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.

Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

kingdobbs said:
Because currently, Merrimack is leading Hockey East, both in points accumulated and in in-conference winning percentage.

Bracketology has always been an informal simulation of the tournament selection process, operating under the assumption that there are no more games remaining to play, not even those in conference tournaments. In the absence of such, bracketologists have to choose based on another method, and the next-most-logical (and the one that requires zero computations of probability) is "current regular season standings winner". Bracketology could use "highest ranking in the PWR or RPI" to determine this, but the fact that it's a simulation of the process itself leads bracketologists to use a method which would be used by conferences in such a process*.

Ordinarily, with the usual exception of Atlantic Hockey**, the team leading a conference in the standings is usually ranked in the Top 16 (i.e. the "cut-off" line), and so this question would be moot.

*And by NCAA regulations, there's really only two ways a conference can select its automatic participant: highest ranked at the end of round-robin conference play, or a knockout tournament. Technically, there's also a provision for an "in case of emergency" if a tournament can't be conducted in time for the tournament selection.

**Niagara's performance this year being, of course, against the trend.
Click to expand...
Excellent explanation! Absent the 1st sentence, this post should be inserted every 25 posts or so as a reminder of the approach to determining the field. Would love to see MC make the tournament, auto-bid or otherwise (and by otherwise, I mean by improving their pairwise postion to a point where they are safely "in" and not in danger of being knocked out by some other conference auto-bid).
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

I have two questions about the field. 1. Is it theoretically or practically possible that AHA could get 2 bids if Niagara loses in the AHA finals? 2. If that were to somhow happen, would the NCCA change the rules again to prevent it from ever happening again?
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Jim said:
I have two questions about the field. 1. Is it theoretically or practically possible that AHA could get 2 bids if Niagara loses in the AHA finals? 2. If that were to somhow happen, would the NCCA change the rules again to prevent it from ever happening again?
Click to expand...

Very possible.

No, the NCAA isn't going to change the rule. This has happened before (2010, Bemidji State) and the NCAA didn't act then.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Jim said:
I have two questions about the field. 1. Is it theoretically or practically possible that AHA could get 2 bids if Niagara loses in the AHA finals? 2. If that were to somhow happen, would the NCCA change the rules again to prevent it from ever happening again?
Click to expand...

To answer both questions:

1) Yes, it is very possible. Niagara's PWR ranking is almost totally dependent on their RPI. If they were to, let's say, win all their games from now until the AHA finals, and then lose, their RPI might well hang right where it is right now. I believe that would be a 7-1 record, which is better than their current win %age, so their RPI couldn't suffer too bad. Then, whoever beat them in the finals would also qualify.

2) There would be no reason to change the rules. The rules are that each conference has one auto-bid they can give out however they want. AHA does that by their tourney. So do all the other conferences. That makes it always possible that someone gets hot and wins the tourney, even though their regular season may have been less than stellar.

2a) In this case, the likely candidate is Robert Morris, who is almost a TUC or on the bubble anyway. I am just guessing here, but if they won the auto bid, their PWR rank might end up somewhere around 20 - 22. I am sure the NCAA would have no problem with that.

Sidenote: There was a situation a few years ago where the definition of TUC was: All teams with RPI at or above .500 + all teams who won their conference tourney. That was a problem that one year, because the regular season champ from AHA actually would have benefitted in the PWR by intentionally losing the tourney to Bentley. Bentley had a low RPI, and Holy Cross (can someone verify that???) played them 7 times or something like that, winning them all. If they had intentionally lost in the tourney, that would have been 6-1 or 7-1, and Bentley, by winning the tourney, would have been TUC. That would have raised Holy Cross' TUC record by 6-1, and vaulted them over about 4 or 5 other teams in the PWR.
Thankfully, HC won the game. And, the NCAA changed the rule about who is a TUC to only include at or above .500 RPIs, regardless of conference championships, after that happened.

Sorry for the history lesson....
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Priceless said:
No, I didn't, but hallelujah!
Click to expand...

I can access the site, but the only info there for the present season is for games up to Jan 12. I believe Mr Whelan has yet to update the results for games since then....

At least, that's my hope.
 
Numbers said:
I can access the site, but the only info there for the present season is for games up to Jan 12. I believe Mr Whelan has yet to update the results for games since then....

At least, that's my hope.
Click to expand...

As a BU fan I am more than willing to disregard the results since Jan 12. :D
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Numbers said:
2a) In this case, the likely candidate is Robert Morris, who is almost a TUC or on the bubble anyway. I am just guessing here, but if they won the auto bid, their PWR rank might end up somewhere around 20 - 22. I am sure the NCAA would have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

As an AHA watcher, never count out Air Force until they are eliminated. I believe they have only lost one game in AHA tournament play since they joined the conference - a loss to Sacred Heart in the semi-finals. That was the year RIT won the AHA and went on to the Frozen Four.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Priceless & others,

Short of Michigan or Michigan State making a helluva run and winning the CCHA Tournament OR WMU falling flat on its face and missing the Tournament. Is WMU pretty much a lock for Grand Rapids? Or do they need to stay in that 2-3 seed range in order to likely end up in GR?

Any help would be appreciated!
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

komey1 said:
As an AHA watcher, never count out Air Force until they are eliminated. I believe they have only lost one game in AHA tournament play since they joined the conference - a loss to Sacred Heart in the semi-finals. That was the year RIT won the AHA and went on to the Frozen Four.
Click to expand...

My comment about changing the rules was made tongue in cheek (mostly). I go back to when this league got the original autobid and there was a lot of anguish from many fans that it was "undeserved." The idea that there is a chance that the league could actually get 2 is sort of amazing.

As to who might win the league tourney, I guess its a little tricky until we know the final standings, but other than Niagara I'd say Air Force is always a tough out. So is RIT. This year Holy Cross is more than solid and I think UConn and Mercyhurst are both capable if things break the right way. So bottom line, while Niagara is clearly the best of the league, I don't think it is automatic that they'll get the autobid.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

broncos24 said:
Priceless & others,

Short of Michigan or Michigan State making a helluva run and winning the CCHA Tournament OR WMU falling flat on its face and missing the Tournament. Is WMU pretty much a lock for Grand Rapids? Or do they need to stay in that 2-3 seed range in order to likely end up in GR?

.
Any help would be appreciated!
Click to expand...

Way too much hockey to be played to figure where they will land - being a low 2 seed they are not a lock for the tournament let alone a specific site. If Michigan makes the tournament, they would play in Grand Rapids because they are the host.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

broncos24 said:
Priceless & others,

Short of Michigan or Michigan State making a helluva run and winning the CCHA Tournament OR WMU falling flat on its face and missing the Tournament. Is WMU pretty much a lock for Grand Rapids? Or do they need to stay in that 2-3 seed range in order to likely end up in GR?

Any help would be appreciated!
Click to expand...

It's still too early to project that kind of thing, but my general rule of thumb is:
A) Get a #1 seed and take the matter out of the committee's hands.
B) Failing A, where you end up is often determined by how you rank according to the #1 seeds in the bracket. (ie 1v8/2v7 etc) or other conference teams (ie right now WMU is in Grand Rapids only to avoid an all-WCHA pairing in the 1st round)
C) The exception is if your school is a major attendance enhancer (or has that reputation).

In this case, WMU might be the only attendance draw in that regional, forcing the NCAA to put them there regardless so the arena isn't a complete ghost town. If Notre Dame or Wisconsin become available they might trump WMU.

But it really is too soon to tell.
 
Priceless said:
It's still too early to project that kind of thing, but my general rule of thumb is:
A) Get a #1 seed and take the matter out of the committee's hands.
B) Failing A, where you end up is often determined by how you rank according to the #1 seeds in the bracket. (ie 1v8/2v7 etc) or other conference teams (ie right now WMU is in Grand Rapids only to avoid an all-WCHA pairing in the 1st round)
C) The exception is if your school is a major attendance enhancer (or has that reputation).

In this case, WMU might be the only attendance draw in that regional, forcing the NCAA to put them there regardless so the arena isn't a complete ghost town. If Notre Dame or Wisconsin become available they might trump WMU.

But it really is too soon to tell.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

I know there's still a ton of hockey left, I was just curious as to what we need to do to end up in GR.
 
Numbers said:
To answer both questions:

1) Yes, it is very possible. Niagara's PWR ranking is almost totally dependent on their RPI. If they were to, let's say, win all their games from now until the AHA finals, and then lose, their RPI might well hang right where it is right now. I believe that would be a 7-1 record, which is better than their current win %age, so their RPI couldn't suffer too bad. Then, whoever beat them in the finals would also qualify.

2) There would be no reason to change the rules. The rules are that each conference has one auto-bid they can give out however they want. AHA does that by their tourney. So do all the other conferences. That makes it always possible that someone gets hot and wins the tourney, even though their regular season may have been less than stellar.

2a) In this case, the likely candidate is Robert Morris, who is almost a TUC or on the bubble anyway. I am just guessing here, but if they won the auto bid, their PWR rank might end up somewhere around 20 - 22. I am sure the NCAA would have no problem with that.

Sidenote: There was a situation a few years ago where the definition of TUC was: All teams with RPI at or above .500 + all teams who won their conference tourney. That was a problem that one year, because the regular season champ from AHA actually would have benefitted in the PWR by intentionally losing the tourney to Bentley. Bentley had a low RPI, and Holy Cross (can someone verify that???) played them 7 times or something like that, winning them all. If they had intentionally lost in the tourney, that would have been 6-1 or 7-1, and Bentley, by winning the tourney, would have been TUC. That would have raised Holy Cross' TUC record by 6-1, and vaulted them over about 4 or 5 other teams in the PWR.
Thankfully, HC won the game. And, the NCAA changed the rule about who is a TUC to only include at or above .500 RPIs, regardless of conference championships, after that happened.

Sorry for the history lesson....
Click to expand...
Didn't the NCAA also change the way record versus TUC's is calculated to make it equal to the average of all win percentages against TUC's played? This would help to prevent team's from beefing up their TUC record from beating a few teams many times. One year UW would have been better off losing to AA so their 6 -1 record (or something similar) would count in the TUC record. By losing to AA, it allowed AA to become a TUC. Beat AA, and AA is not a TUC and no TUC record bump. Pairwise is crazy.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

broncos24 said:
Thank you!

I know there's still a ton of hockey left, I was just curious as to what we need to do to end up in GR.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody considered a world where MSU and UM were both sucking complete wind
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

uwmark said:
Didn't the NCAA also change the way record versus TUC's is calculated to make it equal to the average of all win percentages against TUC's played? This would help to prevent team's from beefing up their TUC record from beating a few teams many times. One year UW would have been better off losing to AA so their 6 -1 record (or something similar) would count in the TUC record. By losing to AA, it allowed AA to become a TUC. Beat AA, and AA is not a TUC and no TUC record bump. Pairwise is crazy.
Click to expand...

I don't believe so, but that is what they did with the Common Opponent part of the comparisons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top