Changes to Pairwise

[goblue78]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

yeah, and I'm no good at webscraping (the parsing of webpages for data use). Ugly data processing = unhappy Pat.

Here you go: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5755704/hockey2013.xls
The 2012-2013 season with a home/neutral indicator
Date, Home Team, Home Indicator, Opponent, Conference, Result

 

[Patman]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

Here you go: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5755704/hockey2013.xls
The 2012-2013 season with a home/neutral indicator
Date, Home Team, Home Indicator, Opponent, Conference, Result

Apparently USCHO has done the work for us

edit: that should be helpful for verifying the computer program(s)

 

[CLS]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

Actually, my theory is, it won't. Partly for the reason you stated, but mostly because $$$.

Absolutely agree. The real reason that the change was made was to make the coaches that have to travel feel better (or maybe better put not feel so upset) about having to travel. Scheduling disparity ain't gonna change and they know it.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

Extends beyond coaches. Administrations weren't aware. And you'd think communication with member institutions would be a priority in any adequately run league. This isn't a minor detail that was changed, and IMO (and many others) shouldn't have been a last minute shock to many schools. Sorry if you can't understand that. My guess is there might be some push back and my guess is that if schools push back it won't be just ignored. Maybe I'm wrong, but either way it did seem sudden and kind of knee jerk to me. Just my $0.02.

There, I don't disagree with you. I'm surprised that administrations aside from the ones with representation on the tournament committee weren't aware that this was under discussion.

Right, but the important thing to remember is that the changes weren't made to alter the field, but to alter scheduling behavior. I'll be interested to see if that happens in the next couple of years.

While I don't think the committee would mind if they influence scheduling behavior, I don't think that's their real aim. I think they figure the scheduling behavior is fait accompli and they just need to make sure they're out in front of it as far as taking it into account for tournament selection.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

I just noticed something: "Head-to-head Record" is the description of a criterion. Is it no longer one "point" in the PWR comparison for each win, but rather an aggregate record receives one point total?

 

[lugnut92]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

I just noticed something: "Head-to-head Record" is the description of a criterion. Is it no longer one "point" in the PWR comparison for each win, but rather an aggregate record receives one point total?

I think they would have listed that as a change, since it can have a huge effect on comparisons. The wording is a bit ambiguous, but I imagine they'll stick with the 1 pt/win model.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

I just noticed something: "Head-to-head Record" is the description of a criterion. Is it no longer one "point" in the PWR comparison for each win, but rather an aggregate record receives one point total?

There was an article about that a while ago (too lazy to look up the link). It is just one point for winning the comparison, not per win, but I thought that was for the common opponents. Is it the head-to-head, too? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

 

[manurespreader]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

So this is what I get out of this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong. Since a power conference team has more away games at top teams' barns, then simply because they have more of these games, they have a mathematical advantage in the pairwise. In other words it's all about opportunity.

my thesis is that rather than a bonus for away wins, a one way penalty for teams not playing half their games away might be better. Comments?

 

[Patman]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

So this is what I get out of this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong. Since a power conference team has more away games at top teams' barns, then simply because they have more of these games, they have a mathematical advantage in the pairwise. In other words it's all about opportunity.

my thesis is that rather than a bonus for away wins, a one way penalty for teams not playing half their games away might be better. Comments?

Its like the overtime loss... better to add benefits than to incur demerits.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Changes to Pairwise

So this is what I get out of this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong. Since a power conference team has more away games at top teams' barns, then simply because they have more of these games, they have a mathematical advantage in the pairwise. In other words it's all about opportunity.

No, wrong way 'round. Because the BTHC (tm) teams will be playing more non-conference games at home (and potentially some other teams will be doing this too, but the BTHC teams are the ones driving the concern), mainly at the expense of WCHA, AHA, and to a lesser extent ECAC and down-table NCHC and Hockey East teams, it is expected that the home-road imbalance will skew their records in a way that will give them a mathematical advantage in the Pairwise.

my thesis is that rather than a bonus for away wins, a one way penalty for teams not playing half their games away might be better. Comments?

That could be an alternative way to handle it.