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: Division I Bracketology

2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

Not convincing, Dave.

This season is another example. Perhaps. Green is, I have it, suffering from injuries, fatigue (say.) Other team breakdowns if you will. I don't know but I felt, others felt, they needed to win in some recent situations (say) where they did not.

IS recent. Those losses are RECENT. Just as with UND last season. WERE recent then for UND and as to standings, etc. Affects-AFFECTED-recent (the NOW) standings, home ice advantage, match-ups, etc., to come.

How can it be said recent doesn't matter.
Can't, is my assertion.

And seems to be so far, thus, a little- the Green 'self sorting', as I say UND did in 2011 at the close of the season. Look now at RPI changes, etc. They are recent. Are based on recent events.

I have this 'feeling', Doctor, its in the pit of my stomach (our patient says.) And ,too, I have this 'feeling' about my team (as based upon recent events). Isn't always what the patient believes to be his own situation what MUST eventually rule? I think (certainly hope) so.

We individually know best what likely is going on with us, our own bodies. No one else.

Thus my Green may not sustain and others will. Doctor, it feels that way currently (for illustration purposes...) They may not maintain their electability while others will. Don't currently seem to be doing so. Too, is a long season from September to March. You/Rules Committee can't merely, SAY folks must not judge teams on how well they currently are doing, but must judge based upon an entire season's results.

Very hard to do. To rid oneself of yesterday's news!
What is most recent is what is most remembered.

More will have to be spoon fed me before I will be able to accept Dartmouth didn't deserve selection over UND last year.

Why? Because I 'felt' UND let down at the close of the season WHEN THEY BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS COULD HAVE PREVAILED YET DIDN'T while Dartmouth by their own actions won out as the season wound down.

Won out.

Despite that failure (by UND), which you seem to admit, you and the committee would elect them, and deprive Dartmouth, the team that won out.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

papulaisle said:
More will have to be spoon fed me before I will be able to accept Dartmouth didn't deserve selection over UND last year.

Why? Because I 'felt' UND let down at the close of the season WHEN THEY BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS COULD HAVE PREVAILED YET DIDN'T while Dartmouth by their own actions won out as the season wound down.

Won out.

Despite that failure (by UND), which you seem to admit, you and the committee would elect them, and deprive Dartmouth, the team that won out.
Click to expand...
For my money, the objective and ultimate goal is to have the eight best teams in the tournament. In a general sense, and with no inference specific to selections for the NCAA tournament last season, I don't think you can disregard the season as a whole for any potential participant, just as I don't believe you can disregard the strength of recent opponents for any potential participant in a comparison to another team playing for a spot among the eight. Any team that's close to a berth most likely has an opportunity to seal the deal, and their own fate at some point...most often in the late stages of their schedule if they're a bubble team. I think giving weight or added value to recent results is hugely dependent on opponents, again...in a general sense. As for the UND vs. Dartmouth question, North Dakota had their opportunities to make their case, no question. In their final eight games prior to the NCAA they played Wisconsin three times and Minnesota twice...and won just one of those games. I guess a genuine belief Dartmouth was the clear choice assumes 1) the Big Green would have done better against those opponents...or 2) UND would have fared worse than Dartmouth vs. the Big Green opponents over their last eight games...or 3) that the various opponents for their respective results is a zero factor, and that only recent results sans consideration for opponents should determine the better NCAA tournament entrant. Maybe all of those combined? That last one I can only see being promoted if one is not really attempting to select the eight best teams but giving special consideration to the team that appears "hotter" in a comparison, that comparison made without consideration for respective opponents. If I'm understanding correctly, I just don't buy any of those assumptions or criteria philosophies. And Dartmouth should have gone to Madison. ;)
 
Last edited:
The NCAA used to agree with pap philosophically. There was a record in last 16 games criterion, but it was dumped.

I think the main reason why it was dumped was that it was too big an advantage to teams from weaker conferences. It was too random based on who you played later in the year.

Since the fewest nonconference games are late in the season, it doesn't make much sense to use this kind of criterion except for teams within conferences. Also I can think of several examples of teams: UMD in 02, Dartmouth in 05, BU last year, who struggled late but their whole body of work was a much better predictor of their NCAA success.
 
Last edited:
2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

MBTC- I think Brooky means- gone to the NCAA Tournament, chosen as one of the eight, selected (as to where she says, 'gone to Madison'.)

I, too, am for best eight teams- kinda.
Head to head- who would win (between any two on the cusp, say- like D. and UND)?

Some say some years there would be NO eastern teams, therefore.

I also didn't realize those were UND's opponents in that stretch. Will look at season's end entire for UND. And, hind-sight being twenty/twenty, Dartmouth likely WOULDN'T/MIGHT NOT HAVE done better than UND against THOSE two teams (Subsequent Cornell results, etc., etc., taken into account.)

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Lingua Franca:

Thinking and thinking. Racking my brain for points, arguments...I was going to attempt comparison w. NY Knicks phenom, his latest results vis a vis the, "whole body of his work..."

Did you see they 'relented' and included him in the, 'up and coming' players chosen for All-Star game?
(Based upon, "recent results...")

:<)
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

Sure, but down the stretch, 2010-11 UND was 1-3 vs. Minnesota and Wisconsin, but also 3-3 in its last 6 against Mankato, Bemidji, and Ohio State. They were somewhat lousy late in the season. But earlier in the year, UND split BU, split UMD twice, and swept Minnesota on the road. Those results, even though they came earlier in the year, suggested to me UND was far more likely to have success in NCAAs than Dartmouth -- no hindsight required. Yet UND did not have the edge over Dartmouth in any selection criteria, which just shows how lousy the criteria are.
 
2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

I imagine much has been said in these threads as to better criteria. Probably SURE of it. I need to do homework. Suspect is all herein.

Maybe to keep Pap's interest up, studying it from the viewpoint of where it may have gone wrong- or no, in 2011 w. Dart and UND would help me stay focused. Mmm.

Or- I/we could do a poll: feed 'criteria' into the poll, one criteria at a time. One by one. A separate 'poll' for each criteria- including old and NEW criteria; NEW as in new ways of measuring performance, determining worthiness, etc.

Maybe eliminate some old ones/criteria- add some new ones/criteria. That way obtain feedback as to EACH criteria which might allow us then to know, where we are and whither we are tending.

Mmm. Close to season's end. My bed time... :o
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

I don't think it's so much that we need new selection criteria per se -- philosophically I'm fine with the approach. I don't want to open up that debate.
We just need better measures of what the committee is trying to measure -- overall W-L-T performance and W-L-T performance against the best teams.

All I suggest is using the most basic statistical model the measure W-L-T performance, rather than arbitrarily adding up winning percentages, which is what the committee does now.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

In terms of slots 9-13 of the RPI, Clarkson/SLU/BU/UMD/Dartmouth, are almost indistinguishable. Huge PWR swings based on whoever is No. 13. What a fiasco this could be, esp. if BU finishes 13th and Northeastern losing to BU costs Northeastern a tournament berth. I have a bad feeling about this.

At the same time, Minnesota is probably in the position where it helps to lose to North Dakota just enough so that N. Dakota gets to be No. 4 -- that way North Dakota can't be sent to Minnesota for the quarterfinals. Just like by Minnesota in the WCHA final last year, Wisconsin ensured they got UMD in the quarterfinals instead of Minnesota, who got knocked out of the top 4. Such a lovely system we have here.
 
2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

I'm sure your saying, 1381, that scheduling commences AFTER teams are selected- doesn't EVER figure in on WHO is selected.

We talk (as to what you said. Don't quite get your meaning.)

DO get that your saying we already know/have criteria.

Let me ask this- is there a program NOW that has the proper criteria, ruled
by the proper criteria. And if so what is it- who has it.

Where can I get my copy, etc.
Can I see it. Uh, is it here on the East coast- or likely as not, in Minnesota?
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

Well, back on subject. In the current pairwise, Northeastern is tied with a bunch of teams outside the field, yet ranks much higher in the ratings percentage index (RPI). The discrepancy is largely because Northeastern did well against the No. 13 team BU, and in fact Northeastern did so well that the Huskies are the No. 1 reason why BU is out of the top 12.

If BU were to pass the loser of the Dartmouth-SLU ECAC quarterfinal -- I think that happens if one of the two ECAC teams gets swept, and BU loses in the Hockey East semifinal -- then Northeastern would shoot all the way up past North Dakota to 6th at the moment.

The way I see it, the top 5 in the current PWR are pretty safe. Right now North Dakota is ahead of Harvard for 6th. I think whichever of these teams does better in their conference tournaments will end up ahead of the other, with a tie going to North Dakota (e.g. if both lose in the conference semis, North Dakota is ahead). But if Harvard loses in the ECAC final and North Dakota loses to Minnesota (and both sweep), it looks to me like the Crimson are ahead there -- and it's North Dakota that gets knocked out, if say, Clarkson/SLU & Northeastern/BU both win their leagues. Absolutely no way North Dakota is safe at this point.

And if BU does end up as a top 12 team, that means Northeastern is probably in, and then North Dakota or Harvard would be the last team in the field -- either Harvard or North Dakota get bumped if one of Clarkson/SLU/BU win their leagues.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

The Dartmouth-SLU series ending a sweep had a huge and lasting impact on the pairwise rankings. In the current version, BU is in the top 12, and BU will stay there for good (Dartmouth out) if BU beats UNH tomorrow. If BU loses to UNH, then Dartmouth is in the top 12 and BU is out.

This is hugely important for Northeastern, who dominated BU this season. With BU in the top 12, Northeastern moves up to #6 in the Pairwise rankings. With BU out of the top 12, Northeastern is out of the top 8.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

BTW, I have no doubt that BU's present comparison win over N. Dakota is an aberration. The committee would surely give that to N. Dakota.

N. Dakota has a .57 to .54 edge over RPI (effectively three games). The common opponents are a wash, both teams swept Vermont and struggled against Wisconsin (N. Dakota getting a draw). Note women didn't officially switch their common opponent criteria like I guess the men did, but the committee has always had the discretion to do so. BU has a tiny, tiny advantage in the record vs. TUC.

So this is a clear N. Dakota comparison win as far as I can tell. N. Dakota is 7th, Harvard is 8th, SLU is 9th, BU is 10th.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

Still a joke as to how UND can be all the way down at 7, but its fine they will send us to minneapolis either way.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

northhockey said:
Still a joke as to how UND can be all the way down at 7, but its fine they will send us to minneapolis either way.
Click to expand...

Make sure they make a stop in Duluth on their way down! :p
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

northhockey said:
Still a joke as to how UND can be all the way down at 7, but its fine they will send us to minneapolis either way.
Click to expand...

If it stays the way the current 8 are in the pariwise ranking this is what most likely would happen....

Harvard to Wisco
NEU to Cornell
UND to UM
MC vs BC

Now if SLU beats Harvard next week, or if BU wins HE, then things can change in a hurry.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

OnMAA said:
If it stays the way the current 8 are in the pariwise ranking this is what most likely would happen....

Harvard to Wisco
NEU to Cornell
UND to UM
MC vs BC

Now if SLU beats Harvard next week, or if BU wins HE, then things can change in a hurry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think that bracket is what's likely to happen. The only potential dramatic change is if N. Dakota gets into the 4 spot, which probably happens with a Sioux WCHA title, or a WCHA final loss & a lot of help.

Another ECAC school jumping Harvard or BU winning Hockey East probably won't change things too much, just that team goes to Wisconsin instead of Harvard.
 
Re: 2012 NCAA Tournament: Division I Bracketology

Actually, I stand corrected.

A nightmare scenario for the committee is if N. Dakota loses to Minnesota in the WCHA semifinals and then Harvard loses in the ECAC final, and then someone outside the top 8 like BU takes an autobid. Let's also assume Northeastern & BC & Mercyhurst do well enough to avoid falling behind N. Dakota.

I believe under that scenario, Harvard would have a slightly better RPI and record vs. TUC than N. Dakota, while North Dakota would have a better record against common opponents Minnesota & BU (against whom N. Dakota is .500 and Harvard is winless). That would be a hugely controversial decision, whichever way it goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top