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.

WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Shirtless Guy said:
Is it just me or does it seem strange that MTU gains 25 points for taking 3 points from a superior BELOW team, but that same team gains 43 for sweeping an inferior team?

Other than the way MSU did it against LSSU, I don't think anyone would be more impressed with MSU's sweep of LSSU than MTU's 3 points vs MSU?
Click to expand...

The goal differentials really, really helped. That may be a flaw. It's one of those things that I'll have to test after the season, probably.

GFM
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I've never liked any model that takes goal differential in to account.
Too many times games get out of hand, and look much more lop-sided than they really were.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Freddie said:
I've never liked any model that takes goal differential in to account.
Too many times games get out of hand, and look much more lop-sided than they really were.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that I could cap the margin at 3. Past 3, you've established dominance.

GFM
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

gfmorris said:
UAH is pretty much at "sweep or come back on your shield".

GFM
Click to expand...
If Mankato wins two they have come real close to punching their ticket to an at large bid. As a league, alaska winning would be huge, same for NMU.. If Tech or BG sweep it could make them much closer to a bid and losing would make it very tough.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

manurespreader said:
If Mankato wins two they have come real close to punching their ticket to an at large bid. As a league, alaska winning would be huge, same for NMU.. If Tech or BG sweep it could make them much closer to a bid and losing would make it very tough.
Click to expand...

Mankato needs to face SCSU and Minnesota for that to be true, but yes...in an ideal world for the WCHA as a whole, the league would want MSU beat SCSU, BSU tie Minn (and lose in shootout), MSU beat Minn, BSU beat SCSU. Very unlikely scenario but that would be for the better of the league.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Thanks guys, I tried to take everything we've heard and compare to the facts. I just wish I had more ability to find fact on the other side that prove better graduation rates, more success for quality players in NHL, etc.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Okay, numbers have been crunched like the good kind of peanut butter:

http://blog.wchaplayoffs.com/2016/01/29/2015-16-week-18-predictions-michigan-tech-at-bowling-green/
http://blog.wchaplayoffs.com/2016/0...ction-alabama-huntsville-at-alaska-anchorage/

It's not unrealistic to think that this league could be BGSU, MSU, MTU-FSU, BSU-NMU-UAA, LSSU, UAF, UAH. It could also be a logjam for 2nd and the last four teams separated by three points.

GFM
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Congrats Beavers for beating the UM Gophers this afternoon while defending your North Star College Cup Championship. Nice that the WCHA is represented again in the finals. Good luck tomorrow against #3 SCSU. Go Beavers!
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I'll never understand the Pairwise. MSU loses by one to #3 St. Cloud, and drops from 19 to 24. The Gophers lose by 2 to #30 something Bemidji, and go from #20 to tied for #17.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

MavsFan said:
I'll never understand the Pairwise. MSU loses by one to #3 St. Cloud, and drops from 19 to 24. The Gophers lose by 2 to #30 something Bemidji, and go from #20 to tied for #17.
Click to expand...

Simple math. (c) Scooby
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

MavsFan said:
I'll never understand the Pairwise. MSU loses by one to #3 St. Cloud, and drops from 19 to 24. The Gophers lose by 2 to #30 something Bemidji, and go from #20 to tied for #17.
Click to expand...

It's mainly because it's not just the one comparison — it's a kinetic chain all the way down.

GFM
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Shirtless Guy said:
Gophers started the day #15 I believe.
Click to expand...

They did.

For PWR, best way I can explain it for the non-geeks (like me) is that it's like alternate timelines, like Back To The Future. One small change can have major implications for everything else.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Brenthoven said:
They did.

For PWR, best way I can explain it for the non-geeks (like me) is that it's like alternate timelines, like Back To The Future. One small change can have major implications for everything else.
Click to expand...
yeah but mavs claimed the gophers went up for losing, they did not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top