D-III Women's PWC numbers.

[Matt Rennell]

First off, a huge thanks goes out to Ed Trefzger for getting these up.

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3w


Keep in mind, these are not an actual ranking, but the numbers that the NCAA uses to determine their rankings. Since they can interpret them as they wish and weight them however they would like, it is impossible for USCHO to do an actual ranking, so this is the best we can get.

 

[spwood]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

First off, a huge thanks goes out to Ed Trefzger for getting these up.

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3w


Keep in mind, these are not an actual ranking, but the numbers that the NCAA uses to determine their rankings. Since they can interpret them as they wish and weight them however they would like, it is impossible for USCHO to do an actual ranking, so this is the best we can get.

Thank you to everyone at USCHO. It seems that we are getting some results in getting a higher profile for the D-III women over there....thanks to Matt, Ed, and Derek.

 

[spwood]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Interesting to see that the raw PWC numbers have both GAC and St. Catherine's ranked ahead of River Falls.

 

[Matt Rennell]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Interesting to see that the raw PWC numbers have both GAC and St. Catherine's ranked ahead of River Falls.

Steve,

Those numbers you see are only ranked in Win %. There is no real "ranking". To see how teams compare, hover over the rankings link at the top of the page, and click to view the individual comparisons.

EDIT:

Here is the East
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=com3weast


Here is the West
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=com3wwest

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Thank you to everyone at USCHO. It seems that we are getting some results in getting a higher profile for the D-III women over there....thanks to Matt, Ed, and Derek.

I concur. great job and thanks for sharing...the berry patch pole will be in for a little shake up, methinks.

 

[Say What?]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

First off, a huge thanks goes out to Ed Trefzger for getting these up.

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3w


Keep in mind, these are not an actual ranking, but the numbers that the NCAA uses to determine their rankings. Since they can interpret them as they wish and weight them however they would like, it is impossible for USCHO to do an actual ranking, so this is the best we can get.

Say What??? Job well done USCHO. However, not to put a damper on anything, the team comparisons are still under last years format in that OWP and OOP are listed as separate comparisons. Per my post #53 in the "'09 - '10 D-III Bracketology" Thread, for this year and next years selection process in numerous D-III sports including Hockey, the two are combined by taking 66.7% of OWP and adding that to 33.3% of OOP. That is definitely going to have an affect on a team with a weak OWP and a somewhat strong OOP. This is great though, as I can now check the Cray's calculations against USCHO's numbers to make sure my comparisons are accurate when I list out the top team match-ups after this weekend games. Wouldn't that just be a hoot if the Cray comparisons actually turned out to have been correct the last couple of weeks. Good luck to all teams this weekend. As this season has gone, I'm betting on more than one so called upset in the games which will certainly provide for lively conversation.

BTW Matt: Just curious, has the NC$$ already sent this year's Championship Trophy to Plattsburgh?

 

[nbound]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

I concur. great job and thanks for sharing...the berry patch pole will be in for a little shake up, methinks.

NNNAAAAAAAA...The UNOFFICIAL OFFICIAL BERRY PATCH isn't that scientific(and not as acccurate ) it only considers percentages played against other .500 or better and the season winning %. it doesn't consider owp or oowp . it's just fun to do

 

[Say What?]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

First off, a huge thanks goes out to Ed Trefzger for getting these up.

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3w


Keep in mind, these are not an actual ranking, but the numbers that the NCAA uses to determine their rankings. Since they can interpret them as they wish and weight them however they would like, it is impossible for USCHO to do an actual ranking, so this is the best we can get.

Say What??? Okay, as promised I compared the super Cray #'s to those listed in the USCHO rankings table you pointed us to. Now don't take this personnal, I'm just looking and checking!!!!!!! I got as far as looking at the W-L-T records for each team. Not one tied to "regional" records for the teams listed. Most appeared to be short games. Therefore I have to ask, Matt, do you know 1) at what point in time the records are through, 2) are any teams - say Potsdam, Concordia Wisco, etc. excluded from the won loss records. Based on the fact the old super Cray can't agree with any of that data, I know the it won't agree with the OWP and OOP. Therefore, before anyone starts depending on this data and therefore the individual comparison's, what are we looking at? Just curious. I am not judging!! I know how tedious this process is. (Almost burn't the Cray up with the new rinkle for OWP/OOP) If this is what the NC$$ uses, I am thinking, no wonder no one can figure out how they come to their selections. One more Burly and it's lights out. Ta Ta!!!

Sleepless in Seattle

 

[Matt Rennell]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Say What??? Okay, as promised I compared the super Cray #'s to those listed in the USCHO rankings table you pointed us to. Now don't take this personnal, I'm just looking and checking!!!!!!! I got as far as looking at the W-L-T records for each team. Not one tied to "regional" records for the teams listed. Most appeared to be short games. Therefore I have to ask, Matt, do you know 1) at what point in time the records are through, 2) are any teams - say Potsdam, Concordia Wisco, etc. excluded from the won loss records. Based on the fact the old super Cray can't agree with any of that data, I know the it won't agree with the OWP and OOP. Therefore, before anyone starts depending on this data and therefore the individual comparison's, what are we looking at? Just curious. I am not judging!! I know how tedious this process is. (Almost burn't the Cray up with the new rinkle for OWP/OOP) If this is what the NC$$ uses, I am thinking, no wonder no one can figure out how they come to their selections. One more Burly and it's lights out. Ta Ta!!!

Sleepless in Seattle

From the PWC page....

The East/West Region PairWiseSM Comparisons provide for our readers the raw data that the NCAA Division III Selection Committee uses to determine participants for the women's hockey tournament. A team is only compared against Division III teams within that team's region. Games against non-D-III opponents are excluded.

For further details about it you can contact Ed Trefzger from the contact us page. He is the Director of Technology here at USCHO and runs the PWC for both men's and women's DIII.

 

[gojackets]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Say What??? Okay, as promised I compared the super Cray #'s to those listed in the USCHO rankings table you pointed us to. Now don't take this personnal, I'm just looking and checking!!!!!!! I got as far as looking at the W-L-T records for each team. Not one tied to "regional" records for the teams listed. Most appeared to be short games. Therefore I have to ask, Matt, do you know 1) at what point in time the records are through, 2) are any teams - say Potsdam, Concordia Wisco, etc. excluded from the won loss records. Based on the fact the old super Cray can't agree with any of that data, I know the it won't agree with the OWP and OOP. Therefore, before anyone starts depending on this data and therefore the individual comparison's, what are we looking at? Just curious. I am not judging!! I know how tedious this process is. (Almost burn't the Cray up with the new rinkle for OWP/OOP) If this is what the NC$$ uses, I am thinking, no wonder no one can figure out how they come to their selections. One more Burly and it's lights out. Ta Ta!!!

Sleepless in Seattle

once again....I will always consider USCHO/NCAA numbers correct and yours wrong. I noticed before you had the wrong winning percentage for River Falls and Triniity...but didn't point it out because it didn't change the fact that trinity won that comparison.

 

[gojackets]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

The majorly interesting things that I see from this compared to the NCAA ranking.

How does Lake Forest have the 25th ranked Opponents win %, but Stevens Point and River Falls are 1 & 3??


In the national rankings...the NCAA has Superior at minimum 15th, however they are not even mentioned in the USCHO PWR....where are they??

 

[valiantfan08]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

First off, a huge thanks goes out to Ed Trefzger for getting these up.

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3w


Keep in mind, these are not an actual ranking, but the numbers that the NCAA uses to determine their rankings. Since they can interpret them as they wish and weight them however they would like, it is impossible for USCHO to do an actual ranking, so this is the best we can get.

Where is Mville and Norwich on that list ?

 

[on2thinice]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Where is Mville and Norwich on that list ?

See the top link in Matt Rennell's 6:47pm post from yesterday. There you will see comparisons for M'ville & Norwich.

 

[Matt Rennell]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Where is Mville and Norwich on that list ?

Here are the Regional Comparisons, which is really all that matters at this point because that is how the NCAA splits the rankings up.

East
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3weast

West
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3wwest

While their numbers are included in the calculations, I do see where Manhattanville and Norwich are not listed on the main page of the National Rankings. I will shoot Ed and e-mail to get that corrected.

 

[Say What?]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

From the PWC page....

The East/West Region PairWiseSM Comparisons provide for our readers the raw data that the NCAA Division III Selection Committee uses to determine participants for the women's hockey tournament. A team is only compared against Division III teams within that team's region. Games against non-D-III opponents are excluded.

For further details about it you can contact Ed Trefzger from the contact us page. He is the Director of Technology here at USCHO and runs the PWC for both men's and women's DIII.

Say What??? Thanks for your response but you answered none of my questions. 1) What about the new OWP/OOP calculation? 2) What time period are the games through? 3) Any teams not included – provisional? I was confused with the first post of this thread I guess. Clicking on the link in that thread, the data shows Plattsburgh with a record of 17-1-2 and a 5-1-1 record against ranked teams. When in fact at the time of the post Plattsburgh had a 19-1-2 record against eastern teams and was 8-1-1 against ranked teams. And an example in the west is for Lake Forest the table shows a 11-1-3 record with a 1-1-2 record against ranked teams. Again at the time of the post LF had an 13-1-4 record against western teams and was 2-1-3 against ranked teams. From there I just looked at W-L-T for each team and saw that none matched actual results. Because of that I stopped and asked my questions and didn’t proceed to the regional listings. Now I go in to your regional links today and see that the regional rankings have additional games but I don’t know if the games listed include last night or what. Taking a look at say Middlebury, today’s link to eastern teams show them with a 11-6-3 eastern record when if you include last nights loss to Bowdoin they have a 13-6-3 record. A random looked at other W-L-T numbers, shows some would be correct through last night, some through last weekend and some I have no clue. I’m not going to go off line to find out how Ed put this all together. Since you have individuals on this Forum living and dieing by what you put forward, I believe you have a responsibility to explain it to EVERYONE. Please don’t shoot the messenger. As I said, I’m a numbers gal and numbers are black and white. At this point in time, sorry to say, what I have presented the last couple of weeks is based on NC$$ criteria and the actual results of all games played to date.

And just so you don’t think I’m picking on any team(s) specifically, the eastern PWC numbers show your beloved Plattsburgh with an OWP of .5583 and an OOP of .5262 which would equate into a SOS under new rules of .5476. Now using what I believe to be accurate data, Plattsburgh through last night would have an OWP of .5703 and an OOP of .5285 computing into a SOS of .5564. This error won’t affect Plattsburgh because they are in without question, but errors in other teams OWP and OOP definitely will have an affect on comparisons.

 

[Say What?]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Here are the Regional Comparisons, which is really all that matters at this point because that is how the NCAA splits the rankings up.

East
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3weast

West
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=pwr3wwest

While their numbers are included in the calculations, I do see where Manhattanville and Norwich are not listed on the main page of the National Rankings. I will shoot Ed and e-mail to get that corrected.

Say What??? Matt, when will the W-L-T records for Trinity, Norwich, RIT, Middlebury, Bowdoin and Hamilton be updated in the eastern standings. Each is missing one or two games. Also, is USCHO going to change the "Comparison" tables to be in agreement with the SOS calculation in the NC$$ rulebook? Thanks again for getting these comparisons on-line as a few my close friends can now vent their venom at USCHO instead of me.

 

[gojackets]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Say What??? Matt, when will the W-L-T records for Trinity, Norwich, RIT, Middlebury, Bowdoin and Hamilton be updated in the eastern standings. Each is missing one or two games. Also, is USCHO going to change the "Comparison" tables to be in agreement with the SOS calculation in the NC$$ rulebook? Thanks again for getting these comparisons on-line as a few my close friends can now vent their venom at USCHO instead of me.

We've never said your numbers are wrong, but you refuse to realize that the criteria aren't measured equally.

The NCAA puts more emphasis on some criteria over others. They do not tell us what criteria is more important and therefore can skew the rankings how they want.

If everything plays out the way it should--which it never ever does--the final Pool C bid will come down to River Falls/Trinity--and will go to River Falls

 

[Matt Rennell]

Re: D-III Women's PWC numbers.

Say What??? Matt, when will the W-L-T records for Trinity, Norwich, RIT, Middlebury, Bowdoin and Hamilton be updated in the eastern standings. Each is missing one or two games. Also, is USCHO going to change the "Comparison" tables to be in agreement with the SOS calculation in the NC$$ rulebook? Thanks again for getting these comparisons on-line as a few my close friends can now vent their venom at USCHO instead of me.

What is wrong with their records? Every game has been counted and it is automatically updated when every box score is entered.