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

Nowheresville said:
Is it all but a lock that Western Michigan will end up in Grand Rapids? All of the bracketology at this point seems to make that assumption for attendance. However, if you end up with a situation like this week, where you've got two good traveling WCHA teams in Minnesota and North Dakota plus Notre Dame already at GR, you'll already have a pretty good draw there. Wouldn't it actually make more sense for Western to take the slightly longer drive to Toledo, where they are really going to struggle filling seats with only Miami being a draw there?

The same sort of situation seems pretty much locked in place, unless Notre Dame can move up to a 3 seed, or Miami falls out of the top 4.

Of course, if the NCAA actually cared about this sort of thing, they would stop placing the western regionals right next to each other. This problem wouldn't happen if instead of Grand Rapids/Toledo this year, and St. Paul/Green Bay last year, you'd have them split up like St. Paul/Toledo last year and Green Bay/Grand Rapids this year.
Click to expand...

This is a good post, and a good question. One possibility is that the committee would reason like this:
First, assume Miami is a #1. Then, the likely #1 for the West are Minn (GR) and Miami (Toledo). Minny travels ok, and it looked for literally months as if they would be going to GR, so that's a plus. Miami is great in Toledo.

Now, the only other draws available are going to be WMU in GR, and NoDame in Toledo or GR. Potentially Michigan if they make a big run would obviously go to GR.

If NoDak falls naturally as a #2 to GR, it would be possible for the committee to leave that, and not move WMU as a #2 to GR as well. That's a MAYBE. However, if WMU ends up as a #3, and there is any movement that is necessary in the 3-band, I think WMU ends up in GR.

As for Notre Dame, I think it goes similarly. If Miami is a #1, obviously NoDame can't go to Toledo. But, if NoDame is a 3, and any movement has to happen among 3s, look for NoDame to be in Toledo.

In the current PWR, since the 3-band has to be shuffled anyway, WMU would obviously end up in GR.

And, as others have said, Amen to "Why do they put 2 western regionals in GR and Toledo instead of one of them further west?"
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

JimDahl said:
So I was just recoding PWR from scratch for a new project, and found myself pondering the 10 games vs TUCs rule.

Of course, the TUC criterion is only used if both teams have played 10 games vs TUCs, and each comparison doesn't include games against the other TUC in the comparison.

As of right now, it matters whether you require 10 games vs TUCs excluding the other TUC in the comaprison, or 10 games vs TUCs total. The latter seemed more correct to me so I coded it that way, but found that all of the other major sources (including my own other implementations) do it the other way. This currently determines whether TUC gets included in the Robert Morris v. Air Force comparison, which flips the comparison based on your decision.

This never comes up where it matters, because the top teams invariably reach 10 games vs. TUCs by the end, so I guess I'll just do it the way we've all traditionally done it.
Click to expand...

I suppose the reasoning behind excluding the games between teams being compared is that those games are being counted in the h2h part.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

JimDahl said:
So I was just recoding PWR from scratch for a new project
Click to expand...

whatchaupto?

edit: I'd go former rather than latter, myself on TUC. The idea is that there is enough games to form a basis of comparison under the idea that you've played a varied enough schedule. Take out 3-4 games against one team and that can change a lot.
 
Last edited:
Patman said:
whatchaupto?

edit: I'd go former rather than latter, myself on TUC. The idea is that there is enough games to form a basis of comparison under the idea that you've played a varied enough schedule. Take out 3-4 games against one team and that can change a lot.
Click to expand...

But then a team gets double punished for any losses. H2H and TUC record losses.

If we want a prayer of premier non conference match ups, that can't be happening.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

hockeyplayer1015 said:
But then a team gets double punished for any losses. H2H and TUC record losses.

If we want a prayer of premier non conference match ups, that can't be happening.
Click to expand...

Right, that's why I'd rather say the pair doesn't count if the reduced count doesn't reach 10.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Patman said:
Right, that's why I'd rather say the pair doesn't count if the reduced count doesn't reach 10.
Click to expand...

So, you want to double count the h2h games as TUC games if the other TUC games don't count 10, but not double count if they do?

Not sure I understand the reasoning behind that.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Numbers said:
So, you want to double count the h2h games as TUC games if the other TUC games don't count 10, but not double count if they do?

Not sure I understand the reasoning behind that.
Click to expand...

no... disinclude the h2h in the tuc, do not evaluate the criterion if that disinclusion drops the total games below ten.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Michigan State wins

Code: 
[B]Manchester (UNH)	Providence (Brown)	Toledo (BGSU)		Grand Rapids (Michigan)[/B]
N Dakota		Quinnipiac		Miami			Minnesota
New Hamp		Denver			St Cloud		Lowell
Mankato			Boston C		W Michigan		Yale
Niagara			Wisconsin		RPI			Notre Dame
 
Last edited:
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Moy has things a little different:
Providence
16 Wisconsin vs. 1 Quinnipiac
9 Boston College vs. 8 Denver

Grand Rapids
15 Notre Dame vs. 2 Minnesota
12 Western Michigan vs. 6 St. Cloud State

Toledo
13 Niagara vs. 3 Miami
11 Minnesota State vs. 7 Massachusetts-Lowell

Manchester
14 Rensselaer vs. 4 North Dakota
10 Yale vs. 5 New Hampshire

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2013/03/09/after-the-results-of-march-8/#ixzz2N2knJUst
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Lots of hockey left, as always, with as volatile a tool as PWR to work with. Wisconsin fans, pull hard for CC to lose. If the Tigers climb back above the TUC cliff, you lose a few compares.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Numbers said:
Lots of hockey left, as always, with as volatile a tool as PWR to work with. Wisconsin fans, pull hard for CC to lose. If the Tigers climb back above the TUC cliff, you lose a few compares.
Click to expand...

The current TUC line

Cornell 0.5040
Brown 0.5039
---
Colorado College 0.4998
Northern Michigan 0.4970
Connecticut 0.4951
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Clinched:
Quinnipiac
Miami

Season ended (or will end tonight)
Alabama-Huntsville
Penn State
Northeastern
Massachusetts

Could end tonight:
Bentley
Army
AIC
Sacred Heart
Northern Michigan
Alaska
Bowling Green
Clarkson
Colgate
Dartmouth
Princeton
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Which naturally leads to the question: If Dartmouth or Alaska is eliminated, why are they "Under Consideration?" Under Consideration for what, exactly? The fact that TUCs are, at the moment, over half the teams in D1 makes the designation almost as fatuous as the rule.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

goblue78 said:
Which naturally leads to the question: If Dartmouth or Alaska is eliminated, why are they "Under Consideration?" Under Consideration for what, exactly? The fact that TUCs are, at the moment, over half the teams in D1 makes the designation almost as fatuous as the rule.
Click to expand...

By definition, a TUC is any team with RPI >/= .5000 . Both teams will still be above that number.

I think most agree that there are too many TUC's, however it's the hand we're dealt.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

goblue78 said:
Which naturally leads to the question: If Dartmouth or Alaska is eliminated, why are they "Under Consideration?" Under Consideration for what, exactly? The fact that TUCs are, at the moment, over half the teams in D1 makes the designation almost as fatuous as the rule.
Click to expand...

Technically they are under consideration. However, we know through math that they are eliminated now.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

I get it Priceless, but I'm just venting a little. Just as no one sitting around a table would ever think, when compiling a list of the 16 best hockey teams in the country, "What about Brown?" Back when the TUC line was a number of teams, the criterion made a little more sense and still had a cliff. So it's not clear to me what the 0.500 rule is intended to accomplish.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

North Dakota and Minnesota fan bases are probably re-reading the Pairwise Criteria about "How the selection committee can matchup #1 seeds in the same Region" :) Sorry I couldn't resist
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top