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?

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh said:
Don't have the numbers in front of me right now, and too busy watching hockey to look it up at the moment, but I will say this: Pool B, when it's been available, has always gone to the ECAC-W. But Pool C would probably either be balanced or slightly in favor of the West, because 7/4 and 8/3 have always been the splits, even when the West only had 2 AQs. But I'd have to take the time to look it up to know for sure. In total, Pool B + Pool C, undoubtedly in favor of the Easti
All of that said, your stipulation that no Utica posters contribute to a discussion that has 0 possibility of creating a UC vs. the rest argument is downright offensive. Despite disagreements many posters have had here, anybody capable and willing to participate in discussion and debate about DIII hockey and anything (even remotely) related to it will be welcome on these boards. I personally would NEVER tell a poster they weren't allowed to participate in a discussion (and yes, I realize one of them did just that by stating that the Utica thread was a sacred place for UC fans only, but 2 wrongs don't make a right).
Click to expand...

Your right and thank you . I will look forward to the numbers
 
Re: NCAA Rankings?

jcase said:
Agree, nice breakdown, however, he states UWRF has the top SOS but the table shows UWSP with the best SOS. Is that a typo or did he misread it? If the latter, does this affect his analysis of potential pool C teams in any way?
Click to expand...

I think it was a typo or brain cramp, but it doesn't change the results. Stevens Point, like River Falls is not (at this point) going to get into the field.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings?

PSUChamps2001 said:
Once again...how? Plattsburgh dug its own grave....NCAA just put them where their numbers say they should be. Man some people are making Utica fans look good.
Click to expand...

Life Support was a metaphor or in the case of the ranking a "METAFOURTEEN" Relax its all good .
 
Re: NCAA Rankings?

OSU2010 said:
They didn't count one of Oswego's games, they are 19-3 in region, with 2-3 against ranked opponents, they left off their win over plymouth, in fact they left off a few of Plymouth's games like one of their games with Castleton.
Click to expand...

Actually they left off OSU's win against Lawrence because it is out of region. And i believe Plymouth played a couple DII schools
 
Re: NCAA Rankings?

berbs91 said:
Actually they left off OSU's win against Lawrence because it is out of region. And i believe Plymouth played a couple DII schools
Click to expand...

There was a rumor on this board that out of region games would count this year. That rumor is false.
 
NUProf said:
There was a rumor on this board that out of region games would count this year. That rumor is false.
Click to expand...

The rumor was based on the press conference announcing SNC and CSS were joinng the MCHA, where they specifically said that, as long as 75% of your schedule was in-region, all DIII opponents would count. They might have been referring to next sason, though.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Rankings?

NUProf said:
There was a rumor on this board that out of region games would count this year. That rumor is false.
Click to expand...
The rumor was based on an NCAA Nooz of the Day back in the summer that discussed changes to the D-III (across the board) selection process (Norm - help with the link, please!). In the same release, I believe was the reappointment of Bruce D for one more year as D-III hockey chair and the possibility of the D-I/III combo championships.

IIRC the release was vague on the effective date.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings?

joecct said:
The rumor was based on an NCAA Nooz of the Day back in the summer that discussed changes to the D-III (across the board) selection process (Norm - help with the link, please!). In the same release, I believe was the reappointment of Bruce D for one more year as D-III hockey chair and the possibility of the D-I/III combo championships.

IIRC the release was vague on the effective date.
Click to expand...

Since the Combo championship is defunct, does this mean that the change in counting out-of region games will also be defunct.

Years ago there was a proposal that out-of-region games played during school breaks would count as in-region if both teams agreed. That was approved, but never saw the light of day. Will that happen again?
 
Re: NCAA Rankings?

The NCAA rankings are certainly reasonable within the top-5, IMO, but become somewhat less-so as you read down 'em.

(As an aside, The Pairwise Comparisons for D-3 are a contradiction in terms, as there isn't nearly enough common-opponent or head-to-head data to render them anything like a "pair-wise" metric... Glad to see the NCAA appears to be ignoring it, and is following the KRACH pretty closely right now.)

So, having said all that, things are still up in the air through the coming weekend: I don't see that any team has wrapped-up diddly-squat in terms of seeding at this point, no matter what yardstick you care to use... It's a cold fact of life that some AQs will end-up in the NCAAs ahead of more deserving teams, yet all (or most) of those better teams have a shot to get in anyway, if they can just win-out.

There's going to be some desperate hockey games played this coming weekend, all of which should be a lot of fun to watch.
 
Last edited:
Re: NCAA Rankings?

Fishman'81 said:
The NCAA rankings are certainly reasonable within the top-5, IMO, but become somewhat less-so as you read down 'em.

(As an aside, The Pairwise Comparisons for D-3 are a contradiction in terms, as there isn't nearly enough common-opponent or head-to-head data to render them anything like a "pair-wise" metric... Glad to see the NCAA appears to be ignoring it, and is following the KRACH pretty closely right now.)

So, having said all that, things are still up in the air through the coming weekend: I don't see that any team has wrapped-up diddly-squat in terms of seeding at this point, no matter what yardstick you care to use... It's a cold fact of life that some AQs will end-up in the NCAAs ahead of more deserving teams, yet all (or most) of those better teams have a shot to get in anyway, if they can just win-out.

There's going to be some desperate hockey games played this coming weekend, all of which should be a lot of fun to watch.
Click to expand...

The USCHO "pairwise comparison" table is a listing of the raw data that the NCAA committee uses. USCHO does not call it "pairwise rankings," because they don't rank the teams using them. The committee is free to use those data with whatever weights they would like to use. The modified Bradley-Terry is not used in any way determining the rankings.
 
NUProf said:
The USCHO "pairwise comparison" table is a listing of the raw data that the NCAA committee uses. USCHO does not call it "pairwise rankings," because they don't rank the teams using them. The committee is free to use those data with whatever weights they would like to use. The modified Bradley-Terry is not used in any way determining the rankings.
Click to expand...

+1

And for clarification, by default the PWC page on USCHO is listed in order of WIN%, nothing more.

That said, The Committee can weigh as much as they like, even weighing them differently for 2 different teams in the same ranking (compare Plymouth and Oswego: both have high WIN, but low SOS and RNK, yet Oswego is #3 and Plymouth is #16. They weighed WIN far more heavily for Oz)
 
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh said:
+1

And for clarification, by default the PWC page on USCHO is listed in order of WIN%, nothing more.

That said, The Committee can weigh as much as they like, even weighing them differently for 2 different teams in the same ranking (compare Plymouth and Oswego: both have high WIN, but low SOS and RNK, yet Oswego is #3 and Plymouth is #16. They weighed WIN far more heavily for Oz)
Click to expand...

If Plymouth was 24-0 they would still be ranked below Oswego.
 
berbs91 said:
Actually they left off OSU's win against Lawrence because it is out of region. And i believe Plymouth played a couple DII schools
Click to expand...

On that link i commented on they have Oswego listed as 18-3 not 19-3 (if you add the Lawrence game their 20-3) they also have record against ranked teams listed as 1-3 not 2-3 like they actually are with wins over Plymouth and Hobart. They also have Castleton as 4-5 against ranked teams where they're 5-5 they left off Plymouths games in both cases
 
Re: NCAA Rankings?

It's almost as if the committee used the raw data to come up with the numbers and then said "Except for Oswego". There is no chance that they would rank where they do otherwise. As a Card fan I expected to get punished for a couple of squirrely losses and the general weakness of the bottom end of the conference. And we did!

But how and why, using the numbers as they are, could Oswego be ranked that high?? The rules clearly didn't apply to them.
 
Re: NCAA Rankings?

admiral0417 said:
It's almost as if the committee used the raw data to come up with the numbers and then said "Except for Oswego". There is no chance that they would rank where they do otherwise. As a Card fan I expected to get punished for a couple of squirrely losses and the general weakness of the bottom end of the conference. And we did!

But how and why, using the numbers as they are, could Oswego be ranked that high?? The rules clearly didn't apply to them.
Click to expand...

Having a discussion about whether or not Oswego should be #3 is a worthy discussion, but saying something like this is just dumb. Do you really think these grown men sit at a conference and decide to arbitrarily not apply the rules to a specific team? If that were the case, why not just put them #1?

Having said that, I think there are only two teams that you could justifiably put ahead of Oswego, Hobart and Babson. I think Bowdoin might have an outside shot (mostly due their 5-1-1 Record vs. Rank), but with Oswego winning the WIN and SOS comparison, I would put Oswego ahead of Bowdoin.

Hobart vs Oswego
WIN 0.7917 0 0.8636 1
SOS 0.5502 1 0.5035 0
H2H 0- 1- 0 0 1- 0- 0 1
COP 11- 2- 1 0 13- 2- 0 1
RNK 5- 4- 1 1 2- 3- 0 0
================
PTS 2 3

Despite the fact that Oswego wins this comparison 3-2, I think Hobart's large SOS advantage would justify putting them ahead of Oswego. I think the key for this comparison is that the Head-to-Head game played at The Cooler put Oswego ahead in the committee's eyes.

Babson vs Oswego
WIN 0.6842 0 0.8636 1
SOS 0.5341 1 0.5035 0
H2H 0- 0- 0 0 0- 0- 0 0
COP 0- 1- 0 0 1- 0- 0 1
RNK 5- 2- 2 1 2- 3- 0 0
===============
PTS 2 2

For this comparison, the question for me is Oswego's WIN advantage large enough to compensate for the SOS disadvantage? The 'tie-breaker' for me would be that Babson's RNK is far greater than Oswego. I could see Babson being ranked above Oswego for sure.



After looking at this more, Babson becomes an interesting team for me. A win this weekend against Norwich makes their resume pretty darn strong and I have to believe would bump them up in the next Regional Rankings to possibly 3rd? Maybe even jumping Norwich for 2nd since they would be 2-0-0 against them? Their two loses to an average Skidmore team could be their Pool C undoing! Discuss!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top