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.

Changes to Pairwise

Re: Changes to Pairwise

Yeah, incredibly ill advised without knowing the impacts of such things.

Do they even know the impact of their fudge factors. Home ice advantage does exist but it's not extreme. If you want to penalize teams for too many home games do it via a cap, not via pairwise.

Edit: we knew this was coming, the real question was how soon. I wanted to evaluate possibilities but I couldn't come up with a notion of how to compare to simulated lists of results... Could I have done something, likely, but I wanted the correct something.
 
Last edited:
Re: Changes to Pairwise

The more factors you introduce, the more subjective the process becomes.

I like the idea of forcing the major programs to go on the road now and again, but the "cold hard math" side of the PWR is one of the reasons I like it so much as a selection criterion.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
The more factors you introduce, the more subjective the process becomes.

I like the idea of forcing the major programs to go on the road now and again, but the "cold hard math" side of the PWR is one of the reasons I like it so much as a selection criterion.
Click to expand...
I think they can add as many factors as they like. As long as they are objective, it's still "cold hard math". Google's algorithm is just math, but it's incredible complexity is why it works so well.

I say, go ahead and add complexity, just make sure it's transparent. Selection Sunday should be just a formality.
 
MaineHockeyMom said:
maybe they are trying to nudge programs like Michigan into playing some away games and penalizing them for their refusing to play away games that they absolutely do not need to play?

and home ice CAN matter. not so much at Lowell, but at Wisconsin or the Alfond back in the 90s
Click to expand...

Rare circumstances not deserving of a one size fits all method
 
The Exiled One said:
I think they can add as many factors as they like. As long as they are objective, it's still "cold hard math". Google's algorithm is just math, but it's incredible complexity is why it works so well.

I say, go ahead and add complexity, just make sure it's transparent. Selection Sunday should be just a formality.
Click to expand...

It's not objective. It's just formulaic...

I am starting to wonder if this was a compromise of the form "we will give you this if you give us that". The schools that may advantage from a home favoring system would be disadvantaged with a quality wins construction and vice versa. Quality wins would incentivize power conferences. Quality non-conf would only incentivize the top teams to play each other.

In any system, if the "model" is not true then it can be gamed. Current pairwise is gameable but its not so certain how, especially with so many conference tilts kind of averaging things out for a league. If you believe krach then its more important for PWR to pick up wins against lesser competition as krach favors team w strong SOS and PWR doesn't as much.

Granted, the strength of said gaming was never clear. Adding factors usually creates more undesirable incentives than it solves due to the additional complexity and de-weighting factors that were more useful to capture things.

The key question is whether or not the new system captures team ability more than the old knowing people will take advantage of the system.

I am pessimistic here. I see gameable features here being crafted by people who aren't sure what they are doing.

The fact that i would have some difficulty with the idea of calibrating these factors appropriately should give pause.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

I think this is more of a compromise in the form of (a) home/away disparities are unfair from a competitive standpoint but that (b) home/away disparities are desirable financially, so they're not going away. The NCAA realizes all too well that both teams benefit financially from a game being at, for example, Yost rather than at a 1200 seat stadium in North Bumfugg.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

Less 2 for 1 agreements that schools do the better it is for college hockey. 2 for 1's suck.


Don't know how I feel about no longer having the TUC line.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

The Exiled One said:
As long as they are objective, it's still "cold hard math".
Click to expand...

But how do you make it objective? Is a win at Yost worth more or less than a win at Mariucci? If more, how much more? If less, how much less? If it's worth more than a win at Sacred Heart (which I think we would all agree that it is), how much more (which is where we'd all disagree)? Wins and SOS were already figured in. Now we're adding some kind of a "degree of difficulty" that doesn't make the Pairwise a whole lot different than the basketball "smoke-filled room," or the gymnastics/figure skating "Hey, give her a good score. She's the favorite" model.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

So with a frozen four last year of Quinnipiac, St. Cloud State, Mass.-Lowell and Yale.....what are they trying to fix? Wait for the complaining to go back to the old formula if four past champs are in the frozen four this season.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

Let's just put the four most lucrative programs in the Frozen Four every year. That will make the sponsors happy, ESPN happy, the arena happy and the NCAA happy.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

Priceless said:
Let's just put the four most lucrative programs in the Frozen Four every year. That will make the sponsors happy, ESPN happy, the arena happy and the NCAA happy.
Click to expand...


I'll take all the titles for my team, thankyouverymuch. No argument from me.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

Brenthoven said:
I'll take all the titles for my team, thankyouverymuch. No argument from me.
Click to expand...

It'll be Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota every year. The 4th team will either be Michigan, New Hampshire, Maine or a private school that can show revenue above $2.75M/year
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

CLS said:
I never understood why it needs to be a cliff. Why not a slope?
Click to expand...

RPI (and KRACH) are effectively a sloped TUC cliff where each team is valued slightly less than the team above them. Having a second one of these metrics would be redundant.
 
The Exiled One said:
I think they can add as many factors as they like. As long as they are objective, it's still "cold hard math". Google's algorithm is just math, but it's incredible complexity is why it works so well.

I say, go ahead and add complexity, just make sure it's transparent. Selection Sunday should be just a formality.
Click to expand...

Complex formulae require more subjective decisions (do we add these extra variables? Do we average them? What multiplying coefficient do we use?), so it's impossible to add extra variables or criteria without increasing the risk of being more subjective.

That said, I agree with your statement as far as transparency is concerned. At large selection should remain a formality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top