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

Shirtless Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was using that phrasing because you couldn't seem to keep the different RPI's straight, so I wasn't going to throw another similar looking QWB adj RPI and confuse you even more. Now it is clear that you weren't looking at the USCHO RPI page, but at the time I didn't know that.

But I am glad that you ahve now proved to yourself that the QWB is based on RPI standings.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Tipsy McStagger said:
I was using that phrasing because you couldn't seem to keep the different RPI's straight, so I wasn't going to throw another similar looking QWB adj RPI and confuse you even more. Now it is clear that you weren't looking at the USCHO RPI page, but at the time I didn't know that.

But I am glad that you ahve now proved to yourself that the QWB is based on RPI standings.
Click to expand...
I always knew it was based on some form of RPI standings, just wasn't sure which one, and siouxsports compounded the confusion by reporting QWB based on the wrong thing even though that wasn't out their information was actually calculated it.

Also, being overly simplistic in your explanation is no way to get a point across with me. I understand this stuff...probably the biggest problem between us was you using uscho and me looking at CHN/siouxsports. I don't use USCHO for anything but the board and maybe the occasional source for stats/schedules, but not for data like PWR/RPI. Siouxsports provides a ton more detail and CHN has the modify results tab.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

OK. Here is a big question. As of about 11:20 EST on Friday night, Feb 20, the bands would be:

1- Minn State Mankato, North Dakota, Minn-Duluth, Boston Univ
2- Mich Tech, Neb-Omaha, Miami, Denver
3- Providence, Bowling Green, Minnesota, Quinnipiac
4- Boston College, St Cloud State, Yale, Robert Morris

Presumably, the #1s would go: Mankato to South Bend, NoDakota to Fargo, UMD to Manchester, and BU to Providence (maybe the eastern ones reversed, sorry not to know about that)
Clearly, that means the first round games would be:
South Bend: Mankato v RoMo; Fargo: NoDak v Yale; Manchester: UMD v BC; Providence: BU v SCSU (Although there is the possibility that the eastern games might switch places).

Now it gets interesting: By bracket integrity, you would have Denver to South Bend, Miami to Fargo, and Omaha and MichTech going out east. HOWEVER, attendance would seem better if Denver went to Fargo, and Miami to South Bend.

And, what about the #3s? By bracket integrity, you would have Prov to South Bend, BGSU to Fargo, and Minny and Quinn out east. However, best attendance here would seem to be: Prov to Prov, BGSU to South Bend, Minny to Fargo.

But, then, Fargo and South Bend are reportedly already sold out. So, maybe the committee doesn't mess the bracket as much for attendance.

So, what do you think the committee actually would do?
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

It'so crazy that St.Cloud St. with a .500 record is in the tourney as of right now. Just crazy!
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

willythekid said:
Where are they NCHC doubters now? Oh I know, waiting for them to lose in the tourney.
Click to expand...

Doubters? Who ever doubted the teams in that league were good? The doubt was in that this league would be a financial windfall for the teams and a conference tournament in a basketball arena could be a good idea...
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Shirtless Guy said:
Doubters? Who ever doubted the teams in that league were good? The doubt was in that this league would be a financial windfall for the teams and a conference tournament in a basketball arena could be a good idea...
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is most fans from the new wcha and every tech fan that posts on USCHO. NoDak is rolling in it so what else matters... The money that UND makes in hockey revenue could probably buy up a large portion of michigan. But it would just be silly to waste hard earned money on such frivolous and frankly wasteful things.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Don't forget: SCSU has to finish .500 or above to make the tourney, regardless of pairwise ranking. Could be interesting to keep an eye on.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

MN Magic said:
Its probably a pipe dream, but how cool would it be to have Duluth drop a couple of spots and have a South Bend Regional consisting of 1 MN-Mankato vs 4 St Cloud St and 2 MN-Duluth vs 3 Minnesota
Click to expand...

An all-Minnesota regional would be pretty amazing, no question.

A first for any state?
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

willythekid said:
The answer to your question is most fans from the new wcha and every tech fan that posts on USCHO. NoDak is rolling in it so what else matters... The money that UND makes in hockey revenue could probably buy up a large portion of michigan. But it would just be silly to waste hard earned money on such frivolous and frankly wasteful things.
Click to expand...
UND was making money hand over fist before the change, I'm talking about the money brought in by the conference. Is the frozen faceoff a success? Is the NCHC really getting buckets of money for their TV contract? Doubtful...

There was never any doubt that the cream of the NCHC was better off leaving for selfish reasons, but what really is amazing is the QWB and strong non-conference results make it possible for 6 of the 8 teams to "in" the tournament and 7 have a chance this late.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Also, isn't the rule still that if there are 5 or more teams from the same conference, they arent protected against playing each other in the first round? I thought they made this change several years back when the WCHA was sending a bunch of teams to the tournament. Does anyone remember for sure?
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

bigblue_dl said:
Also, isn't the rule still that if there are 5 or more teams from the same conference, they arent protected against playing each other in the first round? I thought they made this change several years back when the WCHA was sending a bunch of teams to the tournament. Does anyone remember for sure?
Click to expand...
I believe that is the case. However, I think that the committee still tries to avoid that if possible.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

bigblue_dl said:
Also, isn't the rule still that if there are 5 or more teams from the same conference, they arent protected against playing each other in the first round? I thought they made this change several years back when the WCHA was sending a bunch of teams to the tournament. Does anyone remember for sure?
Click to expand...

This is true. In practice, the committee only applies this in situations where it has to. For example, if NoDak stays as a #1, but Denver, Omaha, UMD all end up as #2s, and SCSU and Miami end up as 3s, the committee has no choice but to have NCHC v NCHC in round 1, unless it moves someone's seed. The rule really means.... No intraconference games, except that the rule about changing seeds is more important.

If you had the same thing, NoDak as a #1, and then UMD and Miami as #2s, Denver and Omaha as #3s, and SCSU as a #4, then UMD/Miami would not play Denver/Omaha in round 1. The committee would avoid that.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

I don't get y everybody I trying to put the gophs against UND the west regional for attendance reasons.. the Scheels arena is already sold out, people that are selling their tickets are getting $600 for them. they should put them where ever they end up because their fans travel pretty good no matter where they play. I really don't want to play the rodents cause no matter how bad one of them are, when they play its always the hardest game of the year.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

After this evening's games, we have the following rankings:
1. Minnesota State (AQ)
2. North Dakota (AQ)
3. Minnesota Duluth
4. Miami
5. Michigan Tech
6. Denver
7. Boston University (AQ)
8. Nebraska Omaha
9. Boston College
10. Quinnipiac (AQ)
11. Minnesota (AQ)
12. Providence
13. Bowling Green
14. St. Cloud State
15. Yale
16. Robert Morris (AQ)

Our straight up brackets go as follows:

South Bend:
1. Minnesota State vs. 16. Robert Morris
8. Nebraska Omaha vs. 9. Boston College

Fargo:
2. North Dakota vs. 15. Yale
7. Boston University vs. 10. Quinnipiac

Manchester:
3. Minnesota Duluth vs. 14. St. Cloud State
6. Denver vs. 11. Minnesota

Providence:
4. Miami vs. 13. Bowling Green
5. Michigan Tech vs. 12. Providence

What a mess. We have an intra-conference matchup, and a ton of "Western" teams out East and a bunch of eastern teams out West. This bracket really would put the committee in a bind, but we would find out a lot about what really is important. My guess is that since the committee can avoid the intra-conference matchup that they do (also, see 2003 for this proposition when top-seeded Cornell got the short straw and had to take on Mankato in the first round). After that, I think the committee will make maneuvers using flights as an excuse and get something like this...

Manchester: (BI = 32)
1. Minnesota State vs. 14. St. Cloud State
7. Boston University vs. 10. Quinnipiac

Fargo: (BI = 37)
2. North Dakota vs. 16. Robert Morris
8. Nebraska Omaha vs. 11. Minnesota

Providence: (BI = 36)
3. Minnesota Duluth vs. 15. Yale
6. Denver vs. 12. Providence

South Bend: (BI = 31)
4. Miami vs. 13. Bowling Green
5. Michigan Tech vs. 9. Boston College

Committee saves flights for Miami, Boston University, Nebraska Omaha, Quinnipiac, Minnesota, Bowling Green, and Yale. BC will complain about getting sent West, and Tech should complain about being the top-seeded #2 playing the top-seeded #3. Bracket integrity sucks, but I'm not sure the NCAA could give up saving 7 flights. Ultimately, my guess is the NCAA is praying that the actual Pairwise ranking that counts looks significantly different than this one (and it likely will).

If the committee is okay with an intra-conference matchup, an alternate bracket would see St. Cloud swapping with Yale (saves 2 flights) and then switching the DU-MN matchup with the BU-QU matchup (saving 3 flights). That at least keeps SOME measure of bracket integrity and also saves 5 flights. That bracket would look like:

South Bend: (BI = 34)
1. Minnesota State vs. 16. Robert Morris
8. Nebraska Omaha vs. 9. Boston College

Fargo: (BI = 33)
2. North Dakota vs. 14. St. Cloud State
6. Denver vs. 11. Minnesota

Manchester: (BI = 35)
3. Minnesota Duluth vs. 15. Yale
7. Boston University vs. 10. Quinnipiac

Providence: (BI = 34)
4. Miami vs. 13. Bowling Green
5. Michigan Tech vs. 12. Providence

This bracket is much more palatable from a bracket integrity standpoint. What would the committee do? My hunch would be to avoid the intra-conference matchups...and hope and pray that the actual pairwise doesn't come out anything close to this. :)
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

I think they'd go with the UND-SCSU matchup in that one. With 6 teams they have leeway to have one matchup between conference members and I don't think they want to completely screw up bracket integrity and put their overall #1 that far from home.
 
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread

Sioux-perDrunk said:
I don't get y everybody I trying to put the gophs against UND the west regional for attendance reasons.. the Scheels arena is already sold out, people that are selling their tickets are getting $600 for them. they should put them where ever they end up because their fans travel pretty good no matter where they play. I really don't want to play the rodents cause no matter how bad one of them are, when they play its always the hardest game of the year.
Click to expand...

The reason MN will go to Fargo isn't attendance, it's travel.
Fargo is the only region that isn't considered a "flight" for MN. That means there will have to be some really compelling reason not to send them there.

Pretty much the only 2 ways MN doesn't go to Fargo is if they fail to make the tournament, or both MN and UND end up in the same seeding band.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top