If the season ended today, how could you pick the top-4 WCHA teams when only 3 are in the top-8 for PairWise Rankings?
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: Division I Bracketology
- Thread starter brookyone
- Start date
If the season ended today, how could you pick the top-4 WCHA teams when only 3 are in the top-8 for PairWise Rankings?
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Is that a rhetorical question? I'd be more than content to have a tournament minus that 4th WCHA team.
Sorry Brooky, I thought it was you saying at least the top-4 WCHA teams deserved to be there and WCHA teams don't get enough credit for the strength of the league I will blame it on my iPad for misreading who wrote what??? Lol
Northeastern seems to be getting it together underthedirection of Dave Flint, so if hey an upset BC in HE playoffs, they might both be in. They pick up 2 more pts today, beating UVM 5-1 in the 3rd. I think two ECAC teams will be in, especially if someone manages to upset Cornell for the ECAC title. If that team is Dartmouth, then Harvard has a good argument to be in, ESP if they win out. Then you still haveMercyhurst, although they seem to be trending in the wrong way. CHA could be left out.
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Update, with absolutely no consideration of travel expense reality...or team colors.
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/
Northeastern @ Wisconsin
North Dakota @ Cornell
Harvard @ Minnesota
Boston College @ Mercyhurst
Minnesota Duluth @ Local Public Golf Course
Update, with absolutely no consideration of travel expense reality...or team colors.
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/
Northeastern @ Wisconsin
North Dakota @ Cornell
Harvard @ Minnesota
Boston College @ Mercyhurst
Minnesota Duluth @ Local Public Golf Course
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Might be a tad chilly in late February, down by the lake at Lester Park.
But the ice fishing should still be good, or better yet how about a fashion show? 
Might be a tad chilly in late February, down by the lake at Lester Park.
But the ice fishing should still be good, or better yet how about a fashion show? 
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
IIRC, seen that before, spring of 2010. Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
I suspect this committee would send Harvard to Cornell and North Dakota to Minnesota under this scenario. The committee seems to have made pretty clear it won't ever fly four teams again.
You'd swap North Dakota and Harvard instead of North Dakota and Northeastern because you protect the top seed. The only reason that rule was broken last year (and #7 UMD was sent to #1 Wisconsin) was because Dartmouth (the true #8) and Cornell (#2) had to be paired in order to avoid four flights.
I suspect this committee would send Harvard to Cornell and North Dakota to Minnesota under this scenario. The committee seems to have made pretty clear it won't ever fly four teams again.
You'd swap North Dakota and Harvard instead of North Dakota and Northeastern because you protect the top seed. The only reason that rule was broken last year (and #7 UMD was sent to #1 Wisconsin) was because Dartmouth (the true #8) and Cornell (#2) had to be paired in order to avoid four flights.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
In case anyone's interested, the latest selection criteria and committee members can be found in this document linked here.
One thing to clear up that came up in the Wed. women's comments: what we've normally called the "teams under consideration criteria" is explicitly referred to as "record vs. RPI top 12" so there's no sense in which a team outside the RPI 12 winning an autobid alters that criterion.
In case anyone's interested, the latest selection criteria and committee members can be found in this document linked here.
One thing to clear up that came up in the Wed. women's comments: what we've normally called the "teams under consideration criteria" is explicitly referred to as "record vs. RPI top 12" so there's no sense in which a team outside the RPI 12 winning an autobid alters that criterion.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Major shakeup in the PWR after last night's games, particularly BU beating Harvard. BU is now a TUC, SLU drops off the list, Northeastern jumps up to sixth, Harvard falls to ninth. That amount of flux from one result suggests that there could be a lot of movement from one or two results. It's an unfortunate system where teams can rise or fall to such an extent based on the outcome of games involving third-party teams. I'm too lazy to spend time trying to pretty up the formatting, so I'd suggest clicking the link if you want to analyze the numbers.
Women’s Division I PairWise Rankings
Switch to Pairwise Rankings Comparison Grid » Click on a column header to sort by that column.
Rank Team PWR W-L-T Win % Win % Rank RPI RPI Rank vs. TUC TUC %
1 Wisconsin 11 24-2-2 .8929 2 .6782* 1 10-2-2 .7857
2 Minnesota 10 22-4-2 .8214 4 .6411* 2 8-3-1 .7083
3 Cornell 9 19-3-0 .8636 3 .6349* 3 6-3-0 .6667
4 Boston College 8 18-7-3 .6964 7 .5811* 4 7-4-2 .6154
5 Mercyhurst 7 18-5-1 .7708 5 .5740* 5 2-2-0 .5000
6 Northeastern 6 17-6-3 .7115 6 .5654* 7 3-4-2 .4444
7 North Dakota 5 16-9-2 .6296 11t .5655* 6 3-7-2 .3333
8 Dartmouth 4 14-6-2 .6818 8 .5636* 8 3-4-1 .4375
9 Harvard 3 14-7-1 .6591 10 .5629* 9 3-6-0 .3333
10 Boston University 2 15-12-1 .5536 18 .5421 12 5-8-1 .3929
11 Minnesota-Duluth 1 14-11-1 .5577 17 .5545 10 4-9-1 .3214
12 Clarkson 0 16-7-5 .6607 9 .5447* 11 2-4-2 .3750
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/#ixzz1l99pVZE1
Major shakeup in the PWR after last night's games, particularly BU beating Harvard. BU is now a TUC, SLU drops off the list, Northeastern jumps up to sixth, Harvard falls to ninth. That amount of flux from one result suggests that there could be a lot of movement from one or two results. It's an unfortunate system where teams can rise or fall to such an extent based on the outcome of games involving third-party teams. I'm too lazy to spend time trying to pretty up the formatting, so I'd suggest clicking the link if you want to analyze the numbers.
Women’s Division I PairWise Rankings
Switch to Pairwise Rankings Comparison Grid » Click on a column header to sort by that column.
Rank Team PWR W-L-T Win % Win % Rank RPI RPI Rank vs. TUC TUC %
1 Wisconsin 11 24-2-2 .8929 2 .6782* 1 10-2-2 .7857
2 Minnesota 10 22-4-2 .8214 4 .6411* 2 8-3-1 .7083
3 Cornell 9 19-3-0 .8636 3 .6349* 3 6-3-0 .6667
4 Boston College 8 18-7-3 .6964 7 .5811* 4 7-4-2 .6154
5 Mercyhurst 7 18-5-1 .7708 5 .5740* 5 2-2-0 .5000
6 Northeastern 6 17-6-3 .7115 6 .5654* 7 3-4-2 .4444
7 North Dakota 5 16-9-2 .6296 11t .5655* 6 3-7-2 .3333
8 Dartmouth 4 14-6-2 .6818 8 .5636* 8 3-4-1 .4375
9 Harvard 3 14-7-1 .6591 10 .5629* 9 3-6-0 .3333
10 Boston University 2 15-12-1 .5536 18 .5421 12 5-8-1 .3929
11 Minnesota-Duluth 1 14-11-1 .5577 17 .5545 10 4-9-1 .3214
12 Clarkson 0 16-7-5 .6607 9 .5447* 11 2-4-2 .3750
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/#ixzz1l99pVZE1
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Been saying all along that BU would be back. Only a matter of time.
Looking at the "index" numbers from places 5 through 12 (0.58 to 0.54) and the even thighter bunching from 7-12 (0.565 to 0.544), it will not surprising to see more majhor shuffling over the next few weeks. Sure is great to watch that parity at play. Makes the key games meaningful for more teams, the way it should be. Sure is exciting to follow.
Only downfall is, that you could get knocked out of the system, due to no control of your own (eg SLU this week).
Been saying all along that BU would be back. Only a matter of time.
Looking at the "index" numbers from places 5 through 12 (0.58 to 0.54) and the even thighter bunching from 7-12 (0.565 to 0.544), it will not surprising to see more majhor shuffling over the next few weeks. Sure is great to watch that parity at play. Makes the key games meaningful for more teams, the way it should be. Sure is exciting to follow.
Only downfall is, that you could get knocked out of the system, due to no control of your own (eg SLU this week).
Last edited:
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
For comparison here is the top 20 from KRACH:
KRACH: Division I and II Women
Click on a column header to sort by that column.
Rank Team Rating RRWP Win % Rk W-L-T Win % Win Ratio SOS Rk SOS
1 Wisconsin 2322. .9463 2 22-2-2 0.8846 7.667 1 345.8
2 Minnesota 1350. .9119 4 22-4-2 0.8214 4.600 2 316.0
3 Cornell 686.2 .8467 3 19-3-0 0.8636 6.333 12 123.2
4 North Dakota 413.6 .7778 13 15-9-2 0.6154 1.600 4 263.2
5 Minnesota-Duluth 378.5 .7638 17 14-11-1 0.5577 1.261 3 302.8
6 Boston College 322.4 .7371 7 18-7-3 0.6964 2.294 9 145.1
7 Holy Cross 310.8 .7307 1 4-0-0 1.0000 ** 35 34.53
8 Mercyhurst 273.2 .7077 5 14-5-1 0.7250 2.636 14 109.3
9 Harvard 261.7 .6997 11 14-7-1 0.6591 1.933 10 139.6
10 Bemidji State 250.9 .6918 20 13-12-3 0.5179 1.074 5 234.2
11 Dartmouth 242.5 .6853 8 14-6-2 0.6818 2.143 13 117.3
12 Northeastern 237.8 .6816 6 17-6-3 0.7115 2.467 17 100.1
13 Ohio State 216.2 .6631 16 14-10-4 0.5714 1.333 8 163.8
14 Boston University 206.5 .6540 18 15-12-1 0.5536 1.240 7 167.8
15 St. Lawrence 179.6 .6257 12 15-8-4 0.6296 1.700 15 107.8
16 Clarkson 175.8 .6213 10 16-7-5 0.6607 1.947 19 92.53
17 Quinnipiac 139.5 .5724 14t 15-10-2 0.5926 1.455 18 97.23
18 Maine 114.2 .5290 14t 13-8-6 0.5926 1.455 22 79.60
19 Princeton 82.43 .4579 21 9-10-4 0.4783 0.917 21 89.60
20 Robert Morris 77.90 .4457 19 10-8-2 0.5500 1.222 27 64.35
...
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/krach/d-i-women/#ixzz1l9Ufc8te
and Rutter:
Current Rutter Computer Rankings
For games played through 01/29/2012.
Team Rating RPI.Rank RPI
1 Wisconsin 2.2616 1 0.6510
2 Minnesota 1.8531 2 0.6289
3 Cornell 1.4586 3 0.6161
4 North Dakota 1.1020 7 0.5634
5 Minnesota Duluth 1.0411 10 0.5526
6 Boston College 0.8394 4 0.5780
7 Harvard 0.7826 5 0.5671
8 Mercyhurst 0.7664 6 0.5642
9 Bemidji State 0.7014 15 0.5328
10 Dartmouth 0.6476 8 0.5604
11 Northeastern 0.6117 9 0.5600
12 Ohio State 0.5435 14 0.5329
13 Boston University 0.5017 13 0.5331
14 St. Lawrence 0.3612 12 0.5391
15 Clarkson 0.3493 11 0.5421
16 Quinnipiac 0.2596 16 0.5225
17 Maine 0.0104 17 0.5105
18 Robert Morris -0.0608 18 0.5049
19 Princeton -0.1189 19 0.4842
20 New Hampshire -0.1270 20 0.4791
...
Not a lot of convergence of the rankings thus far.
For comparison here is the top 20 from KRACH:
KRACH: Division I and II Women
Click on a column header to sort by that column.
Rank Team Rating RRWP Win % Rk W-L-T Win % Win Ratio SOS Rk SOS
1 Wisconsin 2322. .9463 2 22-2-2 0.8846 7.667 1 345.8
2 Minnesota 1350. .9119 4 22-4-2 0.8214 4.600 2 316.0
3 Cornell 686.2 .8467 3 19-3-0 0.8636 6.333 12 123.2
4 North Dakota 413.6 .7778 13 15-9-2 0.6154 1.600 4 263.2
5 Minnesota-Duluth 378.5 .7638 17 14-11-1 0.5577 1.261 3 302.8
6 Boston College 322.4 .7371 7 18-7-3 0.6964 2.294 9 145.1
7 Holy Cross 310.8 .7307 1 4-0-0 1.0000 ** 35 34.53
8 Mercyhurst 273.2 .7077 5 14-5-1 0.7250 2.636 14 109.3
9 Harvard 261.7 .6997 11 14-7-1 0.6591 1.933 10 139.6
10 Bemidji State 250.9 .6918 20 13-12-3 0.5179 1.074 5 234.2
11 Dartmouth 242.5 .6853 8 14-6-2 0.6818 2.143 13 117.3
12 Northeastern 237.8 .6816 6 17-6-3 0.7115 2.467 17 100.1
13 Ohio State 216.2 .6631 16 14-10-4 0.5714 1.333 8 163.8
14 Boston University 206.5 .6540 18 15-12-1 0.5536 1.240 7 167.8
15 St. Lawrence 179.6 .6257 12 15-8-4 0.6296 1.700 15 107.8
16 Clarkson 175.8 .6213 10 16-7-5 0.6607 1.947 19 92.53
17 Quinnipiac 139.5 .5724 14t 15-10-2 0.5926 1.455 18 97.23
18 Maine 114.2 .5290 14t 13-8-6 0.5926 1.455 22 79.60
19 Princeton 82.43 .4579 21 9-10-4 0.4783 0.917 21 89.60
20 Robert Morris 77.90 .4457 19 10-8-2 0.5500 1.222 27 64.35
...
Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/krach/d-i-women/#ixzz1l9Ufc8te
and Rutter:
Current Rutter Computer Rankings
For games played through 01/29/2012.
Team Rating RPI.Rank RPI
1 Wisconsin 2.2616 1 0.6510
2 Minnesota 1.8531 2 0.6289
3 Cornell 1.4586 3 0.6161
4 North Dakota 1.1020 7 0.5634
5 Minnesota Duluth 1.0411 10 0.5526
6 Boston College 0.8394 4 0.5780
7 Harvard 0.7826 5 0.5671
8 Mercyhurst 0.7664 6 0.5642
9 Bemidji State 0.7014 15 0.5328
10 Dartmouth 0.6476 8 0.5604
11 Northeastern 0.6117 9 0.5600
12 Ohio State 0.5435 14 0.5329
13 Boston University 0.5017 13 0.5331
14 St. Lawrence 0.3612 12 0.5391
15 Clarkson 0.3493 11 0.5421
16 Quinnipiac 0.2596 16 0.5225
17 Maine 0.0104 17 0.5105
18 Robert Morris -0.0608 18 0.5049
19 Princeton -0.1189 19 0.4842
20 New Hampshire -0.1270 20 0.4791
...
Not a lot of convergence of the rankings thus far.
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Prior to last evenings Beanpot NU / BC game, I believe NU was tied for 9th in the PWR ranking. TUC % of around .250 or something and a not very impressive TUC record. I'm going on vague memory here after looking at PWR earlier yesterday afternoon. Correct me if I'm wrong. Okay, then the tie and shootout win with BC. A jump to 6th based on that seems nuts to me. Both TUC record and TUC % also take a good size, quick jump upward. BU now a TUC after they defeat Harvard...I'll take a look but the combination of changes apparently resulting from the Beanpot games...I guess NU must have beaten BU earlier this season? Once? Twice? PWR changes seem a tad too dramatic or over emphasized from those two games but what do I know. Obviously RPI for NU must have moved in the right direction...also dramatically, but I have no recollection of the NU Huskies position in that column prior to the Beanpot games. Not saying NU current PWR rank is undeserved, but that's a big leap for a tie / shootout win...and the BU win, I guess?
NUWH DogHouse
The Voice From Above
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
We beat bu twice earlier this season (and a loss). As a result of the bu win they became a TUC and removed St Lawrence. So we effectively just added 2 wins and a tie to our TUC and the ECAC teams lost their wins against St L.
And you were right we were in 9th (by a hair RPI wise) with a crappy TUC %.
Prior to last evenings Beanpot NU / BC game, I believe NU was tied for 9th in the PWR ranking. TUC % of around .250 or something and a not very impressive TUC record. I'm going on vague memory here after looking at PWR earlier yesterday afternoon. Correct me if I'm wrong. Okay, then the tie and shootout win with BC. A jump to 6th based on that seems nuts to me. Both TUC record and TUC % also take a good size, quick jump upward. BU now a TUC after they defeat Harvard...I'll take a look but the combination of changes apparently resulting from the Beanpot games...I guess NU must have beaten BU earlier this season? Once? Twice? PWR changes seem a tad too dramatic or over emphasized from those two games but what do I know. Obviously RPI for NU must have moved in the right direction...also dramatically, but I have no recollection of the NU Huskies position in that column prior to the Beanpot games. Not saying NU current PWR rank is undeserved, but that's a big leap for a tie / shootout win...and the BU win, I guess?
We beat bu twice earlier this season (and a loss). As a result of the bu win they became a TUC and removed St Lawrence. So we effectively just added 2 wins and a tie to our TUC and the ECAC teams lost their wins against St L.
And you were right we were in 9th (by a hair RPI wise) with a crappy TUC %.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
KRACH & Rutter are pretty much in agreement -- main differences are that the Rutter hasn't been updated since the Beanpot games.
Also worth looking at the WCHODR, where the top 4 is all WCHA: http://it.stlawu.edu/~chodr/wchodr/current.html
You mean between KRACH/Rutter & the RPI & the polls, right?
KRACH & Rutter are pretty much in agreement -- main differences are that the Rutter hasn't been updated since the Beanpot games.
Also worth looking at the WCHODR, where the top 4 is all WCHA: http://it.stlawu.edu/~chodr/wchodr/current.html
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Correct, comparing PWR to KRACH/Rutter. I ran those out to 20 just so that it would include all of the teams in or near the PWR. Hopefully, some of the volatility of the PWR will die down in the next month, because it isn't healthy for any system to swing wildly on one game out of hundreds, particularly when that could well be some OT affair.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Note the end here (HT Idalski's twitter): http://www.umdbulldogs.com/teams-womens-hockey.php?id=6382&page=news
A bit unusual editorializing for press notes, but that's par for UMD.
In the BU vs. UMD comparison, the teams are about even in terms of common opponents. A big difference is UMD gets hit hard for the four losses to Wisconsin while BU only has two.
Note the end here (HT Idalski's twitter): http://www.umdbulldogs.com/teams-womens-hockey.php?id=6382&page=news
A bit unusual editorializing for press notes, but that's par for UMD.
In the BU vs. UMD comparison, the teams are about even in terms of common opponents. A big difference is UMD gets hit hard for the four losses to Wisconsin while BU only has two.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Question: does anyone have a sense of whether women's hockey will follow the men's use of the common opponent comparison (average win pct. vs, each opponent)?
It was explicitly legislated here for men, nothing for women.
In the tournament handbooks though it doesn't show up for either men or women. The women's committee has always tended to use more discretion than the men's anyway, so maybe they would institute the change even without legislation it. The handbook itself says "results against common opponents" which is open to interpretation.
Question: does anyone have a sense of whether women's hockey will follow the men's use of the common opponent comparison (average win pct. vs, each opponent)?
It was explicitly legislated here for men, nothing for women.
In the tournament handbooks though it doesn't show up for either men or women. The women's committee has always tended to use more discretion than the men's anyway, so maybe they would institute the change even without legislation it. The handbook itself says "results against common opponents" which is open to interpretation.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
What do the regional advisory committees for women's hockey do? Is this just to provide more feedback for representatives on the selection committee? It isn't like there are any regional tournaments to plan. It would be nice if at some level there are discussions that can take place about whether or not the PWR and RPI are getting it done for this particular sport.
granddaddyscout
Registered User
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology
Why is it that all of the peculiar and unusual swings benefit teams from the East and always at the expense of teams from the West? Why does BC seem to be glued in at number 4 no matter what happens? I understand the impact of BU and NU winning and the domino effect, but how does BC also lose and they are still at number 4. UMD and UND are better teams than BC, BU, Harvard, Dartmouth, NU, or Mercyhurst. But I can see the handwriting on the wall, there will only be 3 WCHA teams in the NCAA mix and the only way UMD gets in is if UND drops a couple games down the stretch. It really is unfortunate that the NCAA can't find a way to ensure that the best 8 teams get an opportunity to compete for the title. Maybe they will surprise us and put UMD in to save money on travel.
Why is it that all of the peculiar and unusual swings benefit teams from the East and always at the expense of teams from the West? Why does BC seem to be glued in at number 4 no matter what happens? I understand the impact of BU and NU winning and the domino effect, but how does BC also lose and they are still at number 4. UMD and UND are better teams than BC, BU, Harvard, Dartmouth, NU, or Mercyhurst. But I can see the handwriting on the wall, there will only be 3 WCHA teams in the NCAA mix and the only way UMD gets in is if UND drops a couple games down the stretch. It really is unfortunate that the NCAA can't find a way to ensure that the best 8 teams get an opportunity to compete for the title. Maybe they will surprise us and put UMD in to save money on travel.