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.

Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

unofan said:
Yet it was the standard nomenclature for decades before the NCAA agreed with your premise and changed it to "sudden victory" for no reason other than to change the name.

The soccer version is simply weak, though still preferable to "sudden victory," I'll grant you that.

As an analogy, I think we should change the name of the goalkeeper in soccer to goalpreventer - as he doesn't try to keep the ball in the net, but prevent it from getting in there. "Handsman" would also be acceptable. :p
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the both the NCAA Rulebook and the NCAA Championship Handbook use "Sudden death" and not "Sudden victory". I don't know where the fad for calling it "sudden victory" comes from, but it is not the NCAA.

You are correct that the phrase "golden goal," which was invented by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) in 1993, was entirely appropriate for that sport and entirely inappropriate for college hockey, which had been using "sudden death" at least 84 years before that:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B07E1DC153EE733A25757C1A9649C946897D6CF
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

Alton said:
Interestingly enough, the both the NCAA Rulebook and the NCAA Championship Handbook use "Sudden death" and not "Sudden victory". I don't know where the fad for calling it "sudden victory" comes from, but it is not the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Apparently hockey just isn't with the times, then, as lacrosse, wrestling, and soccer all refer to it as sudden victory in their respective NCAA rulebooks.
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

It is sudden death, anyone who uses a different term is a moron.

edit: and yes, I'm hoping that includes the entire idiotic soccer world
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

bigblue_dl said:
It is sudden death, anyone who uses a different term is a moron.

edit: and yes, I'm hoping that includes the entire idiotic soccer world
Click to expand...

In soccer, it used to be 2 overtime periods, then 2 sudden death overtime periods, and then penalty kicks. I blame the Clinton "feel good" era, like where in some leagues every kid gets a trophy.
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

I prefer "tumultuous conclusion" or "precipitous contest-termination score event."
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

JimDahl said:
I posted my <a href="http://blog.siouxsports.com/2011/03/14/final-pwr-rankings-predictions/">Final PWR predictions</a> for UND yesterday, here's what I came up with for remaining PWR possibilities:

<table>
<tr>
<th rowspan="2">Team</th>
<th rowspan="2">PWR</th>
<th colspan="2">Overall</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Possible<br>
Final<br>
PWR</th>
<th>Likely (>1%)<br>
Final<br>
PWR</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rensselaer</td>
<td>16</td>
<td bgcolor="#eeeeee">10 to 19</td>
<td bgcolor="#eeeeee">11 to 16</td>
</tr>
</table>
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to how you get Rensselaer down to 18th / 19th. The lowest I had been able to put them was 17th.

ETA: Not sure why the formatting got screwed up, but I can't figure out how to fix it.
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

burgie12 said:
I'm curious as to how you get Rensselaer down to 18th / 19th. The lowest I had been able to put them was 17th.
Click to expand...
I should have clarified in my post here (as I did with the original publication of that table) that ties are broken with RPI. Rensselaer can end up in a 3-way tie for 17th, but with the lowest RPI of the three, hence 19 for seeding purposes.
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

JimDahl said:
I should have clarified in my post here (as I did with the original publication of that table) that ties are broken with RPI. Rensselaer can end up in a 3-way tie for 17th, but with the lowest RPI of the three, hence 19 for seeding purposes.
Click to expand...
Understood. I had been able to get them in a 2-way tie for 16th, hence 17. I hadn't yet found a way to get them any lower than that, though.
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

burgie12 said:
Understood. I had been able to get them in a 2-way tie for 16th, hence 17. I hadn't yet found a way to get them any lower than that, though.
Click to expand...
Ah, no problem. One is a really obscure branch in which Alaska-Anchorage wins the WCHA tournament.

That's enough to flip the Alaska-Anchorage comparison and Colorado College comparisons (both on the basis of RPI). Set everything else up the same but have Minnesota-Duluth beat Alaska-Anchorage and Rensselaer ends up 14th and in.

There are a couple other similar setups, but all are equally delicate.

Atlantic Hockey

* Semifinal #2: Air Force defeats Holy Cross
* Semifinal #1: Connecticut defeats RIT
* Championship game: Air Force defeats Connecticut

CCHA

* Semifinal #2: Miami defeats Notre Dame
* Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Western Michigan
* Championship game: Michigan defeats Miami
* Consolation game: Notre Dame defeats Western Michigan

ECAC

* Semifinal #2: Cornell defeats Dartmouth
* Semifinal #1: Yale defeats Colgate
* Championship game: Yale defeats Cornell
* Consolation game: Dartmouth defeats Colgate

Hockey East

* Semifinal #2: New Hampshire defeats Merrimack
* Semifinal #1: Northeastern defeats Boston College
* Championship game: New Hampshire defeats Northeastern

WCHA

* Play-in #2: Minnesota-Duluth defeats Bemidji State
* Play-in #1: Alaska-Anchorage defeats Colorado College
* Semifinal #2: Minnesota-Duluth defeats Denver
* Semifinal #1: Alaska-Anchorage defeats North Dakota
* Championship game: Alaska-Anchorage defeats Minnesota-Duluth
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

JimDahl said:
Ah, no problem. One is a really obscure branch in which Alaska-Anchorage wins the WCHA tournament.

That's enough to flip the Alaska-Anchorage comparison and Colorado College comparisons (both on the basis of RPI). Set everything else up the same but have Minnesota-Duluth beat Alaska-Anchorage and Rensselaer ends up 14th and in.

There are a couple other similar setups, but all are equally delicate.
Click to expand...

The system certainly isn't stable to small perturbations. :eek:
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

Having Holy Cross win the AHA title over UConn, instead of AFA over UConn, bumps Rensselaer up to 15th and in the tournament. :eek: Now that's close!
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

Ralph Baer said:
The system certainly isn't stable to small perturbations. :eek:
Click to expand...

When the sample size is as small as it is, one game can change so much - particularly among COp when the sample size may just be a game or two.
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

Ralph Baer said:
The system certainly isn't stable to small perturbations. :eek:
Click to expand...

It's a combination of a hard off/on on TUC (the TUCliff (tm)) and the small sample sizes in COP. I'm not sure that anything should necessarily be done about the latter (although I'm not thrilled with seeing, e.g., 1 - 0 beat 1 - 1, maybe a floor of, say, five games could help there), but the former is crying out for some sort of switching function to ease teams across the line between TUC and not TUC as far as impact on PWR is concerned.
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

JimDahl said:
<p>I posted my <a href="http://blog.siouxsports.com/2011/03/14/final-pwr-rankings-predictions/">Final PWR predictions</a> for UND yesterday, here's what I came up with for remaining PWR possibilities:</p>

<table>
<tr>
<th rowspan="2">Team</th>
<th rowspan="2">PWR</th>
<th colspan="2">Overall</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Possible<br>
Final<br>
PWR</th>
<th>Likely (>1%)<br>
Final<br>
PWR</th>
</tr>
<td>Michigan</td>
<td>4</td>
<td bgcolor="#CCFFCC">2 to 11</td>
<td bgcolor="#CCFFCC">3 to 11</td>
</table>
<p>It would definitely be interesting to hear if anyone has found anything outside those ranges.</p>
Click to expand...

How did you get Michigan above 4? I couldn't get them over 4 even with a CCHA championship.
 
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

redwings8831 said:
How did you get Michigan above 4? I couldn't get them over 4 even with a CCHA championship.
Click to expand...
I got Michigan to 2 with this:

Atlantic Hockey
Semifinal #2: Air Force defeats Holy Cross
Semifinal #1: RIT defeats Connecticut
Championship game: RIT defeats Air Force

CCHA
Semifinal #2: Notre Dame defeats Miami
Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Western Michigan
Championship game: Michigan defeats Notre Dame
Consolation game: Miami defeats Western Michigan

ECAC
Semifinal #2: Dartmouth defeats Cornell
Semifinal #1: Colgate defeats Yale
Championship game: Colgate defeats Dartmouth
Consolation game: Cornell defeats Yale

Hockey East
Semifinal #2: New Hampshire defeats Merrimack
Semifinal #1: Boston College defeats Northeastern
Championship game: New Hampshire defeats Boston College

WCHA
Play-in #2: Bemidji State defeats Minnesota-Duluth
Play-in #1: Alaska-Anchorage defeats Colorado College
Semifinal #2: Denver defeats Bemidji State
Semifinal #1: North Dakota defeats Alaska-Anchorage
Championship game: North Dakota defeats Denver

(Yale loses two games to have their RPI drop below Michigan's and flip the Yale-Michigan / BC comparisons, BC loses to UNH and Michigan beats Notre Dame to flip the Common Opponents and TUC (Notre Dame gets 2 wins, BC gets 1 loss from their tournaments) to flip the Michigan / BC comparison)
 
Last edited:
Re: Too early for the PWR? Princeton and Brown say no!

Craig P. said:
It's a combination of a hard off/on on TUC (the TUCliff (tm)) and the small sample sizes in COP. I'm not sure that anything should necessarily be done about the latter (although I'm not thrilled with seeing, e.g., 1 - 0 beat 1 - 1, maybe a floor of, say, five games could help there), but the former is crying out for some sort of switching function to ease teams across the line between TUC and not TUC as far as impact on PWR is concerned.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that. The topic of the cliff has come up many times. Somewhere I recall someone writing that switching from the top 25 being TUCs to everyone with .5 RPI would cure that. That made little sense since there still would be a cliff. With the total number of teams being TUCs likely to be more, (an expected 29 instead of 25), the effect of one entering or exiting would be a bit less -- but not much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top