The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

[DeepRed72]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Shameless self promotion:
Update on each team's tournament chances

So you don't actually have to click:
tl;dr - #8 Mass.-Lowell and above seem pretty safe, through somewhere around #19 Minnesota State control their own destinies, down to about #27 Alaska Anchorage can still mathematically finish the regular season in position for an at-large bid.

Thanks Jim. Good stuff. Self-promote all you want.

[Numbers]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Shameless self promotion:
Update on each team's tournament chances

So you don't actually have to click:
tl;dr - #8 Mass.-Lowell and above seem pretty safe, through somewhere around #19 Minnesota State control their own destinies, down to about #27 Alaska Anchorage can still mathematically finish the regular season in position for an at-large bid.

And, to make this abundantly clear - Jim - you are reporting on chances of teams being in position for at-large bid with ON:Y REGULAR SEASON GAMES CONSIDERED. Correct?

So, for example, and i have not run the numbers, and don't care to, this is only an example, although right now Lowell at #8 seems safe, if they close the reg season poorly, and then lose in the HEA tournament, their RPI could drop a little more because of the HE Tourney loss, and they could still end up out.

Correct?

Or, alternatively, you are considering the cutoff at #15 in the PWR. So, you are assuming no conference tournament upsets, correct?

Not that I have a problem with those assumptions, I just want to be clear.

[Patman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

And, to make this abundantly clear - Jim - you are reporting on chances of teams being in position for at-large bid with ON:Y REGULAR SEASON GAMES CONSIDERED. Correct?

So, for example, and i have not run the numbers, and don't care to, this is only an example, although right now Lowell at #8 seems safe, if they close the reg season poorly, and then lose in the HEA tournament, their RPI could drop a little more because of the HE Tourney loss, and they could still end up out.

Correct?

Or, alternatively, you are considering the cutoff at #15 in the PWR. So, you are assuming no conference tournament upsets, correct?

Not that I have a problem with those assumptions, I just want to be clear.

His is only from here to the end of the regular season. If Lowell craps out they aren't in... not really a shock there.

The real work begins now. Nothing but NCAA tournament strength competition the rest of the way unless we lock up the 2nd seed in HEA. Even then the 7th place team won't be an easy out.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Self-promote all you want.

I was going to say the same thing.

[JimDahl]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

And, to make this abundantly clear - Jim - you are reporting on chances of teams being in position for at-large bid with ON:Y REGULAR SEASON GAMES CONSIDERED. Correct?

So, for example, and i have not run the numbers, and don't care to, this is only an example, although right now Lowell at #8 seems safe, if they close the reg season poorly, and then lose in the HEA tournament, their RPI could drop a little more because of the HE Tourney loss, and they could still end up out.

You're right that the objective numbers only go through the end of the regular season, but I try to take that into account in the subjective analysis.

Using your example, I'm seeing Mass.-Lowell having about a 2.5% chance of falling to 13 or lower (or a conditional 30.5% chance if they lose out). Adding an 0-1 from the HEA tournament would push them a little lower, but that's such a small share of outcomes (especially when KRACH-weighted, as I do) that it doesn't move the probabilities much.

To turn giant mountains of data into something readable, I subjectively cut off at around 1% likelihood as "possible" and around 10% likelihood as "likely". If you were to truly go to "mathematically safe / eliminated" only the top couple would be safe and teams well into the 30s would stand a chance (e.g. by the end of the regular season #39 Michigan St would likely climb to the mid-20s if they won out, but could climb as high as 17 if everything else also went their way; given the combined unlikelihood of them winning out AND everything else falling into place, I write that off as not happening).

The above applies more the further out you are from the end of the regular season. Over the next couple weeks, the end of regular season outcomes will tighten up a lot but will become no more predictive of the actual remaining possibilities because they will represent a shrinking share of the remaining games. Then it would be nice to be able to cross the boundary.

[jcarter7669]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

You're right that the objective numbers only go through the end of the regular season, but I try to take that into account in the subjective analysis.

Then you analysis of UNH is wrong, as they only have 2 games left and thus can not win 3.

[JimDahl]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Then you analysis of UNH is wrong, as they only have 2 games left and thus can not win 3.

Thanks. I'll add that to the list of explanations/disclaimers I carry around in every post--simulations are as of Monday. So, for your purposes just assume UNH has already won 1.

[Numbers]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Thought I would add a few comments tonight, with about 1 week left in several of the conference seasons.

No bracket for me at this time. Suffice it to say the main problem right now is what to do about attendance in Cincinnati, coupled with potential intraconference matchups. Committee could have its choice to send either Michigan or Notre Dame to Cincinnati, then the rest falls into place. Same for the 2-3 matchups. No good choice for Cincinnati, and then there are potential HEA and NCHC matchups to avoid. It's all academic, because this won't be the final PWR anyway.

My interest tonight is in the formula - especially the QWB. I am noticing 2 things. First, Colgate has a huge jump from the QWB. In fact, it is the QWB that jumps them from 16 to 13 and therefore in the field as things stand now. Northeastern is getting a bit of an extra bounce, too, but it's not as big a deal for them just now because of where they sit in the field. So, the QWB is HUGE if you are a Colgate or Providence fan.

Second comment about the QWB. We have been talking about it like a replacement for the TUC record, but it really isn't. There is no penalty for losing to a high-rated opponent. Only a bonus for beating one. So, I am not sure the bonus is really accomplishing what the committee wants. It is the most highly rated teams who are getting the bounce anyway.

Anyone have any thought about that?

Thanks.

[goblue78]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Second comment about the QWB. We have been talking about it like a replacement fothe TUC record, but it really isn't. There is no penalty for losing to a high-rated opponent. Only a bonus for beating one. So, I am not sure the bonus is really accomplishing what the committee wants. It is the most highly rated teams who are getting the bounce anyway.

Anyone have any thought about that?

Thanks.

I agree, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You already get a bigger RPI benefit from beating a top RPI team, so it's not clear to me why the Committee wanted to add even more weight. You could accomplish almost the same thing by raising the weight on opponent's win %age, but that would give you an extra bump on high win percentage teams with weak strength of schedule. Anyway, this is almost always going to help the best teams the most, because they have the best records adjusting for strength of schedule, so they must have had the best success against good teams, on average.

[Numbers]

I agree, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You already get a bigger RPI benefit from beating a top RPI team, so it's not clear to me why the Committee wanted to add even more weight. You could accomplish almost the same thing by raising the weight on opponent's win %age, but that would give you an extra bump on high win percentage teams with weak strength of schedule. Anyway, this is almost always going to help the best teams the most, because they have the best records adjusting for strength of schedule, so they must have had the best success against good teams, on average.

Thanks, blue. Also, my thought is that there is no penalty for losing. So,a schedule weighted with lots of strong opponents has no downside. I suppose the committee might like that idea, in a way, but it takes away incentive for Minnesota to play at Clarkson and St Lawrence, for example. Or, for Michigan to schedule Huntsville. This QWB, it seems, will have the effect of driving more division in schedules, rather than less. I mean, a gulf will tend to develop between the haves and the have nots. That won't be good over time.

How to fix? Harder question.

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Thanks, blue. Also, my thought is that there is no penalty for losing. So,a schedule weighted with lots of strong opponents has no downside.

I think you're missing the rather obvious point that if you schedule a lot of tough opponents, your record will be terrible and you probably won't qualify anyway. Do you really think it would be a good strategy for getting into the tournament to schedule BC, Minnesota, Union, and Ferris 8x each?

I suppose the committee might like that idea, in a way, but it takes away incentive for Minnesota to play at Clarkson and St Lawrence, for example. Or, for Michigan to schedule Huntsville. This QWB, it seems, will have the effect of driving more division in schedules, rather than less. I mean, a gulf will tend to develop between the haves and the have nots. That won't be good over time.

How to fix? Harder question.

The point is that the Minnesotas and Michigans of the world ALREADY weren't playing at Clarkson and St. Lawrence, due to $$$ reasons. The QWB is an attempt to give Clarkson and SLU a little bit more credit for results they're able to get at Minnesota and Michigan, since they have to travel there anyway. I don't think the goal was to affect travel patterns, just to make the existing travel patterns a little more equitable.

[CollegeHockeyRinkReport]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

My crack at bracketology here at our site.

http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/2014...n-ferris-state

[Numbers]

I think you're missing the rather obvious point that if you schedule a lot of tough opponents, your record will be terrible and you probably won't qualify anyway. Do you really think it would be a good strategy for getting into the tournament to schedule BC, Minnesota, Union, and Ferris 8x each?

The point is that the Minnesotas and Michigans of the world ALREADY weren't playing at Clarkson and St. Lawrence, due to $$$ reasons. The QWB is an attempt to give Clarkson and SLU a little bit more credit for results they're able to get at Minnesota and Michigan, since they have to travel there anyway. I don't think the goal was to affect travel patterns, just to make the existing travel patterns a little more equitable.

I appreciate the perspective. Thanks. I suppose the question is whether it is working...what do you think?

No matter to me. Minnesota won't end up on the sort end regardless.

[Numbers]

My crack at bracketology here at our site.

http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/2014...n-ferris-state

Nice. I do think, however, that given the choice, the committee would put either Michigan or Notre Dame in Cincinnati. Other wise, too much potential for an almost empty arena. Do you think otherwise, and if so, why?

[Dirty]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Nice. I do think, however, that given the choice, the committee would put either Michigan or Notre Dame in Cincinnati. Other wise, too much potential for an almost empty arena. Do you think otherwise, and if so, why?

I'd also think they'd swap Cornell and North Dakota. Having Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota in the St. Paul Regional would be the committee's wet dream. And I assume Cornell would bring more fans to the Worcester Regional than North Dakota would.