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

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

So, not that I have been following this closely, but let me see if I am understanding:

Likely results in tourneys:
CHA - RoMO v Mercyhurst in the final
ECAC - Cornell gets to add 2 wins against Princeton to their TUC in the quarterfinals, then face Harvard for the right to play Clarkson. All of which gives Cornell and/or Harvard a slight edge if they do NOT win the tourney
HEA - All 4 top teams are virtually guaranteed to advance to the Final 4 of the HE tourney, with BC having the apparent advantage based on regular season play.
WCHA - Minny is basically a lock to advance to the final. Wisco MIGHT have to face UND along the way, but UND is fading, and needs to sweep BSU to even have a chance at an at-large bid.

Therefore:
1 - Minnesota
2- Wisconsin
3, 4, 5, 6 - Some combo of BC and the 3 highest ECAC schools
7 - CHA winner
8- CHA runner ups or Quinnipiac or upset winner of some tourney

Is this a likely finish? Then,
#8 @ Minnesota
CHA winner @ Wisconsin
6 @ 3
5 @ 4

with the 6/3 and 5/4 matchups possibly adjusting for conference rivals. And, potentially CHA winner and #8 changing, too, if it saves a flight to Madison.

Doesn't seem complicated. Am I missing something here?

Oh, and in the event that Quinnipiac and BU or NU win their tourneys, does the CHA tourney winner get an auto-bid?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Numbers said:
So, not that I have been following this closely, but let me see if I am understanding:

Likely results in tourneys:
CHA - RoMO v Mercyhurst in the final
ECAC - Cornell gets to add 2 wins against Princeton to their TUC in the quarterfinals, then face Harvard for the right to play Clarkson. All of which gives Cornell and/or Harvard a slight edge if they do NOT win the tourney
HEA - All 4 top teams are virtually guaranteed to advance to the Final 4 of the HE tourney, with BC having the apparent advantage based on regular season play.
WCHA - Minny is basically a lock to advance to the final. Wisco MIGHT have to face UND along the way, but UND is fading, and needs to sweep BSU to even have a chance at an at-large bid.

Therefore:
1 - Minnesota
2- Wisconsin
3, 4, 5, 6 - Some combo of BC and the 3 highest ECAC schools
7 - CHA winner
8- CHA runner ups or Quinnipiac or upset winner of some tourney

Is this a likely finish? Then,
#8 @ Minnesota
CHA winner @ Wisconsin
6 @ 3
5 @ 4

with the 6/3 and 5/4 matchups possibly adjusting for conference rivals. And, potentially CHA winner and #8 changing, too, if it saves a flight to Madison.

Doesn't seem complicated. Am I missing something here?

Oh, and in the event that Quinnipiac and BU or NU win their tourneys, does the CHA tourney winner get an auto-bid?
Click to expand...

Minor nit pick. UND doesn't need to sweep Bemidji. They just need to win the WCHA tourney! (which will be a cake walk)
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

northhockey said:
Minor nit pick. UND doesn't need to sweep Bemidji. They just need to win the WCHA tourney! (which will be a cake walk)
Click to expand...

Go ahead and pick your nit. :)

I wrote they need to sweep BSU to have a chance at an at large bid. I figure if they win 2 out of 3, their RPI doesn't rise enough from the wins to offset the loss, and then a split in the WCHA final 4 won't help them much.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Numbers said:
Go ahead and pick your nit. :)

I wrote they need to sweep BSU to have a chance at an at large bid. I figure if they win 2 out of 3, their RPI doesn't rise enough from the wins to offset the loss, and then a split in the WCHA final 4 won't help them much.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, if UND doesn't win the WCHA tournament they have no chance at making the NCAA tourney. Since an auto-bid goes to winner of the WCHA playoffs, the NCAA would be forced to have 3 WCHA teams in the tournament even if Bemidji takes UND to 3 games.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Numbers said:
And, potentially CHA winner and #8 changing, too, if it saves a flight to Madison.
Click to expand...

If I understand the 'rules' correctly, the drive vs fly limit is somewhere around 350 miles or so? If that's the case, the only teams within 350 miles of Madison are Minn and Minn-Duluth. And neither of them is coming to Madison for an NCAA quarterfinal this year (unless Duluth does some pretty surprising things).

Whoever is coming to Madison will be flying, whether it is North Dakota, or Mercyhurst, or Robert Morris (they are all about equidistant from Madison, BTW)
 
robertearle said:
If I understand the 'rules' correctly, the drive vs fly limit is somewhere around 350 miles or so? If that's the case, the only teams within 350 miles of Madison are Minn and Minn-Duluth. And neither of them is coming to Madison for an NCAA quarterfinal this year (unless Duluth does some pretty surprising things).

Whoever is coming to Madison will be flying, whether it is North Dakota, or Mercyhurst, or Robert Morris (they are all about equidistant from Madison, BTW)
Click to expand...

Thank you. Do I have the rest correct? And, does CHA winner get auto bid?
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

One other thing -- you mentioned possibly adjusting for conference affiliation. The rulebook apparently does not even mention a word about adjusting for conferences.

It is indeed looking like 1/8 2/7 3/6 4/5. And also yeah North Dakota has no shot at an at large.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

The one time you might see conference affiliation mattering is if some eastern teams were close in rankings and it were possible to avoid intraleague QFs without adding a flight. But this year an intraECAC QF seems inevitable.
 
TonyTheTiger20 said:
One other thing -- you mentioned possibly adjusting for conference affiliation. The rulebook apparently does not even mention a word about adjusting for conferences.

It is indeed looking like 1/8 2/7 3/6 4/5. And also yeah North Dakota has no shot at an at large.
Click to expand...

Tony. About North Dakota. I assume you mean they can't lift their RPI enough any more to make it? What about if Robert Morris or Mercyhurst lose in CHA semi finals?
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Numbers said:
Tony. About North Dakota. I assume you mean they can't lift their RPI enough any more to make it? What about if Robert Morris or Mercyhurst lose in CHA semi finals?
Click to expand...

It is always dangerous to make 'pronouncements' about the strange and wonderful workings of the Pairwise, but I don't think that UND can win their pairwise pairings with Mercyhurst and Robert Morris, even if they get their RPI above those two. I think they would still lose the pairs, based on 'Teams under consideration' and 'Common opponent' records. I don't see a combination of UND wins and Mercyhurst/Robert Morris (and others) losses that gets them there.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

robertearle said:
It is always dangerous to make 'pronouncements' about the strange and wonderful workings of the Pairwise, but I don't think that UND can win their pairwise pairings with Mercyhurst and Robert Morris, even if they get their RPI above those two. I think they would still lose the pairs, based on 'Teams under consideration' and 'Common opponent' records. I don't see a combination of UND wins and Mercyhurst/Robert Morris (and others) losses that gets them there.
Click to expand...

I took one more look, let myself get *really* crazy, and I think I see one way for North Dakota to still win their pair with Robert Morris, based on UND winning RPI while tying 'teams under consideration'. BUT...

It involves a non-TUC (namely, St Cloud) winning the WCHA tournament, which would in turn bump a #8 North Dakota, making the whole exercise moot.

(And I still see no way for North Dakota to win their pair with Mercyhurst.)
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Numbers said:
Tony. About North Dakota. I assume you mean they can't lift their RPI enough any more to make it? What about if Robert Morris or Mercyhurst lose in CHA semi finals?
Click to expand...
I've been keeping track of team RPIs for the last few weeks (with the help of robertearle's earlier season data that I added to the spreadsheet).

VERY, very roughly (this obviously depends on who you lose to, too) each loss has been hitting the tournament teams by about 0.01 RPI. Less if you lose to a team like Minnesota, more if you lose to a team like Lindenwood. Also, it affects you a bit less if you have more losses versus someone who has fewer. And it's less of an effect as teams play more games.

But that's a rough estimate. At this point in the season, strength of schedule isn't really being affected that much game by game, so it's mostly the effect of adding the loss to your record.

If you assume Mercyhurst loses to someone bad early in the CHA tournament, and North Dakota gets to the finals and loses to Minnesota -- both teams are still going to have a loss. So they will both take an RPI hit, North Dakota less so. Mercyhurst is at an RPI of .5624 and North Dakota is at .5477, a difference of .0147. That's more than one loss's worth of RPI.

Even with North Dakota getting some RPI boost from BEATING teams on the way there, there isn't going to be enough for it to add up. Wins aren't affecting RPI that much right now because the top teams already have so many of them. For example, on 2/8 NoDak beat Duluth and it only increased their RPI by .003. A sweep in the quarterfinals and a win in the semis would get them pretty close, but I don't think they have enough of an opportunity to fully close the gap.

The short version of this is -- if North Dakota loses in the WCHA finals and Mercyhurst loses in the first round, it would probably be kind of close, but I think Mercyhurst would still have enough of an edge to keep the spot. Obviously independent of what else would be happening with TUC and CoOp comparisons.

If you like graphs and spreadsheets here are the numbers I've been keeping track of:

Spreadsheet: http://i.imgur.com/ycs63Vi.jpg

Chart: http://i.imgur.com/9mn1nld.jpg

I ignored RMU, by the way, since Mercyhurst would be easier to catch.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

robertearle said:
(And I still see no way for North Dakota to win their pair with Mercyhurst.)
Click to expand...

(I said making pronouncements about the Pairwise was a dangerous business...)

So I looked at Mercyhurst one more time, and cooked up a way that North Dakota might still win that pair...IF (big if) the RPIs involved cooperate.

- Ohio State loses twice, lowering their RPI below .500, and dropping them off the 'TUC cliff'
- Syracuse loses twice to (to Lindenwood), lowering their RPI below .500, and off the 'TUC cliff' (would two losses to Lindenwood be enough?)
- that leaves the TUC record for North Dakota at 5-6-3 while changing Mercyhurt's to 3-3-2. North Dakota splits a pair at the WCHA final four, making their's 6-7-3 while Mercyhurst loses to Robert Morris, making their's 3-4-2.

North Dakota has a better TUC, and if those outcomes moves North Dakota's RPI ahead of Mercyhurst, North Dakota wins the pair. Assuming North Dakota moves ahead of Quinnipiac as well (something I have not looked at AT ALL, because it never dawned on me I might need to!), they'd be the #8

(Note however that Robert Morris beating Mercyhurst blows up my really unlikely way for North Dakota to win their pair with Robert Morris)
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Do we know for sure that the NCAA is using an RPI over .5000 to determine which teams are under consideration rather than taking just the top 12? That's one of the problems with using the USCHO PWR calculations as the basis for trying to figure out who is in the tournament: there have been times that the committee is calculating things differently.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Eeyore said:
Do we know for sure that the NCAA is using an RPI over .5000 to determine which teams are under consideration rather than taking just the top 12? That's one of the problems with using the USCHO PWR calculations as the basis for trying to figure out who is in the tournament: there have been times that the committee is calculating things differently.
Click to expand...


No. I'm assuming...
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

The latest handbook is here: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MANUAL_14NC_WIH_PreChamps.pdf

It changed, so we know for sure it's a .500 RPI cutoff. From page 13 (the numbers on the printed text)

Divisions I and II institutions that wish to be considered for selection to the National Collegiate Championship must schedule
a minimum of 20 games against Divisions I and II opponents.
After considering the eligibility/availability of student-athletes for each team, the committee will evaluate a team’s season
performance using the categories below. Teams must also be at or above 50.00 in the RPI in order to receive the following
consideration (not in preferential order):
● *Rating Percentage Index (RPI) [won-lost record (30 percent), opponents’ winning percentage (24 percent) and
opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage (46 percent)];
● Head-to-head competition;
● Results versus common opponents; and
● Results versus teams under consideration (defined as those teams with an RPI of 50.00 or better).
*If points awarded for any win lower a team’s average RPI, those points will not count toward the RPI.
During the selection process, each of the above criteria will carry one point except head-to-head competition, which will carry
the number of points equal to the net difference in the results of these games (e.g., if Team A defeats Team B three out of four
games, Team A would receive two points in the selection process). When comparing two teams, the committee reserves the
right to weight criteria differently based on relative team performance. For example, if there is only a slight difference in two
teams’ records vs. common opponents, and a large difference in their results vs. teams under consideration, the committee
may weight results vs. teams under consideration more heavily than common opponents.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a new handbook for a few years, but they've done a much better job of spelling out the actual practice of the committee than in the past. I think "results vs. common opponents" is still vague though.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

dave1381 said:
The latest handbook is here: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MANUAL_14NC_WIH_PreChamps.pdf

It changed, so we know for sure it's a .500 RPI cutoff. From page 13 (the numbers on the printed text)



I haven't seen a new handbook for a few years, but they've done a much better job of spelling out the actual practice of the committee than in the past. I think "results vs. common opponents" is still vague though.
Click to expand...
Nice work! I had a feeling what I was looking at was last year's.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

The lack of elaboration on the CoOpp comparison says to me that it should be the way USCHO is doing it (the way it used to be until the men specifically changed it on their side).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top