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.

Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

TonyTheTiger20

TonyTheTiger20

#SOAR
EDIT: HERE'S A DIRECT LINK TO THE NEW PAIRWISE RANKINGS

--
--
--

I was putting together an early Bracketology post for BC Interruption, and I pulled up this season's and last season's NCAA championship manuals.

It looks like the selection criteria is dramatically different. Did anyone know about this?

Here is last year's selection criteria:

In addition to Bylaw 31.3.3, the Women’s Ice Hockey Committee has received approval from the Division I Championships/
Sports Management Cabinet to consider the following criteria in the selection of at-large teams for the Women’s Ice Hockey
Championship (not necessarily in priority order):

● *Rating Percentage Index (RPI) [won-lost record (30 percent), opponents’ winning percentage (24 percent) and
opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage (46 percent)];
● Head-to-head competition;
● Results versus common opponents; and
● Results versus teams under consideration (defined as those teams with an RPI of 50.00 or better).

*If points awarded for any win lower a team’s average RPI, those points will not count toward the RPI.
Click to expand...

That's all what we've been used to -- RPI, H2H, CoOpp, and TUC being used for comparisons.

Now, here's this season's selection criteria:

In addition to Bylaw 31.3.3, the Women’s Ice Hockey Committee has received approval from the Division I Competition
Oversight Committee to consider the following criteria in the selection of at-large teams for the women’s ice hockey
championship (not necessarily in priority order):

● *Rating Percentage Index (RPI) [won-lost record (30 percent), opponents’ winning percentage (24 percent) and
opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage (46 percent)]; including quality win bonus**
● Head-to-head competition; and,
● Results versus common opponents.

*If points awarded for any win lower a team’s average RPI, those points will not count toward the RPI.
**Quality win bonus awarded for wins over the top 12 championship eligible teams in the final selection RPI.
Click to expand...

There are two huge changes here:

--One is that TUC record appears to have been removed entirely from the selection criteria.
--Two is that they have added a "quality win bonus" for wins against teams in the top 12 of the RPI.

Did anyone know about this? That's going to definitely affect tournament selection.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

UPDATE: I confirmed with a source that this is accurate. That mean's USCHO's PWR is wrong because it's using last year's criteria. I'll try to create a new spreadsheet with an accurate PWR before I go to sleep. We'll see how it goes.
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

Good. I like the concept of record vs. TUC, but the execution of it has been even worse than that of RPI itself. It's a calculation that absolutely must be weighted by the quality of the TUC that a team has played. However, without more of an explanation of what, exactly, the Quality Win Bonus is, it may amount to the same thing.
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

Eeyore said:
However, without more of an explanation of what, exactly, the Quality Win Bonus is, it may amount to the same thing.
Click to expand...
It's almost certainly going to be exactly the way the men do it (just with a sliding scale over 12 teams, not 20):

Quality Win Bonus (QWB): A "Quality Win Bonus" was added for the 2013-14 season. For any win against the top 20 of the RPI, a team is awarded "bonus points" on a sliding scale from 1-20. In other words, a team is given a .050 RPI bonus for defeating the No. 1 team, sliding down to .0025 bonus for defeating the 20th team. The total bonus for the season is divided by the amount of games played (weighted for home-road), to give a final bonus figure.
Click to expand...

From CHN's men's FAQ.

Short answer: Yes, sliding scale weighted by how highly ranked your opponent is.
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

UPDATE: The correct Pairwise Rankings based on the new 2016 criteria can be found here. Note that the rankings spreadsheet on the page will take a few seconds to open (it's pulling up a pretty big file) but give it a minute and it will come up.

There are two clarifications I need in order to make sure this is perfect:

1) I need to know what the sliding scale is for the Quality Win Bonus. The men use 0.050 broken out over the top 20 teams (i.e. a win over 1st place gives a bonus of 0.050 and a win over 20th place gives a bonus of .0025), and I think the women will do the same over the top 12 teams (i.e. a win over 1st place gives a bonus of 0.050 and a win over 12th place gives a bonus of .004167). I have an email out to someone on the committee; if I find out the scale is different then I'll update the rankings accordingly but it should only have a marginal effect.

2) I need to know if now that TUC is gone, if ALL teams will be compared to each other, or if only teams with an RPI > 0.500 will be compared. Right now I'm doing it only with RPI > 0.500 but I have a separate spreadsheet saved for if ALL teams are being compared (that is, does BC win 37 comparisons or does it only win 17?).

This should not affect the rankings, but there's a chance it could, so I want to make sure my assumption is correct. Men's hockey now compares all teams, but the women's criteria still specifies that only teams with an RPI > 0.500 are eligible for at-large berths... so there's ambiguity there. Anyway, once I hear back from the person I emailed, I'll update accordingly.

The link above is the same link as is in my signature. As far as I'm aware, these links are the only place on the internet with correct KRACH and PWR for women's hockey.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

TonyTheTiger20 said:
As far as I'm aware, these links are the only place on the internet with correct KRACH and PWR for women's hockey.
Click to expand...
The North Koreans have had this capability for some time now.
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

ARM said:
The North Koreans have had this capability for some time now.
Click to expand...
HA -- if only they opened up their internet to the rest of the world, we could have accessed their rankings all this time!
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

ARM said:
The North Koreans have had this capability for some time now.
Click to expand...

Well, they've had the capability, but unfortunately, the database calls they use to grab the data only specify "hockey," so for the schools that play both, they are grabbing the records for the women's field hockey team. So, their rankings page is a mess. Or so my intelligence sources tell me.
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

MORE UPDATES! It looks like I broke USCHO:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/

Women’s Division I PairWise Rankings
USCHO has learned of changes to the selection criteria for the Division I women's NCAA tournament for the 2015-16 season, which made our existing PairWise Rankings and Ratings Percentage Index not representative of the current process. We are working on a solution and hope to have the updated PairWise and RPI available soon.

updated: January 21, 2016, 10:26 am CT
Click to expand...
Oh my God that is a highlight of my internet life. "USCHO has learned..." lolllllllllllll

In addition, I did get clarification on the QWB as well as number of comparisons from the chair of the selection committee:

Using the same magnitudes you indicated for the men, the QWB scale for the women starts at a .060 RPI bonus for a win against #1 and descends .005 per team, ending in a .005 bonus for a win against #12.

With respect to your follow-up, like the men, all eligible teams are now compared, as reflected in your first chart.
Click to expand...
I'll make these changes to the PWR calculator right now
 
Last edited:
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

TonyTheTiger20 said:
MORE UPDATES! It looks like I broke USCHO:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-women/


Oh my God that is a highlight of my internet life. "USCHO has learned..." lolllllllllllll

In addition, I did get clarification on the QWB as well as number of comparisons from the chair of the selection committee:


I'll make these changes to the PWR calculator right now
Click to expand...

You poached this info off the USCHO before they could post it, then they had to acknowledge it came from somewhere else, you ARE good.
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

Timothy A said:
You poached this info off the USCHO before they could post it, then they had to acknowledge it came from somewhere else, you ARE good.
Click to expand...

:D:D:D

I got lucky because I was going to write an article about bracketology and needed to copy/paste the handbook. I wonder when we would have found out about this? Imagine if the new criteria leaves a team out that would have been in and they were using USCHO to figure they were in. :eek:
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

TonyTheTiger20 said:
Imagine if the new criteria leaves a team out that would have been in and they were using USCHO to figure they were in. :eek:
Click to expand...


Imagine it? Wisconsin and North Dakota lived it in 2013, when they changed how the 'Common Opponent' calculation was calculated from overall won-lose percent to a summing of team-by-team percents. Old way (and the way USCHO had shown it for the entire season) UW in and UND out, new way UND played in the tournament and UW stayed home. Literally the night before of the selection, the teams still thought otherwise.

Good job catching this change so 'early'.
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

TonyTheTiger20 said:
--Two is that they have added a "quality win bonus" for wins against teams in the top 12 of the RPI.

Did anyone know about this? That's going to definitely affect tournament selection.
Click to expand...

Now that "Cup Cake schedule" could come back to haunt. :D :D :D
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

So did any team make a jump up or down based on the new system?
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

TonyTheTiger20 said:
In addition, I did get clarification on the QWB as well as number of comparisons from the chair of the selection committee:

Using the same magnitudes you indicated for the men, the QWB scale for the women starts at a .060 RPI bonus for a win against #1 and descends .005 per team, ending in a .005 bonus for a win against #12.
Click to expand...

Grant, I'm not clear on how you are getting the "QWB" number in your table, based on the statement above. Can you please explain?

Looking at Wisconsin (of course), they have two wins over Minnesota, currently at #3. That should be worth 2 x 0.05 = 0.10. And they have four wins over Bemidji, currently at #9 in adjusted RPI and #8 in unadjusted RPI. If I use #9, that's 4 x 0.02 = 0.08, and if I use #8, that is 4 x 0.025 = 0.010.

So shouldn't UW's QWB be either 0.18 or 0.20? You have 0.008, which makes no sense to me at all.
 
Re: Dramatic Changes To *This Season's* NCAA Selection Criteria?

robertearle said:
Grant, I'm not clear on how you are getting the "QWB" number in your table, based on the statement above. Can you please explain?

Looking at Wisconsin (of course), they have two wins over Minnesota, currently at #3. That should be worth 2 x 0.05 = 0.10. And they have four wins over Bemidji, currently at #9 in adjusted RPI and #8 in unadjusted RPI. If I use #9, that's 4 x 0.02 = 0.08, and if I use #8, that is 4 x 0.025 = 0.010.

So shouldn't UW's QWB be either 0.18 or 0.20? You have 0.008, which makes no sense to me at all.
Click to expand...
You're just missing the last step which is to divide the total bonus earned by total number of games played -- see below for CHN's primer on the QWB calculation on the men's side:

Quality Win Bonus (QWB): A "Quality Win Bonus" was added for the 2013-14 season. For any win against the top 20 of the RPI, a team is awarded "bonus points" on a sliding scale from 1-20. In other words, a team is given a .050 RPI bonus for defeating the No. 1 team, sliding down to .0025 bonus for defeating the 20th team. The total bonus for the season is divided by the amount of games played (weighted for home-road), to give a final bonus figure.
Click to expand...

(Note that there's no home/road weighting in women's)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top