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.
Annual change to PWR announced.
- Thread starter Alton
- Start date
Happy
Registered User
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
someone who knows hockey even less than barry alvarez
someone who knows hockey even less than barry alvarez
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
Whatever happens, I hope that somebody is able to get a clarification as to whether my, Alton's, or some other form of calculation is correct. I think we rightfully take pride in having an "objective" system. Its certainly not perfect, but it is transparent.
Whatever happens, I hope that somebody is able to get a clarification as to whether my, Alton's, or some other form of calculation is correct. I think we rightfully take pride in having an "objective" system. Its certainly not perfect, but it is transparent.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
The example provided by the NCAA:
So using the example provided before
So COp is Michigan 1+1+1+0+.5+1+.5= 5.0000 > UMD = .25+.5+1+.5+.5+1+.75= 4.5
Michigan wins the comparison 5 > 4.5833
Michigan still wins the overall comparison 3-0
It's going to be fun to see how long it takes the programming wizards at SS.com and slack.net to accurately duplicate the new format.
The example provided by the NCAA:
So using the example provided before
Michigan = 1.0000 UMD=.2500
Michigan = 1.0000 UMD = .5000
Michigan = 1.0000 UMD = 1.0000
Michigan = .0000 UMD = .5000
Michigan = .5000 UMD = .5000
Michigan = 1.0000 UMD = 1.0000
Michigan = .5000 UMD = .7500
So COp is Michigan 1+1+1+0+.5+1+.5= 5.0000 > UMD = .25+.5+1+.5+.5+1+.75= 4.5
Michigan wins the comparison 5 > 4.5833
Michigan still wins the overall comparison 3-0
It's going to be fun to see how long it takes the programming wizards at SS.com and slack.net to accurately duplicate the new format.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
After analyzing the Pairwise from last year not a single comparison changed among teams that were in the NCAA tournament or on the bubble. I examined the comparisons where flipping the winner of the COp component would make a difference (ie 1-1, 3-2 etc) and there were no changes. The team that won the COp component in the original Pairwise won with this new formula. So I'm not sure why this rule had to be changed.
After analyzing the Pairwise from last year not a single comparison changed among teams that were in the NCAA tournament or on the bubble. I examined the comparisons where flipping the winner of the COp component would make a difference (ie 1-1, 3-2 etc) and there were no changes. The team that won the COp component in the original Pairwise won with this new formula. So I'm not sure why this rule had to be changed.
Ralph Baer
Let's Go 'Tute!
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
To show their usefulness in these days of diminishing budgets?
To show their usefulness in these days of diminishing budgets?
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
If I had functioning code around it'd take only a few seconds... not that difficult.... I just mocked up the change in 4 lines of code but I decided that'd be too nerdy to show. Everything is just convenient subsetting.
If I had functioning code around it'd take only a few seconds... not that difficult.... I just mocked up the change in 4 lines of code but I decided that'd be too nerdy to show. Everything is just convenient subsetting.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
I'm sure RHamilton has updated his code already.
I'm sure RHamilton has updated his code already.
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
Has there ever been a change that helps the smaller conferences? The only thing I can think of that had potential was the change to what qualifies a team as a TUC to help get even the smaller numbers over the number of teams needed to make the comparison relevant.
Has there ever been a change that helps the smaller conferences? The only thing I can think of that had potential was the change to what qualifies a team as a TUC to help get even the smaller numbers over the number of teams needed to make the comparison relevant.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
I missed alton's comment... I think this is probably technically true (more likely to go 3-1-0 from a small conf vs. 7-5-0 from a big if you're looking at big v. small)... but even then I'm not sure that it really is the case... and if it is, that this revision isn't bad in itself.
I'm not going to lose much sleep over the change... i think they're probably trying to change what they think is a weird and lop-sided dynamic. Unless somebody gives me some evidence one way or another I think its a toss-up.
I missed alton's comment... I think this is probably technically true (more likely to go 3-1-0 from a small conf vs. 7-5-0 from a big if you're looking at big v. small)... but even then I'm not sure that it really is the case... and if it is, that this revision isn't bad in itself.
I'm not going to lose much sleep over the change... i think they're probably trying to change what they think is a weird and lop-sided dynamic. Unless somebody gives me some evidence one way or another I think its a toss-up.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
I think that depends on factors which aren't being considered even under the new system, whether you're right or I'm right. Given the minimal circumstances at issue, we could both probably come up with a multitude of various scenarios to support either outcome. To use your example, what if the teams only played one game each against the first common opponent (with A going 1-0, and B going 0-1), but 4 or 6 games each against the 2nd two opponents.
Edit: Just saw the NCAA clarification. So you were right, but I stand by my comments above, too.
I think that depends on factors which aren't being considered even under the new system, whether you're right or I'm right. Given the minimal circumstances at issue, we could both probably come up with a multitude of various scenarios to support either outcome. To use your example, what if the teams only played one game each against the first common opponent (with A going 1-0, and B going 0-1), but 4 or 6 games each against the 2nd two opponents.
Edit: Just saw the NCAA clarification. So you were right, but I stand by my comments above, too.
Last edited:
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
Not having an effect on who made the tournament in 2011 is a good sign. That means that it is less likely that this is a reactionary change due to someone with power being miffed. It makes it more likely that they think this is a true improvement.
Honestly, I think I like it better. It cancels out slight advantages for playing an uneven number of games.
It really increases the value of winning non-conference games. It will be a lot harder to compensate for a .000 on your COp than an 0-1.
Not having an effect on who made the tournament in 2011 is a good sign. That means that it is less likely that this is a reactionary change due to someone with power being miffed. It makes it more likely that they think this is a true improvement.
Honestly, I think I like it better. It cancels out slight advantages for playing an uneven number of games.
It really increases the value of winning non-conference games. It will be a lot harder to compensate for a .000 on your COp than an 0-1.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
But, as the previous poster pointed out, it helps tell us if it's a knee jerk reaction to something that just happened. If the question is "Why make this change?" - it's reasonable to look at the most recent season to try to determine the rationale.
But, as the previous poster pointed out, it helps tell us if it's a knee jerk reaction to something that just happened. If the question is "Why make this change?" - it's reasonable to look at the most recent season to try to determine the rationale.
texashockeycoach
Registered User
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
I would expect that this could factor into ND's decision in either joining another conference or going independent. Obviously it wouldn't be the main consideration but if it could be proven that their PWR would be better served as an independent by chosing who they play, I think it could be complelling for them to go independent.
I would expect that this could factor into ND's decision in either joining another conference or going independent. Obviously it wouldn't be the main consideration but if it could be proven that their PWR would be better served as an independent by chosing who they play, I think it could be complelling for them to go independent.
Re: Annual change to PWR announced.
There were some women's coaches who definitely want to make their committee more rigid like the men's, but I think having some discretion is good unless you want to spell out every contingency like that Mercyhurst/Minnesota situation above. Clearly the men decided to take another step in that direction of spelling out another contingency. The women apparently decided not to change anything this year (their committee agenda is blank except for this year's autobids). But I think the women's committee has been interpreting the common opponent comparison like the new men's rule already anyway and will continue to do so.
So yes, my theory is the men realized what would've happened to their criteria on the women's side last year and decided to change it. It's not unprecedented -- I believe the women did the weird RPI tweaks of dropping games that lower RPI before the men did (women started it in 03-04), and hockey people talk to each other. I have no evidence the men basically adopted the rule from the women's committee's precedent, but if anyone has a better theory of where the idea came from, by all means.
It was an issue in women's hockey this year, where Mercyhurst was 4th in the USCHO PWR mainly due to a phony common opponent advantage where they went 5-0 against a CHA team that Minnesota played once. But the women's committee ended up putting Mercyhurst 6th anyway. The women's committee has a bit more flexibility than the men do, where the system is spelled out precisely. If the women's committee had as strict legislation as the men's, then Mercyhurst would've been No. 4 -- and then WCHA teams would have good reason to never schedule CHA teams ever again.
There were some women's coaches who definitely want to make their committee more rigid like the men's, but I think having some discretion is good unless you want to spell out every contingency like that Mercyhurst/Minnesota situation above. Clearly the men decided to take another step in that direction of spelling out another contingency. The women apparently decided not to change anything this year (their committee agenda is blank except for this year's autobids). But I think the women's committee has been interpreting the common opponent comparison like the new men's rule already anyway and will continue to do so.
So yes, my theory is the men realized what would've happened to their criteria on the women's side last year and decided to change it. It's not unprecedented -- I believe the women did the weird RPI tweaks of dropping games that lower RPI before the men did (women started it in 03-04), and hockey people talk to each other. I have no evidence the men basically adopted the rule from the women's committee's precedent, but if anyone has a better theory of where the idea came from, by all means.