Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

[LTsatch]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

The bracketology for this week has been done to death so I'll stick to the pairwise history lesson for the week until games are played tomorrow.

Thanks to the Build Your Own Rankings Calculator (currently down) we now have 10 years of Pairwise data to study. In that time there have been 19 teams that qualified thanks to the autobid and 141 who qualified by being ranked high enough (autobid or not) to make the NCAA tournament. Of the 141 teams, 109 (77.3%) that qualified as of the mid-January PWR would have made the eventual field. For teams ranked in the top 8 that percentage gets better. 37 of the 40 (92.5%) teams that were ranked 1-4 in the mid-January PWR have made the tournament. 34 of the 40 (85%) teams ranked 5-8 made it. "Only" 26 of the 40 (65%) teams ranked 9-12 qualified. In 2005 11 of the top 12 teams in the mid-January PWR qualified. Last year Ohio State was still ranked #2 and fell all the way out of the tournament. All teams who earned an at-large bid were included in the mid-January PWR (Sorry Duluth). The 2006 Maine and 2010 Northern Michigan teams were the lowest-ranked at #24 to still earn a tournament invitation. Nine teams that were ranked #20 or below have risen to earn a spot in the tournament. I'm not one for prognostications, but #26 Wisconsin still has eight games vs TUC on the schedule and can make a lot of noise in the second half.

23 teams fell out of the NCAA tournament that were ranked 1-12 in mid-January. Eight of those teams came from the WCHA. Teams that have fallen out twice include Denver, Minnesota-Duluth, Ohio State and Vermont. In addition to the eight times WCHA teams have fallen out of contention, six have come from Hockey East, five from the CCHA and four from the ECAC.

Great analysis Priceless!!!!

[Golden Tuuk]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

It's all according to the numbers.

That's not true, but let's pretend that it is for a moment. It would be fine to keep track of teams through the season and give people with nothing better to do a topic of conversation. But in the end, the committee needs subjectivity.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

That's not true, but let's pretend that it is for a moment. It would be fine to keep track of teams through the season and give people with nothing better to do a topic of conversation. But in the end, the committee needs subjectivity.

Delusional is no way to go through life.

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

That's not true, but let's pretend that it is for a moment. It would be fine to keep track of teams through the season and give people with nothing better to do a topic of conversation. But in the end, the committee needs subjectivity.

It is true. Why do you think the Pairwise Rankings accurately predict the participants in the NCAA tournament every...single...year?

[Golden Tuuk]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Delusional is no way to go through life.

This thread seems to be doing fine.

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Golden,

Please accept this as a respectful answer.

As far as the choosing of the 16 teams goes, the committee has no subjectivity. None. The teams are the 5 conference champs, plus the next 11 teams in the PWR.

As far as seeds, the committee again has no subjectivity. None. The Top 4 teams of the 16 chosen, by the Pairwise Rankings are the #1 seeds. Numbers 5-8 are the #2 seeds. And, so on.

As far as placing the #1 seeds in regions, again, there is no subjectivity (well, a slight amount which has been used only rarely).

Only in placing the #2, 3 and 4 seeds is there subjectivity.

Please accept this. It is true.

[Golden Tuuk]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Golden,

Please accept this as a respectful answer.

no subjectivity. None. the committee again has no subjectivity. None. there is no subjectivity (well, a slight amount...)

Sure, that's fine.

So we're talking about a couple of different points here. First, how they select the 16 teams and then what they do with them after the selection. Selection seems cut and dry although we're not getting the 16 best teams due to auto bids. This is difficult but has to be accepted as it gives the "other" conferences something to shoot for. After the selection things get cloudy. You guys say it's strictly by numbers and then you're moving teams all over. Oh, let's look at attendance. Oh, this team should take a bus. Oh, that team shouldn't play in conference. Ya, that's strictly by the numbers. *****http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/smoking-025.gif******

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

I think it is rare for the hockey tournament to have more than 1 or 2 head scratching placements in any given year. And that's AFTER the 16 teams that absolutely deserve to be there (based on criteria that is well known and understood -- whether or not it is the best is a different argument altogether) are selected. College basketball fans would love for this to be the case in their tournament. Point out to me over the last five years how many times the committee relied on "smoke filled room" technology to seed and/or place the hockey tournament. While not perfect (what is?) I will take how the hockey tournament is selected and seeded any day over the way we do it in basketball, or the way we do it -- or in two years will do it -- in college football. If Michigan, Minnesota, Boston College, Yale or any other team of the 59 deserves to be there, they will be there, and they will probably have about a 14/16 chance of being place exactly where they should be, based on the handful of rules that everybody knows ahead of time.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Sure, that's fine.

So we're talking about a couple of different points here. First, how they select the 16 teams and then what they do with them after the selection. Selection seems cut and dry although we're not getting the 16 best teams due to auto bids. This is difficult but has to be accepted as it gives the "other" conferences something to shoot for. After the selection things get cloudy. You guys say it's strictly by numbers and then you're moving teams all over. Oh, let's look at attendance. Oh, this team should take a bus. Oh, that team shouldn't play in conference. Ya, that's strictly by the numbers. *****http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/smoking-025.gif******

In conference is strictly by numbers. Unless there's more than 5 teams from one conference in the tournament, they get moved. No subjectivity about that fact.

Objectivity of if you make the tournament or not is a good thing. You either win your way in, or get high enough in the computer ranks. You know what you have to do to get there. There's no nuts and bolts about it.

In the NYSPHSAA sports leagues, as well as many others out there, the ONLY way to get to the state tournament is to win your section's playoffs. There's no second chance. That's why leagues get autobids, and the others are wild cards.

[Mile High Hockey]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

In conference is strictly by numbers. Unless there's more than 5 teams from one conference in the tournament, they get moved. No subjectivity about that fact.

That should read 5 or more teams from one conference. It is within the realm of possibility that you could have 1 team from a conference as say a #2 seed, and then the other 4 teams from that conference that made the tournament as #3 seeds. This is a highly unlikely option, but possible. It would require an intra-conference matchup in the first round because the committee cannot change teams out of their seeding bands.

[Numbers]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

That should read 5 or more teams from one conference. It is within the realm of possibility that you could have 1 team from a conference as say a #2 seed, and then the other 4 teams from that conference that made the tournament as #3 seeds. This is a highly unlikely option, but possible. It would require an intra-conference matchup in the first round because the committee cannot change teams out of their seeding bands.

For those trying to understand the process for the first time, this is a good post.

The reason that the committee has written that clause about avoiding intra conference matchups in the first round is for this kind of situation:

#2 seed Band has 2 WCHA teams (Denver, Minnesota?)
#3 seed band has 3 WCHA teams (NoDak, St Cloud, Mankato?)

5 WCHA teams in the field. The rules are that #2 seeds are always #2 seeds, and can't be changed to another seed. And, #3 seeds can't be changed to another seed. So, there is no way to avoid a WCHA matchup.

In every other case beside this, if there were 5 WCHA teams, none of them would be playing each other in round one.

Just for information. Thanks for all the discussion.

[Patman]

Sure, that's fine.

So we're talking about a couple of different points here. First, how they select the 16 teams and then what they do with them after the selection. Selection seems cut and dry although we're not getting the 16 best teams due to auto bids. This is difficult but has to be accepted as it gives the "other" conferences something to shoot for. After the selection things get cloudy. You guys say it's strictly by numbers and then you're moving teams all over. Oh, let's look at attendance. Oh, this team should take a bus. Oh, that team shouldn't play in conference. Ya, that's strictly by the numbers. *****http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/smoking-025.gif******

The field has been picked by a stated methodology to the letter, iirc, for at least the last 15 years. The field in that time has only seen a single seed swap... The swap was for the purpose of attendance... The comittee recieved a good amount of flak for it.

Ice hockey is a high parity sport, you could switch teams and seeds, for the most part if we didn't have this info we would mostly wouldn't be able to tell as there are going to be a lot of natural close calls.

They haven't deviated from methodology in a long time.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Probably not Quinepiac...but maybe Quinnipiac. The Bobcats have been very impressive this season to date, and if they get a number one seed, they will have earned it.

Looking at Moy's Brackets, the Toledo Regional (BC v. SCSU; UND v. UND) looks like the group of death at this point.

Not to mention, AIC being able to boast that they beat a #1 seed.

[Mile High Hockey]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Not to mention, AIC being able to boast that they beat a #1 seed.

Very true and on the road no less. They also kept it to within 1 against Minnesota on the road. Pretty good for a team that hasn't beaten a non-conference NCAA Tournament team (and I hope this doesn't jinx Quinnipiac) since at least 1998 (as far back as USCHO goes).

Maybe the Yellow Jackets are on the up and up.

[HoosierBBall_GopherHockey]

Re: Pairwise and Bracketology 2013 Edition

Very true and on the road no less. They also kept it to within 1 against Minnesota on the road. Pretty good for a team that hasn't beaten a non-conference NCAA Tournament team (and I hope this doesn't jinx Quinnipiac) since at least 1998 (as far back as USCHO goes).

Maybe the Yellow Jackets are on the up and up.

Um, what?