2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

What is their forcast based on? I like what their prediction is!

The forecast is basically a ballot type system from the 8 contributors to CHW (myself included). Each of the 8 are asked to list their four #1 seeds, four #2 seeds, four #3 seeds, and four #4 seeds, and submit it in. Each team that is voted as a #1 seed receives four points (3 for #2 seed, 2 for #3 seed and 1 for #4 seed), and the 8 ballots are added up. The teams are then ranked #1-16, and so long as there is at least 1 team from each of the five conferences, they are then seeded using the logic that we use for the current pairwise (i.e. bracket integrity, maximize attendance, fewest flights).

Here was my ballot for this week's forecast:
#1 seeds: Duluth, Michigan, BU, Notre Dame
#2 seeds: Minnesota, Lowell, BC, Ohio State
#3 seeds: Merrimack, Union, Denver, Miami
#4 seeds: Colorado College, Ferris State, Maine, RIT

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

This is great work. I think NCAA hockey needs to eliminate or at least put on the back-burner, weekly polls after the end of January. Why? It's now all about PairWise and conference tournaments. A team ranked 10 may be 20 in the PairWise. Who cares about the media popularity contest when you have the PairWise for better or worse.

The Pairwise is incredibly volatile, and few people understand it. Just listen when some talking head on a TV or radio broadcast tries to explain the pairwise. It may as well be Quantum Physics. Polls are easy to understand and they make the people who vote in them feel important. Since those people are the people who report on the sport, the popularity contest will continue.

But yes, it would be nice if the polls went away and more people took the time to understand the pairwise.

 

[mariucci]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

The Pairwise is incredibly volatile, and few people understand it. Just listen when some talking head on a TV or radio broadcast tries to explain the pairwise. It may as well be Quantum Physics. Polls are easy to understand and they make the people who vote in them feel important. Since those people are the people who report on the sport, the popularity contest will continue.

But yes, it would be nice if the polls went away and more people took the time to understand the pairwise.

AMEN!! Wait til the rankings come out tomorrow and see how many Gopher fans wont undersatnd why the team is ranked so high in the polls and still 8-9 in the Pairwise. I've already tried to explain it a few times to some younger fans. (not to be ripping on my Goph bretheren, I just feel it coming).

 

[Patman]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

The Pairwise is incredibly volatile, and few people understand it. Just listen when some talking head on a TV or radio broadcast tries to explain the pairwise. It may as well be Quantum Physics. Polls are easy to understand and they make the people who vote in them feel important. Since those people are the people who report on the sport, the popularity contest will continue.

But yes, it would be nice if the polls went away and more people took the time to understand the pairwise.

In an ideal world I would have built a functional simulator (akin to baseball prospectus and other websites)... I think it'd say a lot about what will or could happen. Biggest issue is conference tie-breakers.

Polls are for entertainment purposes only... but that's true even in the other college sports (save BCS)... hockey is still regionalized and its based on guesses from scores than straight evaluations.

----

I've been evaluating my school versus the 15th or 16th best RPI to see what'd take to fall out... losses above the cut-off... needed record at 36 games (for Lowell its 33+3 playoff), etc. ignoring SOS calculations (resulting from future games... that is take SOS and SOSOS at the current value). For Lowell, I figure we need to finish at .600. Obviously that doesn't include anything related to CoP or TUC items so it is far from ironclad, but it gives me a decent idea of what's going on. A simulator would still be much more revealing.

edit: the other interesting thing to say is not only is the pairwise volatile... but the teams are really bunched together this season... I think there's less than 10 teams with 10 losses or loss equivalents (loss+.5tie).

 

[bottomdweller]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

What is their forcast based on? I like what their prediction is!

I do not... Just keep Lowell in the Eastern timezone.

 

[CLS]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

I wish three things.

That the polls would go away.

That the PWR weren't even calculable until the end of the season, which is the only time it has any meaning. That every team went into their conference championships thinking they might not make it.

That there were enough inter-conference games that the PWR (or whatever they use) were not based on a small sample size, and (kind of a chicken and egg) that whatever system they used didn't discourage inter-conference games.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

The forecast is basically a ballot type system from the 8 contributors to CHW (myself included). Each of the 8 are asked to list their four #1 seeds, four #2 seeds, four #3 seeds, and four #4 seeds, and submit it in. Each team that is voted as a #1 seed receives four points (3 for #2 seed, 2 for #3 seed and 1 for #4 seed), and the 8 ballots are added up. The teams are then ranked #1-16, and so long as there is at least 1 team from each of the five conferences, they are then seeded using the logic that we use for the current pairwise (i.e. bracket integrity, maximize attendance, fewest flights).

Here was my ballot for this week's forecast:
#1 seeds: Duluth, Michigan, BU, Notre Dame
#2 seeds: Minnesota, Lowell, BC, Ohio State
#3 seeds: Merrimack, Union, Denver, Miami
#4 seeds: Colorado College, Ferris State, Maine, RIT

I like it

 

[goldy_331]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

I wish three things.

That the polls would go away.

That the PWR weren't even calculable until the end of the season, which is the only time it has any meaning. That every team went into their conference championships thinking they might not make it.

That there were enough inter-conference games that the PWR (or whatever they use) were not based on a small sample size, and (kind of a chicken and egg) that whatever system they used didn't discourage inter-conference games.

And I wish money grew on trees - oh, and I want a pony too!

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

And I wish money grew on trees - oh, and I want a pony too!

I want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Who do you think gets what they want first?

 

[goldy_331]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Who do you think gets what they want first?

I bet it isn't CLS.

 

[J.D.]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

With all games complete until the weekend:

1. Minnesota-Duluth
2. BU
3. UML
4. Ferris State
5. BC
6. Merrimack
7. Ohio State
8. Michigan
9. Minnesota
10. Maine
11. Miami
12. Notre Dame
13. Northern Michigan
14. Denver
15. Union
16. RIT

**Hockey East would have the 2nd most teams behind the CCHA. The big, bad WCHA currently in 3rd. Pitiful ECAC would only get one (whoever wins the tourney).

St. Paul:

1. UMD
2. Michigan
3. Minnesota
4. RIT

Worcester:

1. BU
2. Ohio State
3. Maine
4. Union

Bridgeport:

1. UML
2. Merrimack
3. Miami
4. Northern Michigan

Green Bay:

1. Ferris State
2. BC
3. Notre Dame
4. Denver

**Had to swap Denver and Northern Michigan

The only question to me is, would the committee swap Merrimack and BC because BC would bring the most fans to Bridgeport?

 

[The Rube]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Polls are fine in general. However in college sports (all of 'em) they should wait a few weeks (maybe 25% into the season, as a blindly guessed estimate) before the first poll goes out. Why? Turnover. Who's leaving? Who's coming in? Etc.

Preseason polls are BS with the amount of turnover that colleges have. It makes it that much more difficult to move up or down, due to rankings before games are being played.

 

[nmupiccdiva]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Two regionals within a decent drive for me, and odds are my team will end up in farking Connecticut? F* hockey.
/yes, I understand the reasoning. It's still annoying.

 

[Yuppie Scum]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

The only question to me is, would the committee swap Merrimack and BC because BC would bring the most fans to Bridgeport?

Even though Merrimack is traveling much better, more BC fans would travel to GB than MC. MC fans would definitely show up to the Woo or CT.

 

[Patman]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Even though Merrimack is traveling much better, more BC fans would travel to GB than MC. MC fans would definitely show up to the Woo or CT.

The Woo? Somebody isn't a local

Wuhstah or wusstehr

 

[J.D.]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Two regionals within a decent drive for me, and odds are my team will end up in farking Connecticut? F* hockey.
/yes, I understand the reasoning. It's still annoying.

Relax, dude. It's only February. That being said, I was looking forward to seeing BC in Manchester or Bridgeport last year...oh well. Don't have much sympathy for teams who just sneak into the tourney, only for high seeds that get a bit of a raw deal.

Even though Merrimack is traveling much better, more BC fans would travel to GB than MC. MC fans would definitely show up to the Woo or CT.

I think you're overestimating the number of BC fans who would travel to Green Bay.

 

[streaker]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Two regionals within a decent drive for me, and odds are my team will end up in farking Connecticut? F* hockey.
/yes, I understand the reasoning. It's still annoying.

It's only annoying hypothetically- like this way to early hand wringing. Too much hockey to play, especially with so many teams comparisons so close. At this point if you are not a strong #1 seed with a decent advantage in winning comparisons, you should just be glad your team is in the mix.

 

[BC/HE]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

With 6 teams from the CCHA I think a better solution in this setup is to allow the matchup between NMU and Ferris to be held in Green Bay. That would present the Green Bay site with it's best attendance possibility with NMU being closest to it. Also it would have perfect bracket integrity. With the rule being 5 or more for one conference bracket integrity takes precedence and this would be allowed especially since it would be 6 for the CCHA. On another note, it is really important for your TUC in your league to beat the TUC of other conferences. That is why the CCHA and Hockey East are so well represented now.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

Two regionals within a decent drive for me, and odds are my team will end up in farking Connecticut? F* hockey.
/yes, I understand the reasoning. It's still annoying.

diva, you'd have fun there. depending on who you went with

 

[MCgrad07]

Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Bracketology

All fans need to take a deep breath and relax. We all know that every team will be placed in every region and teams will be in and out on and off the bubble. the next four weeks should be fun and good luck to everyone. Go Merrimack!