USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
'09-'10 D-III Bracketology
- Thread starter Say What?
- Start date
pokecheck101
Registered User
Last edited:
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
but as has been said...right now NCAA has River Falls over Gustavus, so if the field was chosen today...Gustavus wouldn't be in consideration.
more like Gustavus... the better team...
but as has been said...right now NCAA has River Falls over Gustavus, so if the field was chosen today...Gustavus wouldn't be in consideration.
pokecheck101
Registered User
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
which is pathetic... RF got dominated by Gustavus... who has RF beat that Gustavus hasn't... yeah Gustavus has lost to some teams they shouldn't have... but they still dominated the only team they played above them in the west rankings... I don't see how anyone can justify RF above Gustavus...
which is pathetic... RF got dominated by Gustavus... who has RF beat that Gustavus hasn't... yeah Gustavus has lost to some teams they shouldn't have... but they still dominated the only team they played above them in the west rankings... I don't see how anyone can justify RF above Gustavus...
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
i wouldn't call a tie and a 1 goal win dominating while outshooting 29-25. Thats all the committee sees.
RF is 3-3-3 against ranked Gustavus is 3-2-1 50% vs 58%
Common Opponents RF is 8-1-1 Gustavus is 7-4-2
Win % RF is 74% GAC 76% fairly even
I would assume OWP and OOWP both go to RF which would tie it up 3-3.
My guess would be that 2 SOS and COP catergories are weighted higher than Win% and ranked maybe
ST THOMAS
RF 2-0 GAC 0-1-1
If ST Thomas were to move into the rankings over Say superior...it would actually hurt Gustavus. Gustavus needs UST/ST Kate to split or St. Kate to sweep.
i wouldn't call a tie and a 1 goal win dominating while outshooting 29-25. Thats all the committee sees.
RF is 3-3-3 against ranked Gustavus is 3-2-1 50% vs 58%
Common Opponents RF is 8-1-1 Gustavus is 7-4-2
Win % RF is 74% GAC 76% fairly even
I would assume OWP and OOWP both go to RF which would tie it up 3-3.
My guess would be that 2 SOS and COP catergories are weighted higher than Win% and ranked maybe
ST THOMAS
RF 2-0 GAC 0-1-1
If ST Thomas were to move into the rankings over Say superior...it would actually hurt Gustavus. Gustavus needs UST/ST Kate to split or St. Kate to sweep.
Last edited:
pokecheck101
Registered User
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
everything is fairly even... but Gustavus beat RF.... shouldn't that put them above RF???
everything is fairly even... but Gustavus beat RF.... shouldn't that put them above RF???
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Say What??? I am back because I just had a thought. For those who claim I don’t know squat about the criteria, here is a little post by our good buddy Matt Rennell from last year's "D-III Tournament Speculation" Thread post #454.
Now I bring this up to show why the position of ranked teams doesn’t mean squat. One of the criteria that seems to be under question is how to use Ranked teams. Primary criteria is “In-region results versus regionally ranked teams”. Secondary criteria is “Results versus all Division III ranked teams”. See page 11 of the Championship Handbook. In the example Matt has above, it shows Amherst playing 8 ranked teams, 5-3-0, which calculates into a winning percentage of .625 while Plattsburgh played 14 ranked teams, 8-4-2, which calculates into a winning percentage of .643 giving the point to Plattsburgh. Matt didn’t say one was ranked higher or lower than the other by the NC$$, and thus did or didn’t get the point. It is “results” versus ranked teams not the NC$$ position of the ranked teams that determined his point awarded. Do I have agreement yet Jack???
By the way, how is that research coming?
I’d like to adjust the formula’s in the old Cray if needed so I can align the stars in the proper path for the NCHA.
Say What??? I am back because I just had a thought. For those who claim I don’t know squat about the criteria, here is a little post by our good buddy Matt Rennell from last year's "D-III Tournament Speculation" Thread post #454.
Now I bring this up to show why the position of ranked teams doesn’t mean squat. One of the criteria that seems to be under question is how to use Ranked teams. Primary criteria is “In-region results versus regionally ranked teams”. Secondary criteria is “Results versus all Division III ranked teams”. See page 11 of the Championship Handbook. In the example Matt has above, it shows Amherst playing 8 ranked teams, 5-3-0, which calculates into a winning percentage of .625 while Plattsburgh played 14 ranked teams, 8-4-2, which calculates into a winning percentage of .643 giving the point to Plattsburgh. Matt didn’t say one was ranked higher or lower than the other by the NC$$, and thus did or didn’t get the point. It is “results” versus ranked teams not the NC$$ position of the ranked teams that determined his point awarded. Do I have agreement yet Jack???
By the way, how is that research coming?
I’d like to adjust the formula’s in the old Cray if needed so I can align the stars in the proper path for the NCHA.
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
You're correct in the fact that the results against ranked opponents is not affected by the position of the ranked teams. But the teams are ranked in order of how they compare to the otehr teams.
Lake Forest beats all other teams in the west, River Falls beats the rest, then Gustavus. That is why Rennell said he was surprised that Plattsburgh was below Amherst...
And sadly....I'm gonna take Matt's words over yours anyday!
The secondary criteria does say results against nationally ranked teams, however since none of the teams in question played games against out of region ranked teams...that is basically a moot point. From page 11 "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary
criteria will be reviewed." The secondary criteria come into play when the primary criteria is too close to call. Lets say RF and Gustavus are tied. Lets say RF was 8-4 against Regional Ranked Teams and Gustavus was 8-4, but RF played two games against Plattsburgh and lost both. GAC would get that point in the secondary criteria.
The item i quoted previously was on page 11. This is on page 10. "Berths from Pool C will be selected on a national basis, using regional selection criteria." Which seems definitive to me.
Say What??? I am back because I just had a thought. For those who claim I don’t know squat about the criteria, here is a little post by our good buddy Matt Rennell from last year's "D-III Tournament Speculation" Thread post #454.
Now I bring this up to show why the position of ranked teams doesn’t mean squat. One of the criteria that seems to be under question is how to use Ranked teams. Primary criteria is “In-region results versus regionally ranked teams”. Secondary criteria is “Results versus all Division III ranked teams”. See page 11 of the Championship Handbook. In the example Matt has above, it shows Amherst playing 8 ranked teams, 5-3-0, which calculates into a winning percentage of .625 while Plattsburgh played 14 ranked teams, 8-4-2, which calculates into a winning percentage of .643 giving the point to Plattsburgh. Matt didn’t say one was ranked higher or lower than the other by the NC$$, and thus did or didn’t get the point. It is “results” versus ranked teams not the NC$$ position of the ranked teams that determined his point awarded. Do I have agreement yet Jack???
By the way, how is that research coming?
You're correct in the fact that the results against ranked opponents is not affected by the position of the ranked teams. But the teams are ranked in order of how they compare to the otehr teams.
Lake Forest beats all other teams in the west, River Falls beats the rest, then Gustavus. That is why Rennell said he was surprised that Plattsburgh was below Amherst...
And sadly....I'm gonna take Matt's words over yours anyday!
The secondary criteria does say results against nationally ranked teams, however since none of the teams in question played games against out of region ranked teams...that is basically a moot point. From page 11 "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary
criteria will be reviewed." The secondary criteria come into play when the primary criteria is too close to call. Lets say RF and Gustavus are tied. Lets say RF was 8-4 against Regional Ranked Teams and Gustavus was 8-4, but RF played two games against Plattsburgh and lost both. GAC would get that point in the secondary criteria.
The item i quoted previously was on page 11. This is on page 10. "Berths from Pool C will be selected on a national basis, using regional selection criteria." Which seems definitive to me.
Last edited:
gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
In the primary critera comparison
River Falls Trinity
74% win 85%
.548 OWP .502 according to your SOS calculation
.548 OOWP .502 I know not same but assume RF wins both
0-0-0 h2h 0-0-0
0-0-0 COP 0-0-0
.500 RNK .500
RIver Falls wins 2-1 at this point in time...I would think SOS would outweigh win %??
Secondaries
The only ones that come into play are overall win %
Trinity still wins that one
Last 25% RF wins 80% to 60%
I know this is all moot cuz it will all change next week...lol
In the primary critera comparison
River Falls Trinity
74% win 85%
.548 OWP .502 according to your SOS calculation
.548 OOWP .502 I know not same but assume RF wins both
0-0-0 h2h 0-0-0
0-0-0 COP 0-0-0
.500 RNK .500
RIver Falls wins 2-1 at this point in time...I would think SOS would outweigh win %??
Secondaries
The only ones that come into play are overall win %
Trinity still wins that one
Last 25% RF wins 80% to 60%
I know this is all moot cuz it will all change next week...lol
gojackets
New member
FALCONSANNOUNCER
THERE IS YOUR DAGGER
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
RF was not dominated and in fact played the best game in team history at GAC this season. It was the first time the Falcons have had 20+ shots on goal on that rink. Not only that RF had more chances to win and they couldn't capitalize missing several one-timers and a 3-on-none break away.
more like Gustavus... the better team...
RF was not dominated and in fact played the best game in team history at GAC this season. It was the first time the Falcons have had 20+ shots on goal on that rink. Not only that RF had more chances to win and they couldn't capitalize missing several one-timers and a 3-on-none break away.
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
No....you still aren't reading my original post correctly. Let's try this 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??
No....you still aren't reading my original post correctly. Let's try this again:
spwood said:
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Say What??? As usual, you refuse to let facts get in the way of your preconceived wishes. And as Colonel Klink would say, you “KNOW NOTHING” when you don’t do your research. So here are the criteria.
From Page 11 of the 2010 Women’s D-III Handbook
Now here is the kicker, go to page 10 of the 2010 Men’s D-III Handbook and the pertinent section is
Those are the actual numbers by the actual CRITERIA whether you like it or not. And the Cray does not lie!!! Therefore strictly by the numbers, if you want 2 teams from the NCHA in the FF, RF needs to win the NCHA Tournament. Then at this point in time, LF beats out GAC. If LF wins the Tournament, by the NUMBERS, GAC beats out RF. Now you can do like Matt did last year and pick and choose the criteria that supports your conclusions. But if you start PARSING the data, at least be boy enough to admit what you are doing.
You're correct in the fact that the results against ranked opponents is not affected by the position of the ranked teams. But the teams are ranked in order of how they compare to the otehr teams. (Impossible)
Lake Forest beats all other teams in the west, River Falls beats the rest, then Gustavus. That is why Rennell said he was surprised that Plattsburgh was below Amherst...(He also indicated that his numbers were incomplete)
And sadly....I'm gonna take Matt's words over yours anyday!
The secondary criteria does say results against nationally ranked teams, however since none of the teams in question played games against out of region ranked teams...that is basically a moot point. (See below) From page 11 "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary
criteria will be reviewed." The secondary criteria come into play when the primary criteria is too close to call. Lets say RF and Gustavus are tied. Lets say RF was 8-4 against Regional Ranked Teams and Gustavus was 8-4, but RF played two games against Plattsburgh and lost both. GAC would get that point in the secondary criteria.
The item i quoted previously was on page 11. This is on page 10. "Berths from Pool C will be selected on a national basis, using regional selection criteria." Which seems definitive to me. (Parsing)
Say What??? As usual, you refuse to let facts get in the way of your preconceived wishes. And as Colonel Klink would say, you “KNOW NOTHING” when you don’t do your research. So here are the criteria.
From Page 11 of the 2010 Women’s D-III Handbook
Now here is the kicker, go to page 10 of the 2010 Men’s D-III Handbook and the pertinent section is
Based on that little passage, there are six sets of data pulled for each team but two (OWP and OOP) are combined so that there are 5 criteria match-ups between teams. Therefore sexy the actual Match-up results per games through Tuesday per Primary criteria are:
Code:
Lake Forest vs River Falls
WIN 0.8333 1 0.7391 0
SOS 0.5056 0 0.5605 1
H2H 0.5000 0 0.5000 0
COP 0.8571 1 0.7308 0
RNK 0.5833 1 0.5000 0
----------------------------------
PTS 3 1
==================================
Lake Forest vs Gustavus
WIN 0.8333 1 0.7619 0
SOS 0.5056 0 0.5347 1
H2H 0.0000 0 0.0000 0
COP 0.8000 1 0.7857 0
RNK 0.5833 0 0.5833 0
----------------------------------
PTS 2 1
==================================
River Falls vs Gustavus
WIN 0.7391 0 0.7619 1
SOS 0.5605 1 0.5347 0
H2H 0.2500 0 0.7500 1
COP 0.8636 1 0.6250 0
RNK 0.5000 0 0.5833 1
----------------------------------
PTS 2 3
==================================
And per the Secondary Criteria:
River Falls vs Gustavus
WIN 0.7391 0 0.7619 1
Over All Win % 0.7391 0 0.7619 1
SOS 0.5479 1 0.5361 0
Last 25% 0.7500 0 1.0000 1
Out of Region H2H 0.0000 0 0.0000 0
Com Non-D-III 0.0000 0 0.0000 0
Common All 0.8636 1 0.6250 0
RNK 0.5000 0 0.5833 1
-------------------------------------------
PTS 2 4
===========================================
Lake Forest vs River Falls
WIN 0.8000 1 0.7391 0
Over All Win % 0.8095 1 0.7391 0
SOS 0.4943 0 0.5479 1
Last 25% 0.7500 0 0.7500 0
Com Non-D-III 0.0000 0 0.0000 0
Common All 0.8571 1 0.7308 0
RNK 0.5833 1 0.5000 0
-------------------------------------------
PTS 4 1
===========================================
Gustavus vs Lake Forest
WIN 0.7619 0 0.8000 1
Over All Win % 0.7619 0 0.8095 1
SOS 0.5361 1 0.4943 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 0.7857 0 0.8000 1
RNK 0.5833 0 0.5833 0
-------------------------------------------
PTS 2 3
===========================================gojackets
New member
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
I apologize for not looking for an D3 mens handbook for a rule regarding womens hockey. Why not put it in the women's handbook also??
As we can clearly see eventhough GAC beats RF in YOUR comparisons, the NCAA has them ranked higher. Meaning that the way the weight the criteria, RF comes out on top. Of course if GAC does as predicted and wins the MIAC...this is all pointless.
What i was referring to regarding the secondaries is that most of them will not apply regarding Trinity/RF as neither team played out of region. It will affect overall SOS, which I think you have RF winning.
There was no out-of-region head to head (btw why would they have this one if they went straight to secondaries for national selectino?)
Overall D3 win/loss will be the same
Results vs Common non-D3----none
Results vs all D3 ranked teams---doesn't change
Results vs all common opponents---none
Overall win loss--Trinity will increase slightly for beating HC
Overall D3 sos--i guess might change based on Lake Forest playing teams that trinity played..but does it vary much?? Thats the only crossover..i guess accept Adrian lost to Neumann who Trinity beat.
Last 25% which RF currently wins,
I apologize for not looking for an D3 mens handbook for a rule regarding womens hockey. Why not put it in the women's handbook also??
As we can clearly see eventhough GAC beats RF in YOUR comparisons, the NCAA has them ranked higher. Meaning that the way the weight the criteria, RF comes out on top. Of course if GAC does as predicted and wins the MIAC...this is all pointless.
What i was referring to regarding the secondaries is that most of them will not apply regarding Trinity/RF as neither team played out of region. It will affect overall SOS, which I think you have RF winning.
There was no out-of-region head to head (btw why would they have this one if they went straight to secondaries for national selectino?)
Overall D3 win/loss will be the same
Results vs Common non-D3----none
Results vs all D3 ranked teams---doesn't change
Results vs all common opponents---none
Overall win loss--Trinity will increase slightly for beating HC
Overall D3 sos--i guess might change based on Lake Forest playing teams that trinity played..but does it vary much?? Thats the only crossover..i guess accept Adrian lost to Neumann who Trinity beat.
Last 25% which RF currently wins,
Last edited:
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Yeah, Say What, I can't argue with your numbers saying that GAC is ahead of River Falls. Assuming your calculations are correct (and I'm guessing they are), you are not getting our point either. Regardless of what the Cray says, the NCAA has said River Falls is ahead of GAC and they trump your Cray in selecting the tournament field. The NCAA may take the same numbers you do, but can weigh them however they want. For instance, they can say sure, GAC has a higher winning percentage than RF, but it's so close, we're going to call it a tie. Now the comparison is 2-2 and they can put whichever they want in the #2 spot, which they have done. It's the part of the process that drives us crazy every single year. We know the raw numbers, but how they applied is never made public.
That leads to what Matt Rennell was trying to do last year. He was trying to use the numbers to explain the NCAA's ranking. He was trying to guess how they were weighting the criteria based on their actual ranking, not justify his opinion despite the numbers.
Yeah, Say What, I can't argue with your numbers saying that GAC is ahead of River Falls. Assuming your calculations are correct (and I'm guessing they are), you are not getting our point either. Regardless of what the Cray says, the NCAA has said River Falls is ahead of GAC and they trump your Cray in selecting the tournament field. The NCAA may take the same numbers you do, but can weigh them however they want. For instance, they can say sure, GAC has a higher winning percentage than RF, but it's so close, we're going to call it a tie. Now the comparison is 2-2 and they can put whichever they want in the #2 spot, which they have done. It's the part of the process that drives us crazy every single year. We know the raw numbers, but how they applied is never made public.
That leads to what Matt Rennell was trying to do last year. He was trying to use the numbers to explain the NCAA's ranking. He was trying to guess how they were weighting the criteria based on their actual ranking, not justify his opinion despite the numbers.
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
The bottom line is -- we're just going to have to wait and see. There are still conference games left for NCHA and MIAC this weekend with possible upsets. Not to mention playoffs are playoffs and anything can happen. Who knows? RF and LF may not even make it to their championship! UWSP has been playing strong as of late. It will definitely be fun to watch, though!
The bottom line is -- we're just going to have to wait and see. There are still conference games left for NCHA and MIAC this weekend with possible upsets. Not to mention playoffs are playoffs and anything can happen. Who knows? RF and LF may not even make it to their championship! UWSP has been playing strong as of late. It will definitely be fun to watch, though!
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
Wouldn't that just screw everything up? I know I'm rooting for St. Catherine's in the MIAC... let the post-season fun begin!
Wouldn't that just screw everything up? I know I'm rooting for St. Catherine's in the MIAC... let the post-season fun begin!
LadyFalconsFan
Registered User
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
stranger things have already happened this season in the west!
stranger things have already happened this season in the west!
FALCONSANNOUNCER
THERE IS YOUR DAGGER
Re: '09-'10 D-III Bracketology
So with the NCHA all but finalized I thought I would just throw this thought out after reading all the banter from several different threads, including the part about the NCAA Tournament going west.
NCHA Top 3
Lake Forest
Adrian
River Falls
Scenario 1
LF champions
AD/RF 2nd
LF gets bye hosts FF AD/RF coin flip for pool C and will play MIAC Champ----I'm calling it a coin-flip even though some other system will figure it out coin-flip just meaning they are to even right now for me to do the math to figure it out.
Scenario 2
AD champions
LF 2nd
AD bye and host LF Pool C vs. MIAC Champ
Scenario 3
AD champs
RF 2nd
AD bye and host LF/RF coin flip for Pool C vs. MIAC
Scenario 4
RF champs
LF 2nd
LF bye and host. RF pool C vs. MIAC
Scenario 5
RF champs
AD 2nd
AD bye and Host. RF Pool C vs. MIAC
Scenarios 3 and 5 are only possible if Lake Forest gets beat in the first round of NCHA tournament because RF and AD will meet in Semi-Finals if all 3 of the top teams advance. And the TOP 6 teams in the NCHA all have a decent shot at the title so this obviously doesn't cover all possible scenarios, just what I deem the most likely. I give the NCHA two playoff bids in each scenario because A) Tournament is supposed to come West B) LF and AD are the best options for NCAA for going West because its the shortest distance C) Two west teams playing in the quarters eliminates travel money D) Two NCHA over Two MIAC because I feel the NCHA is tougher Top to bottom. If somebody else finishes Top 2 it would make for an interesting shake-up.
So with the NCHA all but finalized I thought I would just throw this thought out after reading all the banter from several different threads, including the part about the NCAA Tournament going west.
NCHA Top 3
Lake Forest
Adrian
River Falls
Scenario 1
LF champions
AD/RF 2nd
LF gets bye hosts FF AD/RF coin flip for pool C and will play MIAC Champ----I'm calling it a coin-flip even though some other system will figure it out coin-flip just meaning they are to even right now for me to do the math to figure it out.
Scenario 2
AD champions
LF 2nd
AD bye and host LF Pool C vs. MIAC Champ
Scenario 3
AD champs
RF 2nd
AD bye and host LF/RF coin flip for Pool C vs. MIAC
Scenario 4
RF champs
LF 2nd
LF bye and host. RF pool C vs. MIAC
Scenario 5
RF champs
AD 2nd
AD bye and Host. RF Pool C vs. MIAC
Scenarios 3 and 5 are only possible if Lake Forest gets beat in the first round of NCHA tournament because RF and AD will meet in Semi-Finals if all 3 of the top teams advance. And the TOP 6 teams in the NCHA all have a decent shot at the title so this obviously doesn't cover all possible scenarios, just what I deem the most likely. I give the NCHA two playoff bids in each scenario because A) Tournament is supposed to come West B) LF and AD are the best options for NCAA for going West because its the shortest distance C) Two west teams playing in the quarters eliminates travel money D) Two NCHA over Two MIAC because I feel the NCHA is tougher Top to bottom. If somebody else finishes Top 2 it would make for an interesting shake-up.
Last edited: