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

[Eeyore]

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?

To the best of my recollection it was:

1) Minnesota
2) Cornell
3) BU
4) BC
5) Harvard
6) Clarkson
7) Mercyhurst
8) North Dakota

I know North Dakota was the last team in and a lot of us thought that having them that low exposed some of the flaws of PWR.

 

[robertearle]

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?

That's an interesting moment for me to have checked back, considering our exchange earlier today.

I don't have a good recollection of 2 through 7, but I am certain who were #8 and #9, both as judged by the USCHO Pairwise tool and as judged by the NCAA.

The night of the WCHA tournament final and the night before the NCAA announcement of the field and the bracket, somebody or other fell off the 'TUC cliff', which scrambled the comparisons, which resulted in North Dakota surprisingly dropping from #8 to #9, with Wisconsin going to #8. I recall watching the post-game press conference of the UND coach (understandably) almost in tears, saying that if that was indeed the end of their season how proud he was of them, etc. He clearly thought that their loss to Minn and the last minute TUC scramble had ended their season.

Except....

Except a year or two before, the Pairwise mechanism on the men's side had been changed; the change being in the way that the 'Common Opponent' comparison was calculated. (I can point you to the USCHO explanation of the change, if you'd like). Now, the Pairwise as USCHO was showing for the women had NOT implemented that change, and as I said, it showed Wisconsin as #8 and UND as #9. But if the change to the 'Common Opponent' element was applied to the women, it flipped a pair such that UND was #8 and Wisconsin was #9. Calculate Common Opponent the 'old way' and Wisconsin was #8; calculate it the "new way", and North Dakota was #8

I sat here in front of my PC with the USCHO calculation of the Pairwise showing me Wisconsin at #8 while the NCAA show told me that UND was the #8 team going off to play Minnesota, while Wisconsin was staying home. (I'm a Wisconsin season ticket holder; I remember it pretty darn clearly.)

So while you assure me that the pairwise currently shown by USCHO is correct, you'll have to excuse me if I remain skeptical.

 

[robertearle]

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

That's an interesting moment for me to have checked back, considering our exchange earlier today.


Except....

(At the time, I had been posting on Facebook with a couple others about it, so I went back into my Facebook history for the details: Wisconsin, North Dakota and Northeastern were in a three-way tie at #8, with UND beating Wisconsin in their pair, Wisconsin beating Northeastern, and Northeastern beating UND. UND has the best RPI of the three, so they were the 'winner' of the tie, and thus the #8 spot. The team that had moved up to #12 was St Lawrence. Minnesota was a common opponent between St Lawrence and North Dakota. So when North Dakota lost the WCHA tourney final to common opponent Minn, that was enough to flip UND's pair against St Lawrence to St Lawrence (when calculating under the 'old' Common Opponent calculation), which in turn dropped them out of the three-way tie in the Pairwise standings, leaving Wisconsin to win that tie against Northeastern because of their better RPI. But the NCAA apparently was using the 'new' calculation, under which that last loss did NOT flip the UND-St Lawrence pair, leaving the three-way tie for #8, which went to UND on their better RPI.)

Is this any way to run a tournament?!?

 

[Eeyore]

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

Is this any way to run a tournament?!?

It was commonly known among a bunch of us on the board that North Dakota was going to be the last team in and that USCHO was not calculating PWR the same way that the committee was. I can't remember what the source of that knowledge was but I was not surprised at all when the pairings were announced and had been telling people at the WCHA final how it was going to play out. The WCHA semi between North Dakota and Wisconsin was also for the last slot in the tournament unless Northeastern won the Hockey East tourney.

 

[clarksoncluck]

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

OnMAA, you are right, I joined in 2011. I have been following this forum since my daughter played when she was in the ECAC. She is done now and moved on. Still plays hockey, played some in the CWHL but now just beer league. (as I said in my quote, I have been watching)

But I have read the different threads for all that time.

Overall, Pairwise - Krach - RPI all are insignificant!

In many ways they are self defeating.

Many examples, UND played Clarkson for a double header and split. 2 good teams and close games, Harvard played BC after playing UNH the night before where BC didn't play the night before, all of the WCHA teams tend to play double headers and these will be in opposition rinks or at home, who is healthy/who is not, Karvenin (for example), who is reffing, who is in net, blah, blah, blah.

Basically what I am saying is that, the best teams should play the best teams in the final 8.

This year the ECAC deserve 2 -3, WCHA deserve 2 - 3, Hockey East 1 - 2, other 1.

Let the best play the best without consideration to the minute cost of travel. Make it interesting (not average or boring), cross conference, and give the female game of hockey what it deserves.

 

[robertearle]

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

...but I was not surprised at all when the pairings were announced and had been telling people at the WCHA final how it was going to play out. The WCHA semi between North Dakota and Wisconsin was also for the last slot in the tournament unless Northeastern won the Hockey East tourney.

Well, somebody forgot to let the UND coach know. Because, as I said, it was *quite* apparent during the press conference after the loss to Minn in the WCHA final that he thought their season had ended.

 

[Eeyore]

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

Many examples, UND played Clarkson for a double header and split. 2 good teams and close games, Harvard played BC after playing UNH the night before where BC didn't play the night before, all of the WCHA teams tend to play double headers and these will be in opposition rinks or at home, who is healthy/who is not, Karvenin (for example), who is reffing, who is in net, blah, blah, blah.

I don't think you understand your own argument here. What you are actually saying isn't that the methods we have are flawed. Your argument has two components:

1) The actual quality of the teams is unknowable. There is, in fact, no way for us to rank them given the data we have. This is what the last two thirds of the quoted paragraph boil down to. Given that we never see teams play under ideal conditions (no injuries; with the same amount of rest; on truly neutral rinks; etc.) it isn't just that the ranking systems we have cannot give accurate results but rather that in the real world no possible ranking system could do so;

2) In many cases, even if we could accurately rank the teams the gaps between them are too small to be significant. That's what your first sentence means. So you reach a point at which there isn't any difference in quality between, say, the number five and the number six team in the rankings even if they are accurate.

As it happens, I'm very sympathetic to both of these views. I just don't think that they lead where you think they do. If we really buy into them, it leads us to the exact opposite conclusion. Since we don't have any way to rank teams and the differences between those in the 5-8 range don't really matter anyway, why shouldn't travel costs be the deciding factor on where teams go? Even if the costs aren't that high, such a decision has no predictable effect on whether the four best teams in any abstract sense make it to the Frozen Four because we have no idea which four teams those are. Your desired end isn't possible so we might as well just throw it out altogether.

This is why any belief that a tournament, or even a whole season, can determine which team is 'the best' in any sense other than a purely tautological one of saying that the best team is the one that succeeds at the conditions laid out is wrong. The NCAA tournament can only answer the question of which team wins the NCAA tournament and nothing else. If you attach greater meaning to it that really only tells us about your definitions.

Once you accept that all possible measures of ranking are flawed and that you aren't going to be able to determine the best you end up back at square one: how are we going to seed an actual, real-life tournament? There is not an objectively correct answer to that, just a bunch of competing imperatives that you have to try to satisfy. (Which is not to say that I don't believe that there are better answers and worse answers to that question, just that I'm not under the delusion my beliefs rest on any objective foundation.) You have to actually put together a bracket and you need to have some process by which that will be achieved. So just saying that you don't like the ranking systems doesn't get you anywhere.

And you certainly seem to have some sort of ranking system in mind because you are able to declare how many bids each conference deserves. Your method for arriving at this answer remains entirely opaque to me given that you've rejected every approach that's been suggested but you clearly have one. (Though I confess to feeling a little bit like Captain Willard when Kurtz asks him about the soundness of his methods.) I guess I'll ask: so, just how do you think we ought to determine the seedings?

 

[Eeyore]

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

Well, somebody forgot to let the UND coach know. Because, as I said, it was *quite* apparent during the press conference after the loss to Minn in the WCHA final that he thought their season had ended.

It is clear that the NCAA is not very good at communicating with the people it really ought to be communicating with. This is an observation that extends far beyond the tournament selection and even women's ice hockey itself.

 

[robertearle]

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

It is clear that the NCAA is not very good at communicating with the people it really ought to be communicating with. This is an observation that extends far beyond the tournament selection and even women's ice hockey itself.

Which is why I'm so keen on finding out if the change to the Pairwise on the men's side regarding the 'TUC comparison' also applies to the women's Pairwise.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

Oh boy, get ready for more lurkers to come out of the woodwork to call me self-reighteous...

I want to apologize right off the bat because it's going to seem like I'm attacking you personally but I'm really not -- I'm directing this at western fans in general --

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

I guess I just don't agree. As far as tournament selection goes, hockey does a much, much better job of selecting its tournament than pretty much every other sport does, because it takes out subjectivity. There is a criteria, and you can easily meet that criteria by winning more games.

Out here looking at things through our western bias tinted glasses...

JMO through western bias tinted glasses.

I think you feel like you're saying this facetiously... but the fact of the matter is that most of the fans out west feel that the eastern teams aren't worthy of competing against them, and 'any ranking that has eastern teams ahead of western teams is obviously flawed because, come on, everyone knows the western teams are so much better.'

That's crap, and everyone knows it's crap except apparently the western fans who keep acting like they should be their own 'Division 1A'.

Minnesota is quite obviously a juggernaut. It does not make Wisconsin, North Dakota, Duluth, Ohio State, and everyone else in the league better because they get to lose to the Gophers 4+ times a year and everyone else doesn't.

Everyone out west likes to point out that there aren't enough games between west and east to really rank the teams between regions. And I agree. But then in the same breath those same fans try to make arguments like this:

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.

Did they really? Other than the fact that North Dakota plays in the WCHA, what argument is there to be made that they were somehow better than Clarkson, Mercyhurst, Harvard, BU, Cornell, or BC? The only non-conference games that they played were against RIT (seriously?), Lindenwood (seriously??), and Clarkson -- who they split with.

They lost eleven games last year. Eleven (11).

But that is exactly the problem, the established criteria. If the rules produce something other than the best 8 teams...

Again, this argument is only coming out of the west.

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

It be broke.

All of these western fans who are saying it's broken have no problem kicking and screaming that it's broken because the eastern teams are getting ranked too high. But not one person has come forward with a better solution, because everyone is unsuccessfully trying to search for a ranking that fits their "the west is better" agenda.

I mean honestly. You act like the western teams beat up on each other and get unjustly penalized for it. If you look at the eastern teams as one big 'conference,' they beat up on each other too. But when the western teams lose to each other it's because they're all really good and when the eastern teams lose to each other it's because they aren't. Okay.

So somebody, please, I implore you, tell me what you would like to use to select the tournament field.

EDIT: I realize I have a history of saying things and people not being sure if I'm posting tongue-in-cheek just to get people riled up... but no, I'm serious here.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

Which is why I'm so keen on finding out if the change to the Pairwise on the men's side regarding the 'TUC comparison' also applies to the women's Pairwise.

Don't bother posting about it here because we're all just anonymous guys on the internet and can't help you.

 

[robertearle]

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

Don't bother posting about it here because we're all just anonymous guys on the internet and can't help you.

I've asked Arlan, and he said he'd look into it.

But I'm afraid he wasn't taking me too seriously. So I'm hoping that if more people (anonymous or otherwise) are talking about it and asking about it, it becomes more likely that I/we get an authoritative, definitive answer. I don't want anyone to re-live the experience of last year when USCHO has a different top eight teams in their Pairwise standings than end up going to the tournament.

 

[ARM]

EDIT: I realize I have a history of saying things and people not being sure if I'm posting tongue-in-cheek just to get people riled up... but no, I'm serious here.

If you'd like to be taken seriously, then try a little harder than this crap, where you complain about all western fans and nobody has proposed a better solution. Have you not read any threads on similar discussions in all your years here? It isn't just western fans. People in the East who understand the flaws of RPI have posted as much. Until you try a little harder to be rational about this, I'm going to conclude that this post was just a more highly evolved trolling effort by TTT.

 

[ARM]

I've asked Arlan, and he said he'd look into it.

You mean this comment about Wednesday Women a couple of weeks ago:

Arlan Marttila ... 15 days ago
"I don't know. ... my guess is that the same change has not been implemented for the women's selection process. I'll try to find out if there have been any changes before March and selection time."

 

[robertearle]

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

You mean this comment about Wednesday Women a couple of weeks ago:

Yes. He is responding to me in the comments to that week's story.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

I don't want anyone to re-live the experience of last year when USCHO has a different top eight teams in their Pairwise standings than end up going to the tournament.

I'm pretty sure USCHO had last year's PWR listed correctly. Your confusion, I think, is coming from the fact that it may not sort ties the same way that the committee does. But that's nothing new.

I could be totally wrong here but yeah I'm pretty sure the PWR was calculated correctly last year on USCHO.

If you'd like to be taken seriously, then try a little harder than this crap, where you complain about all western fans...

My ire is generally directed toward the fans in the west, yes. I'm sorry, but that's how it appears to me, that most of this is coming out of the west.

...and nobody has proposed a better solution. Have you not read any threads on similar discussions in all your years here?

Well then maybe I missed the threads then; could you point me in the direction of here people have proposed a better system than the PWR?

It isn't just western fans. People in the East who understand the flaws of RPI have posted as much.

I understand that RPI/PWR has flaws, but I also think that it is generally pretty accurate in determining which teams are better than which -- not because it's a perfect system but because teams have generally separated themselves enough. In cases where it has two teams that are pretty close, then the effect of ordering two close teams incorrectly is minor since they roughly as good as each other anyway.

In general I think that by the time a season ends, there is enough separation between teams 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, etc., where most ranking systems are generally going to have roughly the same order of teams. It's the same reason why you will usually have a nice, pretty, triangle-shaped PWR comparison grid with fewer and fewer outliers by the time the end of the season comes.

And if two systems have a couple teams flipped, well, they were probably pretty close and an argument can be made either way. Such arguments are why we pick a system in the beginning of the season and go with it.

Again, that's how I feel.

Until you try a little harder to be rational about this, I'm going to conclude that this post was just a more highly evolved trolling effort by TTT.

I can appreciate where the apprehensiveness is coming from; like I said, I know I have a history.

Yes. He is responding to me in the comments to that week's story.

ARM and Arlan are the same person (ARM = Arlan R. Mantilla).

 

[robertearle]

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

I could be totally wrong here but yeah I'm pretty sure the PWR was calculated correctly last year on USCHO.

I am ENTIRELY sure that they did not.

USCHO showed Wisconsin as the #8 team, even as the announcement of the bracket was being made.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

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

I am ENTIRELY sure that they did not.

An anonymous guy on the internet really isn't gonna do it for me.

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

USCHO showed Wisconsin as the #8 team, even as the announcement of the bracket was being made.

Again, I could be wrong, but as memory serves it showed a 3-way-tie for 8th, with a pretty solid consensus here on the forum of how the committee was going to break the tie.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Just seeing TTT point out of the blue, I'll make a couple of comments. I think the PWR is largely good. Having said that, I think there is a case that can be made that women's college hockey includes 'have' programs and 'have not' programs (frankly even a bit more than there is in men's). The real issue comes in that there are just what 8 teams 'out west'? So the vast, vast majority of the 'have not' programs are in the east and if there's too few games across the great divide due to costs...well you get the picture. This is shown in the SOS in the RPI. The 8 western teams all have SOS in the top 15. While schools such as BU, BC, Harvard and Clarkson are not in the top 15.

So there is a case to be made by those in the west about teams in the east getting a small advantage with the assumption that the PWR does not accurately take into account SOS.

 

[robertearle]

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

An anonymous guy on the internet really isn't gonna do it for me.

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


Again, I could be wrong, but as memory serves it showed a 3-way-tie for 8th, with a pretty solid consensus here the forum of how the committee was going to break the tie.

Not anonymous; my name is Robert Earle.

Again, the Pairwise showed a three-way tie (with UND winning the tie due to a better RPI) UNTIL UND lost to Minn in the WCHA final. That loss ended up flipping their pair with St Lawrence to St Lawrence (because Minn was a Common Opponent), which broke the three-way tie, leaving only a tie between Northeastern and Wisconsin, which Wisconsin won due to their better RPI. But the flip of the UND-StLawrence pair only happened if the CoP was calculated the 'old way'.

Again, I am a Wisconsin season ticket holder; the whole thing cost UW a trip to the NCAA tournament in favor of UND. As a UW season ticket holder, that outcome is a VERY clear recollection in my mind. And any details of how we got there that might have slipped away, I was able to refresh because I was posting on Facebook with a couple people as it was happening, and I went into my Facebook history and re-read those posts.