Selection Show

[robertearle]

Re: Selection Show

First, big time thanks to Grant for the follow-up.

What is striking to me is how exact the description of RPI is in the women's hockey handbook, and how completely lacking there is a description of what constitutes "strength of schedule". Does "Bylaw 31.3.3" have specifics on what "strength of schedule" means?

(I also like the quote "I don't know if USCHO created the Pairwise, they very well might have, but somebody did, and that's not the same system or the same numbers that the NCAA looks at." Geez, if the NCAA didn't create the Pairwise, then what is it they are describing in section 2.4 of the manual?)

 

[dave1381]

Re: Selection Show

How Is Northeastern schedule weaker? Princeton out of conference was 6 games vs CHA opponents 6-0.And NU played 4 ecac opponents 2-1-1( not losing to ST lawrence may I add) and 4 CHA games 3-1.

It's not. This has to be about strength-of-victory (quality wins) rather than strength-of-schedule, regardless of what Sarah said exactly.

 

[robertearle]

Re: Selection Show

How Is Northeastern schedule weaker? Princeton out of conference was 6 games vs CHA opponents 6-0.And NU played 4 ecac opponents 2-1-1( not losing to ST lawrence may I add) and 4 CHA games 3-1.

Good Lord!

I'm just looking at the two schedules. Northeastern played five more games than Princeton. Northeastern has six more WINS than Princeton!

I don't care who the games are against, "five more games" is a harder schedule. I don't care who the games are against, six more wins is a better trip through the schedule.

A claim that Princeton played a tougher schedule is just completely unsupportable. It's nuts.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Selection Show

Geez, if the NCAA didn't create the Pairwise, then what is it they are describing in section 2.4 of the manual?

Yeah I sort of mentioned this in passing but it bled over into a different question and she didn't really address it. I don't have it up in front of me but I'm pretty sure the handbook literally says one point is awarded for RPI, one point awarded for CoOpp, one point awarded per H2H win... I mean like you said, if that's not the Pairwise, what is it, and why is it there?

 

[robertearle]

Re: Selection Show

Yeah I sort of mentioned this in passing but it bled over into a different question and she didn't really address it. I don't have it up in front of me but I'm pretty sure the handbook literally says one point is awarded for RPI, one point awarded for CoOpp, one point awarded per H2H win... I mean like you said, if that's not the Pairwise, what is it, and why is it there?

To give her/them every benefit of doubt, the handbook only describes the comparing of two teams. It doesn't say that they will then take those pair comparisons and amalgamate them into the Pairwise bubble-sort that we know and love. Distinction, with a very small difference.

(If I went to the trouble of looking for common opponents between Northeastern and Princeton, or even resurrected a TUC between them, I'm guessing Northeastern would "win" the pair?)

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Selection Show

To give her/them every benefit of doubt, the handbook only describes the comparing of two teams. It doesn't say that they will then take those pair comparisons and amalgamate them into the Pairwise bubble-sort that we know and love. Distinction, with a very small difference.

(If I went to the trouble of looking for common opponents between Northeastern and Princeton, or even resurrected a TUC between them, I'm guessing Northeastern would "win" the pair?)

Correct -- this is the PWR under the criteria we thought it was at the beginning of the year:

1 BC .7372
2 UW .6587
3 UM .6433
4 QU .6314
5 Clark .6184
6 NU .5841
7 PU .5719
8 Colg .5519
9 BSU .5573
10 ND .5469

Also, it should be noted that under the old criteria, NU would have won the TUC comparison point. NU went 10-7-1, PU went 9-8-1.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Selection Show

Princeton did win the Common Opponent comparison:

NU:
0.750 to SLU
1.000 to MU
0.000 to HU
1.000 to DU
1.000 to UC

PU:
0.400 to SLU
1.000 to MU
0.500 to HU
1.000 to DU
1.000 to UC

Final: PU wins 3.900 to 3.750.

 

[ARM]

Re: Selection Show

Princeton did win the Common Opponent comparison:

NU:
0.750 to SLU
1.000 to MU
0.000 to HU
1.000 to DU
1.000 to UC

PU:
0.400 to SLU
1.000 to MU
0.500 to HU
1.000 to DU
1.000 to UC

Final: PU wins 3.900 to 3.750.

Even that is kind of a meaningless win if one analyzes it. Both are 2-0 against Mercyhurst. Northeastern is 3-0 against UConn, while Princeton is 1-0. Northeastern is 1-0 against Dartmouth, while Princeton is 2-0. Nothing so far to say Princeton is any better. Northeastern is 1-0-1 against SLU; Princeton is 2-3. Northeastern is 0-1 against Harvard; Princeton is 1-1. So I don't see how better result against Harvard trumps the results against SLU if one actually looks at it. I know, that's not what the formula says to do. But what happened to all this latitude that the committee has?

My guess is that people who really understand both hockey and math are in short supply on the committee. Overall, you'd like them to interject some common sense if need be, but it seems like that was lacking as well. Sad.

 

[LG4]

Re: Selection Show

Even that is kind of a meaningless win if one analyzes it. Both are 2-0 against Mercyhurst. Northeastern is 3-0 against UConn, while Princeton is 1-0. Northeastern is 1-0 against Dartmouth, while Princeton is 2-0. Nothing so far to say Princeton is any better. Northeastern is 1-0-1 against SLU; Princeton is 2-3. Northeastern is 0-1 against Harvard; Princeton is 1-1. So I don't see how better result against Harvard trumps the results against SLU if one actually looks at it. I know, that's not what the formula says to do. But what happened to all this latitude that the committee has?

My guess is that people who really understand both hockey and math are in short supply on the committee. Overall, you'd like them to interject some common sense if need be, but it seems like that was lacking as well. Sad.

Not the math wiz many of you are but I see when I look at SLU/ harvard matchups . Northeastern won 3 out of a possible 6 pts so 50%. I see Princeton won 6 out of a possible 14 ponts so about 43%. simplistic yes so don't make too much fun of me

 

[CANative]

Re: Selection Show

I wouldn't use the term "model," but I will say that the women's committee selection criteria does allow the committee to use its discretion and reserves the right to weight criteria differently based on relative team performance. The men's situation is different where they straight by the numbers, so that could confuse people.

Hmmm - let me translate that --- their DISCRETION and Weighing criteria differently just means that strength of schedule is COMPLETELY subjective. Let's chat strength of schedule shall we? Bemidji, North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have to play each other 4 times each during the regular season with an extra game in the tournament. Each school was ranked in the TOP 10 - and some weeks all 4 were in the top 8. SO, if they want strength of schedule AND proximity, either Bemidji or NO DAK should have been 6 or 7 - GRANTED Bemidji made their own bed at the end of the season - but do not give out that strength of schedule and proximity garbage and expect us to DRINK THE COOL AID.

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: Selection Show

GRANTED Bemidji made their own bed at the end of the season

Oh yeah, that's another thing -- Princeton totally made their bed too. They didn't even make it out if their conference quarters! And yet they get ranked ahead of Northeastern somehow.

I wonder, if NU had beaten BU, if they the Huskies would be buying plane tickets to Minneapolis right now.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Selection Show

NE did not have any wins against a top 10 team this year, in fact they only played one team in the top ten.

Princeton beat Colgate twice and tied Quinnie, they played 6 games against 3 top ten teams

so in that respect, Princeton played a tougher schedule, and had more success against them

too bad there wasn't all this outrage when UND was sent to MN for the 6th time back in 2013, in fact most of you liked it

 

[TonyTheTiger20]

too bad there wasn't all this outrage when UND was sent to MN for the 6th time back in 2013, in fact most of you liked it

The difference is that in that situation the committee didn't have a choice

 

[CANative]

Re: Selection Show

UGH - TRIPLE OT ---BAD FLASHBACKShttp://board.uscho.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6289972&noquote=1

 

[robertearle]

Re: Selection Show

The difference is that in that situation the committee didn't have a choice

I wouldn't say "they didn't have a choice", but it was well defined within their criteria.

(And I certainly didn't like it. Neither when #7 UMD came to the Kohl Center in 2011 for the de facto national championship game.)

 

[dave1381]

NE did not have any wins against a top 10 team this year, in fact they only played one team in the top ten.

Princeton beat Colgate twice and tied Quinnie, they played 6 games against 3 top ten teams

so in that respect, Princeton played a tougher schedule, and had more success against them

too bad there wasn't all this outrage when UND was sent to MN for the 6th time back in 2013, in fact most of you liked it

That was pretty clearly the reasoning.

The new quality wins criteria has allowed this kind of discretion, with some (very weak) support from the common opponents criterion.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Selection Show

in looking at the NE schedule, the outrage should not be over the NCAA tournament selection process, an even more flawed process is selecting the Patty K winner.
If I am understanding correctly, the winner was already decided prior to last weekends games.
Just when the tough get going, just when the winners separate from the losers, the PK commitee stops looking at their body of work.
In now looking at the NE schedule, Coyne has amassed her goals against 2nd & 3rd rate teams. Desbiens has not only beaten several top ten teams multiple times, she has beaten #3 MN and shut them out. I don't see any games by the other two that demonstrates rising above and deomonstrating "the best of the best"
I don't see how anybody could give the award to anybody else given the schedule and results of the 3 teams of the final 3.

 

[ARM]

Re: Selection Show

Fortunately, our complaint with the bracket involves which team was sent where. What would have happened had BU won? Would Princeton have still ranked above Northeastern in the committee's thinking, and so the Tigers would be in while the Huskies were out? Perhaps that's what led to this whole swap in the first place. If the Terriers get the Hockey East auto-bid, then they would be sent to BC to play the Eagles. Is it still Princeton going to Minnesota in that scenario, or is Northeastern magically back in over the Tigers? Could the BU involvement have led to the committee deciding in advance of the finals that they would send a Hockey East team to BC no matter what? Maybe there was some opinion that the ECAC was deeper than Hockey East, so it should be the league with three teams. I know it is supposed to just be a comparison of two teams, but something strange had to be going on. This year's controversy isn't nearly as bad as it could be, but it sets a lousy precedent of the committee going out of its way to create more intraconference pairings rather than trying to reduce them whenever possible.

 

[clarksoncluck]

Re: Selection Show

in looking at the NE schedule, the outrage should not be over the NCAA tournament selection process, an even more flawed process is selecting the Patty K winner.
If I am understanding correctly, the winner was already decided prior to last weekends games.
Just when the tough get going, just when the winners separate from the losers, the PK commitee stops looking at their body of work.
In now looking at the NE schedule, Coyne has amassed her goals against 2nd & 3rd rate teams. Desbiens has not only beaten several top ten teams multiple times, she has beaten #3 MN and shut them out. I don't see any games by the other two that demonstrates rising above and deomonstrating "the best of the best"
I don't see how anybody could give the award to anybody else given the schedule and results of the 3 teams of the final 3.

Looking at the PK final 3 differently.

Where would each team be situated if they didn't have that specific player??

If BC did not have Carpenter, would they still be a top 3 team, I believe very likely.

If UW didn't have ARD would they still be top 3, also very likely. (you mention she shut out UM, but she also gave up two 4 goal games to them)

If NU didn't have Coyne would they still be top 8, very unlikely. Top 16 maybe?

If BC wanted to prop up Carpenter's numbers they easily could have. Often splitting up Carpenter and Skarupa in attempts to make a more complete attack, which they accomplished.

UW would have won most of the same games if they went with a 6 player out strategy and reduced their shots to almost zero.

With NU, Coyne scored a ton of goals that were her's alone. She carried that team and made it happen. Really it was important for the D to get the puck up and out of the zone and see what Coyne would do with it.

Exchange Coyne and Carpenter and the results would probably be similar. Coyne would have ripped it up with BC, Carpenter would have done fine with NU, but I'm not sure she could carry a team like Coyne did.

Now switch ARD to most other teams who are not UM, UW, Q or BC and I think the discussion would be about the goalies from one of these teams (maybe Rossman)

 

[dave1381]

Re: Selection Show

in looking at the NE schedule, the outrage should not be over the NCAA tournament selection process, an even more flawed process is selecting the Patty K winner.
If I am understanding correctly, the winner was already decided prior to last weekends games.
Just when the tough get going, just when the winners separate from the losers, the PK commitee stops looking at their body of work.
In now looking at the NE schedule, Coyne has amassed her goals against 2nd & 3rd rate teams. Desbiens has not only beaten several top ten teams multiple times, she has beaten #3 MN and shut them out. I don't see any games by the other two that demonstrates rising above and deomonstrating "the best of the best"
I don't see how anybody could give the award to anybody else given the schedule and results of the 3 teams of the final 3.

Getting a bit off topic, but of course the stats suggest some corrections based on league-average schedules. Roughly, WCHODR suggests you should deflate the offensive figures of the Hockey East players by 10% and you inflate the offensive stats of the WCHA players by 10%. And you should deflate the goals allowed by WCHA goalies by 10% as well. Coyne still comes ahead as the top scorer even if you do the calculation I suggest -- though we're still talking about cross-league projections based on a very small sample of out of conference games and little best-vs-the-best interconference play and a very weak Hockey East. Such is the dilemma of a national collegiate award.

I would vote for Desbiens too though, at first glance. A 96.1 save percentage is totally unprecedented in NCAA D-I women's history.