Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

    Big Wins and Bad Losses

    This article was done a year ago but it still comes into play this year. So for decision sakes lets say a team like Minnesota drops out of the TUC. Does it hurt the top WCHA teams who beat them coming seeding time? Well it sure looks like it. If I am a fan of DU, Wisconsin, UND or any other WCHA elite team I am scratching my head.
    Slap Shot - 444 might want to consider a restraining order.
    dggoddard - Minnesota is THE ELITE Program in all of college hockey.
    wasmania - you have to be the very best to get ice time with the great gophers!

  • #2
    Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

    Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
    Big Wins and Bad Losses

    This article was done a year ago but it still comes into play this year. So for decision sakes lets say a team like Minnesota drops out of the TUC. Does it hurt the top WCHA teams who beat them coming seeding time? Well it sure looks like it. If I am a fan of DU, Wisconsin, UND or any other WCHA elite team I am scratching my head.
    One of the biggest reasons college hockey should switch from PWR to KRACH. Yep, I'm going there already in this thread.
    Places I've seen a college hockey game: Agganis Arena, Alfond Arena, Bright Center, Consol Energy Center, Conte Forum, DCU Center, Fenway Park, Gutterson Fieldhouse, Houston Field House, Lawler Arena, Madison Square Garden, Matthews Arena, Mullins Center, Schneider Arena, Scottrade Center, Sears Centre, Tampa Bay Times Forum, TD Bank Sports Center, TD Garden, Tsongas Center, Tully Forum, Verizon Center, Verizon Wireless Arena, Walter Brown Arena, Wells Fargo Center, Whittemore Center

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

      Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
      So for decision sakes lets say a team like Minnesota drops out of the TUC. Does it hurt the top WCHA teams who beat them coming seeding time? Well it sure looks like it. If I am a fan of DU, Wisconsin, UND or any other WCHA elite team I am scratching my head.
      If you're a fan of DU/Wisconsin/UND or whatever you can disagree, but you shouldn't be scratching your head. You may have a problem with the method but the philosophy is pretty clear and makes perfect sense.

      TUC is a measurement of a teams wins against quality opponents. So yes, if Minnesota (for instance) drops out you lose the value of those games, but only because those wins clearly weren't as significant as they seemed before. The example teams would suffer similar fates under the RPI or KRACH systems... when Minnesota loses their RPI falls and so does the RPI benefit any team that beat them had because that win become less valuable.

      Believe it or not at some point BU was 2-2 (no, really) this year and we were holding what looked like high quality wins against Michigan and UML... but it turns out Michigan and UML were not as good as we thought they were, so naturally those wins are not as high quality as they appeared, and that's the way it should be.

      The philosophy behind TUC definitely makes sense to me.
      Let's go Terriers!

      It hasn't taken me long to realize, everybody here knows a lot more than me about college hockey...

      1971, 1972, 1978, 1995, 2009

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

        You think the philosophy behind the TUC concept makes sense? Really?

        Here is the problem with it as it is applied in the pairwise:

        For a TUC comparison, one only looks at the top 25 teams on the basis of RPI. That means #25 Notre Dame counts right now while #26 NMU doesn't. The difference between the two of them is rather small - Notre Dame's RPI is .5135 while NMU's is .5088 - a gap of little more than four thousandths of a point. In fact, there's a pretty large group of teams (I count 11 of them) on either side of the cut line that are separated by a whopping two hundredths of a point in RPI (this group includes #23 MN all the way to #33 BU).

        Logically speaking, does it make any sense to you that wins against a team should count more than wins against another just because it's in the top 25 of one statistical measure when a strong argument can be made that nearly a dozen teams near that cut-off point are essentially equal?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

          Originally posted by Bakunin View Post
          Logically speaking, does it make any sense to you that wins against a team should count more than wins against another just because it's in the top 25 of one statistical measure when a strong argument can be made that nearly a dozen teams near that cut-off point are essentially equal?
          I typically avoid all bracketology/PWR discussions so forgive me if this sounds like a stupid idea, but instead of the PWR completely discounting all wins against non-TUCs, why not instead assign a weighted multiplier for every team starting high to low and have that value added to whatever formula there is to calcute the PWR. A win against the #1 RPI counts as 1x, against the #2 counts as .98x, a win against the #3 counts as .96x, etc., etc., or something like that, on down the line.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

            Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
            I typically avoid all bracketology/PWR discussions so forgive me if this sounds like a stupid idea, but instead of the PWR completely discounting all wins against non-TUCs, why not instead assign a weighted multiplier for every team starting high to low and have that value added to whatever formula there is to calcute the PWR. A win against the #1 RPI counts as 1x, against the #2 counts as .98x, a win against the #3 counts as .96x, etc., etc., or something like that, on down the line.
            Yes - that does sound like a good idea. If only there were already an elegant ratings system out there that rewarded you more for beating good teams on a sliding scale. What would I call such a system? Hmmm...KRUCH? KROCH? No, doesn't seem quite right. Give me a second, and I'll think of something...

            /broken record
            If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

              SS - KRACH already accomplishes that.

              Ranking teams by a severely flawed approach and then multiplying wins against them by some number that tries to compensate for the flaw doesn't eliminate the flaw. In practice, it wouldn't be all that different from the NCAA's occasional formula tweaking and asterisking (which created other unintended consequences that didn't improve the situation much if at all).

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

                Originally posted by Bakunin View Post
                In fact, there's a pretty large group of teams (I count 11 of them) on either side of the cut line that are separated by a whopping two hundredths of a point in RPI (this group includes #23 MN all the way to #33 BU).

                Logically speaking, does it make any sense to you that wins against a team should count more than wins against another just because it's in the top 25 of one statistical measure when a strong argument can be made that nearly a dozen teams near that cut-off point are essentially equal?
                Really, we're in that group?!

                I agree with you... that's why I said the philosophy (counting wins only against good teams) makes sense but I guess I failed to say that I also believe the methodology is terrible. KRACH clearly does a much better job.
                Let's go Terriers!

                It hasn't taken me long to realize, everybody here knows a lot more than me about college hockey...

                1971, 1972, 1978, 1995, 2009

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

                  Originally posted by Bakunin View Post
                  SS - KRACH already accomplishes that.
                  Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
                  /broken record


                  Shows how much I follow it all.

                  Bakunin - are you saying you'd prefer they continue to use the PWR rather than the KRACH or that both should be scrapped in place of something else?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

                    The most misunderstood aspect of the PWR is that they are only accurate once - at the end of the season. That we're able to predict and analyze this far out isn't a flaw of the system, it shows how transparent that system is. There is no TUC cliff. It's an illusion because we're able to run the pairwise before the end of the season.

                    TUC is the top 25 in RPI because there has to be a cutoff somewhere. Basketball uses 50 and 100. Are those any more or less arbitrary because they're bigger numbers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

                      Originally posted by Priceless View Post
                      The most misunderstood aspect of the PWR is that they are only accurate once - at the end of the season. That we're able to predict and analyze this far out isn't a flaw of the system, it shows how transparent that system is. There is no TUC cliff. It's an illusion because we're able to run the pairwise before the end of the season.

                      TUC is the top 25 in RPI because there has to be a cutoff somewhere. Basketball uses 50 and 100. Are those any more or less arbitrary because they're bigger numbers?
                      The bouncy ball system is also flawed. KRACH isn't. Using KRACH, a win against the #26 team is worth slightly less than a win against the #25 team. Using PWR, a win against the #26 team is worth A LOT less than a win against the #25 team. Which one makes more sense?
                      Places I've seen a college hockey game: Agganis Arena, Alfond Arena, Bright Center, Consol Energy Center, Conte Forum, DCU Center, Fenway Park, Gutterson Fieldhouse, Houston Field House, Lawler Arena, Madison Square Garden, Matthews Arena, Mullins Center, Schneider Arena, Scottrade Center, Sears Centre, Tampa Bay Times Forum, TD Bank Sports Center, TD Garden, Tsongas Center, Tully Forum, Verizon Center, Verizon Wireless Arena, Walter Brown Arena, Wells Fargo Center, Whittemore Center

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

                        IMHO KRACH makes sense and PWR does not

                        Although my team will likely benefit from the PWR this year since they seem to like to lose to the weaker teams and beat some good ones

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

                          KRACH tries to be analytic and objective.

                          RPI is full of subjective, man-made, arbitrary weightings.
                          The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                          North Dakota Hockey:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC

                            Originally posted by Priceless View Post
                            The most misunderstood aspect of the PWR is that they are only accurate once - at the end of the season. That we're able to predict and analyze this far out isn't a flaw of the system, it shows how transparent that system is. There is no TUC cliff. It's an illusion because we're able to run the pairwise before the end of the season.

                            TUC is the top 25 in RPI because there has to be a cutoff somewhere. Basketball uses 50 and 100. Are those any more or less arbitrary because they're bigger numbers?
                            Sorry, this line of reasoning is a load of crap.

                            It's true, the PWR only matters once, at the end of the season. What the day to day changes show you, however, is the massive impacts that very small chances in the dataset have on the final outcomes. It exposes all the flaws in the methodology.
                            "...the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

                            Wisconsin '05 Michigan '07

                            http://noalibisnoregrets.blogspot.com/

                            my other blog

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Priceless View Post
                              TUC is the top 25 in RPI because there has to be a cutoff somewhere. Basketball uses 50 and 100. Are those any more or less arbitrary because they're bigger numbers?
                              Why does there have to be a cutoff? Couldn't it be possible that in X sport a win against the nth place team from Y conference that is just outside the cutoff is legitimately more difficult than a win against the nth place team from Z conference several notches below? Who is to say that win should not count at all? If the system is weighted down the line, I'd imagine it would not reward a cupcake schedule nor punish one that is more difficult, and more importantly it would increase the sampling size making it more truly reflective of the results.

                              The most misunderstood aspect of the PWR is that they are only accurate once - at the end of the season. That we're able to predict and analyze this far out isn't a flaw of the system, it shows how transparent that system is.
                              That a system is tranparent in and of itself means nothing when evaluating its validity.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X