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 definitive tournament speculation thread

Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

joecct said:
Some Comparisons -- Courtesy of USCHO and the NCAA.
Code: 
Castleton vs Salem State 
WIN 0.8478  1  0.7273  0 
SOS 0.4882  0  0.5000  1 
H2H 0- 0- 0 0  0- 0- 0 0 
COP 2- 1- 1 0  3- 1- 0 1 
RNK 4- 2- 0 0  2- 1- 0 0 
========================
 PTS        1         2

Elmira vs Salem State 
WIN 0.6800  0  0.7273  1 
[B]SOS 0.5770  1  0.5000  0 [/B]
H2H 0- 0- 0 0  0- 0- 0 0 
COP 0- 0- 1 1  0- 1- 0 0 
RNK 9- 5- 2 0  2- 1- 0 1 
========================= 
PTS         2        2

Geneseo vs Salem State 
WIN 0.6667  0  0.7273  1 
SOS 0.5142  1  0.5000  0 
H2H 0- 0- 0 0  0- 0- 0 0 
COP 0- 0- 0 0  0- 0- 0 0 
RNK 3- 4- 1 0  2- 1- 0 1 
========================== 
PTS         1        2

Neumann vs Salem State 
WIN 0.6200  0  0.7273  1 
SOS 0.5401  1  0.5000  0 
H2H 0- 0- 0 0  0- 0- 0 0 
COP 0- 0- 1 0  1- 0- 0 1 
RNK 7- 6- 2 0  2- 1- 0 1 
=========================== 
PTS         1        3

Plattsburgh vs Salem State 
WIN 0.7000  0  0.7273  1 
SOS 0.5268  1  0.5000  0 
H2H 0- 0- 0 0  0- 0- 0 0 
COP 0- 0- 0 0  0- 0- 0 0 
RNK 6- 3- 1 0  2- 1- 0 1 
============================ 
PTS         1         2

Salem State vs Utica 
WIN 0.7273  1  0.6739  0 
SOS 0.5000  0  0.5689  1 
H2H 0- 0- 0 0  0- 0- 0 0 
COP 4- 0- 0 0  2- 0- 0 0 
RNK 2- 1- 0 1  6- 7- 2 0 
========================= 
PTS         2         1

It's a lot closer than anyone thinks, particularly thanks to the pesky record vs. ranked opponents.
Click to expand...

Considering the lack of deference shown Salem thus far in the East rankings...the Vikings best win the MASCAC tournament to have any hope...
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

XYZ said:
Considering the lack of deference shown Salem thus far in the East rankings...the Vikings best win the MASCAC tournament to have any hope...
Click to expand...

The smoke may be hiding their record. I have always said that an objective system with publicized weights would give the process a whole lot more credibility. If they want their smoke filled process, they can work with the pairings...
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

XYZ said:
Considering the lack of deference shown Salem thus far in the East rankings...the Vikings best win the MASCAC tournament to have any hope...
Click to expand...

I wonder how much the record vs ranked opponents is broken down in the consideration process. Do they look at where the wins (or losses) were in the rankings? For example, Salem is 2-1 against ranked opponents (with the logic that once a team is ranked they are always ranked) but all three of those games were against a team that was #15 in the original ranking and then dropped off. Does a 2-1 record against #15 carry as much weight as a lesser record against teams ranked in the top 5? Should it?
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

93GreatLaker said:
I wonder how much the record vs ranked opponents is broken down in the consideration process. Do they look at where the wins (or losses) were in the rankings? For example, Salem is 2-1 against ranked opponents (with the logic that once a team is ranked they are always ranked) but all three of those games were against a team that was #15 in the original ranking and then dropped off. Does a 2-1 record against #15 carry as much weight as a lesser record against teams ranked in the top 5? Should it?
Click to expand...
Hey, it is what it is. You play the schedule in front of you and let the chips fall where they may.

At least we know the rankings, we know the criteria, but we don't know the weights. If they treat SoS as the #1 tiebreak, I have no problems with that. But if they start massaging the numbers with the objective of putting the screws to Salem, or any other team, then yes, I do have a problem. For example, based on my last post, why isn't Salem ranked higher given they win a heck of a lot of comparisons among the Pool C contenders?

Based strictly on the numbers, they beat everyone except Elmira (tiebreak on SoS). So why shouldn't they be the #1 Pool C if no favorite loses?
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

They win five of six comparisons only because of their 2-1 record against #15 ranked teams. It's ridiculous.
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

sshablak said:
They win five of six comparisons only because of their 2-1 record against #15 ranked teams. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's also how the rule is written. The rules are what they are - we don't get to choose them, the committee does get to choose to interpret them. It does look from the current rankings that the NCAA committee has not given much weight to it - otherwise they SSC would be ranked higher than they are.
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

I understand that...just stating a fact. In my short tenure here it seems like "anything goes" though with the commitee. Hoping maybe the "powers to be" are reading this, lol.
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

sshablak said:
I understand that...just stating a fact. In my short tenure here it seems like "anything goes" though with the commitee. Hoping maybe the "powers to be" are reading this, lol.
Click to expand...

Your complaints, etc. are all things that have been heard before. Review some of the Adrian threads back in the years before the MCHA had an AQ. The fact is next year it will be worse, because the Pool B will disappear, and that has served as the defacto AQ for the ECAC West - first it was the ECAC W and MCHA combined to give enough teams for a Pool B bid, the last couple of years it has been the ECAC W and the MASCAC. Next year the only Pool B teams will be in the ECAC W, and any way you want to slice the numbers, 5 is not enough teams for a Pool B slot. This means that the ECAC W will be competing with all of the the non-AQ winners for 3 spots in the NCAA.

Is it fair? No! Unfortunately the NCAA is choosing to allocate a minuscule portion of its budget (3%) to DIII championships. The budgetary constraints and the one set of rules for all championships are the reasons for "quirkiness" of the process. If the ratio were 6:1 instead of 6.5:1 it would be better. Bracketing would make more sense if the restriction on first round and quarter final flights was relaxed. All of that requires more money from the NCAA - which has it - they choose to return most of their revenue directly to DI programs, instead of supporting the rest of us.
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

elbojpb said:
This may be USCHO Extra content, but Lerch's prediction is for an 8-3 split or 7-4 if SNC loses with the Neumann/Utica winner left out.
E1: Oswego
E2: Elmira
E3: Plattsburgh
E4: Norwich
E5: Castleton
E6: Neumann/Utica
E7: Hamilton
E8: Curry
W1: St. Norbert
W2: Adrian
W3: Hamline
Click to expand...

St. Norbert should try not to win their championship. It would be better for them and the NCAA. 4 teams from the west would get in, with 2 making the Final Four. St Norbert would proabably have an easier matchup to win and get to MN.
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

With Fredonia beating Oswego, we have one occupant of Pool C who should not be there. That kills Salem. You can now put a fork in them.
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

peddler said:
Salem lost today
Click to expand...
Regular season.
Pool C #1 -- Oswego
Pool C #2 -- prob ECAC-W runner up
Pool C #3 -- won't take 3 teams from SUNYAC or ECAC-W, the bottom seeds won in the NESCAC and nobody who lost had enough oomph in the PWC to make it. If Norwich does not win, I'll put them here, but no other ECAC-E school. If not Norwich, I'm guessing a Western team fills this slot.
 
Last edited:
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

joecct said:
Regular season.
Pool C #1 -- Oswego
Pool C #2 -- prob ECAC-W runner up
Pool C #3 -- won't take 3 teams from SUNYAC or ECAC-W, the bottom seeds won in the NESCAC and nobody who lost had enough oomph in the PWC to make it. If Norwich does not win, I'll put them here, but no other ECAC-E school. If not Norwich, I'm guessing a Western team fills this slot.
Click to expand...

Plattsburgh would still beat out every ECAC W team (besides Elmira) with another loss I believe....I am not sure why you are so dead set against three SUNYAC teams...heck if the ECAC W can do it a few times, the SUNYAC can.
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

joecct said:
Regular season.
Pool C #1 -- Oswego
Pool C #2 -- prob ECAC-W runner up
Pool C #3 -- won't take 3 teams from SUNYAC or ECAC-W, the bottom seeds won in the NESCAC and nobody who lost had enough oomph in the PWC to make it. I'm guessing a Western team fills this slot.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they take 3 teams from the SUNYAC? The ECAC West has had 3 teams before.

Also, keep in mind. A Plattsburgh loss to Fredonia, again, would not hurt as much because Fredonia is not a ranked team. Assuming SNC and Norwich win their conference titles, the Pool C's would look something like this

1-Oswego
2-Neumann
3-Plattsburgh/Castleton

Castleton would have another loss to a ranked team, Plattsburgh would not. This would adjust their RNK to 7-3-1 for PSU and 4-3-0 for the Spartans. Plattsburgh would also hold the edge in common ops 11-1-0 to 7-2-0. SOS would also favor the Cardinals. Castleton would only win the win% criteria.

As for teams from the west, unless SNC loses the NCHA, any chance of getting more than 3 teams in was crushed when Fredonia ousted Oswego.

I am not saying it will happen, but even if Plattsburgh loses to Fredonia, they are still very much in the thick of things.
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

With Oswego losing tonight I would not want to be the team playing them in their next game. In 2007 Norwich traveled to OZ land and the game was over after the first period. Norwich-St Norbert-Middlebury- National Champions
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

Matt,

I argued with Derek in another thread - do you think Neumann's two games this week are enough to pass Plattsburgh? Plattsburgh was two places ahead of them last week. True, Neumann beat two ranked teams, but Plattsburgh beat one as well. Plus there is still the head-to-head match-up...
 
Re: The definitive tournament speculation thread

spwood said:
Matt,

I argued with Derek in another thread - do you think Neumann's two games this week are enough to pass Plattsburgh? Plattsburgh was two places ahead of them last week. True, Neumann beat two ranked teams, but Plattsburgh beat one as well. Plus there is still the head-to-head match-up...
Click to expand...

Right now? No there is no way Plattsburgh drops. They beat a ranked team, I don't care what Neumann did. However I am guessing your more or less asking what would happen if both teams lost their conference finals.

For that I honestly don't know. Here is what I currently have in my mind without fully looking at the numbers. So take these with a grain of salt, I'll have my real projections later but this is what I expect it to look like.

Assuming St. Norbert wins the NCHA, Elmira wins the ECAC West, Norwich and Castleton make the ECAC East title game, and Plattsburgh loses the SUNYAC.

Pool C
Oswego
then two of the following: Plattsburgh, Neumann, and Castleton/Norwich loser. My hunch is it would be Plattsburgh and Neumann but that could change once I check the criteria.

If the above assumptions stay the same but Plattsburgh wins SUNYAC...

Pool C
Oswego
Neumann
Castleton/Norwich loser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top