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:
[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]1[/td]
[td]0.13[/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]5[/td]
[td]0.42[/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]
Click to expand...

Update:

[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]0.25[/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]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]4[/td]
[td]0.33[/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]

In my observations I made the last time I made this chart, I think I might have under-estimated how volatile the PWR are at this stage in the season. But I'll maintain that I do expect the "Appearances per Program" numbers (the final column and the "Appearances per Program per Year" column in the middle) to be at least in the same ballpark. The only caveat being that an improving ECAC (or maybe the nWCHA- if they can pull some upsets) are likely to steal a spot or two from someone... and that someone seems to be the under-performing NCHC, which has added an extra at-large spot this week and there is still plenty of time left for the teams in the top 25 of RPI to try to make a move for those last bids.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Update:

[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]0.25[/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]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]4[/td]
[td]0.33[/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]

In my observations I made the last time I made this chart, I think I might have under-estimated how volatile the PWR are at this stage in the season. But I'll maintain that I do expect the "Appearances per Program" numbers (the final column and the "Appearances per Program per Year" column in the middle) to be at least in the same ballpark. The only caveat being that an improving ECAC (or maybe the nWCHA- if they can pull some upsets) are likely to steal a spot or two from someone... and that someone seems to be the under-performing NCHC, which has added an extra at-large spot this week and there is still plenty of time left for the teams in the top 25 of RPI to try to make a move for those last bids.
Click to expand...

PWR very volatile. I agree. We don't have much inherent feel for this yet, because the definition of RPI has changed so much. In previous years, the volatility was due to TUC considerations. Now, it seems to me that the volatility is due to the QWB. Obviously, it is on a sliding scale, so it's not like someone falls off a cliff. But, when so many teams are crammed tightly together in the raw RPI, a few results can change someone else'e bonus by a lot.

Also, I think that the whole country is more on par this year than before. That is only my impression, no numbers to back it up. But, it seems like one weekend can change lots of things near the bubble, especially.

So, my prediction is still the same. Over the course of the next 5 or 6 weeks, the all-conference play will tend to make it more possible for NCHC and WCHA teams to go on a run of wins. And, ECAC and HEA the opposite. However, as I see it now, I think my prediction would go like this:

I believe that 5 HE teams will end up in the top 15 of PWR at the end of the year, but the last will be the 15th team (I know that is a strong prediction, but I really think it will go that way). I believe that Mich, Wisc and Minn will all be among the top 15. That leaves 7 spots. I think that any WCHA team besides Ferris has too far to go - too many teams to jump over (I was not anticipating that Mankato would lose twice last weekend before). So, before the conference tourneys, there will be 1 WCHA team in the field. That leaves 6 spots. It will be either: 3ECAC/3NCHC or 4ECAC/2NCHC among those 6 teams. Then, however, I predict an upset in the WCHA. So, the last HE team falls off. That would give us a field of 4HEA, 3 B10, 2 WCHA, 1 AHA, and those 6 from the ECAC and NCHC. At this point all bets are off. Likely no upsets in B10 or HEA, but plenty chance in the other conferences. And, who knows who would be 14th, and get knocked off.......
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

LynahFan said:
Maximizing overall attendance is only one consideration - the NCAA would probably rather have 4K at each regional rather than 8K at one and 2K at the other.
.
Click to expand...

4 + 4 = 8 vs 8 + 2 +10..............i get what you're saying but to the NC$$ 10 >8
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

sterlippo1 said:
4 + 4 = 8 vs 8 + 2 +10..............i get what you're saying but to the NC$$ 10 >8
Click to expand...
I really don't think so. Remember, each regional has a host who puts up the $$$ to host and guarantees the NCAA a particular amount of revenue out of the event. If the NCAA were to start shifting teams around to get "8+2" in order to maximize total attendance, they would really screw over one of the host schools, so schools would be even more leery of bidding than they are today. Why should your school bust its hump to host a regional if the NCAA is going to turn around and saddle you with 4 sisters of the poor from the opposite side of the country? I really think the NCAA would prefer decent attendance at each regional even if it costs a few butts in seats overall.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

LynahFan said:
I really don't think so. Remember, each regional has a host who puts up the $$$ to host and guarantees the NCAA a particular amount of revenue out of the event. If the NCAA were to start shifting teams around to get "8+2" in order to maximize total attendance, they would really screw over one of the host schools, so schools would be even more leery of bidding than they are today. Why should your school bust its hump to host a regional if the NCAA is going to turn around and saddle you with 4 sisters of the poor from the opposite side of the country? I really think the NCAA would prefer decent attendance at each regional even if it costs a few butts in seats overall.
Click to expand...

perhaps you're right........there does seem to be one regional that absolutely is a ghost town anyway no matter how much they try to pair them up for attendance purposes
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

LynahFan said:
I really don't think so. Remember, each regional has a host who puts up the $$$ to host and guarantees the NCAA a particular amount of revenue out of the event. If the NCAA were to start shifting teams around to get "8+2" in order to maximize total attendance, they would really screw over one of the host schools, so schools would be even more leery of bidding than they are today. Why should your school bust its hump to host a regional if the NCAA is going to turn around and saddle you with 4 sisters of the poor from the opposite side of the country? I really think the NCAA would prefer decent attendance at each regional even if it costs a few butts in seats overall.
Click to expand...

this what they did in green bay a few years ago.....cornell, ferris state, Denver and Michigan...none of them traveling hockey schools....the only good news was you could pretty much have sat anywhere you wanted to
 
DoorCtyBadger said:
this what they did in green bay a few years ago.....cornell, ferris state, Denver and Michigan...none of them traveling hockey schools....the only good news was you could pretty much have sat anywhere you wanted to
Click to expand...

Michigan traveled okay for that one (I mean... why wouldn't they? It's not that far and it's a good sized fanbase).

Even with decent attendance, short of UW making the field, there was always going to be some seats available at the Resch. It does seat well over 8,500.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
Michigan traveled okay for that one (I mean... why wouldn't they? It's not that far and it's a good sized fanbase).

Even with decent attendance, short of UW making the field, there was always going to be some seats available at the Resch. It does seat well over 8,500.
Click to expand...
Actually, Ferris traveled decent for that one. They actually brought a few buses from Big Rapids with fans and students. Now, granted, 100 people still makes for an empty 8,500 seat arena.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

The advantage of the Bridgeport venue is it's size which makes the place never really look empty. Although the city itself is not the best place to travel to, you usually have a few thousand local hockey nuts who show up just to see some good hockey. Sad to see the regional departing next year. Anyone know the reasoning for not having the format change to Saturday-Sunday? I would think that would increase attendance instantly. I guess rest between games and having to stay over until Monday would be two negatives to that theory.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

LTsatch said:
The advantage of the Bridgeport venue is it's size which makes the place never really look empty. Although the city itself is not the best place to travel to, you usually have a few thousand local hockey nuts who show up just to see some good hockey. Sad to see the regional departing next year. Anyone know the reasoning for not having the format change to Saturday-Sunday? I would think that would increase attendance instantly. I guess rest between games and having to stay over until Monday would be two negatives to that theory.
Click to expand...

Probably for TV purposes. They like to show all the regional finals on TV along with some of the regional semifinal games. Likely can't be done if all the games are Saturday-Sunday.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

QUAlum2004 said:
Probably for TV purposes. They like to show all the regional finals on TV along with some of the regional semifinal games. Likely can't be done if all the games are Saturday-Sunday.
Click to expand...

That is a good point but IDK if these regional semis really draw much of a television audience other than the schools fans who can't make it. I sure it is a loser advertising wise for whatever tv network that takes it on. They could work out a system where the regional semis are broadcast ( on like Fox Sports north middle of no-where) only in the regions where the teams are from, then do national broadcasts for Regional finals and Frozen Four.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Sunday Feb 2. For Reilly Hamilton and Jim Dahl. What is happening that is different in Reilly's calculation? He is excluding the Gophers' game at home with Michigan State, and the others aren't? Also, how does it happen that the home win is excluded, but not the away win?

And, spare all the details, but the bubble is very volatile right now.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Numbers said:
Sunday Feb 2. For Reilly Hamilton and Jim Dahl. What is happening that is different in Reilly's calculation? He is excluding the Gophers' game at home with Michigan State, and the others aren't? Also, how does it happen that the home win is excluded, but not the away win?

And, spare all the details, but the bubble is very volatile right now.
Click to expand...
Latest update I see from Dahl is 1/29 - are you sure you're comparing apples?
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

LynahFan said:
Latest update I see from Dahl is 1/29 - are you sure you're comparing apples?
Click to expand...

Yep. Go here: http://siouxsports.com/hockey/rankings/pwr/

This is auto-update, and matches uscho exactly.

Reilly is doing something different, and I am curious what it is.

Most results match, it's just a few odd ones with deleted games...

Edit: It may not be the deleted games causing the difference. It may be a home/neutral ice definition. Vermont, Bowling Green, Penn State, and RoMo are also affected.

I hope Reilly gets here, because I think it is:

Minn/Ohio State outdoor game at TCF - Minn home or neutral?

Three Rivers Classic - RoMo v PSU and RoMo v BGSU. Are these neutral or RoMo home games?

And, Vermont/Penn State at Philadelphia in October - PSU home or neutral ice?

Not sure I know about another game for OSU. So, I don't know why the Minn game doesn't affect their RPI?
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

There are currently two differences in which matchups are marked neutral between USCHO's schedule (which USCHO and I use) and CollegeHockeyStats (which Reilly uses):
Oct 26 Penn St vs Vermont
Dec 28 Bowling Green vs Robert Morris
That accounted for the differences in those teams. I updated my database to match CHS (which states that the first is neutral, the second at home).

Second, Reilly handles an edge case in the negative wins slightly differently than USCHO and I. I went into some detail in this USCHO forum post when I first noticed it, but I haven't succeeded at reverse engineering how he gets his numbers. It only seems to occur when Reilly drops some, but not all, wins of a team over one other.
 
Last edited:
JimDahl said:
There are currently two differences in which matchups are marked neutral between USCHO's schedule (which USCHO and I use) and CollegeHockeyStats (which Reilly uses):
Oct 26 Penn St vs Vermont
Dec 28 Bowling Green vs Robert Morris
That accounted for the differences in those teams. I updated my database to match CHS (which states that the first is neutral, the second at home).

Second, Reilly handles an edge case in the negative wins slightly differently than USCHO and I. I went into some detail in this USCHO forum post when I first noticed it, but I haven't succeeded at reverse engineering how he gets his numbers. It only seems to occur when Reilly drops some, but not all, wins of a team over one other.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jim. I can't see how it would work to remove a home win and not a road win. Each is worth the same in the oppo and oppo,oppo win percentage. Each counts as 1.000 for a team's own win percentage. One counts 1.2 times, the other 0.8. So I can't reverse engineer that either.
 
Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Not sure it's worth doing a big Bracket Analysis this week, but here goes anyway:

Going strictly by the PWR:
St Paul: Minny v Mercyhurst (1 v 16); Mich v St Cloud (8 v 9)
Worcester: BC v NoDak (2 v 15); Lowell v N'eastern (7 v 10)
Bridgeport: Quinn v UNH (3 v 14); Cornell v Providence (6 v 11)
Cincinnati: Union v Wisconsin (4 v 13); Ferris St v UMD (5 v 12)

2 things need help: The Lowell/N'eastern matchup can't happen, and Cincinnati lacks good drawing teams.
In the case of Cincinnati, one hesitates to move any of the #2 seeds, because we want Lowell and Cornell in the east, and putting Ferris (#5) in the top seed's regional seems a bit much. However, this is an extreme case, so I would swap Ferris and Michigan. Then, we would be left with the other problem, and the right way to solve that is to swap N'eastern and UMD, leaving St Cloud in St Paul. Then:

St Paul: Minn v Mercyhurst (1 v 16), Ferris v St Cloud (5 v 9)
Worcester: BC v NoDak (2 v 15), Lowell v UMD (7 v 12)
Bridgeport: Quinn v UNH (3 v 14), Cornell v Providence (6 v 11)
Cincinnati: Union v Wisconsin (4 v 13), Michigan v Northeastern (8 v 10)

Not perfect, because there still is not much draw in Cincinnati, but not much we can do about that.

In the larger sense, the interesting thing right now, as we await Round 1 of the Beanpot, is how tightly the teams are bunched from 13 to 20 in the RPI. There is not going to be much clear predicting going on for those last spots in the field until the very end - RPI can change that much quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top