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 -- post jan 8th

Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

goblue78 said:
Just looked at both the Worcester and Albany Ticketmaster sites. Plenty of seats in Worcester. Albany's already end-zone only.
Click to expand...

Brenthoven said:
A lot of people. It's like the lottery. If it's a bigger team that does travel/etc, it ends up usually being a good deal. However, most of the time, better buying off the street. For the F4, I know it's all about keeping your priority number. I know regionals are not like that, but it is the same concept. Get the best seats locked in, and hope.....
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Looking back at the PairWise, Providence and Boston College have been #4 and #5 since the Beanpot, and Quinnipiac has been the top seed in the east since New Year's. I wonder how many BC and PC fans bought tickets assuming that both teams would end up there... Now they get to buy twice! Brilliant strategery by the NCAA!
 
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

ticapnews said:
Hmmmm. Looking back at the PairWise, Providence and Boston College have been #4 and #5 since the Beanpot, and Quinnipiac has been the top seed in the east since New Year's. I wonder how many BC and PC fans bought tickets assuming that both teams would end up there... Now they get to buy twice! Brilliant strategery by the NCAA!
Click to expand...

Probably few, if any. Just about everyone in the east does not buy tickets in advance unless they're the host site.
 
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

Looking back on the PairWise Rankings since January, they met or outperformed history at almost every turn.

2016 History
NYD: 71.4% 72.4%
1/17 85.7% 78.9%
1/31 85.7% 78.4%
2/8 85.7% 80.9%
2/28 85.7% 87.9%
3/7 92.9% 90.5%

The PairWise has had all 12 of the final top 12 teams since February 28. Further, the PairWise had all 5 of the top 5 in every ranking since the Beanpot. The New Year #1 once again captured the #1 overall seed in the end.

The collapse of then #3 Nebraska-Omaha joins the fall of 2012's #1 Ohio State and 2010's #3 Ferris State in the Hall of Shame. An 0-8 stretch run against the #2, #3 and #6 teams was absolutely brutal.

On the other hand, the rise of Northeastern will give hope to every team from now on. The Huskies entered the new year as the #49 team in the PairWise and did not crack the top 25 until the end of February. Their second half triumph eclipses the second half of the 2013 Wisconsin squad that came from #42 to make the field.
 
Last edited:
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

I haven't bought tix in advance for a regional since we went to 16 teams. Those old 6-team regionals were sick.

Now it's simply see where you get placed and buy after. Only the host team fans are going to buy tickets ahead of time here in the East.
 
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

Carmine Scarpaglia said:
I haven't bought tix in advance for a regional since we went to 16 teams. Those old 6-team regionals were sick.

Now it's simply see where you get placed and buy after. Only the host team fans are going to buy tickets ahead of time here in the East.
Click to expand...

yup. after worcster's mayor said only hc can host at the centrum there was no reason for mookie to buy ahead of time.
 
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

Biddco said:
Keep it exactly the same way it is.
Click to expand...

keep trolling, its an honest question that I would have asked either way right now...you don't think its silly to put all our eggs into the RPI w/QWB basket unless the teams have played head to head? I do.
 
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

RL3AO said:
Remember, the correction question is how to improve the selection criteria. From my understanding the PWR mimics the selection criteria but it is not used as the selection criteria.
Click to expand...

The PWR was originally an attempt to reverse-engineer the committee's selection criteria, but they actually do use it now. They started doing this several years ago.

In a serious response to the question, I'm not really sure what to use as an additional comparison, but there needs to be more than three comparisons. Depending on your conference and the ins and outs of scheduling non-conference games, the number of teams you play in a season is going to end up topping out at roughly 20 give or take. That's 1/3 of Division I, so head-to-head only comes into play a third of the time (and really far less than that if we're comparing teams in two different conferences). That leaves RPI and common opponents as the two comparisons that carry the bulk of the weight, and with RPI being the tiebreaker, the Pairwise ends up being RPI for the most part, with a few teams flipping spots here and there.

Like I said, I'm not sure what exactly would be good and fair to add as a comparison. Removing the "teams under consideration" comparison was a good move and it definitely shouldn't be brought back. Maybe add KRACH as an additional comparison? Maybe replace RPI with KRACH? Maybe keep the current comparisons but use KRACH as the tiebreaker instead of RPI?
 
Last edited:
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

Shirtless Guy said:
keep trolling, its an honest question that I would have asked either way right now...you don't think its silly to put all our eggs into the RPI w/QWB basket unless the teams have played head to head? I do.
Click to expand...

I truly don't believe there is a better way.
 
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

This year's UMD team, which went from out the tournament picture to in it, makes up for the 2010 team. which did the opposite.
 
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

Biddco said:
I truly don't believe there is a better way.
Click to expand...
The pairwise system is the best way in general, but that doesn't mean how we arrive at the numbers used can't be done better and that a 4th comparison can't be determined that is equally valuable to the 3 we already use...I think it is a relatively fair system, but after investing a ton of time into creating my own calculator, I certainly see flaws.

For example...the result of every game directly impacts the weight of Opp's W% and OppOpp W%. Should UMD's Opp W% be determined on whether or not they win a game? Or does it make sense that the 2nd and 3rd components of RPI should not be weighted based on the outcome of the game?

Also, with so much emphasis on the OppOpp W%, should that calculated valued exclude games against the team we're using, as in UMD's OppOpp W% should exclude all games played with UMD. Doesn't that make sense? Wouldn't that favor teams who are closer to .500 in conference but play in a tough conference because everyone else gets a better OppOpp W% value, the largest component of RPI now, while a top team in a weaker conference gets penalized for winning most of their games within their conference, driving down the OppOpp W% component?
 
Re: pairwise -- post jan 8th

Shirtless Guy said:
That's fine because I do think RPI, especially it being the tiebreaker, is probably the root of the issue, but I still think the PWR needs a 4th criteria in some fashion...I started a separate thread to dig deeper into things.

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?115578-How-to-improve-the-Pairwise
Click to expand...

If you introduce a fourth criteria, you open the system up to that many more 2-2 pair ties which would result in more ties broken by RPI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top