Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

[joecct]

Posted on the main page..

Just like D1, D3 men and women will use the PWC (PWR) to select teams for the championship.

Pilot for 2 years beginning 18-19.

https://www.uscho.com/2018/09/18/me...to-start-utilizing-pairwise-for-18-19-season/

 

[NUProf]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

Posted on the main page..

Just like D1, D3 men and women will use the PWC (PWR) to select teams for the championship.

Pilot for 2 years beginning 18-19.

https://www.uscho.com/2018/09/18/me...to-start-utilizing-pairwise-for-18-19-season/

Seriously? Will the committee be empowered to tweak the weights or will it be a straight PWR with the weights determined ahead of time? If it is the latter, it's about time.

 

[cetihcra]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

Seriously? Will the committee be empowered to tweak the weights or will it be a straight PWR with the weights determined ahead of time? If it is the latter, it's about time.

Committee members (*wink*): has this method been applied to previous seasons to view the results, and ensure this isn't going to be a complete s-show?

r

 

[Adam_Krug#1]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

The board will be rather dull this season with the UCHC getting an AQ and D3 going to PWC.

 

[PSUChamps2001]

The board will be rather dull this season with the UCHC getting an AQ and D3 going to PWC.

Fish is still here (hopefully), I doubt that.

 

[altazo]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

How will moving to PWR affect the 500 mile first round rule? That must be out the window. For that matter, are east and west regions out the window?

 

[PuckVoice]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

"How will moving to PWR affect the 500 mile first round rule? That must be out the window. For that matter, are east and west regions out the window?"



Very Good ???

 

[altazo]

"How will moving to PWR affect the 500 mile first round rule? That must be out the window. For that matter, are east and west regions out the window?"



Very Good ???

Yeah, sounds great to me too. I guess until UNE draws St. John’s or Concordia Moorhead in a first round game.

 

[cetihcra]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

How will moving to PWR affect the 500 mile first round rule? That must be out the window. For that matter, are east and west regions out the window?

My guess is they'll use the PWR to select the teams, but not strictly establish the bracket -- the 500 mile recommendation will remain intact, as will the regions. Just a guess.

r

 

[altazo]

My guess is they'll use the PWR to select the teams, but not strictly establish the bracket -- the 500 mile recommendation will remain intact, as will the regions. Just a guess.

r

Yes, I’m certain that is the plan, just like in D1 the PWR simply selects the teams, not the matchups. My point was that in D3, by going strictly off the numbers it is possible some teams may qualify that simply do not have another tournament team within 500 miles of them. This scenario , although unlikely, could happen to Trine, Adrian, and Concordia Moorhead just off the top of my head without thinking too much about it.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

Fish is still here (hopefully), I doubt that.

No worries, Remy, I'm confident that we'll find something to squabble about just the same.

FWIW, though, I'm happy to hear the news. The PWR isn't as good a metric as the KRACH (especially in D-3 where East/West comparative data is very sparse) but at least it's transparent and objective. We'll all know the field on Sunday night this season. The teams will select themselves; no committee need apply. But, as altazo astutely pointed-out, the sitings could be a minor nightmare.

And still, we have the issue of the conference tournaments completely negating the RS and potentially displacing more deserving teams. Only 5 berths will be determined by the PWR, while the other 7 will be completely up for grabs after a long grind that basically just exists to seed the silly end-of-season snapshots.

I do realize that the AQ's are a sacred cow for whatever illogical reason, but at least award them on the basis of a large body of work, not just a few games at the ***-end of a long season. Please.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

Committee members (*wink*): has this method been applied to previous seasons to view the results, and ensure this isn't going to be a complete s-show?

r

I'm sure that the data had been processed retrospectively before D-3 took the plunge into the PW... And,to be fair, the AL selections have been reasonable in recent years.

(Excepting Point over Utica last year. )

 

[NUProf]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

I'm sure that the data had been processed retrospectively before D-3 took the plunge into the PW... And,to be fair, the AL selections have been reasonable in recent years.

(Excepting Point over Utica last year. )

The question wrt the PWR is the metrics that will go into it. If is uses WP, OWP, OOWP, RNK, and COP as was used by the committee in the past, The way the ranked teams are determined will continue to be a opportunity for smoke to fill the room. All in all there will be much more transparency. The leagues can choose whatever procedure they want to determine their AQ. I do applaud the way the UCHC will make use of the two game series format in their tournament. It makes it less likely that a fluke winner emerges from the league tournament.

Actually because of the lack of interregional games, KRACH is not as good a metric as you might think. The connectivity of the competition graph should be greater to get a robust result. It may work for DI, but there are issues with such regionalized competition. A lot of weight is given to those few events that represent bridges between the regions.

 

[Ed Trefzger]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

The question wrt the PWR is the metrics that will go into it. If is uses WP, OWP, OOWP, RNK, and COP as was used by the committee in the past, The way the ranked teams are determined will continue to be a opportunity for smoke to fill the room.

If the committee uses the D-I formula, then ranked teams won't be part of the criteria. (When the D-I PWR used rankings, those were by the numbers, but that criterion was removed a few years ago.)

If the committee follows the D-I process, then the AQs will get their bids and the at-large bids will be strictly by the numbers and the only smoke-filled room decisions will be the match ups.

Fifteen years ago, D-III was transparent. This is a good move to return to that.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

If the committee uses the D-I formula, then ranked teams won't be part of the criteria. (When the D-I PWR used rankings, those were by the numbers, but that criterion was removed a few years ago.)

If the committee follows the D-I process, then the AQs will get their bids and the at-large bids will be strictly by the numbers and the only smoke-filled room decisions will be the match ups.

Yes.

The silly and (largely) arbitrary RNK "criterion" shouldn't be a factor anymore. That was just a way to stack the deck before the actual selection process began, anyway.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

The question wrt the PWR is the metrics that will go into it. If is uses WP, OWP, OOWP, RNK, and COP as was used by the committee in the past, The way the ranked teams are determined will continue to be a opportunity for smoke to fill the room. All in all there will be much more transparency. The leagues can choose whatever procedure they want to determine their AQ. I do applaud the way the UCHC will make use of the two game series format in their tournament. It makes it less likely that a fluke winner emerges from the league tournament.

Actually because of the lack of interregional games, KRACH is not as good a metric as you might think. The connectivity of the competition graph should be greater to get a robust result. It may work for DI, but there are issues with such regionalized competition. A lot of weight is given to those few events that represent bridges between the regions.

I agree. The lack of comparative data between regions, and even within regions, has been a big issue.

Having said that, the better programs are scheduling many more intra- and inter-regional games of late, which is helpful in that regard... (And, the KRACH is still the best in-depth metric available in any case, don't you think? I haven't seen a better one, have you?)

 

[NUProf]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

If the committee uses the D-I formula, then ranked teams won't be part of the criteria. (When the D-I PWR used rankings, those were by the numbers, but that criterion was removed a few years ago.)

If the committee follows the D-I process, then the AQs will get their bids and the at-large bids will be strictly by the numbers and the only smoke-filled room decisions will be the match ups.

Fifteen years ago, D-III was transparent. This is a good move to return to that.

I have not read what the criteria will included in the computation. It would not surprise me if the "fuel" for the Pairwise were the same criteria that were used by the committee in the past. The metrics used in DI haven't been used in DIII in the past. When we thought DIII was transparent, the metrics that were used in the PWC were pretty much the same.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: Say hello to Pairwise!! SOS from the smoke filled room!!

I have not read what the criteria will included in the computation. It would not surprise me if the "fuel" for the Pairwise were the same criteria that were used by the committee in the past. The metrics used in DI haven't been used in DIII in the past. When we thought DIII was transparent, the metrics that were used in the PWC were pretty much the same.

According to what I've read, the D-3 PWR will be calculated just as is the D-1 PWR, with no available wiggle-room for the committee to massage the criteria at the 11th hour.