Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to improve the Pairwise

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

  • manurespreader
    replied
    Re: How to improve the Pairwise

    Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
    because a human has to choose what it is?
    Well if you used a geometric sequence than you reward beating number 1 a lot and number 2 by a lot less etc. So you end at say 10 with a tiny number and it's still calculable, gets the job done, and makes mookie happy. Kind of like the payoff in a tennis tournament . The winner gets a lot the second guy a good bit but everyone else, not so much. Then you could essentially still end at 20 if you liked with little effect. Except there would be no real advantage to beating number 15.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirtless Guy
    replied
    Re: How to improve the Pairwise

    Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
    Right and what I'm saying is, make the slope steeper and in fact why does it have to be linear at all.
    because a human has to choose what it is?

    Leave a comment:


  • manurespreader
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirtless Guy
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • manurespreader
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirtless Guy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • manurespreader
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirtless Guy
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • joecct
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • goblue78
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirtless Guy
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • CLS
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • mookie1995
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirtless Guy
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • manurespreader
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X