Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

[Patman]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Fixed, I think

   NAME   NCAA     S1     S2     S3     S4   CONF  ATLRG    TUC
1    AA 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2    AF 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
3    AH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4    AI 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
5    Ak 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 1.0000
6    Ar 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
7    BC 1.0000 0.3523 0.6205 0.0272 0.0000 0.2718 0.7282 1.0000
8    BG 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
9    Bn 0.1194 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1194 0.1194 0.0000 1.0000
10   BS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
11   BU 0.1855 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.1854 0.1662 0.0193 1.0000
12   By 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
13   Ca 0.2295 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2295 0.2295 0.0000 0.0000
14   CC 0.0254 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0254 0.0254 0.0000 1.0000
15   Cg 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
16   Ck 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
17   Cr 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
18   Ct 0.2534 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2534 0.2534 0.0000 0.5977
19   Da 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
20   DU 0.9977 0.0000 0.0023 0.8708 0.1246 0.0000 0.9977 1.0000
21   FS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
22   Ha 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
23   HC 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
24   LS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
25   MA 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
26   MD 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
27   Me 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
28   Mh 0.1900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1900 0.1900 0.0000 0.0000
29   Mi 0.0910 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0910 0.0910 0.0000 0.3209
30   Mk 0.9997 0.1208 0.3253 0.5517 0.0019 0.1377 0.8620 1.0000
31   ML 1.0000 0.3291 0.6255 0.0454 0.0000 0.3085 0.6915 1.0000
32   Mm 1.0000 0.8453 0.1547 0.0000 0.0000 0.4294 0.5706 1.0000
33   Mn 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4581 0.5419 1.0000
34   Mr 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
35   MS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
36   MT 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
37   ND 1.0000 0.0676 0.6934 0.2390 0.0000 0.1196 0.8804 1.0000
38   NE 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
39   NH 1.0000 0.0000 0.4793 0.5207 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000
40   Ni 0.9944 0.0348 0.3464 0.4884 0.1248 0.3271 0.6673 1.0000
41   NM 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
42   NO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
43   Nt 0.8667 0.1346 0.0631 0.3205 0.3485 0.3360 0.5307 1.0000
44   OS 0.1436 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1436 0.1436 0.0000 1.0000
45   Pn 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
46   PS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
47   Pv 0.2549 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2549 0.2535 0.0014 1.0000
48   Qn 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5046 0.4954 1.0000
49   RM 0.0201 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0201 0.0000 0.0201 1.0000
50   RP 0.1641 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1641 0.0000 0.1641 1.0000
51   RT 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
52   SC 0.9899 0.0250 0.2187 0.5488 0.1974 0.1983 0.7916 1.0000
53   SH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
54   SL 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
55   Un 0.5894 0.0000 0.0000 0.1454 0.4440 0.2497 0.3397 1.0000
56   Vt 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
57   Wi 0.0822 0.0000 0.0000 0.0176 0.0646 0.0609 0.0213 1.0000
58   WM 0.8190 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8190 0.0000 0.8190 1.0000
59   Ya 0.9833 0.0905 0.4708 0.2244 0.1976 0.1263 0.8570 1.0000

[bottomdweller]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

When it comes to a team's OOC schedule, where does that affect them the most?

[Umileated]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Well done, Patman. You did this in R? Clearly, I need to play with it again.

[Priceless]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Fixed, I think

   NAME   NCAA     S1     S2     S3     S4   CONF  ATLRG    TUC
40   Ni 0.9944 0.0348 0.3464 0.4884 0.1248 0.3271 0.6673 1.0000

So Niagara is the Ivory Soap of college hockey?

[Ralph Baer]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

So Niagara is the Ivory Soap of college hockey?

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

When it comes to a team's OOC schedule, where does that affect them the most?

Let's use Minny and St Cloud as an example. Minny 8-0. St Cloud 3-5. Conference play, identical results, although St Cloud played a slightly tougher schedule. But, Minny only loses 1 compare, and St Cloud loses enough that they could be playing the Championship game Saturday night for their tourney hopes.

In RPI:
St Cloud .5358
Minny .5670
A big difference, and it's all because of the OOC record.

In TUCs:
St Cloud: .6042
Minny .6250
These are almost the same, and mostly that is because of all the TUCs they both play in Conference play. I believe there are currently no schools in between these 2 TUC records, so this is not affecting St Cloud at all.

In CommOpp
Hard to quantify this, but...
St Cloud has losses (sweeps) to UNH (Hockey East) and NoMich (CCHA) and a split with RPI(I think it was - anyway a ECAC school). These hurt in every compare with all the teams from those conferences, because the only way to recover that part of the compare is if that school lost in games against WCHA opponents.
Minnesota, on the other hand, has wins (sweeps) against MichState (CCHA) and Vermont (HE) and single wins against NoDame (again, CCHA), BC (Hockey East again), Canisius (AHA), and Air Force (AHA again). These serve Minny well in all those compares. In fact the only reason the QU is currently guaranteed the overall #1 is because they played and beat WCHA teams with whom the Gophers split, and thus the CommOpp part of the compare is irrecoverable. Were it not for that, it would be reasonable that Minny could pass them in RPI and win the compare.

So, one answer to the question is:
OOC record is important it 2 things
1) it makes up about 25% of your schedule, so it affects your RPI. If your OOC games are 25% of your sched, then 25% * 25 % or about 6% or your RPI is actually your record in those games.
2) It greatly affect your CommOpp record for comparisons with teams near you in the PWR standings.

[goblue78]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Interesting Scenario: 5 ECAC Teams in:
The key is that Brown wins, Yale and Union each win a game, and no other AQs so that RPI gets the last at-large spot, plus Notre Dame loses their first game. ECAC seeds: 1, 8, 14, 15, 16, necessitating a #1-#13 opening match (QPac-Western Michigan), minimizing protection of the #1 seed. And in what city, since Brown has Providence?

(Yale can lose 2 in this scenario rather than QPac. Then the ECAC seeds are #1, 12, 14, 15, 16. I don't think there's a way to give 4 ECAC seeds the entire bottom tier, but this is pretty close.)


Your Picks
Atlantic Hockey
Semifinal #2: Connecticut defeats Mercyhurst
Semifinal #1: Niagara defeats Canisius
Championship game: Niagara defeats Connecticut
CCHA
Semifinal #2: Ohio State defeats Notre Dame
Semifinal #1: Miami defeats Michigan
Championship game: Miami defeats Ohio State
ECAC
Semifinal #2: Yale defeats Union
Semifinal #1: Brown defeats Quinnipiac
Championship game: Brown defeats Yale
Consolation game: Union defeats Quinnipiac
Hockey East
Semifinal #2: Boston College defeats Boston University
Semifinal #1: Massachusetts-Lowell defeats Providence
Championship game: Massachusetts-Lowell defeats Boston College
WCHA
Play-in #2: North Dakota defeats Colorado College
Play-in #1: Minnesota State defeats Wisconsin
Semifinal #2: Minnesota defeats North Dakota
Semifinal #1: St. Cloud State defeats Minnesota State
Championship game: Minnesota defeats St. Cloud State


Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwi...#ixzz2O5OniZi3

[Priceless]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Interesting Scenario: 5 ECAC Teams in:
The key is that Brown wins, Yale and Union each win a game, and no other AQs so that RPI gets the last at-large spot, plus Notre Dame loses their first game. ECAC seeds: 1, 8, 14, 15, 16, necessitating a #1-#13 opening match (QPac-Western Michigan), minimizing protection of the #1 seed. And in what city, since Brown has Providence?

(Yale can lose 2 in this scenario rather than QPac. Then the ECAC seeds are #1, 12, 14, 15, 16. I don't think there's a way to give 4 ECAC seeds the entire bottom tier, but this is pretty close.)

...and the people on the NCAA Committee looks for the nearest bridge...

I think in that case, the NCAA would invoke the "5 team" exception and allow Quinnipiac to be the one seed in Providence vs an ECAC team.

[goblue78]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

...and the people on the NCAA Committee looks for the nearest bridge...

I think in that case, the NCAA would invoke the "5 team" exception and allow Quinnipiac to be the one seed in Providence vs an ECAC team.

Sure... but the interesting thing about that is that you'd be "protecting" Quinnipiac by having them play a team they'd lost to exactly one week earlier, and this time giving Brown a pseudo-home game. Not much protection!

[MaizeRage]

I think in that case, the NCAA would invoke the "5 team" exception and allow Quinnipiac to be the one seed in Providence vs an ECAC team.

That ECAC team would have to be host Brown, who would have beaten QU the weekend before. Not sure that would go over great.

[Patman]

That ECAC team would have to be host Brown, who would have beaten QU the weekend before. Not sure that would go over great.

Especially when you just shuffle the Q to Manchester

[jmhusker]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Patman,

Interesting... but I'm not sure that I agree with the numbers. I'm not implying that the tool is wrong so maybe it is the choice for determining win probabilities (CHODR). Look at AH. Here are the numbers for the 3 teams that must win AH in order to get in:

UCONN: 25.34%
Mercyhurst: 19%
Canisius: 22.95%

Given that Canisius play Niagara first while Mercyhurst plays UCONN, does anyone really see how Canisius' chances are better than Mercyhurst? Mercyhurst can get in without having to even play Niagara. Canisius needs to win 2 games against one team that is a lot better than they are and a 2nd that is also better. How in the world do they end up at 22.95% chance while Mercyhurst's is only 19%? I'm surprised that Niagara's chances of winning AH are only 32.71%.

Admittedly, Canisius is on a little run though. Does the probability model weight recent games more highly than others?

[Patman]

Patman,

Interesting... but I'm not sure that I agree with the numbers. I'm not implying that the tool is wrong so maybe it is the choice for determining win probabilities (CHODR). Look at AH. Here are the numbers for the 3 teams that must win AH in order to get in:

UCONN: 25.34%
Mercyhurst: 19%
Canisius: 22.95%

Given that Canisius play Niagara first while Mercyhurst plays UCONN, does anyone really see how Canisius' chances are better than Mercyhurst? Mercyhurst can get in without having to even play Niagara. Canisius needs to win 2 games against one team that is a lot better than they are and a 2nd that is also better. How in the world do they end up at 22.95% chance while Mercyhurst's is only 19%? I'm surprised that Niagara's chances of winning AH are only 32.71%.

Admittedly, Canisius is on a little run though. Does the probability model weight recent games more highly than others?

Here's the thing with the score model, niagara was ranked fairly low.

I suppose its a matter of "how does a team "win"... Is there a reason their goal totals haven't separated, does it happen that some teams have knack of bellying over?

---

I once simulated entire NHL seasons because at the time I was proposing a three conference system to add insularity (for the benefit of rivalry and sport interest)... I found the reverse, teams modeled as a great team would from run to run do miserable as a result of random variation. Now granted that is more B|A than A|B.

Bottom line, I suspect if you look at the scores Niagara are winning a lot of 1-2 goal games and not so much putting up a 6 or 7 spot.

I haven't looked at the schedule. I don't know.

That being said, I have a few more exotic forms I'd like to try out in the future.

---

Edit: ok, out of conf is bad and when they lose they've gotten lit up... That makes some sense to me

[Ralph Baer]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

RHamilton calculated probabilities using KRACH weighting. He posted the probability of RPI making the tourney with that weighting (20.95%) on the RPI thread.

[goblue78]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Patman,

Interesting... but I'm not sure that I agree with the numbers. I'm not implying that the tool is wrong so maybe it is the choice for determining win probabilities (CHODR). Look at AH. Here are the numbers for the 3 teams that must win AH in order to get in:

UCONN: 25.34%
Mercyhurst: 19%
Canisius: 22.95%

Given that Canisius play Niagara first while Mercyhurst plays UCONN, does anyone really see how Canisius' chances are better than Mercyhurst? Mercyhurst can get in without having to even play Niagara. Canisius needs to win 2 games against one team that is a lot better than they are and a 2nd that is also better. How in the world do they end up at 22.95% chance while Mercyhurst's is only 19%? I'm surprised that Niagara's chances of winning AH are only 32.71%.

Admittedly, Canisius is on a little run though. Does the probability model weight recent games more highly than others?

KRACH weightings give:

Mercyhurst: 17.4%
Connecticut: 23.5%
Canisius: 13.1%
Niagara: 45.9%