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 = RPI
- Thread starter goblue78
- Start date
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Pairwise = RPI
Dude, not to go totally off topic here, but:
Also, Wisconsin went 0-3-1 against Minnesota; you are high on some insane cocktail of drugs if you think Wisconsin should be ranked #1 in *any* women's hockey ranking right now.
smgdh.
Dude, not to go totally off topic here, but:
False.
It had them barely 4th, before QU lost tonight. Now it has them third. KRACH had and still has Wisconsin 3rd. It also has BC soundly in 1st.
Also, Wisconsin went 0-3-1 against Minnesota; you are high on some insane cocktail of drugs if you think Wisconsin should be ranked #1 in *any* women's hockey ranking right now.
smgdh.
Last edited:
Re: Pairwise = RPI
Vermont has one win against a team with a winning record. Im glad we are that high but how are we that high?
Vermont has one win against a team with a winning record. Im glad we are that high but how are we that high?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Pairwise = RPI
Vermont is probably benefiting from the RPI being based largely on Opponent's Opponent's Win % instead of Opponent's. The traditional RPI is 25% Winning%, 50% Opponent's W%, 25% Opp Opp's W%.
The current hockey formula is 25/21/54. Vermont drops to 18th if you change the calc to the older 25/50/25
Comparing the top 16 of each RPI - 25/21/54 to 25/50/25:
UMD climbs 3 spots from 5 to 2
Harvard climbs 3 spots from 7 to 4
UNO drops 3 spots from 2 to 5
BU climbs 1 spot from 8 to 7
UND drops 4 spots from 4 to 8
Merrimack climbs 7 spots from 17 to 10
Michigan climbs 3 spots from 15 to 12
Yale drops 3 spots from 10 to 13
Denver drops 1 spot from 13 to 14
Providence drops 1 spot from 14 to 15
Vermont drops 6 spots from 12 to 18
Vermont is probably benefiting from the RPI being based largely on Opponent's Opponent's Win % instead of Opponent's. The traditional RPI is 25% Winning%, 50% Opponent's W%, 25% Opp Opp's W%.
The current hockey formula is 25/21/54. Vermont drops to 18th if you change the calc to the older 25/50/25
Comparing the top 16 of each RPI - 25/21/54 to 25/50/25:
UMD climbs 3 spots from 5 to 2
Harvard climbs 3 spots from 7 to 4
UNO drops 3 spots from 2 to 5
BU climbs 1 spot from 8 to 7
UND drops 4 spots from 4 to 8
Merrimack climbs 7 spots from 17 to 10
Michigan climbs 3 spots from 15 to 12
Yale drops 3 spots from 10 to 13
Denver drops 1 spot from 13 to 14
Providence drops 1 spot from 14 to 15
Vermont drops 6 spots from 12 to 18
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Pairwise = RPI
I think it's all because RPI emphasizes Opps Opps W% and since Vermont hasn't played BC, BU or UML yet, that means their conference mates have played them ALOT.
I think it's all because RPI emphasizes Opps Opps W% and since Vermont hasn't played BC, BU or UML yet, that means their conference mates have played them ALOT.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Pairwise = RPI
Fighting Sioux 23, the calc changed from 25/50/25 to 25/21/54 to drastically reduce the number of games that negatively impact a team's RPI so that less games would get excluded when they changed that rule. The new RPI calc is most definitely 25/21/54:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=krach
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-men/
Fighting Sioux 23, the calc changed from 25/50/25 to 25/21/54 to drastically reduce the number of games that negatively impact a team's RPI so that less games would get excluded when they changed that rule. The new RPI calc is most definitely 25/21/54:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=krach
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-men/
Re: Pairwise = RPI
So here's solid evidence that the PWR does not take into account SOS.
Say the women's Q and BC played each other every game for the rest of the season. Even though they are PWR 1 and 4 respectively, both teams would see a drop in PWR scores with losses. An even 5-5 split would be devastating for both team's PWR (also reducing their SOS for each other and reducing their PWR even more than it would have been). Outcome could be one team goes from an easy top PWR overall to having a tough road outcome for the NCAAs and the other could go from having a home NCAA series to being knocked out of the tourney altogether. If you're either team, why would you want this outcome?
So here's solid evidence that the PWR does not take into account SOS.
Say the women's Q and BC played each other every game for the rest of the season. Even though they are PWR 1 and 4 respectively, both teams would see a drop in PWR scores with losses. An even 5-5 split would be devastating for both team's PWR (also reducing their SOS for each other and reducing their PWR even more than it would have been). Outcome could be one team goes from an easy top PWR overall to having a tough road outcome for the NCAAs and the other could go from having a home NCAA series to being knocked out of the tourney altogether. If you're either team, why would you want this outcome?
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Pairwise = RPI
I am not saying PWR is good. It's pretty crap. But my point is that saying "PWR is crap because Wisconsin is only 3rd" is pretty asinine given that KRACH also has them -- by a considerable margin in both directions -- in third.
Re: Pairwise = RPI
Those are some interesting articles, Red Cows. For years, I've posted that there are improved statistical systems available (e.g., KRACH) for evaluating team rankings and ultimately, tournament team selection. Most respondents to my posts "didn't get it" (IMO) and would cite "simple math" or other things for keeping the current system. In a way, with all the patches and fixes, it is a bit like keeping Windows 95 to the present day, with patches, updates, etc. It is really simple to simply say the currently used system and all that comes with it served its purpose, its time to move on.
There is one problem which likely is slowing progress. The level of sophistication or comprehension of certain quantitative concepts, or lack thereof, must be addressed. How many will "vote" for a system them do not understand? The use of high level ratio data (which KRACH has) requires a certain level of statistical comprehension most of us might lack. Educate everyone? No. Decrease the sense of a threat somehow? Yes. One way is to show it is not a radical change, simply an improvement.
Those are some interesting articles, Red Cows. For years, I've posted that there are improved statistical systems available (e.g., KRACH) for evaluating team rankings and ultimately, tournament team selection. Most respondents to my posts "didn't get it" (IMO) and would cite "simple math" or other things for keeping the current system. In a way, with all the patches and fixes, it is a bit like keeping Windows 95 to the present day, with patches, updates, etc. It is really simple to simply say the currently used system and all that comes with it served its purpose, its time to move on.
There is one problem which likely is slowing progress. The level of sophistication or comprehension of certain quantitative concepts, or lack thereof, must be addressed. How many will "vote" for a system them do not understand? The use of high level ratio data (which KRACH has) requires a certain level of statistical comprehension most of us might lack. Educate everyone? No. Decrease the sense of a threat somehow? Yes. One way is to show it is not a radical change, simply an improvement.