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

robertearle said:
(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! :-)
Click to expand...

Yes, though given how long some of us were complaining about the old way of doing COP before the NCAA made the change I wouldn't worry about anything happening quickly. And ditching RPI for something that works should be a higher priority.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Eeyore said:
So are you arguing that teams should benefit from scheduling more games against weak opponents?
Click to expand...

No. Read the paragraph I wrote immediately above the one you quote here.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

robertearle said:
(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! :-)
Click to expand...
Yeah, TUC is kind of a mess, especially in years like this where you have two teams from one conference dominating everyone else, because it destroys the TUC for everyone else in that conference unfairly.

Then you've got a team like BC who didn't play either of those teams but who (almost) ran the table against the only two other TUCs from Hockey East way down at the bottom. BC's 6-0-1 against #11 BU and #14 Northeastern is weighted the same as North Dakota's 2-5-1 against #1 Minnesota and #2 Wisconsin. Which is so unfair that it's actually offensive.

EDIT: To clarify my point -- as far as the TUC record is concerned, BC might as well have gone 6-0-1 against Minnesota and North Dakota might as well have gone 2-5-1 against Vermont.
ARM said:
But I do agree that it would make sense to use the same analysis for TUC
Click to expand...
TUC is just kind of weird in general. I feel like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth -- me included. On the one hand it's "Oh but they played Minnesota and Wisconsin, they shouldn't be penalized for that." But on the other hand we want to give them credit for beating them. It doesn't seem right to apply both, somehow.

Is the men's "Quality Wins Bonus" replacement for TUC the solution? I mean, it's *better" than TUC as it stands now. But that leads us all back to Eeyore's point which is why can't we just use KRACH and move on with our day?
 
Last edited:
TUC is still in the handbook that Dave linked:
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...
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

I just looked through that handbook, and I couldn't find a definition of how far away requires a flight. So, can you all help me with this:

Previously, we have more or less agreed that:
Minnesota will be the overall #1;
Wisconsin will be 2, 3 or 4 depending on results of tournaments
ECAC Champ will be 2 or 3 (Even Harvard passes BC because of TUC)
BC, Clarkson, Cornell, Harvard will be in the field, and these 4, plus MN and WI will be the top 6.
CHA Champ will be 7th.
CHA runnerup will be 8th, unless there is a tourney upset.

Now, here is the deal.
All games to the west are going to be a flight. The handbook requires the committee to minimize flights. Therefore, both eastern games will have to be bus rides, simply because it is possible to set it up that way.

The ECAC schools and BC are all within bus distance of each other.
Boston is too far for RMU or Mercyhurst to bus.
And, then...
Pittsburgh (RMU) to Ithaca = 314
Erie (Mercyhurst) to Ithaca = 221
Erie to Potsdam = 373 !!
Pittsburgh to Potsdam = 483

So, comments on this:
a) As before, I believe that if Cornell is hosting, the committee COULD do: CHA runnerup @ Minn; Cha Champ @ Cornell; and the rest is a flight to Madison and local travel in NY/MA. Who goes to Madison depends on seeding, and doesn't matter for travel.

b) NOW, however, another possibility has come to mind. Let's say Clarkson wins ECAC, and therefore is 2nd or 3rd overall. Would the committee do: RMU @ Minnesota; Mercyhurst @ Clarkson (373 miles); and again, whatever with Wisconsin....?

The reason I ask about b) is that it is apparently hard to fly close to Potsdam anyway, so that 373 miles doesn't seem too bad.

And, of course, we all really want anything other than Both CHA teams going west, and Clarkson, Cornell, Harvard and BC playing each other, especially since there is no reseeding, so it's possible that the Clarkson, Cornell, Harvard, BC winners play each other in the nat'l semi, too.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Numbers said:
So, comments on this:
a) As before, I believe that if Cornell is hosting, the committee COULD do: CHA runnerup @ Minn; Cha Champ @ Cornell; and the rest is a flight to Madison and local travel in NY/MA. Who goes to Madison depends on seeding, and doesn't matter for travel.
Click to expand...
I made a similar comment earlier in the thread. Basically wondering if it makes sense to screw up bracket integrity to send Mercyhurst to Cornell since it's a bus trip, when you can just keep perfect bracket integrity and still have the (longer) bus trips.

b) NOW, however, another possibility has come to mind. Let's say Clarkson wins ECAC, and therefore is 2nd or 3rd overall. Would the committee do: RMU @ Minnesota; Mercyhurst @ Clarkson (373 miles); and again, whatever with Wisconsin....?
Click to expand...
Well, it *really* makes sense if Clarkson is #2 (which they would be if they win the ECAC and Wisconsin doesn't win the WCHA) and Mercyhurst is #7. Or, at least I think so, assuming they do consider that a bus trip, which is really iffy.

If RMU wins and Clarkson wins, you'd probably get this:

1) Minnesota
2) Clarkson
3) Wisconsin
4) BC
5) Winner of Cornell/Harvard
6) Loser of Cornell/Harvard
7) RMU
8) Mercyhurst.

I really don't think RMU to Clarkson would be considered a bus trip. Mercyhurst to Clarkson is really stretching it already. So yes, I think they would switch Hurst and RMU to avoid that flight.

What gets interesting in that scenario is what happens if Mercyhurst to Clarkson IS a flight. Then you'd have to arrange it like so:

8 RMU/MU @ 1 Minnesota
6 Harvard/Cornell @ 2 Clarkson
7 MU/RMU @ 3 Wisconsin
5 Cornell/Harvard @ 4 Boston College

Given that Cornell to Clarkson is so much closer than Boston to Clarkson and that BC and Harvard are across the river from each other, AND that Harvard and Cornell are really close in the rankings, you would probably just see Cornell head up to South Canada regardless:

8 RMU/MU @ 1 Minnesota
5/6 Cornell @ 2 Clarkson
7 MU/RMU @ 3 Wisconsin
6/5 Harvard @ 4 Boston College

Which kind of brings me back to my very first sentence -- even though you COULD keep perfect bracket integrity with a top 8 as above (if MU to Clarkson is indeed a bus trip), given that Harvard/BC and Cornell/Clarkson are so close together, I almost wonder if they WOULD screw up bracket integrity to avoid those long bus rides.

Here's a question worth posing ... If:

A) the top 4 is Minnesota, Clarkson, Wisconsin, and Boston College, in any order, and
B) the bottom 4 is Cornell, Harvard, RMU and Mercyhurst, in any order,

Would the bracket definitely be:

Loser of RMU/Hurst @ Minnesota
Winner of RMU/Hurst @ Wisconsin
Cornell @ Clarkson
Harvard @ BC

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

Triple post!! Sorry, please don't ban me.

Does anyone know of a website where the teams' Win%, OppWin%, and OppOppWin% are listed? I'd like to put together a "What-If" calculator like USCHO does on the men's side.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

The rule is under 400 miles you will not be reimbursed for cost flying. That is the relevant cutoff.

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

TonyTheTiger20 said:
Triple post!! Sorry, please don't ban me.

Does anyone know of a website where the teams' Win%, OppWin%, and OppOppWin% are listed? I'd like to put together a "What-If" calculator like USCHO does on the men's side.
Click to expand...

I've been getting it from Rutter's RPI in recent years
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

I expect you'll generally see bracket integrity respected as long as flights are minimized. So if Cornell doesn't host, Robert Morris is going to a WCHA school. Mercyhurst @ Clarkson is an entirely plausible pairing. I don't think you'll see Mercyhurst shipped to the WCHA solely to avoid the bus cost to Clarkson and force some cheap but uninspiring Clarkson-Cornell Harvard-BC pairings.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

TonyTheTiger20 said:
Here's a question worth posing ... If:

A) the top 4 is Minnesota, Clarkson, Wisconsin, and Boston College, in any order, and
B) the bottom 4 is Cornell, Harvard, RMU and Mercyhurst, in any order,

Would the bracket definitely be:

Loser of RMU/Hurst @ Minnesota
Winner of RMU/Hurst @ Wisconsin
Cornell @ Clarkson
Harvard @ BC ?
Click to expand...

Very plausible but I wouldn't bet the mortgage on it. I really think the ECAC holds the key here because of how close the teams are in terms of PWR and RPI. I don't see BC losing in the HE tournament but that's just me. Mercyhurst coming to Boston is highly unlikely although it is not out of the realm of possibility (my niece played a volleyball tournament at Mercyhurst and they did a bus trip to and from Erie). I'm not looking forward to Harvard having to go back to Potsdam after this weekend.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

An Erie-to-Boston bus trip is feasible (I know the Laker fans did it in 2005). The distance is >500 miles so the NCAA would be willing to reimburse a flight.

But Mercyhurst is the 7th or 8th team here and I don't see any way Harvard or BC get up to two, so it's irrelevant this year.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Skate79 said:
I'm not looking forward to Harvard having to go back to Potsdam after this weekend.
Click to expand...

That kind of thing happened a few years ago when Dartmouth traveled to Ithaca two weekends in a row to face the Big Red. The ECAC final was close for a long time, but the NCAA quarter final a week later was a blow out.
 
dave1381 said:
An Erie-to-Boston bus trip is feasible (I know the Laker fans did it in 2005). The distance is >500 miles so the NCAA would be willing to reimburse a flight.

But Mercyhurst is the 7th or 8th team here and I don't see any way Harvard or BC get up to two, so it's irrelevant this year.
Click to expand...
I don't have a simulator, but if Wisconsin loses to North Dakota, and Harvard wins the ECAC, what happens? Or, if Wisconsin loses to Minnesota, and BC and Harvard both win their conferences, you could get a 3 way tie right?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

dave1381 said:
and force some cheap but uninspiring Clarkson-Cornell Harvard-BC pairings.
Click to expand...
LOL. :D

To take a page from TTT worthy bantering.....That is like imitating those cheap and uninspiring All-WCHA Tournament Quarters from years past. :D

All kidding aside....Agree with the concept of avoiding intra-conference matchup's in the quarters.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top