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

Eeyore said:
Which part? The headline where they said that RIT is going to the NCAA tournament? Or the part where they say the Harvard/Cornell game was in Ithaca? Or the part where they forgot to include Quinnipiac's goal total as a part of the score?
Click to expand...

Lol. The part about going to the NCAA tourney. Here is a news link saying the same.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s3355023.shtml

Edit: This news link just changed their headline. Oh the powers of social media.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Numbers said:
But at least this year it looks like we get something new. If you are right, and RoMo makes it and Cornell wins tomorrow, I would like to see Mercyhurst @ Minnesota and Robert Morris @ Cornell and BC @ Clarkson and Harvard @ Wisconsin. I think that would be all new matchups.
Click to expand...

You would certainly get RMU@Minnesota and Mercyhurst@Cornell in that scenario, regardless of how the RMU-Mercyhurst comparison is judged. At least three of the four matchups would be fairly atypical.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Numbers said:
But at least this year it looks like we get something new. If you are right, and RoMo makes it and Cornell wins tomorrow, I would like to see Mercyhurst @ Minnesota and Robert Morris @ Cornell and BC @ Clarkson and Harvard @ Wisconsin. I think that would be all new matchups.
Click to expand...

Harvard at Wisconsin played the all-time longest NCAA tourney game, and the longest ever 0-0 game, 2007 (seven years ago tomorrow). Jinelle Zaugg scored seven minutes into the 4th overtime.

Harvard at Wisconsin might be fun for that reason alone.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

dave1381 said:
You would certainly get RMU@Minnesota and Mercyhurst@Cornell in that scenario, regardless of how the RMU-Mercyhurst comparison is judged. At least three of the four matchups would be fairly atypical.
Click to expand...

I haven't really followed the machinations of the ranking system but am I to understand this correctly? Because RIT beat both RMU and Mercyhurst, RIT's rankings improve which now makes them a Team Under Consideration. Because of this, all of the head to head matchups are weighed heavier for RMU and MU, resulting in their 3-2 respective records against RIT being worth more to them in the rankings. If either RMU or MU beat RIT, RIT would not have become a TUC and their value as an opponent would have been lessened, meaning that RMU and MU actually benefit from losing to RIT. Is this correct?
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

Cali said:
I haven't really followed the machinations of the ranking system but am I to understand this correctly? Because RIT beat both RMU and Mercyhurst, RIT's rankings improve which now makes them a Team Under Consideration. Because of this, all of the head to head matchups are weighed heavier for RMU and MU, resulting in their 3-2 respective records against RIT being worth more to them in the rankings. If either RMU or MU beat RIT, RIT would not have become a TUC and their value as an opponent would have been lessened, meaning that RMU and MU actually benefit from losing to RIT. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, in theory it's possible a team could benefit from a loss due to the "TUC cliff." I don't think either Mercyhurst or Robert Morris really benefited because the 3-2 record vs. RIT was a lower win pct. than their overall win pct. vs. the TUCs. Also bubble rival Quinnipiac had a win over RIT.

The whole criterion is worthless and misleading and it's why the men got rid of it entirely.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

dave1381 said:
Yes, in theory it's possible a team could benefit from a loss due to the "TUC cliff." I don't think either Mercyhurst or Robert Morris really benefited because the 3-2 record vs. RIT was a lower win pct. than their overall win pct. vs. the TUCs. Also bubble rival Quinnipiac had a win over RIT.
Click to expand...

It's one step more complicated than that.

That 3-2 was a lower percent for Mercyhurst and Robert Morris if you look at their TUC percents in the Pairwise comparison against one another, where their head-to-heads are not included in the TUC calculation.

If you look at their TUCs against other teams-say Quinnipiac, RMU goes from to 5-4-2 (.5455) to 8-6-2 (.5625), while Mercyhurst goes from 7-4-3 (.6071) to 10-6-3 (.6053). So RIT becoming a TUC helped RMU's TUC some, while hurting Mecryhust just a little.

Look up the word 'arcane', and it gives 'the Pairwise' as an example.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

robertearle said:
It's one step more complicated than that.

That 3-2 was a lower percent for Mercyhurst and Robert Morris if you look at their TUC percents in the Pairwise comparison against one another, where their head-to-heads are not included in the TUC calculation.

If you look at their TUCs against other teams-say Quinnipiac, RMU goes from to 5-4-2 (.5455) to 8-6-2 (.5625), while Mercyhurst goes from 7-4-3 (.6071) to 10-6-3 (.6053). So RIT becoming a TUC helped RMU's TUC some, while hurting Mecryhust just a little.

Look up the word 'arcane', and it gives 'the Pairwise' as an example.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. Regardless, my hope is that the committee is placing sufficiently little weight on this criterion that none of this matters. This is why I'm strongly in favor of having a committee - and not just doing a straight calculation like the men - as long as the criteria continue to be so arcane.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

If BC wins this game, the RPI between BC and Wisco* -- to see who gets to host -- is going to be very, very small.

*BULLCRAP that would have to play Wisco if we win...

EDIT: Actually, if BC is able to jump Wisconsin for 4th, the committee would have to send them to Minnesota, right?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

You can have all the computations, permutations, formulas, equations you can manufacture, but if North Dakota, who has beat #4 Wisconsin twice, #2 Clarkson once, and #1 Minnesota once (historical win at that) doesn't get in the tournament, then all is for naught. The rankings need to be able to see the big picture or it is flawed. Simple as that.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

You can have all the computations, permutations, formulas, equations you can manufacture, but if North Dakota, who has beat #4 Wisconsin twice, #2 Clarkson once, and #1 Minnesota once (historical win at that) doesn't get in the tournament, then all is for naught. The rankings need to be able to see the big picture or it is flawed. Simple as that
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

dennismaruk77 said:
You can have all the computations, permutations, formulas, equations you can manufacture, but if North Dakota, who has beat #4 Wisconsin twice, #2 Clarkson once, and #1 Minnesota once (historical win at that) doesn't get in the tournament, then all is for naught. The rankings need to be able to see the big picture or it is flawed. Simple as that
Click to expand...

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Maybe they shouldn't have lost 3 times to OSU and twice to Mankato.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

TonyTheTiger20 said:
EDIT: Actually, if BC is able to jump Wisconsin for 4th, the committee would have to send them to Minnesota, right?
Click to expand...
It could happen.... hope it doesn't. The committee surely has never done anything as absurd as sending their #5 to #1, but it could happen. I expect if BC wins, BC hosts.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

TonyTheTiger20 said:
If BC wins this game, the RPI between BC and Wisco* -- to see who gets to host -- is going to be very, very small.

*BULLCRAP that would have to play Wisco if we win...

EDIT: Actually, if BC is able to jump Wisconsin for 4th, the committee would have to send them to Minnesota, right?
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking?

There's NO WAY a #5 should *ever* be sent to a #1; it isn't fair to either team. That said, rule #1 for the committee often seems to be 'screw the WCHA whenever possible'.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

robertearle said:
Wishful thinking?

There's NO WAY a #5 should *ever* be sent to a #1; it isn't fair to either team. That said, rule #1 for the committee often seems to be 'screw the WCHA whenever possible'.
Click to expand...

Would make more sense to send Wisconsin to Clarkson, and have Harvard play BC.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

FireKnight said:
Why would that make more sense? Just keep the bracket integrity the way it should be.
Click to expand...

As opposed to sending Wisconsin to Minn. Same number of plane trips, and a five minute cab ride (for Harvard) vs a five hour bus ride (for UW). Plus it avoids an intra-conference game.
 
Re: 2013-2014 Women's D-I PairWise Contentions and Affirmations

robertearle said:
Wishful thinking?

There's NO WAY a #5 should *ever* be sent to a #1; it isn't fair to either team. That said, rule #1 for the committee often seems to be 'screw the WCHA whenever possible'.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Kind of expect it now.
 
TonyTheTiger20 said:
If BC wins this game, the RPI between BC and Wisco* -- to see who gets to host -- is going to be very, very small.

*BULLCRAP that would have to play Wisco if we win...

EDIT: Actually, if BC is able to jump Wisconsin for 4th, the committee would have to send them to Minnesota, right?
Click to expand...

Closer than Wisconsin and Clarkson? On your earlier simulator, they were only apart by .0005. Yes, 3 zeroes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top