Should good teams schedule more good nonconference opponents?

[robertearle]

Right. That's why the suggestion to adopt the basketball model, where you aren't scheduling that you'll play a specific opponent, but the team that had a comparable finish in the other conference. Your point about travel is certainly valid. The two options would be: a) four teams at a single host that rotates, swapping NC opponents from day 1 to day 2; or b) a two-game series. Option a) would be problematic when the four teams aren't fixed and are instead rotated from one year to the next. In volleyball, Wisconsin/Minnesota have such a deal with Baylor/TCU, and the Gophers have had another one for years with Penn State and Stanford/Oregon. In women's hockey, UMD and Minnesota used to have such an arrangement with Brown and Harvard back when they were two of the top ECAC teams every year. The Eastern and Western schools are close enough that busing from one site to the other for the second day is feasible. There isn't really a way to implement this for Ohio State, and Madison is at the upper limit of such an arrangement with the Bulldogs or Gophers.

If they can all go trooping off to Nashville or Las Vegas to play, then it should be possible to put together some such events on a college campus. Granted, Minnesota is hosting such a gig this weekend, but I don't think anyone is holding their breath to see how games between Merrimack/UNH vs SCSU/UM turn out.

Is there any 'acceptable' way to tweak the Pairwise criteria to encourage more such four-team weekends?

Right now (as I'm sure you know) there are three components to a Pairwise comparison between two teams: RPI, head-to-head and common opponents. That means unless you have a head-to-head game vs the team you are being 'compared to', there are only two; RPI and common opponents. And such four-team weekends serve to broaden the number of opponents in common: that is, if Wisconsin plays Northeastern in Nashville, then Northeastern becomes a common opponent in the Wisconsin-vs-BC comparison. So far, so good. But with only two 'elements' being compared, that ends up not doing any good. Because if the two teams being compared split the two criteria - one has a better RPI, while the other has a better common opponent record - the one with the better RPI wins the comparison. Just the same as if the four-team weekend never happened. The Wisconsin-Northeastern comparison has three meaningful elements to it by virtue of the head-to-head meeting, but that doesn't extend to any others. Is there a fourth element that could be added so as to make the four-team weekend more meaningful, and so more 'attractive' for teams to participate in?

(And let me point out again, BTW, that Mark Johnson and Wisconsin have *certainly* not shied away from such four-team weekends in the past.)

 

[Steamboat]

I don't think anyone is holding their breath to see how games between Merrimack/UNH vs SCSU/UM turn out.

Now you tell me! I was turning blue!

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Minnesota is hosting such a gig this weekend, but I don't think anyone is holding their breath to see how games between Merrimack/UNH vs SCSU/UM turn out.

Aside from Steamboat, (Hope he is ok from the lack of oxygen) there appears to be a good bit of apathy for these games. Although there is the fact that Merrimack's last appereance at Ridder was a split of the two games in 2017/2018

 

[pgb-ohio]

I'll give you that might be what motivated it, but in general, I agree with its basic sentiment. As a fan, I would prefer if we saw more games matching championship contenders from all leagues...

Like you, I'd like to see more Championship Contender Match-ups, and more East/West Match-ups generally. But your reading of the thread-starting post is generous to a fault. IMHO, the "basic sentiment" of that post is that the WCHA is to blame for the lack of those games. A premise is so false it's almost charming.

...I wish that the ECAC and the WCHA had a schedule like some basketball conferences do, where they match up teams based on how they finished the previous year. Without that, one of the problems in trying to schedule the toughest ECAC opponents is that teams like Harvard and Quinnipiac can be championship caliber one year and mid-pack or lower a season later. At least the conference challenge format lessens the swings the take place over multiple years...

I'd be very interested in this. I'd only add that if one of the default pairings is already on that year's schedule, there should be a procedure in place to eliminate the redundancy.

 

[ARM]

Is there any 'acceptable' way to tweak the Pairwise criteria to encourage more such four-team weekends?

In my simplistic mind, the current PairWise already does seem to encourage competitive teams to schedule tougher. Consider being a WCHA team that thinks the Eastern teams have it easy in terms of schedule (not saying that is/isn't a correct thought). If you can schedule and defeat contenders from the East, you then gain the H2H comparison. Now if you can win the COp comparison (and if your thinking is that you are a superior team you would be capable of doing better against the same slate), then you will win the comparison no matter where you stand in whatever the thing that replaced RPI is called. For a contending Eastern team that thinks the WCHA is overrated, then the mirror image of the logic above applies.

In my mind, it is better than playing a soft NC schedule, and then complaining that the only reason you finished behind some Eastern team in the PairWise is because you had so many games against nationally-ranked WCHA teams. The whole point of college sports is competition. Fine, go compete. If you come out on the short end, at least you had your day on the ice to prove your case.

As for PGB's last point, that happened with Colgate and Minnesota last season, as they met in a tourney after already playing a series H2H. Not the worst thing any time two quality teams play.

With regard to Merrimack, I haven't been to a game all year (year, not season), but I'm going tonight!

 

[robertearle]

In my simplistic mind, the current PairWise already does seem to encourage competitive teams to schedule tougher. Consider being a WCHA team that thinks the Eastern teams have it easy in terms of schedule (not saying that is/isn't a correct thought). If you can schedule and defeat contenders from the East, you then gain the H2H comparison. Now if you can win the COp comparison (and if your thinking is that you are a superior team you would be capable of doing better against the same slate), then you will win the comparison no matter where you stand in whatever the thing that replaced RPI is called. For a contending Eastern team that thinks the WCHA is overrated, then the mirror image of the logic above applies.

In my mind, it is better than playing a soft NC schedule, and then complaining that the only reason you finished behind some Eastern team in the PairWise is because you had so many games against nationally-ranked WCHA teams. The whole point of college sports is competition. Fine, go compete. If you come out on the short end, at least you had your day on the ice to prove your case.

As for PGB's last point, that happened with Colgate and Minnesota last season, as they met in a tourney after already playing a series H2H. Not the worst thing any time two quality teams play.

With regard to Merrimack, I haven't been to a game all year (year, not season), but I'm going tonight!

But with only three weekends available, you have to predict accurately a year or two in advance exactly which team you're going to need the head-to-head advantage over. If we/they can find another way to make common opponents matter, then the single win over the non-conference opponent gives up a (admittedly smaller) advantage over an entire conference, not just a single team.

 

[pgb-ohio]

As for PGB's last point, that happened with Colgate and Minnesota last season, as they met in a tourney after already playing a series H2H. Not the worst thing any time two quality teams play.

Not the worst thing at all. But not an ideal result either.

Suppose the "WCHA/ECAC Challenge" had been held this year. Next, based on the decision rules, Ohio State is paired with Colgate or Cornell -- teams already on our schedule. Of course a third game against either of those schools would be valuable, particularly if home ice advantage was flipped.

But be honest. Wouldn't an OSU/Yale or an OSU/Clarkson match-up add more the season -- for all concerned?

 

[ARM]

But with only three weekends available, you have to predict accurately a year or two in advance exactly which team you're going to need the head-to-head advantage over.

The point of this type of tourney is that you aren't trying to predict anything. The teams that finished first and second in the WCHA would play the top two in the ECAC. Third and fourth-place teams would form another pool, etc. The question would be what happens to the "extra" four teams from the ECAC. Maybe there could be some arrangement with a different conference for them.

If we/they can find another way to make common opponents matter, then the single win over the non-conference opponent gives up a (admittedly smaller) advantage over an entire conference, not just a single team.

That factor already exists to a small extent in the opponents' record. Every time a conference team loses a game against an out-of-conference team, the overall winning percentage of that conference drops. The RPI tried to add in the "Quality Win Bonus" or whatever that was called, but such things always seem like fudge factors on a flawed system.

Your suggestion is definitely worth thinking about. Maybe we can put the full weight of The 17 behind it. The PWR used to be more fun when it included the L16 bonus and TUC, even though those were also flawed metrics. Removing them introduced the problem that you started with, that the PairWise becomes the RPI with some distractions.

PGB, be honest? Gosh -- when did that become a thing?

 

[Steamboat]

I am sure that anyone reading this thread noted the St. Thomas shellacking of RIT yesterday. 5 - 1 final for St. Thomas. One of those goals should be credited to RIT. The defenseman had their stick on the ice as a shot came across the crease. It was a perfect tip-in!
Yeah, I know, it's RIT. But here is another example of two conferences trading games. Why not have as many of these exhibition games as the schedule allows? This was an entertaining game to watch. Maybe in the big picture it means nothing. But to these two teams, and the players on these teams, this was a battle and there will be good things for some players to feel, and lessons for other players to absorb. They are playing the game we love, and regardless of their rank at the end of the season, all these players and coaches deserve our admiration and respect.

 

[pgb-ohio]

PGB, be honest? Gosh -- when did that become a thing?

It's always been a thing for the best posters, such as yourself. (winking emoji here)

Yeah, it's discouraging to watch as the world crumbles around us. But I still think this Board is "less discouraging" than most. Willingness to step back from a debate & speak objectively does still exist.

And I do see some signs of hope in the larger world as well. One recent example: Long Christmas road trip by car. You can't help but notice that a fair number of people in the countryside have taken to posting viewpoints on homemade billboards. Many are just expressions of anger. Others are flat out depressing. But then I saw this one:

"Lying Is A Cancer That's Killing Our Country."

Some people still get it.

 

[ARM]

Others are flat out depressing.

I can imagine. Even those of us who started out with little in the way of an imagination now understand that we live in a world where a six-year-old student can shoot a teacher. It helps me to remember that the same world also produces people like Sydney McLaughlin, Anna Shcherbakova, and those we follow on the ice.

 

[4and20]

Here is my two cents on this topic. The schedules are made out most of the time about two years in advance meaning if as a coach I get xyz to agree to play me two seasons from now how is one to know that four years from now that opponent will be any good? If the Eastern schools want better non conference games then get on a plane and fly west stopping in fly over country to play games. or, how about getting the weaker teams in your conference to fill out their schedules earlier with the weaker teams so the Wisc & MN's have to fine better teams to play. Hey maybe the top Eastern schools don't want to play the better western school, ever think of that?

 

[TitleIXHockey]

Your premise is absurd, and your 'methodology' as to what 'counts' and doesn't 'count' is ridiculous.

I never said anything objectively counted or didn't count. You don't have to lie about what I said to be mad. I highlighted a very specific type of game and how many Wisconsin played compared to the first team I thought of. Yes, some games fit that criteria and many, many more do not. I do not know why this came as such a shock to you.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

I'll give you that might be what motivated it, but in general, I agree with its basic sentiment. As a fan, I would prefer if we saw more games matching championship contenders from all leagues.

It was really two things:

1. Seeing many mention Wisconsin's nonconference unbeaten streak on other media and putting it into better perspective.
2. Wanting to watch more WCHA games because even when Clarkson goes west, I usually don't and don't care to buy BTN+, nor did I watch any Giguere UMD games until NCAAs.


The title is admittedly a bit oversimplified and in a way to be more eye-catching. It's really a combination of several thoughts/questions:

How much can we blame geography for WCHA scheduling?

What is a fair distribution of traveling / hosting considering geography?

How do we solve the WCHA teams being prohibitively harder to watch for an Eastern fan who can get probably 25 or so teams between free streams and (much cheaper) ESPN+? Or do we just not, I guess, and keep the WCHA in its bubble.

Secondarily to the above, how much is the PWR manipulable through scheduling, OR, what is the minimum intraconference diversity needed for it to be a trustworthy ranking metric. We know from the Covid season, which had just 1 (I think) intraconference series, that there is a certain point where PWR is useless. What is that point, what drives it - is it diversity of games for a specific team? Specific conference? In general? How close do we get in a given season to the PWR approaching Covid-year level uselessness? (The WCHA gets highlighted here despite playing just one more conference game than Hockey East because of Lindenwood essentially acting as an eighth conference opponent for most of the teams.)

 

[robertearle]

I never said anything objectively counted or didn't count. You don't have to lie about what I said to be mad. I highlighted a very specific type of game and how many Wisconsin played compared to the first team I thought of. Yes, some games fit that criteria and many, many more do not. I do not know why this came as such a shock to you.

LOL!!

Are you serious?!?

You started with "Should good teams schedule more good nonconference opponents?" and then immediately went to "Or basically, should WCHA teams come east more?" and "Specifically that they don't play more road games against top eastern teams." Then "[Wisconsin plays] a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same"

That is, WCHA home games don't count.

Then "[Wisconsin plays] a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same"

That is, neutral site games don't count.

Simply quoting the premise, and then how YOU limited what does and does not get included in the "good nonconference opponents" count.

Your words, not mine.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

LOL!!

Are you serious?!?

You started with "Should good teams schedule more good nonconference opponents?" and then immediately went to "Or basically, should WCHA teams come east more?" and "Specifically that they don't play more road games against top eastern teams." Then "[Wisconsin plays] a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same"

That is, WCHA home games don't count.

Then "[Wisconsin plays] a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same"

That is, neutral site games don't count.

Simply quoting the premise, and then how YOU limited what does and does not get included in the "good nonconference opponents" count.

Your words, not mine.

I am sorry I didn't put the entirety of the initial post in the thread title and instead chose to explicitly outline a linear train of though, clearly describing which games I was talking about from the very beginning that you misread and then flew off the handle about. My premise is very clear in the body of the first post from the very beginning. I didn't move the goalposts like you're describing. You can be mad, you don't have to be dishonest though.

You misread the post and then got mad from the very first reply, and then came at me multiple times throughout the thread. I don't know what to tell you other than to calm down and grow up.

Edit: I could have more clearly said "road" in my first post. I do say "come east" and some other things earlier which provide some clues, but that's my bad.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

I'll look a bit closer at that 'allegation' later, but if today was the "2022" loss to a non-conference team with a winning record, then the last one before that was in 2022, to Penn State.

Is the knock that they don't play more such games, or that they don't lose them more often? Because if it is that they don't lose more often... that's ridiculous.

Could you list the "eight' that you're counting? Because I listed all their non-conference games earlier, and I think that "eight" might be, shall we say, debatable?

Even if we accept the absurd notion that neutral site games "don't count" and home games "don't count" as "good nonconference opponents", the 2016-17 Syracuse team was over .500 and 14-4-2 in conference. That they weren't as good the next year when Wisconsin travelled there is hardly Mark Johnson's fault; he booked an above-500 'east' team. So that's a fifth series. After you take out the neutral site games, and the LIU and Lindenwood trips to help bolster new programs, how many opportunities did they have for such east coast trips, anyway?

Is "66" the entirety of their non-conference scheduling? Because, again, if you are discounting the neutral site gams as "good", they shouldn't be part of the total you cite, either way. And again, the title of the post does not specify only road, it just says "good nonconference opponents".

(And let's also point out that what you're asking in wanting UW to come east instead of staying home is giving up two dates of 2000 tickets sold per game to pack everyone onto a private jet to fly east to play in front of, what?, 200 people per date? That costs money.)

I think your premise is absurd, and I think UW's record under that absurd premise is actually pretty good.

Your premise is absurd, and your 'methodology' as to what 'counts' and doesn't 'count' is ridiculous.

Yup, that's it. Mark Johnson is worried about getting to 20 wins, so as to keep his job safe. You've nailed it.

SMH....

Sorry, but according to "the rules" such four-team weekends don't "count".

Emphasis: mine. Just unnecessary. No wonder this place is dead.

 

[robertearle]

Edit: I could have more clearly said "road" in my first post. I do say "come east" and some other things earlier which provide some clues, but that's my bad.

Yes it is!!

I asked you like three times why the 'title' of the post didn't match the qualifications/restrictions you then put on what did and did not 'count'. This is the first time, I think, you've at least acknowledged the difference.

Wisconsin plays plenty of "good nonconference opponents". Just not the way YOU want those games to occur. Well, too effing bad for you.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

Yes it is!!

I asked you like three times why the 'title' of the post didn't match the qualifications/restrictions you then put on what did and did not 'count'. This is the first time, I think, you've at least acknowledged the difference.

Wisconsin plays plenty of "good nonconference opponents". Just not the way YOU want those games to occur. Well, too effing bad for you.

The entire second paragraph should have been your clue that the entire premise of the thread was about Wisconsin playing good teams on the road. Yes, I could have been more explicit, but there was plenty there for you to understand what I meant. I did not put any restrictions on after the fact, this is just a fabrication.

I don't log on every day so I didn't see your replies right away and if you're going to constantly make personal attacks then it's less likely I'm going to reply to you. You definitely didn't need to fly off the handle multiple times in basically every reply you've made in this thread.

Not accurate, see quoted tweets below.

Or basically, should WCHA teams come east more?
"Geography" is partially to blame here, but it seems like the WCHA is just depriving the eastern schools of quality nonconference matchups to pad their PWR. They'll travel east for bad teams or for neutral site games, but if you want to see a WCHA team play a top nonconference school, you've got to watch it happen out there, and subscribe to BTN+.

Specifically that they don't play more road games against top eastern teams. Wisconsin played 8 in 13 years (between nonconf losses to RMU in 09 and Penn State in 2022)(and a number of neutral site games which is good, but not the same). Clarkson, for comparison, played 9 in 08-09 and 09-10 alone.

If you're an eastern fan, or maybe a midwestern fan that doesn't get BTN, you should be able to watch Wisconsin play a team like Quinnipiac more than roughly once every other year.

Toxic, unnecessary.

 

[TitleIXHockey]

From his user profile:
TitleIXHockey
Golden Knight
"2 important things: I am furthest west of anyone and therefore have no eastern bias. I don't turn up my nose at any team just because mine h"

The guy is absurd on his face.

Well I thought it was funny. I'm near Seattle, by the way. Also, did that really get cut off? It should read something like "I don't turn my nose up at any team just because mine has won a championship." which was a response to a poster unnecessarily belittling Syracuse during last year's tournament.

Edit: "2 important things:
I am furthest west of anyone and therefore have no eastern bias.
I don't turn up my nose at any team just because mine has won 3 national titles."

Let me type it all in the bio but it gets cut off when you look at my profile.