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.
Utica College 2010-11
- Thread starter sshablak
- Start date
Re: Utica College 2010-11
I don't like the idea of using KRACH mostly because of it's statistical complexities. It has some interesting properties, but it's not very transparent to anybody who is not statistically oriented. It's based on a processes called logistical regression, which tries to find a set of rankings which represents a best fit to existing data. Explaining the effect that a particular game had on those rankings is not always clear. My rankings incorporate some of the ideas of KRACH - in particular enhancing the value of a win over a team with a lot of wins as compared to simply crediting the team with a win and an improved OWP.
One thing we always have to keep in mind in DIII is the fact that we are constrained by NCAA rules to use the same procedures for selection in all sports. The criteria are written, not only in the individual sport handbooks, but also in the regulations for all team sports. KRACH would be a tough sell to basketball, baseball, football, soccer, volleyball, etc. They all are required to use the same procedures. There was change recently on the SOS. Before OWP and OOWP were treated separately and weighted equally. Now they use a weighted average of 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP. It is also the case that the calculations of those numbers are flawed (averaging averages instead of counting individual games), and I'm not sure that the 2:1 weighting is the appropriate way to construct a single SOS metric. OOWP should be given more weight. A win against a team who has a 0.700 against good teams should be a much bigger win that a win against a team with a 0.900 record against mediocre team. The weighting doesn't reflect that.
KRACH is an interesting measure - without a doubt better than the PWC/R for ranking teams, but it won't ever be a factor in DIII selection.
I don't like the idea of using KRACH mostly because of it's statistical complexities. It has some interesting properties, but it's not very transparent to anybody who is not statistically oriented. It's based on a processes called logistical regression, which tries to find a set of rankings which represents a best fit to existing data. Explaining the effect that a particular game had on those rankings is not always clear. My rankings incorporate some of the ideas of KRACH - in particular enhancing the value of a win over a team with a lot of wins as compared to simply crediting the team with a win and an improved OWP.
One thing we always have to keep in mind in DIII is the fact that we are constrained by NCAA rules to use the same procedures for selection in all sports. The criteria are written, not only in the individual sport handbooks, but also in the regulations for all team sports. KRACH would be a tough sell to basketball, baseball, football, soccer, volleyball, etc. They all are required to use the same procedures. There was change recently on the SOS. Before OWP and OOWP were treated separately and weighted equally. Now they use a weighted average of 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP. It is also the case that the calculations of those numbers are flawed (averaging averages instead of counting individual games), and I'm not sure that the 2:1 weighting is the appropriate way to construct a single SOS metric. OOWP should be given more weight. A win against a team who has a 0.700 against good teams should be a much bigger win that a win against a team with a 0.900 record against mediocre team. The weighting doesn't reflect that.
KRACH is an interesting measure - without a doubt better than the PWC/R for ranking teams, but it won't ever be a factor in DIII selection.
XYZ
Smoking in the selection room.
Re: Utica College 2010-11
In the USCHO Pairwise tables, yes, but not necessarily by the selection committees...
In the USCHO Pairwise tables, yes, but not necessarily by the selection committees...
Re: Utica College 2010-11
And our current selection system is transparent because......
And our current selection system is transparent because......
Re: Utica College 2010-11
Get football to go along with KRACH
And our current selection system is transparent because......
Get football to go along with KRACH
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Utica College 2010-11
I "comprehend" the process just fine,thanks primarily to NUProf's explanations of same...And,by any reasonable metric,the ECAC-West has 4 or 5 tournament teams this year.(I'm gonna pull this all together soon;try to keep up.)
I don't agree that a conference should have a ceiling on how many teams it is allowed to send to the NCAA's,nor do I believe in AQ's,either...Things just are way too arbitrary in either case,especially considering the small field in D-3.I daresay that even the BCS- and the NCAA hoops-selection processes are far more equitable,as bad as they can be at times.Still,I have been duly edified as to how these rules are carved in stone,and as sacred as those that Moses toted down from the mountain...OK?
And yes,I whine too much about this trivial matter.(Just the same,that's an amazingly astute observation from someone who went to Plattsburgh.Congratulations on your sober moment,and keep up the good work on another thread,Einstein!)
I "comprehend" the process just fine,thanks primarily to NUProf's explanations of same...And,by any reasonable metric,the ECAC-West has 4 or 5 tournament teams this year.(I'm gonna pull this all together soon;try to keep up.)
I don't agree that a conference should have a ceiling on how many teams it is allowed to send to the NCAA's,nor do I believe in AQ's,either...Things just are way too arbitrary in either case,especially considering the small field in D-3.I daresay that even the BCS- and the NCAA hoops-selection processes are far more equitable,as bad as they can be at times.Still,I have been duly edified as to how these rules are carved in stone,and as sacred as those that Moses toted down from the mountain...OK?
And yes,I whine too much about this trivial matter.(Just the same,that's an amazingly astute observation from someone who went to Plattsburgh.Congratulations on your sober moment,and keep up the good work on another thread,Einstein!)
Last edited:
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Utica College 2010-11
Nice post.
IMO,transparency is a key element in the selection process,as in:a clear set of rules for inclusion.
And I agree that the KRACH pans-out far more often than the PWC does.Why it doesn't fly higher than the current system does,in terms of weight..?
Guess we'd have to ask the old boys,if we could find them.Flip a coin and hold your breath,if you're a "bubble-team".
Nice post.
IMO,transparency is a key element in the selection process,as in:a clear set of rules for inclusion.
And I agree that the KRACH pans-out far more often than the PWC does.Why it doesn't fly higher than the current system does,in terms of weight..?
Guess we'd have to ask the old boys,if we could find them.Flip a coin and hold your breath,if you're a "bubble-team".
PSUChamps2001
Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
Re: Utica College 2010-11
A) Obviously you don't because you can't fathom the ECAC W getting less then 5 teams in. Even tho the four Eastern Pool C teams are 5-2-1 against your great ECAC West. But yea, they defiantly deserve to get in besides them....
Are you still keeping up?
B) And obviously you DON'T get it because there IS NO CEILING. The ECAC West has filled three slots several times because they were the best three remaining teams to fill those spots. Now keep up here because technically they were the best two teams because the 1 team got the Pool B bid which only had to compete with the MCHA at the time.
C) If you don't believe in AQ's then go independent and see how that works out for ya, oh wait nevermind. The AQ/criteria is set up so teams don't go out and play a bunch of weak sisters, go undefeated and get in just because they beat a bunch of no names. (see adrian threads a few years ago). Just as there are rules as to how many teams are needed in a conference so two teams don't call themselves a conference to grab an auto bid.
D) Still waiting how you pulled it all together, because Ive seen every single ECAC West team this year....with many several times...and they are NOT all deserving to be in the NCAA's. Elmira sure, Neumann (bubble), Manhatanville (over rated), Utica (no), Hobart (no). Are they more deserving then maybe Curry or any ECAC NE team? Sure, who isn't, but see part C in case you're lost again. Are they more deserving then maybe Adrian or the MIAC Champion? Maybe maybe not. Not enough cross over games. More then Norwich, no. More then Castleton...bubble with Neumann.
E) ".(Just the same,that's an amazingly astute observation from someone who went to Plattsburgh.Congratulations on your sober moment,and keep up the good work on another thread,Einstein!) " yea..this one hurt...tear...seeing how A) I didn't go to Plattsburgh, and B) I don't drink. But compared to you most people are like Einstein when it comes to DIII hockey. Most of us have been around the sport for over 20 years. We've seen your kind come and go. I choose to look outside my own conference and my own team. But just like your team, you obviously don't get out of Utica (and the ECAC West) enough and see enough other DIII hockey to understand.
A) Obviously you don't because you can't fathom the ECAC W getting less then 5 teams in. Even tho the four Eastern Pool C teams are 5-2-1 against your great ECAC West. But yea, they defiantly deserve to get in besides them....
Are you still keeping up?
B) And obviously you DON'T get it because there IS NO CEILING. The ECAC West has filled three slots several times because they were the best three remaining teams to fill those spots. Now keep up here because technically they were the best two teams because the 1 team got the Pool B bid which only had to compete with the MCHA at the time.
C) If you don't believe in AQ's then go independent and see how that works out for ya, oh wait nevermind. The AQ/criteria is set up so teams don't go out and play a bunch of weak sisters, go undefeated and get in just because they beat a bunch of no names. (see adrian threads a few years ago). Just as there are rules as to how many teams are needed in a conference so two teams don't call themselves a conference to grab an auto bid.
D) Still waiting how you pulled it all together, because Ive seen every single ECAC West team this year....with many several times...and they are NOT all deserving to be in the NCAA's. Elmira sure, Neumann (bubble), Manhatanville (over rated), Utica (no), Hobart (no). Are they more deserving then maybe Curry or any ECAC NE team? Sure, who isn't, but see part C in case you're lost again. Are they more deserving then maybe Adrian or the MIAC Champion? Maybe maybe not. Not enough cross over games. More then Norwich, no. More then Castleton...bubble with Neumann.
E) ".(Just the same,that's an amazingly astute observation from someone who went to Plattsburgh.Congratulations on your sober moment,and keep up the good work on another thread,Einstein!) " yea..this one hurt...tear...seeing how A) I didn't go to Plattsburgh, and B) I don't drink. But compared to you most people are like Einstein when it comes to DIII hockey. Most of us have been around the sport for over 20 years. We've seen your kind come and go. I choose to look outside my own conference and my own team. But just like your team, you obviously don't get out of Utica (and the ECAC West) enough and see enough other DIII hockey to understand.
bakdraft21
Well-known member
Re: Utica College 2010-11
ouch!!!!!!!
a) obviously you don't because you can't fathom the ecac w getting less then 5 teams in. Even tho the four eastern pool c teams are 5-2-1 against your great ecac west. But yea, they defiantly deserve to get in besides them....
Are you still keeping up?
B) and obviously you don't get it because there is no ceiling. The ecac west has filled three slots several times because they were the best three remaining teams to fill those spots. Now keep up here because technically they were the best two teams because the 1 team got the pool b bid which only had to compete with the mcha at the time.
C) if you don't believe in aq's then go independent and see how that works out for ya, oh wait nevermind. The aq/criteria is set up so teams don't go out and play a bunch of weak sisters, go undefeated and get in just because they beat a bunch of no names. (see adrian threads a few years ago). Just as there are rules as to how many teams are needed in a conference so two teams don't call themselves a conference to grab an auto bid.
D) still waiting how you pulled it all together, because ive seen every single ecac west team this year....with many several times...and they are not all deserving to be in the ncaa's. Elmira sure, neumann (bubble), manhatanville (over rated), utica (no), hobart (no). Are they more deserving then maybe curry or any ecac ne team? Sure, who isn't, but see part c in case you're lost again. Are they more deserving then maybe adrian or the miac champion? Maybe maybe not. Not enough cross over games. More then norwich, no. More then castleton...bubble with neumann.
E) ".(just the same,that's an amazingly astute observation from someone who went to plattsburgh.congratulations on your sober moment,and keep up the good work on another thread,einstein!) " yea..this one hurt...tear...seeing how a) i didn't go to plattsburgh, and b) i don't drink. But compared to you most people are like einstein when it comes to diii hockey. Most of us have been around the sport for over 20 years. We've seen your kind come and go. I choose to look outside my own conference and my own team. But just like your team, you obviously don't get out of utica (and the ecac west) enough and see enough other diii hockey to understand.
ouch!!!!!!!
Re: Utica College 2010-11
You can tell it's playoff time the way the shots are ringing out
You can tell it's playoff time the way the shots are ringing out
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Utica College 2010-11
Don't confuse a familarity with the process of D-3 hockey selection with the capacity for logic;you are living proof of that being pure folly.
No hard feelings,though.We both love hockey at this lowly level.It's a lot of fun,and,bottom-line,nobody cares about it,aside from a tiny handful of people,even among "sports-fans"...(For example,I'd wager that the entire staff of ESPN anchors could be asked who won it all in D-3 hockey last year,and only Steve Levy would have the answer,and only because he went to Oswego State.)
Anyway,enjoy the rest of your team's season,watch out for Elmira and Neumann,and we'll see you on the Platty thread,if we choose to troll,as you do.(Not likely.)
A) Obviously you don't because you can't fathom the ECAC W getting less then 5 teams in. Even tho the four Eastern Pool C teams are 5-2-1 against your great ECAC West. But yea, they defiantly deserve to get in besides them....
Oswego won at least 3 of those games(don't care enough to look it up),and wouldn't be relegated to "Pool C" (beggar) status anyway,if the process wasn't predicated so heavily,%-wise,on the various AQ's getting their berths.
B) And obviously you DON'T get it because there IS NO CEILING. The ECAC West has filled three slots several times because they were the best three remaining teams to fill those spots. Now keep up here because technically they were the best two teams because the 1 team got the Pool B bid which only had to compete with the MCHA at the time.
My point-and I know I'm just a dreamer here-is that this pool system is stupid,arcane,and inequitable.It's hard to argue against that.
C) If you don't believe in AQ's then go independent and see how that works out for ya, oh wait nevermind. The AQ/criteria is set up so teams don't go out and play a bunch of weak sisters, go undefeated and get in just because they beat a bunch of no names. (see adrian threads a few years ago). Just as there are rules as to how many teams are needed in a conference so two teams don't call themselves a conference to grab an auto bid.
Thank you so much for that dim glimmer of insight,even if it works against your stance...
To wit,if every team was independent of a league affiliation,then they all would have to evaluated in some objective manner,right...?Exactly what I'm talking about.
D) Still waiting how you pulled it all together, because Ive seen every single ECAC West team this year....with many several times...and they are NOT all deserving to be in the NCAA's. Elmira sure, Neumann (bubble), Manhatanville (over rated), Utica (no), Hobart (no). Are they more deserving then maybe Curry or any ECAC NE team? Sure, who isn't, but see part C in case you're lost again. Are they more deserving then maybe Adrian or the MIAC Champion? Maybe maybe not. Not enough cross over games. More then Norwich, no. More then Castleton...bubble with Neumann.
So how do you propose to sort them out?I like KRACH,but then again,not everyone took Statistics 101 and pulled down a solid "C".
E) ".(Just the same,that's an amazingly astute observation from someone who went to Plattsburgh.Congratulations on your sober moment,and keep up the good work on another thread,Einstein!) " yea..this one hurt...tear...seeing how A) I didn't go to Plattsburgh, and B) I don't drink. But compared to you most people are like Einstein when it comes to DIII hockey. Most of us have been around the sport for over 20 years. We've seen your kind come and go. I choose to look outside my own conference and my own team. But just like your team, you obviously don't get out of Utica (and the ECAC West) enough and see enough other DIII hockey to understand.
Don't confuse a familarity with the process of D-3 hockey selection with the capacity for logic;you are living proof of that being pure folly.
No hard feelings,though.We both love hockey at this lowly level.It's a lot of fun,and,bottom-line,nobody cares about it,aside from a tiny handful of people,even among "sports-fans"...(For example,I'd wager that the entire staff of ESPN anchors could be asked who won it all in D-3 hockey last year,and only Steve Levy would have the answer,and only because he went to Oswego State.)
Anyway,enjoy the rest of your team's season,watch out for Elmira and Neumann,and we'll see you on the Platty thread,if we choose to troll,as you do.(Not likely.)
Last edited:
LakerEagleLover
Well-known member
Re: Utica College 2010-11
Don't leave out Linda Cohn who tended goal for the Oswego GREAT Lakers in the early 80's...when it was OK to call them GREAT...
Re: Utica College 2010-11
Levy would get that one wrong because Oswego didn't even get to the final game. He might remember who beat them, but they didn't win either.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Utica College 2010-11
Hey,I remember who won last year..!My point was that he'd probably be at least aware of what went on in D-3 hockey.
Interesting,about Linda Cohn...I am kinda surprised that OSU had a women's program way back then.Linda must be pushing 50 now.(But I still love her.)
Hey,I remember who won last year..!My point was that he'd probably be at least aware of what went on in D-3 hockey.
Interesting,about Linda Cohn...I am kinda surprised that OSU had a women's program way back then.Linda must be pushing 50 now.(But I still love her.)
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Utica College 2010-11
A truly understandable process,IMO,would be one in which a clear set of pre-ordained criteria for inclusion apply to the entire field,as in D-1.After the final tournament results are in,even the folks at home know exactly which teams made the latter's tournament,and what their respective seeds are.
It's not a perfect system,but it is fair and completely transparent...Which is nice.
A truly understandable process,IMO,would be one in which a clear set of pre-ordained criteria for inclusion apply to the entire field,as in D-1.After the final tournament results are in,even the folks at home know exactly which teams made the latter's tournament,and what their respective seeds are.
It's not a perfect system,but it is fair and completely transparent...Which is nice.
Re: Utica College 2010-11
D-III does have pre-ordained criteria for inclusion that applies to the entire field. It is in the handbook. This means the process is not arcane as those who are interested has the ability to understand the process by which the D-III field is chosen.. all you have to do is read it.
D-III does have pre-ordained criteria for inclusion that applies to the entire field. It is in the handbook. This means the process is not arcane as those who are interested has the ability to understand the process by which the D-III field is chosen.. all you have to do is read it.
Fishman'81
Black Bear since D-2
Re: Utica College 2010-11
True enough,I haven't read the handbook,and have no plans to do so any time soon.
Clearly,though,the D-3 selection criteria that apply to the at-large teams placed in the tournament are rather plastic.The committee can choose to weigh any the various criteria as they see fit,which pretty much renders the whole process suspect,IMO.
Why pretend to have rules at all,when they can be manipulated at will in a closed room?Clearly,if this was not the case,there would be no need for a selection committee at all,as the rating system alone would determine the field.(Which is essentially how D-1 does things.)
Sure,D-1 has AQs,too-and I kinda hate that concept as a general rule-but in practice,the vast majority of D-1 AQs are going to qualify on their own merits,anyway...Excepting the annual RITs,Mercyhursts,Niagaras and Air Forces in the mix,87% or so of the field will have played their way in,without receiving any special dispensation from any committee,and all as at-large teams.
Bottom-line:nobody howls much at how the field is chosen when the playing field is level for everyone,when every team knows exactly what they have to do to gain an at-large bid,and when the meaningful rankings are available 24/7 to whomever cares to look them up.
It works!
True enough,I haven't read the handbook,and have no plans to do so any time soon.
Clearly,though,the D-3 selection criteria that apply to the at-large teams placed in the tournament are rather plastic.The committee can choose to weigh any the various criteria as they see fit,which pretty much renders the whole process suspect,IMO.
Why pretend to have rules at all,when they can be manipulated at will in a closed room?Clearly,if this was not the case,there would be no need for a selection committee at all,as the rating system alone would determine the field.(Which is essentially how D-1 does things.)
Sure,D-1 has AQs,too-and I kinda hate that concept as a general rule-but in practice,the vast majority of D-1 AQs are going to qualify on their own merits,anyway...Excepting the annual RITs,Mercyhursts,Niagaras and Air Forces in the mix,87% or so of the field will have played their way in,without receiving any special dispensation from any committee,and all as at-large teams.
Bottom-line:nobody howls much at how the field is chosen when the playing field is level for everyone,when every team knows exactly what they have to do to gain an at-large bid,and when the meaningful rankings are available 24/7 to whomever cares to look them up.
It works!
Last edited: