pairwise -- post jan 8th

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

Still waiting for a response on this.

I'll answer in the other thread...

[tape]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

(I copied this to the other thread)

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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.

please move over to the other thread, I will comment on these over there.

[hockeykrazy]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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.

[brassbonanza]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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

[RL3AO]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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?

[Biddco]

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.

[J.D.]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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.

[Biddco]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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.

[Biddco]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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.

[tape]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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?

[Dirty]

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

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.