The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

[Dutchman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

If I am readings things correctly, the RPI for CollegeHockeyNews ( http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php ) is slightly different than for USCHO/SiouxSports.com ( http://siouxsports.com/hockey/rankings/pwr/ ) Its not by much. Both claim that they are calcualting the way the NCAA committee wants things calculated. Any thoughts on this?

[Patman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

If I am readings things correctly, the RPI for CollegeHockeyNews ( http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php ) is slightly different than for USCHO/SiouxSports.com ( http://siouxsports.com/hockey/rankings/pwr/ ) Its not by much. Both claim that they are calcualting the way the NCAA committee wants things calculated. Any thoughts on this?

yeah... hard to tell and we won't know for sure until we get to the end of the year and there's enough of a difference to matter.

[JimDahl]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

If I am readings things correctly, the RPI for CollegeHockeyNews ( http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php ) is slightly different than for USCHO/SiouxSports.com ( http://siouxsports.com/hockey/rankings/pwr/ ) Its not by much. Both claim that they are calcualting the way the NCAA committee wants things calculated. Any thoughts on this?

I meant to post about this in this thread; I blogged a little about it earlier last week. In short, the NCAA memo was ambiguous about how to apply the RPI weightings and there are two pretty legitimate ways to do it. USCHO has chosen one and CHN has chosen the other. I've been running both and they're close enough that long range forecasts are pretty comparable, but differences of a couple ranking positions are common enough that YATC or tournament possibilities forecasts will differ depending which you use. Hopefully we won't be waiting until selection day to find out which is right.

[Dutchman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

I meant to post about this in this thread; I blogged a little about it earlier last week. In short, the NCAA memo was ambiguous about how to apply the RPI weightings and there are two pretty legitimate ways to do it. USCHO has chosen one and CHN has chosen the other. I've been running both and they're close enough that long range forecasts are pretty comparable, but differences of a couple ranking positions are common enough that YATC or tournament possibilities forecasts will differ depending which you use. Hopefully we won't be waiting until selection day to find out which is right.

Thanks !!!

[Ed Trefzger]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

I meant to post about this in this thread; I blogged a little about it earlier last week. In short, the NCAA memo was ambiguous about how to apply the RPI weightings and there are two pretty legitimate ways to do it. USCHO has chosen one and CHN has chosen the other. I've been running both and they're close enough that long range forecasts are pretty comparable, but differences of a couple ranking positions are common enough that YATC or tournament possibilities forecasts will differ depending which you use. Hopefully we won't be waiting until selection day to find out which is right.

We chose the approach of applying it only to the winning percentage and not OWP and OOWP for a few reasons, one of which is that the NCAA does that in its basketball RPI, although they use .6 and 1.4 instead of .8 and 1.2 for the multipliers for squeakball.

[Patman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

We chose the approach of applying it only to the winning percentage and not OWP and OOWP for a few reasons, one of which is that the NCAA does that in its basketball RPI, although they use .6 and 1.4 instead of .8 and 1.2 for the multipliers for squeakball.

to me that's the most logically consistent way. Even if there's a more accurate reading I don't necessarily trust the NCAA to closely read what they wrote

[Priceless]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

to me that's the most logically consistent way. Even if there's a more accurate reading I don't necessarily trust the NCAA to closely read what they wrote

Here's a problem: It is written on such a way that it can not only be interpreted by US in different ways, but it can be interpreted by this year's committee one way and next year's committee another way. In that case, we can't even be sure we'll know the correct answer after Selection Sunday this year. Isn't that fun?

[Numbers]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

I meant to post about this in this thread; I blogged a little about it earlier last week. In short, the NCAA memo was ambiguous about how to apply the RPI weightings and there are two pretty legitimate ways to do it. USCHO has chosen one and CHN has chosen the other. I've been running both and they're close enough that long range forecasts are pretty comparable, but differences of a couple ranking positions are common enough that YATC or tournament possibilities forecasts will differ depending which you use. Hopefully we won't be waiting until selection day to find out which is right.

I wrote to The Minnesota AD, who is on the committee earlier about the QWB divisor, and he answered me, so I wrote him again last week to ask him about this.

The essence of my question was:
Is the calculation: 25%*SUM(winning %age for own games with home/road weighting) + 21%*SUM(opp win% with no weighting)/#ofgames + 54%*SUM(oppoppwin% with no weighting)/#ofgames

Or, is it: SUMoverallgames of {home/road weighting}*(25%*win/loss/tie + 21%*oppfor that game win%age + 54%*Oppforthatgame'soppwin%). and then divide that SUM by the #of games played, counted according to the weighting.

Hopefully he will respond to my question, but it will take awhile, because he will want to talk to the people who actually do the calculation for them.

Both seem possible to me.

And, also, I do not know what it means on CHN where it says something about the RPI listing not reflecting the home/road weighting...

[DeepRed72]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

I wrote to The Minnesota AD, who is on the committee earlier about the QWB divisor, and he answered me, so I wrote him again last week to ask him about this.

The essence of my question was:
Is the calculation: 25%*SUM(winning %age for own games with home/road weighting) + 21%*SUM(opp win% with no weighting)/#ofgames + 54%*SUM(oppoppwin% with no weighting)/#ofgames

Or, is it: SUMoverallgames of {home/road weighting}*(25%*win/loss/tie + 21%*oppfor that game win%age + 54%*Oppforthatgame'soppwin%). and then divide that SUM by the #of games played, counted according to the weighting.

Hopefully he will respond to my question, but it will take awhile, because he will want to talk to the people who actually do the calculation for them.

Both seem possible to me.

And, also, I do not know what it means on CHN where it says something about the RPI listing not reflecting the home/road weighting...

That has been corrected. I read somewhere that Adam Wodon said it was an oversight - that when CHN added in the bonus calculations that they forgot to remove that disclaimer.

I found the quote from Wodon's site: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/new...ly_edition.php
You have to read the comments section at the end of the article.

[Priceless]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Thanks to the Build Your Own Rankings Calculator we now have 11 years of Pairwise data to study. In that time there have been 20 teams that qualified thanks to the autobid and 156 who qualified by being ranked high enough (autobid or not) to make the NCAA tournament.

Of the 156 teams, 127 (81.4%) that qualified as of the post-Beanpot Pairwise would have made the eventual field. No teams that were ranked in the top 6 after the Beanpot dropped out of the eventual field. Three teams that were ranked #7 and two more that were #8 fell out of the rankings. "Only" 34 of the 44 (77.3%) teams ranked 9-12 qualified.

The 2010 Northern Michigan squad was ranked #23 and still earned at an-large bid. The 2007 UMass Minutemen were #21. The 2013 Wisconsin Badgers joined the group as a #22 seed. Every other team has been in the top 20 post-Beanpot.

Some teams that are on the doorstep have a track record of success in the last month of the season. #18 North Dakota has come from outside the field three times to qualify. #16 Maine and #24 New Hampshire have done it twice. Those three, along with #9 Cornell, are the only teams to do it more than once.

On the other side, Denver has fallen out three times. Ohio State, Northern Michigan and Colorado College have done it twice. Of those currently in the field, #14 Minnesota-Duluth has done it on two occasions.

Historically, the field should look like this.
Teams in bold are locks (historically)
Teams from 7 and 24 are still in the running.
Teams below 25 need to autobid.

Boston College
Minnesota
Union
Ferris State
Quinnipiac
Mass.-Lowell
----
Wisconsin
St. Cloud State
Cornell
Michigan
Providence
Northeastern
Vermont
Minnesota-Duluth
Colgate
-
Maine
Yale
North Dakota
Clarkson
Notre Dame
Minnesota State
Western Michigan
Denver
New Hampshire
----
Ohio State
Alaska-Anchorage
St. Lawrence
Brown
Rensselaer
Bowling Green
Nebraska-Omaha
Air Force
Lake Superior
Michigan Tech
Miami
Alaska-Fairbanks
Bentley
Northern Michigan
Mercyhurst
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Michigan State
Harvard
Bemidji State
Merrimack
Boston University
Robert Morris
Canisius
Colorado College
Niagara
Dartmouth
Penn State
Holy Cross
RIT
American Int'l
Princeton
Sacred Heart
Alabama-Huntsville
Army

The results of the Crockpot did not alter this week's bracketology.

[UnionHockeyManiac]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

^Great post.

Thanks!

[Patman]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Here's a problem: It is written on such a way that it can not only be interpreted by US in different ways, but it can be interpreted by this year's committee one way and next year's committee another way. In that case, we can't even be sure we'll know the correct answer after Selection Sunday this year. Isn't that fun?

you missed my point Priceless. What is most likely is they'll follow established formulation. Just because it could be taken in altenative ways does not mean it will unless there is a specific rub in this that is different for hockey than basketball. If the language is identical then they'll apply the identical method, correct or not.

I think the NCAA would find it far easier to change two numbers than an entire algorithm.

[UnionHockeyManiac]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Jayson Moy's weekly Bracketology Blog: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/20...d-story-lines/

I'm ready for the NCAA Tourney to begin and would be very happy if the brackets end up looking like that.

[still an empty net]

Jayson Moy's weekly Bracketology Blog: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/20...d-story-lines/

I'm ready for the NCAA Tourney to begin and would be very happy if the brackets end up looking like that.

With that current bracket 3 out of the 4 four seeds could definitely upset the number one seeds with UMD going 1-1-1 this year against Minnesota. Colgate going 2-1 against Ferris St. and a solid Providence team that just fell to a 4th seed with last nights loss (no disrespect to Union). This would make for one difficult bracket to predict as always but would also be fine with this bracket as a 'gate fan. Lots of hockey left however.

[DeepRed72]

Re: The 2014 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread`

Historically, the field should look like this.
Teams in bold are locks (historically)
Teams from 7 and 24 are still in the running.
Teams below 25 need to autobid.

Boston College
Minnesota
Union
Ferris State
Quinnipiac
Mass.-Lowell
----
Wisconsin
St. Cloud State
Cornell
Michigan
Providence
Northeastern
Vermont
Minnesota-Duluth
Colgate
-
Maine
Yale
North Dakota
Clarkson
Notre Dame
Minnesota State
Western Michigan
Denver
New Hampshire
----
Ohio State
Alaska-Anchorage
St. Lawrence
Brown
Rensselaer
Bowling Green
Nebraska-Omaha
Air Force
Lake Superior
Michigan Tech
Miami
Alaska-Fairbanks
Bentley
Northern Michigan
Mercyhurst
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Michigan State
Harvard
Bemidji State
Merrimack
Boston University
Robert Morris
Canisius
Colorado College
Niagara
Dartmouth
Penn State
Holy Cross
RIT
American Int'l
Princeton
Sacred Heart
Alabama-Huntsville
Army

I would argue that Ohio State, if they win their final 8 regular season games, would probably be a #2 seed and would not fall out as an At Large. A few of the teams directly below them, should they run the table and go deep into their tournament, could also qualify as an At Large. Just because it may not have happened in the past 11 years doesn't mean it can't. Remember that PWR metrics have changed (no TUC and addition of bonus) so you can't necessarily compare this season's volatility to what was experienced in the past. So your statement that teams below #25 need to autobid, while probabilistically true, is not 100% accurate.