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

[Skate79]

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

We've gone over this a thousand times but if Minnesota or Wisconsin had to go through the brutal Hockey East schedule, week after week, in a schedule where anyone can beat anyone due to the high-end talent up and down the conference, they would be so worn out by the end of the year that they would come up short every time come tournament time. It's just science and math.

Sorry to say but your own commissioner of HE, Joe Bertagna, told me in November at the Harvard-BU game that HE was going to be a weaker conference this year. He expected BC to come out on top followed closely by BU and Northeastern. Your conference just isn't that strong this season and I doubt Minnesota or Wisconsin would have problems with most of the teams in the conference.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

Ah yes, we are truly getting close to tournament season! Things can only go downhill from here.

 

[D2D]

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

It's just science and math.

If you are referring to the unbiased Pairwise, RPI, Rutter and KRACH rankings, then yes I would agree that it's science and math. Let's just go with those, then we can agree and all is good. Peace.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

Sorry to say but your own commissioner of HE, Joe Bertagna, told me in November at the Harvard-BU game that HE was going to be a weaker conference this year. He expected BC to come out on top followed closely by BU and Northeastern. Your conference just isn't that strong this season and I doubt Minnesota or Wisconsin would have problems with most of the teams in the conference.

If you are referring to the unbiased Pairwise, RPI, Rutter and KRACH rankings, then yes I would agree that it's science and math.

You're probably one of those people who think that "science" says that the earth is getting warmer. Well, as I sit here on this unseasonably cold New England morning, I look out my window and *see* how things really are, not how the mainstream aka LAMESTREAM media WANTS me to see things. Fake math and fake science can paint a pretty picture but when I look at actual results and look at the actual temperature it makes my opinion much more sound than ... other people's ... because it's based on facts and not spin.

 

[joegrav]

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

Never change, USCHO

 

[D2D]

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

You're probably one of those people who think that "science" says that the earth is getting warmer.

I think I heard it's supposed to get above freezing this weekend, so yeah it looks like the earth is getting warmer. However I just put all of this winter's results into KRACH and it says we're headed for a new ice age.

 

[ARM]

Never change, USCHO

Too late. USCHO is constantly changing, evolving, and basically, going in circles.

As evidence, the PairWise Rankings have been modified to use this year's logic for COp that is the same as what is used on the men's side. If you see anything that looks incorrect in how the software is handling common opponents, go ahead and post it here and I'll inform the powers that be. Or you can go ahead and follow the "contact us" procedure if you would prefer.

 

[robertearle]

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

Too late. USCHO is constantly changing, evolving, and basically, going in circles.

As evidence, the PairWise Rankings have been modified to use this year's logic for COp that is the same as what is used on the men's side. If you see anything that looks incorrect in how the software is handling common opponents, go ahead and post it here and I'll inform the powers that be. Or you can go ahead and follow the "contact us" procedure if you would prefer.

Yikes!

When did that happen? The pairs didn't show that change as recently as a week? two weeks? ago.

 

[ARM]

Yikes!

When did that happen? The pairs didn't show that change as recently as a week? two weeks? ago.

Today.

 

[robertearle]

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

Today.

A quick glance through the pairs, and I see a number of comparisons where the new method results in, shall we say, 'questionable' results (not questionable in terms of the math, but in the 'common sense' meaning), but only one comparison that gets 'flipped' by the change (which USCHO looks to be showing incorrectly).

Questionable, but no effect on the pair:
Mercyhurst vs North Dakota: a 6-6 record beats a 5-2-2 record
Quinnipiac vs Ohio State: a 4-1-2 record beats a 7-1-1 record
North Dakota vs BU: a 7-2-3 record beats a 3-1 record
Minn-Duluth vs Princeton: a 2-4 record is equal to a 2-2 record.

The flipped pair:
Ohio State vs Northeastern: OSU's COp of 5-4-1 shows as beating Northeastern's 3-2, giving OSU a 2-1 win in the pair. But the overall table shows it as a Northeastern pair win.

 

[ARM]

A quick glance through the pairs, and I see a number of comparisons where the new method results in, shall we say, 'questionable' results (not questionable in terms of the math, but in the 'common sense' meaning), but only one comparison that gets 'flipped' by the change (which USCHO looks to be showing incorrectly).

Questionable, but no effect on the pair:
Mercyhurst vs North Dakota: a 6-6 record beats a 5-2-2 record
Quinnipiac vs Ohio State: a 4-1-2 record beats a 7-1-1 record
North Dakota vs BU: a 7-2-3 record beats a 3-1 record
Minn-Duluth vs Princeton: a 2-4 record is equal to a 2-2 record.

The flipped pair:
Ohio State vs Northeastern: OSU's COp of 5-4-1 shows as beating Northeastern's 3-2, giving OSU a 2-1 win in the pair. But the overall table shows it as a Northeastern pair win.

I understand what you are saying regarding OSU and Northeastern; I'll pass it along.

I don't understand what your point is regarding "questionable". Look at UMD and Princeton for instance. Both were a perfect against UConn for a winning percentage of 1.000. Both were winless against Minnesota, for a winning percentage of 0.000, so both get the same resulting COp percentage of 1.000. Why do you think that is questionable?

 

[OnMAA]

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

Today.

Did it make a difference ?

For posterity purposes listed the pairwise as it stands today just prior to the Final Tournaments and Selection Sunday:

14 of these top 17 teams still have a shot at the final 8. The current top 6 are pretty much in unless there are 3 Autobids from teams not currently in the top 8. Theoretically possible, but in reality unlikely .

1	Minnesota	16	34-1-1	.9583	1	.6738*	1
2	Wisconsin	15	27-6-2	.8000	4	.6049*	2
3	Clarkson	14	27-4-5	.8194	2	.6019*	3
4	Cornell  	13	22-5-4	.7742	6	.5966*	4
5	Boston College	12	26-5-3	.8088	3	.5928*	5
6	Harvard  	11	23-5-4	.7812	5	.5889*	6
7	Robert Morris	10	24-7-3	.7500	7	.5638*	8
8	Mercyhurst	9	22-7-4	.7273	9	.5626*	9
9	Quinnipiac	8	22-5-9	.7361	8	.5661*	7
10	North Dakota	7	19-11-4	.6176	12	.5516	10
11t	Boston Univer	5	22-12-1	.6429	10	.5381	11
11t	Northeastern	5	19-13-2	.5882	14	.5225	12
13t	Minnesota-Dul	4	15-14-6	.5143	18	.5196	13
13t	Syracuse	4	20-13-3	.5972	13	.5176	14
15	Ohio State	2	15-17-5	.4730	19	.5027	16
16	Princeton	1	14-13-4	.5161	17	.5113	15
17	Vermont  	0	18-13-4	.5714	15	.5027	17

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/#ixzz2vCs2MGME

 

[ARM]

Did it make a difference ?

We will have to wait and see if there is any impact. Theoretically, it could come into play regarding who does or does not host or the order teams are seeded.

 

[robertearle]

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

I understand what you are saying regarding OSU and Northeastern; I'll pass it along.

I don't understand what your point is regarding "questionable". Look at UMD and Princeton for instance. Both were a perfect against UConn for a winning percentage of 1.000. Both were winless against Minnesota, for a winning percentage of 0.000, so both get the same resulting COp percentage of 1.000. Why do you think that is questionable?

It contains a presumption that if Princeton had the two more chances against Minn that Duluth had, they would lose those two games just as Duluth did. Of course I realize that that is a pretty safe and reasonable presumption, but it is a presumption nonetheless.

On a gut level, a 2-4 record is simply not the 'equivalent' of a 2-2 record. I understand the logic behind the change, and I understand that 'bad, unfair' examples can be cooked up for either mechanism. I'm not saying one is 'better' than the other. I'm saying that "2-4 equals 2-2" is a pretty tough sell, and will (and should) take some getting used to.

How about North Dakota's 6-6 being 'better' than Mercyhurst's 5-2-2? Each split with Mankato (2-2, and 1-1), North Dakota went 1-3 vs Ohio State while Mercyhurst was 0-1, North Dakota 2-0 over Lindenwood while Mercyhurst was 3-0-1, and ND went 1-1 vs Clarkson while Mercyhurst went 1-0-1. What makes ND's 6-6 better there? Yes, they beat OSU, but it took then four tries. They also lost to Clarkson when Mercyhurst didn't. Etc etc etc.

 

[Eeyore]

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

Questionable, but no effect on the pair:
Mercyhurst vs North Dakota: a 6-6 record beats a 5-2-2 record

North Dakota: 2-2 vs. Minnesota State; 2-0 vs Lindenwood; 1-3 vs. Ohio State; 1-1 vs Clarkson
Mercyhurst: 1-1 vs. Minnesota State; 3-0-1 vs Lindenwood; 0-1 vs. Ohio State; 1-0-1 vs. Clarkson

So Mankato is a wash; UND gets a small bump for Lindenwood; and a larger bump for OSU that is exactly balanced by Mercyhurst's bump for Clarkson. This is actually the classic case for why you need to make this adjustment, because Mercyhurt's better record against common opponents stems almost entirely from playing extra games against Lindenwood while UND played extra games against the much better Ohio State. Would Mercyhurst have won more than once if they'd played OSU an extra three times? Maybe, but they didn't play those games.

Quinnipiac vs Ohio State: a 4-1-2 record beats a 7-1-1 record

Ohio State: 3-0-1 vs. St. Cloud State; 0-1 vs. Robert Morris; 2-0 vs. Penn State; 2-0 vs. New Hampshire
Quinnipiac: 1-0-1 vs. St. Cloud State; 0-1-1 vs. Robert Morris; 2-0 vs. Penn State; 1-0 vs. New Hampshire

So OSU's advantage in raw winning percentage vs. COPs stems from playing three extra games against last place teams; Quinnipiac wins under the current method because they picked up a point in their extra game against Robert Morris. I have a hard time arguing against that.

North Dakota vs BU: a 7-2-3 record beats a 3-1 record

North Dakota: 2-0-2 vs. UMD; 4-0 vs. St. Cloud; 1-2-1 vs. Wisconsin
BU: 2-0 vs. UMD; 1-0 vs. St. Cloud; 0-1 vs. Wisconsin

Note that the raw winning percentage here is very close: .750 vs. .708; flip one of UND's ties vs UMD to a win and they're the same. With the adjustment, the difference here is that North Dakota picked up points against Wisconsin which offset the two extra ties vs. UMD. Again, I think this is probably the correct result.

 

[ARM]

On a gut level, a 2-4 record is simply not the 'equivalent' of a 2-2 record. I understand the logic behind the change, and I understand that 'bad, unfair' examples can be cooked up for either mechanism. I'm not saying one is 'better' than the other. I'm saying that "2-4 equals 2-2" is a pretty tough sell, and will (and should) take some getting used to.

Okay, so what you are questioning is the NCAA selection criteria being changed in this case, not how USCHO is handling the change? The point is that looking at composite records is the old method; that is not done with the new method. So you don't have to say, "Why is 2-4 equal to 2-2?" because the records are no longer rolled up. What is done is a comparison of how UMD and Princeton did versus Connecticut (both were perfect) and versus Minnesota (neither took a point). Ignore the 2-4 and 2-2, because those are just left from USCHO's old implementation.

On a gut level, a 2-4 record is simply not the 'equivalent' of a 2-2 record. I understand the logic behind the change, and I understand that 'bad, unfair' examples can be cooked up for either mechanism. I'm not saying one is 'better' than the other. I'm saying that "2-4 equals 2-2" is a pretty tough sell, and will (and should) take some getting used to.

How about North Dakota's 6-6 being 'better' than Mercyhurst's 5-2-2? Each split with Mankato (2-2, and 1-1), North Dakota went 1-3 vs Ohio State while Mercyhurst was 0-1, North Dakota 2-0 over Lindenwood while Mercyhurst was 3-0-1, and ND went 1-1 vs Clarkson while Mercyhurst went 1-0-1. What makes ND's 6-6 better there? Yes, they beat OSU, but it took then four tries. They also lost to Clarkson when Mercyhurst didn't. Etc etc etc.

UND did better against OSU and Lindenwood, and when the percentages are rolled up, that outweighs Mercyhurst doing better against Clarkson. Neither method will be 100 percent more fair, but this to me seems more fair than the old method that clearly favored playing more games against the weaker opponents. It is academic, because this is what the NCAA has decided to do this season.

 

[ARM]

The flipped pair:
Ohio State vs Northeastern: OSU's COp of 5-4-1 shows as beating Northeastern's 3-2, giving OSU a 2-1 win in the pair. But the overall table shows it as a Northeastern pair win.

This is now fixed in the table.

 

[robertearle]

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

Okay, so what you are questioning is the NCAA selection criteria being changed in this case, not how USCHO is handling the change?

Yes.

(And one could also ask: if the new way is 'better' for Common Opponents, would it also be 'better' for TUC comparisons? Bur PLEASE don't suggest that to the committee at this late date!

 

[Eeyore]

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

How about North Dakota's 6-6 being 'better' than Mercyhurst's 5-2-2? Each split with Mankato (2-2, and 1-1), North Dakota went 1-3 vs Ohio State while Mercyhurst was 0-1, North Dakota 2-0 over Lindenwood while Mercyhurst was 3-0-1, and ND went 1-1 vs Clarkson while Mercyhurst went 1-0-1. What makes ND's 6-6 better there? Yes, they beat OSU, but it took then four tries. They also lost to Clarkson when Mercyhurst didn't. Etc etc etc.

So are you arguing that teams should benefit from scheduling more games against weak opponents? Because that's what the old system did. You have to have some method of controlling for the different number of games played against each opponent or the whole thing is a farce. In some cases, a 2-4 record is not only the equivalent of 2-2, it's better.

It's really the same thing as saying that we should just seed the NCAA tourney with the teams with the eight best winning percentages without any strength of schedule component.

 

[ARM]

(And one could also ask: if the new way is 'better' for Common Opponents, would it also be 'better' for TUC comparisons? But PLEASE don't suggest that to the committee at this late date!

The committee, like just about everyone else on planet Earth, ignores my suggestions. But I do agree that it would make sense to use the same analysis for TUC, and perhaps that is what the committee does.

Remember that the committee still retains the right to weight the criteria differently, so if a team has a big edge in RPI and loses TUC and COp narrowly, the committee may choose to have the RPI win override the two losses, as it did last year with UND and SLU.