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.

2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

FiveHoleFrenzy said:
UND has the win over Minnesota that stands out, however they have 3 losses that were not close. Speculation for sure, but if BC, Clarkson, Cornell, or Harvard had 4 cracks at Minnesota during the regular season, I'd like their odds to win ONE game as well.
Click to expand...
Would you like the chances of BC, Clarkson, Cornell or Harvard as well if they had to play half of those games without four top players? I know that BC, Cornell, and Harvard have been dealing with player absences all season, but because those players won't be back for the postseason, they don't matter in terms of evaluating potential to beat the best teams. Dufault was back yesterday, and she clearly makes a difference. I don't know that North Dakota is better than all four of those teams, but it definitely isn't a lesser team to the extent that the PairWise thinks.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

ARM said:
Would you like the chances of BC, Clarkson, Cornell or Harvard as well if they had to play half of those games without four top players? I know that BC, Cornell, and Harvard have been dealing with player absences all season, but because those players won't be back for the postseason, they don't matter in terms of evaluating potential to beat the best teams. Dufault was back yesterday, and she clearly makes a difference. I don't know that North Dakota is better than all four of those teams, but it definitely isn't a lesser team to the extent that the PairWise thinks.
Click to expand...

Sure but as I tried to qualify my statement earlier it is just speculation. I think most would agree that UND, full strength, is a top five team nationally but it is precarious to be the third place WCHA team come tournament seeding time.
 
FiveHoleFrenzy said:
... it is precarious to be the third place WCHA team come tournament seeding time.
Click to expand...
I agree. There were a few seasons where the third WCHA team was closer to hosting than being out the back, but those have become more rare now that teams like BC and BU have emerged. The closest the WCHA ever came to getting a 4th team in was probably UND in 2011. With the CHA soon to have an automatic bid, I doubt we will see that with an eight-team field any time soon.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Robert Morris' SOS is 20th/39, AND they lost to Lindenwood. Also, RMU just tied and lost to a Syracuse team that also lost to Lindenwood earlier this season....

Meanwhile, Mercyhurst's biggest win is Clarkson or eh RMU?. Thank god they could beat Lindenwood, but they lost to Minnesota State, RIT, Providence, and for comparison's sake OSU in OT....

UND on the other hand has the #1 strength of schedule, and their "weakest" loss was a one goal loss to OSU. (They beat Lindenwood 5-1, 6-1 respectively) Funny thing is, posters on SiouxSports are complaining that UND even scheduled a team like Lindenwood! I think UND should switch to the CHA and get the auto bid every year but that wouldn't be fair would it?
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Hello everyone,

Thanks to robertearle, I've been able to throw together a spreadsheet and, in turn, a graph of each team's RPI. Have a look:

http://i.imgur.com/RlrbWNP.jpg

I have all teams' data but it's pretty cluttered if you have everyone on the graph. I kept it to just current TUCs. Minnesota's RPI is plotted at the top so you can see where the data points are (all teams' data was entered on the same dates).

So, let's have another look at women's hockey bracketology:

1 Minnesota
2 Wisconsin
3 Cornell
4 Harvard
5 Clarkson
6 Boston College
7 North Dakota
8 Robert Morris

Straight bracket integrity:

8 RMU @ 1 UM
7 ND @ 2 UW
6 BC @ 3 CoU
5 ClU @ 4 HU

What swaps do we make?

Well, NoDak to Minnesota, for one. Sorry Gophers.
Send RMU to Wisconsin.

Nothing else is a flight. So this is a pretty good bracket.

BRACKET A:

7 North Dakota @ 1 Minnesota
8 Robert Morris @ 2 Wisconsin
6 Boston College @ 3 Cornell
5 Clarkson @ 4 Harvard

Not that the committee appears to care that much about intraconference matchups, but if they really wanted to go crazy, they could do the following:

BRACKET B:

7 North Dakota @ 1 Minnesota
5 Clarkson @ 2 Wisconsin
8 Robert Morris @ 3 Cornell
6 Boston College @ 4 Harvard

Which also has 1 flight and gets rid of one of the intraconference matchups. But it gives a stiff middle finger to bracket integrity more than is necessary. So Bracket A should be what we'd get if the season ended today.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Nice work Tiger. Mucho Appreciated.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

I know we have another day of results to go through this weekend but the Pairwise is starting to really lock down.

Barring some crazy results, I think this is what we're going to see by the time the season ends:

1) Minnesota
2) Wisconsin
3) Cornell/Clarkson
4) Clarkson/Cornell/Harvard
5) Harvard/Clarkson
6) Boston College
7) RMU/Mercyhurst
8) North Dakota

Reasoning for these:

1) Minnesota is solidly #1.
2) Wisconsin is solidly #2.
3) Cornell has a pretty solid lead on #3 and may be able to survive a tournament loss and still stay ahead of Harvard, but Clarkson winning the ECAC would likely flip Clarkson into 3rd.
4-5) Harvard and Clarkson are very close, but unless one of them wins the tournament, Clarkson should remain ahead of Harvard
6) BC is pretty solidly locked into 6th at this point
7-8) ND, Mercyhurst, and RMU are all very close, in that order. One of MC and RMU will have to lose. The loser of that game will be the odd team out. NoDak will almost certainly lose in the WCHA tournament (I know they might not, just saying it's by far the most likely scenario). But being the current #7 and having far superior opponents going forward, they should maintain the edge easily over the CHA loser.

Assuming nothing crazy happens (unexpected tourny champion, or big pre-tournament upsets next week/tomorrow -- totally possible, I know, but looking at what's most likely here) it's looking like you will almost certainly see straight bracket integrity work with minimum flights:

#8 NoDak @ #1 Minnesota (sorry)
#7 CHA Champion @ #2 Wisconsin
#6 Boston College @ #3 Cornell/Clarkson
#5 Harvard/Clarkson @ #4 Clarkson/Cornell/Harvard

**EDIT** I might have been looking at a PWR that hadn't been updated -- but Cornell and Wisconsin are very close. They would flip if Cornell won the ECAC and Wisconsin loses the WCHA, I think. That would give you:

#8 NoDak @ #1 Minnesota (sorry)
#7 CHA Champion @ #2 Cornell
#6 Boston College @ #3 Wisconsin
#5 Harvard/Clarkson @ #4 Clarkson/Harvard

I think you would still see the bracket work out with perfect bracket integrity, since the CHA teams (especially Mercyhurst) *should* be a drive to Cornell. Mercyhurst definitely, not sure about RMU. My guess is maybe.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

North Dakota @ Minnesota
Harvard @ Wisconsin
Mercyhurst @ Clarkson
Boston College @ Cornell
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

UND down to #9 in the current PWR approximation. Does Minnesota still have to play UND if they do not make the field?
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

ARM said:
UND down to #9 in the current PWR approximation. Does Minnesota still have to play UND if they do not make the field?
Click to expand...
I imagine in the scenarios proposed by a few.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

ARM said:
Based on the fact that I'm responding to a post from TTT and any angst I can cause him is a good thing.
Click to expand...
:D

As for my previous Pairwise post -- things are pretty much the same with this (HILARIOUS) North Dakota result. Winner of Hurst/RMU will almost certainly be 7th, and NoDak should end up 8th ahead of the RMU/Hurst loser unless there is a tournament upset.

It might be close if RMU wins, though. Mercyhurst might have a big enough advantage to hold on to that spot.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

TonyTheTiger20 said:
As for my previous Pairwise post -- things are pretty much the same with this (HILARIOUS) North Dakota result. Winner of Hurst/RMU will almost certainly be 7th, and NoDak should end up 8th ahead of the RMU/Hurst loser unless there is a tournament upset.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that North Dakota will probably lose somewhere in the WCHA tournament, too. And they have to play in Columbus next week either without their Olympians or with their Olympians still suffering from jet lag. So the question is whether or not the CHA runner up loses more points along the way than UND does.

But I'm definitely going to be a pretty big Northeastern fan in a couple of weeks.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Eeyore said:
Keep in mind that North Dakota will probably lose somewhere in the WCHA tournament, too. And they have to play in Columbus next week either without their Olympians or with their Olympians still suffering from jet lag. So the question is whether or not the CHA runner up loses more points along the way than UND does.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's what I'm figuring. It's tough to say. I think RMU would be passed, but Mercyhurst *may* have enough of a cushion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top