Originally posted by JimDahl
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
John t whelan ranking simulator
Collapse
X
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by Numbers View PostReilly, 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 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, 03:09 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedRe: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View PostThe NCAA only considers conferences in terms of autobids.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by Priceless View PostOnly 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:
-
Guest repliedRe: 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:
-
Originally posted by RHamilton View PostThanks 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.
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, 08:14 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by Numbers View PostI 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.
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:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by Priceless View PostThis 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:
-
Guest repliedRe: 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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
Re: John t whelan ranking simulator
Originally posted by Numbers View PostHas anyone figured out yet why FlagDUDE's numbers don't match JimDahl or RHamilton?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: