2017 Pairwise thread

[Crimson on the Glass]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

This past weekend in the Big Ten, Michigan State scored ONE GOAL in two games against Minnesota (lost 4-0 and then 1-1 tie the next night). They won a shootout and advanced. Their record is 7-23-4. Yes, those apparently are the "league rules," but that "tie-breaking" method is different than what is used in other leagues. That affects the PWR, because if they win the tournament they will have knocked out a bubble team. And some could question that a shootout gives a lesser talented team a more equal chance to win an OT game. Just saying...

That's interesting, but I am confused by what you say about the team "advancing". My understanding is that last weekend was regular season for the Big Ten, and that regardless of what happens all season, all six of the Big Ten [sic] teams make the playoff bracket for this weekend, yes? So I don't think there has been no advancing yet, but rather just some seeding arrangements for a 6 team tournament. And if a team with 7 wins on the season can run the table through their conference tournament, winning 3 games on 3 consecutive nights, by their conference rules on tie breakers, etc. well good for them.

Maybe you think the NCAA should raise the number of conference teams required before an auto-bid is awarded? As a fan of a team in a 12-team conference, I can relate.

 

[MplsSioux]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

This past weekend in the Big Ten, Michigan State scored ONE GOAL in two games against Minnesota (lost 4-0 and then 1-1 tie the next night). They won a shootout and advanced. Their record is 7-23-4. Yes, those apparently are the "league rules," but that "tie-breaking" method is different than what is used in other leagues. That affects the PWR, because if they win the tournament they will have knocked out a bubble team. And some could question that a shootout gives a lesser talented team a more equal chance to win an OT game. Just saying...

The Big 10 tournament starts this coming weekend, not last week, so your example doesn't make sense when you state Michigan State "advanced".

 

[Riz]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

Agreed. There are other reasons to not have this game--the biggest being increased injury risk for NCAA bound teams. The only ones who want it are those clawing at the door to get in. I agree with the consistency comment too. NCAA dictates so much else--for example no three stars awarded in conference tournies. Why not this?

Do the pros outweigh the cons? There's a SMALL chance of another bid from NCHC resulting from the 3rd place game. I honestly think they have a third place game because UNLIKE Hockey East, fans have to travel pretty far to get to the NCHC tournament and it would be kind of a buzz kill to see your team only play one game, and unlike the regionals or Frozen Four, there might not be a season on the line in the advancement or in this case conference championship game. If you're going, it's (kind of) cool to know you'll for sure get to see your team play two games.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

That's interesting, but I am confused by what you say about the team "advancing". My understanding is that last weekend was regular season for the Big Ten, and that regardless of what happens all season, all six of the Big Ten [sic] teams make the playoff bracket for this weekend, yes? So I don't think there has been no advancing yet, but rather just some seeding arrangements for a 6 team tournament. And if a team with 7 wins on the season can run the table through their conference tournament, winning 3 games on 3 consecutive nights, by their conference rules on tie breakers, etc. well good for them.

Maybe you think the NCAA should raise the number of conference teams required before an auto-bid is awarded? As a fan of a team in a 12-team conference, I can relate.

This. The B1G fail having 6 teams and getting a bid seems wrong- elitist bias instead of Eastern Bias.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

That's interesting, but I am confused by what you say about the team "advancing". My understanding is that last weekend was regular season for the Big Ten, and that regardless of what happens all season, all six of the Big Ten [sic] teams make the playoff bracket for this weekend, yes? So I don't think there has been no advancing yet, but rather just some seeding arrangements for a 6 team tournament. And if a team with 7 wins on the season can run the table through their conference tournament, winning 3 games on 3 consecutive nights, by their conference rules on tie breakers, etc. well good for them.

Maybe you think the NCAA should raise the number of conference teams required before an auto-bid is awarded? As a fan of a team in a 12-team conference, I can relate.

The Big 10 tournament starts this coming weekend, not last week, so your example doesn't make sense when you state Michigan State "advanced".

This. The B1G fail having 6 teams and getting a bid seems wrong- elitist bias instead of Eastern Bias.

The reason for the BTHC in the first place is a Big 10 rule that requires member institutions to play in a nominal Big 10 conference whenever 6 or more of the Affiliated schools offer that sport. Thus, when Penn State appeared with hockey, it was a conference mandate. I do not entirely think it coincidental that the NCAA auto-bid rule also mandates 6 teams.

I do not know if the NCAA auto bid rule covers more than hockey, and I do not think that Alvarez and company intentionally instituted the 6 team rule because of hockey, but I do think there is a connection there somehow.

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

Don't RS shootouts count as ties for PWR purposes?

 

[Patman]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

Don't RS shootouts count as ties for PWR purposes?

A-yup

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

A-yup

So then what's the argument being made here?

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

So then what's the argument being made here?

Argument being made here in the first place was:

Since NCAA rules dictate that all RS games which end after 5 minutes of OT are counted as ties for PWR purposes, then tournament games should have a format like this:
1- If the game is tied after 60 minutes, play a 5-min OT. If someone scores in the 5 min, game over. Scoring team gets a win, other team gets a loss.
2- If the game is still tied at the 5:00 horn, the game counts as a tie for PWR purposes, and the league can use whatever method they want to determine a winner after that (this also applies in holiday games).
3- If, as is usually the case, a conference decides to use 20 min OT periods and sudden death to determine the winner of the game, the team who scores gets a W for that tournament's purposes ONLY. To the NCAA, it should still be a tie, because it was tied after 5:00 OT
4- In that way, all games are the same to the NCAA.

Many find this a foolish rule, and prefer, the "Rules are determined before the game starts. Everyone knows it's continuous 20-min OT periods, with a W and an L at the end. That's fair!!!" method. Including me. I like the continuous OT. Save the ties for the reg season.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

Several things I disagree with here.

First, I agree that there should be a greater intensity for teams who need to win to qualify. So, the BC thing, I agree. Also, the AHA. I agree. AHA and WCHA won't affect the field much, however. Only the possibility of an Air Force at-large really matters there.

BUT...To say that Western has lots of reason to play really hard because a #1 seed is at stake is a big stretch, imo.

I agree that Minnesota is inconsistent. They could easily lose Friday night. However, there is no way for them to fall below #8. So, there is no way for them to play UMD. Now, if you mean NoDak, I would agree. However, again, there you have the problem of the HE logjam in the 2nd and 3rd bands.

Lots can happen, for lots of reasons.....

Yep, just interesting to see the effects of multiple auto-bids on the final placings. A BC win, An AF loss. etc.I agree though, it's different playing for a seeding than it is to get in at all.

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

Argument being made here in the first place was:

Since NCAA rules dictate that all RS games which end after 5 minutes of OT are counted as ties for PWR purposes, then tournament games should have a format like this:
1- If the game is tied after 60 minutes, play a 5-min OT. If someone scores in the 5 min, game over. Scoring team gets a win, other team gets a loss.
2- If the game is still tied at the 5:00 horn, the game counts as a tie for PWR purposes, and the league can use whatever method they want to determine a winner after that (this also applies in holiday games).
3- If, as is usually the case, a conference decides to use 20 min OT periods and sudden death to determine the winner of the game, the team who scores gets a W for that tournament's purposes ONLY. To the NCAA, it should still be a tie, because it was tied after 5:00 OT
4- In that way, all games are the same to the NCAA.

Many find this a foolish rule, and prefer, the "Rules are determined before the game starts. Everyone knows it's continuous 20-min OT periods, with a W and an L at the end. That's fair!!!" method. Including me. I like the continuous OT. Save the ties for the reg season.

Would now be a bad time to bring up that Beanpot OT games count as wins and losses if they go more than 5:00 into OT?

 

[Numbers]

Would now be a bad time to bring up that Beanpot OT games count as wins and losses if they go more than 5:00 into OT?

This is the reason i mentioned holiday games. They also have their ground rules. As long as everyone knows ahead of time, I'm fine with it.

 

[Riz]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

This. The B1G fail having 6 teams and getting a bid seems wrong- elitist bias instead of Eastern Bias.

Clearly you weren't following college hockey when the CHA "College Hockey America" conference was around or you would not be complaining about the BIG 10 getting a automatic bid. That conference was horrendous.

That's interesting, but I am confused by what you say about the team "advancing". My understanding is that last weekend was regular season for the Big Ten, and that regardless of what happens all season, all six of the Big Ten [sic] teams make the playoff bracket for this weekend, yes? So I don't think there has been no advancing yet, but rather just some seeding arrangements for a 6 team tournament. And if a team with 7 wins on the season can run the table through their conference tournament, winning 3 games on 3 consecutive nights, by their conference rules on tie breakers, etc. well good for them.

Maybe you think the NCAA should raise the number of conference teams required before an auto-bid is awarded? As a fan of a team in a 12-team conference, I can relate.

The number of teams in a conference is almost irrelevant. At least with the Big 10 they have SOME quality teams. You've beaten some pretty good teams if you win that conference tournament, even though you only have to win 3 games over one weekend for the worst team in the conference. Also, the scenario you mentioned with a "7 win team" winning the Big 10 hasn't even happened yet, so why complain about it? On top of that, they are adding a 7th team next season. I'm guessing they will have a two weekend conference tournament with the #1 team getting a bye into the semi-finals and #2/#7, #3/#6, #4/#5 will play each other (2 out of 3) at the better seeds site.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

Clearly you weren't following college hockey when the CHA "College Hockey America" conference was around or you would not be complaining about the BIG 10 getting a automatic bid. That conference was horrendous.

The number of teams in a conference is almost irrelevant. At least with the Big 10 they have SOME quality teams. You've beaten some pretty good teams if you win that conference tournament, even though you only have to win 3 games over one weekend for the worst team in the conference. Also, the scenario you mentioned with a "7 win team" winning the Big 10 hasn't even happened yet, so why complain about it? On top of that, they are adding a 7th team next season. I'm guessing they will have a two weekend conference tournament with the #1 team getting a bye into the semi-finals and #2/#7, #3/#6, #4/#5 will play each other (2 out of 3) at the better seeds site.

Clearly what the previous conference was like is irrelevant to what is happening now. Basically the teams can all lay and egg and still get into the playoffs so... Still doesn't seem right.

 

[Riz]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

Clearly what the previous conference was like is irrelevant to what is happening now. Basically the teams can all lay and egg and still get into the playoffs so... Still doesn't seem right.

Well... they'd likely have to face the #1 team in the country in NCAA tournament if that's any consolation. Also, this is probably the last year that a team in the Big-10 could have one good weekend and a terrible season and get into the NCAAs so there's that.

 

[Patman]

Clearly what the previous conference was like is irrelevant to what is happening now. Basically the teams can all lay and egg and still get into the playoffs so... Still doesn't seem right.

That's up to the conference

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

Well... they'd likely have to face the #1 team in the country in NCAA tournament if that's any consolation. Also, this is probably the last year that a team in the Big-10 could have one good weekend and a terrible season and get into the NCAAs so there's that.

Correct. Notre Dame joins next year, and in the Conference Tournament, only the Reg Season champ will get a bye. The others play 2 out of 3 at campus sites the first week. Semi Finals on campus (single game) 2nd week. Championship (single game) 3rd week. Plus I am guessing it will be a full home/home regular season, so 24-games. That means that conference play will require 15 weeks, where it only requires 11 now.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

So correct me if i'm wrong here. If PSU loses tonight they are essentially out. Same for OSU. If UND wins one game this weekend, they will be a 3, and if they lose both they will likely be a 4 seed and that means all hell breaks loose because that means DU will not be in Fargo. AF wins out they are a three. WMU has to win one this weekend to get a 1. ? And BC could cause serious headaches by beating BU. Some great viewing for sure.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

So correct me if i'm wrong here. If PSU loses tonight they are essentially out. Same for OSU. If UND wins one game this weekend, they will be a 3, and if they lose both they will likely be a 4 seed and that means all hell breaks loose because that means DU will not be in Fargo. AF wins out they are a three. WMU has to win one this weekend to get a 1. ? And BC could cause serious headaches by beating BU. Some great viewing for sure.

Basically correct.
PSU has apparently a 25% or so chance to get in, even with a loss.
OSU less than that, but it's not hopeless.
NoDak will be a 3 with a win, except for a very slight chance (less than 1%). Tie in the 3rd place game would be interesting. Lose 2 and it's more likely than not they are the 4th seed, and you are correct - Denver and Duluth couldn't go to Fargo.
AF is very very likely a 3 with 2 wins.
WMU: Win 2 and they are #4 overall. Win 1 and it's a 50% proposition for them. Depends on BU and Minn
BC: Right. If they win against BU, it really shakes things up.


And, apparently there is a scenario where BC is in with a loss. The reason for that is that the BC/Providence comparison is the ONLY ONE on the whole chart where the lower team in RPI wins the compare. So, BC slips ahead of Providence, and the RPI gap in the entire table falls right between Prov at #15 in RPI and BC at #16, and it's a huge gap. Every one on the top side qualifies, and every below misses out. But, BC steals the Prov compare, and takes the last spot. This is a very detailed scenario, because the result has the feature that, although Prov has an RPI about .0100 better than BC, they still lose the compare to everyone above them based on RPI alone. If any of those teams comes out with an RPI between Prov and BC, then Prov wins the compare with that team (Team X), but BC loses it on RPI, and that leaves PROV and BC tied in the full table, and BC loses that tiebreak on RPI basis.

 

[Numbers]

Re: 2017 Pairwise thread

A loss here greatly diminishes Ohio State's chances. They would need for all favorites to win the respective conference tournaments.