As much as I respect the NCHC for having great teams this year, it defies logic, rational thought, history, and in some ways the eye test, to believe that something like 6 of the best 9 teams in the country all play in the same conference.
We will find out very soon if you are right or wrong about this.
UNO is probably the bellwether team, perhaps, to determine this, too.
They have just been "O.K." the past 12 games or so and this is a team with seventeen underclassmen, albeit, that is where the real talent on the team is, save for Massa and Zombo.
If they come out and stomp somebody in the first round that ought to tell people something.
The NCHC is a bit like George Brett, who used to take batting practice with golf balls.
Why did he do this?
Because in a live game, real baseballs then looked like beach balls.
If the NCHC NCAA tourney participants are really "all that" then stomping on non-NCHC opponents ought to be some level of pud.
Bottom line is... yes, the PWR is inadequate tool. KRACH is probably better... in my mind I'd love to see the "put up or shut up" and have these things be analyzed in some manner. I think KRACH would likely come out superior in the pile but as we're dealing with "small samples" the question would be how superior would it actually be.
In the end, we're talking about tools devised by athletic directors, athletic committees (coaches, whatnot), and university presidents. The lions share of whom have poor mathematical programs (this is not to call them dumb, you have to be quite intelligent to be on that level). Its going to be a system based on tangible calculations until education level can be raised via communication.
Another matter would be if we could elevate other choices based on scientific evaluation. Most organizations will bend to obvious truth so long as its really freaking obvious.
In my opinion, the best comparison is how does each method predict winners in the end of year tournaments. You could use the last PWR/KRACH rankings after the regular season and evaluate how well they discriminate between winners and losers in the conference tournaments and then similarly for the end of year rankings for the NCAAs. I've done this for the NCAAs for the last 8 years or so and there's really no difference between the PWR and KRACH with regard to identifying winners or the national champion. Problem most years is they are so similar that there are very few games where they actually pick different winners. Haven't bothered to increase the sample size by looking at conference tourney results but that would help with power issues. I'd bet that any more complicated ranking system would come up with a ranking very similar to PWR and KRACH and wouldn't result in improved discrimination.
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
Minnesota State Mankato is your overall #1 national seed. North Dakota #2. BU, Denver, Miami and Michigan Tech are still alive for #3. Duluth can now finish only as high as #4.
Re: The 2015 Pairwise, Bracketology and History Thread
And, very strangely, in the event where Michigan, Lowell, Colgate and Miami win, it now appears as if Minnesota would be out no matter what happens in the RIT/Mercyhurst and MTU/MSUM games. This is a different result than I was getting earlier. The RPI calculation comes out within .0001 (I mean inside of that, the difference is in the 5th decimal place) so it could be jsut an incredibly tight comparison, but I find this math weird.
And, very strangely, in the event where Michigan, Lowell, Colgate and Miami win, it now appears as if Minnesota would be out no matter what happens in the RIT/Mercyhurst and MTU/MSUM games. This is a different result than I was getting earlier. The RPI calculation comes out within .0001 (I mean inside of that, the difference is in the 5th decimal place) so it could be jsut an incredibly tight comparison, but I find this math weird.
Comment