Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pairwise -- post jan 8th

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

  • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

    Originally posted by Biddco View Post
    Keep it exactly the same way it is.
    Disagree. I think bonus points should be awarded to teams from the conference with the highest tournament attendance.
    Hollywood Hair Care Tip for Infinity (Directly from Hollywood himself)
    when its minus 20 and u have to go outside.. make sure u wear a winter hat as the mohawk does not enjoy the winter weathe(r)
    Hollywood Amazingness

    Comment


    • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

      Originally posted by RL3AO View Post
      Remember, the correction question is how to improve the selection criteria. From my understanding the PWR mimics the selection criteria but it is not used as the selection criteria.
      The PWR was originally an attempt to reverse-engineer the committee's selection criteria, but they actually do use it now. They started doing this several years ago.

      In a serious response to the question, I'm not really sure what to use as an additional comparison, but there needs to be more than three comparisons. Depending on your conference and the ins and outs of scheduling non-conference games, the number of teams you play in a season is going to end up topping out at roughly 20 give or take. That's 1/3 of Division I, so head-to-head only comes into play a third of the time (and really far less than that if we're comparing teams in two different conferences). That leaves RPI and common opponents as the two comparisons that carry the bulk of the weight, and with RPI being the tiebreaker, the Pairwise ends up being RPI for the most part, with a few teams flipping spots here and there.

      Like I said, I'm not sure what exactly would be good and fair to add as a comparison. Removing the "teams under consideration" comparison was a good move and it definitely shouldn't be brought back. Maybe add KRACH as an additional comparison? Maybe replace RPI with KRACH? Maybe keep the current comparisons but use KRACH as the tiebreaker instead of RPI?
      Last edited by tape; 03-21-2016, 11:59 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

        Originally posted by Dirty View Post
        Disagree. I think bonus points should be awarded to teams from the conference with the highest tournament attendance.
        On second thought I think we should go with this.
        tUMD Hockey

        "And there is a banana running around the DECC." "Well you don't see that every day..."

        Comment


        • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

          Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
          keep trolling, its an honest question that I would have asked either way right now...you don't think its silly to put all our eggs into the RPI w/QWB basket unless the teams have played head to head? I do.
          I truly don't believe there is a better way.
          tUMD Hockey

          "And there is a banana running around the DECC." "Well you don't see that every day..."

          Comment


          • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

            Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
            Thoughts on how to improve the pairwise?
            I'll play along. If there is a problem with it, can you identify a team you think should be in over some other team? If so, why? Just curious.

            Comment


            • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

              This year's UMD team, which went from out the tournament picture to in it, makes up for the 2010 team. which did the opposite.
              tUMD Hockey

              "And there is a banana running around the DECC." "Well you don't see that every day..."

              Comment


              • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                Originally posted by Biddco View Post
                I truly don't believe there is a better way.
                The pairwise system is the best way in general, but that doesn't mean how we arrive at the numbers used can't be done better and that a 4th comparison can't be determined that is equally valuable to the 3 we already use...I think it is a relatively fair system, but after investing a ton of time into creating my own calculator, I certainly see flaws.

                For example...the result of every game directly impacts the weight of Opp's W% and OppOpp W%. Should UMD's Opp W% be determined on whether or not they win a game? Or does it make sense that the 2nd and 3rd components of RPI should not be weighted based on the outcome of the game?

                Also, with so much emphasis on the OppOpp W%, should that calculated valued exclude games against the team we're using, as in UMD's OppOpp W% should exclude all games played with UMD. Doesn't that make sense? Wouldn't that favor teams who are closer to .500 in conference but play in a tough conference because everyone else gets a better OppOpp W% value, the largest component of RPI now, while a top team in a weaker conference gets penalized for winning most of their games within their conference, driving down the OppOpp W% component?
                Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                Comment


                • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                  I think PWR is great. Any discussions should be on changes to RPI.

                  Comment


                  • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                    Originally posted by RL3AO View Post
                    I think PWR is great. Any discussions should be on changes to RPI.
                    That's fine because I do think RPI, especially it being the tiebreaker, is probably the root of the issue, but I still think the PWR needs a 4th criteria in some fashion...I started a separate thread to dig deeper into things.

                    http://board.uscho.com/showthread.ph...e-the-Pairwise
                    Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                    Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                    Comment


                    • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                      Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                      That's fine because I do think RPI, especially it being the tiebreaker, is probably the root of the issue, but I still think the PWR needs a 4th criteria in some fashion...I started a separate thread to dig deeper into things.

                      http://board.uscho.com/showthread.ph...e-the-Pairwise
                      If you introduce a fourth criteria, you open the system up to that many more 2-2 pair ties which would result in more ties broken by RPI.
                      \_(ツ)_/

                      Comment


                      • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                        Originally posted by brassbonanza View Post
                        If you introduce a fourth criteria, you open the system up to that many more 2-2 pair ties which would result in more ties broken by RPI.
                        I don't know how you improve on the pwr/pairwise but I do think additional criteria should be added for when you play someone and where they end up at the end (Beating UNO early was a big help but later when they took the fall we found out where they actually should have been). Maybe that is already factored in, I don't know. Maybe a weighting factor for games later in the year, better idea where the teams actually are.

                        Another is prime players in and out of the lineup- or injuries. I have no idea how you would factor this in mathematically but it is a big factor.
                        SCSU played QU at the beginning of the season on their home turf with a young D core. 3 freshmen D (Schuldt, Borgen and Lizotte) and without our best player Ethan Prow. A very small sophomore Ilvonen in for Prow and Nevalainen just back from a concussion. So maybe something to consider for injuries/healthy? Doesn't QU have a player out (Anas) I think so they are not the same team as they are with him, but they have depth. Other teams don't.

                        A big one was last year. I thought Miami was the best team in the field. They get beat by Providence but they are missing their top two players, Blake Coleman (suspended for a hit in the NCHC championship game) and Riley Barber ( injury).

                        Same with North Dakota, they lost Mark MacMillan due to an injury late in the season (Brodzinski blew his kneecap/leg(J/K) off blocking a shot). He also hurt another ND player on the same PP.
                        Brodzinski himself hurt his ankle in the Mich Tech game and it really affected his play against North Dakota in the Regional final.

                        Last year the Blackhawks almost didn't make the playoffs when Kane was out and when he came back they went on a tear. Being healthy at the end of the year obviously helps your rating and how your team is peaking or not.

                        Comment


                        • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                          Originally posted by brassbonanza View Post
                          If you introduce a fourth criteria, you open the system up to that many more 2-2 pair ties which would result in more ties broken by RPI.
                          Originally posted by hockeykrazy View Post
                          I don't know how you improve on the pwr/pairwise but I do think additional criteria should be added for when you play someone and where they end up at the end (Beating UNO early was a big help but later when they took the fall we found out where they actually should have been). Maybe that is already factored in, I don't know. Maybe a weighting factor for games later in the year, better idea where the teams actually are.

                          Another is prime players in and out of the lineup- or injuries. I have no idea how you would factor this in mathematically but it is a big factor.
                          SCSU played QU at the beginning of the season on their home turf with a young D core. 3 freshmen D (Schuldt, Borgen and Lizotte) and without our best player Ethan Prow. A very small sophomore Ilvonen in for Prow and Nevalainen just back from a concussion. So maybe something to consider for injuries/healthy? Doesn't QU have a player out (Anas) I think so they are not the same team as they are with him, but they have depth. Other teams don't.

                          A big one was last year. I thought Miami was the best team in the field. They get beat by Providence but they are missing their top two players, Blake Coleman (suspended for a hit in the NCHC championship game) and Riley Barber ( injury).

                          Same with North Dakota, they lost Mark MacMillan due to an injury late in the season (Brodzinski blew his kneecap/leg(J/K) off blocking a shot). He also hurt another ND player on the same PP.
                          Brodzinski himself hurt his ankle in the Mich Tech game and it really affected his play against North Dakota in the Regional final.

                          Last year the Blackhawks almost didn't make the playoffs when Kane was out and when he came back they went on a tear. Being healthy at the end of the year obviously helps your rating and how your team is peaking or not.
                          please move over to the other thread, I will comment on these over there.
                          Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                          Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                          Comment


                          • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                            Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                            I'll play along. If there is a problem with it, can you identify a team you think should be in over some other team? If so, why? Just curious.
                            Still waiting for a response on this.
                            Originally posted by SJHovey
                            Pretty sure this post, made on January 3, 2016, when UNO was 14-3-1 and #2 in the pairwise, will go down in USCHO lore as The Curse of Tipsy McStagger.
                            Originally posted by Brenthoven
                            We mourn for days after a loss, puff out our chests for a week or more after we win. We brave the cold for tailgates, our friends know not to ask about the game after a tough loss, we laugh, we cry, we BLEED hockey, specifically the maroon'n'gold. Many of us have a tattoo waiting in the wings, WHEN (not IF) the Gophers are champions again.

                            Comment


                            • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                              (I copied this to the other thread)

                              Comment


                              • Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

                                Originally posted by Tipsy McStagger View Post
                                Still waiting for a response on this.
                                I'll answer in the other thread...
                                Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                                Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X