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.

How to improve the Pairwise

Re: How to improve the Pairwise

davyd83 said:
Other than the WCHA and AHA, the rest play 24 or fewer conference games. If the WCHA were to cut 4 games off their conference slate, it would push more into having to accept more 2-for-1 offers from the Michigan's and 1-for-nones from the North Dakotas & Penn States of the college hockey world. It's already tough enough for the WCHA to fill 6-8 non conference games with equal home and road dates.
Click to expand...
Thats fine if true, and maybe this isn't as big a problem anymore directly because WCHA is at 8-10 possible NC games now because of Alaska exemptions.
NCHC 24/10
B1G 20/14 (currently, have to see if that continues with ND moving)
HEA 22/12
WCHA 28/6-10
ECAC 22/12 (non-ivy)
ECAC 22/7 (ivy)
AHA 28/6

I guess maybe the direct number of games isn't the problem...its the East/West distribution...
League - Games vs other half of country/Total NC games (%)
B1G - 47/89 (0.528)
NCHC - 39/84 (0.464)
AHA - 26/66 (0.394)
HEA - 50/131 (0.382)
ECAC - 26/108 (0.241)
WCHA - 16/71 (0.225)

ECAC and WCHA need to play more...
 
Last edited:
Shirtless Guy said:
Thats fine if true, and maybe this isn't as big a problem anymore directly because WCHA is at 8-10 possible NC games now because of Alaska exemptions.
NCHC 24/10
B1G 20/14 (currently, have to see if that continues with ND moving)
HEA 24/10
WCHA 28/6-10
ECAC 22/12 (non-ivy)
ECAC 22/7 (ivy)
AHA 28/6

I guess maybe the direct number of games isn't the problem...its the East/West distribution...
League - Games vs other half of country/Total NC games (%)
B1G - 47/89 (0.528)
NCHC - 39/84 (0.464)
AHA - 26/66 (0.394)
HEA - 50/131 (0.382)
ECAC - 26/108 (0.241)
WCHA - 16/71 (0.225)

ECAC and WCHA need to play more...
Click to expand...
The would be nice. I'd love to get out east and see some new opponents, venues, towns & fans, but how do you do it without incurring the huge expense of air travel?
 
Last edited:
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

davyd83 said:
The would be nice. I'd love to get out east and see some new opponents, venues, towns & fans, but how do you do it without incurring the huge expense of air travel?
Click to expand...

have no other hobbies and interests
 
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

Shirtless Guy said:
HEA 24/10
Click to expand...

If this is based on the last couple of seasons, HEA has been 22/12. (12 teams = play 11 teams home and away)

davyd83 said:
The would be nice. I'd love to get out east and see some new opponents, venues, towns & fans, but how do you do it without incurring the huge expense of air travel?
Click to expand...

I mean, you don't. Unless you can somehow invent teleportation.
 
Last edited:
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

Shirtless Guy said:
QWB really isn't in the RPI calc with it being 25/21/51. Here are the most valuable teams to beat for this season with adjusted RPI rank in paranthesis (before adding QWB):
(1) Quinnipiac
(8) Harvard
(10) Boston University
(4) Providence
(6) Denver
(14) Minnesota-Duluth
(7) Michigan
(2) St. Cloud State
(5) Boston College
(12) Notre Dame
(13) Northeastern
(17) Minnesota
(3) North Dakota
(16) Cornell
(18) Robert Morris
(23) Minnesota State
(11) Yale
(9) Mass.-Lowell
(15) Michigan Tech
(22) Dartmouth

Missing 19, 20, 21

I really do like the idea of giving QWB to road teams getting a positive results against the top 20 home RPI teams...
Click to expand...

What I meant by it "already being in RPI" is that your RPI is already getting the benefit of having played a good team vs a poor one.

I like/understand what the QWB is trying to achieve; but, I really, really dislike the QWB in practice. And if you split the comparisons into a separate road RPI, there should not be the need for it.
 
Shirtless Guy said:
thanks for taking the extreme and throwing out the idea that the ECAC and WCHA should play more...love your positivity.
Click to expand...

One must look at the whole picture. Sure, Bowling Green to Mercyhurst is a relatively quick trip. But neither Bemidji nor Mankato is a one day bus trip to any AHA or ECAC school, nor is Michigan Tech, nor is NMU (been on a few Marquettr to Erie football trips). Even the Soo to Pittsburgh or Erie is around 11 hours by bus. Yes, there are a handful of doable WCHA/AHA/ECAC bus trips but not many. That's not negativity. That's reality. Tech has done Huntsville by bus. Do you think they want to add a similar amount of bus time to Buffalo?
 
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

Here's a thought. What does it say about the selection system when you feel the need to tailor schedules to it, rather than schedule based on what is in the best interest of any given team and their fans. For example: Sure, Michigan Tech vs. Merrimack is ok, but are any fans of either really excited about it?

Seems to me the selection system should be tailored to what will best drive the sport, not the other way 'round.
 
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

billmich88888 said:
crossing at the Soo........?
Click to expand...
-
It's about two hours more in pure driving time staying in the States, but add in getting 28-30 people of varying nationalities through customs at the Soo and then again at Johnstown, ONT, or at Port Huron & Johnstown and you have another element to consider.
 
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

davyd83 said:
-
It's about two hours more in pure driving time staying in the States, but add in getting 28-30 people of varying nationalities through customs at the Soo and then again at Johnstown, ONT, or at Port Huron & Johnstown and you have another element to consider.
Click to expand...

fair enough, excellent point
 
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Here's a thought. What does it say about the selection system when you feel the need to tailor schedules to it, rather than schedule based on what is in the best interest of any given team and their fans. For example: Sure, Michigan Tech vs. Merrimack is ok, but are any fans of either really excited about it?

Seems to me the selection system should be tailored to what will best drive the sport, not the other way 'round.
Click to expand...

I was actually rather impressed that Lowell scheduled Arizona State to come to town for two games this year, knowing that it would do them absolutely no help w/r/t the Pairwise.

Personally, I like seeing my team play any OOC team, and especially one I've never seen them play before. The last couple of seasons, Lowell's hosted Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Quinnipiac, Arizona State, Colorado College, RPI, and AIC. It's been awesome! I kind of wish they wouldn't schedule so many holiday tournaments so there'd be one more non-conference home game to schedule and I could see another team. Even if the team is kinda bad (ASU, AIC, CC) it's cool to see new teams.

Anyway, it's the same in every college sport: if you have postseason aspirations, you need to schedule and play high-quality opponents. This is not unique to hockey.
 
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

I do want to point out, even though it might be redundant, that if you used a geometric progression in calculating the QWB you could cut it off at 10 teams and not have a cliff.
 
Re: How to improve the Pairwise

Listening to today's USCHO Live recording. http://www.uscho.com/uscho-live/2016/04/07/uscho-live-thursday-at-the-2016-ncaa-frozen-four/

HEA commish Joe Bertagna did a fair amount of bloviating about the selection process, saying that there should basically be more wiggle room to go against the coaches' wishes to have transparency in the selection/seeding process. Basically in favor of a more basketball-like closed-door, smoky boardroom sort of shenanigans... specifically taking into account how a team is playing in the last X number of games to fudge stuff around.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there really anyone on the boards here who thinks that way?

Whatever arguments we might have over the numerical method chosen, I feel like we can all agree that we like the transparency of a purely numerical method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top