Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

[aygwm2]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

I don't know how it all works out in the bracketology number crunching and conference splitting and what-have-you, but couldn't you switch Notre Dame and RPI in these particular brackets for attendance purposes? Or don't they want two WCHA and two CCHA teams in the same region? They both would be 4 seeds, doesn't seem like it should matter that much. Just curious...

EDIT: Or is it that they don't want two ECAC teams, Q & RPI, playing in the first game?

 

[GRussinko]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

I don't know how it all works out in the bracketology number crunching and conference splitting and what-have-you, but couldn't you switch Notre Dame and RPI in these particular brackets for attendance purposes? Or don't they want two WCHA and two CCHA teams in the same region? They both would be 4 seeds, doesn't seem like it should matter that much. Just curious...

QU-RPI would be an ECAC matchup in the first round.

 

[Numbers]

http://www.elynah.com/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2013/ecac.cgi

So, he has a replacement for the ECAC part, but not the PWR yet?

 

[80Miracle]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Looks like three of the four Regions are doing fine with ticket sales (Toledo being the one site lagging). If they can arrange Miami-OH, North Dakota, and Notre Dame to end up in Toledo that could cure attendance issues at that site.

 

[kingdobbs]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

So, he has a replacement for the ECAC part, but not the PWR yet?

Nah, the PWR is still there and is AFAIK up to date. You just have to go back through the Archives (after the "copyright Joe Schlobotnik" line) link to get there.

 

[state of hockey]

Thread winner!

Doesn't take much to impress you, does it?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Nah, the PWR is still there and is AFAIK up to date. You just have to go back through the Archives (after the "copyright Joe Schlobotnik" line) link to get there.

Nice catch!

Direct Link

 

[LTsatch]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Looks like three of the four Regions are doing fine with ticket sales (Toledo being the one site lagging). If they can arrange Miami-OH, North Dakota, and Notre Dame to end up in Toledo that could cure attendance issues at that site.

I checked four for Providence the other day and was able to bet 4 tix at center ice in the eight row, maybe I just got lucky

 

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Nah, the PWR is still there and is AFAIK up to date. You just have to go back through the Archives (after the "copyright Joe Schlobotnik" line) link to get there.

Thank you very much King Dobbs.

 

[PaulG]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Here's a PWR question for the experts.

Why is BC getting the COp point in the comparison against Lowell when their record is 13-7-2 and Lowell's is 13-6-2?

 

[80Miracle]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

I checked four for Providence the other day and was able to bet 4 tix at center ice in the eight row, maybe I just got lucky

I tried earlier today and the best two seats available in Providence was Sec 112 (corner) Row B. I'm not expecting any sellouts, but I was surprised three of the regions were doing so well BEFORE the teams were announced.

 

[Hoover]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Looks like three of the four Regions are doing fine with ticket sales (Toledo being the one site lagging). If they can arrange Miami-OH, North Dakota, and Notre Dame to end up in Toledo that could cure attendance issues at that site.

I tried earlier today and the best two seats available in Providence was Sec 112 (corner) Row B. I'm not expecting any sellouts, but I was surprised three of the regions were doing so well BEFORE the teams were announced.

I have tickets for Grand Rapids - where are you finding info on ticket sales for the Regionals? Are you simply calling the box offices? I've been to Albany (twice), Grand Rapids and Worcester in recent years and would have liked to have seen better crowds. It would be nice to see Notre Dame and/or Western Michigan get placed in the West Regional to boost attendance.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Here's a PWR question for the experts.

Why is BC getting the COp point in the comparison against Lowell when their record is 13-7-2 and Lowell's is 13-6-2?

It's a change that was put through for the 2011-12 season. The way to calculate COp is to take the record against each COp, add it up and divide by the number of opponents. BC leads in that measure 6.084 to 5.999 but there are still 4 games left - plus playoffs.

 

[Patman]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

It's a change that was put through for the 2011-12 season. The way to calculate COp is to take the record against each COp, add it up and divide by the number of opponents. BC leads in that measure 6.084 to 5.999 but there are still 4 games left - plus playoffs.

#cop.id=which(games.mtx.nat[i,]>0 & games.mtx.nat[j,]>0)
#cop.mtx[i,j]=sum(wlt.mtx.nat[i,cop.id]/games.mtx.nat[i,cop.id])
#cop.mtx[j,i]=sum(wlt.mtx.nat[j,cop.id]/games.mtx.nat[j,cop.id])

/showoff

 

[PaulG]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

#cop.id=which(games.mtx.nat[i,]>0 & games.mtx.nat[j,]>0)
#cop.mtx[i,j]=sum(wlt.mtx.nat[i,cop.id]/games.mtx.nat[i,cop.id])
#cop.mtx[j,i]=sum(wlt.mtx.nat[j,cop.id]/games.mtx.nat[j,cop.id])

/showoff

Yes, but you have to lay serious doubts to a formula that credits BC for having one more LOSS against common opponents. They both have 13 wins and two ties - yet Lowell did it in 21 games whereas it took BC 22 to get those "points".

 

[Patman]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Yes, but you have to lay serious doubts to a formula that credits BC for having one more LOSS against common opponents. They both have 13 wins and two ties - yet Lowell did it in 21 games whereas it took BC 22 to get those "points".

Yeah, but both seat on similar ideas of what is important. I could justify both ways depending on how I structure assumptions on the world.

 

[80Miracle]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

I have tickets for Grand Rapids - where are you finding info on ticket sales for the Regionals? Are you simply calling the box offices? I've been to Albany (twice), Grand Rapids and Worcester in recent years and would have liked to have seen better crowds. It would be nice to see Notre Dame and/or Western Michigan get placed in the West Regional to boost attendance.

www.ncaa.com/championships/icehockey-men/d1#!tickets this link should allow you to see all available seats

 

[Hoover]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

www.ncaa.com/championships/icehockey-men/d1#!tickets this link should allow you to see all available seats

Thanks....

 

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Yes, but you have to lay serious doubts to a formula that credits BC for having one more LOSS against common opponents. They both have 13 wins and two ties - yet Lowell did it in 21 games whereas it took BC 22 to get those "points".

BC has 2 left with Vt, and Lowell has 2 left with Merrimack. Presently, against Vt, BC is 1-0, ML 2-0-1 (Adv BC). Against MC, BC went 2-1, ML is 0-1 (Adv. BC). So, for 4 games in which the cumulative records were BC: 3-1, ML: 2-1-1, BC gets points in the ComOpp part by 1.667 vs 0.8333. That's the difference. But, those games will even out, so it's not a big deal...

 

[Steve_MN]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Yes, but you have to lay serious doubts to a formula that credits BC for having one more LOSS against common opponents. They both have 13 wins and two ties - yet Lowell did it in 21 games whereas it took BC 22 to get those "points".

The thing is, it cleaned up a bit of an issue that was seen in the past. From the USCHO article covering this when it was only a proposed change:

The change would mean that a team that has a 5-0 record against a common opponent gets the same amount of points as a team with a 1-0 record against the same opponent.

Conversely, going 0-1 against a team would mean the same as going 0-5, decreasing the negative impact on a team’s score.

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2011/08/19/nca...teria-for-tournament-selection/#ixzz2MCkTd66U

The old way could lead to a situation where Team 1 went 5-2 against common opponents, where they played the worst team in a conference 4 times, going 4-0, and 1-2 against the top team in that conference. Team 2 ended up 4-2 against the same two teams, but went 3-2 against the top team in the conference and 1-0 against the worst team. Under the old method, Team 1 wins the common opponent comparison .7143 to .6667. Under the new system, team 2 would win the COp comparison 1.6 to 1.333 (1 point each for undefeated against the worst team, with Team 2 getting .6 for the 3-2 record against the top team and Team 1 only getting .333 for their 1-2 record)