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.

Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

GB Puck Fan said:
The NCAA, by virtue of what its members want, runs tournaments of conference championship teams, with other teams added in to fill out the field. There is no claim that it is the best X number of teams in the field. Never has been. Presumably, the schools like this because it is in place and gives all of them – except for a few independents - an equal shot at getting to the National tournament.

Schools such as Saint Norbert like this. In most sports, the Midwest conference may not be strong enough to get an at-large bid to the field. But as a conference member it knows it has that opportunity

The problem for hockey and also for football is that there are too few, seemingly, at large beds available. Moreso in football, where the 6.5:1 ratio isn’t followed. The upshot? Win your conference tournament or worry.

And given SNC’s season, I think it has to win the Harris Cup or it will stay home. It happens. Does seem odd after the league got three bids last year, but so be it.

Maybe we need a NASCAR-style champions spot! ;)
Click to expand...

Good post, but to take this discussion to its logical extreme, 66% of the D-3 NC tournament field could possibly be composed of teams that have absolutely no business being in it. I find that ridiculous.

Being realistic, I do concede that the tournament AQ's are not going away for a small number of highly suspect "reasons"... All I can possibly hope-for is that one fine day when/if simple logic prevails, at least they'll be handed-out to RS conference winners.
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

Fishman'81 said:
Good post, but to take this discussion to its logical extreme, 66% of the D-3 NC tournament field could possibly be composed of teams that have absolutely no business being in it. I find that ridiculous.

Being realistic, I do concede that the tournament AQ's are not going away for a small number of highly suspect "reasons"... All I can possibly hope-for is that one fine day when/if simple logic prevails, at least they'll be handed-out to RS conference winners.
Click to expand...

What is "suspect"? The conference want their tournament champion in the NCAA tournament. It's 100% their choice. I understand the money issue at the Div I level for having a tournament (even the Ivy League finally caved!), but at the Div III level, they don't do that for the revenue so why do you think they've chosen the tournament champion over their regular season champ? Clearly, each conference has decided in their own eyes that the conference tournament is more important to them than the national one.
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

spwood said:
What is "suspect"? The conference want their tournament champion in the NCAA tournament. It's 100% their choice. I understand the money issue at the Div I level for having a tournament (even the Ivy League finally caved!), but at the Div III level, they don't do that for the revenue so why do you think they've chosen the tournament champion over their regular season champ? Clearly, each conference has decided in their own eyes that the conference tournament is more important to them than the national one.
Click to expand...

The NCHA is clearly making bank off of 500 people paying $10 to get into Arrington for the Harris Cup final every year. And think of the youtube ad revenue generated by the 300 fans watching the live stream.
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

Tom Coughlin said:
The NCHA is clearly making bank off of 500 people paying $10 to get into Arrington for the Harris Cup final every year. And think of the youtube ad revenue generated by the 300 fans watching the live stream.
Click to expand...

I doubt they make enough to cover the travel for the teams and officials during the tournament. They are recouping some of their costs, but probably not all of them.
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

spwood said:
What is "suspect"? The conference want their tournament champion in the NCAA tournament. It's 100% their choice. I understand the money issue at the Div I level for having a tournament (even the Ivy League finally caved!), but at the Div III level, they don't do that for the revenue so why do you think they've chosen the tournament champion over their regular season champ? Clearly, each conference has decided in their own eyes that the conference tournament is more important to them than the national one.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the AQ's awarded to weak-sister conferences... Such as the UCHC. ;)
 
Fishman'81 said:
I was referring to the AQ's awarded to weak-sister conferences... Such as the UCHC. ;)
Click to expand...

But using D1 hoops as the example: that’s exactly why people love March Madness.

Pick the top 64/68 basketball teams and maybe the Horizon, MEAC, Big South, etc champions don’t make the field. But Florida Gulf Coast, or Loyola, make a run to the Sweet 16 or farther and everyone goes Gaga. But they need the access in order to do that.

The UCHC gets a bid because - at some level - all conferences are created equal. Or at least start that way. Last year, the NCHA got three bids because it was deemed a stronger lead.

Yes, I concede the regular season winner may make more sense. I understand that argument. But you still get a UCHC team in the field. And clearly the schools wasn’t that because it’s that way for every team sport but FBS football.
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

Assuming USCHO is calculating the PWR correctly
CURRENT At-Large teams
Stevens Point
Eau Claire
Oswego
Norwich

Outside looking in:
Adiran or St.Norbert (8 & 9 in the PWR)
Hobart (#10)
 
joecct said:
Assuming USCHO is calculating the PWR correctly
CURRENT At-Large teams
Stevens Point
Eau Claire
Oswego
Norwich

Outside looking in:
Adiran or St.Norbert (8 & 9 in the PWR)
Hobart (#10)
Click to expand...

This result holds, Oswego could drop below Eau Claire and Norwich.
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

joecct said:
Assuming USCHO is calculating the PWR correctly
CURRENT At-Large teams
Stevens Point
Eau Claire
Oswego
Norwich

Outside looking in:
Adiran or St.Norbert (8 & 9 in the PWR)
Hobart (#10)
Click to expand...

We have verified our numbers as correct with those in the know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

Ed Trefzger said:
We have verified our numbers as correct with those in the know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Few questions on the process...

1. why didnt Oswego drop in the pairwise ranking with the loss to Buff State when Buff State was ranked 35 before the game

2. Are the 4 Pool C teams selected based on standings at the end of the regular season or at the end of all conference playoffs ....meaning the the pairwise calculation includes both regular season AND playoff records

3. in using Pairwise in Diii like Di has in the past, Diii is different than Di, Di doesnt play divisions lower than them, shouldnt a Diii team's record against Dii teams be included and impact their SOS in the calculation or does it all even out because their record would reflect a lower number of wins
 
gfan said:
Few questions on the process...

1. why didnt Oswego drop in the pairwise ranking with the loss to Buff State when Buff State was ranked 35 before the game

2. Are the 4 Pool C teams selected based on standings at the end of the regular season or at the end of all conference playoffs ....meaning the the pairwise calculation includes both regular season AND playoff records

3. in using Pairwise in Diii like Di has in the past, Diii is different than Di, Di doesnt play divisions lower than them, shouldnt a Diii team's record against Dii teams be included and impact their SOS in the calculation or does it all even out because their record would reflect a lower number of wins
Click to expand...

1. It’s all numbers taking in the body of work of your WHOLE season and not just one game. Some teams fluctuate a lot after wins and losses, and some teams have some buffer built up because of what they have accomplished over the course of the whole season. For example, of how close things are with some teams, briefly Norwich dropped below UMass Boston after winning today while UMB tied. Then, 2 hours later after more games went final, Norwich jumped back ahead of them.

2. Come back to the whole body of work here. The 4 Pool C teams will be the four highest teams in the pairwise after you take out the AQ conference tournament winners. It factors in all games vs D3 opponents so yes playoffs count too.

3. Games against teams not in your Division have never counted in the primary criteria before and won’t start now. Bottom line, it’s such a short season with only 25 games available....make em all count and play Division 3 teams.
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

PrezdeJohnson09 said:
3. Games against teams not in your Division have never counted in the primary criteria before and won’t start now. Bottom line, it’s such a short season with only 25 games available....make em all count and play Division 3 teams.
Click to expand...

YES
That is why I'm SO GLAD St A's and St M's are no longer in Conference as I can recalled those games hurt Norwich
 
Re: Anyone going to attempt to publish a PairWise ranking for D III?

PrezdeJohnson09 said:
1. It’s all numbers taking in the body of work of your WHOLE season and not just one game. Some teams fluctuate a lot after wins and losses, and some teams have some buffer built up because of what they have accomplished over the course of the whole season. For example, of how close things are with some teams, briefly Norwich dropped below UMass Boston after winning today while UMB tied. Then, 2 hours later after more games went final, Norwich jumped back ahead of them.

2. Come back to the whole body of work here. The 4 Pool C teams will be the four highest teams in the pairwise after you take out the AQ conference tournament winners. It factors in all games vs D3 opponents so yes playoffs count too.

3. Games against teams not in your Division have never counted in the primary criteria before and won’t start now. Bottom line, it’s such a short season with only 25 games available....make em all count and play Division 3 teams.
Click to expand...



Thanks much
 
Steve Day said:
YES
That is why I'm SO GLAD St A's and St M's are no longer in Conference as I can recalled those games hurt Norwich
Click to expand...

They did indeed. Even more so after the interlock split when you went from every team in NESCAC/NEHC having 2 games that didn’t count to now FOUR games that didn’t count for just the NEHC teams. Basically every loss by a NEHC team to a D3 team almost hurt you double because of the winning percentage hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top