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
- Thread starter Shirtless Guy
- Start date
manurespreader
Still upright
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
Well if you used a geometric sequence than you reward beating number 1 a lot and number 2 by a lot less etc. So you end at say 10 with a tiny number and it's still calculable, gets the job done, and makes mookie happy. Kind of like the payoff in a tennis tournament . The winner gets a lot the second guy a good bit but everyone else, not so much. Then you could essentially still end at 20 if you liked with little effect. Except there would be no real advantage to beating number 15.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
KRACH
Rank Team Rating RRWP Win % Rk W-L-T Win % Win Ratio SOS Rk SOS
1 Quinnipiac 668.6 .8564 1 29-3-7 0.8333 5.000 13 141.8
2 St. Cloud State 572.9 .8372 3 31-8-1 0.7875 3.706 8 161.1
3 North Dakota 537.9 .8287 2 30-6-4 0.8000 4.000 15 140.7
4 Providence 470.4 .8098 4 27-6-4 0.7838 3.625 18 135.5
5 Boston College 398.7 .7844 5 26-7-5 0.7500 3.000 17 137.5
6 Denver 389.3 .7806 9 23-9-6 0.6842 2.167 3 183.6
7 Michigan 296.2 .7334 6 24-7-5 0.7361 2.789 32 109.7
8 Massachusetts-Lowell 291.8 .7306 7 24-9-5 0.6974 2.304 22 129.7
9 Harvard 275.4 .7198 12 19-10-4 0.6364 1.750 9 160.1
10 Yale 270.2 .7162 10 19-8-4 0.6774 2.100 20 131.9
11 Boston University 259.3 .7083 14 21-12-5 0.6184 1.621 7 162.1
12 Notre Dame 255.6 .7055 13 19-10-7 0.6250 1.667 10 155.6
13 Minnesota-Duluth 239.2 .6924 27 18-15-5 0.5395 1.171 2 205.0
14 Northeastern 222.1 .6775 15 22-13-5 0.6125 1.581 12 142.2
15 Cornell 194.0 .6493 20 16-11-7 0.5735 1.345 11 145.5
16 Nebraska-Omaha 181.4 .6350 31 18-17-1 0.5139 1.057 6 171.9
17 Michigan Tech 171.3 .6225 8 23-9-5 0.6892 2.217 48 79.07
RPI
Rank Team RPI Adj RPI QWB QWB Adj RPI W-L-T Win % Win % Rank SOS SOS Rank
1 Quinnipiac .5904 .5938* .0070 .6008 29-3-7 .8229 1 .5129 17
2 St. Cloud State .5902 .5929* .0063 .5991 31-8-1 .7822 4 .5262 6
3 North Dakota .5876 .5883* .0057 .5939 30-6-4 .8010 2 .5165 15
4 Providence .5762 .5762 .0057 .5819 27-6-4 .7877 3 .5057 30
5 Boston College .5712 .5712 .0073 .5785 26-7-5 .7473 5 .5125 18
6 Denver .5706 .5706 .0055 .5761 23-9-6 .6896 8 .5310 3
7 Michigan .5669 .5672* .0027 .5699 24-7-5 .7314 6 .5121 20
8 Massachusetts-Lowell .5509 .5518* .0070 .5587 24-9-5 .6917 7 .5040 32
9 Boston University .5489 .5489 .0095 .5584 21-12-5 .6257 13 .5233 11
10 Harvard .5519 .5519 .0021 .5540 19-10-4 .6364 12 .5238 10
11 Yale .5482 .5485* .0030 .5515 19-8-4 .6741 10 .5063 27
12 Notre Dame .5462 .5462 .0051 .5513 19-10-7 .6124 16 .5242 9
13 Northeastern .5428 .5428 .0059 .5487 22-13-5 .6193 14 .5173 13
14 Minnesota-Duluth .5368 .5368 .0071 .5440 18-15-5 .5405 26 .5356 1
15 Cornell .5312 .5312 .0054 .5366 16-11-7 .5719 20 .5177 12
16 Michigan Tech .5354 .5354 .0003 .5358 23-9-5 .6892 9 .4842 45
KRACH
Rank Team Rating RRWP Win % Rk W-L-T Win % Win Ratio SOS Rk SOS
1 Quinnipiac 668.6 .8564 1 29-3-7 0.8333 5.000 13 141.8
2 St. Cloud State 572.9 .8372 3 31-8-1 0.7875 3.706 8 161.1
3 North Dakota 537.9 .8287 2 30-6-4 0.8000 4.000 15 140.7
4 Providence 470.4 .8098 4 27-6-4 0.7838 3.625 18 135.5
5 Boston College 398.7 .7844 5 26-7-5 0.7500 3.000 17 137.5
6 Denver 389.3 .7806 9 23-9-6 0.6842 2.167 3 183.6
7 Michigan 296.2 .7334 6 24-7-5 0.7361 2.789 32 109.7
8 Massachusetts-Lowell 291.8 .7306 7 24-9-5 0.6974 2.304 22 129.7
9 Harvard 275.4 .7198 12 19-10-4 0.6364 1.750 9 160.1
10 Yale 270.2 .7162 10 19-8-4 0.6774 2.100 20 131.9
11 Boston University 259.3 .7083 14 21-12-5 0.6184 1.621 7 162.1
12 Notre Dame 255.6 .7055 13 19-10-7 0.6250 1.667 10 155.6
13 Minnesota-Duluth 239.2 .6924 27 18-15-5 0.5395 1.171 2 205.0
14 Northeastern 222.1 .6775 15 22-13-5 0.6125 1.581 12 142.2
15 Cornell 194.0 .6493 20 16-11-7 0.5735 1.345 11 145.5
16 Nebraska-Omaha 181.4 .6350 31 18-17-1 0.5139 1.057 6 171.9
17 Michigan Tech 171.3 .6225 8 23-9-5 0.6892 2.217 48 79.07
RPI
Rank Team RPI Adj RPI QWB QWB Adj RPI W-L-T Win % Win % Rank SOS SOS Rank
1 Quinnipiac .5904 .5938* .0070 .6008 29-3-7 .8229 1 .5129 17
2 St. Cloud State .5902 .5929* .0063 .5991 31-8-1 .7822 4 .5262 6
3 North Dakota .5876 .5883* .0057 .5939 30-6-4 .8010 2 .5165 15
4 Providence .5762 .5762 .0057 .5819 27-6-4 .7877 3 .5057 30
5 Boston College .5712 .5712 .0073 .5785 26-7-5 .7473 5 .5125 18
6 Denver .5706 .5706 .0055 .5761 23-9-6 .6896 8 .5310 3
7 Michigan .5669 .5672* .0027 .5699 24-7-5 .7314 6 .5121 20
8 Massachusetts-Lowell .5509 .5518* .0070 .5587 24-9-5 .6917 7 .5040 32
9 Boston University .5489 .5489 .0095 .5584 21-12-5 .6257 13 .5233 11
10 Harvard .5519 .5519 .0021 .5540 19-10-4 .6364 12 .5238 10
11 Yale .5482 .5485* .0030 .5515 19-8-4 .6741 10 .5063 27
12 Notre Dame .5462 .5462 .0051 .5513 19-10-7 .6124 16 .5242 9
13 Northeastern .5428 .5428 .0059 .5487 22-13-5 .6193 14 .5173 13
14 Minnesota-Duluth .5368 .5368 .0071 .5440 18-15-5 .5405 26 .5356 1
15 Cornell .5312 .5312 .0054 .5366 16-11-7 .5719 20 .5177 12
16 Michigan Tech .5354 .5354 .0003 .5358 23-9-5 .6892 9 .4842 45
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
this looks to have that quality bonus in, so bu is higher in rpi due to their wins @ qu and hu, plus home wins vs mich & du at home ooc
this looks to have that quality bonus in, so bu is higher in rpi due to their wins @ qu and hu, plus home wins vs mich & du at home ooc
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
Rank-rpi unadjusted//Team//Rank*krach
1 Quinnipiac 1
2 St. Cloud State 2
3 North Dakota 3
4 Providence 4
5 Boston College 5
6 Denver 6
7 Michigan 7
9 Massachusetts-Lowell 8
8 Harvard 9
11 Yale 10
10 Boston University 11
12 Notre Dame 12
14 Minnesota-Duluth 13
13 Northeastern 14
16 Cornell 15
19 Nebraska-Omaha 16
15 Michigan Tech 17
21 St. Lawrence 18
17 Minnesota 19
22 Dartmouth 20
27 Miami 21
20 Penn State 22
23 Minnesota State 23
25 Rensselaer 24
24 Clarkson 25
26 Bowling Green 26
30 Union 27
18 Robert Morris 28
29 Ferris State 29
35 Vermont 30
31 Ohio State 31
32 Bemidji State 32
38 Merrimack 33
28 Air Force 34
34 Northern Michigan 35
43 Western Michigan 36
33 Holy Cross 37
39 New Hampshire 38
42 Wisconsin 39
47 Michigan State 40
36 RIT 41
41 Colgate 42
37 Mercyhurst 43
44 Lake Superior 44
45 Connecticut 45
50 Brown 46
49 Massachusetts 47
53 Maine 48
40 Army 49
51 Alaska-Anchorage 50
52 Alaska 51
55 Colorado College 52
46 Bentley 53
56 Alabama-Huntsville 54
48 Sacred Heart 55
54 Canisius 56
57 Princeton 57
58 Niagara 58
59 Arizona State 59
60 American International 60
Rank-rpi unadjusted//Team//Rank*krach
1 Quinnipiac 1
2 St. Cloud State 2
3 North Dakota 3
4 Providence 4
5 Boston College 5
6 Denver 6
7 Michigan 7
9 Massachusetts-Lowell 8
8 Harvard 9
11 Yale 10
10 Boston University 11
12 Notre Dame 12
14 Minnesota-Duluth 13
13 Northeastern 14
16 Cornell 15
19 Nebraska-Omaha 16
15 Michigan Tech 17
21 St. Lawrence 18
17 Minnesota 19
22 Dartmouth 20
27 Miami 21
20 Penn State 22
23 Minnesota State 23
25 Rensselaer 24
24 Clarkson 25
26 Bowling Green 26
30 Union 27
18 Robert Morris 28
29 Ferris State 29
35 Vermont 30
31 Ohio State 31
32 Bemidji State 32
38 Merrimack 33
28 Air Force 34
34 Northern Michigan 35
43 Western Michigan 36
33 Holy Cross 37
39 New Hampshire 38
42 Wisconsin 39
47 Michigan State 40
36 RIT 41
41 Colgate 42
37 Mercyhurst 43
44 Lake Superior 44
45 Connecticut 45
50 Brown 46
49 Massachusetts 47
53 Maine 48
40 Army 49
51 Alaska-Anchorage 50
52 Alaska 51
55 Colorado College 52
46 Bentley 53
56 Alabama-Huntsville 54
48 Sacred Heart 55
54 Canisius 56
57 Princeton 57
58 Niagara 58
59 Arizona State 59
60 American International 60
LordofBrewtown
Registered User
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
I am all for adding a 4th, or 5th criteria as long as they are the right ones.
I am against using a team's record in the last X number of games - games in the first part of the season should count as much as the end.
I am against any consideration for missing players/injuries. I know, it sucks…but it's a team sport and every game played adds to your resume.
I am also against anything that introduces an arbitrary cutoff or cliff - so no record against Teams under consideration. That introduces double jeopardy anyway (since it's already in the RPI component).
For the same reason - get rid of the QWB - it is already in the RPI (double jeopardy), and maybe we can replace in a new 4th or 5th comparison.
I think the best criteria to add is something that accounts for Home/Road games. Since conference games are evenly home/road, my first inclination is to just use non-conference road wins as the criteria. The problem is the discrepancy in number of road games by conference/unequal opportunity. I am against using the win pct for those games, as I think its more impressive for someone to go 3-4-1 non-conf on the road than 1-1.
Since that is problematic/probably won't fly, I propose separating the RPI into a separate Home RPI and Road RPI (essentially you have 120 teams instead of 60). That should help account for scheduling quality road games, and help account for various levels of home stadium advantage. The only dilemma with this is how to account for neutral site games: not at all, or count in both the home and road RPI (but for half?). I would count in both the home and road RPI. I'd let the NCAA assign any questionable games pre-season/tournament (e.g if The Big10 tourny happened to be in Milwaukee, it should be designated a home game for Wisconsin and away game for Michigan if playing each other).
Might be a little tougher to go back and look at prior years, as you'd have to track/assign home and away teams; but, I'd love to see this comparison.
I would also alter the RPI formula to put more emphasis on winning (50-20-30), and am for changing the tie-breaker to H2H, followed by Common Opponents, then overall RPI.
So the 4 comparisons would be: Home RPI, Away RPI, H2H, Common Opponents, (Overall RPI only used as 3rd tie breaker if needed, or potentially added as a 5th comparison)
So, there's 1 option if you have time on your hands.
I am all for adding a 4th, or 5th criteria as long as they are the right ones.
I am against using a team's record in the last X number of games - games in the first part of the season should count as much as the end.
I am against any consideration for missing players/injuries. I know, it sucks…but it's a team sport and every game played adds to your resume.
I am also against anything that introduces an arbitrary cutoff or cliff - so no record against Teams under consideration. That introduces double jeopardy anyway (since it's already in the RPI component).
For the same reason - get rid of the QWB - it is already in the RPI (double jeopardy), and maybe we can replace in a new 4th or 5th comparison.
I think the best criteria to add is something that accounts for Home/Road games. Since conference games are evenly home/road, my first inclination is to just use non-conference road wins as the criteria. The problem is the discrepancy in number of road games by conference/unequal opportunity. I am against using the win pct for those games, as I think its more impressive for someone to go 3-4-1 non-conf on the road than 1-1.
Since that is problematic/probably won't fly, I propose separating the RPI into a separate Home RPI and Road RPI (essentially you have 120 teams instead of 60). That should help account for scheduling quality road games, and help account for various levels of home stadium advantage. The only dilemma with this is how to account for neutral site games: not at all, or count in both the home and road RPI (but for half?). I would count in both the home and road RPI. I'd let the NCAA assign any questionable games pre-season/tournament (e.g if The Big10 tourny happened to be in Milwaukee, it should be designated a home game for Wisconsin and away game for Michigan if playing each other).
Might be a little tougher to go back and look at prior years, as you'd have to track/assign home and away teams; but, I'd love to see this comparison.
I would also alter the RPI formula to put more emphasis on winning (50-20-30), and am for changing the tie-breaker to H2H, followed by Common Opponents, then overall RPI.
So the 4 comparisons would be: Home RPI, Away RPI, H2H, Common Opponents, (Overall RPI only used as 3rd tie breaker if needed, or potentially added as a 5th comparison)
So, there's 1 option if you have time on your hands.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
mookie would be on board for a split like this. much like democrats and tax incentives
D) i think the ncaa has to wield its stick to push inclusive scheduling.
mookie is quite satisfied with bu for in our boys ooc games we visiting union, ylae, quinni, and harvard. for neutral games met nu, bc, & then cornell at msg. and hosted michigan 2x, denver, bucky, and bentley [ok, last 2 teams blew, but...].
other top programs are finally getting out of their home rink as well. even the goofs visited notre dame this year so the days of them playing all their ooc games at home appears to be waning. but it is because of this bonus. if this didn't exist the goofs would continue to invite uconn, merrimack and canisius to the mariucci for the holiday dodge tourney year after year.
mookie would be on board for a split like this. much like democrats and tax incentives
D) i think the ncaa has to wield its stick to push inclusive scheduling.mookie is quite satisfied with bu for in our boys ooc games we visiting union, ylae, quinni, and harvard. for neutral games met nu, bc, & then cornell at msg. and hosted michigan 2x, denver, bucky, and bentley [ok, last 2 teams blew, but...].
other top programs are finally getting out of their home rink as well. even the goofs visited notre dame this year so the days of them playing all their ooc games at home appears to be waning. but it is because of this bonus. if this didn't exist the goofs would continue to invite uconn, merrimack and canisius to the mariucci for the holiday dodge tourney year after year.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
I tend to think mookie is right. Though I don't think it's the QWB that's doing it. They are starting to get harder negotiations from teams. They're demanding return trips because they can now. Minnesota isn't in the same bargaining position they used to be in.
I tend to think mookie is right. Though I don't think it's the QWB that's doing it. They are starting to get harder negotiations from teams. They're demanding return trips because they can now. Minnesota isn't in the same bargaining position they used to be in.
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
First, I would like to see LordofBrewtown's proposal (home and road rpi calculations) or at least the rpi portion. I think that would be interesting. Because I don't know, does the current RPI calculation exclude the team in question in both the Oper and OOper?
Second, I agree with mookie and dxmnkd316. The need to encourage scheduling tougher OOC games and especially road games is important. Like dxmnkd31 said, I'm not sure that the QWB is causing it but I think the system rewarding it is important.
First, I would like to see LordofBrewtown's proposal (home and road rpi calculations) or at least the rpi portion. I think that would be interesting. Because I don't know, does the current RPI calculation exclude the team in question in both the Oper and OOper?
Second, I agree with mookie and dxmnkd316. The need to encourage scheduling tougher OOC games and especially road games is important. Like dxmnkd31 said, I'm not sure that the QWB is causing it but I think the system rewarding it is important.
LordofBrewtown
Registered User
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
I'd love to see the results if you split the RPI into the 2 componenets as discussed below...eagerly awaiting as I'm far too lazy to do this myself
I'd love to see the results if you split the RPI into the 2 componenets as discussed below...eagerly awaiting as I'm far too lazy to do this myself
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
For all who like splitting RPI into home/road do we keep the weighted game values? How do we deal with neutral sites? I would assume we keep the game weights and count neutral site games as half home half away games?
EDIT: How to deal with QWB? Are we removing that completely? Giving QWB in Road RPI to the victories vs the top 20 teams in Home RPI and vice versa?
For all who like splitting RPI into home/road do we keep the weighted game values? How do we deal with neutral sites? I would assume we keep the game weights and count neutral site games as half home half away games?
EDIT: How to deal with QWB? Are we removing that completely? Giving QWB in Road RPI to the victories vs the top 20 teams in Home RPI and vice versa?
Last edited:
LordofBrewtown
Registered User
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
My suggestions: Scrap QWB completely (it's already part of RPI). Count nuetral games half home, and half road (or just count full for both if that's easier).
My suggestions: Scrap QWB completely (it's already part of RPI). Count nuetral games half home, and half road (or just count full for both if that's easier).
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
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...
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...
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.
UML Puck Hawk
New member
Re: How to improve the Pairwise
Or they could start making deals with eastern schools. UVM, UNH, and Maine have been scheduling each other for OOC, I'm sure they would prefer to play someone from the WCHA.
Or they could start making deals with eastern schools. UVM, UNH, and Maine have been scheduling each other for OOC, I'm sure they would prefer to play someone from the WCHA.
Which adds the cost of flying to games to an already travel strapped league. But even with a 28 game schedule now, WCHA teams are having more conversations about games with their Eastern brethren.
Last edited: