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

TonyTheTiger20 said:
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).
Click to expand...
I agree it's the default -- they even specifically say "record vs. common opponents" in the example of the last sentence.

However, if the record vs. common opponents and the men's criterion for common opponents differ, I think that's a strong indicator that the common opponents criterion would be deemed to be so "close" that it gets negligible weight. So I wouldn't completely ignore the men's criterion when making projections.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

So, I don't have a way to do the math, but I assume Mankato win over Wisconsin today leaves the possibility of Clarkson snagging the #2 overall if they win ECAC and Wisconsin does not win WCHA?
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

dave1381 said:
Certainly. Cornell too.
Click to expand...

But likely not both, as one will necessarily have one more loss of their own coming.

(And if Wisconsin (gets to and then) loses in the WCHA semi-final, while BC wins, you could see BC pass them as well.)
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Anyone have the scoop on the selection show at the conclusion of conference tournaments?
 
Mercyhurst vs. Quinnipiac

Mercyhurst vs. Quinnipiac

I think the most interesting potential comparison is Mercyhurst vs. Quinnipiac in the event that Quinnipiac upsets Clarkson and loses in the ECAC final, and Mercyhurst loses the CHA final. That could be a real headache for the committee. (If the last in came down to RMU vs. Quinnipiac, I think that's much clearer because of RMU's 1-0-1 vs. Quinnipiac.

In this scenario, Quinnipiac would have a decent but not huge edge of Mercyhurst in RPI, while in the PWR calculations, Mercyhurst would seem to have a clear edge in Common Opponents and Record vs. TUC.

But when you look in depth at the results, it's not really a decisive edge for Mercyhurst in either category. Mercyhurst was better vs. three common opponents (Clarkson, RMU, SLU) while Quinnipiac was better vs. two (Cornell, RIT). Using the men's criteria, they're basically indistinguishable if the ECAC final opponent is Harvard.

Against common TUC opponents under this scenario, Quinnipiac actually has the slightly better performance than Mercyhurst if the ECAC final opponent is Harvard. Then in non-common TUC opponents, Mercyhurst's edge is largely about a 4-0-1 vs. Syracuse with a loss to OSU, while Quinnipiac was 0-1-1 vs. Harvard, 1-0 vs. BC, and 1-0-1 vs. Princeton. I don't see the TUC as a clear edge for either team, and if anything I like Quinnipiac's resume with a win over BC.

If I were on the committee, I'd take Quinnipiac in this scenario -- definitely if Harvard were the ECAC final opponent -- but I think most likely the committee would take Mercyhurst, which I think then really exposes some issues with the criteria. Worst case scenario, you would recommend that ECAC teams should stop playing second-tier CHA teams until the criteria improves.
 
dave1381 said:
In this scenario, Quinnipiac would have a decent but not huge edge of Mercyhurst in RPI, while in the PWR calculations, Mercyhurst would seem to have a clear edge in Common Opponents and Record vs. TUC.
Click to expand...
A key will likely be how big the edge in RPI is. The verbiage exists such that the committee can weight one of the criteria more heavily, and they have seemed willing to do so with RPI in the past.
 
Re: Mercyhurst vs. Quinnipiac

Re: Mercyhurst vs. Quinnipiac

dave1381 said:
I think the most interesting potential comparison is Mercyhurst vs. Quinnipiac in the event that Quinnipiac upsets Clarkson and loses in the ECAC final, and Mercyhurst loses the CHA final. That could be a real headache for the committee. (If the last in came down to RMU vs. Quinnipiac, I think that's much clearer because of RMU's 1-0-1 vs. Quinnipiac.

In this scenario, Quinnipiac would have a decent but not huge edge of Mercyhurst in RPI, while in the PWR calculations, Mercyhurst would seem to have a clear edge in Common Opponents and Record vs. TUC.

But when you look in depth at the results, it's not really a decisive edge for Mercyhurst in either category. Mercyhurst was better vs. three common opponents (Clarkson, RMU, SLU) while Quinnipiac was better vs. two (Cornell, RIT). Using the men's criteria, they're basically indistinguishable if the ECAC final opponent is Harvard.

Against common TUC opponents under this scenario, Quinnipiac actually has the slightly better performance than Mercyhurst if the ECAC final opponent is Harvard. Then in non-common TUC opponents, Mercyhurst's edge is largely about a 4-0-1 vs. Syracuse with a loss to OSU, while Quinnipiac was 0-1-1 vs. Harvard, 1-0 vs. BC, and 1-0-1 vs. Princeton. I don't see the TUC as a clear edge for either team, and if anything I like Quinnipiac's resume with a win over BC.

If I were on the committee, I'd take Quinnipiac in this scenario -- definitely if Harvard were the ECAC final opponent -- but I think most likely the committee would take Mercyhurst, which I think then really exposes some issues with the criteria. Worst case scenario, you would recommend that ECAC teams should stop playing second-tier CHA teams until the criteria improves.
Click to expand...

Question to the experts (ARM/Dave1381). If Quinnipiac wins ECAC, BC wins HE and Minnesota or Wisco win the West would all ECAC Final Four teams get in , or would the loser of the Cornell/Harvard final potentially be on the outside looking in ?.
 
Re: Mercyhurst vs. Quinnipiac

Re: Mercyhurst vs. Quinnipiac

OnMAA said:
Question to the experts (ARM/Dave1381).
Click to expand...
I see how it is!
If Quinnipiac wins ECAC, BC wins HE and Minnesota or Wisco win the West would all ECAC Final Four teams get in , or would the loser of the Cornell/Harvard final potentially be on the outside looking in ?.
Click to expand...
Yes they would all get in -- because don't forget, all of the other teams behind them would have a loss too (except for the CHA winner, who will be far enough back to not be a factor anyway). Not only that but the gap from 6th to 7th place is so big that Harvard could have 2 more losses and would still still stay ahead of #7 RMU.
 
TonyTheTiger20 said:
Yes they would all get in -- because don't forget, all of the other teams behind them would have a loss too (except for the CHA winner, who will be far enough back to not be a factor anyway). Not only that but the gap from 6th to 7th place is so big that Harvard could have 2 more losses and would still still stay ahead of #7 RMU.
Click to expand...
In that scenario, the CHA winner gets in as well.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Here's your weekly bracketology fix. This week we have a disaster of a bracket.

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

Someone mentioned that Quinnipiac could get the edge over Mercyhurst here but I am going to keep it as Hurst for simplicity's sake. I'll do one if QU is selected instead below, but this will probably sort itself out in the tournaments.

IF MERCYHURST OVER QUINNIPIAC

Straight integrity with the top 8 as above gives:

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

We've got an absolute mess of a decision for the committee. The committee would probably look at RMU to Cornell as a bus trip. But they would *definitely* look at Mercyhurst as a bus trip. I think, given that Mercyhurst and Robert Morris are closely ranked, they would be okay with sending RMU to Minnesota and Mercyhurst to Cornell.

If RMU wins the CHA then... well, then the question for the committee is even more tough. I still think that given the way the selection document is worded ("Sorted based on proximity") that they would send Mercyhurst to Cornell either way.

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

Trying, as always [okay, sometimes, but right now is one of those times], not to be a homer, so please correct me if this should not be done, but then we would flip Harvard and Boston College to improve bracket integrity (since distance is about the same to Clarkson from either Boston school).

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

Which is pretty much a dumpster fire of a bracket, but it is what it is.

As a BC fan I've been looking at the scenarios that would get BC into 4th, which isn't really unlikely. If Clarkson wins the ECAC and BC wins Hockey East, BC will jump to 4th -- and maybe even 3rd, honestly, which is what I'll run with for now for giggles -- and Clarkson almost certainly up to 2nd. That would give us the following:

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

This should give us:

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

Hurst and Clarkson is POSSIBLY stretched to being a bus trip, so:

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

Because the committee keeps proximity as a priority I do think they would keep Harvard in Boston since Cornell to Boston is of questionable distance anyway. So, we would have:

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

This would be the same whether BC passes Wisconsin or not, you would just swap the BC and Wisconsin seeds and keep the same opponents.

IF QUINNPIAC OVER MERCYHURST

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

That gives:

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

Since we have no Mercyhurst, I think the committee would stretch it and have RMU to Cornell be a bus trip:

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

Swap BC and Harvard to improve bracket integrity:

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

Not too different from the bolded bracket above. Still a dumpster fire.

Anyway -- I just like playing with the numbers. There are just a couple what-if scenarios. The bolded brackets above are your "If the season ended right now" brackets. There is still another weekend to play, though. If anyone wants me to run through a what-if scenario for them I'd be happy to.

Corrections are always appreciated.
 
Last edited:
TonyTheTiger20 said:
Corrections are always appreciated.
Click to expand...
I don't get what you are trying to fix with your first swaps near the top; you're going to have to fly a team to Minnesota and Wisconsin no matter what, so if those teams are No. 1, and No. 2 and the CHA teams are the last two into the field, that seems as straightforward as it is going to get. I realize that Itaca and Boston are slightly over 300 miles apart, but so are Grand Forks and Minneapolis, so we know that the committee can bend the rules a bit.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

ARM said:
A key will likely be how big the edge in RPI is. The verbiage exists such that the committee can weight one of the criteria more heavily, and they have seemed willing to do so with RPI in the past.
Click to expand...

I think in the Quinnipiac & Mercyhurst lose conference finals scenario, the Quinnipiac edge in RPI would be large enough for me to consider it significant, but opinions may differ. The edge is .0035 now, which is like a half-game in the standings... I think the stronger schedule for ECAC tourney would bump up Qunnipiac's edge to at least .0050. The thing is the TUC and common opponents edges for Mercyhurst look stronger than they actually are based on the simplest representations in the USCHO PWR. It depends on how much the committee would look past that.

Also it's worth noting that Quinnipiac is already solidly ahead of Mercyhurst in the poll. While officially that's irrelevant, it's something that I expect would motivate to scrutinize the criteria in the way as I described.

All that said, I don't think it's a huge miscarriage of justice if Mercyhurst is selected. The teams would be about as close as you could get in the scenario I described. Each team would've been equally guilty of leaving it in the hands of a coin-flip kind of decision from the committee.
 
Last edited:
ARM said:
I don't get what you are trying to fix with your first swaps near the top; you're going to have to fly a team to Minnesota and Wisconsin no matter what, so if those teams are No. 1, and No. 2 and the CHA teams are the last two into the field, that seems as straightforward as it is going to get. I realize that Itaca and Boston are slightly over 300 miles apart, but so are Grand Forks and Minneapolis, so we know that the committee can bend the rules a bit.
Click to expand...
I think my answer to you might be that I'm over thinking it. I guess the question is, would the committee try to avoid crazy long drives if a more reasonable drive is possible.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Nonetheless, the "overthinking it" definitely applies to the Quinnipiac version...

Fail

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

Curious to see opinions on a bracket with UND winning the WCHA and getting an auto-bid and putting 3 WCHA teams in the tourney..Although its a "long shot" that they beat UW and then most likely Minny the next day, they have beaten both teams this year.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

northhockey said:
Curious to see opinions on a bracket with UND winning the WCHA and getting an auto-bid and putting 3 WCHA teams in the tourney..Although its a "long shot" that they beat UW and then most likely Minny the next day, they have beaten both teams this year.
Click to expand...
If UND wins the WCHA and BC wins Hockey East, then they'd probably just replace the bottom team in the bracket and end up at Minnesota again. Ironic that Minnesota's reward as #1 seed would be playing the only team to beat them twice in that scenario, but such is the bad system.

The only way UND wouldn't be the lowest rank team is if BC fails to win Hockey East. UND would clearly be better than the Hockey East champ in the PWR. In that scenario, I'd hope Minnesota would get the Hockey East champ, then UND vs. Wisconsin, and then some combo of BC and the three ECAC teams playing each other. But the committee could see UND vs. Minnesota, Hockey East champ at ECAC champ, ECAC #3 at Wisconsin, ECAC #2 vs. BC as the way to minimize travel.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

TonyTheTiger20 said:
I think my answer to you might be that I'm over thinking it. I guess the question is, would the committee try to avoid crazy long drives if a more reasonable drive is possible.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I think ARM is right.

The language you're talking about in the handbook is something very generic that's in the bylaws for every NCAA sport except the basketballs and men's hockey. In practice for women's hockey, they've been a bit more willing to bend the rules to preserve the integrity of the national bracket.

I don't think you'd ever see them send their #8 to #4 unless maybe teams 6 to 8 were roughly indistinguishable. It may have seemed like they did things like this in the past -- I think it was two years ago it looked from the PWR like #5 Mercyhurst had been sent to #1 Wisconsin, but that was more about Mercyhurst being rated much lower by the committee than it appeared from the PWR, not some big sacrifice of bracket integrity to save travel costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top