Slap Shot
I got nothing
Define, "wrong field" or perhaps conversely, "right field". If your answer is, "it picked the 16 teams it said it would pick" please don't bother.
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.
Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
- Thread starter 4four4
- Start date
Define, "wrong field" or perhaps conversely, "right field". If your answer is, "it picked the 16 teams it said it would pick" please don't bother.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
By wrong field I mean somebody got screwed over like used to happen in the 12 team format once in a while (The Colorado College screwing, then rule, then no rule, etc.). Since it's gone to 16 the only arguments have been over bubble teams that by definition are going to cause arguments.
Define, "wrong field" or perhaps conversely, "right field". If your answer is, "it picked the 16 teams it said it would pick" please don't bother.
By wrong field I mean somebody got screwed over like used to happen in the 12 team format once in a while (The Colorado College screwing, then rule, then no rule, etc.). Since it's gone to 16 the only arguments have been over bubble teams that by definition are going to cause arguments.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Every system is going to have bubble teams - the history in this regard itself doesn't validate/invalidate PWR/KRACH.
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
Yeesh. Did you even read what I wrote?
I'll quote myself again:
Methods, not the results. I'm talking about methods.
I want the most accurate method out there. If you want to make a political consideration (such as only so many schools from one conference) that's fine. But that's about tournament selection, not the methodology used to rank teams. Don't conflate the issues.
This is exactly why the PWR is a poor system - because it's been twisted and adjusted so many times to get the desired results rather than just provide a ranking of the teams.
Yeesh. Did you even read what I wrote?
I'll quote myself again:
Methods, not the results. I'm talking about methods.
I want the most accurate method out there. If you want to make a political consideration (such as only so many schools from one conference) that's fine. But that's about tournament selection, not the methodology used to rank teams. Don't conflate the issues.
This is exactly why the PWR is a poor system - because it's been twisted and adjusted so many times to get the desired results rather than just provide a ranking of the teams.
Federal League
I like hockey.
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
Using PWR, it's possible that at the end of the season, in a conference tournament, a loss would help a team more than a win if that loss results in that team's opponent becoming a TUC. Using KRACH, though, a win will always help a team and a loss will always hurt a team. Point for KRACH.
Also, using KRACH, if a team played the top 5 teams in the country every game for an entire season and went .500, they would finish no worse than 6th. If they played the bottom 5 teams every game and went .500, they'd finish no better than 53rd. Using, PWR, though, neither of those are guaranteed. Another point for KRACH.
Using PWR, it's possible that at the end of the season, in a conference tournament, a loss would help a team more than a win if that loss results in that team's opponent becoming a TUC. Using KRACH, though, a win will always help a team and a loss will always hurt a team. Point for KRACH.
Also, using KRACH, if a team played the top 5 teams in the country every game for an entire season and went .500, they would finish no worse than 6th. If they played the bottom 5 teams every game and went .500, they'd finish no better than 53rd. Using, PWR, though, neither of those are guaranteed. Another point for KRACH.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
IMO, I don't think there's anything wrong with having some insulation against a massive overage of college representation from any one league. To me there is a problem if you have too many schools coming from any one league and its to the detriment of the sport.
There are ways to smooth out the TUC component... the question is "does anybody want to".
BTW, I think there will be a lot of resistance to using straight-KRACH ESPECIALLY in light of the 8 WCHA teams thing that Scooby mentioned. There are too few non-league games in college hockey... all a league needs is a good run to really make the world skewed.
IMO, I don't think there's anything wrong with having some insulation against a massive overage of college representation from any one league. To me there is a problem if you have too many schools coming from any one league and its to the detriment of the sport.
There are ways to smooth out the TUC component... the question is "does anybody want to".
BTW, I think there will be a lot of resistance to using straight-KRACH ESPECIALLY in light of the 8 WCHA teams thing that Scooby mentioned. There are too few non-league games in college hockey... all a league needs is a good run to really make the world skewed.
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
SS - I would argue in favor of KRACH over anything else. The PWR method is arbitrary and idiotic, and I don't know how anyone can honestly defend it. Having to asterisk a team's RPI because a win would have lowered it is just one of many problems with the existing system.
Scooby - it wouldn't be particularly difficult to deal with the potential problem of KRACH placing 8 teams from one conference in the field - all the committee has to do is put a cap in place to limit the number. Then if the system says 8, they could put 5-6 in and replace the lowest-rated 2-3 with the next best 2-3. Not all that diffiult, really.
SS - I would argue in favor of KRACH over anything else. The PWR method is arbitrary and idiotic, and I don't know how anyone can honestly defend it. Having to asterisk a team's RPI because a win would have lowered it is just one of many problems with the existing system.
Scooby - it wouldn't be particularly difficult to deal with the potential problem of KRACH placing 8 teams from one conference in the field - all the committee has to do is put a cap in place to limit the number. Then if the system says 8, they could put 5-6 in and replace the lowest-rated 2-3 with the next best 2-3. Not all that diffiult, really.
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
I think they just know I realize that BU is worse than either of them,
.
And where is the UML goon squad to get all over you about this comment?
I think they just know I realize that BU is worse than either of them,
.Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
That sounds like a problem with the selection criteria then, not the ranking criteria.
If you don't want that many teams from one conference, that's fine - but tweaking the ranking process to get the results you want is the problem.
Instead of having some guts and making decisions based on the PWR or KRACH, they instead shroud everything under the veil of 'transparency' by fudging the ranking to get the results they want. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for their methods.
Hell, I'd settle for a replacement of RPI with KRACH even.
That sounds like a problem with the selection criteria then, not the ranking criteria.
If you don't want that many teams from one conference, that's fine - but tweaking the ranking process to get the results you want is the problem.
Instead of having some guts and making decisions based on the PWR or KRACH, they instead shroud everything under the veil of 'transparency' by fudging the ranking to get the results they want. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for their methods.
Hell, I'd settle for a replacement of RPI with KRACH even.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
Ah nope..they are too busy pushing my neg rep to -5 MM, between their inferiority complex and the ivy league groupies from BC they need some serious help...way too thin skinned to make in with real people.
I think they just know I realize that BU is worse than either of them,
Ah nope..they are too busy pushing my neg rep to -5 MM, between their inferiority complex and the ivy league groupies from BC they need some serious help...way too thin skinned to make in with real people.
jcarter7669
Registered User
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
So what is your idea on how to change it? You don't like it but I don't see another option you are proposing.
Sticking only to the TUC aspect here is my $0.02 for those who care. I think the idea behind it is valid as it attempts to determine strength of a team. Without, I would try to schedule 30 games against AIC, because of it teams try to schedule games against the top teams as wins against them mean something. Playing the bottom of the league and doing well, does not mean a team is a top tier program, and that's what the TUC attempts to do. Each week things can change greatly depending on that mark, but as has been pointed out, its meant to be an end of the year indicator, not a weekly assessment.
There needs to be a mechanism to factor in SOS. And with regards to the PWR that's what the TUC attempts to do. Maybe its not perfect, and I am not arguing that, just that its raison d'etre is valid. Maybe a better way to do it would be to make the cutoff at the top16, so that it reflects how tournament teams did playing each other.
I do however believe Krach is a better indication.
So what is your idea on how to change it? You don't like it but I don't see another option you are proposing.
Sticking only to the TUC aspect here is my $0.02 for those who care. I think the idea behind it is valid as it attempts to determine strength of a team. Without, I would try to schedule 30 games against AIC, because of it teams try to schedule games against the top teams as wins against them mean something. Playing the bottom of the league and doing well, does not mean a team is a top tier program, and that's what the TUC attempts to do. Each week things can change greatly depending on that mark, but as has been pointed out, its meant to be an end of the year indicator, not a weekly assessment.
There needs to be a mechanism to factor in SOS. And with regards to the PWR that's what the TUC attempts to do. Maybe its not perfect, and I am not arguing that, just that its raison d'etre is valid. Maybe a better way to do it would be to make the cutoff at the top16, so that it reflects how tournament teams did playing each other.
I do however believe Krach is a better indication.
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
The NCAA. They do it every year when they don't get the results they want. They've changed the RPI formula, they change the PWR thresholds, etc.
The NCAA. They do it every year when they don't get the results they want. They've changed the RPI formula, they change the PWR thresholds, etc.
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
But then you're not using KRACH to select the tournament field, and since the PWR system is used for absolutely nothing other than selecting (or at least helping to select) the tournament field, how would that address your problem with PWR? And please consider SD's comment below that if the argument over tournament qualifiers is at the margins (the last couple of teams in), then the "problem" isn't worth worrying about anyway.
But then you're not using KRACH to select the tournament field, and since the PWR system is used for absolutely nothing other than selecting (or at least helping to select) the tournament field, how would that address your problem with PWR? And please consider SD's comment below that if the argument over tournament qualifiers is at the margins (the last couple of teams in), then the "problem" isn't worth worrying about anyway.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
Correct. As convoluted as PWR is it's easy to look at the rankings and know who is in and out. If you have to start explaining to layman that SCSU is out of the tournament because they are the 6th conference team in (if using KRACH) and they only allow 5 and SCSU is the 9th ranked team in KRACH, well, good luck. You'd have more whining then you have now.
jcarter7669
Registered User
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
You may want to read this article. The NCAA changed the PWR threshhold?? I am not sure you understand how the 16 teams actually come to be.
Here is an excerpt that in particular is important
"The PWR's detractors cite the unusually large focus on statistics such as record against "teams under consideration" (TUC). Again, though, the PWR is not the system used by the selection committee, it is merely a mathematical process designed to mimic the NCAA's process as accurately as possible - and it always works."
http://blog.masslive.com/dailycollegiansports/2009/03/mens_ice_hockey_bracketology_v.html
You may want to read this article. The NCAA changed the PWR threshhold?? I am not sure you understand how the 16 teams actually come to be.
Here is an excerpt that in particular is important
"The PWR's detractors cite the unusually large focus on statistics such as record against "teams under consideration" (TUC). Again, though, the PWR is not the system used by the selection committee, it is merely a mathematical process designed to mimic the NCAA's process as accurately as possible - and it always works."
http://blog.masslive.com/dailycollegiansports/2009/03/mens_ice_hockey_bracketology_v.html
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
*Not that I am in any way advocating anything more BCS-like. Just the first example that came to mind.
What's so hard about "maximum of 5 teams per conference"? Seems like pretty simple math to me. For example, the BCS* only lets in 2 teams per conference.
*Not that I am in any way advocating anything more BCS-like. Just the first example that came to mind.
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
It's not hard at all. It just doesn't solve the expressed problem with PWR, which is that it doesn't produce an accurate enough ranking to select the best tournament field.
The response to the perceived problem is that the PWR system does identify and include the elite teams in the field. If we're trying to refine the system to better define the last couple of teams in, then NO system can do that with a 36-game system and limited conference play. We'll always be arguing about the 13-16 seeds.
If you're going to use the more accurate ranking system, and then throw out certain results in order to get a more diverse tournament field, then why bother? That puts us right where we are now (which is fine with me, by the way), except that instead of simply using an agreed-upon system to select the field, we'd be adopting a "better" system and then throwing out certain of its results to get a tournament field that could have just been picked by hand to begin with - which would be even less scientific and would cause even more arguments.
It's not hard at all. It just doesn't solve the expressed problem with PWR, which is that it doesn't produce an accurate enough ranking to select the best tournament field.
The response to the perceived problem is that the PWR system does identify and include the elite teams in the field. If we're trying to refine the system to better define the last couple of teams in, then NO system can do that with a 36-game system and limited conference play. We'll always be arguing about the 13-16 seeds.
If you're going to use the more accurate ranking system, and then throw out certain results in order to get a more diverse tournament field, then why bother? That puts us right where we are now (which is fine with me, by the way), except that instead of simply using an agreed-upon system to select the field, we'd be adopting a "better" system and then throwing out certain of its results to get a tournament field that could have just been picked by hand to begin with - which would be even less scientific and would cause even more arguments.
jcarter7669
Registered User
Re: Big Wins And Bad Losses: TUC
Actually that's what we have now, the selection committee selects the field. The PWR was made up by USCHO to predict how the committee would pick, not the other way around. From the USCHO website
"The PairWise Rankings (PWR) are a statistical tool designed to approximate the process by which the NCAA selection committee decides which 16 teams to invite to the Division I championship tournament. Although the PWR does not precisely duplicate the method used by the committee,"
Actually that's what we have now, the selection committee selects the field. The PWR was made up by USCHO to predict how the committee would pick, not the other way around. From the USCHO website
"The PairWise Rankings (PWR) are a statistical tool designed to approximate the process by which the NCAA selection committee decides which 16 teams to invite to the Division I championship tournament. Although the PWR does not precisely duplicate the method used by the committee,"