Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

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

  • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

    I am off to Boston in a few hours so this will be the last time I am posting from a real computer. Based on the results I expect this is the bracketology I'd put forth.

    Code:
    Manchester (UNH)	Providence (Brown)	Toledo (BGSU)		Grand Rapids (Michigan)
    Boston C		Quinnipiac		Miami			Minnesota
    Yale			Lowell			Niagara			N Dakota
    New Hamp		St Cloud		Mankato			Notre Dame
    Union			W Michigan		Denver			Michigan
    Now that I've written that, my predictions will start going wrong this afternoon...

    Comment


    • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

      The bracket of death would be GR.
      Originally posted by CavalryNate
      Disrespecting the Gophers is like disowning your mother the first time you get a girlfriend.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

        Dream bracket for the committee, Priceless. No flights to Manchester, 2 to Providence, 2 to Toledo, 2 to Rapids. I was just thinking about Michigan this morning, too. Wow. What a reward for Minnesota for being #2 overall - playing what would be the hottest team in the country.

        Comment


        • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

          I agree this is what the brackets will probably end up (assuming Michigan wins the CCHA Tourney), but I still wish they would spread out the WCHA teams into the FOUR Regions

          Comment


          • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

            A really basic question that I've just realized I never knew the answer to and never inquired about:

            How long have the selection committee used the PWR system, and have they ever veered from it for at-large selection or seeding? I've only been paying attention to this kind of detail for the last decade or so, and I can't think of an instance where they've veered from the formula.
            If you want to be a BADGER, just come along with me

            BRING BACK PAT RICHTER!!!


            At his graduation ceremony from the U of Minnesota, my cousin got a keychain. When asked what UW gave her for graduation, my sister said, "A degree from a University that matters."

            Canned music is a pathetic waste of your time.

            Comment


            • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

              Originally posted by ExileOnDaytonStreet View Post
              A really basic question that I've just realized I never knew the answer to and never inquired about:

              How long have the selection committee used the PWR system, and have they ever veered from it for at-large selection or seeding? I've only been paying attention to this kind of detail for the last decade or so, and I can't think of an instance where they've veered from the formula.
              They've been using it in full since the 1994-95 season. In 1993-94 (and presumably some years before, but I don't know how many), they mostly used RPI and only used PWR to teams within a small RPI margin of one another on the bubble (i.e. teams within 0.01 or something like that).

              Through 1998-ish, if I remember correctly, the committee got the PWR more as a grid of comparisons, and it could be more important for a bubble team to have bubble comparison wins than to have a good overall PWR rank. Somewhere around 1999 or 2000, they appear to have shifted to doing a straight-ranked PWR.
              Northeastern Huskies Class of 1998 / BS Chemical Engineering
              Notre Dame Fighting Irish Class of 2011 / PhD Chemical Engineering

              But then again, isn't holding forth on an extreme opinion from a position of complete ignorance what these boards are all about? -- from a BigSoccer post by kerrunch

              Britney can't sing. At all. She sounds like a cross between a crackhead chipmunk that had more than a couple beers and a drowning cat. -- DHG on the MTV VMAs

              Comment


              • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                Does anyone know if the Thursday outcomes will have any effect on Yale's possible lock status, I understand that they are right on the edge of being a lock. Thanks for all of the analysis!
                YALE HOCKEY
                2013 National Champions

                Comment


                • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                  Originally posted by LTsatch View Post
                  Does anyone know if the Thursday outcomes will have any effect on Yale's possible lock status, I understand that they are right on the edge of being a lock. Thanks for all of the analysis!
                  RHamilton's earlier post listed what the updated possibilities would be after each of the possible Thursday outcomes. None of them list Yale as a lock.
                  Originally posted by RHamilton View Post
                  Hey all,

                  I ran all 393,216 outcomes similar to JimDahl, but went a step further and assigned a percent likelihood using KRACH on each individual outcome. I took a brief look, and it looks like my unweighted outcomes match up with JimDahl's

                  Here are KRACH weighted likelihoods for all seeds:
                  http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/

                  Note that "seed" refers to the PWR seed (after auto-bids have been accounted for), not the PWR rank. Ties broken using RPI.

                  Individual breakdowns for each of the outcomes tomorrow:

                  WCHA 'Quarterfinal' 1:WCHA 'Quaterfinal' 2:
                  if Minnesota State won:
                  If Wisconsin won:



                  I'm working on some alternate ways of analyzing the data I've generated. I hope to release a dynamic "what-if" machine after tomorrow's games when the number of outcomes is a bit more manageable and less likely to crash my webhost's database server.

                  EDIT: Fixed typo per lugnut92 below
                  EDIT 2: Switched domain names.
                  Go Red!!

                  National Champions: 1954, 1985, 201x

                  Houston Field House, Cheel Arena, Agganis Arena, Magness Arena, Ritter Arena, Messa Rink, Matthews Arena, Von Braun Center, Lynah Rink, Starr Rink, Appleton Arena, Dwyer Arena, Buffalo State Ice Arena, Kelley Rink (also Verizon Center (DC), Herb Brooks Arena, Fenway Park (Frozen Fenway I), Times Union Center, DCU Center, Blue Cross Arena)

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                    Originally posted by Ralph Baer View Post
                    That seems quite dumb, and how could there be "simultaneous years" -- only one team wins the championship in any year?
                    I meant consecutive. Oops.

                    And that's exactly what the NYSPHSAA does. Not very dumb to me.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                      Up-to-date KRACH weighted breakdown:
                      http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/

                      I just regenerated the KRACH figures, so the weightings are a bit different than the previously posted wis-cc.html file. The unweighted percents and number of outcomes are unchanged.

                      I'll post some scenarios for the early games tomorrow soon.
                      RPI Class of 2012
                      Visit rpitv.org to watch almost every RPI Hockey home game LIVE, as well as a huge collection of on demand games from this season and seasons past, all for FREE!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                        Updated, same model values as inputs.

                        Code:
                           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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
                        6    Ar 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
                        7    BC 1.0000 0.4229 0.5764 0.0007 0.0000 0.2688 0.7312 1.0000
                        8    BG 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
                        9    Bn 0.1201 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1201 0.1201 0.0000 1.0000
                        10   BS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
                        11   BU 0.1849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.1842 0.1650 0.0199 1.0000
                        12   By 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
                        13   Ca 0.2237 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2237 0.2237 0.0000 0.0000
                        14   CC 0.0790 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0790 0.0790 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 0.2615 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2615 0.2615 0.0000 0.6066
                        19   Da 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000
                        20   DU 0.9956 0.0000 0.0038 0.8566 0.1352 0.0000 0.9956 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 0.1878 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1878 0.1878 0.0000 0.0000
                        29   Mi 0.0951 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 0.3234
                        30   Mk 0.9993 0.0000 0.0940 0.8962 0.0091 0.0000 0.9993 1.0000
                        31   ML 1.0000 0.3129 0.6767 0.0104 0.0000 0.3110 0.6890 1.0000
                        32   Mm 1.0000 0.9033 0.0967 0.0000 0.0000 0.4271 0.5729 1.0000
                        33   Mn 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5355 0.4645 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 0.0000 0.5257 0.4743 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 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 0.6338 0.3662 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000
                        40   Ni 0.9887 0.0560 0.3854 0.3904 0.1569 0.3270 0.6617 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 0.8427 0.1546 0.0470 0.3142 0.3269 0.3404 0.5023 1.0000
                        44   OS 0.1374 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1374 0.1374 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 0.2562 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.2556 0.2552 0.0010 1.0000
                        48   Qn 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4961 0.5039 1.0000
                        49   RM 0.0072 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072 1.0000
                        50   RP 0.1242 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1242 0.0000 0.1242 1.0000
                        51   RT 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
                        52   SC 0.9797 0.0379 0.4296 0.3488 0.1634 0.2286 0.7511 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 0.5562 0.0000 0.0000 0.1382 0.4180 0.2518 0.3044 1.0000
                        56   Vt 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
                        57   Wi 0.2046 0.0000 0.0000 0.0482 0.1564 0.1569 0.0477 1.0000
                        58   WM 0.7756 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7756 0.0000 0.7756 1.0000
                        59   Ya 0.9805 0.1124 0.5309 0.1545 0.1827 0.1320 0.8485 1.0000
                        I'll update either VERY late Friday or Saturday morning.

                        I will also post pairwise code on Saturday with hopes that it will help with future module building.

                        edit: as in, entice help for the future with the goal of a full on model based monte carlo simulation for use earlier in the season.
                        Last edited by Patman; 03-21-2013, 10:58 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


                        • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                          Originally posted by Patman View Post
                          I will also post pairwise code on Saturday with hopes that it will help with future module building.

                          edit: as in, entice help for the future with the goal of a full on model based monte carlo simulation for use earlier in the season.
                          Cool, will be fun to see others models. Yours is in R? My admittedly sloppy PHP/MySQL database-driven model is here:
                          https://github.com/hamilr2/NCAA-Hockey-PWR-predictor

                          Obviously needs a lot of set-up and a DB schema to run, but if you like looking at methodology in an iterative language, it's worth a look. Maybe I'll prepare a readme later.

                          Team setup and iteration is done in pwr.php, relevant PWR calculations happen in the doPWR function here:
                          https://github.com/hamilr2/NCAA-Hock...clude.php#L295
                          RPI Class of 2012
                          Visit rpitv.org to watch almost every RPI Hockey home game LIVE, as well as a huge collection of on demand games from this season and seasons past, all for FREE!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                            I looked at RHamilton's most recent chart. The following schools have a chance yet at the last 2 #1 seeds:
                            #3 overall: Miami (~55%), BC (~19%), Lowell (~18%), Yale (~1.5%), NoDame (~5%) St Cloud (~1%)
                            #4 overall: Miami (~33%), BC (~23%), Lowell (~10%), Yale (~15%), Niagara (~6%), St Cloud (~3%), NoDame (~10%).

                            That is 7 schools still with a chance at a #1 seed, besides the 2 guarantees. Wow. Admittedly, Niagara and St Cloud the smallest, but still.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                              I found an odd thing in JimDahl's blog tonight. The assumption here has been that St Cloud can now clinch with a win.

                              However, on his blog, updated with today's results, we find this for St Cloud, under the 1 win column:

                              #13 0.0%

                              Which in interesting to me, because the #14 row is totally empty. And, if that really means 0.01%, where there might be a strange case yet, then a win tomorrow afternoon does NOT guarantee them in, because we all know that CC, Mich, Prov and Brown could yet win tourneys, in which case #13 in the PWR misses.

                              Can, RHamilton or PatMan add more information?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

                                Originally posted by RHamilton View Post
                                Cool, will be fun to see others models. Yours is in R? My admittedly sloppy PHP/MySQL database-driven model is here:
                                https://github.com/hamilr2/NCAA-Hockey-PWR-predictor

                                Obviously needs a lot of set-up and a DB schema to run, but if you like looking at methodology in an iterative language, it's worth a look. Maybe I'll prepare a readme later.

                                Team setup and iteration is done in pwr.php, relevant PWR calculations happen in the doPWR function here:
                                https://github.com/hamilr2/NCAA-Hock...clude.php#L295
                                right now I'm not running a model I'm using Robin Lock's CHODR model... if I were to run things... and admittedly i operate as a Bayesian, I'd probably do some variant of Poisson regression using the hessian matrix as a measure of parametric uncertainty and then simulate from that assuming normality... I will then get away with any difficult posterior distribution construction and related Markov Chain Monte Carlo inference issues... anyhow...

                                no, what I will post is straight through, my code to calculate pairwise. I want to build a bigger simulator. I argue that parts would likely have to be written in another language (C or fortran) to achieve desired efficiency... but i seem to say that about most of the stuff i do right now
                                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

                                Working...
                                X