Annual change to PWR announced.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

The NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Committee announced...

That, effective with the 2012 championship, the common opponent comparison in the Rating Percentage Index (RPI) be adjusted so that the record versus common opponents be looked at individually rather than collectively when providing the advantage for the awarding of a comparison point in the RPI.

I'd give a link but this site is hatin' on the wav suffix so here:
nifter.com/sound_effects/cartoons_animations_sound_effects/homer_simpson/homer_simpson_33_NifterDotCom
add the dot-wav at the end yourself.

[unofan]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

Hmm. The whole folder has been taken down. I am hoping that this file will reappear in a clearer form.

Patman and Flagdude have both come up with the other possibility: awarding the comparison point to the team with the better record against more common opponents. Unfortunately, the way the announcement was phrased was completely unclear. I think the possibility that I posted in the original post is more likely, since it is analogous to how they calculate "Opponent's record" in the RPI, but there is no way of knowing right now what they did mean.

Hopefully it will be more clear if and when the NCAA re-posts the file.

I'm with Ralph and flagdude on this one. Sounds like they'll do mini comparisons and tally up who has the better record against each individual common opponent, so a team can't simply rack up 5 wins against a weak sister of the poor to offset their 0-1 record against 4 other opponents.

[Numbers]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

I believe that Flag Dude has it right. And, if I am thinking clearly, the reason would be something like this:

Suppose Underachieving U (UU) is in the same conference as Nearly In the Tourney Tech (NITT). Suppose NITT played UU 4 times in the reg season, and swept them, and then sweeps again in their conference playoffs. NITT gets 6-0 added to their common opponents criterion. Now, suppose that, in another conference, Always Unlucky U (AUU) played one conference game against the school that all agree had the least talent in the nation (which is UU), and they won. AUU gets 1-0 added to the comparison criterion. The result is that NITT gets a boost due only to scheduling. And the result is that NITT (this is such a nitpicky deal), gets in the tourney, and AUU (Awwwww!!) gets left out again.

I think it's a good idea, but really what the NCAA criterion needs is a broader based solution to this problem, applying some sort of KRACH scale to both common opponents and to TUCs.

Ah, but that has been discussed so many times before.....

[Alton]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

I'm with Ralph and flagdude on this one. Sounds like they'll do mini comparisons and tally up who has the better record against each individual common opponent, so a team can't simply rack up 5 wins against a weak sister of the poor to offset their 0-1 record against 4 other opponents.

OK, but I think the RPI-method works for that as well. If a team's record against those 5 teams is (1.000, .000, .000, .000, .000), they will be considered a .200 team for the common opponents comparison, even if their record is 5-4 (.556). I think the mini-comparison method is less than ideal--it doesn't tell you how much better team A did than team B against teams X, Y, and Z. For example, let's say team A is (1.000, .667, .250) and team B is (.000, .750, .333) against the same teams. I think it would be more fair to award the comparison to team A than to team B, even though team B wins 2 of the 3 mini-comparisons.

Either way, this change is an improvement for teams in the stronger conferences.

[Numbers]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

Or, what UNOFAN said

[joecct]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

You all know who is the new chair of the D-I Ice Hockey committee, don't you??

[Happy]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

You all know who is the new chair of the D-I Ice Hockey committee, don't you??

someone who knows hockey even less than barry alvarez

[Patman]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

Whatever happens, I hope that somebody is able to get a clarification as to whether my, Alton's, or some other form of calculation is correct. I think we rightfully take pride in having an "objective" system. Its certainly not perfect, but it is transparent.

[Priceless]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

The example provided by the NCAA:

This example provided by the NCAA shows how the new system of calculating results against common opponents would be scored.

Team A is 3–0 against Team C (1.000);
Team B is 1–0 against Team C (1.000);
Team A is 0–2 against Team D (0.000);
Team B is 1–2 against Team D (0.333);

Team B would be credited with having won the common opponents category with a 1.333 total in the individual opponent percentages compared to 1.000 for Team A. They both had a 1.000 winning percentage against Team C, and Team B had a better winning percentage than Team A against Team D (.000 for Team A and .333 for Team B). Under the current structure, Team A would be credited with having won the common opponents category as they were 3–2 (.600) against common opponents, while Team B was only 2–2 (.500).

So using the example provided before

against Colorado College--Michigan was 1-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 0-1-1

Michigan = 1.0000 UMD=.2500

against Lake Superior--Michigan was 2-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 0-0-1

Michigan = 1.0000 UMD = .5000

against Michigan Tech--Michigan was 1-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 4-0

Michigan = 1.0000 UMD = 1.0000

against Minnesota--Michigan was 0-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-1-2

Michigan = .0000 UMD = .5000

against Nebraska-Omaha--Michigan was 1-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-1

Michigan = .5000 UMD = .5000

against Northern Michigan--Michigan was 2-0, Minnesota-Duluth was 1-0

Michigan = 1.0000 UMD = 1.0000

against Wisconsin--Michigan was 0-0-1, Minnesota-Duluth was 3-1.

Michigan = .5000 UMD = .7500

So COp is Michigan 1+1+1+0+.5+1+.5= 5.0000 > UMD = .25+.5+1+.5+.5+1+.75= 4.5
Michigan wins the comparison 5 > 4.5833

Michigan still wins the overall comparison 3-0

It's going to be fun to see how long it takes the programming wizards at SS.com and slack.net to accurately duplicate the new format.

[Priceless]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

After analyzing the Pairwise from last year not a single comparison changed among teams that were in the NCAA tournament or on the bubble. I examined the comparisons where flipping the winner of the COp component would make a difference (ie 1-1, 3-2 etc) and there were no changes. The team that won the COp component in the original Pairwise won with this new formula. So I'm not sure why this rule had to be changed.

[Ralph Baer]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

After analyzing the Pairwise from last year not a single comparison changed among teams that were in the NCAA tournament or on the bubble. I examined the comparisons where flipping the winner of the COp component would make a difference (ie 1-1, 3-2 etc) and there were no changes. The team that won the COp component in the original Pairwise won with this new formula. So I'm not sure why this rule had to be changed.

To show their usefulness in these days of diminishing budgets?

[Patman]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

It's going to be fun to see how long it takes the programming wizards at SS.com and slack.net to accurately duplicate the new format.

If I had functioning code around it'd take only a few seconds... not that difficult.... I just mocked up the change in 4 lines of code but I decided that'd be too nerdy to show. Everything is just convenient subsetting.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

I'm sure RHamilton has updated his code already.

[komey1]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

Either way, this change is an improvement for teams in the stronger conferences.

Has there ever been a change that helps the smaller conferences? The only thing I can think of that had potential was the change to what qualifies a team as a TUC to help get even the smaller numbers over the number of teams needed to make the comparison relevant.

[Patman]

Re: Annual change to PWR announced.

Has there ever been a change that helps the smaller conferences? The only thing I can think of that had potential was the change to what qualifies a team as a TUC to help get even the smaller numbers over the number of teams needed to make the comparison relevant.

I missed alton's comment... I think this is probably technically true (more likely to go 3-1-0 from a small conf vs. 7-5-0 from a big if you're looking at big v. small)... but even then I'm not sure that it really is the case... and if it is, that this revision isn't bad in itself.

I'm not going to lose much sleep over the change... i think they're probably trying to change what they think is a weird and lop-sided dynamic. Unless somebody gives me some evidence one way or another I think its a toss-up.