'09-'10 D-III Bracketology

[gojackets]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

Say What- You seem to have spent a great deal of time analyzing possible tournament choices. Having followed this and other D-III sports for ten years, and recognizing how difficult it is to compare teams from the East and the West, I am curious as to whether you might agree with my overall impression that the methodology which can be found at "Rutter rankings" (Mease?) often seems to be the most realistic approach to the idea of trying to rank teams. On a related topic I will note that there is no realistic reason why the NCAA should not expand the Tournament to 8 teams and there is almost no conceivable logic to the concept of rating teams based on regional performances, which more often than not produces results (in this and other sports, such as lacrosse and soccer) which can border on the nonsensical.(I have no idea why this post, sent at 6:54 pm, appears as though it had been sent this morning.)

When you rank teams based on their region, in a round-a-bout way it makes sense to base them on in-region results. Especially when there is so little play between the regions. Over half of the interegion teams involved Adrian. 9 of 16. The only other western teams to play east teams were Lake Forest(3), CUW(2 against Buf State), and St. Benedicts(2 against Chatham)

You really can't get any feel for what the cross region relationship is from those games.

I don't necessarily agree with the rutter rankings. If you look at the NCAA comparisons, Lake Forest is right behind Platty, Amherst, RIT..yet in the Rutters they are 11th...and the rankings are illogical because you get too much credit for losing to a team that is better than you.

 

[gojackets]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

Say What? With the NC$$ rankings now out, Salve Regina has been added in the east and Superior replaces Stevens Point. Without detailing all the numbers, a quick check of the regional match-ups see's Trinity jump ahead of Middlebury 2-3-2 to 1-4-2 in the east so Trinity moves on to the at-large comparisons. In the west, Lake Forest moves ahead of Gustavus in the match-ups 4-0-1 to 4-1-0. But on a national basis, Trinity wins over LF, RF and Manhattanville while losing to GAC. Therefore the new and improved pecking order is Plattsburgh, Amherst, Elmira, Gustavus, Trinity, Lake Forest, River Falls and Manhattanville.

How does trinity beat LFC and RF?

 

[hockeymaven]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

Go jackets:

I suspect Trinity is ahead of LF because at the cod fish tourney in January Trinity handily beat U mass Boston which beat LF and LF had to go to OT to beat Bowdoin which Trinity handled easily at the tourney and has beaten handily two times since.

Two of trinity's three losses have come to high quality teams.

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

How does trinity beat LFC and RF?

Say What? You asked and if you could see me now, you receive with a smile.

                  River Falls  vs  Trinity
WIN                0.7391  0      0.8095  1
Over All Win %     0.7391  0      0.8182  1
SOS                0.5480  1      0.5016  0
Last 25%           0.7500  0      0.7500  0
Out of Region H2H  0.0000  0      0.0000  0
Com Non-D-III      0.0000  0      0.0000  0
Common All         0.0000  0      0.0000  0
RNK                0.5000  0      0.5000  0
-------------------------------------------
PTS                        1              2
===========================================

                  Lake Forest  vs  Trinity
WIN                0.8000  0      0.8095  1
Over All Win %     0.8095  0      0.8182  1
SOS                0.4943  0      0.5016  1
Last 25%           0.7500  0      0.7500  0
Com Non-D-III      0.0000  0      0.0000  0
Common All         0.5000  0      1.0000  1
RNK                0.5833  1      0.5000  0
-------------------------------------------
PTS                        1              4
===========================================

                   Gustavus   vs   Trinity
WIN                0.7619  0      0.8095  1
Over All Win %     0.7619  0      0.8142  1
SOS                0.5361  1      0.5016  0
Last 25%           1.0000  1      0.7500  0
Out of Region H2H  0.0000  0      0.0000  0
Com Non-D-III      0.0000  0      0.0000  0
Common All         0.0000  0      0.0000  0
RNK                0.5833  1      0.5000  0
-------------------------------------------
PTS                        3              2
===========================================

Again I say,sorry if the criteria got in the way of any preconceived concepts or wishes!!!

 

[gojackets]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

Say What? You asked and if you could see me now, you receive with a smile.

Again I say,sorry if the criteria got in the way of any preconceived concepts or wishes!!![/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/I]

It didn't...I figured they would beat LF in the secondary's, but maybe not primaries.

RF/Trin is close, so I"m sure NCAA could finagle it in their favor...i'm sure it comes down to when they lose intheir respective tournaments.

 

[nyi19]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

It didn't...I figured they would beat LF in the secondary's, but maybe not primaries.

RF/Trin is close, so I"m sure NCAA could finagle it in their favor...i'm sure it comes down to when they lose intheir respective tournaments.

I know they have some respectable wins, but I really really don't see it with trinity. Having watched a couple of webcasts, I see River Falls handling trinity fairly easily. But enough of my unbiased opinion...

 

[Plugger]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

I know they have some respectable wins, but I really really don't see it with trinity. Having watched a couple of webcasts, I see River Falls handling trinity fairly easily. But enough of my unbiased opinion...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder......but I think you are blind with respect to Trinity...nobody is handling Trinity with Iwachiw. Not sure if RF has the fire power to get one by her....okay maybe 1.

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

Say What- .........Having followed this and other D-III sports for ten years, and recognizing how difficult it is to compare teams from the East and the West, I am curious as to whether you might agree with my overall impression that the methodology which can be found at "Rutter rankings" (Mease?) often seems to be the most realistic approach to the idea of trying to rank teams. ........

Say What? Well you have Rutters, Krach, RPI, PWR, the NC$$ methodology, etc, etc, etc for picking or ranking teams. Each uses some form of statistics or factoring that will tie all teams together to achieve a reasonable estimate of how each team stacks up against all others. My opinion, for what it is worth, is they all have pluses and minuses. The challenging part for all of these systems is that while most teams play 25 games, you have limited cross over between eastern and western teams, who the teams are that actually play (how do games between St Ben’s and Chatham affect Plattsburgh, Middlebury, Gustavus, Superior, etc) and where the games are played (this year 14 of the 15 games were played in the east). To me the affect of the lack of games between the top teams in eastern and western conferences (Adrian versus Chatham, Postdam and Castleton State really didn’t light a fire under my rear) played in a home and home format cannot definitively be negated in any of the methodologies. That is why I believe the NC$$ ranks teams regionally, then goes to the Super Secret Championship Committee meeting at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City, socializes in the Peacock Alley Bar for a couple hours, then flips a coin to determine who the two at-large bids go to. But I digress! Which one do I like? I like them all. They all pretty much have the same top ten or so teams. And really, on any given day and maybe taking the site of the game into account, any of these teams could beat another. Makes for interesting conversation.

I like Rutters to! Can't quite figure it out, but I like it.​

​

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

It didn't...I figured they would beat LF in the secondary's, but maybe not primaries.

Say What? "Primary Criteria" are Regional -- "Secondary Criteria" are National. The NC$$ would be blind to a LF/Trinty Primary match-up.

 

[spwood]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

I don't see the NCAA rankings anywhere, so I'll drop them in here for discussion's sake:

Feb. 16, 2010 




NCAA RELEASE


INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division III Women's Ice Hockey Committee has released its first regional rankings with records through Sunday, February 14. The top 33 percent of teams from each region are listed below.

The next rankings will be released Tuesday, February 23.

 

East Region Region Record  Overall 
1. Plattsburgh State 18-1-2 19-1-2 
2. Amherst 16-2-4 17-2-4 
3. Elmira 18-4-1 18-4-1 
4. Trinity (Connecticut) 16-3-2 17-3-2 
5. Middlebury 13-5-2 14-5-2 
6. Rochester Institute of Technology 14-4-3 16-4-3 
7. Manhattanville 13-5-1 16-6-1 
8. Norwich 11-4-2 14-4-4 
9. Salve Regina 10-5-2 12-8-3 
  
   
West Region Region Record  Overall 
1. Lake Forest 13-1-4 15-2-4 
2. Wisconsin-River Falls 14-3-6 14-3-6 
3. Gustavus Adolphus 15-4-2 15-4-2 
4. St. Catherine 14-4-1 14-4-1 
5. Adrian 11-4-1 13-10-2 
6. Wisconsin-Superior 13-8-2 13-8-2

Let's assume the first place teams win: that puts LF, St. Thomas (who isn't even ranked....interesting...), Plattsburgh, Manhattanville, and Amherst in. In that scenario, the four teams in competition for the Pool C spots are River Falls, GAC, Elmira, and Trinity. I see Elmira and River Falls getting the two at-large bids. Barring upsets, it looks like the MIAC, ECAC East, and the NESCAC are only getting one team in....

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

........Let's assume the first place teams win: that puts LF, St. Thomas (who isn't even ranked....interesting...), Plattsburgh, Manhattanville, and Amherst in. In that scenario, the four teams in competition for the Pool C spots are River Falls, GAC, Elmira, and Trinity. I see Elmira and River Falls getting the two at-large bids. Barring upsets, it looks like the MIAC, ECAC East, and the NESCAC are only getting one team in....

Say What??? We must be back to that reading comprehension thing again. Please see post #11 where I indicated who might be ranked and then updated that with post #20 with who is. Please refer to post #11 where I indicated what happens in the western Primary criteria match-ups, post #12 with what happens with the Secondary criteria match-ups, post #20 where I indicate the updated pecking order based on the NC$$ rankings and finally post #24 which indicates Trinity beats RF while losing to GAC in the updated Secondary Criteria. In your scenario, GAC gets in over RF and Trinity.

By the way, as I am somewhat confused besides being outright curious, how is it that the USCHO Poll, the NC$$ rankings, and most Fan polls show RF ahead of Gustavus when it is Gustavus with a better record, a tie against RF on the road and a win at Home. I thought record and H2H meant something! But that’s just little old me being a numbers gal.

 

[gojackets]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

B]By the way, as I am somewhat confused besides being outright curious, how is it that the USCHO Poll, the NC$$ rankings, and most Fan polls show RF ahead of Gustavus when it is Gustavus with a better record, a tie against RF on the road and a win at Home. I thought record and H2H meant something! But that’s just little old me being a numbers gal[/B][/COLOR]. [/SIZE][/FONT]

I think it has to do with the other teams Gustavus has lost too. A tie and a one goal win at home our probably a wash in most peoples eyes.

Gustavus has lost to Superior, St Kate, St. Olaf, lost and tied St Thomas
River Falls has only a loss to Superior, Adrian and Gustavus...but several ties.

I'm guessing that people are so used to Gustavus not losing that they are ranking them lower because they have lost.

Clearly you have an error in your analysis as you have Gustavus beating River Falls, but River Falls is ranked higher than Gustavus in the NCAA rankings.

 

[spwood]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

We must be back to that reading comprehension thing again. Please see post #11 where I indicated who might be ranked and then updated that with post #20 with who is. Please refer to post #11 where I indicated what happens in the western Primary criteria match-ups, post #12 with what happens with the Secondary criteria match-ups, post #20 where I indicate the updated pecking order based on the NC$$ rankings and finally post #24 which indicates Trinity beats RF while losing to GAC in the updated Secondary Criteria. In your scenario, GAC gets in over RF and Trinity.

In my scenario, GAC doesn't get in at all. We must be having reading comprehension issues again.

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

In my scenario, GAC doesn't get in at all. We must be having reading comprehension issues again.

Say What? Actually I apologize for my lack of writing proficiency. My last sentence should have read “In your scenario where Lake Forest wins the NCHA, GAC gets in over RF and Trinity.” That help??

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

......Gustavus has lost to Superior, St Kate, St. Olaf, lost and tied St Thomas
River Falls has only a loss to Superior, Adrian and Gustavus...but several ties.

.........

Clearly you have an error in your analysis as you have Gustavus beating River Falls, but River Falls is ranked higher than Gustavus in the NCAA rankings.

Say What??? Nice catch there GoJ! NOT!!! Clearly we have a lack of understanding on how statistics, rankings and criteria play out. You can’t rank a team based on the criteria if included in the criteria is the fact a team may or may not be ranked. Kind of the chicken before the egg scenario. First teams play their games, then the NC$$ has a group of people rank the teams and then and only then do you do the criteria match-ups by region and secondly nationally. From a criteria standpoint, the only thing that matters is whether a team is ranked or not. Position within ranked teams makes no difference. So based on who is on the NC$$’s Super Secret Selection Committee (SSSC) doing the rankings, you could have individuals from one region, who basically know little about the other region’s teams, ranking those teams. There is a wicked sub-plot for you! Oh the intrigue!! Sorry to say but my numbers are correct. If you want a second NCHA school in the FF, have Gustavus win the MIAC Tournament, River Falls the NCHA and have Trinity stumble a bit so Lake Forest can get in. (Highly unlikely?!?) That’s the facts – JACK!!! Or anyway as they stand today. Much more hockey to go before the final whining sessions start.

Plus,since when does “6” ties equal “several”? And one other thing, assuming RF doesn’t win the NCHA Tournament, they would have at a minimum 10 losses and ties. I may be crazy, but I just don’t see any SSSC member from the east buying off on an at-large with that record unless of course they were being compared to RIT.

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

In my scenario, GAC doesn't get in at all. We must be having reading comprehension issues again.

Thread Date Comment
'09-'10 D-III... 02-17-2010 03:06 PM Reading comprehend this: you have your opinions...this post was mine. It doesn't have to agree with yours. spwood.

Say What??? Geez a little testy on the CP Love aren't we. I thought this was a fan forum where people could exchange thoughts, ideas, opionions, etc, openly and freely. All I did was point out that as of now the NC$$'s criteria would have different teams from your stated opinion. Plus that small little fact that the information you were looking for happened to be all of one page back in the Thread. Sorry, in the future this black and white/numbers gal will lighten up a little and give your opinions nothing but the respect they deserve. Have a great day. Looking forward to more of your posts!!

Sincerely,

SW???

 

[gojackets]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

In my scenario, GAC doesn't get in at all. We must be having reading comprehension issues again.

I believe that your scenario is correct as long as Plattsburgh or Elmira wins the ECAC W

 

[gojackets]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

NC$$ has a group of people rank the teams and then and only then do you do the criteria match-ups by region and secondly nationally. From a criteria standpoint, the only thing that matters is whether a team is ranked or not. Position within ranked teams makes no difference.

That is incorrect. The teams are posted in order of their rank by the NCAA.
Lake Forest is the #1 seed in the west, RF is the 2 seed etc. You even said that Trinity was in and Middlebury was out based on rankings. The committee has River Falls above Gustavus at this point in time, meaning if the selections were today, it would come down to Trinity, River Falls...not Gustavus.

So based on who is on the NC$$’s Super Secret Selection Committee (SSSC) doing the rankings, you could have individuals from one region, who basically know little about the other region’s teams, ranking those teams. There is a wicked sub-plot for you! Oh the intrigue!!

According to here the "Super secret" D3 committe is

Steve Nelson-UWS
Garnet Asmundson-Hamline
Andrew McPHee-Trinity
Cheryl Aaron-UMB
Michael Letzeisen-ECAC

So at least two of the members are very familiar with the west.

**What is super secret is how they weight the criteria. Remember we don't know what they put more importance on. Winning % could be 80% of the decision...or they could all be weighted equally...which they aren't. So eventhough Trinity leads River Falls 2-1 or whatever...That 1 that Falls wins could be more important than the 2 Trinity wins.

Sorry to say but my numbers are correct. If you want a second NCHA school in the FF, have Gustavus win the MIAC Tournament, River Falls the NCHA and have Trinity stumble a bit so Lake Forest can get in.

You don't even have the criteria right.
The criteria are

WIN -- Winning Percentage
OWP -- Opponents' Winning Percentage
OOP -- Opponent's Opponents (Winning) Percentage
H2H -- Head to Head
COP -- Record vs Common Opponents
RNK -- Record vs Ranked Teams

I also believe you are mistaken regarding the use of the secondary criteria. I believe the committe looks at the primary criteria first and if their is no clear winner they move onto the secondary criteria, even between regions. I'm checking my sources on this, to verify my correctness. From the Championship Handbook
"Secondary Criteria.
If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary
criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority
order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and
all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications"

When the USCHO peeps do their PWR for the D3 men(have the exact same criteria), they do the comparisons between east and west using only the primary criteria and make their predictions based on those, unless the primary criteria result in a tie.

Plus,since when does “6” ties equal “several”? And one other thing, assuming RF doesn’t win the NCHA Tournament, they would have at a minimum 10 losses and ties. I may be crazy, but I just don’t see any SSSC member from the east buying off on an at-large with that record unless of course they were being compared to RIT. [/FONT]

I'm pretty sure that most people would say 6 ties is several. That is 1/4 of the teams games. Remember if Trinity is in the hunt for a pool C, they will have lost another game. If that game is to Middlebury in the Nescac semis...Trinity is out, Middlebury would probably take their spot in the considerations and you already have pointed out that the western teams beat Middlebury.

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

I believe that your scenario is correct as long as Plattsburgh or Elmira wins the ECAC W

Say What??? Actually…………………………………….no I give up! You guys must be right because you have insight into the real SSSC process. In the future, I’ll just put out there how the SSSC says they make selections, and then you all can enlighten us on how they really will select. This is going to be fun!!!! Uh Oh. Someone is at the door.

"Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk?
Well. . .

You left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I had said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right. . .

You know you laughed, I heard you laugh
You laughed, you laughed and laughed
And then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds?!!
Hah. . .

Well you just wait
They'll find you yet
And when they do they'll
Put you in the ASPCA, you mangy mutt!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

 

[Say What?]

Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology

................You don't even have the criteria right.
The criteria are

WIN -- Winning Percentage
OWP -- Opponents' Winning Percentage
OOP -- Opponent's Opponents (Winning) Percentage
H2H -- Head to Head
COP -- Record vs Common Opponents
RNK -- Record vs Ranked Teams

I also believe you are mistaken regarding the use of the secondary criteria. I believe the committe looks at the primary criteria first and if their is no clear winner they move onto the secondary criteria, even between regions. I'm checking my sources on this, to verify my correctness. From the Championship Handbook
"Secondary Criteria.
If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary
criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority
order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and
all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications"

Say What??? You'd be suprised to know that we agree on some of this. I would suggest three things however, when you go to "verify your correctness".
1) Make sure you are using the correct 2010 Women's D-III Handbook
2) As you go through the criteria in the handbook, one will refer to an appendix which has a new calculation in it for the '10 and '11 Tournaments. Only problem, it doesn't exist in the Women's guide but with a little work you can find it. Hint: it is in a similar type of Championship Guide. (This is actually a test to see if you really are verifying your facts.)
3) Please "read" carefully and go through the examples of calculations provided in the handbooks. Then get back to me on where I am off base on the criteria.

As Spock would say to Captain Kirk it's all very LOGICAL. But if you let your emotions get in the way of logic, you start having issues. Wait till the SSSC makes their choices, then you can all have the emotional breakdown!