Tweet
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
Question for everyone else, I was wondering what you think about removing the TUC comparison and transitioning that to QWB that is built into RPI? I feel like the QWB adjusted RPI should be a comparison, not the final RPI used to initially sort for PWR.
This would allow for flipping comparisons based on quality wins but would also require winning the common opponents comparison and being at least .500 head to head.
Here is analysis of the top 21 by QWB adjusted RPI vs RPI:
1 1 North Dakota
2 2 Minnesota State
4 3 Minnesota-Duluth
6 4 Miami
7 5 Nebraska-Omaha
5 6 Boston University
3 7 Michigan Tech
8 8 Denver
10 9 Providence
9 10 Boston College
11 11 Quinnipiac
13 12 Minnesota
12 13 Yale
14 14 Bowling Green
15 15 Michigan
16 16 Massachusetts-Lowell
19 17 St. Cloud State
17 18 Vermont
18 19 Colgate
21 20 Northeastern
Then if we take that one step further and remove QWB adjusted RPI as the initial sort/tiebreaker and add it as a comparison and restore RPI as the initial sort/tiebreaker, here is what we get for PWR:
1 1 North Dakota
2 2 Minnesota State
3 3 Minnesota-Duluth
4 6 Boston University
5 7 Michigan Tech
6 4 Miami
7 5 Nebraska-Omaha
8 8 Denver
9 9 Providence
10 10 Boston College
11 12 Quinnipiac
12 13 Yale
13 11 Minnesota
14 14 Bowling Green
15 15 Michigan
16 16 Massachusetts-Lowell
17 19 Vermont
18 18 Colgate
19 17 St. Cloud State
20 22 Harvard
21 20 Northeastern
22 21 St. Lawrence
(1st column RPI based PWR, 2nd column QWB adjusted RPI based PWR)
Not a lot changes but I feel like putting QWB adjusted RPI in as the tiebreaking comparison gives way too much of an edge to the NCHC for what amounts to 10% of the games.
Question for everyone else, I was wondering what you think about removing the TUC comparison and transitioning that to QWB that is built into RPI? I feel like the QWB adjusted RPI should be a comparison, not the final RPI used to initially sort for PWR.
This would allow for flipping comparisons based on quality wins but would also require winning the common opponents comparison and being at least .500 head to head.
Here is analysis of the top 21 by QWB adjusted RPI vs RPI:
1 1 North Dakota
2 2 Minnesota State
4 3 Minnesota-Duluth
6 4 Miami
7 5 Nebraska-Omaha
5 6 Boston University
3 7 Michigan Tech
8 8 Denver
10 9 Providence
9 10 Boston College
11 11 Quinnipiac
13 12 Minnesota
12 13 Yale
14 14 Bowling Green
15 15 Michigan
16 16 Massachusetts-Lowell
19 17 St. Cloud State
17 18 Vermont
18 19 Colgate
21 20 Northeastern
Then if we take that one step further and remove QWB adjusted RPI as the initial sort/tiebreaker and add it as a comparison and restore RPI as the initial sort/tiebreaker, here is what we get for PWR:
1 1 North Dakota
2 2 Minnesota State
3 3 Minnesota-Duluth
4 6 Boston University
5 7 Michigan Tech
6 4 Miami
7 5 Nebraska-Omaha
8 8 Denver
9 9 Providence
10 10 Boston College
11 12 Quinnipiac
12 13 Yale
13 11 Minnesota
14 14 Bowling Green
15 15 Michigan
16 16 Massachusetts-Lowell
17 19 Vermont
18 18 Colgate
19 17 St. Cloud State
20 22 Harvard
21 20 Northeastern
22 21 St. Lawrence
(1st column RPI based PWR, 2nd column QWB adjusted RPI based PWR)
Not a lot changes but I feel like putting QWB adjusted RPI in as the tiebreaking comparison gives way too much of an edge to the NCHC for what amounts to 10% of the games.
Comment