PDA

View Full Version : Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Priceless
01-25-2011, 10:23 AM
Moy's first blog (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2011/01/25/an-example-of-how-the-pairwise-changes-could-affect-selection/) looks at how the changes to Pairwise will impact teams.

LynahFan
01-25-2011, 11:05 AM
Moy's first blog (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2011/01/25/an-example-of-how-the-pairwise-changes-could-affect-selection/) looks at how the changes to Pairwise will impact teams.
Certainly seems that there will be potential for some teams in the -teens to improve their PWR chances against the elite teams. Moving the TUC cliff downward (more-or-less to #29 instead of #25) should benefit the teams who have more opportunities to play teams #26-29. Things being what they are, the top teams probably play fewer games against those teams than some of the "2nd tier" teams, so this should tighten up - and possibly flip - some comparisons that seem like they should go the other way.

Edit: Looking at it another way, it somewhat dilutes wins against the top teams - for PWR, a win vs. #29 is now as valuable as a win against a top 10 team. It's better to go 10-0 against teams #20-29 than it is to go 7-3 against the top 10.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-25-2011, 11:17 AM
Certainly seems that there will be potential for some teams in the -teens to improve their PWR chances against the elite teams. Moving the TUC cliff downward (more-or-less to #29 instead of #25) should benefit the teams who have more opportunities to play teams #26-29. Things being what they are, the top teams probably play fewer games against those teams than some of the "2nd tier" teams, so this should tighten up - and possibly flip - some comparisons that seem like they should go the other way.

Edit: Looking at it another way, it somewhat dilutes wins against the top teams - for PWR, a win vs. #29 is now as valuable as a win against a top 10 team. It's better to go 10-0 against teams #20-29 than it is to go 7-3 against the top 10.

Basically, it is all going to depend on what teams are #26-32 (currently) as to who it will help. If there are a bunch of teams from one conference in that area, it would naturally give teams in that conference that are vying for tourney spots an advantage because they'll get to play these middle to lower of the pack teams in conference and have it help their pairwise. Of course, they would have to win these games for it to help. Currently, here is the breakdown by conference of teams #26-32:

WCHA: 2 (#27 Mankato, #30 BSU)
CCHA: 2 (#26 NMU, #31 MSU)
ECAC: 2 (#28 Brown, #32 Quinnipiac)
Atlantic: 1 (#29 Niagara)

As you can see, this puts Hockey East teams at a disadvantage. In order for them to get a win vs a TUC, they have to beat a top-16 team. If you are a Duluth or Michigan, you can beat a middle of the pack team and have it help boost. Another thing that will be key is the TUC cliff. Right now there are four teams on the verge of becoming a TUC: Alaska Anchorage (WCHA), Robert Morris (Atlantic), Ferris State (CCHA) and RIT (Atlantic). They are all within .004 of becoming a TUC. So, IMO, Hockey East is hurt the most by the change, while the WCHA, CCHA and ECAC are helped the most.

Erix_The_Red
01-25-2011, 12:53 PM
So would this make it a disadvantage for the top few teams of a conference to smoke the rest of their conference? Perhaps they should let the little guys win enough to get over .500 in RPI. I don't really know how any of this works. Just speculating.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-25-2011, 02:19 PM
So would this make it a disadvantage for the top few teams of a conference to smoke the rest of their conference? Perhaps they should let the little guys win enough to get over .500 in RPI. I don't really know how any of this works. Just speculating.

I know there have been a few playoff series for the Sioux where it would actually be to our advantage to win the series in three as opposed to two so that the team remains a TUC. That's ONE of the issues with the PWR, is that it brings in the idea that it's better to lose than win.

Priceless
01-25-2011, 02:46 PM
I know there have been a few playoff series for the Sioux where it would actually be to our advantage to win the series in three as opposed to two so that the team remains a TUC. That's ONE of the issues with the PWR, is that it brings in the idea that it's better to lose than win.

It's NEVER better to lose than to win. Mainly because you never know what other teams are going to do. When all is said and done you can look back at how it played out and say that it would have been better to lose than win, but at the time you don't know.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-25-2011, 02:55 PM
It's NEVER better to lose than to win. Mainly because you never know what other teams are going to do. When all is said and done you can look back at how it played out and say that it would have been better to lose than win, but at the time you don't know.

When it gets down to that part of the season it often can be. For instance, say North Dakota is the #4 overall team, so the last #1 seed, and let's say they draw Alaska-Anchorage in the 1st Round of the WCHA tournament. If we sweep Anchorage, they drop below .500 and have no remaining games, so will not be a TUC. Now, if we win two out of three, they stay above .500 and will be a TUC. If they are a TUC we get a 4-1-0 record under that category. Our RPI would not take too much of a hit, and an additional 4 wins and only 1 loss to TUCs could flip more comparisons than the difference in RPI would lose comparisons. In that situation, it would be better to win the series in 3 games as opposed to 2.

It obviously depends on the scenario, but winning a series in three games can sometimes be better than sweeping a series. That's a flaw in the system.

Priceless
01-25-2011, 02:59 PM
When it gets down to that part of the season it often can be. For instance, say North Dakota is the #4 overall team, so the last #1 seed, and let's say they draw Alaska-Anchorage in the 1st Round of the WCHA tournament. If we sweep Anchorage, they drop below .500 and have no remaining games, so will not be a TUC. Now, if we win two out of three, they stay above .500 and will be a TUC. If they are a TUC we get a 4-1-0 record under that category. Our RPI would not take too much of a hit, and an additional 4 wins and only 1 loss to TUCs could flip more comparisons than the difference in RPI would lose comparisons. In that situation, it would be better to win the series in 3 games as opposed to 2.

It obviously depends on the scenario, but winning a series in three games can sometimes be better than sweeping a series. That's a flaw in the system.

Of course, then UAA pulls the surprise and wins on Sunday and all of a sudden NoDak is a 2 seed...

Fighting Sioux 23
01-25-2011, 03:02 PM
Of course, then UAA pulls the surprise and wins on Sunday and all of a sudden NoDak is a 2 seed...

Or we sweep on Saturday, UAA falls off completely, we lose 3-4 comparisons because of that and we're a 3 seed. :p:D:D

Fighting Sioux 23
01-26-2011, 11:09 AM
Well, looking at the current pairwise, some changes since last time...

#1 Seeds:
Yale, Duluth, North Dakota, Denver

#2 Seeds:
BC, Michigan, Wisconsin, RPI

#3 Seeds:
Notre Dame, New Hampshire, Merrimack, Western Michigan

#4 Seeds:
Union, UNO, Dartmouth, AH Champion

Bracket Integrity Bracket: (Priority given to keeping QF matchups correct (ie 1v8, 2v7))

Bridgeport:
Yale vs UNO, RPI vs Notre Dame

Green Bay:
Duluth vs AH Champion, Wisconsin vs Merrimack

Manchester:
North Dakota vs Dartmouth, Michigan vs New Hampshire

St. Louis:
Denver vs Union, BC vs Western Michigan

Attendance wise, not a whole lot to change. Bridgeport, Green Bay and Manchester are solid attendance wise, and St. Louis is going to be difficult regardless. You could swap DU and North Dakota...and that would probably be the only change I would make attendance wise.

mookie1995
01-26-2011, 12:44 PM
On Siouxsports.com it shows Union as #12, 1 comparison ahead of UNO, Dartmouth and Merrimack.

I thought onion was 26?!?

Nick Papagiorgio
01-26-2011, 02:03 PM
I'm not going to lie, it really is nice to see an early tournament field that excludes both Maine and BU.

J.D.
01-26-2011, 02:27 PM
Bridgeport:
Yale vs UNO, RPI vs Notre Dame

Green Bay:
Duluth vs AH Champion, Wisconsin vs Merrimack

Manchester:
North Dakota vs Dartmouth, Michigan vs New Hampshire

St. Louis:
Denver vs Union, BC vs Western Michigan

Attendance wise, not a whole lot to change. Bridgeport, Green Bay and Manchester are solid attendance wise, and St. Louis is going to be difficult regardless. You could swap DU and North Dakota...and that would probably be the only change I would make attendance wise.

Completely agree with your bracket and I also think that the committe would indeed swap UND and DU for attendance reasons.

redwings8831
01-26-2011, 03:47 PM
Completely agree with your bracket and I also think that the committe would indeed swap UND and DU for attendance reasons.

Well as the higher seed, shouldn't UND be given the closer site to them in the first place? Both teams will have to fly regardless so it wouldn't really be a switch.

du78
01-26-2011, 03:54 PM
Completely agree with your bracket and I also think that the committe would indeed swap UND and DU for attendance reasons.

That sets it up for a UND/BC regional final :eek:

sfo19
01-26-2011, 04:06 PM
That sets it up for a UND/BC regional final :eek:

Let's be honest... that is nothing new. Color me SHOCKED.

J.D.
01-26-2011, 04:44 PM
That sets it up for a UND/BC regional final :eek:

It does? I was thinking since UND lost to Yale last year, they'd go ahead and lose to another Ivy ;)


Well as the higher seed, shouldn't UND be given the closer site to them in the first place? Both teams will have to fly regardless so it wouldn't really be a switch.

Good point.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-26-2011, 05:29 PM
It does? I was thinking since UND lost to Yale last year, they'd go ahead and lose to another Ivy ;)

It doesn't work that way. The #2 seed would lose their opener, while the #1 seed would advance out of the regional :p:D:D

Either way, I don't see UND and BC being in the same regional this year, as I think both will be 1 seeds.

Priceless
01-26-2011, 06:02 PM
Well as the higher seed, shouldn't UND be given the closer site to them in the first place? Both teams will have to fly regardless so it wouldn't really be a switch.

Anything over 400 miles is a flight. A flight is a flight.

Once the plane takes off it doesn't matter where it lands. I've been trying to convince my travel agent of this, but no dice. :(

acs64
01-26-2011, 06:56 PM
I'm not going to lie, it really is nice to see an early tournament field that excludes both Maine and BU.

Dont worry, one or both of us will be in the tournament field this year to take out BC. ;)