Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
I'm aware, was just having a little fun with hoky and the "facts" he presented.
I'm aware, was just having a little fun with hoky and the "facts" he presented.
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.
Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
- Thread starter BUPhD
- Start date
- Status
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
Sorry, I wasn't really following the "discussion" - just saw your post.
Sorry, I wasn't really following the "discussion" - just saw your post.
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
I've actually said for a few years now that I like the PWR, but maybe the last spot in the tourney or last two spots should be selected by a committee and not by the numbers. Problem is, it's not like Niagara was the last team in. So how would you leave them out? You couldn't leave St. Cloud out either. Seeing Yale's pathetic performance over two days in AC, they'd have to be the choice to be given the boot IMO.
I've actually said for a few years now that I like the PWR, but maybe the last spot in the tourney or last two spots should be selected by a committee and not by the numbers. Problem is, it's not like Niagara was the last team in. So how would you leave them out? You couldn't leave St. Cloud out either. Seeing Yale's pathetic performance over two days in AC, they'd have to be the choice to be given the boot IMO.
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
I am not the biggest PWR fan, it is good, but we can do better so why don't we? I don't really support a different selection process for spots 15 and 16 than 1-14, it is just too inconsistent for my taste.
I am not the biggest PWR fan, it is good, but we can do better so why don't we? I don't really support a different selection process for spots 15 and 16 than 1-14, it is just too inconsistent for my taste.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
But putting the PWR aside, do you think Niagara should be in at all? Are they really the 9th best team in the country?
But putting the PWR aside, do you think Niagara should be in at all? Are they really the 9th best team in the country?
brassbonanza
Super Serial
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
The thing is, if you're going to start using the are they really the _th best in the country method, then it has to be a smoke filled room setup, because no computer system can account for the eyeball test. I also do not like the different process for team 15 and 16 or whatever, it's got to be one or the other or it becomes a mess. The advantage to the PWR that I've always liked is that at least you know what you have to do, where you stand, so there's no head-scratching decisions made.
The obvious flip side is, you have mathematical quirks like the TUC cliff that have major impacts on certain teams, where one goal in one game that cost Merrimack a win, cost BU 5 TUC wins and at least three pairs, so the importance of each game is very uneven. I've not read up on KRACH enough to know how it differs, perhaps I should do that now that I have more free time.
The thing is, if you're going to start using the are they really the _th best in the country method, then it has to be a smoke filled room setup, because no computer system can account for the eyeball test. I also do not like the different process for team 15 and 16 or whatever, it's got to be one or the other or it becomes a mess. The advantage to the PWR that I've always liked is that at least you know what you have to do, where you stand, so there's no head-scratching decisions made.
The obvious flip side is, you have mathematical quirks like the TUC cliff that have major impacts on certain teams, where one goal in one game that cost Merrimack a win, cost BU 5 TUC wins and at least three pairs, so the importance of each game is very uneven. I've not read up on KRACH enough to know how it differs, perhaps I should do that now that I have more free time.
KnightsOfTheRound
Hockey Knight in Boston
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
The part about the PWR I don't like is the whole Teams Under Consideration component, and the inevitable discussions it spawns about whether a team is sometimes better off losing than winning due to the pairwise implications. The short answer should be "you always play to win," but the fact that the PWR even raises the question is itself a terrible feature. For the statistics idiots among us, is there any reason the PWR needs to have a TUC component? The RPI in basketball, for example, ranks all teams and not just the arbitrary few deemed "the best." Is there some reason that having a TUC component is somehow better than not? Maybe there is, I just don't understand it.
The part about the PWR I don't like is the whole Teams Under Consideration component, and the inevitable discussions it spawns about whether a team is sometimes better off losing than winning due to the pairwise implications. The short answer should be "you always play to win," but the fact that the PWR even raises the question is itself a terrible feature. For the statistics idiots among us, is there any reason the PWR needs to have a TUC component? The RPI in basketball, for example, ranks all teams and not just the arbitrary few deemed "the best." Is there some reason that having a TUC component is somehow better than not? Maybe there is, I just don't understand it.
brassbonanza
Super Serial
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
I don't know, the thing that pops into my head is that it would help to move it a little bit from being a straight up RPI ranking system, but even then, it's based on the RPI to begin with. Also, if you're going to do these pairs with a set of comparisons, there has to be a meaningful number of comparisons. Many pairs would end up with just RPI and COP as the components and that would seem a bit incomplete. I don't know what you could replace it with, but if you're going to compare teams based on a set of criteria, it would seem right that there be at least three sets of criteria outside of the H2H available to use.
I don't know, the thing that pops into my head is that it would help to move it a little bit from being a straight up RPI ranking system, but even then, it's based on the RPI to begin with. Also, if you're going to do these pairs with a set of comparisons, there has to be a meaningful number of comparisons. Many pairs would end up with just RPI and COP as the components and that would seem a bit incomplete. I don't know what you could replace it with, but if you're going to compare teams based on a set of criteria, it would seem right that there be at least three sets of criteria outside of the H2H available to use.
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
Well they want 3 comparisons besides head to head because the tiebreaker is RPI, so if it was just that and COp the rankings would be just RPI unless the two teams have played.
TUC is also my biggest complaint about PWR, not just because of the cliff but also beating a team with a .5714 RPI and and .5001 RPI are equivalent, but beating a team with a .5000 RPI as opposed to a .4999 RPI is entirely different. What they should really do is weight each game based on the strength of that individual team, not throw the top ~50% of NCAA hockey into one pool and call them all equal, but this individually weighted system would just be RPI.
RPI itself is not the greatest ranking either as this year 5 teams had their RPI adjusted up because some of there wins would have brought their ranking down, so while that is removed from the actual rankings it clearly exposes a greater issue with the mechanics of the formula.
I would support a ranking of just KRACH, however use COp and H2H as a sort of tiebreaker if teams were within a certain percentage of each other, since there will be a range where a mathematical model cannot accurately differentiate who is better, and on a sample size of 34 largely insular games that range is more real than on virtually any statistical and scientific studies.
Well they want 3 comparisons besides head to head because the tiebreaker is RPI, so if it was just that and COp the rankings would be just RPI unless the two teams have played.
TUC is also my biggest complaint about PWR, not just because of the cliff but also beating a team with a .5714 RPI and and .5001 RPI are equivalent, but beating a team with a .5000 RPI as opposed to a .4999 RPI is entirely different. What they should really do is weight each game based on the strength of that individual team, not throw the top ~50% of NCAA hockey into one pool and call them all equal, but this individually weighted system would just be RPI.
RPI itself is not the greatest ranking either as this year 5 teams had their RPI adjusted up because some of there wins would have brought their ranking down, so while that is removed from the actual rankings it clearly exposes a greater issue with the mechanics of the formula.
I would support a ranking of just KRACH, however use COp and H2H as a sort of tiebreaker if teams were within a certain percentage of each other, since there will be a range where a mathematical model cannot accurately differentiate who is better, and on a sample size of 34 largely insular games that range is more real than on virtually any statistical and scientific studies.
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
When you say "I would support," that's hypothetical, right? I mean, they don't consult with us before they put a system in place. You know, this is going to happen until the end of time. It's no different, for example, in a football game where you get a holding call when the winning touchdown pass is thrown. Then the team says "I got screwed by a horrible call." My response is, if you put yourself in a position where you can lose because of one bad call, then you have only yourself to blame. You had the whole game to separate yourself. So I say, we had the whole season to make SURE that we didn't get ourselves in a position to have some quirk in the system keep us out. If we didn't take care of business, that's OUR fault. This PWR discussion goes on EVERY year...over and over and over and over. I just don't think there's any perfect system, nor will there ever be (nor CAN there be).
When you say "I would support," that's hypothetical, right? I mean, they don't consult with us before they put a system in place. You know, this is going to happen until the end of time. It's no different, for example, in a football game where you get a holding call when the winning touchdown pass is thrown. Then the team says "I got screwed by a horrible call." My response is, if you put yourself in a position where you can lose because of one bad call, then you have only yourself to blame. You had the whole game to separate yourself. So I say, we had the whole season to make SURE that we didn't get ourselves in a position to have some quirk in the system keep us out. If we didn't take care of business, that's OUR fault. This PWR discussion goes on EVERY year...over and over and over and over. I just don't think there's any perfect system, nor will there ever be (nor CAN there be).
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
I don't blame the system, and I don't blame the refs, but a rational discussion about either can still be had. I do not blame PWR for BU not getting in, I have never once claimed they should have. But the system has changed and it will change again. It's like the tuck rule, the right application of an imperfect rule was made, eventually the rule changed. Sure PWR is a much MUCH better than the tuck rule, but a discussion of it seems reasonable, crying that your team didn't get in without knowing the math at all is foolish.
I don't blame the system, and I don't blame the refs, but a rational discussion about either can still be had. I do not blame PWR for BU not getting in, I have never once claimed they should have. But the system has changed and it will change again. It's like the tuck rule, the right application of an imperfect rule was made, eventually the rule changed. Sure PWR is a much MUCH better than the tuck rule, but a discussion of it seems reasonable, crying that your team didn't get in without knowing the math at all is foolish.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Agreed, I'm not saying we should have been in. And the thing I DO like about the PWR is that at least everyone knows what the criteria is going into it.
Sometimes though, the PWR produces something that does not "feel right"... I'd say niagara as the 9th seed is a case of that. I don't know how you change the math for that. Maybe they need a different way to look at SOS.
buoldtimer
The social ramble ain't restful
Enough about PWR and math, when will we learn who will coach this lot next season.
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
The COACH rating is tricky, lots of inputs and massaging... and the output ranges from Quinn to Gilbert Godfried to 50 Cent depending on how they weight the variables.
If this was big time college football we'd have people tracking tail numbers of planes, scouting out locations, reading into every tweet and reporting every rustle in the bushes. College hockey...they could do the meetings in South Station and nobody would notice.
The COACH rating is tricky, lots of inputs and massaging... and the output ranges from Quinn to Gilbert Godfried to 50 Cent depending on how they weight the variables.
If this was big time college football we'd have people tracking tail numbers of planes, scouting out locations, reading into every tweet and reporting every rustle in the bushes. College hockey...they could do the meetings in South Station and nobody would notice.
ericredaxe
Veteran
I would guess within a month or so, if BU does it right.
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
Just curious..does anyone know if BU is going to send some sort of "representation" to the FF? One would think that would be a good place to put out feelers, etc.
Just curious..does anyone know if BU is going to send some sort of "representation" to the FF? One would think that would be a good place to put out feelers, etc.
Terrier520
Sungo
Dude. Jack Arena. The question is: will bu pay him what he's actually worth, or will bu decide that eleventy billion dollars is better spent on a new mustache groomer for president brown.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
???
you expected a table in the arena lobby? like a job fair?
???
you expected a table in the arena lobby? like a job fair?
KnightsOfTheRound
Hockey Knight in Boston
What if its a guy like Quinn or Sullivan? Is there a precedent for announcing something like that in the middle of an NHL season?
Re: Boston University season thread 4: Where BC comes to talk hockey
No...wise guy. It was to sort of feel out if they have already "predetermined" a short list of candidates or whether they truly are going to conduct this with an open mind. If there's nobody "snooping around" at the FF, then we have our answer - it's already been long since determined. At least from their end. Whether or not the "candidate" takes the position, and on whose terms, of course would remain to be seen.
???
you expected a table in the arena lobby? like a job fair?
No...wise guy. It was to sort of feel out if they have already "predetermined" a short list of candidates or whether they truly are going to conduct this with an open mind. If there's nobody "snooping around" at the FF, then we have our answer - it's already been long since determined. At least from their end. Whether or not the "candidate" takes the position, and on whose terms, of course would remain to be seen.
- Status