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

Federal League said:
You can do this on CHN all year now. Just go to the "Customize" tab: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php
Click to expand...

Correct. However, you cannot create your own version of what happens through the playoffs. You can only put in whatever games are already listed there. That is the benefit to Whelans' site on elynah. You can simulate whatever you want for the entire playoff lineup.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

If you want to simulate the ECAC, CCHA and AHA playoffs at the Do It Yourself page follow these instructions:

Choose what you want it to output (PWR, RPI, KRACH, PWR breakdown)
*** Specify results *** (otherwise it will just keep generating the current pairwise)
Paste in the following script(s)

20130303 Ck 0 Bn 1 nc
20130303 Ha 0 Da 1 nc
20130303 Cr 0 Pn 1 nc
20130303 Cg 0 SL 1 nc
20130303 Ck 0 Bn 1 nc
20130303 Ha 0 Da 1 nc
20130303 Cr 0 Pn 1 nc
20130303 Cg 0 SL 1 nc
20130303 Pn 0 Qn 1 nc
20130303 Pn 0 Qn 1 nc
20130303 Bn 0 RP 1 nc
20130303 Bn 0 RP 1 nc
20130303 SL 0 Ya 1 nc
20130303 SL 0 Ya 1 nc
20130303 Da 0 Un 1 nc
20130303 Da 0 Un 1 nc
20130303 Un 0 Qn 1 nc
20130303 Ya 0 RP 1 nc
20130303 Un 0 Ya 1 nc
20130303 RP 0 Qn 1 nc


20130303 BG 0 LS 1 nc
20130303 BG 0 LS 1 nc
20130303 NM 0 Mi 1 nc
20130303 NM 0 Mi 1 nc
20130303 MS 0 Ak 1 nc
20130303 MS 0 Ak 1 nc
20130303 FS 0 OS 1 nc
20130303 FS 0 OS 1 nc
20130303 LS 0 Mm 1 nc
20130303 LS 0 Mm 1 nc
20130303 Mi 0 Nt 1 nc
20130303 Mi 0 Nt 1 nc
20130303 Ak 0 WM 1 nc
20130303 Ak 0 WM 1 nc
20130303 WM 0 Nt 1 nc
20130303 OS 0 Mm 1 nc
20130303 Nt 0 Mm 1 nc


20130303 SH 0 RM 1 nc
20130303 SH 0 RM 1 nc
20130303 AI 0 RT 1 nc
20130303 AI 0 RT 1 nc
20130303 Ar 0 Mh 1 nc
20130303 Ar 0 Mh 1 nc
20130303 By 0 Ca 1 nc
20130303 By 0 Ca 1 nc
20130303 RM 0 Ct 1 nc
20130303 RM 0 Ct 1 nc
20130303 RT 0 Ni 1 nc
20130303 RT 0 Ni 1 nc
20130303 Mh 0 HC 1 nc
20130303 Mh 0 HC 1 nc
20130303 Ca 0 AF 1 nc
20130303 Ca 0 AF 1 nc
20130303 Ct 0 Ni 1 nc
20130303 HC 0 AF 1 nc
20130303 AF 0 Ni 1 nc

The dates are irrelevant.
This script has the higher seeded team winning each game. To simulate a visiting team winning a game, change the 0 to a 2 and remember to enter a third game for the early rounds. If you pick an upset remember to change the script accordingly based on reseeding. Playoff scripts for Hockey East and WCHA will be available after their seasons are complete. Any questions, please ask. If you notice a mistake let me know and I'll fix it. The playoff trees on USCHO.com aren't always clear because of reseeding possibilities.

To answer a question about Niagara: If they get to the AHA championship game and lose, it looks like they'll still make the tournament.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Priceless said:
The dates are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Priceless,
I assume that the dates are relevant if you turn on the Last 16 Games option. I did that earlier to see how RPI's position would change if that factor was still included. (RPI moved up two spots at that time.)
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Ralph Baer said:
Priceless,
I assume that the dates are relevant if you turn on the Last 16 Games option. I did that earlier to see how RPI's position would change if that factor was still included. (RPI moved up two spots at that time.)
Click to expand...
In that case, yes.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Thanks to the Build Your Own Rankings Calculator we now have 10 years of Pairwise data to study. In that time there have been 19 teams that qualified thanks to the autobid and 141 who qualified by being ranked high enough (autobid or not) to make the NCAA tournament.

Of the 141 teams, 128 (90.8%) that qualified as of the end of February would have made the eventual field. In 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2011 every team above the eventual cut line in the pairwise made the tournament. These rankings are the most accurate predictor of what the NCAA tournament field will look like. 126 of the 141 teams (89.4%) in the pairwise before conference tournaments qualify.

Only the 2007 Denver team (#7) was ranked in the top 11 of the pairwise and failed to make the tournament. That same year, Michigan State came from #18 to capture a bid and went on to win the national championship. That is the lowest a team has been and still earned an at-large berth. Other teams have been ranked lower (Air Force, Michigan) but they won their conference championship to earn an automatic bid.

Of the teams ranked 12-18 (the bubble)

#12: Six of the 10 teams qualified
#13: Seven of the 10
#14 Seven of the 10
#15 Four of the 10
#16 Four of the 10
#17 Two of the 10 (2012 Western Michigan, 2007 St Lawrence)
#18 Two of the 10 (2007 Michigan State, 2005 Colgate)

Obviously it is better to be on the inside of the bubble but hope is not lost for those on the outside looking in. This year especially, since all the autobids are ranked and the cut line is projected at 16 for the first time in tournament history.

Looking at the pairwise on 2/28 the 16-team field (minus autobids) should come from this list

1 Quinnipiac (EC) 31
2 Minnesota (WC) 30
3 Miami (CC) 29
4 New Hampshire (HE) 27
5 Boston Coll (HE) 26
6 North Dakota (WC) 26
7 MSU-Mankato (WC) 25
8 Niagara (AH) 23
9 Mass-Lowell (HE) 22
10 Western Mich (CC) 22
11 St Cloud (WC) 21
12 Dartmouth (EC) 18
13 Denver U (WC) 18
14 Notre Dame (CC) 16
15 Yale (EC) 16
16 RPI (EC) 16
17 Robert Morris (AH) 13
18 St Lawrence (EC) 13
19 AK-Fairbanks (CC) 13
20 Boston Univ (HE) 13

Statistically, if your team is ranked 11 or above, you are a lock for the tournament, but realistically they still have work to do to clinch a spot. I would not rest easy if I were a Dartmouth fan, not just because they were ranked 12 (statistically weaker than the #13 and #14 seeds) but because in five of the last 10 years Dartmouth has been ranked high enough in the January 1 pairwise (or later) and never made the field. Will this finally be the year?
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Considering Niagara's drop - they could easily not make the tournament without winning the autobid.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Does anyone a problem with the TUC category?

It seems to be a litte ridiculous considering that they are taking half of the NCAA Hockey teams and make them relevant when they shouldn't be at all. One team has played 21 games against TUC teams. Of those 21 games none of them are in the current top 20 teams PWR. Another team has played 21 game against TUC teams and 14 of them are in the top 20. Another one has played 24 games and 16 of them are in the 20. Just a few examples that I have seen.

Are the 20th-30th ranked teams really under consideration at the end of the day? In all reality, they are not under consideration, they never were under consideration because when the selection committee looks at the teams, it will look at how many teams were given automatic bids and then lop off all of the teams that were past that point.

It doesn't really make sense to consider these teams under consideration as they have 0 chance of making the tournament in the first place.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Haven't seen ths posted by anyone yet, so here is this week's bracketology and TUC update.

Code: 
[B]Manchester (UNH)	Providence (Brown)	Toledo (BGSU)		Grand Rapids (Michigan)[/B]
Lowell			Quinnipiac		Miami			Minnesota
New Hamp		Mankato			Boston C		N Dakota
St Cloud		Yale			Denver			W Michigan
Niagara			Alaska			RPI			Notre Dame

Code: 
29	Co Coll 0.5042
30	Merr	0.5032
31	Cornell	0.5008
32	N Mich  0.5006
33	Brown	0.5003
---
34	Colgate	0.4963
35	Conn	0.4952
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Why is North Dakota and Minnesota always put in the same Region? I like the fact they spread out the other WCHA teams, but you could make in argument Minnesota and North Dakota are two of the top four teams in the country
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Priceless said:
Haven't seen ths posted by anyone yet, so here is this week's bracketology and TUC update.

Code: 
[B]Manchester (UNH)	Providence (Brown)	Toledo (BGSU)		Grand Rapids (Michigan)[/B]
Lowell			Quinnipiac		Miami			Minnesota
New Hamp		Mankato			Boston C		N Dakota
St Cloud		Yale			Denver			W Michigan
Niagara			Alaska			RPI			Notre Dame

Code: 
29	Co Coll 0.5042
30	Merr	0.5032
31	Cornell	0.5008
32	N Mich  0.5006
33	Brown	0.5003
---
34	Colgate	0.4963
35	Conn	0.4952
Click to expand...

If those brackets end up being the ones, then both regionals in the East will be absolutely terrible. Conversely, those Western brackets, especially the Grand Rapids one look fantastic.
 
Onion Man said:
If those brackets end up being the ones, then both regionals in the East will be absolutely terrible. Conversely, those Western brackets, especially the Grand Rapids one look fantastic.
Click to expand...

Manchester isn't bad. Lowell is one of the hottest teams in the country and UNH at Manchester is always tough. The Providence bracket looks not as strong and attendance will be iffy.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

MCgrad07 said:
Manchester isn't bad. Lowell is one of the hottest teams in the country and UNH at Manchester is always tough. The Providence bracket looks not as strong and attendance will be iffy.
Click to expand...

You have at least 5K in Connecticut fan attendance already built into that regional, add another 2K to 3K casual walk ups, not bad IMO. There will hopefully be some local interest as Providence is a decent hockey town hosting a regional for the first time in a while.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Onion Man said:
If those brackets end up being the ones, then both regionals in the East will be absolutely terrible. Conversely, those Western brackets, especially the Grand Rapids one look fantastic.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Why would you not put RPI in the Manchester regional? Would bracket integrity be THAT destroyed?
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

FlagDUDE08 said:
Seriously. Why would you not put RPI in the Manchester regional? Would bracket integrity be THAT destroyed?
Click to expand...
streaker said:
That would be my argument also. I think it is a change that would be made.
Click to expand...

Lowell is #4 and Niagara is #13. There is not a compelling need to boost attendance in Manchester. Switching RPI and Niagara would eliminate two flights but that isn't a compelling reason either. #15 RPI and #13 Niagara might be switched, but there isn't a need to do it.

80Miracle said:
Why is North Dakota and Minnesota always put in the same Region? I like the fact they spread out the other WCHA teams, but you could make in argument Minnesota and North Dakota are two of the top four teams in the country
Click to expand...
Because Minnesota is #2 and North Dakota is #7. Cue Scooby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top