Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

[Billy Blanks]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

Must be

I just want to see NMU make the Tourny...thats why Im cheering for no more upsets. If Northern falls on their face again in Detroit there is still a chance for them to make it, so minimal upsets across the board.

And yeah, even if UNH makes it...its not like they will win the whole thing

I plugged in an upset in ever round of the conference tournaments (with the lower seed winning every game, except for the NMU-Ferris game and the NMU-Miami 3rd place game), even the 3rd place games.

If that happens (and there's no way every single game will be an upset with the lower seed winning) then NMU will be the last team out (basically 17th with Canisius taking the 14th spot, Brown 15th and Alabama Hunstville 16th).

With that being said, I like our chances of making the tourney, even as the last team in.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

On the predictor I just came up with a scenario to get Michigan State in with a 14th ranking in the pwr. RIT 15th and Alabama-Huntsville 16th.

Has anyone else been able to accomplish this?

My 1st thru 14th.

1. Denver
2. Miami
3. Wisconsin
4. North Dakota
5. Cornell
6. Boston College
7. Bemidji State
8. Vermont
9. St. Cloud State
10. Northern Michigan
11. Yale
12. Alaska
13. New Hampshire
14. Michigan State

No, what criteria did you use?

 

[streaker]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

On the predictor I just came up with a scenario to get Michigan State in with a 14th ranking in the pwr. RIT 15th and Alabama-Huntsville 16th.

Has anyone else been able to accomplish this?

My 1st thru 14th.

1. Denver
2. Miami
3. Wisconsin
4. North Dakota
5. Cornell
6. Boston College
7. Bemidji State
8. Vermont
9. St. Cloud State
10. Northern Michigan
11. Yale
12. Alaska
13. New Hampshire
14. Michigan State

By clicking the ruby slippers three times and by chanting, "there's no place like JLA".

 

[Billy Blanks]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

No, what criteria did you use?

I have no idea.

I've been playing with it for about 30 minutes trying to find a scenario where NMU doesn't make it and I was only able to find scenario so far. On one of clicks through it had MSU with the 14th slot and I didn't write down who I had the winners being.

 

[Eaglefan06]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

I also couldn't get BC below a 6, but came across a scenario where they finished 7. I don't remember exactly, but I think it was Vermont over BC, Cornell and St. Cloud winning the WCHA. That knocked them down to 7.

Ahhh yeah maybe. I remeber Cornell getting up to 7 with BC winning so I assume they would be able to do that with BC losing their first game too.

Good call.

 

[cctopshelf]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

Too bad we're all not on "KRACH" as then CC might still "shoot" into the mix... Sorry, tough to make my last post of the year after last night's slaughter.

Go "Bama", ummmm, UAH, Chargers, or whatever, You guys aren't on CRACK or Pairwise... 44th overall but going to the dance...
I'm thinking Sconi wins it all.... Will see "Those Guys" this weekend..
F-it till next year..

 

[gfmorris]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

UAH or Chargers, please. "BAMA" is an uncultured institution to our southwest that thinks they rule the world because their football team doesn't suck.

GFM

 

[cctopshelf]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

UAH or Chargers, please. "BAMA" is an uncultured institution to our southwest that thinks they rule the world because their football team doesn't suck.

GFM

Gotcha, my bad and am glad you called it out.. Heck I always cheer for the underdog so go get em Chargers!!!

 

[nmu_27]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

No, what criteria did you use?

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?p=4697545#post4697545

Looks like State loses the tiebreaker to Ferris, even though they are listed first. I hadn't caught that earlier.

 

[kdaddy]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

On the predictor I just came up with a scenario to get Michigan State in with a 14th ranking in the pwr. RIT 15th and Alabama-Huntsville 16th.

Has anyone else been able to accomplish this?

My 1st thru 14th.

1. Denver
2. Miami
3. Wisconsin
4. North Dakota
5. Cornell
6. Boston College
7. Bemidji State
8. Vermont
9. St. Cloud State
10. Northern Michigan
11. Yale
12. Alaska
13. New Hampshire
14. Michigan State

The problem with this one is you have UVM up at 8th..that is going to be tough.

 

[Billy Blanks]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

The problem with this one is you have UVM up at 8th..that is going to be tough.

I know, I wish I would have written down who I had winning the games. It was all completely random as I was just throwing it against the wall to see where it had NMU coming out. I was shocked when I saw MSU in as the last team. I think I had UVM winning the HEA.

 

[BC/HE]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

I think BC can fall to as low as 8th should all factors go against them.


1 Miami (Mm) 24 .5803*
2 Denver (DU) 23 .5765*
3 Wisconsin (Wi) 22 .5683
4 St. Cloud State (SC) 21 .5566 (AQ)
5 North Dakota (ND) 20 .5558
6 Ferris State (FS) 19 .5470 (AQ)
7t Cornell (Cr) 17 .5460 (AQ)
7t Boston College (BC) 17 .5529
9 Bemidji State (BS) 16 .5438
10t Yale (Ya) 15 .5371
10t Vermont (Vt) 15 .5358 (AQ)
12 Northern Michigan (NM) 13 .5346
13 Alaska (Ak) 11 .5297
14 New Hampshire (NH) 10 .5337
15 Boston University (BU) 9 .5203
16t Minnesota-Duluth (MD) 8 .5327
16t Michigan State (MS) 8 .5236
18 Union (Un) 7 .5230
19 Colorado College (CC) 6 .5246
20t Maine (Me) 4 .5170
20t Nebraska-Omaha (NO) 4 .5197
22t Michigan (Mi) 3 .5190
22t Minnesota (Mn) 3 .5179
22t Mass.-Lowell (ML) 3 .5169
25 RIT (RT) 2 .5174 (AQ)
— Alabama-Huntsville .4675 (AQ)

 

[Pucky-Bucky Backer]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

...especially considering no one from Alaska will come...

Maybe they will want to see the sun for the first time in five months??

 

[nmu_27]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

I think BC can fall to as low as 8th should all factors go against them.

7t Cornell (Cr) 17 .5460 (AQ)
7t Boston College (BC) 17 .5529

BC would get the 7 spot by RPI. They list them second for an unknown reason.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

Agreed. But I think they should do away with Consolations games, rather than implement them in all the leagues.

The league championship does not exist for the benefit of the NCAA tournament. That's one of the worst things about hoops, with teams apparently deliberately tanking just so they can be fresh.

 

[Hopkinja]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

I know, I wish I would have written down who I had winning the games. It was all completely random as I was just throwing it against the wall to see where it had NMU coming out. I was shocked when I saw MSU in as the last team. I think I had UVM winning the HEA.

I got Vermont to 8 by winning HEA, too. I was not able to get MSU in, though.

 

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

I thought the tiebreakers were set? RPI being the first tiebreaker?

It is -- I just meant that the two sites list the Pairwise differently in that regard ... CHN seemingly rightly lists it breaking ties by RPI, though it's not like the committee has written this down anywhere. But otherwise, I mean, the lists should look exactly the same in terms of comparisons won, etc...

 

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

STL - .5384
Massachusetts - .5328
Maine - .5306

if those are in fact, the season ending rpis, i wonder if they took liberties in seeding in this instance, as all three teams were in the field... if they were all tied for the last spot in the tournament i wonder if it would have played out differently

As we've discussed before, the committee has shown it would still take the RPI winner in the 14th slot. If you search the articles from that year from the sites - and the board - the issue was well discussed. ..... I've also pointed out before, and got blasted for it - that the committee does not have this rationale set down on paper anywhere. It's simply what has evolved to be their practice. In fact, in the "old days" - the committee did look at H2H comparison as their tiebreaker - and not the RPI. THEREFORE, they could change their mind at any time!! However, I'm not really sure anyone on the committee even knows this anymore - it's become so mindless for them.

But the reason I got blasted was vis-a-vis the Wisconsin/Mankato scenario a couple years ago - this very issue. And I pointed to this article to support my argument that the committee -- while not doing anything wrong (as some tried to say) -- certainly could've opted to do it differently...

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2008/03/24_outof.php

You can see the rationale there laid out better than I can make it ... I tried to make this point that they do have options. But Scooby yelled at me - and that's why I'm the charter member of his fan club

 

[BC/HE]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

Aren't we getting this tiebreaker thing wrong? RPI is the final tiebreaker used to break ties in the comparisons when teams are tied 3-3 or 2-2 etc.. However once they get to total PWC isn't the tiebreaker the winner of the comparison itself as RPI was already used to break the tie, hence it would give a double win by RPI otherwise. That is why teams listed as tied in the PWR are not listed in order of RPI but instead by their relative comparisons.

 

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: Bracketology and the PairWise Rankings II

Aren't we getting this tiebreaker thing wrong? RPI is the final tiebreaker used to break ties in the comparisons when teams are tied 3-3 or 2-2 etc.. However once they get to total PWC isn't the tiebreaker the winner of the comparison itself as RPI was already used to break the tie, hence it would give a double win by RPI otherwise. That is why teams listed as tied in the PWR are not listed in order of RPI but instead by their relative comparisons.

Nope. Again, read the history. Especially the Maine/UMass/SLU one mentioned. And the link in my previous post.

Yes, it's being double counted - yes, it puts too much weight on the RPI - but yes, that's how they do it.

Whether they should or shouldn't - that's another story. They didn't used to.

The USCHO listing is not wrong, per se - because, like I said, it's not written in stone. But in practice, it is wrong. CHN started listing it differently (rightly?) after that UMass/Maine/SLU thingy.