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.

Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

Hux said:
A dart board, a medium, and that e-trade kid with a PWR ap on his smart phone
Click to expand...
Couldn't use the e-trade kid; he's still in timeout.
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

ARM said:
It can be easily fixed in theory. In practice, I doubt that's the case. If you followed the saga of Minnesota routinely disappearing from the PWR earlier in the year due to a zero RPI earlier in the season, you'd know that the script that does the rankings is a bit archaic. Also, we really don't know exactly how the committee handles these situations. Is there some tipping point? What if the comparison were far more convoluted than the one involving SLU and UND; do they decide that the comparison goes to one team or the other, or do they just decide that one is a tie and move on to the next criteria? A body of humans that changes from year to year can be difficult to emulate with a scripting language. If the process can't be defined 100%, there is no way to program it.
Click to expand...
I fully agree it's going to be impossible to emulate the women's committee with the PWR.

But the simpler question I'm asking is, would using the current men's common opponent calculation to the women's PWR make it a better predictor of the field than it is now? I think so. I think this UND selection & the Minnesota > Mercyhurst ranking of 2011 are pretty strong evidence for this. If we think it's better a mimicking the process, then USCHO should use it. And the fact the men actually implement it that way gives it some credibility, which wouldn't be the case if USCHO tried to make any other change. I don't think USCHO requires confirmation from the NCAA to make that change -- the NCAA hasn't confirmed that the official criterion in the latest available handbook "Results against Common Opponents" is actually "Total Record against Common Opponents" either, so the choice is arbitrary. The original women's PWR merely did what was formalized in the men's criteria.

Also, I think we agree the current men's common opponent calculation is actually a better selection criterion, and there's some history of the men's hockey committee moving towards more what USCHO PWR in practice (see for example, Adam Wodon's men's PWR article this week in College Hockey News), so it could increase the likelihood of the better calculation being adopted in practice.
 
Last edited:
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

dave1381 said:
Yeah, you're right.

2005 PWR did well with seeding, and even Dartmouth didn't expect they'd still get home ice over Wisconsin... but we didn't think they'd actually pay to effectively seed the whole bracket.

2006 was actually straightforward.

2007 I thought they'd still pair Harvard with Dartmouth and instead sent them to Wisconsin.

2008 They did the exact opposite and paired Harvard with Dartmouth :p (and Minnesota with Wisconsin, etc., the end of the committees aversion to intraconference play)

2009 May have been straightforward too? I just like to forget this QF round, being more of an eastern guy ;)

2010 Possibly also been straightforward, though I may not have expected Cornell to make it all the way up to the unofficial #5.

2011 I actually did ok in figuring out that BC would emerge with that mess with Mercyhurst & Minnesota to get home ice, but I didn't see the UMD-Wisconsin pairing coming.

2012 I definitely didn't forsee SLU ending up at BC. Maybe I thought they might send Mercyhurst to Cornell, but not Wisconsin.

2013 Finally, a bracket that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

When you can pair a Hockey East Boston team against an ECAC Boston team, all you need is a Charlie Card with a balance, so the money they saved having BC - Harvard working out could have maybe been spent avoiding the Minny - UND hash of the rehash of the re-run, which even the East is tired of.
 
Last edited:
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

Since I did not watch the show and can't find the brackets anywhere yet is this the pairings?

Minny- UND (Obvious from the banter here)
Cornell - Mercyhurst
BU - Clarkson
BC - Harvard
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

vicb said:
Since I did not watch the show and can't find the brackets anywhere yet is this the pairings?

Minny- UND (Obvious from the banter here)
Cornell - Mercyhurst
BU - Clarkson
BC - Harvard
Click to expand...

You got it.
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

vicb said:
Since I did not watch the show and can't find the brackets anywhere yet is this the pairings?

Minny- UND (Obvious from the banter here)
BC - Harvard


Cornell - Mercyhurst
BU - Clarkson
Click to expand...

As above.
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

IceIsNice said:
Let me keep this short and simple......

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


(It is so tempting to take this to a different level, but instead I'll just keep doing my happy dance)

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Click to expand...

I thought for a minute MC playing in Beantown next weekend, but it looks like they are heading to Ithaca. You road tripping ?
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

dave1381 said:
But the simpler question I'm asking is, would using the current men's common opponent calculation to the women's PWR make it a better predictor of the field than it is now?
Click to expand...
Yes, if the question is just to move the men's code over into the women's script, that might improve accuracy, because recent history shows that is what the committee is doing in practice.
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

OnMAA said:
I thought for a minute MC playing in Beantown next weekend, but it looks like they are heading to Ithaca. You road tripping ?
Click to expand...
Most likely, just waiting for times to be published.

IIRC, this has been known by roughly 9 or 10 PM on selection night over the last couple of years, correct???
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

Here we go.....first games posted.....

Saturday, March 16
1:00 ET Harvard @ Boston College
4:00 CT North Dakota @ Minnesota
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

BU hosts Clarkson at 3:00pm
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

IceIsNice said:
Most likely, just waiting for times to be published.

IIRC, this has been known by roughly 9 or 10 PM on selection night over the last couple of years, correct???
Click to expand...

Dunno when they will announce the date and time, but it figures to be on Saturday afternoon.

The Cornell Men won't get in the way, as they are a lower seed (9th) and on the road in the second round of the ECAC playoffs.
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

Awesome, so annoyingly I've been booked for a 2-hour flight that leaves at 2:50 EDT Saturday, just about crunch time for both Harvard/BC & Cornell/Mercyhurst games. Rooting for a departure delay for the first time in my life.
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

First year that both UMD and Wisconsin have missed -- or really, that only one out of Minnesota, UMD, and Wisco have made -- the dance since it went to 8 teams.
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

Teams under consideration ranked by winning percentage including only games in which Minnesota was not a participant:

2-Cornell 27-5-1 .8333

3-Mercyhurst 28-6-1 .8143

4-Boston University 26-5-3 .8088

5-North Dakota 26-6-1 .8030

6-Boston College 26-6-3 .7857

7-Wisconsin 23-6-2 .7742

8-Harvard 24-6-3 .7727

9-Clarkson 28-9-0 .7568

10-Northeastern 23-11-2 .6667

11-Quinnipiac 20-12-4 .6111

12-St. Lawrence 19-12-5 .5972
 
Re: Preliminary & Ongoing Pairwise Watch and 2013 NCAA Tournament Musing Thread

Blackbeard said:
Like Clarkson but very disappointed that NU is not in the mix.
Click to expand...
One thing that would have been nice if Northeastern had been the 8th team into the field is there would have been a story angle for the Boston media: Huskies make NCAA tournament debut against undefeated team. It's not like there is going to be much interest anywhere, but to get a little buzz going in a big market would be nice, and this year presented an opportunity that won't exist often. Versus North Dakota, that angle doesn't play at all, because Grand Forks has heard enough about the Gophs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top