PWR after Saturday

With several games not yet completed (11:26pm) and Brown no longer a TUC, Cornell drops to #8 in PWR and now wins only 18 comparisons--significantly reducing the edge over teams just below us in the rankings.

Cornell will remain eighth at the conclusion of all games tonight. (The outcome of Ferris v. Fairbanks is irrelevant, according to JTW's script)

yeah i noticed this too
something else to note...
dartmouth cannot drop below .500. that would do wonders for CU record vs tuc.
brown dropping stinks but i hope that cornell will not have to worry about an at large. and u have to beat the best to be the best so seeding wont matter either

I'm pretty pleased that even though all the "bad" things that could happen did, Cornell drops just one slot to 8th.

Interestingly, after so many ties in PWR during the year, the top 12 teams are now alone and separated by just 1 comparison (UNH 25, Minnesota 24, ...)

UAH swept and is now just 1 game under .500

OSU swept WMU in an upset in thre CCHA's, that helps us.

Why is Findlay playing in their conference tournament when they can't qualify for the NCAA?

Their conference doesn't get an auto-bid, so it doesn't matter anyways. They're playing bc their part of the conference.

-DeltaOne81 '03, Fred

No, UAH isn't one game under .500, they're three under for NCAA purposes due to Findlay. I had been thinking that the Chargers could pull the CHA upset and make it to .500 by winning their conference tournament (three more games). But tonight I realized that they play f%$&ing Findlay in the first round. So the best they can do is finish 15-16-1. So we can forget about any help from them.

Looks to me like almost everything that could've helped Cornell this weekend failed. Dartmouth pulled one out of their asses last night and then finished the deal tonight. Brown fell off of Danis' back (though he certainly gave it a great effort). Most of the top seeds elsewhere have won, some pulling out close games (e.g. MSU, St. Cloud last night). The only positive so far is Michigan losing last night to LSSU. Another miracle by the Lakers tomorrow would be great as long as MSU could then win at the Joe.

The boys have their work cut out for 'em in Placid. Go Red!

How did Findlay manage to have a non-qualifying schedule when the appear to have played everyone in D-I that we care about?

It's not who they played, it's where they are in the process of moving up to D-I. I think they're in the second year of a two-year transitional period.

First, what the hell is TUC? The only thing I can think up is teams under concideration and that doesnt seem right if every team at or above .500 counts.

Second, I remember discussion here earlier in the year, after the NMU loss, to the effect that 2OT games count as ties to the NCAA. Is this true when it comes to TUC? If so, doesn't Brown close out right at .500?

And since it finally seems relevant for me to use one of these menacing faces in the peanut gallery

According to the NCAA:
20T games are a loss for the team that loses (aka- Cornell)
2OT games are a win for the team that wins (aka- NMU)

thanks.

I think it's only games that are won-and-lost in non-standard fashion (e.g., shootouts, scissors/paper/rock) that go into the NCAA books as ties.

Yes, TUC stands for "teams under consideration," and, you're right, it's a misnomer. Most teams at the .500 level are not really under consideration at all. (Does anyone really think the NCAA is giving Sacred Heart any more "consideration" than they're giving Union or Brown?)

Well Shaun Hannah's will get a lot more consideration than Brown or Union is they can beat Q and then UConn or Mercyhurst...

As for TUC being a silly term, the cutoff is .500 so any team at or above .500 gets looked at for the NC$$s. They may get dismissed out of hand but they do get considered.

In fact, a team with a losing record which receives an automatic bid by winning its conference tournament automatically becomes a Team Under Consideration for the purposes of the "record vs TUC" criterion.

Because this question comes up so often, I thought it was a good idea to put the answer in the subject line. And for that matter, let me shout so that everyone hears it:

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY OVERTIMES THEY PLAY, OR HOW LONG THEY ARE; IF THE GAME IS DECIDED IN OVERTIME, IT IS A WIN FOR THE WINNING TEAM AND A LOSS FOR THE LOSING TEAM! If they go to a shootout, the game is considered a tie, with the shootout being used for advancement purposes only.

Age, can we put this in the FAQ?

When would you have a shootout anyways?

Some tournaments (e.g., Icebreaker, in the past, at least) decide games with shootouts.

Keith, if Shaun Hannah's team gets a bid it will have nothing to do with its winning percentage. My point is that giving a team some positive credit toward an at-large bid for a win over Sacred Heart while giving another team no credit for a win over North Dakota or Brown or Union is downright silly.

Yeah... We should get credit for beating the US under 18 team if that's true

Al you do get credit for the win vs sub-.500 teams. that is the W on your record. the system is flawed but it has been all season, not just lately
i think the whole findlay thing just stinks. oh well.

> In fact, a team with a losing record which receives an automatic bid by winning its conference tournament automatically becomes a Team Under Consideration for the purposes of the "record vs TUC" criterion.

AHA! So, Huntsville can still help us.

Dr. jy3, I do understand you get credit in another selection criterion.

But in the criterion called TUC, you don't get credit, and I think it's dumb--and has been, not only all of this season, but in the many seasons since it was dreamed up. If TUC is intended to give credit to a team's success (or lack thereof) against better teams, using a .500 winning percentage as an arbitrary measure--with an all-or-nothing cut-off at that number--is simply not a good way to do it.

I don't think UAH can help Cornell. If Huntsville wins the CHA tourney, then that's nice and all, but since there's no CHA auto-bid to the NCAAs the TUC status of UAH does not change. Only teams that finish at or above .500, or receive an automatic bid to the NCAA tourney, qualify as TUCs for the selection criteria. At least, that's what I've always been led to believe. If this was next season, UAH winning the tourney would help the TUC category. Of course, if this was next season, Findlay games would count, and Union, Niagara, and UAH would already be TUCs.

One team I would be rooting against is Wisconsin. From the way the pairwise looks now, it looks like the WCHA's top four look fairly good to make the tournament. If Wisconsin wins its tournament and joins them, that could take another at-large bid. I think it's unlikely, but just the same, I don't want to see it happen.

Of all the bad little catches that come out of Findlay, UAH, etc, here's one piece of good news:

For those of you who understand how the PWR relate to the actual selection process (if you don't, USCHO has FAQs on all thie stuff), Cornell is currently the last "above the bubble team" - us and everyone above us has beaten everyone below us. Colorado Col is the first bubble team, since they did not beat (tied) the lower Alaska-Fairbanks. It would be easier to check if slack.net showed PWR ties without the tiebreaks (RPI), but it apparently doesn't, so I had to go to the USCHO raw data, which is more prone to mistakes.

Either way, while this can certainly change, if the season ended today, we'd be the last team put in the "yes" pile right off the bat. That can't be bad .

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

Al, the first part of my post (the SH getting consideration bit) was meant to be a little joke. But then I had to go follow it with something somewhat serious and obscure the meaning...

yeah my post was meant as a joke too.
oh well. sorry if u thought otherwise. and dont call me dr and jinx me, not there yet

anyone think a cornell-harvard final would be pretty cool for placid?

in terms of the computers, i wonder how far michigan would drop if they lose today and as a result do not have a way to add wins to their record like the teams around them will this coming weeked. we shall see. GO LSSU!

Cornell-Harvard would be nice, but only if Cornell wins and Niagara takes the CHA tournament. If *everything* goes right (including an ECAC title) Cornell could sneak into the top 4 in the PWR, although I doubt it'd result in a bye. One of the things involved in that "everything" is that Cornell beats 2 TUCs at Placid (not Harvard), and/or if Niagara finshes as a TUC. Maybe Harvard would be better for the RPI than Clarkson, but I didn't go into that much detail.

Personally, I think a Cornell-Clarkson final would be just as sweet. Especially if Cornell wins. )

Here's hoping for a Cornell-anyone final! Honestly, all 5 teams at Placid have a legit shot at the ECAC title this year.

Everything we've heard from the NCAA is that there is no such thing as a tie in a pairiwise comparison. If each team wins the same number of criteria, the team with the higher RPI wins the PWC. End of story.

I think this is even spelled out in the championships manual at [www.ncaa.org]

BTW, you can see the breakdown of each comparison by criteria in a popup window by clicking on the losing team's abbreviation in the PWC table at [slack.net]

Tom

Cornell-Harvard would be nice, but only if Cornell wins and Niagara takes the CHA tournament.

Personally, I think a Cornell-Clarkson final would be just as sweet. Especially if Cornell wins.

Actually, most of us would probably agree that anyone and Cornell would be good if Cornell wins.

As long as we're gonna win, we might as well play the Red Wings.

Really boost our RPI. (But are they a TUC?)

That's exactly my point. As long as Cornell wins, who really cares? Bring on Denver! But only if Cornell wins. . .

Hmmm, ok...

I was getting most of my information from USCHO. For instance this quote:

"Teams are then ranked by PWR point total, with ties broken by looking at the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI). Note: this tiebreaking procedure is used solely for convenience in displaying the PWR, and will not necessarily match the committee's process. This is especially true near the end of the top 12, where the committee looks more closely at head-to-head comparisons when selecting the last few teams."

from [uscho.com]

and then the whole example under "Can you give an example?" from their selection FAQ (http://uscho.com/FAQs/?data=selection).

That first one seems to be directly disagreed with by the NCAA selection procedure (though technically, the NCAA only says it's used as the tie-breaker in individual comparisons, not overall - but that messes with the PWR).

The NCAA's instructions are interestingly vague (though not on that point). For instance, no where does it say (as far as I saw) that the selected teams are the one that win's the most comparisons. In fact, I saw no direct comment on how to pick teams overall, only how to compare two individually, which leads me to think that the "example" from USCHO is probably still accurate, except that you *do* break individual ties with RPI.

Last comment: That puts us in an interesting situation right now, because when you break individual ties by RPI, you have to do all the way down to 13 before a 'higher' teams outright loses a comparison to a 'lower' one. Meaning 1-12 should be automatically in (if the season ended now)... but the MAAC winner won't be 1-12, so they'll have to kick at least one out (12, obviously), but it just sorta messes with the system a bit. The 'above the bubble' group right now is simply too big.

Oh, and before someone tells me that none of the matters because the season *doesn't* end today, I know... it's just a statistical game which I'm enjoying and which is undoubtedly more fun than studying

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

I think the confusion is between using RPI as a tiebreaker to decide an individual comparison and using RPI as a tiebreaker when ranking teams based on the number of comparisons won (after you've worked out who wins each comparison).

When deciding who wins a comparison, RPI is definitely used as a tiebreaker if each team wins the same number of criteria.

OTOH, when deciding how to rank teams based on the outcome of their comparisons, well as has been pointed out, the NCAA doesn't actually calculate a PWR per se, but they look at all the comparisons among the teams they're trying to sort out. Presumably they do something like a "local pairwise rating" (lPWR) which totals a subset of the comparison wins. When sorting out teams that are tied in number of relevant comparisons won, the NCAA first looks at the individual comparisons, and if those don't resolve it, then they go to RPI as a tiebreaker. To give an example, suppose you have the following pairwise comparisons:

* Denver beats Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Michigan
* Minnesota beats New Hampshire, Michigan, and Cornell
* New Hampshire beats Michigan and Cornell
* Michigan beats Cornell
* Cornell beats Denver

Denver and Minnesota win three comparisons each, UNH wins two, and Cornell and Michigan win one each. But Denver is ranked ahead of Minnesota and Michigan ahead of Cornell because they win the head-to-head comparison in each case.

On the other hand, suppose we have this scenario:

* Denver beats Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Michigan
* Minnesota beats New Hampshire and Cornell
* New Hampshire beats Michigan and Cornell
* Michigan beats Minnesota and Cornell
* Cornell beats Denver

Now the total number of comparisons won are three for Denver, two each for Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Michigan, and one for Cornell. This time, individual comparisons can't resolve the Minesota-New Hampshire-Michigan tie (it's a rock-scissors-paper situation), so we have to compare the three teams' RPI.

USCHO's PWR table would break the ties in both cases by RPI, without trying to look at the head-to-head comparisons, presumably because it's easier to write the program that generates the tables that way. My PWC table does break ties by head-to-head comparisons if possible, because I'm a geek.

As a complement to USCHO's tournament selection materials, you may want to look at my perspective on the process at [slack.net] or try the "You Are The Committee" script I wrote to help simulate the process at [slack.net]

>"[What JTW said above.]"

Would someone email me an Excedrin, please.

JTW-

Do you agree then, that the way it currently is now, the typical "above the bubble" group is "too large" - or do you think that USCHO's description of the bubble group (and hence above and below) aren't valid?

Question:

I heard a rumor that the selection committee isolates themselves in a small wooden lodge near a frozen pond and keeps a fire burning in a fireplace. When white smoke appears, they've chosen who will go to the tournament. If black smoke, they have not decided yet. Is there any truth to this rumor?

Note: I've actually found out that the procedure to elect the Pope has now slightly changed:

"In the age of the bullet-proof popemobile, electing a new pope has gone modern. The Sacred College of Cardinals, the electoral body which chooses the pope, will continue to meet and vote in the Sistine Chapel. Breaking with tradition, though, they won't be locked in. Instead they'll live in nearby Casa Santa Marta, new hotel-style facilities in the Vatican, and will be bused the short distance to the chapel where Michelangelo painted the ceiling and Last Judgement frescoes."

whats the world coming to???

You submit the question, I'll answer it

Looking at JTW's You Are The Committee scripts, it looks like there's actually a conceivable set of events (that is to say, not requiring tournament wins by Notre Dame, Wisconsin, and Lowell) that would result in a bye for Cornell.

I don't have the patience to try ALL the possibilities (I can't imagine the MAAC tourney is gonna have a whole lot of bearing on this, since Cornell hasn't played any MAAC teams this year, and I've conservatively (I think) assumed that UAH and Niagara both lose their first games in the CHA tourney), but from what I've tried, this is one reasonable set of events that could lead to a bye for Cornell:

Cornell over Dartmouth, Clarkson over Harvard
Cornell over Clarkson, Harvard over Dartmouth

Denver over CC, Minnesota over St. Cloud
Minnesota over Denver, St. Cloud over CC

Michigan over UAF, Michigan State over Northern Mich.
Michigan State over Michigan

UNH over Lowell, Maine over BU
UNH over Maine

Generalizations:
- Cornell needs their opponent in the final to be Clarkson, not Harvard.
- UNH is more or less assured of a bye, and either BU or Maine would likely earn one with a win over UNH; BU could also do so with a win over Maine and a loss to UNH
- Michigan likely cannot earn a bye even with a CCHA tournament championship, but an appearance in the final appears to assure Michigan State of one
- Minnesota, Denver, SCSU, and CC all could earn byes depending on the way things shake down in the WCHA tourney

OK, to close on an optimistic note: If the top seed wins every game in every tournament (yes, I know, not all THAT likely), JTW's script predicts byes will go to UNH, Denver, Minnesota, and... Cornell. How about that, it still could happen. Everyone repeat after me: "THANK YOU, BROWN."

> I don't think UAH can help Cornell. If Huntsville wins the CHA tourney, then that's nice and all, but since there's no CHA auto-bid to the NCAAs the TUC status of UAH does not change.

True. That was a pure brainfart on my part.