Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

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

  • #16
    Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

    Originally posted by NUProf View Post
    The question wrt the PWR is the metrics that will go into it. If is uses WP, OWP, OOWP, RNK, and COP as was used by the committee in the past, The way the ranked teams are determined will continue to be a opportunity for smoke to fill the room. All in all there will be much more transparency. The leagues can choose whatever procedure they want to determine their AQ. I do applaud the way the UCHC will make use of the two game series format in their tournament. It makes it less likely that a fluke winner emerges from the league tournament.

    Actually because of the lack of interregional games, KRACH is not as good a metric as you might think. The connectivity of the competition graph should be greater to get a robust result. It may work for DI, but there are issues with such regionalized competition. A lot of weight is given to those few events that represent bridges between the regions.
    I agree. The lack of comparative data between regions, and even within regions, has been a big issue.

    Having said that, the better programs are scheduling many more intra- and inter-regional games of late, which is helpful in that regard... (And, the KRACH is still the best in-depth metric available in any case, don't you think? I haven't seen a better one, have you?)
    Last edited by Fishman'81; 09-24-2018, 07:29 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

      Originally posted by Ed Trefzger View Post
      If the committee uses the D-I formula, then ranked teams won't be part of the criteria. (When the D-I PWR used rankings, those were by the numbers, but that criterion was removed a few years ago.)

      If the committee follows the D-I process, then the AQs will get their bids and the at-large bids will be strictly by the numbers and the only smoke-filled room decisions will be the match ups.

      Fifteen years ago, D-III was transparent. This is a good move to return to that.
      I have not read what the criteria will included in the computation. It would not surprise me if the "fuel" for the Pairwise were the same criteria that were used by the committee in the past. The metrics used in DI haven't been used in DIII in the past. When we thought DIII was transparent, the metrics that were used in the PWC were pretty much the same.
      2007-2008 ECAC East/NESCAC Interlock Pick 'em winner
      2007-2008 Last Person Standing Winner,
      2013-2014 Last Person Standing Winner (tie)
      2016-2017 Last Person Standing Winner

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

        Originally posted by NUProf View Post
        I have not read what the criteria will included in the computation. It would not surprise me if the "fuel" for the Pairwise were the same criteria that were used by the committee in the past. The metrics used in DI haven't been used in DIII in the past. When we thought DIII was transparent, the metrics that were used in the PWC were pretty much the same.
        According to what I've read, the D-3 PWR will be calculated just as is the D-1 PWR, with no available wiggle-room for the committee to massage the criteria at the 11th hour.

        Comment

        Working...
        X