Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John t whelan ranking simulator

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by JimDahl View Post
    I didn't use the weights for Opp% and OppOpp%. Basketball doesn't and I think it makes more sense not to (given that they're strength of schedule indicators).

    I think the QWB divisor is weighted. From the memo: "Once the total bonus points have been calculated they are divided by the total weighting of all games played per the RPI calculation (with road wins/home losses weighted with a factor of 1.2 and home wins/road losses weighted with a factor of 0.8)."

    If someone can give me a dump from FlagDude's output (e.g. table of PWR/RPI/record/win%/opp%/oppopp%, etc...) I'm happy to take a look and see if anything jumps out at me. I've implemented it in a few languages now, so that plus matching RHamilton is increasing my confidence that there aren't significant calculation bugs, but there certainly could be some differing assumptions in that the specification is quite ambiguous.

    And thanks Numbers -- I thought it a pretty good guess that you don't drop harmful wins from the QWB, but nice to get official confirmation.
    On the application, click on a team on the left side, and you'll get all of that data.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimDahl
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
    Reilly, I should apologize. I am still not sure. I looked again again at my correspondence. All I can ascertain is that removed games count. My specific correspondence was that the divisor IS home/away weighted.

    My correspondence was that the process is:
    1) Compute RPI using weighting for home/road results
    2) Delete any game with wins that lower the team's RPI
    3) Add QWB, using (Total of QWB pts)/(weighted total of games including games deleted in step 2)

    What was not made clear was:

    1) When computing the Opp% and OppOpp%, do you use the weighting system?
    2) When computing QWB, is it definite that the weighted number of games is used?

    For myself, I note that RHamilton and JimDahl must be using exactly the same algorithm, but FlagDude is doing something different.
    I didn't use the weights for Opp% and OppOpp%. Basketball doesn't and I think it makes more sense not to (given that they're strength of schedule indicators).

    I think the QWB divisor is weighted. From the memo: "Once the total bonus points have been calculated they are divided by the total weighting of all games played per the RPI calculation (with road wins/home losses weighted with a factor of 1.2 and home wins/road losses weighted with a factor of 0.8)."

    If someone can give me a dump from FlagDude's output (e.g. table of PWR/RPI/record/win%/opp%/oppopp%, etc...) I'm happy to take a look and see if anything jumps out at me. I've implemented it in a few languages now, so that plus matching RHamilton is increasing my confidence that there aren't significant calculation bugs, but there certainly could be some differing assumptions in that the specification is quite ambiguous.

    And thanks Numbers -- I thought it a pretty good guess that you don't drop harmful wins from the QWB, but nice to get official confirmation.
    Last edited by JimDahl; 12-30-2013, 04:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    The NCAA only considers conferences in terms of autobids.
    This is a major mistake, and a deviation from the past when they accounted for conferences when adjusting RPI (bonus points) and a "bad win" in the conference playoffs.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    Only teams that have a .500 record or better qualify for an at-large berth. If it comes down to it, will the NCAA consider a team's raw W/L record or the modified W/L record which accounts for home/road games?
    Also, is the NCAA only using the modifications for non-conference games? It seems that the idea is to force teams to do better scheduling. A team has no control over its conference schedule, only out of conference games.
    The NCAA only considers conferences in terms of autobids.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Only teams that have a .500 record or better qualify for an at-large berth. If it comes down to it, will the NCAA consider a team's raw W/L record or the modified W/L record which accounts for home/road games?
    Also, is the NCAA only using the modifications for non-conference games? It seems that the idea is to force teams to do better scheduling. A team has no control over its conference schedule, only out of conference games.

    Leave a comment:


  • Numbers
    replied
    Originally posted by RHamilton View Post
    Thanks for the info; I missed this before.

    This is close to the way I have it implemented. Instead of "number of all games" I'm using "total possible weight of all games" after accounting for home/away weighting.

    My non-cached, auto-updating PWR standings are here: http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/pwr.php . Still matches up exactly with Jim's version, for which I am thankful.
    Reilly, I should apologize. I am still not sure. I looked again again at my correspondence. All I can ascertain is that removed games count. My specific correspondence was that the divisor IS home/away weighted.

    My correspondence was that the process is:
    1) Compute RPI using weighting for home/road results
    2) Delete any game with wins that lower the team's RPI
    3) Add QWB, using (Total of QWB pts)/(weighted total of games including games deleted in step 2)

    What was not made clear was:

    1) When computing the Opp% and OppOpp%, do you use the weighting system?
    2) When computing QWB, is it definite that the weighted number of games is used?

    For myself, I note that RHamilton and JimDahl must be using exactly the same algorithm, but FlagDude is doing something different.

    Given Ed's comment above, CHN must be doing something different as well.
    Last edited by Numbers; 12-17-2013, 09:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RHamilton
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
    I have some information for Reilly Hamilton, Jim Dahl, and FlagDude.

    I heard back from the Minnesota Asst AD, who is on the NCAA Hockey Committee. As far as the QWB points go, this is how you divide:

    (Total of QWB points)/(Number of All Games). If you have games removed from your RatingsPI calculation because they are wins, but still reduce your RatingsPI, those games still count in the QWB divisor.

    I believe the reasoning is like this:
    QWB is supposed to encourage scheduling of strong OOC competition. If you exclude the games from the divisor, that goes against what you are trying to encourage.

    All for now.
    Thanks for the info; I missed this before.

    This is close to the way I have it implemented. Instead of "number of all games" I'm using "total possible weight of all games" after accounting for home/away weighting.

    My non-cached, auto-updating PWR standings are here: http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/pwr.php . Still matches up exactly with Jim's version, for which I am thankful.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ed Trefzger
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    This program, SS.com and College Hockey News all have different results when looking at RPI and pairwise. Hopefully there can be a meeting of the minds to determine which is correct before the season concludes. It will be chaos if there are still questions about this new formula in March.
    This is why we haven't published USCHO's PWR yet, because we want it to be correct. We expect to have it up around Jan. 1 if not before. At least one of the sources you mentioned is not using the new formula so you can safely assume it is incorrect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    This program, SS.com and College Hockey News all have different results when looking at RPI and pairwise. Hopefully there can be a meeting of the minds to determine which is correct before the season concludes. It will be chaos if there are still questions about this new formula in March.

    Leave a comment:


  • Numbers
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    I have some information for Reilly Hamilton, Jim Dahl, and FlagDude.

    I heard back from the Minnesota Asst AD, who is on the NCAA Hockey Committee. As far as the QWB points go, this is how you divide:

    (Total of QWB points)/(Number of All Games). If you have games removed from your RatingsPI calculation because they are wins, but still reduce your RatingsPI, those games still count in the QWB divisor.

    I believe the reasoning is like this:
    QWB is supposed to encourage scheduling of strong OOC competition. If you exclude the games from the divisor, that goes against what you are trying to encourage.

    All for now.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Every team now has a win under their belt. Here's the standings after December 7th:

    Quality Wins rate:

    5.00 St. Cloud State
    4.75 Minnesota
    4.50 Providence
    4.25 Ferris State
    4.00 Michigan
    3.75 Boston College
    3.50 Clarkson
    3.25 Quinnipiac
    3.00 UMASS Lowell
    2.75 Cornell
    2.50 Union
    2.25 New Hampshire
    2.00 Wisconsin
    1.75 Northeastern
    1.50 LSSU
    1.25 Minnesota State Mankato
    1.00 Miami
    0.75 North Dakota
    0.50 Vermont
    0.25 Notre Dame

    And the tournament field:

    St. Cloud State
    Minnesota
    Providence
    Ferris State

    Michigan
    Boston College
    Quinnipiac
    Clarkson

    UMASS Lowell
    New Hampshire (assuming 500 is allowed)
    Union
    Cornell

    Northeastern
    Wisconsin
    LSSU
    AHA Champ (36 - Mercyhurst)

    Bubble teams:
    Miami
    Minnesota State Mankato
    Colgate

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    After games ending December 6th:

    Quality Wins rate:

    5.00 St. Cloud State
    4.75 Minnesota
    4.50 Providence
    4.25 Michigan
    4.00 Ferris State
    3.75 Quinnipiac
    3.50 Boston College
    3.25 Clarkson
    3.00 LSSU
    2.75 New Hampshire
    2.50 Cornell
    2.25 UMASS Lowell
    2.00 Notre Dame
    1.75 Minnesota State Mankato
    1.50 Union
    1.25 Northeastern
    1.00 Minnesota Duluth
    0.75 Miami
    0.50 Wisconsin
    0.25 Bowling Green

    And the tournament field:

    Minnesota
    St. Cloud State
    Providence
    Michigan

    Ferris State
    Quinnipiac
    Boston College
    LSSU

    UMASS Lowell
    New Hampshire
    Clarkson
    Cornell

    Notre Dame
    Minnesota Duluth (assuming .500 is OK, if not move Northeastern up and throw in Union)
    Northeastern
    AHA Champ (37 - Mercyhurst)

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    A little late, but here's where we are after December 3rd:

    Quality Wins rate:

    5.00 Minnesota
    4.75 Michigan
    4.50 St. Cloud State
    4.25 Providence
    4.00 Ferris State
    3.75 LSSU
    3.50 Quinnipiac
    3.25 Minnesota Duluth
    3.00 Cornell
    2.75 Miami
    2.50 Boston College
    2.25 New Hampshire
    2.00 UMASS Lowell
    1.75 Clarkson
    1.50 Yale
    1.25 Minnesota State Mankato
    1.00 Notre Dame
    0.75 Wisconsin
    0.50 Union
    0.25 Northeastern

    And the tournament field:

    Minnesota
    Michigan
    Providence
    St. Cloud State

    Ferris State
    LSSU
    Quinnipiac
    Minnesota Duluth

    Miami
    New Hampshire
    Cornell
    Boston College

    UMASS Lowell
    Yale
    Clarkson
    AHA Champ (36 - Mercyhurst)

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    At the end of November 30th's games:

    Quality Wins rate:

    5.00 Minnesota
    4.75 Michigan
    4.50 St. Cloud State
    4.25 Providence
    4.00 Ferris State
    3.75 LSSU
    3.50 Quinnipiac
    3.25 Miami
    3.00 Cornell
    2.75 Minnesota Duluth
    2.50 New Hampshire
    2.25 Boston College
    2.00 Yale
    1.75 Clarkson
    1.50 UMASS Lowell
    1.25 Minnesota State Mankato
    1.00 Notre Dame
    0.75 Wisconsin
    0.50 Union
    0.25 Northeastern

    And the tournament field:

    Minnesota
    Michigan
    Providence
    St. Cloud State

    Ferris State
    Quinnipiac
    LSSU
    Miami

    Minnesota Duluth
    UMASS Lowell
    New Hampshire
    Cornell

    Yale
    Boston College
    Clarkson
    AHA Champ (36 - Mercyhurst)

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: John t whelan ranking simulator

    Originally posted by Numbers View Post
    Has anyone figured out yet why FlagDUDE's numbers don't match JimDahl or RHamilton?
    Not yet; I am going to make a debug build of the application that gives every calculation step by step and see where things are amiss. I know one difference RHamilton and I discussed involved how we are removing the games that negatively affect RatingsPI.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X