Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to improve the Pairwise

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
    Which is exactly why I proposed lowering the QWB to the top 10 teams, because there really is a lot of parity below the top few teams.
    Then move back to an 8 or 12 team field if you think there's an arbitrary cut line. Then again the past few years the last team in has won, so maybe there's more parity than you think
    BS UMass Lowell 2015
    PhD Georgia Institute of Technology 20(19ish?)



    Originally posted by BUtogether
    And I'd be giving BJ's to any kid
    RIP KRoy4Hobey, Gr8Sk8M8(?), BUtogether(?)

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: How to improve the Pairwise

      Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
      Which is exactly why I proposed lowering the QWB to the top 10 teams, because there really is a lot of parity below the top few teams.
      Just an FYI, that would not have change the order of teams at all this year...same top 14 same order...15 through 24 would shuffle but the top 14 is unchanged. (assuming the award for beating #11 through #20 would get shifted to #1 through #20...so beating #10 would be worth 0.0025 for a neutral site, etc).
      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


      • #48
        Re: How to improve the Pairwise

        Originally posted by UML Puck Hawk View Post
        Then move back to an 8 or 12 team field if you think there's an arbitrary cut line. Then again the past few years the last team in has won, so maybe there's more parity than you think
        probably is more parity, which makes my point, exactly. Beating number 18 is no better than beating number 28 so why should you get extra points from it.
        MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

        It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: How to improve the Pairwise

          Originally posted by UML Puck Hawk View Post
          Then move back to an 8 or 12 team field if you think there's an arbitrary cut line. Then again the past few years the last team in has won, so maybe there's more parity than you think
          I think the point is that awarding a QWB for 1-10 has more value because it is clearer that a team deserves a QWB for beating those teams...maybe the answer is actually to go the other way...going all the way down to 30 with max remaining the same (the old TUC cliff line was anyone above 0.5000 RPI which usually was around 25ish).
          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


          • #50
            Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
            I think the point is that awarding a QWB for 1-10 has more value because it is clearer that a team deserves a QWB for beating those teams...maybe the answer is actually to go the other way...going all the way down to 30 with max remaining the same (the old TUC cliff line was anyone above 0.5000 RPI which usually was around 25ish).
            How about applying a negative bonus to beating a chitty team, and double it if the game is at home. And quadruple if it is an ooc game at home against a chitty team.
            a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: How to improve the Pairwise

              Somebody help me. Why does there need to be an arbitrary cutoff line? Is there a statistical reason (not a subjective one) why beating say, number 10 couldn't be worth just a little more than beating number 11, but worth a lot more than beating number 45?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                Originally posted by CLS View Post
                Somebody help me. Why does there need to be an arbitrary cutoff line? Is there a statistical reason (not a subjective one) why beating say, number 10 couldn't be worth just a little more than beating number 11, but worth a lot more than beating number 45?
                Well the there is no "cliff" anymore currently there is a bonus for beating (or half as much for tying) someone in the top 20 but if you beat #1, you get 20x as much bonus as you would for beating #20. The bonus varies from 0.0025 to 0.0500 right now with adjustments for location of the game...
                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


                • #53
                  Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                  Originally posted by CLS View Post
                  Somebody help me. Why does there need to be an arbitrary cutoff line? Is there a statistical reason (not a subjective one) why beating say, number 10 couldn't be worth just a little more than beating number 11, but worth a lot more than beating number 45?
                  We already have that system. It's called RPI. QWB was created to add more than RPI already gave you, without taking away points to losing to bad teams. The idea was to encourage scheduling good teams, since you could add QWB if you beat them, and you had the smallest possible loss in RPI.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by UML Puck Hawk View Post
                    Then move back to an 8 or 12 team field if you think there's an arbitrary cut line. Then again the past few years the last team in has won, so maybe there's more parity than you think
                    6. Conference champions only. Then the conference tournament intensity level would ramp up 100% and the barns would be full(er).

                    Tournament would be Weds (2 v 3) games, Thursday (semis) and Saturday (finals).
                    Last edited by joecct; 03-21-2016, 05:12 PM.
                    CCT '77 & '78
                    4 kids
                    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                      Originally posted by goblue78 View Post
                      We already have that system. It's called RPI. QWB was created to add more than RPI already gave you, without taking away points to losing to bad teams. The idea was to encourage scheduling good teams, since you could add QWB if you beat them, and you had the smallest possible loss in RPI.
                      Mr Stats, would it make sense to give some form of bonus to anyone with an RPI above 0.5000 and have it scale properly so you got more bonus for beating #1 (0.5938) while getting similar bonuses for beating teams banded together? ie beating #1 gives you a bonus of 0.0500 like it does now and beating any team below 0.5000 gives you zero but anything in between is scaled based on their relative difference between #1 and 0.5000? So with #2 at 0.5929 the bonus for beating them would be 0.0495 [from (0.05*(0.5929-0.5)/(0.5938-0.5)] instead of the current 0.0475?
                      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


                      • #56
                        Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                        Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                        Just an FYI, that would not have change the order of teams at all this year...same top 14 same order...15 through 24 would shuffle but the top 14 is unchanged. (assuming the award for beating #11 through #20 would get shifted to #1 through #20...so beating #10 would be worth 0.0025 for a neutral site, etc).
                        Not quite what I was proposing. What I'm saying is, award zero points for beating anyone no. 11 thru infinity. Only award points at the same level as now,( not increased) to 1 -10. In other words, there is a benefit that should accrue to you for beating a really good team, sure, but for beating the vast majority, no. And secondly, that benefit should not be higher than it is now simply because the 11-20 teams are no longer part of it. As far as scaling it to the 1- 10, sure why not.
                        Last edited by manurespreader; 03-21-2016, 05:50 PM.
                        MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

                        It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                          Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
                          Not quite what I was proposing. What I'm saying is, award zero points for beating anyone no. 11 thru infinity. Only award points at the same level as now,( not increased) to 1 -10.
                          but then you are created a TUC cliff, currently beating #10 gets you 0.0275 for a neutral site game. You're proposing 0 for beating #11 which means everyone cares if the top ten changes. I'm saying, we basically base the bonus on how high your RPI is above 0.5000 with a max of 0.0500 (the current max bonus) one thing also to remember is while you get a bonus of 0.0500 for beating #1, your actually final RPI only goes up the sum of all QWBs divided by games played. So if a team had one quality event in their 40 game season prior to selection day, beating #1 under the current system they would get a bonus of 0.0500/40 or 0.00125...

                          Here is what I calculated for this year:
                          Code:
                          Rnk	QWB	aQWB	Team
                          1	0.0500	0.0500	Quinnipiac
                          2	0.0475	0.0495	St. Cloud State
                          3	0.0450	0.0471	North Dakota
                          4	0.0425	0.0406	Providence
                          5	0.0400	0.0379	Boston College
                          6	0.0375	0.0377	Denver
                          7	0.0350	0.0358	Michigan
                          8	0.0325	0.0277	Harvard
                          9	0.0300	0.0276	Mass.-Lowell
                          10	0.0275	0.0261	Boston University
                          11	0.0250	0.0258	Yale
                          12	0.0225	0.0246	Notre Dame
                          13	0.0200	0.0228	Northeastern
                          14	0.0175	0.0196	Minnesota-Duluth
                          15	0.0150	0.0189	Michigan Tech
                          16	0.0125	0.0166	Cornell
                          17	0.0100	0.0139	Minnesota
                          18	0.0075	0.0130	Robert Morris
                          19	0.0050	0.0122	Nebraska-Omaha
                          20	0.0025	0.0119	Penn State
                          21	0.0000	0.0117	St. Lawrence
                          22	0.0000	0.0109	Dartmouth
                          23	0.0000	0.0100	Minnesota State
                          24	0.0000	0.0094	Clarkson
                          25	0.0000	0.0089	Rensselaer
                          26	0.0000	0.0069	Bowling Green
                          27	0.0000	0.0065	Miami
                          28	0.0000	0.0045	Air Force
                          29	0.0000	0.0037	Ferris State
                          Last edited by Shirtless Guy; 03-21-2016, 05:58 PM.
                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                            Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                            but then you are created a TUC cliff, currently beating #10 gets you 0.0275 for a neutral site game. You're proposing 0 for beating #11 which means everyone cares if the top ten changes. I'm saying, we basically base the bonus on how high your RPI is above 0.5000 with a max of 0.0500 (the current max bonus) one thing also to remember is while you get a bonus of 0.0500 for beating #1, your actually final RPI only goes up the sum of all QWBs divided by games played. So if a team had one quality event in their 40 game season prior to selection day, beating #1 under the current system they would get a bonus of 0.0500/40 or 0.00125...
                            Well yes but... in essence there still must be cliff, as the cutoff, whether it is number 11 or 15 or 20 or whatever is somewhere. I'm just saying that you should get some bonus but to what extent and from what result is the question. The top 20 was arbitrary and so will any other number be. I agree that you do deserve an award, but as the umich stats guy says, there are really only 5 or 6 top teams.
                            MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

                            It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                              Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
                              Well yes but... in essence there still must be cliff, as the cutoff, whether it is number 11 or 15 or 20 or whatever is somewhere. I'm just saying that you should get some bonus but to what extent and from what result is the question. The top 20 was arbitrary and so will any other number be. I agree that you do deserve an award, but as the umich stats guy says, there are really only 5 or 6 top teams.
                              but currently you get 0.0025 for #20 and and 0 for #21...that isn't nearly as big a deal. Currently there really isn't a cliff as much as a gentle slope...see my edit to the post you're commenting on...
                              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


                              • #60
                                Re: How to improve the Pairwise

                                Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
                                but currently you get 0.0025 for #20 and and 0 for #21...that isn't nearly as big a deal. Currently there really isn't a cliff as much as a gentle slope...see my edit to the post you're commenting on...
                                Right and what I'm saying is, make the slope steeper and in fact why does it have to be linear at all.
                                MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

                                It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X