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

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

The problem is that it makes the assumption that the Seeded 4 teams are actually the Best 4 teams.

That's really not something that you can do, especially with how flawed the pairwise is when it comes to the Womens side. The Pairwise largely depends upon how your team and your conference does in non-conference games. Yet, in the Women's game there are so few out of conference games, especially between east and west, that it doesn't take much for the entire rankings to be skewed

Like I said, this is another argument entirely. If you want the NCAA to use KRACH to determine who the 4 best teams are, you're talking about something entirely different than deciding how to match up the top 4 with the bottom 4.

That's a big reason why it would be nice if the womens tournament would get the same rules as the mens side, where avoiding conference matchups in the first round is a top priority. Not only would it make for more interesting games and matchups in the first round, it ultimately would make things more fair, and make it more likely that the best teams actually do make it to the Frozen Four.

I'm sorry, could you give me a little detail on your reasoning behind this? You seem to make quite a logical jump there.

Here's my point: If you assume Teams A, B, C, and D are better than teams E, F, G, and H -- regardless of how you determine which team is better than which -- then chances are, teams A, B, C, and D are going to advance regardless of who they play. What does matching up or not matching up teams based on conference affiliation have to do with anything?

 

[robertearle]

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

Well, another day to examine the current PairWise.

I says to myself, how in the world do both Cornell and Harvard win comparisons to Wisconsin?

In both instances it is a small, very small RPI advantage and and the TUC point.

Well, that's silly. The TUC point comes because Wisconsin has played and unfortunately for them LOST to Minnesota. Twice.

In the TUC comparison Harvard has wins over Quinnipiac, Princeton ?, Clarkson and BU. And two ties, Cornell and BC. 4-0-2

Wisconsin has a win and a tie over North Dakota, a win over BU and two losses to Minnesota. 2-2-1

Cornell wins the comparison with Wisconsin with wins over Princeton ? again?, Clarkson and BC, ties with Harvard and Quinnipiac, and a loss to BC. 3-1-2..

If Princeton were to fall off the "TUC cliff" and be replaced at the #12 position, it might well scramble those comparisons.

That is one of the reasons why the 'record against TUC' has been eliminated as a component in the mens Pairwise.

Once again, I have asked USCHO is they know for certain whether 'record against TUC' is still being included for the women, or has it also been eliminated as it has been for the men. They (Arlan) have said they don't know, but will look into it.

Until we get that answer, take the rankings you see in the USCHO Pairwise for the women with a *large* grain of salt.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

I am positive that the women's PWR remains unchanged and there isn't anything coming in the near future as far as those "in-the-know" are aware.

 

[clarksoncluck]

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

I am positive that the women's PWR remains unchanged and there isn't anything coming in the near future as far as those "in-the-know" are aware.

If you are suggesting that the rest of us are not 'In The Know", I am offended. If this is a closed thread, with those that think they actually know what is going on, but have never played the game, coached the game , have a daughter playing the game - then they are truly just a spectator, a fan, an observer.

TTT kills me with his all righteous comments. Sorry, I have been watching this blog for 7+ years and had to speak up.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

If you are suggesting that the rest of us are not 'In The Know", I am offended. If this is a closed thread, with those that think they actually know what is going on, but have never played the game, coached the game , have a daughter playing the game - then they are truly just a spectator, a fan, an observer.

TTT kills me with his all righteous comments. Sorry, I have been watching this blog for 7+ years and had to speak up.

Sorry, I was referring to a source, not myself, when I said "in-the-know."

 

[robertearle]

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

Sorry, I was referring to a source, not myself, when I said "in-the-know."

(This is going to come off as more...hostile ...than I intend it to, but I'm not sure there's a better way to phrase it, so...)

An anonymous guy on the internet citing an unnamed "source" really isn't gonna do it for me.

Sorry, I'll wait for something more before I give full faith and credit to the Pairwise as USCHO is calculating them.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

(This is going to come off as more...hostile ...than I intend it to, but I'm not sure there's a better way to phrase it, so...)

An anonymous guy on the internet citing an unnamed "source" really isn't gonna do it for me.

Sorry, I'll wait for something more before I give full faith and credit to the Pairwise as USCHO is calculating them.

Yikes, I didn't mean for this to turn into some "Grant knows all/knows nothing" thing... someone said they weren't sure about something, and I had the answer to share. That's all.

 

[OnMAA]

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

At least at the Olympic level, that domination is mostly by Canada in terms of winning. The USA has missed the gold medal game as many times as it has won it. Even Canada's dominance is not of historic proportions compared to other sports.

My point was that US and Canada dominated over the rest of the lot, not the results between the two. While Canada may have won the last three golds, except for 2006, all those matches were close and could have gone either way. In addition, since the 2006 domination in Turin, the USA has won more worlds than Canada by a good margin (IIRC, the count is US 5 times, Canada 2 times)

Maybe we should eliminate sprinting from track and field at the Olympics as well. Jamaica appears dominant, and Europe won't be winning gold anytime soon. Why hold an event if the Europeans aren't going to win? At least they medal in women's ice hockey.

Ironic that you bring up Track and Field, a sport I'm well versed in as I competed in it myself at a high level. There is no such thing as domination in track by one country, even on an event by event basis, except for the some of the relays . There have been multiple winners from multiple countries, both in the sprint events and other events. Sure Jamaica dominated sprints in the last Olympics, but years prior to that, USA was more dominant for most years, but not all. In 1996 for example, it was Canada that dominated. The only event in Track and Field where there has been domination by one country is the 4x400 on the mens side. USA has won that event almost every year out in the history of the event, but even there there have been other countries that won that event. Bahama's won it in 2012.

 

[OnMAA]

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

Sorry, I have been watching this blog for 7+ years and had to speak up.

You joined in 2011 ?

 

[ARM]

There is no such thing as domination in track by one country, even on an event by event basis, except for the some of the relays.

The point is more that sports like softball and baseball were dropped because Europe doesn't care and is not competitive. I think it is dangerous for the rest of the world to accept that as being okay. So I'd have more respect for your initial post if you discredited the notion that it is okay to drop a new sport because certain countries do better than others.

 

[Nowheresville]

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

Here's my point: If you assume Teams A, B, C, and D are better than teams E, F, G, and H -- regardless of how you determine which team is better than which -- then chances are, teams A, B, C, and D are going to advance regardless of who they play. What does matching up or not matching up teams based on conference affiliation have to do with anything?

The problem is that under the current system, there is a very good chance that there will be a matchup between A and B, or C and D in the first round, which means that at least one of teams E, F, G, or H will also play each other and one of those "lesser" teams would make the Frozen Four.

To put it in more real terms, lets say for the current USCHO poll accurately reflects who the top teams in the country are. That does mean that MN, WI, and ND are all in the top 4. Yet, with how things are currently set up, it is practically guaranteed that the playoffs will have a match-up between WI and ND in the first round. At least 1 of the "top 4" teams will have no chance of making the Frozen Four.

My point isn't that the west is somehow getting screwed, it just a reality of the situation. A big part of the problem is the pairwise and the relatively few non-conference games it has to go on to base the comparisons. Frankly, with very few number of games between the east and the west over the course of the season, there is no real good way to get a good comparison be it computers or humans. Who really deserves a higher ranking right now, Wisconsin or Harvard? There's really never going to be a good way to make a strong argument because they don't play each other, and even hardly play any common opponents. On the other hand, by the end of the year, it should be pretty easy to judge who is a better team between Wisconsin and North Dakota or Harvard and Cornell, because they will have played each other lots of times, and have lots of common opponent.

Keeping it simple, if you had a 4 team tournament with the example I've started, you would always learn more about who is really the best team by having Wisconsin play Cornell and North Dakota play Harvard, than you would by having yet another WI/ND and Harvard/Cornell matchup where the teams could be playing for the 6th time! The same principals apply when you expand it out to the full 8 teams. Teams can actually decide things on the ice, which is why avoiding playing conference foes to start the playoffs makes for a better tournament, and ultimately gets you closer to determining who really are the best teams to make the finals.

 

[CrazyDave]

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

To put it in more real terms, lets say for the current USCHO poll accurately reflects who the top teams in the country are. That does mean that MN, WI, and ND are all in the top 4. Yet, with how things are currently set up, it is practically guaranteed that the playoffs will have a match-up between WI and ND in the first round. At least 1 of the "top 4" teams will have no chance of making the Frozen Four.

Again, every ranking system has flaws, some more than others. This is a never-ending argument. But the "top four" in the Pairwise rankings are the defacto "best four teams" and they all get homes games in the quarterfinals, meaning that they would not face each other regardless of conference affiliation or distance between each other. It doesn't matter if it's MN, WI, and ND, or Cornell, Harvard, and Clarkson.

Where the real question arises is when you have one team from a conference in the top 4 and another team from the same conference in the next four. Or you have 3 teams that are split 2-1 or 1-2. In the case of WCHA teams, that usually means two flights to keep them all from playing each other instead of just one. My POV is that it makes sense to play the intra-conference game if it aligns with true bracket integrity -- even I don't like that answer, but I think it's best for the system.

 

[ARM]

My POV is that it makes sense to play the intra-conference game if it aligns with true bracket integrity -- even I don't like that answer, but I think it's best for the system.

I might agree with you if we used a system that was better able to determine the top four teams. As it is, one through eight are impacted to too great a degree by some obscure games involving third-party teams.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

Again, "I have a problem with how the top teams are identified" and "I don't like how the committee arranges the quarterfinals" are two entirely, entirely different arguments.

 

[ARM]

Again, "I have a problem with how the top teams are identified" and "I don't like how the committee arranges the quarterfinals" are two entirely, entirely different arguments.

Yes, I get that. I'm just responding to Dave's post. This is a thread about all things PWR, is it not?

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

Yes, I get that. I'm just responding to Dave's post. This is a thread about all things PWR, is it not?

Oh yes, I'm just saying -- it just seems that the conversation went from one discussion to another without much of a realization that the two arguments are different.

 

[Nowheresville]

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

Again, "I have a problem with how the top teams are identified" and "I don't like how the committee arranges the quarterfinals" are two entirely, entirely different arguments.

Different arguments perhaps, but not unrelated arguments.

My argument essentially comes down to the fact that there really is no good way to identify and rank the top teams with a high degree of certainty, be it Pairwise, KRACH, Human Polls, or something else entirely. With so few non-conference games, they are all going to be flawed. As such, that lack of certainty should impact how the quarterfinals are arranged.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Different arguments perhaps, but not unrelated arguments.

My argument essentially comes down to the fact that there really is no good way to identify and rank the top teams with a high degree of certainty, be it Pairwise, KRACH, Human Polls, or something else entirely. With so few non-conference games, they are all going to be flawed. As such, that lack of certainty should impact how the quarterfinals are arranged.

As in "there is already uncertainty in how the teams are ranked, so let's minimize the effect of when the Pairwise gets it wrong by staying as close to bracket integrity as possible"?

That's... a pretty solid argument actually.

I just guess I don't feel that the year-end PWR gets it too far off. Does anyone know an easy way to access the last few years' PWR? I don't recall having much of an issue with the rankings at the end of each season.

 

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

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

I just guess I don't feel that the year-end PWR gets it too far off.

I'm going to stop you right there.

Sorry TTT20, too good an opening, I am going to jump, I'm going to stop you right there.

The whole point of this thread is that the year end PWR routinely gets it abysmally wrong.

Out here looking at things through our western bias tinted glasses we have seen for the past couple of years the best team, as measured by the team that ended up winning the championship, having to open the tournament against a team which had a quite reasonable claim to being something better than the last team invited to the dance. And as further insult to the integrity and purpose of the whole exercise there was the fact that the two teams had played that exact same match up just 5 or 6 days previously.

The last time Minnesota missed the tournament entirely there was some talk about how they were unjustly excluded. I didn't think so then and I don't think so now. The deal is that every team knows before they throw the pucks over the boards for the very first practice what the criteria for advancing to the national tournment are. You are going to have to win games. The last time the Gophers missed there were games that if they had won they might have had a claim. But they never won any of those games. They had an argument that they were one of the 8 best teams but they had NO ARGUMENT that they were one of best 8 against the established criteria.

But that is exactly the problem, the established criteria. If the rules produce something other than the best 8 teams and if further the 8 teams selected are arranged in a manner that is skewed in even minor ways against producing the best final four then the system is broken.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It be broke.

JMO through western bias tinted glasses.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

What was the top 8 last year? Anyone remember off the top of their head?