PDA

View Full Version : This is a little outrageous! Pairwise Benefits for ECAC vs. Hockey East, WCHA, CCHA



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

Howitz-ah
01-27-2011, 01:17 AM
So let's "fix" the PWR so teams who we feel can win in March are in? Heck right now I'd be all for it, as MN would be in the title game every year! Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Done. haha

vicb
01-27-2011, 01:22 AM
So let's "fix" the PWR so teams who we feel can win in March are in? Heck right now I'd be all for it, as MN would be in the title game every year! Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Better yet let's skip the team that can win in March and go directly to the ones that can win in April. No need for all those half empty arenas that probably cost the NC$$ money.

Howitz-ah
01-27-2011, 01:22 AM
But seriously, the ECAC has looked good this year.

They've looked pretty good and won some nice regular season games other years, too. And followed it up by looking like Tier II competition when it counts.

Howitz-ah
01-27-2011, 01:23 AM
Better yet let's skip the team that can win in March and go directly to the ones that can win in April. No need for all those half empty arenas that probably cost the NC$$ money.

Ah yes, reigning in the point!! :)

The Rube
01-27-2011, 01:24 AM
You know who else tried to "fix" things? Hitler.
Yep, I Godwinned the thread.

Howitz-ah
01-27-2011, 01:30 AM
Whether you think I'm full of **** on the topic or not, I'm happy this can light a fire so quickly. Because you know what? At the end of the day - no one is going to care if St. Lawrence beat UNH in what? December.

Because whether the ECAC fields 2, 4 or 7 teams - if they DONT show up in March and April, fans and players of the other conferences will continue to look to them as tier II in a tier I league.

darker98
01-27-2011, 01:37 AM
You know who else tried to "fix" things? Hitler.
Yep, I Godwinned the thread.

And he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

Goon
01-27-2011, 01:55 AM
The ECAC will get whatever the Pairwise says they deserve. And if the Pairwise says 4 ECAC teams are in then I think it will be detrimental to the level of competition our sport aspires for ;) to allow an "UNDESERVING ACCORDING TO THE PAIRWISE" HE, WCHA or CCHA team in .

It will just mean that 4 EZAC teams are gone by the end of the second round of the NCAA playoffs.

Goon
01-27-2011, 01:56 AM
But seriously, the ECAC has looked good this year.

They've looked pretty good and won some nice regular season games other years, too. And followed it up by looking like Tier II competition when it counts.

I agree beating the cupcake and the weak sisters of the poor really doesn't impress me. I keep hearing how BU and C.C. were beaten by EZAC teams so what? Both teams are down this year.

SCSU Euro
01-27-2011, 02:01 AM
But seriously, the ECAC has looked good this year.

They've looked pretty good and won some nice regular season games other years, too. And followed it up by looking like Tier II competition when it counts.

So what you're saying is... SCSU should never be given an NCAA bid again and UNH and tUMD should not be allowed in the F4 even if they win their regional. Ok, let's just book it now... this year's Frozen 4: Michigan, UND, BC, and MN (they are hosting).

bigmrg74
01-27-2011, 02:02 AM
http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-popcorn.gif

Mmmmm.... Buttery!

Not even febuary yet and already somebody is freaking out about the Math that puts them on the wrong side of making the playoffs when there's still a whole lotta hockey left to be played.

Howitz-ah
01-27-2011, 02:28 AM
So what you're saying is... SCSU should never be given an NCAA bid again and UNH and tUMD should not be allowed in the F4 even if they win their regional. Ok, let's just book it now... this year's Frozen 4: Michigan, UND, BC, and MN (they are hosting).

I'm saying the Pairwise equation changed this year, and it bolstered teams that might have missed a bid by the old standards...which would be fine, but it's welcoming multiple teams who have offered nothing to postseason competition.

Ralph Baer
01-27-2011, 02:45 AM
http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-popcorn.gif

Does USCHO get a cut from the popcorn sales here? The line at the concession stand was quite long. ;)

LynahFan
01-27-2011, 03:21 AM
You know what's even more outrageous? Fully HALF of the teams exit the tournament each year with a record of 0.000! Unbelievable! Those teams clearly don't deserve to be in the tournament!! They are horrible - just look at that. Zero point zero, zero, freaking zero!

Seriously, though, 8 teams exit at .000, 4 at .500, etc, so the average tournament record is 0.318. It's hardly surprising that teams which enter the tournaments as low seeds (as ECAC teams typically do) end up with poor overall records. That's what single-elimination tournaments do to low seeds.

Edit: and if the ECAC has 6 wins to go with their 16 bids, that's an overall record of 6-16, or .273. Yes, that's worse than the "average" expected value of .318, but not so low that it should inspire threads shouting "TRAVESHAMOCKERY!"

bigmrg74
01-27-2011, 04:04 AM
Does USCHO get a cut from the popcorn sales here? The line at the concession stand was quite long. ;)

If they're smart they do. And I wish they would add nachos to the menu as well.

Howitz-ah
01-27-2011, 04:11 AM
You know what's even more outrageous? Fully HALF of the teams exit the tournament each year with a record of 0.000! Unbelievable! Those teams clearly don't deserve to be in the tournament!! They are horrible - just look at that. Zero point zero, zero, freaking zero!

Seriously, though, 8 teams exit at .000, 4 at .500, etc, so the average tournament record is 0.318. It's hardly surprising that teams which enter the tournaments as low seeds (as ECAC teams typically do) end up with poor overall records. That's what single-elimination tournaments do to low seeds.

Edit: and if the ECAC has 6 wins to go with their 16 bids, that's an overall record of 6-16, or .273. Yes, that's worse than the "average" expected value of .318, but not so low that it should inspire threads shouting "TRAVESHAMOCKERY!"

What a bizarre response. I don't consider losses mathematically when I think about postseason play, because, yes, 15 out of 16 teams will exit with a loss. What if you matchup with a conference foe in the 1st game. .500 no matter what. Not very telling.

But if you wanted to run with that approach, Hockey East went 40-26 for a .606% during that span. Not bad seeing as you'll be guarranteed losses by all but 1 of your participants. Of those losses, I can think of several occasions of Hockey East teams knocking each other out. Maine beat BC in 2004, and beat UMass in 2007 for example.

Since 15 teams are going to lose an NCAA playoff game this year, my hope is that the field of 16 is as competitive as possible, so when the 1 team who went on a 4 game win streak emerges, the feeling is that they were challenged each step of the way with the best college hockey has to offer.

"Ask RIT" ... well sure, that was a great story, but 'any team can beat any team any given day'. Did they play Top-15 caliber hockey all year? Should they have been there in the 1st place? When Wisconsin advanced to the NC game, were they challenged with some of the best competition the 2009/2010 college hockey season had to offer? Or were they playing a team coming off a hot weekend/goalie 2 weeks ago?

The system is fragile. As long as you're in, all it takes is that 4 game win streak. Realistic or not, a team can have an 0-34-0 regular season record and be national champions.

walrus
01-27-2011, 05:59 AM
If Maine actually played to their potential, would this thread exist?. Sour grapes

Federal League
01-27-2011, 06:13 AM
If Maine actually played to their potential, would this thread exist?. Sour grapes

Yeah, I'm thinking if Maine and/or BU miss the tournament, their fanbases are going to be more upset with their team not winning enough games than how many ECAC teams got in.

LynahFan
01-27-2011, 06:24 AM
What a bizarre response. I don't consider losses mathematically when I think about postseason play, because, yes, 15 out of 16 teams will exit with a loss. What if you matchup with a conference foe in the 1st game. .500 no matter what. Not very telling.
Nice backpedal. You went to the trouble of calculating "wins per bid" and are now saying you didn't try to look at it mathematically? Excuse me?

And teams aren't allowed to face a conference foe in the first round (unless there are 5 teams from the same conference), so that argument is out the window.

Try again, for pure entertainment value? Please?

walrus
01-27-2011, 06:37 AM
Yeah, I'm thinking if Maine and/or BU miss the tournament, their fanbases are going to be more upset with their team not winning enough games than how many ECAC teams got in.

At least the parts of their fanbase with a clue