Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Annual change to PWR announced.

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

  • Annual change to PWR announced.

    The annual tweak that the Men's Ice Hockey Committee makes to the PWR has been announced, but it is pretty much unintelligible.

    The NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Committee announced...

    That, effective with the 2012 championship, the common opponent comparison in the Rating Percentage Index (RPI) be adjusted so that the record versus common opponents be looked at individually rather than collectively when providing the advantage for the awarding of a comparison point in the RPI.
    http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/DI_Champs_Sp...upp_17_MIH.pdf

    Two issues--

    (1) There is no "common opponent comparison" in the Rating Percentage Index (RPI). I think we can assume that they meant the selection criteria, which uses the method of pairwise comparisons, and is simulated on this website by the PWR.

    (2) There are a few ways of looking at records versus common opponents individually rather than collectively. The one that makes the most sense is the one that is based on the same principle as calculating the opponents' winning percentage in RPI.

    Let's look at the Common Opponents comparison between Michigan and Minnesota-Duluth from last season (before the tournament).
    against Colorado College--Michigan was 1-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 0-1-1
    against Lake Superior--Michigan was 2-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 0-0-1
    against Michigan Tech--Michigan was 1-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 4-0
    against Minnesota--Michigan was 0-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-1-2
    against Nebraska-Omaha--Michigan was 1-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-1
    against Northern Michigan--Michigan was 2-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-0
    against Wisconsin--Michigan was 0-0-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 3-1.

    Last year, the point in the pairwise comparison was won by Michigan because Michigan was 7-2-1 (.750) against these 7 teams and Minnesota-Duluth was 10-4-4 (.667). This year, I think we will be figuring Michigan's record against common opponents as the average of their winning percentages against each team (1.000, 1.000, 1.000, .000, .500, 1.000, .500) for an average of .714; Minnesota-Duluth would average (.250, .500, 1.000, .500, .500, 1.000, .750), for a .643 percentage. Michigan would still win the comparison, but both would have different percentages. There are probably some comparisons out there that will switch because of this. It will take away the advantage of some teams playing multiple games against easier opponents.

    Unfortunately, the informational item does not confirm that this is exactly how the common opponents point will be calculated--the calculation method is an educated guess on my part.

    "The game of hockey, though much in vogue on the ice in New England and other parts of the United States, is not much known here."

    --The Montreal Gazette, March 4, 1875.

  • #2
    Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

    Annual post that the Selection Committee does not use PWR. PWR is a tool others use to mimick what the Selection Committee uses.
    PSNetwork / XBOX GamerTag: xJeris
    Steam Profile

    Sports Allegiance
    NFL: CHI; MLB: MN, NYM; NHL: MN, MTL; NCAAB: MN, UNLV; NCAAF: MN, MIA; NCAAH: MN; Soccer: USA, Blackburn

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

      As I stated in my post..."I think we can assume that they meant the selection criteria, which uses the method of pairwise comparisons, and is simulated on this website by the PWR." Yes, I know. I just thought a concise headline with a technical inaccuracy would be clearer to the average reader of this board.


      "The game of hockey, though much in vogue on the ice in New England and other parts of the United States, is not much known here."

      --The Montreal Gazette, March 4, 1875.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

        Eastern Bias
        Originally posted by CavalryNate
        Disrespecting the Gophers is like disowning your mother the first time you get a girlfriend.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

          Originally posted by Driftryder View Post
          Eastern Bias
          Oo, oo, my turn - "Simple Math!"

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

            Wuts a PWR








            (Thanks for the explanation)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

              See... they say individually... how do we know they're not doing something like

              sum_{opponent_i \in common opponents}{%Win_{team A,opponent_i}>%Win_{team B,opponent_i}}

              and then see which is larger... that is compare each common opponent head to head and score each of those those micro-PWR as wins and losses... the one with the more micro-PWR wins gets the comparison point.

              Alton's probably right... but when you start lawyering it you can get into trouble.

              edit: I can't imagine the NCAA committee calculates this all themselves... I don't suppose a member institution can compel a code release?
              Last edited by Patman; 08-18-2011, 03:49 PM.
              BS UML '04, PhD UConn '09

              Jerseys I would like to have:
              Skating Friar Jersey
              AIC Yellowjacket Jersey w/ Yellowjacket logo on front
              UAF Jersey w/ Polar Bear on Front
              Army Black Knight logo jersey


              NCAA Men's Division 1 Simulation Primer

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

                The original link appears to be broken (although there is cached copy). Perhaps they realize that it could have been written better.
                sigpic

                Let's Go 'Tute!

                Maxed out at 2,147,483,647 at 10:00 AM EDT 9/17/07.

                2012 Poser Of The Year

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

                  It almost looks like what they're talking about is the number of common opponents in which there is a higher record. Let's take Alton's example:

                  against Colorado College--Michigan was 1-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 0-1-1
                  against Lake Superior--Michigan was 2-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 0-0-1
                  against Michigan Tech--Michigan was 1-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 4-0
                  against Minnesota--Michigan was 0-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-1-2
                  against Nebraska-Omaha--Michigan was 1-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-1
                  against Northern Michigan--Michigan was 2-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-0
                  against Wisconsin--Michigan was 0-0-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 3-1.

                  Michig: (1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 0.000, 0.500, 1.000, 0.500)
                  Duluth: (0.250, 0.500, 1.000, 0.500, 0.500, 1.000, 0.750)


                  In this comparison, Michigan has two common opponents in which they have a higher record (Colorado College, LSSU), while UMD has two opponents higher (Minnesota, Wisconsin), while the other three are the same record percentage, and thereby a wash. Michigan has 2, Duluth has 2, therefore no comparison point is awarded for common opponents. The comparison would change.

                  That's my theory, at least. Perhaps the idea is just having to play a certain opponent a number of times hurts a team in COP too much. It could be said that RPI losing to Colgate helped RPI much more than beating Colgate and playing Cornell in the playoffs, where we already had a bad record, and potentially losing to them twice would have destroyed our COP.
                  Last edited by FlagDUDE08; 08-19-2011, 07:27 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

                    Originally posted by Ralph Baer View Post
                    The original link appears to be broken (although there is cached copy). Perhaps they realize that it could have been written better.
                    Hmm. The whole folder has been taken down. I am hoping that this file will reappear in a clearer form.

                    Patman and Flagdude have both come up with the other possibility: awarding the comparison point to the team with the better record against more common opponents. Unfortunately, the way the announcement was phrased was completely unclear. I think the possibility that I posted in the original post is more likely, since it is analogous to how they calculate "Opponent's record" in the RPI, but there is no way of knowing right now what they did mean.

                    Hopefully it will be more clear if and when the NCAA re-posts the file.

                    "The game of hockey, though much in vogue on the ice in New England and other parts of the United States, is not much known here."

                    --The Montreal Gazette, March 4, 1875.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

                      Originally posted by Alton View Post
                      Hmm. The whole folder has been taken down. I am hoping that this file will reappear in a clearer form.

                      Patman and Flagdude have both come up with the other possibility: awarding the comparison point to the team with the better record against more common opponents. Unfortunately, the way the announcement was phrased was completely unclear. I think the possibility that I posted in the original post is more likely, since it is analogous to how they calculate "Opponent's record" in the RPI, but there is no way of knowing right now what they did mean.

                      Hopefully it will be more clear if and when the NCAA re-posts the file.
                      Perhaps they don't want mathematical geniuses to figure out who makes the tournament before they announce it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

                        I am totally confused.
                        time to write new history

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

                          Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                          It almost looks like what they're talking about is the number of common opponents in which there is a higher record. Let's take Alton's example:

                          against Colorado College--Michigan was 1-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 0-1-1
                          against Lake Superior--Michigan was 2-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 0-0-1
                          against Michigan Tech--Michigan was 1-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 4-0
                          against Minnesota--Michigan was 0-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-1-2
                          against Nebraska-Omaha--Michigan was 1-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-1
                          against Northern Michigan--Michigan was 2-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-0
                          against Wisconsin--Michigan was 0-0-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 3-1.

                          Michig: (1.000, 1.000, 1.000, 0.000, 0.500, 1.000, 0.500)
                          Duluth: (0.250, 0.500, 1.000, 0.500, 0.500, 1.000, 0.750)


                          In this comparison, Michigan has two common opponents in which they have a higher record (Colorado College, LSSU), while UMD has two opponents higher (Minnesota, Wisconsin), while the other three are the same record percentage, and thereby a wash. Michigan has 2, Duluth has 2, therefore no comparison point is awarded for common opponents. The comparison would change.

                          That's my theory, at least. Perhaps the idea is just having to play a certain opponent a number of times hurts a team in COP too much. It could be said that RPI losing to Colgate helped RPI much more than beating Colgate and playing Cornell in the playoffs, where we already had a bad record, and potentially losing to them twice would have destroyed our COP.
                          That is what I think was meant -- and I am due to be right one of these days.
                          sigpic

                          Let's Go 'Tute!

                          Maxed out at 2,147,483,647 at 10:00 AM EDT 9/17/07.

                          2012 Poser Of The Year

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

                            Originally posted by slurpees View Post
                            I am totally confused.
                            For those who were told there'd be no math:

                            Magic is used to determine whether or not your team will be in the NCAA tournament if it does not win an automatic qualifier.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

                              Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                              For those who were told there'd be no math:

                              Magic is used to determine whether or not your team will be in the NCAA tournament if it does not win an automatic qualifier.
                              Well shucks, why didn't you just say so in the first place

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X