The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

[Hammer]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

They're out

 

[NorthernLite]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Assuming there are no huge upset in the conference playoffs......what is the likelihood of ECAC-W getting an invite over the WIAC ?
Thoughts anyone ?

 

[OSU2010]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Assuming there are no huge upset in the conference playoffs......what is the likelihood of ECAC-W getting an invite over the WIAC ?
Thoughts anyone ?

pretty low, the WIAC has 3 ranked teams, really helps their RNK

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

New rankings.

1.	Trinity (Connecticut)		21-2-1	21-2-1
2.	Amherst		17-4-2	18-4-2
3.	Oswego State		17-2-4	17-3-4
4.	Massachusetts Boston		18-3-1	22-3-1
5.	Hobart		19-6-0	19-6-0
6.	Norwich		18-3-1	22-3-1
7.	Plattsburgh State		18-5-2	18-5-2
8.	Babson		14-5-3	18-5-3
Rank	West Region		Division III Record	Overall Record
1.	Adrian		21-3-3	21-3-3
2.	Wisconsin-Stevens Point		20-5-0	20-5-0
3.	St. Norbert		19-5-2	19-5-2
4.	Wisconsin-Eau Claire		17-6-2	17-6-2
5.	St. Thomas (Minnesota)		16-5-4	16-5-4
6.	Wisconsin-River Falls		18-6-1	18-6-1

Wow. How does UMass Boston jump past Norwich when Babson gets added as a ranked team and Norwich is 2-0 against Babson and UMB is 1-1?

 

[OSU2010]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

New rankings.

1.	Trinity (Connecticut)		21-2-1	21-2-1
2.	Amherst		17-4-2	18-4-2
3.	Oswego State		17-2-4	17-3-4
4.	Massachusetts Boston		18-3-1	22-3-1
5.	Hobart		19-6-0	19-6-0
6.	Norwich		18-3-1	22-3-1
7.	Plattsburgh State		18-5-2	18-5-2
8.	Babson		14-5-3	18-5-3
Rank	West Region		Division III Record	Overall Record
1.	Adrian		21-3-3	21-3-3
2.	Wisconsin-Stevens Point		20-5-0	20-5-0
3.	St. Norbert		19-5-2	19-5-2
4.	Wisconsin-Eau Claire		17-6-2	17-6-2
5.	St. Thomas (Minnesota)		16-5-4	16-5-4
6.	Wisconsin-River Falls		18-6-1	18-6-1

Wow. How does UMass Boston jump past Norwich when Babson gets added as a ranked team and Norwich is 2-0 against Babson and UMB is 1-1?

must have put alot of weight in last 25%.... or....

*******http://i58.tinypic.com/lwt2w.jpg********

 

[peddler]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

The underlying spreadsheets, which were available (shortly) yesterday, dated 2/24, appear to be using RNK stats from before the most recent rankings appeared.
eg. Norwich RNK at 2-2 not including 2 wins over Babson.

If I was tech enough to know how to share them I would.

This years group seems more confused than previous ones by their own smoke

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Here is the UMB/Norwich comparison using the data I collected from the latest printed off spreadsheet.

Winning percentage
UMB 18-3-1 (.841)
Norwich 18-3-1 (.841)
(push)

Record vs. ranked teams
UMB 3-2 (.600)
Norwich 4-2 (..667)
(Norwich wins) +1

Strength of schedule
UMB (.491)
Norwich (.512)
Norwich wins +2

Record last 25
UMB 7-0-0
Norwich 6-1-0
UMB wins. +1

Head to Head
split.

Common Opponents
Norwich 17-0-0
UMass Boston 16-1-0
Norwich wins +3

So can someone please explain to me how a team that beats another in a comparison 3-1 and split the head to head meetings can be ranked below the other?

This one has me absolutely baffled.

 

[Sir Nubs]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Here is the UMB/Norwich comparison using the data I collected from the latest printed off spreadsheet.

Winning percentage
UMB 18-3-1 (.841)
Norwich 18-3-1 (.841)
(push)

Record vs. ranked teams
UMB 3-2 (.600)
Norwich 4-2 (..667)
(Norwich wins) +1

Strength of schedule
UMB (.491)
Norwich (.512)
Norwich wins +2

Record last 25
UMB 7-0-0
Norwich 6-1-0
UMB wins. +1

Head to Head
split.

Common Opponents
Norwich 17-0-0
UMass Boston 16-1-0
Norwich wins +3

So can someone please explain to me how a team that beats another in a comparison 3-1 and split the head to head meetings can be ranked below the other?

This one has me absolutely baffled.

Because Division III committees don't use a Pairwise and instead are able to weigh different criteria more than others?

 

[norm1909]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Here is the UMB/Norwich comparison using the data I collected from the latest printed off spreadsheet.

Winning percentage
UMB 18-3-1 (.841)
Norwich 18-3-1 (.841)
(push)

Record vs. ranked teams
UMB 3-2 (.600)
Norwich 4-2 (..667)
(Norwich wins) +1

Strength of schedule
UMB (.491)
Norwich (.512)
Norwich wins +2

Record last 25
UMB 7-0-0
Norwich 6-1-0
UMB wins. +1

Head to Head
split.

Common Opponents
Norwich 17-0-0
UMass Boston 16-1-0
Norwich wins +3

So can someone please explain to me how a team that beats another in a comparison 3-1 and split the head to head meetings can be ranked below the other?

This one has me absolutely baffled.

They had a hard time reading the spreadsheet.

 

[Hammer]

Because Division III committees don't use a Pairwise and instead are able to weigh different criteria more than others?

If so, we can reasonably guess that at this point the committee is heavily weighing winning percentage and the last 25% of the schedule, since these are the only two comparisons that are keeping UMB afloat here. Strange.

 

[peddler]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

Here is the UMB/Norwich comparison using the data I collected from the latest printed off spreadsheet.

Winning percentage
UMB 18-3-1 (.841)
Norwich 18-3-1 (.841)
(push)

Record vs. ranked teams
UMB 3-2 (.600)
Norwich 4-2 (..667)
(Norwich wins) +1

Strength of schedule
UMB (.491)
Norwich (.512)
Norwich wins +2

Record last 25
UMB 7-0-0
Norwich 6-1-0
UMB wins. +1

Head to Head
split.

Common Opponents
Norwich 17-0-0
UMass Boston 16-1-0
Norwich wins +3

So can someone please explain to me how a team that beats another in a comparison 3-1 and split the head to head meetings can be ranked below the other?

This one has me absolutely baffled.

And before I realized that the RNK stats in the spreadsheet were old I had them at UMB 2-1, Norwich 2-2, thereby creating a tied set of primary criteria. You have it right vs. the spreadsheets and I would echo the question.

 

[peddler]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

New spreadsheets out dated 2/25, 6am and change.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

If so, we can reasonably guess that at this point the committee is heavily weighing winning percentage and the last 25% of the schedule, since these are the only two comparisons that are keeping UMB afloat here. Strange.

With all due respect to you, there is nothing we can "reasonably" expect from those clowns. They'll do what they d@amn well want without the slightest tip of the hat to objectivity and/or fairness. Recent history bears that out in spades.

 

[Cards81]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

I think #6 and #7 are better teams than #1 and #2.....on a hockey rink that is.

 

[Hammer]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

With all due respect to you, there is nothing we can "reasonably" expect from those clowns.

You do have an excellent point here.

 

[Sir Nubs]

You do have an excellent point here.

The best team in the country has probably won the tournament every year but one since 2004 (exception being Platty's early loss in 2009). I'd wager the committee is getting it right.

 

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

The best team in the country has probably won the tournament every year but one since 2004 (exception being Platty's early loss in 2009). I'd wager the committee is getting it right.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

I wouldn't necessarily dispute that the best teams have won it all lately, but you need look no farther than how Trinity was jobbed last year to see the utter lack of accountability in selecting the AL's.

Said it before, and I'll say it again: in a field this small, there should be no AQ's, and especially not any AQ's determined by an extraneous conference tournament. I'd be happy with a separate KRACH for both the East and the West, at an 7/4 split for now, and maybe an 8/4 split if the East expands as is rumored.

I don't see anything of the sort happening- petty politics and dumb D-3 by-laws being the reason -but the current system is just too much of a crap-shoot. It just doesn't reward merit often enough.

 

[norm1909]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

The best team in the country has probably won the tournament every year but one since 2004 (exception being Platty's early loss in 2009). I'd wager the committee is getting it right.

Unfortunately, this is their Achilles heel

 

[Fishman'81]

Re: The polls - scratching KRACH, PWC, CoP and robbery! ...---...

If it is "fairness" you want, then the committee would do away with the flawed criteria and get out and watch the teams play. There is no way that all three Pool C bids should come from the east as the "criteria" indicates. A look at this decades Champions and Runner-Ups tells you all that you need to know about the "fairness" of including a 4th or 5th team from the West (4 of 5 National Champions and 7 of 10 to appear in the Championship Game). If it is true "fairness" we seek then straying away from the "criteria" shouldn't bother us like some indicate it does. The committee has control over only 4 of the 11 teams that move on. That's all they are deciding. Four teams. They've done that pretty well. Seven teams write their own destiny. Last year, 2 of the 4 teams chosen by the committee ended up in Maine (one was knocked out by the eventual champion and one lost to another Pool C). I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. They had a success rate of 50% when it came to picks moving on (to the final four). The conference tournament process produced only 29% (2 of 7) of the teams moving on to the final four. It may be time to stop dissing the smoke-filled room and acknowledge that they can get it right. The "criteria" sucks and we all know that.

L25 = Stupid (who you plays has much more to do with L25 than how you play)
Win% = Stupid (ECAC East…enough said)
SOS = Stupid (unless you have a separate SOS for the East and a separate SOS for the West)
RNK = Stupid (since the other stupid criteria create help create the RNK)
H2H = The ONLY criteria that makes any sense (but not enough H2H games to be effective)

I agree.

So let's use a better set of criteria, and make them stick without the committee having the latitude to corrupt them on its whim.