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

Okay, I've got one more tool written up. This one is far less polished, and a bit harder to exmplain, but it can be used to help find what individual game outcomes lead to a particular result.
http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/query2.php

Take the St. Cloud example earlier. Inputting St. Cloud winning their semi and a seed of > 16 gives us the following:
http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/pub_r...g16=31&g17=0&g13=16&g15=19&t=31&opp=1&seed=16
Going game by game, the page lists what must happen for that outcome to happen. Anything 100% must happen for this scenario to occur, and any game that is "missing" a result (example: Niagara winning the AHA final) can NOT happen if the scenario listed will occur.

It also somewhat provides teams to root for. If you submit the form as is, you'll get the list of game outcomes when RPI's seed is <= 16, or, when RPI is in the tournament. There's not a single missing game or 100% game beyond the two completed WCHA semis, so no one result can knock the Engineers out of the tournament. The number of outcomes for each result illustrates how many outcomes would remain if that result happened. Since larger numbers are generally better, one should root for the outcome with the larger number of outcomes.

Another example: Robert Morris in the tournament (seed <= 16):
http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/pub_r...&g16=0&g17=0&g13=16&g15=19&t=48&opp=5&seed=16

Since many of these scenarios are dependent on each other, you can/should return to the query2 page to fine tune game outcomes to get a better picture of what exactly must happen.

Let me know if you have any question about this tool; I hope someone finds it useful!
 
Last edited:
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

RHamilton said:
Okay, I've got one more tool written up. This one is far less polished, and a bit harder to exmplain, but it can be used to help find what individual game outcomes lead to a particular result.
http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/query2.php

Take the St. Cloud example earlier. Inputting St. Cloud winning their semi and a seed of > 16 gives us the following:
http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/pub_r...g16=31&g17=0&g13=16&g15=19&t=31&opp=1&seed=16
Going game by game, the page lists what must happen for that outcome to happen. Anything 100% must happen for this scenario to occur, and any game that is "missing" a result (example: Niagara winning the AHA final) can NOT happen if the scenario listed will occur.

It also somewhat provides teams to root for. If you submit the form as is, you'll get the list of game outcomes when RPI's seed is <= 16, or, when RPI is in the tournament. There's not a single missing game or 100% game beyond the two completed WCHA semis, so no one result can knock the Engineers out of the tournament. The number of outcomes for each result illustrates how many outcomes would remain if that result happened. Since larger numbers are generally better, one should root for the outcome with the larger number of outcomes.

Another example: Robert Morris in the tournament (seed <= 16):
http://pwr.reillyhamilton.com/pub_r...&g16=0&g17=0&g13=16&g15=19&t=48&opp=5&seed=16

Since many of these scenarios are dependent on each other, you can/should return to the query2 page to fine to game outcomes to get a better picture of what exactly must happen.

Let me know if you have any question about this tool; I hope someone finds it useful!
Click to expand...

Your newest creation is fantastic. Thanks!

I see that Quinnipiac and Minnesota are locked into being #1 and #2 respectively. I wonder if two top teams have ever had so little to play for in their conference tourneys?
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

I thought I would take a little look at what the bracket might be on Sunday night.

For this I am assuming "more or less normal" results, meaning not a lot of upsets.

A summary: QU = 1; Minny = 2; Miami =~3, but almost for sure 4 otherwise; and the most likely thing is BC/Lowell to #4.

So, let's set the #1s:
Providence = Quinnipiac (unless Brown wins, but that is a long shot yet)
Rapids = Minny
Toledo = Miami
Manchester = HE Champ
There is a very very good chance of this happening!!

The #2s are a problem right now, because we don't know yet whether UNH ends up a 2 or a 3. Likewise NoDak can be 7,8,9 with 'normal' results. I did not run lots of cases, but I believe that if NoDak falls to a #3 under normal results, it is because Mankato ends up as a #2. Again, no guarantees here, but this is a "most likely" scenario.

It seems that, whichever WCHA team ends up as a #2, that most of the 3 band is going to be WCHA teams (St Cloud, Denver +). This changes if SCSU wins the Broadmoor (please do not be upset SCSU fans, SCSU can get to a #2 win the Broadmoor, but then we still end up with 3 WCHA teams in the 3 band).

So, there are basically 2 scenarios: 1 with UNH as a 2, the other as a 3.

UNH = #2 seed
Providence: QU (1); #7 seed (most likely WCHA #2)
Rapids: Minny (2); #6 seed (could be HE#2, or UND/SCSU)
Toledo: Miami (3 or 4); #5 seed (could be HE #2, Yale or Niagara)
Manchester: HE Champ (4 or 3); UNH (host)
And, we could guess the rest, because the 3 WCHA teams in the 3 bands have to matchup with UNH, and the non-WCHA teams in the 2 bands. This is not so interesting yet. Committee cold move WCHA2 to Rapids for attendance, etc......

In the case where UNH is a 3 seed (9 or 10)
Then, we get the usual serpentine:
Prov: QU (1), #8 (0ften, WCHA #2)
Rapids: Minny (2), #7 (also, commonly WCHA #2, but not guaranteed)
Toledo : Miami and either 5/6
Manchester: HE Champ and 6/5
Then, UNH goes to Manchester, and the WCHA #2 is moved over to join them to avoid an all WCHA matchup in round one.

So, the top of the bracket then is:
Prov: QU; lowest ranked non-WCHA team in the 2-band;highest non-UNH team in 3-band (WCHA team); 4seed=??
Rapids: Minny; next-lowest non-WCHA team in the 2-band; next-highest non non-UNH team (WCHA team); 4seed=??
Toledo: Miami; other non-WCHA team in 2-band; other non-UNH team in 3-band; 4seed=??
Manchester: HE Champ; WCHA team from 2-band; UNH; 4seed=??

Now, admittedly, this is a preliminary only. But, this is the strong pattern: 1 WCHA team in 2-band, 3 WCHA teams in 3-band, and then if UNH is a 3-seed, the WCHA 2-seed HAS to go east.

Watch for that. I will keep this up. I think I can be back after the AHA/WCHA/ECAC early games with more information about how this looks.


EDIT: I tried Reilly's tool for UNH being a 2 seed. It gave me ~60,000 combos, which I can't amake sense of, given that Reilly said last night that he ran 49,000 combos to find where SCSU wins today and still misses. So, I am confused by the numbers. I find, looking at the results of my query, that when Niagara wins AHA, UNH has far fewer opportunities to be a #2. This of course, makes sense, because Niagara would move ahead of UNH in the PWR.
So, as a first approximation, if Niagara wins, it gets 'quite likely' (whatever that really means??) that UNH will be a 3, and the WCHA situation discussed above will come into play.
 
Last edited:
ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
A really basic question that I've just realized I never knew the answer to and never inquired about:

How long have the selection committee used the PWR system, and have they ever veered from it for at-large selection or seeding? I've only been paying attention to this kind of detail for the last decade or so, and I can't think of an instance where they've veered from the formula.
Click to expand...

No, they've never veered from it on the men's side. The PWR is actually codified in the rulebook now, so their hands are tied in instances where the PWR goes against all logic.

They have veered on the women's side because the flaws of the PWR system are a little more glaring.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Numbers said:
EDIT: I tried Reilly's tool for UNH being a 2 seed. It gave me ~60,000 combos, which I can't amake sense of, given that Reilly said last night that he ran 49,000 combos to find where SCSU wins today and still misses. So, I am confused by the numbers. I find, looking at the results of my query, that when Niagara wins AHA, UNH has far fewer opportunities to be a #2. This of course, makes sense, because Niagara would move ahead of UNH in the PWR.
So, as a first approximation, if Niagara wins, it gets 'quite likely' (whatever that really means??) that UNH will be a 3, and the WCHA situation discussed above will come into play.
Click to expand...

The SCSU result was run with SCSU designated as winning their semi, resulting in ~50,000 total combos. Running on a blank slate (other than the WCHA quarters) will result in ~100,000 combos.

Is that what you meant?
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

That helps Reilly. So, right now about 1000,000 total combos. 60,000 yield UNH to be a 2 seed, but the KRACH odds are against that because of the Niagara results.
 
you know what is the most annoying part of this? we've got it boiled down to a science with actual computer scientists and statisticians who can tell ahead of time what a given result will yield and we'll still have to listen to supposed experts on TV tell us total nonsense.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Numbers said:
That helps Reilly. So, right now about 1000,000 total combos. 60,000 yield UNH to be a 2 seed, but the KRACH odds are against that because of the Niagara results.
Click to expand...

Right; there's a fairly major difference the weighted vs. unweighted results for UNH's chance at a 9 seed. The 40,000 outcomes that result in a 3 seed are more likely aggregately than the 60,000 that result in a 2 seed, which is part of the reason I chose to KRACH weight.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Priceless said:
you know what is the most annoying part of this? we've got it boiled down to a science with actual computer scientists and statisticians who can tell ahead of time what a given result will yield and we'll still have to listen to supposed experts on TV tell us total nonsense.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I forget that the games even have to be played at all!
 
Priceless said:
you know what is the most annoying part of this? we've got it boiled down to a science with actual computer scientists and statisticians who can tell ahead of time what a given result will yield and we'll still have to listen to supposed experts on TV tell us total nonsense.
Click to expand...

Its almost like they can't read. ;)

The other thing of course is that they guys make their money pretending to be experts, once they figure out that they aren't then they're going to figure which of us is the most telegenic and put us on TV.

Of course, a lot of them are flat out allergic to the geekery... Even the NFL tiebreakers the TV guys go "aw shucks" and move on.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, IT'S JUST WHAT I FOUND PLAYING AROUND WITH RHamilton's TOOL.

Teams that can clinch today:
Yale - WIN
SCSU - WIN AND (Niagara OR Union OR Brown OR BU OR CC loses)
Minnesota State - A huge number of scenarios. Some top ways that I found... Minnesota AND (St. Cloud OR Connecticut) win; Quinnipiac AND (Connecticut AND (Canisius OR Wisconsin)) win
Niagara - WIN AND ((Yale AND Quinnipiac) OR Minnesota OR (Boston College AND (UML OR Mercyhurst)) wins)
Denver - Canisius AND (Minnesota OR Wisconsin OR (Boston College AND UML)) win

Teams that can be eliminated today:
Mercyhurst, Connecticut, Canisius, Brown, BU, Providence, CC, Wisconsin - lose
Rensselaer - ((at least 2 of BU, Canisius, and Wisconsin) AND Union win) OR (BU AND Providence AND Wisconsin) win
Robert Morris - Connecticut OR Canisius OR (CC AND Wisconsin) wins
 
Last edited:
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

RHamilton has done a great job, and I'm very grateful, but not enough to play with his tool.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

burgie12 said:
THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, IT'S JUST WHAT I FOUND PLAYING AROUND WITH RHamilton's TOOL.

Teams that can clinch today:
Yale - WIN
SCSU - WIN AND (Niagara OR Union OR Brown OR BU OR CC loses)
Minnesota State - A huge number of scenarios. Some top ways that I found... Minnesota AND (St. Cloud OR Connecticut) win; Quinnipiac AND (Connecticut AND (Canisius OR Wisconsin)) win
Niagara - WIN AND ((Yale AND Quinnipiac) OR Minnesota OR (Boston College AND (UML OR Mercyhurst)) wins)
Denver - Canisius AND (Minnesota OR Wisconsin OR (Boston College AND UML)) win

Teams that can be eliminated today:
Mercyhurst, Connecticut, Canisius, Brown, BU, Providence, CC, Wisconsin - lose
Rensselaer - ((at least 2 of BU, Canisius, and Wisconsin) AND Union win) OR (BU AND Providence AND Wisconsin) win
Robert Morris - Connecticut OR Canisius OR (CC AND Wisconsin) wins
Click to expand...

My head hurts.
 
Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Priceless said:
you know what is the most annoying part of this? we've got it boiled down to a science with actual computer scientists and statisticians who can tell ahead of time what a given result will yield and we'll still have to listen to supposed experts on TV tell us total nonsense.
Click to expand...

Adam Wodon knows his s***. I don't know if he's as plugged into the details as folks in this thread, but if not, it's not for lack of respect for or understanding of the more advanced analytical methods.
 
Craig P. said:
Adam Wodon knows his s***. I don't know if he's as plugged into the details as folks in this thread, but if not, it's not for lack of respect for or understanding of the more advanced analytical methods.
Click to expand...

Nobody is blaming Wodon... Earlier I almost used him as an example of somebody who knows what is going on.
 
Craig P. said:
Adam Wodon knows his s***. I don't know if he's as plugged into the details as folks in this thread, but if not, it's not for lack of respect for or understanding of the more advanced analytical methods.
Click to expand...

Dont say that name too loud, he is persona non grata around these parts. but yes he does know the pairwise pretty well. what I mean are the morons at FSN calling the Gophers #1 or the analysts who tell us teams like CC have jumped in the "power" rankings and may get an at-large bid. No, they won't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top