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 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Siouxfaninseattle said:
MN is tied for 14 in the Pairwise - not a real secure spot.
Click to expand...

Definitely not secure, but bracketology is done to look at what the tournament would look like if the season ended today, not to project where teams might end up in the final PWR; and in that consideration, the security of an individual team's position is neither here nor there.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Priceless said:
Jim Dahl might grace us with his computer calculations, but it would appear that all of the top 8 have clinched spots. In fact, with a projection of UMD sweeping at Denver, neither team moved. Providence and Boston College still have work to do to wrap up a spot and anyone below them is too close to the bubble to rest easy. The statistics say that at least two of the teams currently in the mix will fall out of the field.
Click to expand...


This sounds reasonable to me but I'm no Jim Dahl. :cool: If true, DU losing in 2 or 3 might be the better path to Boston. No sense burning gas against all the high flyers we've already bumped heads with all season. Enough already!
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

brassbonanza said:
No it's not because it accounts for that happening, as all sub .500 teams are automatically disqualified from tournament consideration.
Click to expand...

...with exception given to an automatic qualifier, as is what happened in the last year of the CHA.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

FlagDUDE08 said:
...with exception given to an automatic qualifier, as is what happened in the last year of the CHA.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has a problem with the AQ teams being allowed in with a sub-.500 record. It has been a long-standing thing that if you win your conference tourney, you're in, and its not just a hockey thing. That is whole point of having an "auto-qualifier". Otherwise, you may as well just do away with conference tournaments and go by the PWR at the end of the regular season.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Priceless said:
Jim Dahl might grace us with his computer calculations, but it would appear that all of the top 8 have clinched spots. In fact, with a projection of UMD sweeping at Denver, neither team moved. Providence and Boston College still have work to do to wrap up a spot and anyone below them is too close to the bubble to rest easy. The statistics say that at least two of the teams currently in the mix will fall out of the field.
Click to expand...

I agree -- Denver looks pretty safe if swept, Providence does not.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Just looking at the conference standings, and PWR at this time, my gut feeling is that there will be 3 AQ teams that wouldn't get in via an at-large. Meaning, if I am correct, the goal is top 13 for an at-large bid.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Priceless said:
Jim Dahl might grace us with his computer calculations, but it would appear that all of the top 8 have clinched spots. In fact, with a projection of UMD sweeping at Denver, neither team moved. Providence and Boston College still have work to do to wrap up a spot and anyone below them is too close to the bubble to rest easy. The statistics say that at least two of the teams currently in the mix will fall out of the field.
Click to expand...

Where would UMD go if they got swept?
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

It's fun to do this each week but you guys are getting awfully hung up on little details. The simple answer to your question Biddy is it depends on EVERYTHING ELSE
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Priceless said:
Jim Dahl might grace us with his computer calculations, but it would appear that all of the top 8 have clinched spots. In fact, with a projection of UMD sweeping at Denver, neither team moved. The statistics say that at least two of the teams currently in the mix will fall out of the field.
Click to expand...

MagnessMan said:
This sounds reasonable to me but I'm no Jim Dahl. :cool: If true, DU losing in 2 or 3 might be the better path to Boston. No sense burning gas against all the high flyers we've already bumped heads with all season. Enough already!
Click to expand...
That worked pretty well in 2004 in Boston:)
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Biddco said:
Where would UMD go if they got swept?
Click to expand...

No idea. They would fall to at least a two seed and could drop to a 3-seed by the time the other conferences are done.

The thing to bear in mind about where teams will end up:
Miami+Bowling Green will be in South Bend whenever possible.
As long as three #1 seeds (or BU and 2 other #1 seeds) have to fly, regionals are up in the air. Because a flight is a flight, the committee can place the top seeds wherever and maintain bracket integrity. Right now Duluth and Mankato are interchangeable depending on what the attendance needs are. They could easily end up in either of the eastern sites. If Denver were to replace Miami as a #1 seed, all three of those teams could end up at any of the three regionals - depending on how they align with teams below them.

Attendance:
Fargo - all set, tickets sold and UND in region
South Bend - tickets sold but needs Miami and/or Bowling Green (Michigan would help) for butts in the seats
Providence - MA/CT/RI teams ideal
Manchester - MA teams ideal
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Shirtless Guy said:
It's fun to do this each week but you guys are getting awfully hung up on little details. The simple answer to your question Biddy is it depends on EVERYTHING ELSE
Click to expand...

I know. Hence why I'm too lazy to do those models. Too many combinations. :p
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

I really wish we had slack.net right now
I'd like to fiddle around with combinations but there is no good way to get to an end point. Guess I'll have to wait one more week.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

LTsatch said:
That thing has the rankings around 13-15 completely wrong, even has SCSU in the field.
Click to expand...

which, again, points to how annoying creating a simulator can be... I know I've done it in the past... but anyways.

Jim probably could put together a good straight probabalistic analysis based on the rest of the playoffs... the problem prior to that is computing standings and tie-breakers. Now that we're in playoff mode its all straight determinalism. The hard part, writing the PWR code, is done. Only issue would be 3rd place game ties... krach doesnt do ties
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Patman said:
which, again, points to how annoying creating a simulator can be... I know I've done it in the past... but anyways.

Jim probably could put together a good straight probabalistic analysis based on the rest of the playoffs... the problem prior to that is computing standings and tie-breakers. Now that we're in playoff mode its all straight determinalism. The hard part, writing the PWR code, is done. Only issue would be 3rd place game ties... krach doesnt do ties
Click to expand...

Except for the Big...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top