The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

[Slap Shot]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Copied from GPL and obviously doesn't incorporate context, but found it interesting otherwise:

The irony is, that the changes made in the pairwise pretty much make the 'pairwise' obsolete. The pairwise now is pretty much just the RPI, since there is no more TUC comparison. It takes two other comparisons to override the RPI. Without the TUC, now there are only two other comparisons, common opponent and head-to-head. So if two teams don't play each other, the lower RPI team can't overtake the higher RPI team, even if they have a better record against common opponents. Looking at the USCHO pairwise, the pairwise order is exactly the RPI order for 1-24. Denver loses a couple comparisons due to some HTH losses combined with COp in one case. The point is, all of the nice interconference games we are finally getting are becoming less meaningful now. Of course, they all count for RPI.

[Aerman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

It seems to me that the first tiebreaker ought to be H2H, if applicable. Isn't that the basic idea of the pairwise, each team considered individually against every other team? Moreover, I'm annoyed that they de-emphasized H2H (don't know quite when - this year?). Used to be if I beat you 3-0 during the season I received 3 comparison points rather than the measly one I would get now. If the point is each pair of teams compared in a vacuum, shouldn't a season sweep be strongly rewarded? With the schedule scrambling that occurred in HE this year, some teams could meet six or seven times. Wouldn't 6-0 or 5-2 in favor of one team be more indicative than the combination of RPI and common opponents for that particular pair?

How come the guys in charge of this stuff aren't as bright as us board denizens?

[UnionHockeyManiac]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Why not the Hudson River? Then I could ignore Union.

All of you have to do to ignore Union is look down in the standings from where RPI is. You'll never see them.

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Used to be if I beat you 3-0 during the season I received 3 comparison points rather than the measly one I would get now.

Where did you see that? As far as I can tell that's still the case...

[Patman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Copied from GPL and obviously doesn't incorporate context, but found it interesting otherwise:

Even if not entirely the case, the removal of one of the points does make the RPI more relevant, afterall, you have to overcome the RPI as its own "point" and then as the tie-break. Making that removal makes that harder.

[Aerman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Where did you see that? As far as I can tell that's still the case...

I glanced too quickly at the table. Never-mind

[Priceless]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Today's pairwise:

1 Minnesota
2 Boston College
3 Ferris State
4 Quinnipiac
5 St. Cloud State
6 Union
7 Northeastern
8 Providence
9 Wisconsin
10 Mass.-Lowell
11 Cornell
12 Yale
13 New Hampshire
14 Clarkson
15 Michigan
---
16 Notre Dame
17 Vermont
18 Maine
19 North Dakota
20 Minnesota-Duluth
21 Colgate
22 Bowling Green
23 Minnesota State
24 Brown
25 Western Michigan
26 Denver
27 Miami
28 Ohio State
29 Alaska-Anchorage
30 St. Lawrence
31 Lake Superior
32 Air Force
33 Northern Michigan
34 Rensselaer
35 Mercyhurst
36 Bemidji State
37 Alaska-Fairbanks
38 Nebraska-Omaha
39 Massachusetts
40 Harvard
41 Bentley
42 Michigan Tech
43 Michigan State
44 Merrimack
45 Boston University
46 Canisius
47 Connecticut
48 Dartmouth
49 RIT
50 Princeton
51 Penn State
52 Colorado College
53 Niagara
54 Robert Morris
55 American Int'l
56 Holy Cross
57 Alabama-Huntsville
58 Sacred Heart
59 Army

Quick bracketology:

Bridgeport (Yale)	Worcester (Holy Cross)	Cincinnati (Miami)	St Paul (Minnesota)
Quinnipiac		Boston College		Ferris State		Minnesota
St Cloud		Northeastern		Union			Providence
Yale			Cornell			Lowell			Wisconsin
New Hampshire		Clarkson		Michigan		Air Force

Almost perfect brackets. Switch up Cornell and Lowell to avoid intraconference matchups and swap Michigan and Clarkson for attendance.

Will have a longer update next weekend.

[Numbers]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

I know Priceless will be back on Sunday with lots of information, but I thought today I would do a quick analysis of how much can change in a few games (note Minnesota has played 3 games since Priceless' last post now).

Sat AM:
#1's: Minnesota, BC, QU, Ferris No change
#2's: St Cloud, Union, N'eastern, Providence No change, but Providence lost some cushion with last night's results
#3's: Wisconsin, Lowell, Cornell, Clarkson Here is where things really tighten up. Yale went from being a #3 to out of the field.
#4's: Notre Dame, Michigan, Maine, Atlantic Champ More changes. New Hampshire out, Maine in.

No need for a bracketology, but some comments: Since the PWR is almost (not entirely) the same as RPI now, just look at RPI numbers to see how your team might be doing.
Minnesota - Looks secure for a #1, because they have .0300 or so on 5th place SCSU.
BC, QU - Strong situation for #1s
Ferris, St Cloud, Union, N'eastern - a good lead on #13, so would appear to safe to at least a #3 seed, maybe higher
From Providence at #8 to Vermont at #21 is the same difference in RPI as from Minnesota to St Cloud. Obviously, this is very tight, and a weekend has the possibility of making a big difference.

[Onion Man]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

How are you factoring the bonus points for wins over OOC Top 20 teams?

[Numbers]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

How are you factoring the bonus points for wins over OOC Top 20 teams?

There is an earlier thread here which likely could be found be querying "whelan" in which we all were trying to figure that out.

Basically, Vs #1 = +.005; #2, +.00475; #3 +.0045, etc unto #20. I believe these are home/road scaled 0.8/1.2. Use ties as half of the bonus (so a tie with the Gophers on neutral ice = +.0025). And, you go by current rankings RIGHT NOW, not when the game was played. Add those all up, divide by the number of games played (not home/road scaled). And, add that number to the Raw RPI.

Examples here: http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/pwr.php listed after the order of teams. Hamilton uses a 100.00 scale rather than a 1.000 scale, so be aware of the difference when looking at QWB. But, I think you can follow it easy enough.

I see that he has a slightly different result for Minnesota than the others. My current guess is that it is because there would be some question whether the TCF Bank game last night was Home or Neutral.

And, I believe the Bonus applies all all Top 20 games, but just OOC

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Add those all up, divide by the number of games played...

I thought each win was cumulative? Most of the top teams have a bonus that is >0.005...

[Numbers]

I thought each win was cumulative? Most of the top teams have a bonus that is >0.005...

Not sure what you mean by cumulative. Each game against a top 20 opponent counts. Add up all the bonus points. That's s big number. For Minnesota, 0.1450. Turn, that number is scaled by the number of games played. For Minnesota,21.

Hope this helps.

[Aerman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

So, does this become an iterative process? As you add these bonus points, don't some of the positions change?

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Not sure what you mean by cumulative. Each game against a top 20 opponent counts. Add up all the bonus points. That's s big number. For Minnesota, 0.1450. Turn, that number is scaled by the number of games played. For Minnesota,21.

Hope this helps.

I must be totally missing something. If the biggest bonus you can get for a win is 0.005, and then add them all up and divide them by the number of games you have, the highest your average can be is 0.005. But we have BC, for example, sitting at 0.009?

[Numbers]

I must be totally missing something. If the biggest bonus you can get for a win is 0.005, and then add them all up and divide them by the number of games you have, the highest your average can be is 0.005. But we have BC, for example, sitting at 0.009?

Sorry. Try it 0.05 and so on... Look at Reilly Hamilton site. It shoes all the details for each team.