FiveHole12
Registered User
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
Maybe they should call it the Aggravator.
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.
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
It takes the scenarios everyone runs as its data. It's updated once a minute to avoid overloading the database.
It takes the scenarios everyone runs as its data. It's updated once a minute to avoid overloading the database.
Nowheresville
Registered User
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
I believe the 8-14 is the range of what they could be if they make the tournament. Any situation where they don't make the cut is not included, and MN can't make the tournament as a 15 or 16 seed because of autobids (unless there is some very weird situation where they win the B1G tourney and still drop to 15).
The second graphic shows the percentages of of each team actually making the tournament, with MN sitting around 70% based on the last time I looked. The other 30% are the ones where those 15-17 seeds are coming into play.
I believe the 8-14 is the range of what they could be if they make the tournament. Any situation where they don't make the cut is not included, and MN can't make the tournament as a 15 or 16 seed because of autobids (unless there is some very weird situation where they win the B1G tourney and still drop to 15).
The second graphic shows the percentages of of each team actually making the tournament, with MN sitting around 70% based on the last time I looked. The other 30% are the ones where those 15-17 seeds are coming into play.
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
Alright, here are the results of my first attempt on running all the scenarios (not a sample). I'll do some more quality checks and more interesting stuff with the results, but this thread is usually my best quality check -- anyone find any final PWR rankings outside these ranges?
UND 1-2 (in)
Mankato 1-2 (in)
Denver 3-7 (in)
BU 3-7 (in)
MTech 3-7 (in)
UMD 3-7 (in)
Miami 3-10 (in)
UNO 8-11 (in)
BC 8-15
QU 7-17
SCSU 7-21
BG 7-17
UMN 8-18
Providence 10-17
Harvard 8-21
Colgate 9-21
UML 9-21
Yale 11-21
Vermont 9-23
StL 13-24
Mich 14-27
RMU 19-28
Alright, here are the results of my first attempt on running all the scenarios (not a sample). I'll do some more quality checks and more interesting stuff with the results, but this thread is usually my best quality check -- anyone find any final PWR rankings outside these ranges?
UND 1-2 (in)
Mankato 1-2 (in)
Denver 3-7 (in)
BU 3-7 (in)
MTech 3-7 (in)
UMD 3-7 (in)
Miami 3-10 (in)
UNO 8-11 (in)
BC 8-15
QU 7-17
SCSU 7-21
BG 7-17
UMN 8-18
Providence 10-17
Harvard 8-21
Colgate 9-21
UML 9-21
Yale 11-21
Vermont 9-23
StL 13-24
Mich 14-27
RMU 19-28
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
My swing at Bracketology for this week:
1. North Dakota
2. Minnesota State
3. Denver
4. Boston University
5. Michigan Tech
6. Minnesota-Duluth
7. Miami
8. Nebraska-Omaha
9. Boston College
10. Quinnipiac
11. St. Cloud State
12. Bowling Green
13. Minnesota
14. Providence
15. Harvard
16. Robert Morris
Big thing this week is that we're stuck in 2 vs. 3 matchups. Because there are 3 Nacho teams on the 2 line, and 1 on the 3 line, we're stuck with what we can do. Michigan Tech must play the Nacho team, St. Cloud State.
Fargo
1. North Dakota
2. Nebraska-Omaha
3. Quinnipiac
4. Robert Morris
South Bend
1. Minnesota State
2. Miami
3. Bowling Green
4. Minnesota
Providence
1. Denver
2. Minnesota-Duluth
3. Boston College
4. Providence
Manchester
1. Boston University
2. Michigan Tech
3. St. Cloud State
4. Harvard
All of the 3 seeds jumped around, to accommodate the MTU-SCSU matchup, and then a few other moves to reduce flights (BC to Providence, BGSU to South Bend). The only other move I made was swapping 4 seeded Minnesota with 4 seeded Harvard, to keep Harvard east, eliminating a flight. And it moves MN to South Bend, which may be seen as a attendance boost for that region.
My swing at Bracketology for this week:
1. North Dakota
2. Minnesota State
3. Denver
4. Boston University
5. Michigan Tech
6. Minnesota-Duluth
7. Miami
8. Nebraska-Omaha
9. Boston College
10. Quinnipiac
11. St. Cloud State
12. Bowling Green
13. Minnesota
14. Providence
15. Harvard
16. Robert Morris
Big thing this week is that we're stuck in 2 vs. 3 matchups. Because there are 3 Nacho teams on the 2 line, and 1 on the 3 line, we're stuck with what we can do. Michigan Tech must play the Nacho team, St. Cloud State.
Fargo
1. North Dakota
2. Nebraska-Omaha
3. Quinnipiac
4. Robert Morris
South Bend
1. Minnesota State
2. Miami
3. Bowling Green
4. Minnesota
Providence
1. Denver
2. Minnesota-Duluth
3. Boston College
4. Providence
Manchester
1. Boston University
2. Michigan Tech
3. St. Cloud State
4. Harvard
All of the 3 seeds jumped around, to accommodate the MTU-SCSU matchup, and then a few other moves to reduce flights (BC to Providence, BGSU to South Bend). The only other move I made was swapping 4 seeded Minnesota with 4 seeded Harvard, to keep Harvard east, eliminating a flight. And it moves MN to South Bend, which may be seen as a attendance boost for that region.
goofy gopher
M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
I hate how the integrity of the tournament will be compromised because of stupid flights! You play All YEAR and you end up possibly playing a team with a seed above or below what you should be playing. I know the argument is these teams are so close when you crunch numbers and what is the real difference between 10,11 ect.. but there are intangibles at play! History between teams, past performances, recent play. Just go by the seeds, it's THE tournament for this sport. If it costs too much, too bad and the NCAA can suplement the cost from other revenues like they do with so many other sports.
I hate how the integrity of the tournament will be compromised because of stupid flights! You play All YEAR and you end up possibly playing a team with a seed above or below what you should be playing. I know the argument is these teams are so close when you crunch numbers and what is the real difference between 10,11 ect.. but there are intangibles at play! History between teams, past performances, recent play. Just go by the seeds, it's THE tournament for this sport. If it costs too much, too bad and the NCAA can suplement the cost from other revenues like they do with so many other sports.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
in that situation I could see them swapping SCSU and QU
in that situation I could see them swapping SCSU and QU
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
And go with the all-Nacho matchup in Fargo? Yeah, they CAN do that, based on the guidelines, but I don't know if they would. It is possible that they would if there are 7 Nachos in the tourney.
And go with the all-Nacho matchup in Fargo? Yeah, they CAN do that, based on the guidelines, but I don't know if they would. It is possible that they would if there are 7 Nachos in the tourney.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
oh, right... this whole conference shuffling is still throwing me off
oh, right... this whole conference shuffling is still throwing me off
purpleinnebraska
Well-known member
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
Exactly. Particularly when we make all these changes "for attendance," and then attendance stinks anyway. I'm also bugged when we try to accommodate a 3 or 4 seed in a regional by putting them closer to home, and give them a home field advantage over the 1 or 2 seed they're playing. You want BC closer to home? Maybe they should have beaten Vermont.
Exactly. Particularly when we make all these changes "for attendance," and then attendance stinks anyway. I'm also bugged when we try to accommodate a 3 or 4 seed in a regional by putting them closer to home, and give them a home field advantage over the 1 or 2 seed they're playing. You want BC closer to home? Maybe they should have beaten Vermont.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
I agree with your opinions...but the NCAA does what the NCAA does.
I agree with your opinions...but the NCAA does what the NCAA does.
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
WMU and CC have been eliminated, so only 6 possible.
purpleinnebraska
Well-known member
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
True. I just question the wisdom of it. The lowest attended regional final last year was in Worcester, featuring 2 Mass. teams. Outdrawn even by Cincinnati, with 2 non-Ohio teams. It's one thing to do something that seems "unfair" to some people. It's a whole 'nother level of stupid to do something that doesn't even accomplish one the objectives you had for doing it.
True. I just question the wisdom of it. The lowest attended regional final last year was in Worcester, featuring 2 Mass. teams. Outdrawn even by Cincinnati, with 2 non-Ohio teams. It's one thing to do something that seems "unfair" to some people. It's a whole 'nother level of stupid to do something that doesn't even accomplish one the objectives you had for doing it.
Nick Papagiorgio
Holding court
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
1) And what would attendance have been without the two Mass teams in Worcester? We've seen these situations rear their ugly heads and that is a brutal alternative for the players, the fans, and the sport itself.
2) According to USCHO box scores, Worcester outdrew the Cinci regional slightly, which didn't have the disadvantage of a Sunday night game, by about 885 fans overall.
3) To be honest, I'm less concerned about the attendance issue as far as moving teams around to boost attendance than I am at some of their braindead ideas like setting a gametime in Worcester for 8 pm on a Sunday night while giving the regional out West the earlier game (2012 I believe). Makes you wonder if the folks that make these decisions have the appropriate number of chromosomes.
1) And what would attendance have been without the two Mass teams in Worcester? We've seen these situations rear their ugly heads and that is a brutal alternative for the players, the fans, and the sport itself.
2) According to USCHO box scores, Worcester outdrew the Cinci regional slightly, which didn't have the disadvantage of a Sunday night game, by about 885 fans overall.
3) To be honest, I'm less concerned about the attendance issue as far as moving teams around to boost attendance than I am at some of their braindead ideas like setting a gametime in Worcester for 8 pm on a Sunday night while giving the regional out West the earlier game (2012 I believe). Makes you wonder if the folks that make these decisions have the appropriate number of chromosomes.
aparch
Acetaminamerican
Omaha has been playing against NoDak and St, Clood for five years now.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
I honestly dont think the problem is who is play but the cost of attending. There are diehard fans like myself that will pay to fly somewhere on 5 days notice to watch there team but to be honest, if my had done this in the last 30+ years, I probably wouldn't be looking to do this every year unless most the time it was driveable...so you have to expect there to be a reasonable cost so a casual fan can attend. The NCAA kills that with trying to make money on this thing and expecting regionals to write them a check, they (NCAA) should be focused on taking less money from regionals and making the experience better. They can make their wad from the F4.
I honestly dont think the problem is who is play but the cost of attending. There are diehard fans like myself that will pay to fly somewhere on 5 days notice to watch there team but to be honest, if my had done this in the last 30+ years, I probably wouldn't be looking to do this every year unless most the time it was driveable...so you have to expect there to be a reasonable cost so a casual fan can attend. The NCAA kills that with trying to make money on this thing and expecting regionals to write them a check, they (NCAA) should be focused on taking less money from regionals and making the experience better. They can make their wad from the F4.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
Hahahhahahahhhahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha
Hahahhahahahhhahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha
The Exiled One
New member
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
Minnesota draws well when playing host at the Xcel in St. Paul. The NCAA loves that regional. North Dakota drew the vast majority of fans (albeit still a bit too small) to the Target Center at the NCHC tournament last year. The game against SCSU this weekend will indicate whether my plan would really work. In short, I think Minnesota could host the Midwest Regional at the Xcel the same year that SCSU hosts the Western Regional at the Target Center. The Xcel will do fine no matter whom Minnesota faces. The Target Center would just need St. Cloud State plus one of; North Dakota, Minnesota-Duluth, Minnesota State, or Wisconsin to draw well. Certainly they'd do better than Worcester, Cincinnati, or Toledo has done in recent years. We'd hear a lot of whining from fans outside of the state of Minnesota, but I personally think it'd be the best NCAA regional attendance in years if everything shook out correctly.
Sadly, I've already suggested this idea to the SCSU AD and she summarily shot it down. St. Cloud State will NEVER host an NCAA regional.
On that note, I had this thought last year and I still think it could work...
Minnesota draws well when playing host at the Xcel in St. Paul. The NCAA loves that regional. North Dakota drew the vast majority of fans (albeit still a bit too small) to the Target Center at the NCHC tournament last year. The game against SCSU this weekend will indicate whether my plan would really work. In short, I think Minnesota could host the Midwest Regional at the Xcel the same year that SCSU hosts the Western Regional at the Target Center. The Xcel will do fine no matter whom Minnesota faces. The Target Center would just need St. Cloud State plus one of; North Dakota, Minnesota-Duluth, Minnesota State, or Wisconsin to draw well. Certainly they'd do better than Worcester, Cincinnati, or Toledo has done in recent years. We'd hear a lot of whining from fans outside of the state of Minnesota, but I personally think it'd be the best NCAA regional attendance in years if everything shook out correctly.
Sadly, I've already suggested this idea to the SCSU AD and she summarily shot it down. St. Cloud State will NEVER host an NCAA regional.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
So have Duluth, North Dakota, Mankato or Wisconsin host it. Or have the NCHC act as host.On that note, I had this thought last year and I still think it could work...
Minnesota draws well when playing host at the Xcel in St. Paul. The NCAA loves that regional. North Dakota drew the vast majority of fans (albeit still a bit too small) to the Target Center at the NCHC tournament last year. The game against SCSU this weekend will indicate whether my plan would really work. In short, I think Minnesota could host the Midwest Regional at the Xcel the same year that SCSU hosts the Western Regional at the Target Center. The Xcel will do fine no matter whom Minnesota faces. The Target Center would just need St. Cloud State plus one of; North Dakota, Minnesota-Duluth, Minnesota State, or Wisconsin to draw well. Certainly they'd do better than Worcester, Cincinnati, or Toledo has done in recent years. We'd hear a lot of whining from fans outside of the state of Minnesota, but I personally think it'd be the best NCAA regional attendance in years if everything shook out correctly.
Sadly, I've already suggested this idea to the SCSU AD and she summarily shot it down. St. Cloud State will NEVER host an NCAA regional.
MavHockey14
New member
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
Minnesota State seems to always be hosting something or another anyways.
Minnesota State seems to always be hosting something or another anyways.