I guess I was under the impression that the final four sites were all predetermined these days...likley to be in the West given the east hosting the past few.
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
I guess I was under the impression that the final four sites were all predetermined these days...likley to be in the West given the east hosting the past few.
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
Nate LePage, Siena '13
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
You would be correct. This year's final four will be hosted by the NCHA at Minnestoa's Ridder Arena in Minneapolis, MN. This will be followed by 2 more yers of Plattsburgh and ORDA co-hosting at the Herb Brooks Arena in Lake Placid, NY.
You would be correct. This year's final four will be hosted by the NCHA at Minnestoa's Ridder Arena in Minneapolis, MN. This will be followed by 2 more yers of Plattsburgh and ORDA co-hosting at the Herb Brooks Arena in Lake Placid, NY.
elbojpb
Well-known member
Bizarro World
Bizarro World
With the second primary criterion seemingly being so skewed, and an unwritten bias to ensure two Western teams make the FF, [with all due respect] I don't think anyone will come close to predicting what will emerge from the oxygen deprived NCAA cavern this season. (although I have been known to err in the past)
PS - I do appreciate the work you've put into this.
Bizarro World
JC - Still the top 8 Eastern teams are all from New York State, and Norwich has the top-ranked SOS outside of the SUNYAC or ECAC/W. Contrast with last year when the NESCAC had 5 or 6 of the top 11 in NCAA ranked teams.
With the second primary criterion seemingly being so skewed, and an unwritten bias to ensure two Western teams make the FF, [with all due respect] I don't think anyone will come close to predicting what will emerge from the oxygen deprived NCAA cavern this season. (although I have been known to err in the past)
PS - I do appreciate the work you've put into this.
Josh Carey
Stats Guy
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Root for parity in the ECAC-West and NCHA, with those teams beating up on each other, Plattsburgh to keep winning, and maybe a few losses from Geneseo. The Cardinals are actually in a pretty strong Pool C position, especially if they can get to the SUNYAC Final against Oswego.
My comment might have just been some good-natured ribbing at the people of the state of Minnesota...
This is very easily explained actually. The "east" is essentially two regions: New York and New England. The small number of games between these two sub-regions means that a small number of results between them will skew overall totals. A great example of this was NUProf's computer rankings two years ago when things got all screwy based on a few abnormal results between the east and west regions.
If you look at this table you can see "New York" has had strong success against "New England" this year. The SUNYAC carries a 9-3-0 record against the ECAC-East, 3-2-1 against the NESCAC, and 9-0-0 against the NE. The ECAC-W comes in at 1-1-2 against the East, 4-0-1 against the NESCAC, and 8-0-1 against the NE with one win against the MASCAC. The total of that puts New York at 35-6-5 against New England, or a winning percentage of 0.8152. That not only pushes up New York's winning percentage, but also their collective strength of schedule, since those teams are now playing each other in conference play.
Last year the SUNYAC was 6-3-3 against the ECAC-E, 6-3-1 against the NESCAC, 8-2-0 against the NE and 2-0-0 against the MASCAC. The ECAC-West was 0-1-1 against the East, 1-3-1 against the NESCAC, and 6-5-0 against the NE. That translates to a New York record of 29-17-6, or a .6154 winning percentage, which is why the numbers tilted much more towards New England last year.
Just like in 2007, right?
I think the fact I just broke down why this year's numbers are so different than last year's is kind of encouraging...
The national table is notorious for being screwed up. Best to ignore it for anything other than COP and just use the regional tables. That's essentially what the committee does anyways.
Root for parity in the ECAC-West and NCHA, with those teams beating up on each other, Plattsburgh to keep winning, and maybe a few losses from Geneseo. The Cardinals are actually in a pretty strong Pool C position, especially if they can get to the SUNYAC Final against Oswego.
My comment might have just been some good-natured ribbing at the people of the state of Minnesota...
This is very easily explained actually. The "east" is essentially two regions: New York and New England. The small number of games between these two sub-regions means that a small number of results between them will skew overall totals. A great example of this was NUProf's computer rankings two years ago when things got all screwy based on a few abnormal results between the east and west regions.
If you look at this table you can see "New York" has had strong success against "New England" this year. The SUNYAC carries a 9-3-0 record against the ECAC-East, 3-2-1 against the NESCAC, and 9-0-0 against the NE. The ECAC-W comes in at 1-1-2 against the East, 4-0-1 against the NESCAC, and 8-0-1 against the NE with one win against the MASCAC. The total of that puts New York at 35-6-5 against New England, or a winning percentage of 0.8152. That not only pushes up New York's winning percentage, but also their collective strength of schedule, since those teams are now playing each other in conference play.
Last year the SUNYAC was 6-3-3 against the ECAC-E, 6-3-1 against the NESCAC, 8-2-0 against the NE and 2-0-0 against the MASCAC. The ECAC-West was 0-1-1 against the East, 1-3-1 against the NESCAC, and 6-5-0 against the NE. That translates to a New York record of 29-17-6, or a .6154 winning percentage, which is why the numbers tilted much more towards New England last year.
Just like in 2007, right?
I think the fact I just broke down why this year's numbers are so different than last year's is kind of encouraging...
The national table is notorious for being screwed up. Best to ignore it for anything other than COP and just use the regional tables. That's essentially what the committee does anyways.
Josh Carey
Stats Guy
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
I am trademarking that for sure now.
I will address that in this week's column.
I am trademarking that for sure now.
I will address that in this week's column.
Matt Rennell
Migrating to d3hockey.com
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
This week's projections, just so Josh can tell me how wrong I am, only to have egg on his face come Tuesday...
East
1- Oswego
2- Elmira
3- Utica
4- Hobart
5- Geneseo
6- Plattsburgh
7- Manhattanville
8- Castleton
9- Norwich
10- Salem State
11- Neumann
12- Fitchburg State
13- Bowdoin
14- Buffalo State
15- Hamilton
West
1- St. Norbert
2- Hamline
3- Wis. Stevens Point
4- Wis. Superior
5- Wis. Eau Claire
6- Wis. Stout
7- Adrian
Pool A
ECAC East: Castleton
ECACNE: Curry
NCHA: St. Norbert
MIAC: Hamline
MCHA: Adrian
NESCAC: Bowdoin
SUNYAC: Oswego
Pool B
Elmira
Pool C contenders.
East: Utica, Hobart, Geneseo
West: UWSP, UWS, UWEC
Utica vs. UWSP- not even worth discussing. Utica in a landslide.
Next let's look at Hobart vs. UWSP- again, Hobart has a significant advantage so there is not much discussion.
Lastly let's compare Geneseo and UWSP- Geneseo has a win % of .7222 and a SOS of .5151 while UWSP has a win % of .5714 and a SOS of .5520. If we bring in the secondary criteria we add a win to Hamline and a loss to UWEC to Geneseo. We also add a loss to Hobart and Oswego for UWSP. Which makes common ops records 3-3-0 for UWSP and 2-2-0 for Geneseo. A tie. Even if we look at record in last 25% of the season. Both teams come in at 4-1-0. So, we've come to a situation where it can't really get much closer. That said I am going to call it in favor of UWSP for two reason. 1) SOS historically is weighed the most and 2) The FF is in the West. While this is not in the listed criteria the human element is always involved in any decision. It really is too close to call but one must be made.
The Field
East
1- Oswego
2- Elmira
3- Utica
4- Hobart
5- Castleton
6- Bowdoin
7- Curry
West
1- St. Norbert
2- Hamline
3- Wis. Stevens Point
4- Adrian
NCAA Play Ins
Curry @ Elmira
Bowdoin @ Utica
Castleton @ Hobart
NCAA Quarterfinals
Adrian @ St. Norbert
Wis. Stevens Point @ Hamline
Castleton/Hobart @ Oswego
Bowdoin/Utica @ Curry/Elmira
This week's projections, just so Josh can tell me how wrong I am, only to have egg on his face come Tuesday...
East
1- Oswego
2- Elmira
3- Utica
4- Hobart
5- Geneseo
6- Plattsburgh
7- Manhattanville
8- Castleton
9- Norwich
10- Salem State
11- Neumann
12- Fitchburg State
13- Bowdoin
14- Buffalo State
15- Hamilton
West
1- St. Norbert
2- Hamline
3- Wis. Stevens Point
4- Wis. Superior
5- Wis. Eau Claire
6- Wis. Stout
7- Adrian
Pool A
ECAC East: Castleton
ECACNE: Curry
NCHA: St. Norbert
MIAC: Hamline
MCHA: Adrian
NESCAC: Bowdoin
SUNYAC: Oswego
Pool B
Elmira
Pool C contenders.
East: Utica, Hobart, Geneseo
West: UWSP, UWS, UWEC
Utica vs. UWSP- not even worth discussing. Utica in a landslide.
Next let's look at Hobart vs. UWSP- again, Hobart has a significant advantage so there is not much discussion.
Lastly let's compare Geneseo and UWSP- Geneseo has a win % of .7222 and a SOS of .5151 while UWSP has a win % of .5714 and a SOS of .5520. If we bring in the secondary criteria we add a win to Hamline and a loss to UWEC to Geneseo. We also add a loss to Hobart and Oswego for UWSP. Which makes common ops records 3-3-0 for UWSP and 2-2-0 for Geneseo. A tie. Even if we look at record in last 25% of the season. Both teams come in at 4-1-0. So, we've come to a situation where it can't really get much closer. That said I am going to call it in favor of UWSP for two reason. 1) SOS historically is weighed the most and 2) The FF is in the West. While this is not in the listed criteria the human element is always involved in any decision. It really is too close to call but one must be made.
The Field
East
1- Oswego
2- Elmira
3- Utica
4- Hobart
5- Castleton
6- Bowdoin
7- Curry
West
1- St. Norbert
2- Hamline
3- Wis. Stevens Point
4- Adrian
NCAA Play Ins
Curry @ Elmira
Bowdoin @ Utica
Castleton @ Hobart
NCAA Quarterfinals
Adrian @ St. Norbert
Wis. Stevens Point @ Hamline
Castleton/Hobart @ Oswego
Bowdoin/Utica @ Curry/Elmira
Matt Rennell
Migrating to d3hockey.com
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
I'd like to see Josh's response to this as well, but IMO there is no viable option to replace them with. Due to the fact that they really don't have that many common opponents or H2H match ups with the other TUC, we have to go really by win% and SOS. The thing is, there is only 1 team with a better SOS than them who I do not already have ranked. That would be Colby. Here is how that shakes down. *Note: Salem also beat Colby H2H.
SOS
Colby- .5049
Salem- .5027
Fitchburg- .5010
There is no difference in that, at all. Now let's compare their win %.
Salem- .7222
Fitchburg- .6765
Colby- .5000
A very wide gap between the MASCAC pair and Colby. It's not even close.
Now, if we look at the win% of the rest of the field. There is not a team with a better win% than Salem who is not already ranked. There is only one team ahead of Fitchburg in win% who is not ranked and that is UMass Boston.
Win%
UMB- .7059
Fitchburg- .6765
And their SOS's
Fitchburg- .5010
UMB- .4689
Not to mention, Fitchburg beat UMB H2H as well.
If Salem and Fitchburg aren't ranked, the committee is not going by the numbers. Because there is no remotely logical way to rank any team over them who I have not already ranked. The numbers just aren't there.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised by anything on Tuesday.
I'd like to see Josh's response to this as well, but IMO there is no viable option to replace them with. Due to the fact that they really don't have that many common opponents or H2H match ups with the other TUC, we have to go really by win% and SOS. The thing is, there is only 1 team with a better SOS than them who I do not already have ranked. That would be Colby. Here is how that shakes down. *Note: Salem also beat Colby H2H.
SOS
Colby- .5049
Salem- .5027
Fitchburg- .5010
There is no difference in that, at all. Now let's compare their win %.
Salem- .7222
Fitchburg- .6765
Colby- .5000
A very wide gap between the MASCAC pair and Colby. It's not even close.
Now, if we look at the win% of the rest of the field. There is not a team with a better win% than Salem who is not already ranked. There is only one team ahead of Fitchburg in win% who is not ranked and that is UMass Boston.
Win%
UMB- .7059
Fitchburg- .6765
And their SOS's
Fitchburg- .5010
UMB- .4689
Not to mention, Fitchburg beat UMB H2H as well.
If Salem and Fitchburg aren't ranked, the committee is not going by the numbers. Because there is no remotely logical way to rank any team over them who I have not already ranked. The numbers just aren't there.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised by anything on Tuesday.
Josh Carey
Stats Guy
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
I'll answer the MASCAC part later but only current ranked teams are considered ranked teams. So never more than 15.
I'll answer the MASCAC part later but only current ranked teams are considered ranked teams. So never more than 15.
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
When the system first started it was once ranked, always ranked - but they changed it after the first year.
When the system first started it was once ranked, always ranked - but they changed it after the first year.
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
With the finals being in the West do you think the committee might pick 2 west teams in pool c just to try to have a More "western flavor" and to make a better chance of getting 2 western teams in the final four
or will the seeding do that?
With the finals being in the West do you think the committee might pick 2 west teams in pool c just to try to have a More "western flavor" and to make a better chance of getting 2 western teams in the final four
or will the seeding do that?
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
As long as there's one pool C for the west, they can guarantee that by the seeding. There are five first round byes - they give all four western teams a bye and they're in the quarter finals.
As long as there's one pool C for the west, they can guarantee that by the seeding. There are five first round byes - they give all four western teams a bye and they're in the quarter finals.
CardsFan91
New member
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Regional Rankings are released tomorrow, correct? Sorry, haven't had time to check the board lately.
Regional Rankings are released tomorrow, correct? Sorry, haven't had time to check the board lately.
XYZ
Smoking in the selection room.
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
This week is the double secret rankings. My question about that for somebody who knows: Are games against "secretly ranked" teams from this week counted as games against ranked teams for next week's rankings? It seems to me there's a certain iterative thing that goes on here when a team is unranked and another takes it's place - but that effect doesn't show up until the following week, right?
This week is the double secret rankings. My question about that for somebody who knows: Are games against "secretly ranked" teams from this week counted as games against ranked teams for next week's rankings? It seems to me there's a certain iterative thing that goes on here when a team is unranked and another takes it's place - but that effect doesn't show up until the following week, right?
CardsFan91
New member
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
I think D-III adopted the Mobius strip for a reason.
It depends where you read in the manual. One section says the 1st ranking is released, while another one says it is "secret". The proofreading on the manual was pee poor. The have the championship dates right in one place and wrong in another.
I think D-III adopted the Mobius strip for a reason.
Matt Rennell
Migrating to d3hockey.com
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread
Correction, the record vs ranked teams count for the current weeks rankings, not the next. As you can imagine this creates quite the infinite loop of ranking teams then reranking them based on the previous rankings only to alter them because of the present rankings thus giving us the future rankings which are reranked due to the changes from the previous rankings which leaves us with the present rankings. Got that? Hence the need for this...
Correction, the record vs ranked teams count for the current weeks rankings, not the next. As you can imagine this creates quite the infinite loop of ranking teams then reranking them based on the previous rankings only to alter them because of the present rankings thus giving us the future rankings which are reranked due to the changes from the previous rankings which leaves us with the present rankings. Got that? Hence the need for this...