2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

As I've already written one opus tonight, let's say this: I believe those who have served on the regional committees over the past what, 4-5 years(?), have done a tremendous job of playing it straight by the numbers which has helped alleviate many of the formerly widespread, and perhaps warranted, concerns that people in positions of power were shamelessly manipulating the process. For that, they deserve a lot of credit.

Here Here Webb. We may not agree with the numbers, but from what I can see so far, the numbers don't lie and where they should be. The Endicott SoS is the only real major issue (not saying its the wrong number), but just shows you don't have to play the best/hardest to raise up that SoS using the NCAA calculator. Exactly what I said years ago about having these "mid-major" conferences. With the birth of such conferences, the NCAA really needs to rethink their calculations of such SoS. We could all (or most of us) be way off on Endicott, but after all the *****ing and complaining back with 1-loss Adrian this is a real slap in the face. Adrian was "penalized" (IMO) because their opponents played teams from the old NCHA/MIAC and loss. Yet, Endicott's opponents have mostly played against teams from the MASCAC (with all due respect can I get a princess clap)...

But none the less, the committee went by the numbers...black and white...

[Ronnieb]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Ok. So you can talk about numbers, formulas, analytics and parties in political power, but anyone who actually watches college hockey knows that the way these rankings stack up are completely absurd. I am guessing that those that devise these are southern athletic directors of Division I football

[peddler]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

As I've already written one opus tonight, let's say this: I believe those who have served on the regional committees over the past what, 4-5 years(?), have done a tremendous job of playing it straight by the numbers which has helped alleviate many of the formerly widespread, and perhaps warranted, concerns that people in positions of power were shamelessly manipulating the process. For that, they deserve a lot of credit.

Just read the opus. Having now watched this process, and tried to learn vs whine for a number of years, I appreciate the efforts of those people as well. The most telling note for me in the opus was the observation that RNK was not used to create the first set of "rankings". Once that is understood the remaining criteria could well yield the results announced.
Could.

[PSUChamps2001]

Ok. So you can talk about numbers, formulas, analytics and parties in political power, but anyone who actually watches college hockey knows that the way these rankings stack up are completely absurd. I am guessing that those that devise these are southern athletic directors of Division I football

With all due respect oh wise one, what would your rankings be?

[Birdwatcher]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

With all due respect oh wise one, what would your rankings be?

I was going to ask....but figured why bother...LOL

[peddler]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Just to compare....

Stats based on NCAA SOS

TEAM	WIN %	SOS	RNK	KRACH SOS	SOS RNK
BABSON	0.643	0.547	0.333	138.0	7
ENDICOTT	0.8	0.538	0.500	108.5	38
AMHERST	0.605	0.536	0.700	160.4	2
WILLIAMS	0.659	0.534	0.500	162.8	1
HOBART	0.739	0.526	0.500	139.4	5
UTICA	0.708	0.516	0.500	127.8	24
NORWICH	0.881	0.505	0.750	122.0	29
OSWEGO	0.804	0.505	0.700	132.3	17
HAMILTON	0.762	0.502	0.333	133.8	14
GENESEO	0.717	0.495	0.167	127.6	25

Stats based on KRACH SOS

TEAM	WIN %	SOS	RNK	KRACH SOS	SOS RNK
WILLIAMS	0.659	0.534	0.500	162.8	1
AMHERST	0.605	0.536	0.700	160.4	2
HOBART	0.739	0.526	0.500	139.4	5
BABSON	0.643	0.547	0.333	138.0	7
HAMILTON	0.762	0.502	0.333	133.8	14
OSWEGO	0.804	0.505	0.700	132.3	17
UTICA	0.708	0.516	0.500	127.8	24
GENESEO	0.717	0.495	0.167	127.6	25
NORWICH	0.881	0.505	0.750	122.0	29
ENDICOTT	0.8	0.538	0.500	108.5	38

Tell me there isn't a little bit of an issue here....You go from 2nd overall , to dead last on the list...and WAY dead last.

This would take issue with something I saw quoted earlier:

"Quote Originally Posted by Fishman'81 View Post
They have been functionally identical for a few years now. Give up the shell-game, already."

[PSUChamps2001]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Here is a table for NCAA East Ranking vs KRACH East Ranking.....

#	TEAM	EAST KRACH #
1	NORWICH	1
2	ENDICOTT	4
3	OSWEGO	2
4	HOBART	5
5	BABSON	11
6	WILLIAMS	7
7	HAMILTON	3
8	UTICA	8
9	GENESEO	6
10	AMHERST	12

[NUProf]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Record vs. Ranked doesn't apply until next week.
Oz's SOS is exactly the same as NU, .505. Endicott is .538.

r

That's the bizarre part of the RNK metric. It applies to the current rankings.

[NUProf]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

Both rankings are dubious at best. I am seriously wondering whether there is an error in the Endicott men's SOS calculation. How can they possibly have that high an SOS with that schedule?

SOS rankings for teams that play an insular schedule in a mediocre league can be vastly influence by the few outside games the teams played. It's the way it works, and why I warned people that the KRACH SOS metric means nothing.

[XYZ]

That's the bizarre part of the RNK metric. It applies to the current rankings.

No it doesn't. Your point regarding the oddly circular nature of it is valid...when it's applied. But it isn't being applied yet.

[NUProf]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

No it doesn't. Your point regarding the oddly circular nature of it is valid...when it's applied. But it isn't being applied yet.

Interesting, because the definition of the metric as I read it says it is applied to the current rankings.

[Ronnieb]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

I was going to ask....but figured why bother...LOL

FWIW

Hobart
Adrian
Williams
Babson
Plattsburg
Trinity
Colby
Amherst
Hamilton
Oswego
Stevens Point
Utica

[Ozz]

FWIW

Hobart
Adrian
Williams
Babson
Plattsburg
Trinity
Colby
Amherst
Hamilton
Oswego
Stevens Point
Utica

I needed a good laugh this morning.

[Birdwatcher]

Re: 2017 NCAA tournament selection thread

FWIW

Hobart
Adrian
Williams
Babson
Plattsburg
Trinity
Colby
Amherst
Hamilton
Oswego
Stevens Point
Utica

Ummm....you need to go to ncaa.com and study the metrics used. I actually supplied the links earlier.

[PSUChamps2001]

Ummm....you need to go to ncaa.com and study the metrics used. I actually supplied the links earlier.

They can't even spell Plattsburgh right. Credibility lost right there...