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

[Qwhfan]

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.

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

?

Since four years which I read you guys regularly, This time, you are on fire! Not easy to follow but your passion And your knowledge impress me! Loll

 

[Qwhfan]

Since four years which I read you guys regularly, This time, you are on fire! Not easy to follow but your passion And your knowledge impress me! Loll

I made a reference here to you all, the experts, not the Tiger, naturally!

 

[Numbers]

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

Well, I just took a quick look. Waiting for TTT's sim....

But, if Wisconsin does not win WCHA, and both Harvard and BC win their conferences, then Harvard wins every compare except perhaps Wisconsin (and obviously Minny). And, BC wins every other compare. So, 2, 3, 4 would be decided by RPI as near as i can tell, and it would all be very close. There is a distinct possibility that..
BC wins against Wisconsin on RPI (slightly)
Wisconsin wins against Harvard on RPI (again, slightly) and
Harvard wins against BC on TUC and ComOpp

With the men, ties are broken by RPI, but we don't know here. What fun.

We need TTT's sim... Because we don't know what it does to Wisco's RPI to lose to UND, and we don't know how high Harvard and BC RPI go if they win their tourneys.

 

[Skate79]

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.

Agreed. I don't see either Harvard or BC getting up to the second seed. Best case for Harvard would be 4th seed unless Clarkson falls in the semis and Harvard wins out whereupon they may get #3. Then there is the possibility that Cornell beats Quinny in the finals. Then what? Harvard sixth and Clarkson the 3 seed? If BC wins their tourney, would they jump to #3 and Cornell finishes #4 with Clarkson #5? This weekend can't come fast enough.

 

[Numbers]

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

Agreed. I don't see either Harvard or BC getting up to the second seed. Best case for Harvard would be 4th seed unless Clarkson falls in the semis and Harvard wins out whereupon they may get #3. Then there is the possibility that Cornell beats Quinny in the finals. Then what? Harvard sixth and Clarkson the 3 seed? If BC wins their tourney, would they jump to #3 and Cornell finishes #4 with Clarkson #5? This weekend can't come fast enough.

I believe if you look at all the criteria, you will find that whichever ECAC team wins its tournament will have the highest PWR rating among the ECAC teams. And, I believe you will find that Harvard will pass BC if they win the ECAC tournament. So, if Harvard wins ECAC, they will be 2nd or 3rd regardless of what Clarkson or BC does.

For example, the Harvard/Clarkson compare is currently 2-2, with ComOpp equal, TUCs in favor of Harv, and RPI on the side of Clarkson. Should Harvard defeat Clarkson in the final, that would mean that TUCs would yet favor Harvard, Harvard wins h-to-h, and ComOpp might well stay even. Thus, regardless of RPI, Harvard wins the compare. It is true that the CommOpp might slide to Clarkson, but the RPI would be so close that the compare would be a toss up. Harvard bearing Clarkson in Potsdam might be significant in that case. Should Clarkson lose in the semis, and Harvard win the ECAC, then TUC and CommOpp fall to Harvard, and so does the compare (RPI might as well in that case).

In the case of Harvard/BC, Harvard leads CommOpp, TUC is tied, and BC leads RPI. If Harvard wins the ECAC, their TUC record would rise more than BC's can, so the TUC component falls to Harvard, and thus so does the compare. Note that RPI gets tighter in that case as well, because Harvard faces more difficult competition on the way to its title.

 

[ARM]

In the case of Harvard/BC, Harvard leads CommOpp, TUC is tied, and BC leads RPI. If Harvard wins the ECAC, their TUC record would rise more than BC's can, so the TUC component falls to Harvard, and thus so does the compare.

Although getting rid of the "top 12 in RPI" language from TUC helps to some extent in avoiding the TUC cliff, BC is still vulnerable to some extent. Vermont's RPI is currently just above .500 (.5027). If BC wins on Saturday, I would expect Vermont to no longer be a TUC, and BC loses three TUC wins. If Vermont wins, BC gets hit hit a new TUC loss that is likely to stick, so BC is in worse shape in TUC than it currently appears.

 

[Numbers]

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

I should probably get out of here, but I found that BC does have as nice a situation as I originally thought.

In the case where BC wins HEA, and Harvard wins ECAC over Clarkson, it is possible that the committee might seed Harvard 4th and BC 5th. This seems contrary to what we would expect, as BC is currently ahead, so how could they slide by winning?

However, the TUC category shows how. Even if Vermont stays TUC, under the above scenario, Harvard gains more %age wise than BC, and thus what is now a tie would go to Harvard, giving them the TUC and CommOpp portions. RPI would be very close. Actually, in this case, the CommOpp is the only part that would have much separation at all.

And, we wait for tomorrow and the first games...

 

[dave1381]

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

Although getting rid of the "top 12 in RPI" language from TUC helps to some extent in avoiding the TUC cliff, BC is still vulnerable to some extent. Vermont's RPI is currently just above .500 (.5027). If BC wins on Saturday, I would expect Vermont to no longer be a TUC, and BC loses three TUC wins. If Vermont wins, BC gets hit hit a new TUC loss that is likely to stick, so BC is in worse shape in TUC than it currently appears.

I think the .500 cutoff might be worse. At the top 12 cutoff, at least there was a decent chance your record against the marginal team was close to your record against the top 12. At the .500 cutoff, it's highly likely the contenders have strong records and many games against the marginal teams.

That said, this is a case where I think it's good that the committee has some discretion to fix the mess. If a comparison swings on whether a marginal team is included or not, that's probably a situation where the committee would downweight the criterion, much like they seem to have done in the past when the new common opponent method conflicts with the old one.

 

[ARM]

I think the .500 cutoff might be worse.

IMO, the new way is better. At least now there are more games versus TUC teams, so there is less weight on whether or not one team qualifies. The whole category has always been very arbitrary, so I wonder how much importance is given to it if it isn't an obvious call one way or the other.

 

[dave1381]

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

IMO, the new way is better. At least now there are more games versus TUC teams, so there is less weight on whether or not one team qualifies. The whole category has always been very arbitrary, so I wonder how much importance is given to it if it isn't an obvious call one way or the other.

Right, I think 2011 it was what basically decided home-ice for BC in a three-way logjam, but maybe otherwise it hasn't had much of an impact.

 

[Eeyore]

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

In playing with TTT's prediction tool I'm coming up with the following:

1) There is no way for North Dakota to get in without winning two games this weekend;

2) There is no scenario in which Wisconsin does not host next week;

3) I don't see any way in which it's likely that the committee would vault BC over Wisconsin The closest they can get is the short side of a .0021 gap in RPI and they can't win Common Opponents, so the committee would have to give a lot of weight to .05 lead in record vs. TUCs;

4) There are two scenarios in which Wisconsin might fall to #4, both requiring that they lose to North Dakota. If they do and Cornell beats Clarkson in the ECAC final, both ECAC teams would have a better RPI than the Badgers and Cornell would win the comparison cleanly. On the other hand, Wisconsin would beat Clarkson in both of the other criteria and all three would be extremely close (.001 for Cornell in RPI; .125 for Wisconsin in COPs; .038 for Wisconsin in TUCs) and I could see that going either way;

5) If Harvard beats Clarkson in the ECAC final, Clarkson's RPI lead over Wisconsin is even smaller (.005) with the other things staying the same, while Harvard would still trail Wisconsin in RPI and Common Opponents (by .015 and .500 respectively) but would have a .135 lead in TUCs. I have a hard time seeing the committee wanting to justify why a .005 gap in RPI was too big to overrule while a .015 gap wasn't but if you squint at it just right you can see how it could happen.

6) Quinnipiac is really hoping for at least one upset in the CHA semis. If they get it they might not even need to beat Clarkson to make the NCAA field; it will be up to the committee to weight the criteria in a split comparison with the CHA runner up. The same would be true if they lose in the ECAC final but they'd have enough of an RPI lead that I suspect the committee would take them. All of this would be moot if there is an upset winner in Hockey East or the WCHA.

7) BC needs to win Hockey East to host next week but they also need for Clarkson to either lose in the semi or win the ECAC; they lose to both Clarkson and the ECAC winner if Harvard or Cornell beat Clarkson.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

That all looks accurate to me.

I'm kind of surprised that BC hosting Clarkson is a possibility -- didn't think that was the case until I played with the sheet. It's not something I want to see!

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

I'm going to feel like crap if after the games are played my results aren't even close... lol

 

[OnMAA]

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

I'm going to feel like crap if after the games are played my results aren't even close... lol

I'm convinced that if BC finally wins that Title you won't give a c*** about that.

 

[Numbers]

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

OK. So, a few things changed today. One is that we know that Wisconsin will not be overall #2, because the ECAC Champ will overtake them.

In a larger sense, we are left with the issue of who is likely to be 8th. I am assuming here that Mercyhurst is in the field. Even if they lose to RIT tomorrow, there is no CHA auto-bid, at worst they end up in a 3-way tie with RMU and Quinn.

Let's analyze that a little. I don't have the information about who the CommOpp are, but the PWC's go...

Mercyhurst over Quinn, Quinn over RoMo, RoMo over Mercyhurst. Under normal results (Quinn loses tomorrow, Mercyhurst wins), that stays exactly the same.

I believe the committee would reason thus: The RPI in the Mercyhurst v RMU compare weighs heavily toward Mercyhurst. The TUC and CommOPP weigh to RMU, but only slightly..... And, thus, award the compare to Mercyhurst, which would put Quinn in the field.

Comments?

In that case, the likely bracket is:
Quinn @ Minn // #5 @ #4
Mercyhurst @ ECAC Champ//#6 @ Wisconsin

Because the odds still favor UW as #3 overall. Here, I am going with bracket intergrity, even if Mercyhurst has to bus to Boston.

Comments?

 

[OnMAA]

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

One is that we know that Wisconsin will not the overall #2, because the ECAC Champ will overtake them.

Have not done the math, but probably not if Quinnipiac wins the ECAC.

 

[robertearle]

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

OK. So, a few things changed today. One is that we know that Wisconsin will not be overall #2, because the ECAC Champ will overtake them.

...Unless it is Quinnipiac.

 

[OnMAA]

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

OK. So, a few things changed today.

Yeah all this theorizing out of the window after a few upsets. What if RIT beats MU. What if UVM wins HE. What if NoDak wins the WCHA. What if Quinnipiac wins the ECAC. If those things ALL were to happen you might as well put all your pre-arranged brackets in the garbage can and start with a blank sheet of paper. (partly kidding off-course)

 

[Numbers]

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

Have not done the math, but probably not if Quinnipiac wins the ECAC.

...Unless it is Quinnipiac.

Well done, fellows. Thank you. Unlikely, though, eh?

 

[robertearle]

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

The RPI in the Mercyhurst v RMU compare weighs heavily toward Mercyhurst. The TUC and CommOPP weigh to RMU, but only slightly.....

Because a 15-4-2 CoP record is 'better' than an 18-2-2 record. !Ay Caramba!