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.

NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

LakerEagleLover said:
See UC thread - the HS games have been moved in case Utica advances....I believe the game will be in The Aud if both advance and the bracket as suggested is how it plays out...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't think I was allowed to read the Utica thread!:D Seriously, though, I didn't realize the games were moved.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

spwood said:
Sorry, I didn't think I was allowed to read the Utica thread!:D Seriously, though, I didn't realize the games were moved.
Click to expand...
Late breaking news! Didn't know myself that it was really happening till earlier today. We think it is a great thing!
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

OSU2010 said:
remember that the bracketology thread is purely speculation
Click to expand...

Not pure speculation, as there is SOME defined Criteria - BUT - the lack of transparency on certain facets results in the need for some speculation :mad:


Selection Criteria
Primary Criteria.
The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA
championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
• See below for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
• Ranked opponents are considered ranked once they appear one time in the
sport’s official rankings.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and
fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying
members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.
Secondary Criteria.
If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary
criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority
order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region Division III and
all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from other classifications
(i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall Division III strength of schedule.
• Win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season.
Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration
by the men’s ice hockey committee. In order to be considered for selection for
Pool B or Pool C, an institution must play at least 50 percent of its competition against
Division III in-region opponents. Coaches’ polls and/or any other outside polls or
rankings are not used as a selection criterion by the men’s ice hockey committee for
selection purposes.
Definition of In-Region Competition:
1. All competition within an institution’s defined sport region.
2. All competition within a 200-mile radius from one institution to another. Distances
between campuses will be determined using a mileage calculator. Distances can be
confirmed by clicking on the “Mileage Calculator” link at the following Web site: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/login .
3. All competition within an institution’s membership geographical region [Constitution
4.13.1.1].
4. All competition between members of the same conference.
Note: The committee will review all criteria listed above. A team may have an excellent
winning percentage; however, all primary criteria must also be examined.
Click to expand...

Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
Take each opponent’s regular won-lost percentage against other Division III teams
(excluding the results against the team in question) and average the percentages.

Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
The strength of each opponent’s schedule is measured by computing the opponents’
winning percentage for each opponent, then averaging the percentages. This
recognizes the fact that two opponents with similar won-lost records may have played
far different schedules (in terms of strength of opponents).
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

norm1909 said:
Not pure speculation, as there is SOME defined Criteria - BUT - the lack of transparency on certain facets results in the need for some speculation :mad:
Click to expand...

The criteria are defined pretty clearly. How they apply them is the problem. How the east committee and the west committee game the rankings to jockey for position and more teams from their regions is at the root of the seemingly corrupt process.
 
norm1909 said:
Not pure speculation, as there is SOME defined Criteria - BUT - the lack of transparency on certain facets results in the need for some speculation :mad:




Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
Take each opponent’s regular won-lost percentage against other Division III teams
(excluding the results against the team in question) and average the percentages.

Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
The strength of each opponent’s schedule is measured by computing the opponents’
winning percentage for each opponent, then averaging the percentages. This
recognizes the fact that two opponents with similar won-lost records may have played
far different schedules (in terms of strength of opponents).
Click to expand...

How the NCAA decides who will play who in which bracket is speculation
 
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh said:
Nobody here ever said the NCAA rabkings were sacrosanct or perfect. We all hate the system because it is so non-transparent and inconsistent. What we were saying is to stop b***hing about the USCHO poll (which I think most agreed was downright ridiculous), because it would mean nothing once the NCAA rankings came out. We can whine and moan about these because they actually matter. Regardless of whether or not we agree with the system that produces them, these rankings affect the postseason tournament directly... And that is a fact, not an opinion :)

But yes, I agree with you... The day D3 moves to a more transparent/consistent system is a day I dance for joy!,
Click to expand...

Good post, but just for the record, I never mentioned the USCHO poll except to cite its irrelevance.

At least I've learned that much. ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Rankings 2/19/13

I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned the most egregious error in the rankings, IMO: that which has Babson ahead of Hobart.

HC takes the win % comparison by a fairly robust margin of 76% to 69%, and much more narrowly in the NCAA's very own PWC SOS, though Hobart absolutely blows Babson out of the water in other more accurate SOS rankings. I see no reason to examine the comparison any more deeply than that. (Their respective records v. "ranked-teams" comparison is a flimsy construct of the NCAA's own making, a la the TUC in D-1; reasonably, all teams should be ranked along a continuum, without an artificial cliff to fall off, and the NCAA's rankings are a little suspect in the first place, obviously.)

Aside from the above, the rankings of the potential play-off teams actually look somewhat more plausible to me at this point than they have in many past years.

Oswego doesn't look to be terribly over-ranked, having won 21 games, and losing only to Utica and Platty, though PSU should be closer to the top-five, IMO. I'm not sold on Bowdoin due to their SOS... Their 20 wins gives them some degree of the benefit of the doubt, but certainly Hobart has a very legitimate gripe there, too. Norwich being ranked first is not outrageous, yet their SOS is similarly in question as far as ranking them over Utica. (But, whatever, those two teams are too close to call, otherwise.)

I haven't read the speculative bracketology thread; I don't need to. Utica, Hobart and Norwich should each receive a bye, clearly, but Hobart most-likely won't, if they even manage to get in. The inflated Babson ranking is at the root of that problem, and if Babson pulls one out of a hat v. Norwich in the ECAC-E tournament, things could get really ugly...

GO 'WICK! :p


(Fun thread to read, guys, for the most part.)
 
Last edited:
Fishman'81 said:
I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned the most egregious error in the rankings, IMO: that which has Babson ahead of Hobart.

HC takes the win % comparison by a fairly robust margin of 76% to 69%, and much more narrowly in the NCAA's very own PWC SOS, though Hobart absolutely blows Babson out of the water in other more accurate SOS rankings. I see no reason to examine the comparison any more deeply than that. (Their respective records v. "ranked-teams" comparison is a flimsy construct of the NCAA's own making, a la the TUC in D-1; reasonably, all teams should be ranked along a continuum, without an artificial cliff to fall off, and the NCAA's rankings are a little suspect in the first place, obviously.)

Aside from the above, the rankings of the potential play-off teams actually look somewhat more plausible to me at this point than they have in many past years.

Oswego doesn't look to be terribly over-ranked, having won 21 games, and losing only to Utica and Platty, though PSU should be closer to the top-five, IMO. I'm not sold on Bowdoin due to their SOS... Their 20 wins gives them some degree of the benefit of the doubt, but certainly Hobart has a very legitimate gripe there, too. Norwich being ranked first is not outrageous, yet their SOS is similarly in question as far as ranking them over Utica. (But, whatever, those two teams are too close to call, otherwise.)

I haven't read the speculative bracketology thread; I don't need to. Utica, Hobart and Norwich should each receive a bye, clearly, but Hobart most-likely won't, if they even manage to get in. The inflated Babson ranking is at the root of that problem, and if Babson pulls one out of a hat v. Norwich in the ECAC-E tournament, things could get really ugly...

GO 'WICK! :p


(Fun thread to read, guys, for the most part.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, if Babson loses, they take a loss in both WIN and RNK... Especially if they lose to UMB and never see Wick at all. Who knows what that'll do to their ranking.

Also, there's been (perhaps unfounded) speculation that OSU might be that high to get them a home game in the QFs against Adrian should they win... There is still a possibility that a loss to Plattsburgh would cause them to drop far enough that they can forget hosting, much less a bye, and can start scheduling tee-off. It'll be an interesting thing to watch (or listen!) on Sunday, that's for sure!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top