What's new
By:
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.

2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

jtwcornell91 said:
That's right. The pairwise at TBRW?/slack.net also uses average winning percentages, although it's not spelled out as nicely in terms of team-by-team breakdowns as on CHN. For example, Denver wins the comparison with Michigan State thanks to common opponents, which are:
Air Force: both 1-0
MTU: Denver is 0-1-1, MSU is 1-0
BC: Denver is 1-0, MSU is 0-1
Under the old system, Denver would be 2-1-1 (.625) and lose to Michigan State's 2-1 (.667). But in the new system, Denver's averaged winning percentage is (1.000+.250+1.000)/3 = .750, while MSU's is still .667, so they win the criterion and with it the comparison. I didn't have the time to make the TBRW/slack version pretty, so it says "2-1-1 .7500 COp .6667 2-1" which is somewhat confusing, since it implies we're comparing 2-1-1 to 2-1, rather than .7500 to .6667. Similarly, USCHO's version says "2-1-1 2.250 1 COp 0 2.000 2-1-0" which is the same thing multiplied by 3 (the number of opponents). The CHN version leaves out the (irrelevant) overall record and includes an opponent-by-opponent breakdown. But all of them compare equivalent quantities, whether it's 2.25 vs 2.00 or .750 vs .667.
Click to expand...

Excellent breakdown. Much appreciated. All the best to your scarf (which really should check in more often on elf).
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

jtwcornell91 said:
I didn't have the time to make the TBRW/slack version pretty, so it says "2-1-1 .7500 COp .6667 2-1" which is somewhat confusing, since it implies we're comparing 2-1-1 to 2-1, rather than .7500 to .6667. Similarly, USCHO's version says "2-1-1 2.250 1 COp 0 2.000 2-1-0" which is the same thing multiplied by 3 (the number of opponents). The CHN version leaves out the (irrelevant) overall record and includes an opponent-by-opponent breakdown. But all of them compare equivalent quantities, whether it's 2.25 vs 2.00 or .750 vs .667.
Click to expand...

That's a good point -- as demonstrated by the existence of this discussion, leaving in the overall record is probably more misleading than useful. So, I just dropped it from the SiouxSports TUC Details pages (ex. Denver), from which you can still go to an an individual comparison to see the breakdown.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

CHFAN222 said:
Just wondering could you add a little section that shows which teams have been mathematically eliminated from gaining an invitation to the tournament and would have to win their conference tourney to get in? I'd imagine we will start seeing quite a few times knocked out over net two to three weeks.
Click to expand...

It's not quite the same as "mathematically eliminated" (which as Patman said, is pretty difficult), but here are the teams for which I don't see any scenario that gets them above a PWR ranking of #16 at the end of the regular season:

Bowling Green
Mankato
Connecticut
Bentley
Canisius
Army
Rensselaer
American Int'l
Alabama-Huntsville
Sacred Heart

Teetering on the edge:

Vermont
Holy Cross

This list might not actually prove as interesting as you might think as the Winter goes on, because more teams stay in contention than intuition suggests. For example, here was the field as of Mar. 14 of last year, with 19 teams still in the hunt for an at-large bid -- Mar 14, 2011 PWR Predictions.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Through 1/14 Games:

1. Minnesota-Duluth (31)
2. Ohio State (30)
3. Boston University (29)
4. Boston College (28)
-------------------------
5. Notre Dame (26)
6. Merrimack (25)
7. Minnesota (24)
8. Western Michigan (23)
-------------------------
9. Michigan (22)
10. Northern Michigan (22)
11. Mass-Lowell (21)
12. Ferris State (20)
-------------------------
13. Cornell (19)
14. Denver (18)
15. Colorado College (18)
16. AHA Champ (Mercyhurst)

St. Paul:
1. Minnesota-Duluth
7. Minnesota (host)
9. Michigan
16. AHA Champ

Green Bay:
2. Ohio State
8. Western Michigan
11. Mass-Lowell
15. Colorado College

Worcester:
3. Boston University
6. Merrimack
10. Northern Michigan
14. Denver

Bridgeport:
4. Boston College
5. Notre Dame*
12. Ferris State*
13. Cornell

*All CCHA matchup in the first round between a 2 seed and a 3 seed is unavoidable.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

RedWing,

Another option:

St. Paul:
1)Minn-Duluth
7)Minnesota (host)
10)Northern Michigan
16)AHA Champ

Green Bay:
2)Notre Dame
8)Western Michigan
9)Michigan (All CCHA matchup unavoidable)
15)Colorado College

Worcester:
3)Boston Univ
6)Merrimack
12)Ferris State
14)Denver

Bridgeport:
4)Boston College
5)Notre Dame
11)Mass-Lowell
13)Cornell

So, rather than exchanging Minn for WMU to get the Gophers at Xcel, we change their whole 1st round game. Then, swap Ferris and Mass-Lowell. It's the same number of changes as you proposed. I like it a little better, because St Paul doesn't need Michigan to look like a packed house. With Minn and UMD there, it will be packed. Putting Michigan in Green Bay puts people in the stands there.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Numbers I agree with you. Ferris State, Denver and the AHA champ are the only fans with long travel. Notre Dame has to go out east again, but their fans have to get used to it anyway.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Interesting. I hadn't noticed that. My bracket keeps all eastern teams except the AHA champ in Bridgeport or Worcester. It wasn't intended. It just came out that way. Very interesting year. There is a possibility that in the end, the NCAAs get 11 teams from WCHA and CCHA.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

gopher wes said:
I'm a little confused by the explanation of Michigan and NMU in the Bracketology link. I think they got switched by accident.
Click to expand...

First, there was an pairwise update after the bracketology was released, so the site needed to make that change (explained in the Update portion).

Second, the explanation section was from the original release of the bracketology. Because nearly everything stayed the same, CHW did not revamp the explanation section. In the original, Northern was placed in the Green Bay Regional for a few reasons. The first being attendance. While the other being distance (and the two are naturally related). Northern is only 180ish miles from Green Bay, while Western is 350ish miles. It is likely that Northern would bring a bigger fanbase than Western. Ultimately, when the pairwise was updated and Western dropped to a 3 and Michigan rose to a 2, it was an easy switch to basically swap Western and Michigan. As a result, when reading through the explanation, it is probably easiest to think of Western and Michigan and vice-verse. Also, think of Denver as Michigan State, as the Spartans rose to a #4 and Denver dropped out after the update.

Hopefully that explains it a tad better, but if not, just let me know.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Futile argument but...

Sticking to bracket integrity first, geographics/travel second, attendance third:

NE (Worchester) 1. BU 2. Notre Dame 3. U-Mass Lowell 4. MSU
East (Bridgeport) 1. BC 2. Mich 3. Cornell 4. Ferris
Midwest (Green Bay) 1. OSU 2.Merrimack 3. WMU 4. CC
West (Minneapolis) 1. UMD 2. NMU 3. Minn 4. AHA

Bracket integrity is okay 1st and second seeds & host getting priority. 3rd & 4th seeds switched to prevent first round intraconference games.
1-8-9-16
2-7-10-14
3-6-11-15
4-5-12-13

Criteria

All first seeds placed in their closest regions. Michigan and Cornell could move to Midwest and flipflop with Merrimack/WMU, but I chose to keep them due to bracket integrity. UM-Lowell, Cornell and WMU are better geographically anyway as third seeds. Minnesota is a host as a third seed and really scrambled the third seeds. Michigan is the highest 2nd seed and shouldn't be moved into the same bracket as the highest #1 seed or play vs. the host school in exchange for a matchup with the highest 3rd seed out East. Lowest 2nd seed NMU is also geographically acceptable to Minneapolis. Fourth seeds are flipped to prevent first round conference match-ups, integrity and travel geography.

Attendance:

NE and East have both #1 seeds close to fanbases, especially BU. UML and Cornell are also nearest their fanbases as 3rd seeds.
Midwest has three western teams, but attendance could lag with WMU closest school to Green Bay.
West has two Minnesota schools, including host and will be best attended regional.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Streaker your Midwest region is too weak attendance wise. None of these teams have a name big enough that will draw hockey fans. It is too tough to fill a place if 3/4 of the teams involved have flights or 10+ hour drives.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

MCgrad07 said:
Streaker your Midwest region is too weak attendance wise. None of these teams have a name big enough that will draw hockey fans. It is too tough to fill a place if 3/4 of the teams involved have flights or 10+ hour drives.
Click to expand...

They have said in the past they will not move teams around to make attendance better and right now the midwest would look like that unless they go against there word.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Based upon its potentially superior recruiting class next fall I think BU should be rated no lower than third in 2013 bracketology. It's never too soon to predict the future, as this thread so clearly illustrates.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Osorojo said:
Based upon its potentially superior recruiting class next fall I think BU should be rated no lower than third in 2013 bracketology. It's never too soon to predict the future, as this thread so clearly illustrates.
Click to expand...

fish2.gif
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Wait for UNO to sweep in and blow your minds!

And by blow your minds I mean make it into the tourny
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Pants said:
Wait for UNO to sweep in and blow your minds!

And by blow your minds I mean make it into the tourny
Click to expand...

UNO is currently in 21st position in the Pairwise. Making the tournament would be impressive, but hardly shocking. Just last year CC was #21 at this point and made the field. In 2010, Alaska was #21 and Northern Michigan was #24. Other late bloomers: St Cloud (#22) in 2008, St. Lawrence (#21) in 2007 and Maine (#24) in 2006.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top