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.

The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Another update for this week. Still have the Beanpot games to get through, but I don't expect that to change much:


[table="width: 600"]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Total Apps[/td]
[td]Current Programs[/td]
[td]Apps / Program[/td]
[td]Apps/Program / Year[/td]
[td]Conf. Apps / Year[/td]
[td]2014 Proj. Apps[/td]
[td]2014 Proj. Apps/Program[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]B1G[/td]
[td]30[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td]5.00[/td]
[td]0.50[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[td]0.50[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]NCHC[/td]
[td]43[/td]
[td]8[/td]
[td]5.38[/td]
[td]0.54[/td]
[td]4.3[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[td].38[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]WCHA[/td]
[td]10[/td]
[td]10[/td]
[td]1.00[/td]
[td]0.10[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]0.10[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]HE[/td]
[td]41[/td]
[td]11[/td]
[td]3.73[/td]
[td]0.37[/td]
[td]4.1[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[td]0.45[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]ECAC[/td]
[td]23[/td]
[td]12[/td]
[td]1.92[/td]
[td]0.19[/td]
[td]2.3[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[td].25[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]AHA[/td]
[td]13[/td]
[td]12[/td]
[td]1.08[/td]
[td]0.11[/td]
[td]1.3[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]0.08[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

The great normalization continues, although naturally everyone in double digits is still in a precarious situation.
Click to expand...

Another update (since it's an issue: I'm using the USCHO PWR calcs). UMD is the last team out, several HE teams made a jump this week.

[table="width: 600"]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Total Apps[/td]
[td]Current Programs[/td]
[td]Apps / Program[/td]
[td]Apps/Program / Year[/td]
[td]Conf. Apps / Year[/td]
[td]2014 Proj. Apps[/td]
[td]2014 Proj. Apps/Program[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]B1G[/td]
[td]30[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td]5.00[/td]
[td]0.50[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[td]0.50[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]NCHC[/td]
[td]43[/td]
[td]8[/td]
[td]5.38[/td]
[td]0.54[/td]
[td]4.3[/td]
[td]2[/td]
[td].25[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]WCHA[/td]
[td]10[/td]
[td]10[/td]
[td]1.00[/td]
[td]0.10[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]0.10[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]HE[/td]
[td]41[/td]
[td]11[/td]
[td]3.73[/td]
[td]0.37[/td]
[td]4.1[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td]0.55[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]ECAC[/td]
[td]23[/td]
[td]12[/td]
[td]1.92[/td]
[td]0.19[/td]
[td]2.3[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[td].25[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]AHA[/td]
[td]13[/td]
[td]12[/td]
[td]1.08[/td]
[td]0.11[/td]
[td]1.3[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td]0.08[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Biddco said:
For a moment last night UMD was 11th in the USCHO PWR and 16th in the CHN PWR. Sounds like the discrepency has been fixed.
Click to expand...
That usually happens when the sites are busy updating their results. Once all the updates are done, things seem to line up as expected.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Steve_MN said:
That usually happens when the sites are busy updating their results. Once all the updates are done, things seem to line up as expected.
Click to expand...

Stupid question. UMD was 0-2 against SCSU before this weekend. After losing Friday they went up a spot in the PWR and after losing Saturday they dropped 3 or 4 spots. Is there a different between 0-2, 0-3 and 0-4 in the PWR or is what happened to UMD reflective of other comparisons flipping?
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

I can't read the USCHO color grid properly apparently. What causes BC to win the comparison with MN? It looks like they are tied in comparison points.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Shameless self promotion:
Update on each team's tournament chances

So you don't actually have to click:
tl;dr - #8 Mass.-Lowell and above seem pretty safe, through somewhere around #19 Minnesota State control their own destinies, down to about #27 Alaska Anchorage can still mathematically finish the regular season in position for an at-large bid.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

JimDahl said:
Shameless self promotion:
Update on each team's tournament chances

So you don't actually have to click:
tl;dr - #8 Mass.-Lowell and above seem pretty safe, through somewhere around #19 Minnesota State control their own destinies, down to about #27 Alaska Anchorage can still mathematically finish the regular season in position for an at-large bid.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jim. Good stuff. Self-promote all you want.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

JimDahl said:
Shameless self promotion:
Update on each team's tournament chances

So you don't actually have to click:
tl;dr - #8 Mass.-Lowell and above seem pretty safe, through somewhere around #19 Minnesota State control their own destinies, down to about #27 Alaska Anchorage can still mathematically finish the regular season in position for an at-large bid.
Click to expand...

And, to make this abundantly clear - Jim - you are reporting on chances of teams being in position for at-large bid with ON:Y REGULAR SEASON GAMES CONSIDERED. Correct?

So, for example, and i have not run the numbers, and don't care to, this is only an example, although right now Lowell at #8 seems safe, if they close the reg season poorly, and then lose in the HEA tournament, their RPI could drop a little more because of the HE Tourney loss, and they could still end up out.

Correct?

Or, alternatively, you are considering the cutoff at #15 in the PWR. So, you are assuming no conference tournament upsets, correct?

Not that I have a problem with those assumptions, I just want to be clear.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Numbers said:
And, to make this abundantly clear - Jim - you are reporting on chances of teams being in position for at-large bid with ON:Y REGULAR SEASON GAMES CONSIDERED. Correct?

So, for example, and i have not run the numbers, and don't care to, this is only an example, although right now Lowell at #8 seems safe, if they close the reg season poorly, and then lose in the HEA tournament, their RPI could drop a little more because of the HE Tourney loss, and they could still end up out.

Correct?

Or, alternatively, you are considering the cutoff at #15 in the PWR. So, you are assuming no conference tournament upsets, correct?

Not that I have a problem with those assumptions, I just want to be clear.
Click to expand...

His is only from here to the end of the regular season. If Lowell craps out they aren't in... not really a shock there.

The real work begins now. Nothing but NCAA tournament strength competition the rest of the way unless we lock up the 2nd seed in HEA. Even then the 7th place team won't be an easy out.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Numbers said:
And, to make this abundantly clear - Jim - you are reporting on chances of teams being in position for at-large bid with ON:Y REGULAR SEASON GAMES CONSIDERED. Correct?

So, for example, and i have not run the numbers, and don't care to, this is only an example, although right now Lowell at #8 seems safe, if they close the reg season poorly, and then lose in the HEA tournament, their RPI could drop a little more because of the HE Tourney loss, and they could still end up out.
Click to expand...

You're right that the objective numbers only go through the end of the regular season, but I try to take that into account in the subjective analysis.

Using your example, I'm seeing Mass.-Lowell having about a 2.5% chance of falling to 13 or lower (or a conditional 30.5% chance if they lose out). Adding an 0-1 from the HEA tournament would push them a little lower, but that's such a small share of outcomes (especially when KRACH-weighted, as I do) that it doesn't move the probabilities much.

To turn giant mountains of data into something readable, I subjectively cut off at around 1% likelihood as "possible" and around 10% likelihood as "likely". If you were to truly go to "mathematically safe / eliminated" only the top couple would be safe and teams well into the 30s would stand a chance (e.g. by the end of the regular season #39 Michigan St would likely climb to the mid-20s if they won out, but could climb as high as 17 if everything else also went their way; given the combined unlikelihood of them winning out AND everything else falling into place, I write that off as not happening).

The above applies more the further out you are from the end of the regular season. Over the next couple weeks, the end of regular season outcomes will tighten up a lot but will become no more predictive of the actual remaining possibilities because they will represent a shrinking share of the remaining games. Then it would be nice to be able to cross the boundary.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

JimDahl said:
You're right that the objective numbers only go through the end of the regular season, but I try to take that into account in the subjective analysis.
Click to expand...

Then you analysis of UNH is wrong, as they only have 2 games left and thus can not win 3.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

jcarter7669 said:
Then you analysis of UNH is wrong, as they only have 2 games left and thus can not win 3.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'll add that to the list of explanations/disclaimers I carry around in every post--simulations are as of Monday. So, for your purposes just assume UNH has already won 1.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Thought I would add a few comments tonight, with about 1 week left in several of the conference seasons.

No bracket for me at this time. Suffice it to say the main problem right now is what to do about attendance in Cincinnati, coupled with potential intraconference matchups. Committee could have its choice to send either Michigan or Notre Dame to Cincinnati, then the rest falls into place. Same for the 2-3 matchups. No good choice for Cincinnati, and then there are potential HEA and NCHC matchups to avoid. It's all academic, because this won't be the final PWR anyway.

My interest tonight is in the formula - especially the QWB. I am noticing 2 things. First, Colgate has a huge jump from the QWB. In fact, it is the QWB that jumps them from 16 to 13 and therefore in the field as things stand now. Northeastern is getting a bit of an extra bounce, too, but it's not as big a deal for them just now because of where they sit in the field. So, the QWB is HUGE if you are a Colgate or Providence fan.

Second comment about the QWB. We have been talking about it like a replacement for the TUC record, but it really isn't. There is no penalty for losing to a high-rated opponent. Only a bonus for beating one. So, I am not sure the bonus is really accomplishing what the committee wants. It is the most highly rated teams who are getting the bounce anyway.

Anyone have any thought about that?

Thanks.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Numbers said:
Second comment about the QWB. We have been talking about it like a replacement fothe TUC record, but it really isn't. There is no penalty for losing to a high-rated opponent. Only a bonus for beating one. So, I am not sure the bonus is really accomplishing what the committee wants. It is the most highly rated teams who are getting the bounce anyway.

Anyone have any thought about that?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I agree, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You already get a bigger RPI benefit from beating a top RPI team, so it's not clear to me why the Committee wanted to add even more weight. You could accomplish almost the same thing by raising the weight on opponent's win %age, but that would give you an extra bump on high win percentage teams with weak strength of schedule. Anyway, this is almost always going to help the best teams the most, because they have the best records adjusting for strength of schedule, so they must have had the best success against good teams, on average.
 
goblue78 said:
I agree, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You already get a bigger RPI benefit from beating a top RPI team, so it's not clear to me why the Committee wanted to add even more weight. You could accomplish almost the same thing by raising the weight on opponent's win %age, but that would give you an extra bump on high win percentage teams with weak strength of schedule. Anyway, this is almost always going to help the best teams the most, because they have the best records adjusting for strength of schedule, so they must have had the best success against good teams, on average.
Click to expand...

Thanks, blue. Also, my thought is that there is no penalty for losing. So,a schedule weighted with lots of strong opponents has no downside. I suppose the committee might like that idea, in a way, but it takes away incentive for Minnesota to play at Clarkson and St Lawrence, for example. Or, for Michigan to schedule Huntsville. This QWB, it seems, will have the effect of driving more division in schedules, rather than less. I mean, a gulf will tend to develop between the haves and the have nots. That won't be good over time.

How to fix? Harder question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top