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 definitive tournament speculation thread
- Thread starter Josh Carey
- Start date
PrezdeJohnson09
Proud supporter of Osmirwich hockey
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Wow...Looks like this past weekend's results really screwed Utica. They can partially blame Elmira for losing to Neumann the night before.
Elmira had better get their act together or they could end up suffering the same fate if they lose in the ECAC West semifinals.
Wow...Looks like this past weekend's results really screwed Utica. They can partially blame Elmira for losing to Neumann the night before.
Elmira had better get their act together or they could end up suffering the same fate if they lose in the ECAC West semifinals.
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
My guess would be that the NCAA numbers are found by the (flawed) process of averaging the percentages, which is how it is described in the handbook. A more rational approach is to determine how many wins and losses each opponent has and adding them all up (counting double if you've played them twice, etc.) The second approach gives you the winning percentage of your opponents, while the first gives you the average winning percentage of your opponents. The second way is the correct way - the first way is the NCAA way. As long as all the teams have played the same number of games, the results will be very close to the same, but when you have teams that have different numbers of in regions games, each win or loss by a team with a smaller number of games has a little more impact on the number.
My guess would be that the NCAA numbers are found by the (flawed) process of averaging the percentages, which is how it is described in the handbook. A more rational approach is to determine how many wins and losses each opponent has and adding them all up (counting double if you've played them twice, etc.) The second approach gives you the winning percentage of your opponents, while the first gives you the average winning percentage of your opponents. The second way is the correct way - the first way is the NCAA way. As long as all the teams have played the same number of games, the results will be very close to the same, but when you have teams that have different numbers of in regions games, each win or loss by a team with a smaller number of games has a little more impact on the number.
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Hmmm... Looks like the Satellite of Love got an EMP burst.
They're gone now. Can't get them from the NCAA page.
Hmmm... Looks like the Satellite of Love got an EMP burst.
PrezdeJohnson09
Proud supporter of Osmirwich hockey
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Code:
EAST
1 Oswego State 21-3 22-3
2 Elmira 15-6-4 15-6-4
3 Plattsburgh State 16-7-1 17-7-1
4 Norwich 15-5-3 17-5-3
5 Neumann 13-7-5 13-7-5
6 Castleton 19-3-1 21-3-1
7 Utica 15-7-1 17-7-1
8 SUNY Geneseo 13-6-2 16-7-2
9 Hobart 13-9-2 14-9-2
10 Manhattanville 14-9-1 15-9-1
11 Salem State 15-5-2 17-5-2
12 Hamilton 12-6-4 14-6-4
13 Williams 13-7-2 14-7-3
14 Middlebury 8-7-6 11-7-6
15 Bowdoin 12-7-1 15-7-1
WEST
1 St. Norbert 20-4-1 20-4-1
2 Adrian 19-2-1 21-3-1
3 Hamline 14-5-5 14-6-5
4 Wisconsin-Stout 16-11 16-11
5 Wisconsin-Superior 15-11-1 15-11-1
6 St. Thomas (Minnesota) 14-9-2 14-9-2
7 Milwaukee School of Engineering 19-5-1 19-5-1Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Based on the rankings, the Pool C extrapolation would now be #1 Plattsburgh, #2 Neumann, #3 Castleton.
Based on the rankings, the Pool C extrapolation would now be #1 Plattsburgh, #2 Neumann, #3 Castleton.
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Oh yeah it changed. Most likely #1 Plattsburgh #2 Neumann # 3 Castleton based on the rankings released by the NCAA.
In the west the top candidate for Pool C is Stout, and they probably don't have a chance to take a spot away from any of these - but things can and will change again.
Oh yeah it changed. Most likely #1 Plattsburgh #2 Neumann # 3 Castleton based on the rankings released by the NCAA.
In the west the top candidate for Pool C is Stout, and they probably don't have a chance to take a spot away from any of these - but things can and will change again.
LakerFan99
New member
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Acccoring to the USCHO page, NO team has a record against ranked teams. NCAA's page says Salem is 2-1-0.
Acccoring to the USCHO page, NO team has a record against ranked teams. NCAA's page says Salem is 2-1-0.
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
b) If UC loses to Neumann this weekend, they are in a world of hurt. If they win, they may look a lot better.
a) It's all in the way the committee weights the factors, which we don't know, and it seems to vary from week to week and comparison to comparison - that's why iUSCO call it the PWC instead of the PWR -
b) If UC loses to Neumann this weekend, they are in a world of hurt. If they win, they may look a lot better.
Pioneerfan11
Registered User
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
As much as I hate to say it... if Utica loses to Neumann four times, they don't deserve to get in ahead of them. I don't care how far ahead of them they are in the other comparisons.
As much as I hate to say it... if Utica loses to Neumann four times, they don't deserve to get in ahead of them. I don't care how far ahead of them they are in the other comparisons.
NorthernBlight
Registered User
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Something is wrong when a team plays 21 games that count, win an overwhelming eight of them and is ranked. It seems there are two possible explanations for this. One, too many teams are ranked or two, having a blue sweater with a big white M on it gets bonus points. This isn't 1999. Get over it.
Eight out of 21? Really?
Something is wrong when a team plays 21 games that count, win an overwhelming eight of them and is ranked. It seems there are two possible explanations for this. One, too many teams are ranked or two, having a blue sweater with a big white M on it gets bonus points. This isn't 1999. Get over it.
Eight out of 21? Really?
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
But they have only lost 7. The NCAA says that 1/3 of the teams in the the region should be ranked. When you do that, you will find that some ranked teams will have a record that is pretty close to 0.500. 8-7-6 is the equivalent of 11-10.
Something is wrong when a team plays 21 games that count, win an overwhelming eight of them and is ranked. It seems there are two possible explanations for this. One, too many teams are ranked or two, having a blue sweater with a big white M on it gets bonus points. This isn't 1999. Get over it.
Eight out of 21? Really?
But they have only lost 7. The NCAA says that 1/3 of the teams in the the region should be ranked. When you do that, you will find that some ranked teams will have a record that is pretty close to 0.500. 8-7-6 is the equivalent of 11-10.
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Since the NCAA rankings have left the building, what are the 2 sets of records?
Since the NCAA rankings have left the building, what are the 2 sets of records?
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Overall record and the games that count towards the regional rankings (in region games against DIII competition)
Overall record and the games that count towards the regional rankings (in region games against DIII competition)
Thank you.Don't worry division3 hockey can be a little confusing however I think I've finally figured it out. It's all RIT's fault.