Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

So what would you propose?

No extra filler, no nonsense, just how would you structure the regular season and postseasons?

If you don't answer this (again), I have to assume you really are just trolling, and I'm not posting in here again.

 

[joegrav]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

So what would you propose?

No extra filler, no nonsense, just how would you structure the regular season and postseasons?

And more importantly, what does this have to do with the Rutter Rankings?

 

[joegrav]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

So what would you propose?

No extra filler, no nonsense, just how would you structure the regular season and postseasons?

If you don't answer this (again), I have to assume you really are just trolling, and I'm not posting in here again.

The funny thing is, you probably couldn't possibly structure a better system than the one that exists now if you think the way pokechecker thinks. Under the current system, a team can literally go 0-31 in the regular season, go on a 7 game win streak and be the NCAA champion as a 7-31 team.

If you genuinely do manage to make yourself the best team in the nation at the very end of the season, it literally makes zero difference how you did in the regular season, other than seeding I guess, but if you're the best team it shouldn't matter what seed you are.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

as a general rule, you should also be wary of the validity of generalizing from bacteria to hockey players

and sorry, my hypothesis does not hang on one instance, your response is what hangs on one instance
you are trying to disprove by n exception to the rule
... except that your exception isn't even an exception
FAIL!

the data is clear, the winner of the WCHA tournament goes on to win the NCAA tournament
and more often than not, the WCHA season champ turns out to be the WCHA tournament champ

Your thesis is changing too rapidly for me to keep up. Would you mind actually stating clearly what your point is and sticking with it rather than changing it every three posts?

 

[OldDave]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

A lot of people confuse correlation and causality. In fact, corporate America relies on that. When your company proudly states that sales have increased year over year for the thirtieth year in a row, they also will throw in a statement to the effect that the dollar sales track well with the growth in the number of households (or cell phones, or telephone poles). They are hoping you will buy the implied correlation and assume causality. They very carefully have not told you that the number of widgets sold has been trending down for twenty years, a fact that would hammer their stock price.

We may have a case of that type of confusion here. (Or perhaps just a poster with a life full of bliss... )

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

2011-12 is slightly different, but not by much. Wisconsin won the regular season title by two games, 23-3-2 to 21-5-2. After the conference tournament, the records were: Wisconsin 25-4-2; Minnesota 25-5-2. So Wisconsin still had a better record against WCHA opponents overall but the difference was only one game. At that point I would bet that the ratings systems would have suggested that a championship game between the two teams (which is what happened) was pretty much a tossup.

here is what happened that year:
Wisconsin won
Minnesota won
They tied
Minnesota won
Minnesota won
clearly the trend was that Wisconsin played best on the first night of each series, but ultimately Minnesota prevailed the next night
this is significant, the Gophers were learning/adapting/improving better compared to Wisconsin
and again it fits the pattern

I

As a general rule, we should be wary of looking at things in one sport and assuming that it's true in a different sport that's never really been studied. However, the above is true in every sport I am aware of where the question has been asked so my default assumption is that it's probably true in NCAA Division I women's ice hockey as well. I'm not going to overturn that default assumption based upon the observation that on the three occasions that the WCHA regular season and playoffs champions were different teams, it was the playoff champion that won.

you should have gone with your original general rule, to be wary
your default assumption is clearly false

take a look at the following data:
team Canadians US Local World
Minnesota 4 3 14 0
UND 5 7 9 6
UMD 6 9 2 6
St. Cloud 7 6 10 1
Wisconsin 9 9 6 0
UM-Mankato9 5 9 1
OSU 10 11 1 1
Bemidji 11 2 11 0
it shows the distribution of the place of origin for the current teams
you could easily do the same for every year
and every college team for that matter
and come up with a mathematical/statistical model that explains their probability(predicts/makes an educated guess) of their order of finish
if you need the point of this explained, you probably shouldn't be here

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

So what would you propose?

No extra filler, no nonsense, just how would you structure the regular season and postseasons?

If you don't answer this (again), I have to assume you really are just trolling, and I'm not posting in here again.

[filler/nonsense/lack of an actual response/random tangent about nothing in particular... again.]

Definitely trolling.

I think we're done here.

 

[ARM]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

Definitely trolling.

I'm starting to think this is something you've created for your own amusement.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

<changes thesis yet again so that now it has something to do with individual series>

you should have gone with your original general rule, to be wary
your default assumption is clearly false

<take a look at the following data that has nothing to do with any argument yet made and, in fact, comes without one of its own

Yeah, you're just trolling. So let me take a moment to explain something.

I'm autistic. Once consequence of this is that I have a very strong tendency to take what people say at face value. So I'm a really easy mark for trolls because I will take seriously almost anything anyone says, unless it's Grant, in which case even I usually know better. So it's not much of an accomplishment to get me wound up.

You're far from the first troll I've run into but it still pains me when I observe someone whose ambitions are so low that he (and it's almost always a he; if this assumption is incorrect in your case I apologize) takes pride in getting me to take the bait. It's usually his parents' fault though, so I try not to hold it against him. If your self-esteem is sufficiently low that it's important to you to continue, have at it. I will do my best to help you feel better about yourself.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

Coming full circle

I'm not sure if you have any point other than to disparage Rutter's ranking, and if that is the case, you don't have to visit this thread if you don't like the ranking system.

don't tell me to stay away simply because you can't figure out why I am posting here, maybe it is you who needs to take a break, watch, listen, and learn?

The point I'm trying to get from you is what does this have to do with the Rutter rankings

apparently you are missing the entire point

Would you mind actually stating clearly what your point is

as a general rule, you should also be wary of the validity of generalizing from bacteria to hockey players

As a general rule, we should be wary of looking at things in one sport and assuming that it's true in a different sport

your default assumption is clearly false

So what would you propose? No extra filler, no nonsense.
If you don't answer this (again), I have to assume you really are just trolling, and I'm not posting in here again.

if you need the point of this explained, you probably shouldn't be here

Definitely trolling. I think we're done here.

I'm starting to think this is something you've created for your own amusement.

 

[DC78-82]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

Coming full circle

Good - then maybe it's time to put this discussion in the circular file

 

[joegrav]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

I'm a really easy mark for trolls because I will take seriously almost anything anyone says, unless it's Grant, in which case even I usually know better.

Best quote ever

 

[joegrav]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

I'm a really easy mark for trolls because I will take seriously almost anything anyone says, unless it's Grant, in which case even I usually know better.

Best quote ever

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

What surprises me is that you people get more worked up over the rankings than you do the games.
Having been a Gopher hockey fan for many years, I am used to a fan or two getting riled up at a Badger-Gopher or Fighting Sioux-Gopher game. But I’ve never seen it at the womens’ game. Until now.
Who would have thought, for example, that ONMAA, who claims she is an engineer would get her panties in a bunch over the discussion here. I can only assume where she works they do not have design reviews. And have the rest of you gone to college? Surely the professor has withstood greater questioning in peer reviews.

here again is the data, sorted by least number of Canadians to most, with ties ranking the team with most US players first. See the fun things you can do with statistics?

team Canadians US Local World total US
Minnesota 4 3 14 0 17
UND 5 7 9 6 16
UMD 6 9 2 6 11
St. Cloud 7 6 10 1 16
Wisconsin 9 9 6 0 15
UM-Mankato9 5 9 1 14
OSU 10 11 1 1 12
Bemidji 11 2 11 0 11

 

[brookyone]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

For the record, my educated guess would be OnMAA doesn't wear panties. However...I'm not an engineer so be wary of the authoritative value of said educated guess.

I've also forgotten much of what I ever knew about bunched panties.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

Guys just don't

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

here again is the data, sorted by least number of Canadians to most, with ties ranking the team with most US players first. See the fun things you can do with statistics?

Not yet because you haven't actually DONE anything with statistics. Statistics is more than just throwing out a data point. You have yet to even make a hypothesis with these numbers, let alone try to support it. The closest thing I can make out is that you have found a correlation between having fewer Canadians on the roster (or more Americans) and winning. You haven't shown what the strength of that correlation is (and based upon one season's worth of data from eight teams it's unlikely to be very strong). You haven't postulated any sort of causation. Does the mere fact of having Canadians on the roster cause a team to be weaker? Or is it the other way and the more successful a team is, the easier time it has recruiting Americans? If there is the former causation, does it mean that the Canadians in WCHA women's hockey are inferior players or does it produce some sort of chemistry deficiency?

If you produce a strong correlation between Canadian players and inferior teams in the WCHA, does this relationship hold in other conferences? If not, does that mean that we are talking less about a difference between American and Canadian players in general and more about the specific pools that each conference is recruiting from? If it's true now, was it true six years ago? If not, is it possible that we are looking at a temporary blip?

Statistics isn't about quoting numbers; it's about using those numbers to understand the universe. So far, you haven't done much of the understanding part.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

What surprises me is that you people get more worked up over the rankings than you do the games.

No. "Us People" get worked up about posters who claim to know everything and then belittle others when they disagree.

Having been a Gopher hockey fan for many years, I am used to a fan or two getting riled up at a Badger-Gopher or Fighting Sioux-Gopher game. But I’ve never seen it at the womens’ game.

Again you missed it. Been to many women's games over the years, and have seen plenty of "riled up fans" over the years.

Who would have thought, for example, that ONMAA, who claims she is an engineer would get her panties in a bunch over the discussion here. I can only assume where she works they do not have design reviews. And have the rest of you gone to college? Surely the professor has withstood greater questioning in peer reviews.

Here you go again, using your type of terminology, "a bunch of bad assumptions", you missed the mark 100% of the time.

here again is the data, sorted by least number of Canadians to most, with ties ranking the team with most US players first. See the fun things you can do with statistics?

team Canadians US Local World total US
Minnesota 4 3 14 0 17
UND 5 7 9 6 16
UMD 6 9 2 6 11
St. Cloud 7 6 10 1 16
Wisconsin 9 9 6 0 15
UM-Mankato9 5 9 1 14
OSU 10 11 1 1 12
Bemidji 11 2 11 0 11

And your point with these stats is what exactly ?

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

You have yet to even make a hypothesis with these numbers,

excuse me for omitting the obvious (which even you were able to perceive)

If you produce a strong correlation between Canadian players and inferior teams in the WCHA, does this relationship hold in other conferences?

yes


Thanks for the post, I was going to mention much of what you said, but I just knew someone would say it so much more eloquently than I could. Besides, I thought it would be best to spoon feed it since not everyone here is Ivy League, ... or even Big Ten. You know, best to digest in small bites so as not to tax cranial capacity.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Division I Rutter Rankings for 2013-2014

Some of the debate inspires some recollection of past debate within this forum.

Claims of superiority of Canadian player weighted rosters and the need for such per any championship aspirations are not unprecedented in this forum. In instances I recall clearly, it was presented as irrefutable fact rather than theory or opinion. We were expected to assume the accuracy and irrefutable nature of those assertions when they were made, sans any historical evidence to back it up and sufficient evidence to allow for considerable doubt. Not to mention anyone's disagreement was often met with ridicule and belittlement quite toxic. Which was noticeably less objectionable then...to those who object today, I guess. Perspective eh?

Noted merely In the interest of some historical documentation in the forum.

I don't recall those folks being quizzed on their questionable points of a similar, yet contrary nature at the time. That is, when stated a minimum number of Canadians was required for any hope of winning a championship...which was swiftly proven 100% untrue. Those questionable "points" were in fact not questioned then by he who now seems to expect point verification. Just for the record.

Can o' worms eh?