2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

[Mania]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Eastern Rules still apply. When an Eastern team does lose to an unranked eastern team it is considered a fluke and suffer very little in the polls. If a western team loses to an unranked eastern team they are basically banished from they polls unless they win out.

1 Loss is little cause for concern if you have beaten a few top teams...which is the case for the top eastern teams. However, look at the top western teams and you see a big difference which makes it hard to compare. There is no clear front runner for the west, and all of the western teams that are in the rankings have lost multiple games to unranked teams. You can't say the same about the top eastern teams.

 

[Mr. Kitty]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Other than Trinity and Holy Cross(shouldn't count)

Why should Holy Cross be excluded? The point should be to get as much information on the quality of a team and the consistency of its performance.

I understand HC can't do the playoff thing, but if the Nepean Wildcats played everyone in ECAC-W and NCHA, then couldn't there be some fair comparisons against such a team -- even more so if it was a good team?

 

[rinky dink]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

If you've been watching for a couple of years, which I seriously doubt, this is the first year I have criticized Middlebury(not that I"m criticizing the team, but the people who rank them). I understand that in the USCHO poll that they are ranked as high as they are due to name recognition...I don't get why in a computer ranking they would be this high.

Can you give me one good reason why a team that has not beaten a ranked team, except trinity--who's only good win is against Middlebury--deserves to be in the top 10.

Let's say Conn College played the exact same schedule as Middlebury and had the same results....would you rank Conn College in the top 10?

Look at St Kates in the west. St Kate has a better record then gustavus, split with Gustavus...Gustavus is ranked in the top 10...St Kate has 1 vote.


And for completely worthless generic statement of the year....



is that really the best you got???

Get to the Dr. quick and check out that thin skin!!!

 

[nbound]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

1 Loss is little cause for concern if you have beaten a few top teams...which is the case for the top eastern teams. However, look at the top western teams and you see a big difference which makes it hard to compare. There is no clear front runner for the west, and all of the western teams that are in the rankings have lost multiple games to unranked teams. You can't say the same about the top eastern teams.

Really?....... Which top Eastern teams have Middlebury (beat Trinity but lost to Hamilton) or RIT beaten

 

[Mania]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Really?....... Which top Eastern teams have Middlebury (beat Trinity but lost to Hamilton) or RIT beaten

First of all I could care less about Middlebury or Trinity, who knows if they deserve to be on the rankings. Secondly, RIT has at least only lost to the top 3 teams in the country. I don't know if they belong where they are but they haven't lost to anyone below 3rd in the nation. My point is the western teams have lost to multiple unranked teams....not just one loss each, but two or more...I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the top 10, but should they be higher?...it is kinda hard to say they should be.

 

[LakersFan]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Whats keeping Middlebury so high in your rankings?? Other than Trinity and Holy Cross(shouldn't count) the next highest ranked team they have beaten is currently 19th in your rankings, and they lost to the 21st ranked team? Does your system give them a lot of credit to playing high ranked teams even though they lose to them?

I'm just trying to figure it out....not criticizing

I will answer you question with a question. Who should be ranked higher? You will note that Middlebury, Trinity, and Manhattanville are not separated by much in terms of "Quality Rating", and Middlebury was penalized for their recent loss to Hamilton (lost .2 quality rating points). When you try to organizing in your head as to which of these three teams is "better," the combinations of games/result quickly becoming overwhelming, which is why having a computer-based algorithm sort it all out is useful.

A couple of things...

1. I do not include score and margin of victory in my model. W/L/T only are used.
2. There is a prior on each quality rating based on last season's results. As the season goes on, the impact of this prior decreases. However, when teams are tight like this, it may influence the rankings.
3. I will continue to include games against non-DIII teams that play a majority of games against D-III opponents. Unless someone tells me otherwise, the coaches and players do not treat these as exhibition games. Holy Cross is playing for a regular season championship, therefore these results contain useful information.
4, I do not follow D-III hockey, so I cannot discuss any results except what I see in a box score. I have no first-hand knowledge of any of these teams.

 

[gojackets]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

1 Loss is little cause for concern if you have beaten a few top teams...which is the case for the top eastern teams. However, look at the top western teams and you see a big difference which makes it hard to compare. There is no clear front runner for the west, and all of the western teams that are in the rankings have lost multiple games to unranked teams. You can't say the same about the top eastern teams.

1 loss was enough to skewer Lake Forest? At 15-1-2(UMB loss doesn't count) I'm fairly certain Lake Forest is a front runner.

If you look at the rutter rankings, 7 of the 10 teams from 11-20 are in the west. Which I take to mean that the "other" teams in the west are better than the "other" teams in the East.

take superior for example. 6 of their 7 losses are to Gustavus(9), River Falls(10), Lake Forest(11), and Stevens Point(14), Adrianx2(18) Superior has also beaten all those teams, except Adrian and LFC(tie)

Manhattanvile has lost to Elmirax2 (2), and Norwich(12), and Holy Cross(7)
They did beat Elmira once and norwich twice, they beat Neumann(13) and UMB(19). After that their next highest ranked opponent is Salve at 26. 4 of their games have been with the bottom 4 teams in the ranking.

It seems like teams get more credit for playing the top teams even if they lose, than beating the teams that they should.


As far as Holy Cross, St. A's etc are concerned...if the NCAA doesn't count them, I don't count them. They never play a western team, so that doesn't provide any proper comparison.

 

[nbound]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

It seems like teams get more credit for playing the top teams even if they lose, than beating the teams that they should.

now you get the picture Hence Middlebury and RIT's high ranking. They lost to top teams. When Middlebury loses to Plattsburgh on Wednesday(I actually hope they win so they can at last have a quality win to justify their ranking) they will still remain in the top ten of most peoples poles and the uscho poll.

 

[westeast]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

1 loss was enough to skewer Lake Forest? At 15-1-2(UMB loss doesn't count) I'm fairly certain Lake Forest is a front runner.

If you look at the rutter rankings, 7 of the 10 teams from 11-20 are in the west. Which I take to mean that the "other" teams in the west are better than the "other" teams in the East.

take superior for example. 6 of their 7 losses are to Gustavus(9), River Falls(10), Lake Forest(11), and Stevens Point(14), Adrianx2(18) Superior has also beaten all those teams, except Adrian and LFC(tie)

Manhattanvile has lost to Elmirax2 (2), and Norwich(12), and Holy Cross(7)
They did beat Elmira once and norwich twice, they beat Neumann(13) and UMB(19). After that their next highest ranked opponent is Salve at 26. 4 of their games have been with the bottom 4 teams in the ranking.

It seems like teams get more credit for playing the top teams even if they lose, than beating the teams that they should.


As far as Holy Cross, St. A's etc are concerned...if the NCAA doesn't count them, I don't count them. They never play a western team, so that doesn't provide any proper comparison.

My take..throw out the 1st half of the season. Many teams were looking at what they have players wise and go from there. Wisc sup beat St.Thomas 3-0 last time they played and that won't happen again. Teams change throughout the season. Some get stronger others fade.
What they did the first 6 weeks can change.

 

[Mania]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

1 loss was enough to skewer Lake Forest? At 15-1-2(UMB loss doesn't count) I'm fairly certain Lake Forest is a front runner.

How does UMB not count?

It seems like teams get more credit for playing the top teams even if they lose, than beating the teams that they should.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you lose to a top team but make it a close game then you should get some credit. However you cannot say the same thing about losing to a team that you shouldn't lose to. Why? Because it doesn't matter how close the game was, you shouldn't have lost to them in the first place.

The way I see it is if you beat a top team then that should be weighed more positively for you. Beating a team you should beat should be a neutral weight. Losing to a team you should beat should be weighed as heavy as a win against a top team but negatively. Making it a close game with a top team is hard to determine but I would say it is neutral to slightly positive.

 

[gojackets]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

How does UMB not count?



I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you lose to a top team but make it a close game then you should get some credit. However you cannot say the same thing about losing to a team that you shouldn't lose to. Why? Because it doesn't matter how close the game was, you shouldn't have lost to them in the first place.

As far as the NCAA is concerned out of region games don't count in primary criteria. As far as the NCAA is concerned Lake Forest is 15-1-2.

Lakersfan said the score of the game doesn't count in his rankings. What I'm getting at is that the majority of western teams make up the majority of the middle seciont of the rankings...the 10-30ish range. The east teams have all of the top 8 and most of the bottom 15 or so...

What I don't understand is why a team thats played a bunch of teams that are in the 1-8 range, but hasn't beaten any of them is in the 1-8 range...makes absolutely no sense to me, no matter how close the games were. The majority of games in hockey are 1-2 goal games regardless of the quality of the two teams(unless you include the classless eastern teams ahem RIT..lol) You have the extremes, but most games are close..so saying they played them close but still lost doesn't seem to be a good argument.

 

[nbound]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

As far as the NCAA is concerned out of region games don't count in primary criteria. As far as the NCAA is concerned Lake Forest is 15-1-2.

Lakersfan said the score of the game doesn't count in his rankings. What I'm getting at is that the majority of western teams make up the majority of the middle seciont of the rankings...the 10-30ish range. The east teams have all of the top 8 and most of the bottom 15 or so...

What I don't understand is why a team thats played a bunch of teams that are in the 1-8 range, but hasn't beaten any of them is in the 1-8 range...makes absolutely no sense to me, no matter how close the games were. The majority of games in hockey are 1-2 goal games regardless of the quality of the two teams(unless you include the classless eastern teams ahem RIT..lol) You have the extremes, but most games are close..so saying they played them close but still lost doesn't seem to be a good argument.

Jackets,....put your thinking cap on backwards so that you are thinking like an Easterner. The answer to your not understanding will become obvious. It's not about who you beat, it's about who you don't lose to. The only way the Midds and RITS would ever fall from grace would be if they lost to a low level Western team like Augsberg, Finlandia or Marion...take your pick. Being they never come West that's never going to happen. "Good" Eastern teams losing to low Eastern teams are just considered flukes and are not to be taken into consideration for rankings. Stop thinking logically like a Western fan.

 

[Mania]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Jackets,....put your thinking cap on backwards so that you are thinking like an Easterner. The answer to your not understanding will become obvious. It's not about who you beat, it's about who you don't lose to. The only way the Midds and RITS would ever fall from grace would be if they lost to a low level Western team like Augsberg, Finlandia or Marion...take your pick. Being they never come West that's never going to happen. "Good" Eastern teams losing to low Eastern teams are just considered flukes and are not to be taken into consideration for rankings. Stop thinking logically like a Western fan.

I love how you pick out what you want to hear and forget about the rest.

 

[nyi19]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

Jackets,....put your thinking cap on backwards so that you are thinking like an Easterner. The answer to your not understanding will become obvious. It's not about who you beat, it's about who you don't lose to. The only way the Midds and RITS would ever fall from grace would be if they lost to a low level Western team like Augsberg, Finlandia or Marion...take your pick. Being they never come West that's never going to happen. "Good" Eastern teams losing to low Eastern teams are just considered flukes and are not to be taken into consideration for rankings. Stop thinking logically like a Western fan.

I mean, I guess I just want to hear what your alternative is. Who do you replace Middlebury with or anyone you want to not be in the top-10 anymore? You post and post and post about "eastern eyes" and "eastern rules"...inform me of the western rules and who you can justify ranking over any of the eastern teams you disagree with. It's not like anyone from the east is trying to put UMB or Colby in the top-10 right now.

 

[gojackets]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

I mean, I guess I just want to hear what your alternative is. Who do you replace Middlebury with or anyone you want to not be in the top-10 anymore? You post and post and post about "eastern eyes" and "eastern rules"...inform me of the western rules and who you can justify ranking over any of the eastern teams you disagree with. It's not like anyone from the east is trying to put UMB or Colby in the top-10 right now.

I don't mind Middlebury bein 10-12ish..I don't understand how they can possibly be #5

 

[nyi19]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

I don't mind Middlebury bein 10-12ish..I don't understand how they can possibly be #5

just another ranking system that seems perfect until one team seems to break the trend. either way, i still wanna know what nbound's answer to removing midd from the top-10 is. Compare Midd's losses to some western teams' losses and who do you replace? the team that was in the top-10 in the beginning of the season, no?

 

[nbound]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

i still wanna know what nbound's answer to removing midd from the top-10 is.

If Lake Forest was removed from the top 10 for their loss to UMass(a 500 team at the time, Jan 2) how does Midd stay in at #7 of the top 10 after a loss to Hamilton (a sub 500 team at the time)? I agree with Jackets, they should be 10-12ish maybe. A win Wednesday would validate their existence in the polls, not just another loss to one of the top teams

 

[nyi19]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

If Lake Forest was removed from the top 10 for their loss to UMass(a 500 team at the time, Jan 2) how does Midd stay in at #7 of the top 10 after a loss to Hamilton (a sub 500 team at the time)? I agree with Jackets, they should be 10-12ish maybe. A win Wednesday would validate their existence in the polls, not just another loss to one of the top teams

you're still evading my main question lol who replaces midd that doesn't have just as many losses and to lesser opponents? seems to me...no one...

 

[spwood]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

As far as the NCAA is concerned out of region games don't count in primary criteria. As far as the NCAA is concerned Lake Forest is 15-1-2.

Lakersfan said the score of the game doesn't count in his rankings. What I'm getting at is that the majority of western teams make up the majority of the middle seciont of the rankings...the 10-30ish range. The east teams have all of the top 8 and most of the bottom 15 or so...

What I don't understand is why a team thats played a bunch of teams that are in the 1-8 range, but hasn't beaten any of them is in the 1-8 range...makes absolutely no sense to me, no matter how close the games were. The majority of games in hockey are 1-2 goal games regardless of the quality of the two teams(unless you include the classless eastern teams ahem RIT..lol) You have the extremes, but most games are close..so saying they played them close but still lost doesn't seem to be a good argument.

Gojackets,

I agree with your sentiment here. We have the same issue on the men's side. Everyone considers Plattsburgh a virtual lock on the men's side. However, they are 1-4-3 against teams in the top 15 right now. I think it's great if you play a tough schedule, but you have to win a few of those games. If an independent played a 25 game schedule against all Top-10 teams and went 1-24, would we be talking about them as a tournament team? It's an extreme example, but seems like the mentality that is being bandied about here....

 

[rinky dink]

Re: 2009-2010 DIII Rutter Computer Rankings Thread

If Lake Forest was removed from the top 10 for their loss to UMass(a 500 team at the time, Jan 2) how does Midd stay in at #7 of the top 10 after a loss to Hamilton (a sub 500 team at the time)? I agree with Jackets, they should be 10-12ish maybe. A win Wednesday would validate their existence in the polls, not just another loss to one of the top teams

After being at the Codfish this year and watching all of the games, Lake Forest was beat by a hot goalie in the UMass game.

That being said, Lake Forest was the weaker team against Bowdoin, but beat them because their goalie was better that day. Bowdoin outplayed them and outshot them 43-27. Lake Forest did not have the depth that Bowdoin has, and Bowdoin does not even get a vote in the USCHO poll, and is presently a .500 team and sits 5th in the NESCAC.

Unfortunately LF is the only Western team that I have seen, but Bowdoin was certainly a better team, as LF is a better team than UMass. It is too bad East does not meet West, perhaps some day in the future during better economic times.