the season is divided by the amount of games played (weighted for home-road), to give a final bonus figure.

(Note that there's no home/road weighting in women's)