SCSUhuskies
New member
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
SCSU drops game two to UMD 3-2. SOG 31-22 UMD.
SCSU drops game two to UMD 3-2. SOG 31-22 UMD.
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.
2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
- Thread starter brookyone
- Start date
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
Saw the last few minutes of the third period in that game, and then overtime. What a finish for Cornell! Looked like a real heartbreaker when Harvard scored in the dying seconds to tie it up (and possibly eliminate Cornell from the playoffs pending the outcome of the Yale game) but Cornell scored a big overtime goal and that moves them ahead of both RPI and Yale into 6th spot.
Saw the last few minutes of the third period in that game, and then overtime. What a finish for Cornell! Looked like a real heartbreaker when Harvard scored in the dying seconds to tie it up (and possibly eliminate Cornell from the playoffs pending the outcome of the Yale game) but Cornell scored a big overtime goal and that moves them ahead of both RPI and Yale into 6th spot.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
That Gopher win pretty much locks BC into #1 and UM/UW into 2/3, barring a surprise 2nd loss by anyone in the conference quarterfinals.
That Gopher win pretty much locks BC into #1 and UM/UW into 2/3, barring a surprise 2nd loss by anyone in the conference quarterfinals.
robertearle
Well-known member
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
Grant, am I right that Minn ends up ranked #2 because prior to the Quality Win Bonus is added in, Wisconsin is #2, and so Minn wins over Wisconsin are worth more than Wisconsin wins over Minnesota? Wisconsin had a better RPI, and because of it, Minnesota ends up with a better RPI (and wins the pair because of it)?
Should "we" be concerned about such an outcome, or just laugh at the universe's sense of humor?
Grant, am I right that Minn ends up ranked #2 because prior to the Quality Win Bonus is added in, Wisconsin is #2, and so Minn wins over Wisconsin are worth more than Wisconsin wins over Minnesota? Wisconsin had a better RPI, and because of it, Minnesota ends up with a better RPI (and wins the pair because of it)?
Should "we" be concerned about such an outcome, or just laugh at the universe's sense of humor?
)Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
Agreed. The call that was egregiously blown today is that Pankowski had no business being involved in the last 55 minutes of that game. Ejecting her for the cross-check from behind is a penalty that the officials desperately need to start calling right.
Agreed. The call that was egregiously blown today is that Pankowski had no business being involved in the last 55 minutes of that game. Ejecting her for the cross-check from behind is a penalty that the officials desperately need to start calling right.
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
Just saw the video of that play - if the WCHA wanted to show a classic example of checking from behind they would be hard pressed to find a better video. The Gopher was head to the boards when Pankowski put her stick right into the numbers and drover her into the boards. In the video you can see the official had a clear view. Why that was not called is something I would like to hear.
Just saw the video of that play - if the WCHA wanted to show a classic example of checking from behind they would be hard pressed to find a better video. The Gopher was head to the boards when Pankowski put her stick right into the numbers and drover her into the boards. In the video you can see the official had a clear view. Why that was not called is something I would like to hear.
Last edited:
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
What was heartbreaking was to tie the game with 27 seconds left only to lose in OT. But we have no one to blame but ourselves because those ties with Brown and RPI killed us. We don't have the skill or finish this year and I don't expect that we will advance to the semis. Three road trips in three weeks is tough especially when you factor in the travel time.
What was heartbreaking was to tie the game with 27 seconds left only to lose in OT. But we have no one to blame but ourselves because those ties with Brown and RPI killed us. We don't have the skill or finish this year and I don't expect that we will advance to the semis. Three road trips in three weeks is tough especially when you factor in the travel time.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Wisconsin is ahead by 0.0001 right now, so the QWB isn't QUITE enough to flip the spot. But you are right in that Minnesota's QWB for wins over Wisconsin are worth more than the other way around right now because Wisconsin is slightly higher in RPI
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
The PWR comparison between Minnesota and Wisconsin really tests the boundaries of the criteria. They split the head-to-head. They have identical winning percentages against every common opponent; the only difference there was Minnesota's Hall of Fame game against St. Cloud, but they both have the same 1.000 winning percentage against the Huskies. Wisconsin has a tiny edge in winning percentage (.8971 to .8939) based upon having played one extra nonconference game, but Minnesota has a larger margin in Opponents' Winning Percentage, as a nonconference slate of Penn State, Yale, and SCSU is substantially stronger than Dartmouth, Providence, and Lindenwood.
Consequently, Minnesota has a higher raw RPI than Wisconsin does (.6372 to .6313), but slips .0006 points behind (.6545 to .6539) once we're done tossing out all of the games that RPI isn't sophisticated enough to handle. Then they get .0005 of that gap back once you throw in the quality win bonus. So Wisconsin wins the comparison by the smallest visible margin possible.
God, RPI sucks. Fortunately, unless they both lose their semis in two weeks, we'll get some resolution to this issue.
The PWR comparison between Minnesota and Wisconsin really tests the boundaries of the criteria. They split the head-to-head. They have identical winning percentages against every common opponent; the only difference there was Minnesota's Hall of Fame game against St. Cloud, but they both have the same 1.000 winning percentage against the Huskies. Wisconsin has a tiny edge in winning percentage (.8971 to .8939) based upon having played one extra nonconference game, but Minnesota has a larger margin in Opponents' Winning Percentage, as a nonconference slate of Penn State, Yale, and SCSU is substantially stronger than Dartmouth, Providence, and Lindenwood.
Consequently, Minnesota has a higher raw RPI than Wisconsin does (.6372 to .6313), but slips .0006 points behind (.6545 to .6539) once we're done tossing out all of the games that RPI isn't sophisticated enough to handle. Then they get .0005 of that gap back once you throw in the quality win bonus. So Wisconsin wins the comparison by the smallest visible margin possible.
God, RPI sucks. Fortunately, unless they both lose their semis in two weeks, we'll get some resolution to this issue.
robertearle
Well-known member
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
When I posted the comment, Wisconsin's pre-QWB 'adjusted' RPI was .0003 ahead of Minnesota's, instead of the .0006 it is right now. Some other game must have gone final in the interim. So when Minnesota's extra .0005 from QWB was added in, they moved .0002 ahead, which flipped the pairwise pair, moving them to #2 both in QWB RPI and in the pairwise.
It was/is a pretty interesting 'degenerative case' IMO, though of no great consequence (and with more games to come). But... if such a thing were to happen between #7 and #8, or #8 and #9, on the final weekend, such that a team with a better pre-QWB team sayed home while a worse pre-QWB team went to the post-season... not so easy to laugh off.
When I posted the comment, Wisconsin's pre-QWB 'adjusted' RPI was .0003 ahead of Minnesota's, instead of the .0006 it is right now. Some other game must have gone final in the interim. So when Minnesota's extra .0005 from QWB was added in, they moved .0002 ahead, which flipped the pairwise pair, moving them to #2 both in QWB RPI and in the pairwise.
It was/is a pretty interesting 'degenerative case' IMO, though of no great consequence (and with more games to come). But... if such a thing were to happen between #7 and #8, or #8 and #9, on the final weekend, such that a team with a better pre-QWB team sayed home while a worse pre-QWB team went to the post-season... not so easy to laugh off.
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
The nightmare scenario isn't the QWB making the difference in who goes and who stays home; it's the RPI adjustment for wins against a bad team being the difference. You can make a coherent argument as to why the QWB should be there. That really isn't true for the RPI adjustment, as it amounts to an open admission that the primary, objective criterion doesn't make any sense. That would be especially true if it were between two teams in the situation where Minnesota and Wisconsin are right now (and which they won't be in come selection time), in which there aren't any other differences in the established criteria on which you could hang an argument.
So, yeah, I'm rooting for it to happen, because I want to see the maximum amount of egg possible on the faces of the people who insist on using this idiotic system.
The nightmare scenario isn't the QWB making the difference in who goes and who stays home; it's the RPI adjustment for wins against a bad team being the difference. You can make a coherent argument as to why the QWB should be there. That really isn't true for the RPI adjustment, as it amounts to an open admission that the primary, objective criterion doesn't make any sense. That would be especially true if it were between two teams in the situation where Minnesota and Wisconsin are right now (and which they won't be in come selection time), in which there aren't any other differences in the established criteria on which you could hang an argument.
So, yeah, I'm rooting for it to happen, because I want to see the maximum amount of egg possible on the faces of the people who insist on using this idiotic system.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
They can pile all the kludges in the world on top of RPI that they want, and it is still atrocious. I'd like to hear anyone in the country explain why it is that RPI is used.
Sure, but robertearle's point remains. If #3 gets more credit for beating #2 than vice versa, that is a strange reason to then conclude that #3 is better than #2.
They can pile all the kludges in the world on top of RPI that they want, and it is still atrocious. I'd like to hear anyone in the country explain why it is that RPI is used.
FredsDeadFriend
New member
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
Moreso in connection to my following college basketball, I've paid a ton of attention to a large # of different polls and rating systems and have found that a vast majority of cbb fans agree with me that the RPI rating system is probably the worst rating system out there.
And I haven't noticed that it works any better when rating college hockey teams, either.
Moreso in connection to my following college basketball, I've paid a ton of attention to a large # of different polls and rating systems and have found that a vast majority of cbb fans agree with me that the RPI rating system is probably the worst rating system out there.
And I haven't noticed that it works any better when rating college hockey teams, either.
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
Can I just say how terribly cynical it was of Wisco to schedule their OOC games against one bad team from each conference? It seems likely to be the best way to play the RPI game but there's absolutely no justification for it otherwise. The only thing you can say in their defense is that it looked like Dartmouth would be better this year than they have been.
Can I just say how terribly cynical it was of Wisco to schedule their OOC games against one bad team from each conference? It seems likely to be the best way to play the RPI game but there's absolutely no justification for it otherwise. The only thing you can say in their defense is that it looked like Dartmouth would be better this year than they have been.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
Wisconsin has never constructed its nonconference schedule based on the PairWise. Instead, one of the things that Mark Johnson tries to do is schedule series that will help grow the game. One way is to play games in non-traditional women's college hockey areas. The Badgers have played in Florida, Colorado, and for the second time, California. Providence was an opponent where such a series made sense. Johnson has scheduled Lindenwood every year as a way to help a geographical neighbor that is trying to build a program. Now that Lindenwood's coach is a former WCHA assistant, I'd say that is likely to continue. As for Dartmouth, it was better, right up until it played Wisconsin and never seemed to recover. The ECAC was hard to predict this year, and I think that BC got burned to some extent by that as well, as the Eagles didn't wind up playing any of the league's first-round hosts. Wisconsin played Clarkson a year ago, so I wonder if there is a return trip on that series planned for the future.
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
Given that these games have to be scheduled 2-3 years in advance with teams who can have common open dates and coaches who want the match I would guess it is pretty difficult to guess exactly what you are going up against in 2019. I, probably the most cynical person in the room (ask ARM), have a hard time blaming it all on coaches trying to manipulate rankings. Besides, why would WI, MN or BC be very concerned about that when the odds are so good that they are going to get an invite anyway? I could see a perennial 'bubble' team like UND maybe thinking like that but because of the lead time it would be tricky (ignoring the fact that UND has more trouble beating weak teams than it does beating MN/WI. Maybe they should schedule BC so they are motivated to actually try to play well?)
Given that these games have to be scheduled 2-3 years in advance with teams who can have common open dates and coaches who want the match I would guess it is pretty difficult to guess exactly what you are going up against in 2019. I, probably the most cynical person in the room (ask ARM), have a hard time blaming it all on coaches trying to manipulate rankings. Besides, why would WI, MN or BC be very concerned about that when the odds are so good that they are going to get an invite anyway? I could see a perennial 'bubble' team like UND maybe thinking like that but because of the lead time it would be tricky (ignoring the fact that UND has more trouble beating weak teams than it does beating MN/WI. Maybe they should schedule BC so they are motivated to actually try to play well?)
Last edited:
Re: 2015-2016 Division I Women's Hockey Scores & Results
zoofer, I have to give you a little grief because I've made the 2 1/2-hour drive north (and 2 1/2 hour drive home) twice in the same weekend for a regular-season series.
I understand your question, though -- you want to watch your team in the playoffs. Additionally, as the 4-5 series, that one could go either way and should be very entertaining. Hopefully someone knows the answer.
Moving my reply here as it's a less-awkward spot.
zoofer, I have to give you a little grief because I've made the 2 1/2-hour drive north (and 2 1/2 hour drive home) twice in the same weekend for a regular-season series.
I understand your question, though -- you want to watch your team in the playoffs. Additionally, as the 4-5 series, that one could go either way and should be very entertaining. Hopefully someone knows the answer.