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

Tipsy McStagger said:
The bonus is added after:
In addition, a quality wins bonus based on wins against the top 20 teams is added to a team's RPI.
Click to expand...

If adding a bonus changes a teams ranking, does that in turn change the bonus for all the teams that defeated the team that moved up in the rankings?
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Tipsy McStagger said:
The bonus is added after:
In addition, a quality wins bonus based on wins against the top 20 teams is added to a team's RPI.
Click to expand...

If adding a bonus changes a teams ranking, does that in turn change the bonus for all the teams that defeated the team that moved up in the rankings?

Let's do the simplest example. IF SCSU were ranked 21 in RPI before adding QWB but moves up to 20 after adding QWB, does every team that defeated SCSU now get a QWB for wins for the 20th ranked team (SCSU) which could in turn push other teams up which could push up SCSU's QWB and potentially compound to the point that SCSU could move up to 19 or higher.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Shirtless Guy said:
If adding a bonus changes a teams ranking, does that in turn change the bonus for all the teams that defeated the team that moved up in the rankings?

Let's do the simplest example. IF SCSU were ranked 21 in RPI before adding QWB but moves up to 20 after adding QWB, does every team that defeated SCSU now get a QWB for wins for the 20th ranked team (SCSU) which could in turn push other teams up which could push up SCSU's QWB and potentially compound to the point that SCSU could move up to 19 or higher.
Click to expand...

Does the QWB come from defeating the top 20 in RPI or the top 20 in PWR? I would guess it would have to be RPI since that would fix this circular issue.
 
bigblue_dl said:
What is the driving distance that the NCAA says that teams will take a flight? I thought it was 500 miles, but I don't completely recall.

I ask, because there are some interesting distances between schools and regionals:

Michigan Tech to Fargo: 456 miles
Michigan Tech to South Bend: 509 miles

Minnesota-Duluth to Fargo: 239 miles
Minnesota-Duluth to South Bend: 568 miles

Nebraska-Omaha to Fargo: 424 miles
Nebraska-Omaha to South Bend: 551 miles

Minnesota State to Fargo: 272 miles
Minnesota State to South Bend: 531 miles

Minnesota to South Bend: 508 miles

Bowling Green to South Bend: 164 miles

These numbers could end up having some impact when the NCAA applies the "a flight is a flight" reasoning that they have stated in the past.
Click to expand...

400 miles.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I am sure. What's interesting (at least to me) is, at the time, I just thought Yale was another EZAC squad. Three years later, after the ECAC doing well in 2012, then dominating the NCAA Tournament in 2013 and doing very well last year, that game may very well have been a massive upset. Ultimately though, I'm sure Yale fans can take solace in the 2013 National Championship. :p:D:D
Click to expand...

Beat me to the punch on this one. Makes UMD's title that year look much better given that they beat two future champions to get there.
 
Shirtless Guy said:
If adding a bonus changes a teams ranking, does that in turn change the bonus for all the teams that defeated the team that moved up in the rankings?

Let's do the simplest example. IF SCSU were ranked 21 in RPI before adding QWB but moves up to 20 after adding QWB, does every team that defeated SCSU now get a QWB for wins for the 20th ranked team (SCSU) which could in turn push other teams up which could push up SCSU's QWB and potentially compound to the point that SCSU could move up to 19 or higher.
Click to expand...

For the third time, no. Take a look at the standings. They aren't ranked by the adjusted RPI, they are ranked by QWB added.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

As far as I can tell, you are wrong. SCSU has the 20th best unadjusted RPI but teams that defeated SCSU receive a QWB bonus based on their adjusted RPI rank of 19th.
Tipsy McStagger said:
For the third time, no. Take a look at the standings. They aren't ranked by the adjusted RPI, they are ranked by QWB added.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Shirtless Guy said:
Then you were never comprehending my question so stop trying to tell me I was wrong.
Click to expand...
I comprehend your question. You threw in unadjusted RPI, which I never mentioned, so why are you using that to tell me I am wrong?

Are you also factoring in that the QWB bonus is also affect by the game-site factor?

The amount of bonus for any game is multiplied by the appropriate game-site factor consistent with the calculation of the RPI. If the win (or tie) takes place on the road the amount of bonus is multiplied by a factor of 1.2. If the win (or tie) takes place at home the amount of bonus is multiplied by a factor of 0.8. The bonus is unchanged for a win (or tie) at a neutral site.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Tipsy McStagger said:
I comprehend your question. You threw in unadjusted RPI, which I never mentioned, so why are you using that to tell me I am wrong?

Are you also factoring in that the QWB bonus is also affect by the game-site factor?

The amount of bonus for any game is multiplied by the appropriate game-site factor consistent with the calculation of the RPI. If the win (or tie) takes place on the road the amount of bonus is multiplied by a factor of 1.2. If the win (or tie) takes place at home the amount of bonus is multiplied by a factor of 0.8. The bonus is unchanged for a win (or tie) at a neutral site.
Click to expand...

NOTHING is ranked by QWB added...its either adjust RPI or unadjusted RPI. You are wrong in your explanation but in the end you are correct that QWB is based on raw RPI before adding QWB.

Upon further review, Siouxsports lists the QWB on a given team's page based on adjust RPI rank but they actually calculate the QWB for a team based on unadjusted RPI divided by weighted games played, so there isn't compounding.

Example:
Miami beat UNO (0.030), BGSU (0.026), Denver (0.022) at home and UND (0.057), UMD (0.042) on the road. If you sum those numbers, it equals 0.1770 divide that by weighted games played (27.2) you get 0.006507 which is the correct value for QWB if you list RPI as 0.5690 instead of the 56.90 that siouxsports lists.

Note, the bold numbers are listed as higher values on Miami's detailed explanation of RPI page:
http://siouxsports.com/hockey/rankings/rpidetails.php?teamid=14

This verifies that QWB is listed based on adjusted RPI, which is inaccurate compared to the calculation.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Shirtless Guy said:
What are eveyone's thoughts on the QWB? With so much "power" in a conference like the NCHC, it seems strange that they get to compound it with circular increases in their QWB.
Click to expand...

Take a look back at the old pairwise system on chn. The biggest differences are Minnesota, Colgate, and Northeastern. Minnesota sits currently at 13th in this pairwise, but is 20th in the old system. Looking back at their schedule they have wins over "teams under consideration" against UMD, Bemidji x2, SCSU, BC, and Michigan x2. Colgate goes from 22nd in the new pwr to 16th in the old one. They have 8 wins against TUC teams but none against high rated QWB teams (none in the top 16). Northeastern goes from tied for 20th in the current pwr, to 14th in the old one (St. Lawr who they are currently tied with, goes to 24th!) NE also has 8 wins against TUC like Colgate, but also has 5 wins against QWB teams ranked 16th or higher in the current pwr.

The main differences I see with the new pairwise is that first it makes out of conference games so important in each league. This is why the NCHC is able to have so many teams up there and be able to gain more QWB chances. Basically, they just need to have a good first half of the season against OOC and then split each weekend and they should be able to make the tourney based on the OOC record and compounding QWB games they play against each other. (see Denver 9-8-1-1 in NCHC, 9th in the PWR, 7-2-1 OOC). So your rival in league may be hated on game day, but when they are playing every other team OOC you need to cheer for them hard (prob more so than any other sport). This is when it really hurts to have a weak conference or have your conference have a poor out of conference record, it is difficult to get in to the top of the pairwise if you are not playing quality opponents. Second, the new pairwise system has to get coaches wondering why they would want to play weaker competition. If you are rewarded that much more for road wins against quality opponents, why schedule bottom teams in the AHC at home if it is not going to do anything but hurt you if you lose. If a team can get a quality opponent on the road like Miami, UMD, Quinnipiac, Michigan, etc... and just get a split it goes a lot further than 2 home wins over Sacred Heart, Army etc..

Just my 2 cents.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

still an empty net said:
Take a look back at the old pairwise system on chn. The biggest differences are Minnesota, Colgate, and Northeastern. Minnesota sits currently at 13th in this pairwise, but is 20th in the old system. Looking back at their schedule they have wins over "teams under consideration" against UMD, Bemidji x2, SCSU, BC, and Michigan x2. Colgate goes from 22nd in the new pwr to 16th in the old one. They have 8 wins against TUC teams but none against high rated QWB teams (none in the top 16). Northeastern goes from tied for 20th in the current pwr, to 14th in the old one (St. Lawr who they are currently tied with, goes to 24th!) NE also has 8 wins against TUC like Colgate, but also has 5 wins against QWB teams ranked 16th or higher in the current pwr.

The main differences I see with the new pairwise is that first it makes out of conference games so important in each league. This is why the NCHC is able to have so many teams up there and be able to gain more QWB chances. Basically, they just need to have a good first half of the season against OOC and then split each weekend and they should be able to make the tourney based on the OOC record and compounding QWB games they play against each other. (see Denver 9-8-1-1 in NCHC, 9th in the PWR, 7-2-1 OOC). So your rival in league may be hated on game day, but when they are playing every other team OOC you need to cheer for them hard (prob more so than any other sport). This is when it really hurts to have a weak conference or have your conference have a poor out of conference record, it is difficult to get in to the top of the pairwise if you are not playing quality opponents. Second, the new pairwise system has to get coaches wondering why they would want to play weaker competition. If you are rewarded that much more for road wins against quality opponents, why schedule bottom teams in the AHC at home if it is not going to do anything but hurt you if you lose. If a team can get a quality opponent on the road like Miami, UMD, Quinnipiac, Michigan, etc... and just get a split it goes a lot further than 2 home wins over Sacred Heart, Army etc..

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

very true, bigblue_dl was tweaking game results on CHN and managed to get MSU, MTU and BGSU 1-3 by changing 5 game results from WCHA NC losses, to wins...
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

still an empty net said:
Second, the new pairwise system has to get coaches wondering why they would want to play weaker competition. If you are rewarded that much more for road wins against quality opponents, why schedule bottom teams in the AHC at home if it is not going to do anything but hurt you if you lose. If a team can get a quality opponent on the road like Miami, UMD, Quinnipiac, Michigan, etc... and just get a split it goes a lot further than 2 home wins over Sacred Heart, Army etc..
Click to expand...

It is frustrating this year for Tech that we did that....went to Wisconsin (a tourney team last year), which should have resulted in non-conference opportunities for QWB. Instead, Wisconsin is one of the worst teams in country, no QWB, and we **** the bed on Saturday night to compound it. Disaster. We would have been MUCH better off getting Robert Morris to Houghton for 2 than ever set foot in Madison.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

bigblue_dl said:
Umm, that is Adjusted RPI...
Click to expand...
RPI Adj RPI QWB QWB Adj RPI
6 Miami .5625 .5625 .0065 .5690 18-9-1 .6691 8 .5270 7
7 Michigan Tech .5666 .5666 .0020 .5686 24-7-1 .7485 2 .5059 30

Miami has a lower Adjusted RPI, so how are they ranked higher if they are ranking by that?
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

bigblue_dl said:
It is frustrating this year for Tech that we did that....went to Wisconsin (a tourney team last year), which should have resulted in non-conference opportunities for QWB. Instead, Wisconsin is one of the worst teams in country, no QWB, and we **** the bed on Saturday night to compound it. Disaster. We would have been MUCH better off getting Robert Morris to Houghton for 2 than ever set foot in Madison.
Click to expand...

Yea obviously no one could have predicted Wisco to be this bad, not even like they are ranked in the 30s or something. Normally that is definitely a team you would assume when the schedule comes out that wins there would go a long way in the pwr. That being said, Tech is still 7th in the PWR so I don't have that much solace for you.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Tipsy McStagger said:
RPI Adj RPI QWB QWB Adj RPI
6 Miami .5625 .5625 .0065 .5690 18-9-1 .6691 8 .5270 7
7 Michigan Tech .5666 .5666 .0020 .5686 24-7-1 .7485 2 .5059 30

Miami has a lower Adjusted RPI, so how are they ranked higher if they are ranking by that?
Click to expand...

That table is just silly in having a separate column for adjusting RPI to account for wins lowering the RPI. Adjusted RPI is supposed to be the RPI after all of the adjustments happen, not just one of them.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Tipsy McStagger said:
This is the list I have been referring to the entire time. The teams are ranked by QWB added.

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-men/
Click to expand...
How do you get QWB added out of QWB adj RPI? That would be RPI adjusted for negative impact wins and QWB. Not QWB added. Note, my point still stand. The QWB must be based on RPI standings (adjusted for negative impact games), which I have now proved that it is...the problem is that SiouxSports.com (the only place I've found that breaks things down enough to calculate things yourself) lists QWB for results based on the "QWB adj RPI" which is flawed compared to how they actually calculate "QWB adj RPI." As best as I can tell the QWB is based on the rank of teams when sorted by "adj RPI" according to the titles on the link you provided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top