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.

2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

PSUChamps2001 said:
<TABLE> <tr><td> TEAM </TD><TD> WIN % </TD><TD> SOS </TD><TD> RNK </TD></TR>
<tr><td> NORWICH </TD><TD> 0.881 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.750 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> OSWEGO </TD><TD> 0.804 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> AMHERST </TD><TD> 0.605 </TD><TD> 0.536 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> WILLIAMS </TD><TD> 0.659 </TD><TD> 0.534 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> UTICA </TD><TD> 0.708 </TD><TD> 0.516 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HOBART </TD><TD> 0.739 </TD><TD> 0.526 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> ENDICOTT </TD><TD> 0.8 </TD><TD> 0.538 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> PLATTSBURGH </TD><TD> 0.63 </TD><TD> 0.513 </TD><TD> 0.400 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HAMILTON </TD><TD> 0.762 </TD><TD> 0.502 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> BABSON </TD><TD> 0.643 </TD><TD> 0.547 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> GENESEO </TD><TD> 0.717 </TD><TD> 0.495 </TD><TD> 0.167 </TD></TR> </TABLE>
Click to expand...

Where'd the RNK come from? Did you pull it from the various teams results?? It looks like that's what you did. Thanks for the effort. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Just received word from USCHO that D3 Pairwise info has been "taken down", "because the D-III committees don't adhere to the PairWise calculations like they do in D-I".
I have asked for clarification.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Just to compare....

Stats based on NCAA SOS

<TABLE> <tr><td> TEAM </TD><TD> WIN % </TD><TD> SOS </TD><TD> RNK </TD><TD> KRACH SOS </TD><TD> SOS RNK </TD></TR>
<tr><td> BABSON </TD><TD> 0.643 </TD><TD> 0.547 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD><TD> 138.0 </TD><TD> 7 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> ENDICOTT </TD><TD> 0.8 </TD><TD> 0.538 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 108.5 </TD><TD> 38 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> AMHERST </TD><TD> 0.605 </TD><TD> 0.536 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD><TD> 160.4 </TD><TD> 2 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> WILLIAMS </TD><TD> 0.659 </TD><TD> 0.534 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 162.8 </TD><TD> 1 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HOBART </TD><TD> 0.739 </TD><TD> 0.526 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 139.4 </TD><TD> 5 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> UTICA </TD><TD> 0.708 </TD><TD> 0.516 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 127.8 </TD><TD> 24 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> NORWICH </TD><TD> 0.881 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.750 </TD><TD> 122.0 </TD><TD> 29 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> OSWEGO </TD><TD> 0.804 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD><TD> 132.3 </TD><TD> 17 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HAMILTON </TD><TD> 0.762 </TD><TD> 0.502 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD><TD> 133.8 </TD><TD> 14 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> GENESEO </TD><TD> 0.717 </TD><TD> 0.495 </TD><TD> 0.167 </TD><TD> 127.6 </TD><TD> 25 </TD></TR> </TABLE>


Stats based on KRACH SOS

<TABLE> <tr><td> TEAM </TD><TD> WIN % </TD><TD> SOS </TD><TD> RNK </TD><TD> KRACH SOS </TD><TD> SOS RNK </TD></TR>
<tr><td> WILLIAMS </TD><TD> 0.659 </TD><TD> 0.534 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 162.8 </TD><TD> 1 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> AMHERST </TD><TD> 0.605 </TD><TD> 0.536 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD><TD> 160.4 </TD><TD> 2 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HOBART </TD><TD> 0.739 </TD><TD> 0.526 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 139.4 </TD><TD> 5 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> BABSON </TD><TD> 0.643 </TD><TD> 0.547 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD><TD> 138.0 </TD><TD> 7 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HAMILTON </TD><TD> 0.762 </TD><TD> 0.502 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD><TD> 133.8 </TD><TD> 14 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> OSWEGO </TD><TD> 0.804 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD><TD> 132.3 </TD><TD> 17 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> UTICA </TD><TD> 0.708 </TD><TD> 0.516 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 127.8 </TD><TD> 24 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> GENESEO </TD><TD> 0.717 </TD><TD> 0.495 </TD><TD> 0.167 </TD><TD> 127.6 </TD><TD> 25 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> NORWICH </TD><TD> 0.881 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.750 </TD><TD> 122.0 </TD><TD> 29 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> ENDICOTT </TD><TD> 0.8 </TD><TD> 0.538 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 108.5 </TD><TD> 38 </TD></TR> </TABLE>


Tell me there isn't a little bit of an issue here....You go from 2nd overall , to dead last on the list...and WAY dead last.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

joecct said:
XYZ - are the rankings an opinion or do they base them on the numbers?
Click to expand...

As I've already written one opus tonight, let's say this: I believe those who have served on the regional committees over the past what, 4-5 years(?), have done a tremendous job of playing it straight by the numbers which has helped alleviate many of the formerly widespread, and perhaps warranted, concerns that people in positions of power were shamelessly manipulating the process. For that, they deserve a lot of credit.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

XYZ said:
As I've already written one opus tonight, let's say this: I believe those who have served on the regional committees over the past what, 4-5 years(?), have done a tremendous job of playing it straight by the numbers which has helped alleviate many of the formerly widespread, and perhaps warranted, concerns that people in positions of power were shamelessly manipulating the process. For that, they deserve a lot of credit.
Click to expand...

Here Here Webb. We may not agree with the numbers, but from what I can see so far, the numbers don't lie and where they should be. The Endicott SoS is the only real major issue (not saying its the wrong number), but just shows you don't have to play the best/hardest to raise up that SoS using the NCAA calculator. Exactly what I said years ago about having these "mid-major" conferences. With the birth of such conferences, the NCAA really needs to rethink their calculations of such SoS. We could all (or most of us) be way off on Endicott, but after all the *****ing and complaining back with 1-loss Adrian this is a real slap in the face. Adrian was "penalized" (IMO) because their opponents played teams from the old NCHA/MIAC and loss. Yet, Endicott's opponents have mostly played against teams from the MASCAC (with all due respect can I get a princess clap)...

But none the less, the committee went by the numbers...black and white...
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Ok. So you can talk about numbers, formulas, analytics and parties in political power:), but anyone who actually watches college hockey knows that the way these rankings stack up are completely absurd. I am guessing that those that devise these are southern athletic directors of Division I football:):)
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

XYZ said:
As I've already written one opus tonight, let's say this: I believe those who have served on the regional committees over the past what, 4-5 years(?), have done a tremendous job of playing it straight by the numbers which has helped alleviate many of the formerly widespread, and perhaps warranted, concerns that people in positions of power were shamelessly manipulating the process. For that, they deserve a lot of credit.
Click to expand...

Just read the opus. Having now watched this process, and tried to learn vs whine for a number of years, I appreciate the efforts of those people as well. The most telling note for me in the opus was the observation that RNK was not used to create the first set of "rankings". Once that is understood the remaining criteria could well yield the results announced.
Could.
 
Last edited:
Ronnieb said:
Ok. So you can talk about numbers, formulas, analytics and parties in political power:), but anyone who actually watches college hockey knows that the way these rankings stack up are completely absurd. I am guessing that those that devise these are southern athletic directors of Division I football:):)
Click to expand...


With all due respect oh wise one, what would your rankings be?
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

PSUChamps2001 said:
Just to compare....

Stats based on NCAA SOS

<TABLE> <tr><td> TEAM </TD><TD> WIN % </TD><TD> SOS </TD><TD> RNK </TD><TD> KRACH SOS </TD><TD> SOS RNK </TD></TR>
<tr><td> BABSON </TD><TD> 0.643 </TD><TD> 0.547 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD><TD> 138.0 </TD><TD> 7 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> ENDICOTT </TD><TD> 0.8 </TD><TD> 0.538 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 108.5 </TD><TD> 38 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> AMHERST </TD><TD> 0.605 </TD><TD> 0.536 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD><TD> 160.4 </TD><TD> 2 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> WILLIAMS </TD><TD> 0.659 </TD><TD> 0.534 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 162.8 </TD><TD> 1 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HOBART </TD><TD> 0.739 </TD><TD> 0.526 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 139.4 </TD><TD> 5 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> UTICA </TD><TD> 0.708 </TD><TD> 0.516 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 127.8 </TD><TD> 24 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> NORWICH </TD><TD> 0.881 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.750 </TD><TD> 122.0 </TD><TD> 29 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> OSWEGO </TD><TD> 0.804 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD><TD> 132.3 </TD><TD> 17 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HAMILTON </TD><TD> 0.762 </TD><TD> 0.502 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD><TD> 133.8 </TD><TD> 14 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> GENESEO </TD><TD> 0.717 </TD><TD> 0.495 </TD><TD> 0.167 </TD><TD> 127.6 </TD><TD> 25 </TD></TR> </TABLE>


Stats based on KRACH SOS

<TABLE> <tr><td> TEAM </TD><TD> WIN % </TD><TD> SOS </TD><TD> RNK </TD><TD> KRACH SOS </TD><TD> SOS RNK </TD></TR>
<tr><td> WILLIAMS </TD><TD> 0.659 </TD><TD> 0.534 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 162.8 </TD><TD> 1 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> AMHERST </TD><TD> 0.605 </TD><TD> 0.536 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD><TD> 160.4 </TD><TD> 2 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HOBART </TD><TD> 0.739 </TD><TD> 0.526 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 139.4 </TD><TD> 5 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> BABSON </TD><TD> 0.643 </TD><TD> 0.547 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD><TD> 138.0 </TD><TD> 7 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> HAMILTON </TD><TD> 0.762 </TD><TD> 0.502 </TD><TD> 0.333 </TD><TD> 133.8 </TD><TD> 14 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> OSWEGO </TD><TD> 0.804 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.700 </TD><TD> 132.3 </TD><TD> 17 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> UTICA </TD><TD> 0.708 </TD><TD> 0.516 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 127.8 </TD><TD> 24 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> GENESEO </TD><TD> 0.717 </TD><TD> 0.495 </TD><TD> 0.167 </TD><TD> 127.6 </TD><TD> 25 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> NORWICH </TD><TD> 0.881 </TD><TD> 0.505 </TD><TD> 0.750 </TD><TD> 122.0 </TD><TD> 29 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> ENDICOTT </TD><TD> 0.8 </TD><TD> 0.538 </TD><TD> 0.500 </TD><TD> 108.5 </TD><TD> 38 </TD></TR> </TABLE>


Tell me there isn't a little bit of an issue here....You go from 2nd overall , to dead last on the list...and WAY dead last.
Click to expand...

This would take issue with something I saw quoted earlier:

"Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post
They have been functionally identical for a few years now. Give up the shell-game, already."
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Here is a table for NCAA East Ranking vs KRACH East Ranking.....

<TABLE> <tr><td> # </TD><TD> TEAM </TD><TD> EAST KRACH # </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 1 </TD><TD> NORWICH </TD><TD> 1 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 2 </TD><TD> ENDICOTT </TD><TD> 4 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 3 </TD><TD> OSWEGO </TD><TD> 2 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 4 </TD><TD> HOBART </TD><TD> 5 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 5 </TD><TD> BABSON </TD><TD> 11 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 6 </TD><TD> WILLIAMS </TD><TD> 7 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 7 </TD><TD> HAMILTON </TD><TD> 3 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 8 </TD><TD> UTICA </TD><TD> 8 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 9 </TD><TD> GENESEO </TD><TD> 6 </TD></TR>
<tr><td> 10 </TD><TD> AMHERST </TD><TD> 12 </TD></TR> </TABLE>
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

cetihcra said:
Record vs. Ranked doesn't apply until next week.
Oz's SOS is exactly the same as NU, .505. Endicott is .538.

r
Click to expand...

That's the bizarre part of the RNK metric. It applies to the current rankings.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

spwood said:
Both rankings are dubious at best. I am seriously wondering whether there is an error in the Endicott men's SOS calculation. How can they possibly have that high an SOS with that schedule?
Click to expand...

SOS rankings for teams that play an insular schedule in a mediocre league can be vastly influence by the few outside games the teams played. It's the way it works, and why I warned people that the KRACH SOS metric means nothing.
 
NUProf said:
That's the bizarre part of the RNK metric. It applies to the current rankings.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Your point regarding the oddly circular nature of it is valid...when it's applied. But it isn't being applied yet.
 
Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

XYZ said:
No it doesn't. Your point regarding the oddly circular nature of it is valid...when it's applied. But it isn't being applied yet.
Click to expand...

Interesting, because the definition of the metric as I read it says it is applied to the current rankings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top