PDA

View Full Version : 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology



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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Nick Papagiorgio
01-03-2012, 02:24 PM
That's right. The pairwise at TBRW?/slack.net (http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw.cgi?pwr) also uses average winning percentages, although it's not spelled out as nicely in terms of team-by-team breakdowns as on CHN (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php?grid=1&s=20112012&date=). 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).

JimDahl
01-03-2012, 03:44 PM
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 (http://siouxsports.com/hockey/rankings/pwrdetails.php?teamid=3)), from which you can still go to an an individual comparison to see the breakdown.

JimDahl
01-04-2012, 08:28 AM
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 (http://blog.siouxsports.com/2011/03/14/final-pwr-rankings-predictions/).

redwings8831
01-14-2012, 11:28 PM
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.

Numbers
01-15-2012, 09:28 AM
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.

MCgrad07
01-15-2012, 11:24 AM
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.

Numbers
01-15-2012, 11:54 AM
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.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-15-2012, 08:37 PM
Here is College Hockey Weekly's current Bracketology...

http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/Current_Pairwise.html

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

http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/Tournament-Forecast.html

redwings8831
01-15-2012, 09:35 PM
Here is College Hockey Weekly's current Bracketology...

http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/Current_Pairwise.html

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

http://www.collegehockeyweekly.com/Tournament-Forecast.html

We're these from before today's games? Because Michigan is up to #5 right now.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-15-2012, 10:25 PM
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/Current_Pairwise.html

gopher wes
01-17-2012, 11:39 AM
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/Current_Pairwise.html
I'm a little confused by the explanation of Michigan and NMU in the Bracketology link. I think they got switched by accident.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-17-2012, 11:50 AM
I'm a little confused by the explanation of Michigan and NMU in the Bracketology link. I think they got switched by accident.

First, there was an pairwise update after the bracketology was released, so the site needed to make that change (explained in the Update portion).

Second, the explanation section was from the original release of the bracketology. Because nearly everything stayed the same, CHW did not revamp the explanation section. In the original, Northern was placed in the Green Bay Regional for a few reasons. The first being attendance. While the other being distance (and the two are naturally related). Northern is only 180ish miles from Green Bay, while Western is 350ish miles. It is likely that Northern would bring a bigger fanbase than Western. Ultimately, when the pairwise was updated and Western dropped to a 3 and Michigan rose to a 2, it was an easy switch to basically swap Western and Michigan. As a result, when reading through the explanation, it is probably easiest to think of Western and Michigan and vice-verse. Also, think of Denver as Michigan State, as the Spartans rose to a #4 and Denver dropped out after the update.

Hopefully that explains it a tad better, but if not, just let me know.

gopher wes
01-17-2012, 12:00 PM
Got it....thanks!:)

streaker
01-17-2012, 05:53 PM
Futile argument but...

Sticking to bracket integrity first, geographics/travel second, attendance third:

NE (Worchester) 1. BU 2. Notre Dame 3. U-Mass Lowell 4. MSU
East (Bridgeport) 1. BC 2. Mich 3. Cornell 4. Ferris
Midwest (Green Bay) 1. OSU 2.Merrimack 3. WMU 4. CC
West (Minneapolis) 1. UMD 2. NMU 3. Minn 4. AHA

Bracket integrity is okay 1st and second seeds & host getting priority. 3rd & 4th seeds switched to prevent first round intraconference games.
1-8-9-16
2-7-10-14
3-6-11-15
4-5-12-13

Criteria

All first seeds placed in their closest regions. Michigan and Cornell could move to Midwest and flipflop with Merrimack/WMU, but I chose to keep them due to bracket integrity. UM-Lowell, Cornell and WMU are better geographically anyway as third seeds. Minnesota is a host as a third seed and really scrambled the third seeds. Michigan is the highest 2nd seed and shouldn't be moved into the same bracket as the highest #1 seed or play vs. the host school in exchange for a matchup with the highest 3rd seed out East. Lowest 2nd seed NMU is also geographically acceptable to Minneapolis. Fourth seeds are flipped to prevent first round conference match-ups, integrity and travel geography.

Attendance:

NE and East have both #1 seeds close to fanbases, especially BU. UML and Cornell are also nearest their fanbases as 3rd seeds.
Midwest has three western teams, but attendance could lag with WMU closest school to Green Bay.
West has two Minnesota schools, including host and will be best attended regional.

MCgrad07
01-19-2012, 05:18 PM
Streaker your Midwest region is too weak attendance wise. None of these teams have a name big enough that will draw hockey fans. It is too tough to fill a place if 3/4 of the teams involved have flights or 10+ hour drives.

klbaum1077
01-19-2012, 06:41 PM
Streaker your Midwest region is too weak attendance wise. None of these teams have a name big enough that will draw hockey fans. It is too tough to fill a place if 3/4 of the teams involved have flights or 10+ hour drives.

They have said in the past they will not move teams around to make attendance better and right now the midwest would look like that unless they go against there word.

Osorojo
01-19-2012, 06:59 PM
Based upon its potentially superior recruiting class next fall I think BU should be rated no lower than third in 2013 bracketology. It's never too soon to predict the future, as this thread so clearly illustrates.

Priceless
01-19-2012, 07:08 PM
Based upon its potentially superior recruiting class next fall I think BU should be rated no lower than third in 2013 bracketology. It's never too soon to predict the future, as this thread so clearly illustrates.

http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/images/smilies/animated_smilies/fish2.gif

Pants
01-19-2012, 07:18 PM
Wait for UNO to sweep in and blow your minds!

And by blow your minds I mean make it into the tourny

Priceless
01-19-2012, 07:41 PM
Wait for UNO to sweep in and blow your minds!

And by blow your minds I mean make it into the tourny

UNO is currently in 21st position in the Pairwise. Making the tournament would be impressive, but hardly shocking. Just last year CC was #21 at this point and made the field. In 2010, Alaska was #21 and Northern Michigan was #24. Other late bloomers: St Cloud (#22) in 2008, St. Lawrence (#21) in 2007 and Maine (#24) in 2006.