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

This thread reminds me about the story about the six blind men and the elephant. :)

No offense meant to anyone, but we clearly still have only fragmentary information.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

goblue78 said:
Sounds like it: http://www.uscho.com/2013/09/20/sel...orn-from-coaches-wishes-committee-chair-says/
"Now, all 59 Division I schools will be compared against every other team using three criteria: RPI (including the quality wins bonus), head-to-head record and record against common opponents."
Click to expand...

Seems a bit weird that they'd add the quality wins to RatingsPI and not PWR points. And one thing so I'm not lost: Are they multiplying RatingsPI by 100 (I'm used to .5000 being the old cutoff and not 50.00)?
 
Last edited:
Re: Changes to Pairwise

FlagDUDE08 said:
Seems a bit weird that they'd add the quality wins to RatingsPI and not PWR points. And one thing so I'm not lost: Are they multiplying RatingsPI by 100 (I'm used to .5000 being the old cutoff and not 50.00)?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are now calling it 50.00 so 5 points is what we used to call .0500 points
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

mnpokecheck said:
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.
Click to expand...

They're trying to get out ahead of the changes that are coming with both Hockey East and the BTHC (tm) running short conference schedules and back-filling with a bunch of home games. I don't know that the solution is the best they could have chosen, but I'm heartened that they're trying to be proactive and address the potential problem before it screws up a tournament field.

The committee's been thinking about this since the spring, and they did some back-channel information-gathering. It's not spur-of-the-moment and it's not off the cuff.
 
Last edited:
Craig P. said:
They're trying to get out ahead of the changes that are coming with both Hockey East and the BTHC (tm) running short conference schedules and back-filling with a bunch of home games. I don't know that the solution is the best they could have chosen, but I'm heartened that they're trying to be proactive and address the potential problem before it screws up a tournament field.

The committee's been thinking about this since the spring, and they did some back-channel information-gathering. It's not spur-of-the-moment and it's not off the cuff.
Click to expand...

Yet quite a few coaching staffs didn't even know the change was coming.

Hmmmm....
 
Last edited:
lugnut92 said:
The field didn't change, but Yale's path certainly would have. It's impossible to know whether things would have played out differently, but it's something to think about. I hope they work this out for a few more seasons so we can have a bigger sample size to look at.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

mnstate0fhockey said:
Yet quite a few coaching staffs didn't even know the change was coming.

Hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Why should they have known? The tournament committee isn't made up of coaches, and coaches aren't (and shouldn't be) involved in the details of the formulation of PWR.
 
Craig P. said:
Why should they have known? The tournament committee isn't made up of coaches, and coaches aren't (and shouldn't be) involved in the details of the formulation of PWR.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
The Exiled One said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except if the PWR modifications don't change who gets the at-large bids, why would it alter anyone's scheduling behavior?
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

The Exiled One said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know. It's just interesting to think of what could have been.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

mnstate0fhockey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm also betting, based on my BCS knowledge, that the people putting it together aren't really that math savvy and at best just compared recent years together.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

The Exiled One said:
Here's the answer to a question many of us had...

http://www.uscho.com/from-the-press...would-have-looked-with-this-seasons-criteria/
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see the numbers for this methodology applied not just to last year's data at the end of the season, but also:
  • To several previous seasons, to see how other fields would have looked.
  • Not just to the end of season, but to several of the preceding weekends. I for one would be curious to see what the QWB does to shift the rankings when conference tourney time gears up. (I fear that the QWB is weighted too heavily)
  • With my thoughts on the QWB being maybe too heavily weighted... the impact of varying the weights would be interesting to test as well.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
It would be interesting to see the numbers for this methodology applied not just to last year's data at the end of the season, but also:
  • To several previous seasons, to see how other fields would have looked.
  • Not just to the end of season, but to several of the preceding weekends. I for one would be curious to see what the QWB does to shift the rankings when conference tourney time gears up. (I fear that the QWB is weighted too heavily)
  • With my thoughts on the QWB being maybe too heavily weighted... the impact of varying the weights would be interesting to test as well.
Click to expand...

I'd go at it, but I don't have the figures reasonably available and IIRC, jtw's website doesn't denote home vs. neutral.
 
Re: Changes to Pairwise

Patman said:
I'd go at it, but I don't have the figures reasonably available and IIRC, jtw's website doesn't denote home vs. neutral.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Not that it matters because the site isn't functional anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top