2024 Pairwise Predictor

[robertearle]

In fairness to our conference mates, I would ask my Buckeye Siblings to remember the history. Over the years, UofM, UMD, UW & the late UND program have all been hit much, much harder by this problem than we ever have. Back when reducing the number of flights was everything, our Eastern Time Zone location gave us a partial immunity. Example: The first NCAA match-up with BC.

And the problem we were hit with was the "committee" mucking around with the bracket instead of letting the numbers dictate the bracket.

 

[pgb-ohio]

And the problem we were hit with was the "committee" mucking around with the bracket instead of letting the numbers dictate the bracket.

One of the best parts of the NCAA Tournament: The East/West match-ups. WAY too often the mucking had the effect of reducing those contests.

Leaning heavily on bracket integrity isn't a perfect fix. But in the long run, the current system is definitely better than where we were.

 

[ARM]

This season seems strange to me with a dozen teams in action this weekend, yet only two the losers of Hockey East and NEWHA are at risk of being eliminated. I guess that's largely a product of HEA not having an at-large candidate.

 

[Timothy A]

This season seems strange to me with a dozen teams in action this weekend, yet only two the losers of Hockey East and NEWHA are at risk of being eliminated. I guess that's largely a product of HEA not having an at-large candidate.

A rather anticlimactic end to the regular season.

 

[BowWowWow]

Looks like...
- Clarkson could be 2 if they and Ohio State both win tomorrow
- Clarkson is 3 if they and Wisconsin both win tomorrow
- Clarkson is 4 if Colgate and Wisconsin both win, placing UW 2 and Gate 3 (same order as if Colgate and Ohio State both win)
- winner of UConn-Northeastern is 9 (autobid)
- winner of Stonehill-Franklin Pierce is 11 (autobid)
OSU 1, Minnesota 5, Cornell 6, St. Lawrence 7, UMD 8, and Penn State 10
Wisconsin's win over Minnesota, also like other OT playoff wins, counts as a full win for PWR, I think.
Not sure, but this seems to be the Predictor's results, thanks to TTT!

 

[QuasiCosmos]

I didn't try all permutations, but given results of Friday's WCHA and ECAC semis it looks like the top four teams are now set with only their order of 2-4 in doubt.
OSU guaranteed #1. Clarkson could jump Wisconsin if Clarkson and OSU win. Colgate could jump Clarkson but not Wisconsin if Colgate wins even if Wisconsin loses. So Clarkson 2-4, Wisconsin 2-3, Colgate 3-4. And 5-8 are set as current. Am I missing anything?

(BowWowWow and I posted nearly simultaneously -- we've come to the same conclusion.)

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Did a little check of the Predictor and did find a small error I had in my results -- the RPI/Brown OT ECAC playoff game was incorrectly counting as a 67%/33% result (rather than a full win/full loss) because it was in my "regular season results" section (i.e. not on the Predictor page). It didn't have a material affect on the top 11, but I did fix it.

FWIW after fixing it, I did run the calc and it matches up with USCHO & the NCAA exactly*. So that's good!

*You can't tell this on your own because the Predictor doesn't submit results until you input all games, otherwise it would be running a lengthy calc every time you changed a game. But I entered the results through tonight offline to check and they do match.

 

[ARM]

I'm not sure what it says about our sport that three period into the HEA Championship, there are just as many comments on here regarding it as there are goals.

 

[robertearle]

I'm not sure what it says about our sport that three period into the HEA Championship, there are just as many comments on here regarding it as there are goals.

I was going to say something about the seven minutes straight of Northeastern penalty kill, but I wasn't sure what thread to put it on.

Congrats to UCONN on the crowd size, BTW.

 

[PSUfan]

I was going to say something about the seven minutes straight of Northeastern penalty kill, but I wasn't sure what thread to put it on.

Congrats to UCONN on the crowd size, BTW.

Congrats to UConn on their first conference championship and trip to the NCAA tournament! That was a hard fought battle.

 

[ARM]

... I wasn't sure what thread to put it on.

We don't have a lot of threads these days, so I just picked one.

Congrats to UCONN on the crowd size, BTW.

Agreed, and I second what PSUfan said as well. Nice to add another program to the list that have experienced the NCAAs!

 

[Reddington]

Chris Mackenzie, Niagara Falls Ontario native, head coach, finally gets UConn over Northeastern. Two previous tries, the third time is the charm.

 

[BowWowWow]

Congrats, UConn, Wisconsin, and Stonehill! The last championship, Colgate-Clarkson, is shaping up into a great game too.

 

[robertearle]

Discussion earlier about avoiding intra-conference matchups in the second round (ie first game for the #1-3 seeds):

If I have this right, to get there, you'd have to send Duluth/UConn to the ECAC winner and Cornell/Stonehill to Ohio State. That is, match up the #1 seed with the #6 instead of the #8, and the #3 with the #8 instead of the #6. Would they do that? And would the #1 seed be Ok with getting an opponent two spots better than they earned?

 

[dave1381]

If I have this right, to get there, you'd have to send Duluth/UConn to the ECAC winner and Cornell/Stonehill to Ohio State. That is, match up the #1 seed with the #6 instead of the #8, and the #3 with the #8 instead of the #6. Would they do that? And would the #1 seed be Ok with getting an opponent two spots better than they earned?

1v7, 2v6, 3v8 is also possible to avoid intraconference play, right?

So by the rules, the top three teams have each earned the right to play a team in the 6-8 band; those teams are to be allocated according to committee principles, which trade off "bracket integrity" vs avoiding intraconference matchups.

​​​​​​You raise the question, would better NCAA working principles be to deny discretion to allow 1 to play 6 for avoiding intraconference play? I say no. There are so few opportunities for east-west games, that dominates other considerations. The reality is the rankings are not precise or sacrosanct. Now when you have to pick a top 5 for byes or the 6 at-large teams, you have to use the rankings according to criteria determined ex ante — there is no other fair way. But with quarterfinal pairings, you have different stakes and an additional consideration, so the choice is different. We really don't have enough data to say whether Cornell & SLU had better seasons than UMD, so there is nothing tremendously unjust about sending the No. 8 in the rankings to the No. 3.

Now the first time the committee sent a #6 to #1, it was 2007 and #6 Harvard took #1 Wisconsin to 4OT in Julie Chu's final college game. So unfair to Wisconsin, right? But all the other 3 home teams lost. Wisconsin won the Frozen Four handily in Lake Placid, including a final vs. UMD, who would have been the quaterfinal opponent based on geography. It was a much better tournament to have the interconference quarterfinals than if they'd done UMD@Wisconsin and Harvard@Dartmouth that year.

 

[Sierra]

Discussion earlier about avoiding intra-conference matchups in the second round (ie first game for the #1-3 seeds):

If I have this right, to get there, you'd have to send Duluth/UConn to the ECAC winner and Cornell/Stonehill to Ohio State. That is, match up the #1 seed with the #6 instead of the #8, and the #3 with the #8 instead of the #6. Would they do that? And would the #1 seed be Ok with getting an opponent two spots better than they earned?

My opinion is yes. OSU would rather play anyone except the same opponent that they have played all year. That's the best way to grow the game and create the athlete experience. The more likely senerio is St. Lawrence and UCONN as the committee has all ready done that before so, presented has been established.

 

[pgb-ohio]

I'm with Dave & Sierra. Particularly agree with this paragraph from Dave:

You raise the question, would better NCAA working principles be to deny discretion to allow 1 to play 6 for avoiding intraconference play? I say no. There are so few opportunities for east-west games, that dominates other considerations. The reality is the rankings are not precise or sacrosanct. Now when you have to pick a top 5 for byes or the 6 at-large teams, you have to use the rankings according to criteria determined ex ante — there is no other fair way. But with quarterfinal pairings, you have different stakes and an additional consideration, so the choice is different. We really don't have enough data to say whether Cornell & SLU had better seasons than UMD, so there is nothing tremendously unjust about sending the No. 8 in the rankings to the No. 3.

At the same time, we all need to tread carefully here. Remember the old adage that good cases make bad law. Bracket integrity does serve as protection against greater evils.

That said, more East/West match-ups, please.

 

[QuasiCosmos]

Seems like lots of folks are forgetting there are three games before the quarterfinals. I'm not sure UMD is a shoe-in versus Connecticut (an east-west game) in a one-and-done. (And I think the Penn State - St. Lawrence match-up could be a close game.)

If the pairwise is used for some parts of the tournament seedings, it should be used throughout. Let's not change the rules at the end.

If the pairwise order is used for all the seedings and match-ups, and if the WCHA teams win all their games versus non-conference foes, there are guaranteed to be four games of WCHA versus "the rest of the world." Including one in the semi-finals. Wouldn't it be better for women's hockey if the semi-finals weren't just a one league series, which could be a possibility if Cornell and UMD were switched?

 

[pgb-ohio]

Seems like lots of folks are forgetting there are three games before the quarterfinals. I'm not sure UMD is a shoe-in versus Connecticut (an east-west game) in a one-and-done. (And I think the Penn State - St. Lawrence match-up could be a close game.)

Fair Point.

If the pairwise is used for some parts of the tournament seedings, it should be used throughout. Let's not change the rules at the end.

It wouldn't be changing the rules. See Post #56. A certain amount of discretion is authorized. It's a question of whether to use that discretion, or exercise restraint. The Pairwise numbers do give the Committee something of a safe harbor. But as per dave1381, let's not give those numbers a false precision.

If the pairwise order is used for all the seedings and match-ups, and if the WCHA teams win all their games versus non-conference foes, there are guaranteed to be four games of WCHA versus "the rest of the world." Including one in the semi-finals. Wouldn't it be better for women's hockey if the semi-finals weren't just a one league series, which could be a possibility if Cornell and UMD were switched?

No doubt that's a factor that the Committee will take into account.

At least for me -- and yes I'm repeating myself -- it should be a priority for each team to have a "national game" when they open the tournament. Even though East/West match-ups are the pick of the litter, you can certainly have inter-conference play without that. HEA vs. ECAC is inter-conference, though also East/East. WCHA vs. CHA is inter-conference, and I guess you could say that's West/Central.

First Round Byes do create problems. In the long term, this particular issue will likely fix itself as the tournament slowly expands. Meaning the number of byes is reduced. I do get the expansion will be slow, and painfully slow for die hard fans.

But looking at the Men's Tournament as an analogy, the problem is largely eliminated. With 16 teams, there are no longer any byes. Everybody plays in the first round. Meaning that everyone's "initial game" is in the first round. There are more potential opponents to work with. If 5 teams from the same conference qualify for the field of 16, then yes, the intra-conference match-up can rear its ugly head. But people seem to accept that particular scenario as acceptably infrequent.

 

[Timothy A]

My opinion is yes. OSU would rather play anyone except the same opponent that they have played all year. That's the best way to grow the game and create the athlete experience. The more likely senerio is St. Lawrence and UCONN as the committee has all ready done that before so, presented has been established.

The national tournament has nothing to do with growing the game and it's not about the player experience. It's about determining a national champion in the fairest way possible and that's it.