Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

[Kekacc]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Does anyone remember when Colorado College won the MacNaughton cup outright as WCHA regular season champs in 1994? They then lost the 1st round of the WCHA playoffs to Michigan Tech (hot goalie Jamie Ram stood on his head!!) and did not make it into the NCAA's?

The following year the "CC Rule" was implemented to give an automatic bearth to the regular season winners of a conference. IIRC that was when the NCAA's was only a 12 team tournament. I believe that changed when the field was expanded to 16 teams.

That was Don Lucia's first year with CC. CC went from last place in the WCHA in 1993 to 1st place in 1994 under Lucia!

[Tipsy McStagger]

So SCSU is sitting 13th after sharing the WCHA regular title. They have a poor non-conference record. I would think they would be out if Brown, Michigan and BU win their tournies and in if just 2/3 of them or less win. That sound right?

As I stated previously, Brown winning swings our comparison with Union back in our favor. Which breaks SCSU's 3-way tie with Niagara and Mankato. Now maybe I am wrong and other results can reverse that, but that would give Mankato one more thing to worry about.

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

As I stated previously, Brown winning swings our comparison with Union back in our favor. Which breaks SCSU's 3-way tie with Niagara and Mankato. Now maybe I am wrong and other results can reverse that, but that would give Mankato one more thing to worry about.

St Cloud's situation appears very complicated, and I think it is because of how volatile Notre Dame's situation is right now.

For example, if CCHA goes Mich, OSU, Mich and Brown and BU both win, one would think that would be very troublesome. However, in that case, if CC wins, you are still ok. Wisc wins, you are out.

I think that this reasoning applies to everyone on the bubble right now. It's too complicated with regard to how the Michigan/Miami affects everything for us to make sure pronouncements.

[CLS]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

No a bigger field is not the answer... There really isn't a point at all... lol.. People won't be comfortable with people selecting the field just as much as they won't be comfortable with computers selecting the field.... and a combination of the 2 doesn't seem to make people happy either... What I want to know is how did they select the field before the PWR?!?!

There really isn’t a “prior to the PWR”. The PWR and other statistical comparisons have been around a long time. The participants were selected by a committee then, just as they are now. The two big changes were:

1. The autobids to all the conferences and

2. The committee not deviating much, if at all, from the PWR.

The first change was a concession from the NCAA. As others have pointed out, based on the number of participants, the tournament should not have expanded from 12 to 16. So the NCAA allowed the expansion to 16 with the proviso that Atlantic Hockey and the CHA get autobids, resulting in a net increase of two at large bids.

The “CC rule” became impractical, because you can’t treat conferences differently, and automatically letting in the regular season champion in all conferences would create a worst case scenario of only four at-large bids. Also, with the addition of at least two at-large bids, the regular season winner of the “power” conferences would most likely make it in anyway.

The committee not deviating much from the PWR is largely due to complaints over the “smoke filled room” method of selecting participants. When the committee used the PWR and other statistical tools only as background, they could only respond to complaints about selections with qualitative statements. When they started adhering more closely to they can rely on quantitative reasoning that is known to all participants before the season even starts. (FWIW, basketball also uses the PWR, but doesn’t adhere to it so rigidly).

One other thing that’s true, but I’m sure won’t make you happy. The PWR is not designed to be applied before all games have been played. The fact that it can leads to all these “lose by winning” scenarios or one team’s fate being decided by “the TUC cliff”. I haven't followed this string closely, but at least it appears to me that the team you're rooting for can win its way in and doesn't have to rely on help from some other team. If you find this too nerve wracking, don’t pay attention to these strings and save your anxiety for the selection show Sunday.

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Here is a little on Mankato's situation:

For them to be OUT, what has to happen is:
Michigan and Notre Dame both win today (I know that seems strange, but it has to do the Mank/NoDame compare)
Yale has to win or tie (This has to do with the Yale compare),

And, then, for every other game played, there are combos that have to fall as well.

In short, they are in about 95% of current combos.

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Yale:
If Yale doesn't lose, they get in for sure.

The rest is too complicated to try to explain - too much interdependence.

[UnionHockeyManiac]

Union needs a win against Brown to get in, right? Can't make it with a loss because of what's going on in the other Conference tournaments?

[Umileated]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

...
Perhaps this, though: New Hampshire will almost assuredly end up losing to a WCHA team. Wow. Isn't that impressive????

Fixed it.

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

^^^^^^ Correct

In Fact,
ECAC Championship Game is an NCAA play-in. Winner goes on, loser goes home.
WCHA Championship Game, the same
AHA Championship Game, also the same

And, BU needs to win to qualify also.

[Blueliner03]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

If mentioned before, I apologize.

Regarding Wisconsin's RPI adjustment for weak opponents, are the opponents known? I assume it was UAH since there are some other common UAH opponents with weak opponent adjustments in the top half of the RPI chart. Omaha didn't have a weak opponent adjustment, could this be because the are 30th?

Thanks for the feedback.

[yalehockeyfan]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

^^^^^^ Correct

In Fact,
ECAC Championship Game is an NCAA play-in. Winner goes on, loser goes home.
WCHA Championship Game, the same
AHA Championship Game, also the same

And, BU needs to win to qualify also.

Great stuff there.

Yale's situation is pretty interesting. Currently sits in 9th pairwise. A win today and they likely move up to around 5-6th. A loss, and well they are likely out of the tourney all-together. Thanks a lot ECAC for keeping the consolation game....

[MaizeRage]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

If mentioned before, I apologize.

Regarding Wisconsin's RPI adjustment for weak opponents, are the opponents known? I assume it was UAH since there are some other common UAH opponents with weak opponent adjustments in the top half of the RPI chart. Omaha didn't have a weak opponent adjustment, could this be because the are 30th?

Thanks for the feedback.

That's correct. UAH wins are thrown out for BC, Minn St, SCSU, and UW. Nobody else is high enough in RPI for their wins over UAH to have a negative effect. Niagara's wins over Sacred Heart are the only other two 'bad wins' thrown out. It has to be a pretty big difference in RPI for that to come up.

[Priceless]

Too bad I didn't go to Vegas and wager on that parley...

[80Miracle]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Sorry if this has been asked already, but if Brown wins the ECAC tourney will they move #1 Quinnipiac to Manchester and move the other #1 BC/Lowell to Providence?

[Patman]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Sorry if this has been asked already, but if Brown wins the ECAC tourney will they move #1 Quinnipiac to Manchester and move the other #1 BC/Lowell to Providence?

Probably, I'm actually hoping for it.