Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

    College Hockey Weekly has released their 2012 NCAA Tournament Bracketology for Week 2 (also their Forecast on what they think the tournament will actually look like).

    Enjoy!

    Here is the direct link for the CHW Bracketology...

    http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/C..._Pairwise.html

    Here is the direct link for the CHW Tournament Forecast...

    http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/T...-Forecast.html[/QUOTE]
    North Dakota
    National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

      Interesting forecast.

      Just wondering could you add a little section that shows which teams have been mathematically eliminated from gaining an invitation to the tournament and would have to win their conference tourney to get in? I'd imagine we will start seeing quite a few times knocked out over net two to three weeks.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

        Originally posted by CHFAN222 View Post
        Interesting forecast.

        Just wondering could you add a little section that shows which teams have been mathematically eliminated from gaining an invitation to the tournament and would have to win their conference tourney to get in? I'd imagine we will start seeing quite a few times knocked out over net two to three weeks.
        It would be very difficult to determine that
        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


        • #19
          Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

          Originally posted by Priceless View Post
          Which Pairwise are they using? How the COp component is calculated was changed. The USCHO Pairwise were corrected after I pointed out the flaw in the system. SS and Slack.net still use the incorrect calculation. For example, SS has NMU losing the COp with LSSU .625 to .500 however the margin is actually 2.500 to 2.000 because of the new way the COp is calculated.

          Right now they happen to match, but I expect there will be differences as we get closer to the official selection.
          Nope, you're misinterpreting. As Patman tried to note, SS and CHN are showing the average winning percentage vs. COPs instead of just the sum.

          I personally think average winning percentages, e.g. .625 > .500, are a lot more intuitive than sum of winning percentages, e.g. 2.5 > 2.0. But the outcome will always be the same -- if A>B then A/n > B/n.

          Originally posted by Patman View Post
          as long as A>B if and only if f(A)>f(B) who cares

          2.5/2=.625/.5=1.25

          I would say the whole number figuring is much more confusing... but its the same as long as you divide by the total number of common opponents
          Last edited by JimDahl; 01-03-2012, 09:07 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

            Originally posted by JimDahl View Post
            Nope, you're misinterpreting. As Patman tried to note, SS and CHN are showing the average winning percentage vs. COPs instead of just the sum.

            I personally think average winning percentages, e.g. .625 > .500, are a lot more intuitive than sum of winning percentages, e.g. 2.5 > 2.0. But the outcome will always be the same -- if A>B then A/n > B/n.
            That's right. The pairwise at TBRW?/slack.net also uses average winning percentages, although it's not spelled out as nicely in terms of team-by-team breakdowns as on CHN. For example, Denver wins the comparison with Michigan State thanks to common opponents, which are:
            Air Force: both 1-0
            MTU: Denver is 0-1-1, MSU is 1-0
            BC: Denver is 1-0, MSU is 0-1
            Under the old system, Denver would be 2-1-1 (.625) and lose to Michigan State's 2-1 (.667). But in the new system, Denver's averaged winning percentage is (1.000+.250+1.000)/3 = .750, while MSU's is still .667, so they win the criterion and with it the comparison. I didn't have the time to make the TBRW/slack version pretty, so it says "2-1-1 .7500 COp .6667 2-1" which is somewhat confusing, since it implies we're comparing 2-1-1 to 2-1, rather than .7500 to .6667. Similarly, USCHO's version says "2-1-1 2.250 1 COp 0 2.000 2-1-0" which is the same thing multiplied by 3 (the number of opponents). The CHN version leaves out the (irrelevant) overall record and includes an opponent-by-opponent breakdown. But all of them compare equivalent quantities, whether it's 2.25 vs 2.00 or .750 vs .667.
            Originally posted by winger
            Two words for you. UBER DORK

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

              Originally posted by jtwcornell91 View Post
              That's right. The pairwise at TBRW?/slack.net also uses average winning percentages, although it's not spelled out as nicely in terms of team-by-team breakdowns as on CHN. For example, Denver wins the comparison with Michigan State thanks to common opponents, which are:
              Air Force: both 1-0
              MTU: Denver is 0-1-1, MSU is 1-0
              BC: Denver is 1-0, MSU is 0-1
              Under the old system, Denver would be 2-1-1 (.625) and lose to Michigan State's 2-1 (.667). But in the new system, Denver's averaged winning percentage is (1.000+.250+1.000)/3 = .750, while MSU's is still .667, so they win the criterion and with it the comparison. I didn't have the time to make the TBRW/slack version pretty, so it says "2-1-1 .7500 COp .6667 2-1" which is somewhat confusing, since it implies we're comparing 2-1-1 to 2-1, rather than .7500 to .6667. Similarly, USCHO's version says "2-1-1 2.250 1 COp 0 2.000 2-1-0" which is the same thing multiplied by 3 (the number of opponents). The CHN version leaves out the (irrelevant) overall record and includes an opponent-by-opponent breakdown. But all of them compare equivalent quantities, whether it's 2.25 vs 2.00 or .750 vs .667.
              Excellent breakdown. Much appreciated. All the best to your scarf (which really should check in more often on elf).
              Originally posted by Greg Ambrose on 3/7/2010
              The fact that you BC fans revel in the superiority of your team in an admittedly weak league leads me to believe you will be more sorely disappointed when the end comes than we will.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                Originally posted by jtwcornell91 View Post
                I didn't have the time to make the TBRW/slack version pretty, so it says "2-1-1 .7500 COp .6667 2-1" which is somewhat confusing, since it implies we're comparing 2-1-1 to 2-1, rather than .7500 to .6667. Similarly, USCHO's version says "2-1-1 2.250 1 COp 0 2.000 2-1-0" which is the same thing multiplied by 3 (the number of opponents). The CHN version leaves out the (irrelevant) overall record and includes an opponent-by-opponent breakdown. But all of them compare equivalent quantities, whether it's 2.25 vs 2.00 or .750 vs .667.
                That's a good point -- as demonstrated by the existence of this discussion, leaving in the overall record is probably more misleading than useful. So, I just dropped it from the SiouxSports TUC Details pages (ex. Denver), from which you can still go to an an individual comparison to see the breakdown.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                  Originally posted by CHFAN222 View Post
                  Just wondering could you add a little section that shows which teams have been mathematically eliminated from gaining an invitation to the tournament and would have to win their conference tourney to get in? I'd imagine we will start seeing quite a few times knocked out over net two to three weeks.
                  It's not quite the same as "mathematically eliminated" (which as Patman said, is pretty difficult), but here are the teams for which I don't see any scenario that gets them above a PWR ranking of #16 at the end of the regular season:

                  Bowling Green
                  Mankato
                  Connecticut
                  Bentley
                  Canisius
                  Army
                  Rensselaer
                  American Int'l
                  Alabama-Huntsville
                  Sacred Heart

                  Teetering on the edge:

                  Vermont
                  Holy Cross

                  This list might not actually prove as interesting as you might think as the Winter goes on, because more teams stay in contention than intuition suggests. For example, here was the field as of Mar. 14 of last year, with 19 teams still in the hunt for an at-large bid -- Mar 14, 2011 PWR Predictions.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                    Through 1/14 Games:

                    1. Minnesota-Duluth (31)
                    2. Ohio State (30)
                    3. Boston University (29)
                    4. Boston College (28)
                    -------------------------
                    5. Notre Dame (26)
                    6. Merrimack (25)
                    7. Minnesota (24)
                    8. Western Michigan (23)
                    -------------------------
                    9. Michigan (22)
                    10. Northern Michigan (22)
                    11. Mass-Lowell (21)
                    12. Ferris State (20)
                    -------------------------
                    13. Cornell (19)
                    14. Denver (18)
                    15. Colorado College (18)
                    16. AHA Champ (Mercyhurst)

                    St. Paul:
                    1. Minnesota-Duluth
                    7. Minnesota (host)
                    9. Michigan
                    16. AHA Champ

                    Green Bay:
                    2. Ohio State
                    8. Western Michigan
                    11. Mass-Lowell
                    15. Colorado College

                    Worcester:
                    3. Boston University
                    6. Merrimack
                    10. Northern Michigan
                    14. Denver

                    Bridgeport:
                    4. Boston College
                    5. Notre Dame*
                    12. Ferris State*
                    13. Cornell

                    *All CCHA matchup in the first round between a 2 seed and a 3 seed is unavoidable.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                      RedWing,

                      Another option:

                      St. Paul:
                      1)Minn-Duluth
                      7)Minnesota (host)
                      10)Northern Michigan
                      16)AHA Champ

                      Green Bay:
                      2)Notre Dame
                      8)Western Michigan
                      9)Michigan (All CCHA matchup unavoidable)
                      15)Colorado College

                      Worcester:
                      3)Boston Univ
                      6)Merrimack
                      12)Ferris State
                      14)Denver

                      Bridgeport:
                      4)Boston College
                      5)Notre Dame
                      11)Mass-Lowell
                      13)Cornell

                      So, rather than exchanging Minn for WMU to get the Gophers at Xcel, we change their whole 1st round game. Then, swap Ferris and Mass-Lowell. It's the same number of changes as you proposed. I like it a little better, because St Paul doesn't need Michigan to look like a packed house. With Minn and UMD there, it will be packed. Putting Michigan in Green Bay puts people in the stands there.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                        Numbers I agree with you. Ferris State, Denver and the AHA champ are the only fans with long travel. Notre Dame has to go out east again, but their fans have to get used to it anyway.
                        Rinks Visited
                        DCU Center
                        Tulley Forum
                        TD Garden
                        Tsongas Arena
                        J. Thom Lawler Arena
                        Conte Forum
                        Whittemore Center
                        Agganis Arena
                        Verizon Center
                        Gutterson Fieldhouse
                        Matthews Arena
                        Thompson Arena
                        Mullins Center
                        Alfond Arena
                        Schneider Arena
                        Magness Arena
                        Ingallas Arena
                        Hart Center
                        Prudential Center
                        TD Bank Sports Center
                        John A Ryan
                        Lynah Rink
                        Appleton Arena
                        Cheel Arena
                        Germain Arena
                        XL Center
                        Class of 1965 Arena

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                          Interesting. I hadn't noticed that. My bracket keeps all eastern teams except the AHA champ in Bridgeport or Worcester. It wasn't intended. It just came out that way. Very interesting year. There is a possibility that in the end, the NCAAs get 11 teams from WCHA and CCHA.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                            Here is College Hockey Weekly's current Bracketology...

                            http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/C..._Pairwise.html

                            Here is CHW's current tournament forecast (what they think the tournament will end up like)...

                            http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/T...-Forecast.html
                            North Dakota
                            National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                              Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
                              Here is College Hockey Weekly's current Bracketology...

                              http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/C..._Pairwise.html

                              Here is CHW's current tournament forecast (what they think the tournament will end up like)...

                              http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/T...-Forecast.html
                              We're these from before today's games? Because Michigan is up to #5 right now.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

                                Originally posted by redwings8831 View Post
                                We're these from before today's games? Because Michigan is up to #5 right now.
                                We used the rankings from about 8 or 9pm Eastern, so they must have been changed since then. I posted a quick update, so here is the link to the most up to date version...

                                http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/C..._Pairwise.html
                                North Dakota
                                National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X