Bracketology 2019

It’s still January, so take this with big chunks of rock salt. But USCHO has us playing Round 1 in Fargo.

Other placements of interest include Union & Q (against ASU) in Providence & Clarkson in Manchester.

Swampy
It’s still January, so take this with big chunks of rock salt. But USCHO has us playing Round 1 in Fargo.

Other placements of interest include Union & Q (against ASU) in Providence & Clarkson in Manchester.

I did a bracketology last Sunday and came up with the same result.

So here's the link.

And results:

This week’s brackets

West Regional (Fargo):
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
9 Cornell vs. 8 Minnesota State

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
14 Notre Dame vs. 4 Minnesota Duluth
12 Bowling Green vs. 5 Ohio State

East Regional (Providence):
15 Union vs. 3 Denver
11 Arizona State vs. 6 Quinnipiac

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Western Michigan vs. 2 Massachusetts
10 Clarkson vs. 7 Northeastern
Conference breakdowns

ECAC Hockey — 4
NCHC — 4
Big Ten — 2
Hockey East — 2
WCHA — 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Independent – 1

This week's.

This week’s brackets

West Regional (Fargo):
16 Air Force vs. 1 St. Cloud State
9 Cornell vs. 8 Western Michigan

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
14 Notre Dame vs. 3 Minnesota Duluth
12 Arizona State vs. 5 Ohio State

East Regional (Providence):
13 Northeastern vs. 4 Quinnipiac
10 Providence vs. 7 Minnesota State

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
15 Harvard vs. 2 Massachusetts
11 Clarkson vs. 6 Denver
Conference breakdowns

ECAC Hockey — 4
NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 3
Big Ten — 2
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Independent – 1

Break up the ECAC!

As usual, I'm torn between hoping we stay East so fans can attend and hoping we go to Fargo so I can attend.

We either need to get out of the 8 and 9 positions or UMass needs to move up to #1 again.

I'm not eager to go to Fargo.

Four ECAC without Union. I approve.

Dafatone
As usual, I'm torn between hoping we stay East so fans can attend and hoping we go to Fargo so I can attend.

I hope that this, this, or this changes your mind.

Fargo wasn't filmed or set in Fargo.

Dafatone

As usual, I'm torn between hoping we stay East so fans can attend and hoping we go to Fargo so I can attend.

Too many of our placements that I've "wished" for (e.g. playing NH in Albany in 2010) have blown up in my face, so all I want is for us to get in wherever they put us and hope for the best.

Trotsky
Fargo wasn't filmed or set in Fargo.

But it was about Fargo. And the third link in my earlier note is about actual existing Fargo.

Swampy

Trotsky
Fargo wasn't filmed or set in Fargo.

But it was about Fargo. And the third link in my earlier note is about actual existing Fargo.

Yeah, but your links were all about dying in Fargo. I don't want to die in Fargo, and I sure don't want to see our hopes for the Frozen Four die in Fargo.

This week is nicer.

What I didn't get was this:

"And while we’re at it, why not swap Cornell and Northeastern for distance purposes."

West Regional (Fargo):
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
9 Western Michigan vs. 6 Minnesota State

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
13 UMass Lowell vs. 3 Ohio State
12 Clarkson vs. 8 Arizona State

East Regional (Providence):
15 Providence vs. 4 Quinnipiac
10 Cornell vs. 5 Minnesota Duluth

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
14 Bowling Green vs. 2 Massachusetts
11 Northeastern vs. 7 Denver

Conference breakdowns

Hockey East — 4
NCHC — 4
ECAC Hockey — 3
WCHA — 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Big Ten — 1
Independent – 1

Jim Hyla
This week is nicer.

What I didn't get was this:

"And while we’re at it, why not swap Cornell and Northeastern for distance purposes."

"Let's give Cornell a tougher matchup than their seed warrants every year because 'distance purposes.'"

BearLover

Jim Hyla
This week is nicer.

What I didn't get was this:

"And while we’re at it, why not swap Cornell and Northeastern for distance purposes."

"Let's give Cornell a tougher matchup than their seed warrants every year because 'distance purposes.'"

duluth is a tough first round but that's a good second round if we survive.

ugarte

BearLover

Jim Hyla
This week is nicer.

What I didn't get was this:

"And while we’re at it, why not swap Cornell and Northeastern for distance purposes."

"Let's give Cornell a tougher matchup than their seed warrants every year because 'distance purposes.'"

duluth is a tough first round but that's a good second round if we survive.

We haven't gotten past the 1R in 7 years. Let's just worry about Clarkson.

Trotsky

ugarte

BearLover

Jim Hyla
This week is nicer.

What I didn't get was this:

"And while we’re at it, why not swap Cornell and Northeastern for distance purposes."

"Let's give Cornell a tougher matchup than their seed warrants every year because 'distance purposes.'"

duluth is a tough first round but that's a good second round if we survive.

We haven't gotten past the 1R in 7 years. Let's just worry about Clarkson.

In the bracketology thread? I have to admit that I don't care where they place Clarkson.

I know avoiding second round conference matchups are not a listed criterion, but...

Northeastern is 5 miles closer to Providence than Manchester and Cornell is 40 miles closer to Providence than Manchester.

Is saving a net of 35 miles of total travel worth exposure to the risk of an additional second round conference matchup?

Attendance cannot be an issue - any Northeastern fan willing to travel 50 miles would travel 55 miles and any Cornell fan willing to travel 325 miles would travel 365 miles

ugarte
I have to admit that I don't care where they place Clarkson.

Though we probably should, since we may well wind up in the same band and thus competing for the same slot.

Back to Fargo

This week’s brackets

West Regional (Fargo):
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
9 Arizona State vs. 8 Cornell

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
15 Bowling Green vs. 3 Ohio State
12 Clarkson vs. 6 Minnesota State

East Regional (Providence):
14 Northeastern vs. 4 Minnesota Duluth
10 Western Michigan vs. 5 Quinnipiac

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Harvard vs. 2 Massachusetts
11 UMass Lowell vs. 7 Denver
Conference breakdowns

NCHC — 4
ECAC Hockey — 4
Hockey East — 3
WCHA — 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Big Ten — 1
Independent – 1

So last week Moy swapped seeds 10 and 11 (Cornell and Northeastern) to save 35 miles (net) of travel.

This week he does not swap seeds 7 and 8 (Denver and Cornell) which would save over 2000 miles of travel.

What am I missing?

it's just one season but it's wild that after the big ten split off there was an expectation that their resources meant that they'd start to dominate and yet... Ohio State is the only team from the conference in position for a bid.

ugarte
it's just one season but it's wild that after the big ten split off there was an expectation that their resources meant that they'd start to dominate and yet... Ohio State is the only team from the conference in position for a bid.

This is a turnaround compared to last year which saw 4 of the 7 Big 10 teams make the 16 team tournament and 3 advance to the Frozen Four. This after the I believe only 1 (post split) Big 10 team making the FF in all the years prior to 2018.

Stats like this must cause insanity for certain fans. Eh?

This week.

West Regional (Fargo):
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
9 Western Michigan vs. 8 Arizona State

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
13 Clarkson vs. 3 Minnesota Duluth
11 Northeastern vs. 7 Ohio State

East Regional (Providence):
14 UMass Lowell vs. 4 Denver
12 Providence vs. 6 Quinnipiac

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
15 Harvard vs. 2 Massachusetts
10 Cornell vs. 5 Minnesota State

Conference breakdowns

ECAC Hockey — 4
Hockey East — 4
NCHC — 4
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Big Ten — 1
Independent – 1
WCHA — 1

If NCAA tournament started today, UMass Lowell out, Bowling Green in

This week’s brackets

West Regional (Fargo):
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
11 Western Michigan vs. 5 Minnesota State

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
15 Bowling Green vs. 3 Minnesota Duluth
12 Clarkson vs. 7 Ohio State

East Regional (Providence):
13 Cornell vs. 4 Denver
9 Providence vs. 6 Quinnipiac

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
14 Harvard vs. 2 Massachusetts
10 Northeastern vs. 8 Arizona State

Conference breakdowns

ECAC Hockey — 4
NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 3
WCHA – 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Big Ten — 1
Independent – 1

Not to get too obsessive about these things, but we're rooting against Providence again tonight; a BU win again pushes them down to #13 and us up to #12. Other results don't seem to matter much.

The game's on NBC Sports Boston, whatever that is.

Beeeej
Not to get too obsessive about these things, but we're rooting against Providence again tonight; a BU win again pushes them down to #13 and us up to #12. Other results don't seem to matter much.

The game's on NBC Sports Boston, whatever that is.

Those are the Comcast regional networks re-baptized.

Playoffstatus currently has us at 70% to make the Show. 3% to win it all.

In the ECAC, 45% for the Cleary, 19% for the Whitelaw.

Trotsky
Playoffstatus currently has us at 70% to make the Show. 3% to win it all.

In the ECAC, 45% for the Cleary, 19% for the Whitelaw.

In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model, it also assumes top-14 is the cut-off for making the tournament. That's probably generous.

BearLover

Trotsky
Playoffstatus currently has us at 70% to make the Show. 3% to win it all.

In the ECAC, 45% for the Cleary, 19% for the Whitelaw.

In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model, it also assumes top-14 is the cut-off for making the tournament. That's probably generous.

The model should take into account the results of the conference tournaments to determine what the cut-off is. That's what we do on CHN. So for each simulation, they each have their own cutoff, and thus the final odds is based on that.

That said, 14 isn't a terrible guess. I'd say 13 has a plurality - but 14 isn't bad.

BearLover
In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model

I haven't read any discussion of the issues with the model other than you don't understand it.

Trotsky

BearLover
In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model

I haven't read any discussion of the issues with the model other than you don't understand it.

Some salient points were made last year. I saved the thread, and, over the past year, have had discussions with a few people on improving things. But since I lack the math insight to do it, I've been waiting on some to help me. So far, nothing is finalized.

Trotsky

BearLover
In addition to the already-discussed issues with this prediction model

I haven't read any discussion of the issues with the model other than you don't understand it.

lmao. Go back and read the thread.

And thank you, AdamW.

Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Jim Hyla

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

I agree with the educational aspect. I was pretty close to predicting the result last year because I had run a few simulations the week or so before. And for some of us it is FUN.

marty

Jim Hyla

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

I agree with the educational aspect. I was pretty close to predicting the result last year because I had run a few simulations the week or so before. And for some of us it is FUN.

I don't run any simulations. But, I enjoy reading the comments of those who do. Accuracy is not important to me.

I assume that Adam didn't major in math or another scientific or engineering field, not that it is necessary to be a scientist to have interest in bracketology and how PWR works.

This link is relevant to this thread. I linked it earlier on the ASU thread, but it is of more general bracketology interest.

Has anyone checked how Union's performance has affected the ratings of the other ECAC schools? I would think that an ECAC team that has a great OOC record and a pretty average ECAC record benefits the entire league.

Jim Hyla
Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

It appears that, as usual, the "pairwise probability matrix" overrates the likelihood of us (and everyone else) beating a lower-seeded opponent in the ECAC second-round, which might have colored the above analysis. (How much the model overrates our chances I can't say off the top of my head--but based on some of the tests people on this forum ran last year, it overrates our chances at least marginally.)

BearLover

Jim Hyla
Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

Beeeej

BearLover

Jim Hyla
Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

I don't think the reasoning why we (and those teams right above us) aren't bubble teams is adequately explained. It seems to rely on the (at least somewhat) flawed parwise probability model that gives us an 86% shot of making the tournament, or else relies just on our RPI, which is materially higher than those teams below us, but not high enough to take us safely out of bubble range. It is absolutely true that teams 13-18 are in a considerably more perilous position than we are--but that doesn't mean our position isn't perilous. I think most of the rest of the piece actually points to us being a bubble team, as adamw emphasizes the high likelihood of 2+ conference winners from outside the top-16.

BearLover

Beeeej

BearLover

Jim Hyla
Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

I don't think the reasoning why we (and those teams right above us) aren't bubble teams is adequately explained. It seems to rely on the (at least somewhat) flawed parwise probability model that gives us an 86% shot of making the tournament, or else relies just on our RPI, which is materially higher than those teams below us, but not high enough to take us safely out of bubble range. It is absolutely true that teams 13-18 are in a considerably more perilous position than we are--but that doesn't mean our position isn't perilous. I think most of the rest of the piece actually points to us being a bubble team, as adamw emphasizes the high likelihood of 2+ conference winners from outside the top-16.

Yes, he emphasizes the relatively high likelihood of up to three conference winners from outside the top 16, which would still leave the top 13 in the tournament. Notwithstanding the possibility for individual sub-18 teams to have surprising runs, at a certain point when you're projecting a tournament field at the end of a few-dozen-games-long season, you have to assume the teams in the top 12 belong there and will perform more or less according to their ranking. The point of the bubble teams' peril is that they could perform more or less according to their top 16 ranking and yet still not make it. If you're going to go by the mere possibility of Cinderella runs combined with the mere possibility of top teams underperforming, we should be talking about #8-16 as "the bubble" pretty much every year.

Beeeej

BearLover

Beeeej

BearLover

Jim Hyla
Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

I don't think the reasoning why we (and those teams right above us) aren't bubble teams is adequately explained. It seems to rely on the (at least somewhat) flawed parwise probability model that gives us an 86% shot of making the tournament, or else relies just on our RPI, which is materially higher than those teams below us, but not high enough to take us safely out of bubble range. It is absolutely true that teams 13-18 are in a considerably more perilous position than we are--but that doesn't mean our position isn't perilous. I think most of the rest of the piece actually points to us being a bubble team, as adamw emphasizes the high likelihood of 2+ conference winners from outside the top-16.

Yes, he emphasizes the relatively high likelihood of up to three conference winners from outside the top 16, which would still leave the top 13 in the tournament. Notwithstanding the possibility for individual sub-18 teams to have surprising runs, at a certain point when you're projecting a tournament field at the end of a few-dozen-games-long season, you have to assume the teams in the top 12 belong there and will perform more or less according to their ranking. The point of the bubble teams' peril is that they could perform more or less according to their top 16 ranking and yet still not make it. If you're going to go by the mere possibility of Cinderella runs combined with the mere possibility of top teams underperforming, we should be talking about #8-16 as "the bubble" pretty much every year.

I think "you're out of the NCAA if you lose your next playoff series" is grounds for being a bubble team.

BearLover

Beeeej

BearLover

Beeeej

BearLover

Jim Hyla
Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Seems a little strange to not call us a bubble team given we'd likely be out if we lost our first playoff series (or even possibly if we won in three games and then lost in the semis). Especially given, as the article states, the likelihood of there being at least two, and probably more, conference winners outside the top-16. And the article even mentions Union as a potential ECAC dark horse outside the top-16--who would be, if the higher seeds win in the first round, our second-round opponent.

Since he spends the rest of that paragraph, and the next several paragraphs, explaining his reasoning, it doesn't seem that strange to me at all. I'm not counting chickens or prepaying a hotel room in Providence or anything, but I'd certainly rather be #12 right now in this scenario than #13.

I don't think the reasoning why we (and those teams right above us) aren't bubble teams is adequately explained. It seems to rely on the (at least somewhat) flawed parwise probability model that gives us an 86% shot of making the tournament, or else relies just on our RPI, which is materially higher than those teams below us, but not high enough to take us safely out of bubble range. It is absolutely true that teams 13-18 are in a considerably more perilous position than we are--but that doesn't mean our position isn't perilous. I think most of the rest of the piece actually points to us being a bubble team, as adamw emphasizes the high likelihood of 2+ conference winners from outside the top-16.

Yes, he emphasizes the relatively high likelihood of up to three conference winners from outside the top 16, which would still leave the top 13 in the tournament. Notwithstanding the possibility for individual sub-18 teams to have surprising runs, at a certain point when you're projecting a tournament field at the end of a few-dozen-games-long season, you have to assume the teams in the top 12 belong there and will perform more or less according to their ranking. The point of the bubble teams' peril is that they could perform more or less according to their top 16 ranking and yet still not make it. If you're going to go by the mere possibility of Cinderella runs combined with the mere possibility of top teams underperforming, we should be talking about #8-16 as "the bubble" pretty much every year.

I think "you're out of the NCAA if you lose your next playoff series" is grounds for being a bubble team.

It is certainly your prerogative to think that. But then you're limiting the universe of non-bubble teams to those that are already mathematically impervious to the effects of a late collapse plus sub-16 Cinderella runs. That's pretty damn narrow, not to mention nearly impossible to nail down at the moment because of what's left on the schedule. My speculation is that the bubble would have to start at #8, maybe even #7.

we could also lose the next 2 and still get in. but its clear we are on the bubble

the Bubble also has some variables.

Minn getting swept by mich takes them off the bubble since they will be under .500
mich getting swpt the following week the same
NDak losing to omaha would put them below .500
MSu beating ND helps us too

other than winning the league there are only 4-5 teams that can catch us and some things can help us too root for

WMU losing to Miami
LSU to bemidji
bowling green to mich tech
mass lowell to vermont

My take is that "bubble" doesn't apply. College basketball, where the bracket is determined by handwaving and magic, has a bubble of teams whose future is up in the air.

College hockey uses a hard and fast system (or, a system that closely resembles a hard and fast system). We can pin down odds to the extent that we can predict odds of winners of future matchups. In any given simulation, there's no guessing about bubbles or who is in or out once all the games are played.

We're probably out if we lose two straight. But we're a lot closer to the teams ahead of us than the teams behind us, and it's more likely than not that our current position, 12th, gets in. It's fair to say that we're closer to in than out.

This comes down to the fear that using math to predict our likelihood of winning will anger the Hockey Gods and cause us to lose.

That is magical thinking.

But the Hockey Gods are, objectively, a bitch, so I wouldn't provoke them.

Beeeej
Yes, he emphasizes the relatively high likelihood of up to three conference winners from outside the top 16, which would still leave the top 13 in the tournament. Notwithstanding the possibility for individual sub-18 teams to have surprising runs, at a certain point when you're projecting a tournament field at the end of a few-dozen-games-long season, you have to assume the teams in the top 12 belong there and will perform more or less according to their ranking. The point of the bubble teams' peril is that they could perform more or less according to their top 16 ranking and yet still not make it. If you're going to go by the mere possibility of Cinderella runs combined with the mere possibility of top teams underperforming, we should be talking about #8-16 as "the bubble" pretty much every year.

That's what I've always thought that was meant by hockey teams being on the bubble.

We're different than bball in that when our pre-NCAA games are over, we know who is in and out. There's no bubble then.

When bball is at the same point, they have teams that the gods can choose to include or exclude, thus a bubble.

I think Bear Lover's interpretation of the bubble - a reasonable chance that one bad game/series will move you from in to out - isn't bad. It's how I'd have instinctively thought about it too. I definitely see us as a bubble team. That said, I wouldn't care if someone had a different (non-stupid) definition, as long as they roughly defined it and arguing about someone else's definition is ...

is ...

is what we do around here mostly I guess.

There's bubble teams, and then there's BUBBLE teams ... I think, as Beeej (thank you) pointed out, I gave the reasoning for putting the line there, while also acknowledging that there were teams above 13 that still could possibly not make it. Had to draw the line somewhere in terms of focusing on the BUBBLE BUBBLE. ... Last thing I want to do is jinx anything however, so, sure, Cornell is on the bubble, hockey gods.

Jim Hyla
Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Jim, my good sir, we'll never agree on this I suppose. And those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general. ...

I love fun - but fun is in the eye of the beholder - and I don't find pointless exercises to be fun. Fun is figuring out what could happen, and why. Fun is explaining these things to readers in ways that hopefully make sense. Therein is the education. The mechanics of how these things work have been written about ad nauseum where I don't feel the need to repeat them each week, using examples that will be moot by the next week.

And there's more I could say, but shall not. So it will have to be left at that.

ursusminor
I assume that Adam didn't major in math or another scientific or engineering field, not that it is necessary to be a scientist to have interest in bracketology and how PWR works.

I'm not sure whether you are intending that as a criticism or not - because I can't figure out why you brought it up.

The answer is no, but then again, neither did Bill James. I've been writing about this stuff forever, and Pairwise math is certainly simpler than KRACH math, so I don't think it requires an engineering degree. When I need that, I turn to John Whelan - and then I take his stuff and turn it into English, for readers

adamw
I don't find pointless exercises to be fun.

Pointless exercises are the only things that are fun. Everything else has too much riding on it.

That's why we invented sports and games in the first place. The other shit was war, work, and parenting, and all that shit's exhausting.

adamw

ursusminor
I assume that Adam didn't major in math or another scientific or engineering field, not that it is necessary to be a scientist to have interest in bracketology and how PWR works.

I'm not sure whether you are intending that as a criticism or not - because I can't figure out why you brought it up.

The answer is no, but then again, neither did Bill James. I've been writing about this stuff forever, and Pairwise math is certainly simpler than KRACH math, so I don't think it requires an engineering degree. When I need that, I turn to John Whelan - and then I take his stuff and turn it into English, for readers

It was not meant as a criticism. It was just a comment on the previous post and based upon my misinterpretation of that post.

Way back when RPI was frequently on the bubble and always missed the NCAA tourney in the early Fridgen years and before IIRC, it was fun calculating what minor changes would have gotten the 'Tute in. And then there was the more recent year that RPI was eliminated early in the ECAC tourney, but by the way that PWR was then calculated, most scenarios would have get the team in the NCAA tourney, and that was what happened, only for them to embarrass themselves as usual in the opening round.

BTW, lack of the ability to write clear English, as in the previous paragraph, is certainly one of my characteristics.

adamw

Jim Hyla
Adam's first take on the NCAA seeding difficulties.

And Adam takes his annual(?) swipe about bracket talk before it really matters.

While everyone else has been pondering their "bracketology" — explaining in fine-point detail the architecture of brackets that will never actually happen — we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day.

Adam, don't you think having fun is important? Isn't that why we go to games?

So why is it so hard to understand that having fun with brackets is okay?

Plus, anyone who goes through the process each week has a much better understanding of why some things work out the way they do.

Fun and education, what's not to like about that?

Jim, my good sir, we'll never agree on this I suppose. And those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general. ...

I love fun - but fun is in the eye of the beholder - and I don't find pointless exercises to be fun. Fun is figuring out what could happen, and why. Fun is explaining these things to readers in ways that hopefully make sense. Therein is the education. The mechanics of how these things work have been written about ad nauseum where I don't feel the need to repeat them each week, using examples that will be moot by the next week.

And there's more I could say, but shall not. So it will have to be left at that.

Adam, you're probably correct, "we'll never agree on this I suppose."

But look at what you said, "I love fun - but fun is in the eye of the beholder - and I don't find pointless exercises to be fun."

That's okay and I agree with you. You have your fun and I have mine. As long as our funs(?) don't hurt anyone, there's no need to criticize each other for what we enjoy.

You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

I know you don't mean to criticize fans who follow it, but saying "we'll just calmly remind everyone of what to be looking for as we approach selection day." has an elitist ring to it. It's as if you're saying, "We're the calm ones, while the rest are just screamers. You shouldn't pay attention to them."

You have the right to say that you think what is being done is pointless, and to an extent I agree, but you don't need to put down those that have their fun in this "pointless exercise."

Trotsky is correct, "Pointless exercises are the only things that are fun."

Hockey is inherently a pointless exercise. In the end the athletes have gotten good exercise, but for the rest of us, we were just sitting on our butts and, aside from the fun of watching, could have done a lot of other more "important" things with that time.

Sitting at their computer and reading about bracketology can be no less fun for some, than is it for me to sit and read, and respond to eLynah posts. Both are pointless and that's the point.

Enough fun for me, now I have to go back to dictating patients charts. That's the epitome of the opposite of pointless fun.

Jim Hyla
You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

ugarte

Jim Hyla
You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

Whaddya mean by that?!

Once again we're rooting against Providence tonight; the unlikely event of #37 Boston College defeating #9 Providence would drop PC to #13 and kick us up a notch to #11.

...which as you know is still totally on THE BUBBLE^tm, because non-zero unlikely catastrophic doom blah blah blah.

Trotsky

adamw
I don't find pointless exercises to be fun.

Pointless exercises are the only things that are fun. Everything else has too much riding on it.

That's why we invented sports and games in the first place. The other shit was war, work, and parenting, and all that shit's exhausting.

Not to mention birth control. Don't forget about birth control, an innovation that prevents parenting, making sex pointless but casual.

ugarte

Jim Hyla
You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

I'm not reacting to thinking that bracketology discussion in mid-season is silly, it is, but that not discussing it implies that you're somehow better.

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Jim Hyla
You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

I'm not reacting to thinking that bracketology discussion in mid-season is silly, it is, but that not discussing it implies that you're somehow better.

The people writing articles about it, are doing a disservice to readers (IMO), most of whom, unlike yourself, actually don't know better. That is my issue in a nutshell. So if that makes me sound like I'm "better" for my position on it, then so be it.

adamw

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Jim Hyla
You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

I'm not reacting to thinking that bracketology discussion in mid-season is silly, it is, but that not discussing it implies that you're somehow better.

The people writing articles about it, are doing a disservice to readers (IMO), most of whom, unlike yourself, actually don't know better. That is my issue in a nutshell. So if that makes me sound like I'm "better" for my position on it, then so be it.

Waitasec... is it part of your feelings on the subject that you think a lot of less-well-informed readers believe the weekly bracketology articles are somehow indicative or predictive of how the tournament will actually be seeded despite several weeks' worth of games left in the season to affect the outcomes? If not, what's the "disservice to readers"?

Better late than never?

Was this the Adam effect?

I don't mind playing ASU, but does it have to be in Fargo?

This week’s brackets

West Regional (Fargo):
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
12 Cornell vs. 8 Arizona State

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
15 Notre Dame vs. 3 Minnesota Duluth
10 Clarkson vs. 7 Ohio State

East Regional (Providence):
13 Harvard vs. 4 Minnesota State
9 Providence vs. 5 Quinnipiac

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
14 Western Michigan vs. 2 Massachusetts
11 Northeastern vs. 6 Denver
Conference breakdowns

ECAC Hockey — 4
NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 3
Big Ten – 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Independent – 1
WCHA — 1

Jim Hyla
I don't mind playing ASU, but does it have to be in Fargo?

"I have some good news and some bad news."

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
I don't mind playing ASU, but does it have to be in Fargo?

"I have some good news and some bad news."

As the #12, playing #8 instead of #5 seems like a gift, except of course that #8 getting to play #12 instead of #9 also seems like a gift. Either way, you then (probably) have to get through #1 for a spot in the Frozen Four.

But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome. Now that seems like a pointless exercise.

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

Beeeej
Either way, you then (probably) have to get through #1 for a spot in the Frozen Four.

Shout out to RIT.

Ruminating on #1ness, is there a continental shelf in NC$$ talent this year, or is it a fairly gentle incline? Seems to me the NC$$ has been getting flatter, and there are no more Super Teams (RPI 85, Maine 93, etc).

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

That game resulted in #8 ASU and #9 Providence swapping places (and #37 BC dropping to #39, but that surely didn't affect much else). I don't know that this would've had earth-shattering effects on Jayson's results, but it still seems bizarre to me to publish the column late on Thursday but before a Thursday night game involving a top-16 team, when there otherwise haven't been any games since Saturday night.

I agree with you on prediction vs. training, but it still seems silly to me to publish such a training based on current information when the information won't be current in a half hour.

Beeeej
I agree with you on prediction vs. training, but it still seems silly to me to publish such a training based on current information when the information won't be current in a half hour.

I can dig it.

Beeeej

adamw

Jim Hyla

ugarte

Jim Hyla
You say, and let me say that I totally believe you when you say it, that "those remarks are never aimed at you, by the way, or fans in general."

But criticizing the subject is indirectly criticizing the people who enjoy it.

It's entirely up to you how to react to learning that someone thinks something you like is silly.

I'm not reacting to thinking that bracketology discussion in mid-season is silly, it is, but that not discussing it implies that you're somehow better.

The people writing articles about it, are doing a disservice to readers (IMO), most of whom, unlike yourself, actually don't know better. That is my issue in a nutshell. So if that makes me sound like I'm "better" for my position on it, then so be it.

Waitasec... is it part of your feelings on the subject that you think a lot of less-well-informed readers believe the weekly bracketology articles are somehow indicative or predictive of how the tournament will actually be seeded despite several weeks' worth of games left in the season to affect the outcomes? If not, what's the "disservice to readers"?

Yes - that is exactly what I believe. And some other more nuanced points. And some other "inside baseball" points. Which all add up to me feeling it's a disservice. The vast majority of readers are not you, or anyone here on this board. The vast majority are clueless ... or, to be more kind, they are casual readers, who don't really understand what they're reading. When you combine the fact that the articles really don't make these points clear, well ....

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

adamw

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

Responding both to this and your other reply to me... can I ask, on what basis are you making that assertion? I'm genuinely curious, not just shit-stirring.

Jim Hyla
Better late than never?

Was this the Adam effect?

I don't mind playing ASU, but does it have to be in Fargo?

This week’s brackets

West Regional (Fargo):
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
12 Cornell vs. 8 Arizona State

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
15 Notre Dame vs. 3 Minnesota Duluth
10 Clarkson vs. 7 Ohio State

East Regional (Providence):
13 Harvard vs. 4 Minnesota State
9 Providence vs. 5 Quinnipiac

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
14 Western Michigan vs. 2 Massachusetts
11 Northeastern vs. 6 Denver
Conference breakdowns

ECAC Hockey — 4
NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 3
Big Ten – 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Independent – 1
WCHA — 1

I ran a Bracketology myself earlier in the week and came to the same conclusion: Cornell being the low seed in the 3-band would get screwed in order to give Providence a home game.

It would be nice if Providence's #8 position holds up, but my guess is they need to do pretty well in the HE tourney to stay up there.

Beeeej

adamw

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

Responding both to this and your other reply to me... can I ask, on what basis are you making that assertion? I'm genuinely curious, not just shit-stirring.

Based upon the deluge of dumb tweets and emails I receive on a regular basis, particularly around this time of year. Also based upon - anecdotally speaking - the traffic numbers we see for these things, compared to my assumptions of how many "in the know" people there actually are. For example, how many people, in hard numbers, actually post on this message board on a regular basis? 20? The readership of each article is upwards of 10,000 - probably more when you combine USCHO/CHN/NCAA sites. The vast majority of people who read the sites are not active, long-time college hockey die hards - let alone ones with institutional knowledge, so to speak, of these things.

adamw
Based upon the deluge of dumb tweets and emails I receive on a regular basis, particularly around this time of year. Also based upon - anecdotally speaking - the traffic numbers we see for these things, compared to my assumptions of how many "in the know" people there actually are. For example, how many people, in hard numbers, actually post on this message board on a regular basis? 20? The readership of each article is upwards of 10,000 - probably more when you combine USCHO/CHN/NCAA sites. The vast majority of people who read the sites are not active, long-time college hockey die hards - let alone ones with institutional knowledge, so to speak, of these things.

I'll quote myself to add, that it's also, to some extent, based upon how I see people discussing these articles. Again, not necessarily here.

adamw

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

As with everything else, the vast majority are morons, so fuck em.

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

As with everything else, the vast majority are morons, so fuck em.

"Hear, hear! Well spoken, Bruce!"

Wisc beating PSU helps
MSU almost took down ND

Verm ties lowell

not sure CC beating Denver does much even if they do it again

west Mich
bowlin green
ND
PSU
North Dak

all the teams below us would be nice to see lose

Not in Fargo, but tougher first game opponent.

West Regional (Fargo):
16 American International vs. 1 St. Cloud State
10 Arizona State vs. 7 Denver

Midwest Regional (Allentown):
13 Western Michigan vs. 3 Minnesota State
12 Cornell vs. 6 Ohio State

East Regional (Providence):
14 Harvard vs. 4 Minnesota Duluth
9 Providence vs. 5 Quinnipiac

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
15 Notre Dame vs. 2 Massachusetts
11 Clarkson vs. 8 Northeastern

Conference breakdowns

ECAC Hockey — 4
NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 3
Big Ten – 2
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Independent – 1
WCHA — 1

I'd take that bracket in a heartbeat.

Trotsky
I'd take that bracket in a heartbeat.

St Cloud's collective heartbeat would be faster if this is their draw.

adamw

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

When I used to do this, I called it "If the season ended today" which seems like it describes the role pretty succinctly.

jtwcornell91

adamw

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

When I used to do this, I called it "If the season ended today" which seems like it describes the role pretty succinctly.

Yes, that is perfect.

Trotsky

jtwcornell91

adamw

Trotsky

Beeeej
But of course as soon as last night's BC @ PC game got played, this prediction was completely moot regardless of the outcome.

That particular game appears to have changed nothing, but sure things continue to evolve.

I wouldn't call these things predictions. I'd call them training to show people how to understand and create a bracket in preparation for the real one. They're like math problems -- nobody thinks you're going to get the identical problem set at work someday, but they teach you how to perform the algorithm.

You understand them to be that way. The vast majority do not.

When I used to do this, I called it "If the season ended today" which seems like it describes the role pretty succinctly.

Yes, that is perfect.

You mean sort of like including in the headline "...if NCAA tournament started today" and including in the text "Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played..."? Yeah, it really sucks that Jayson doesn't do anything like that. Terribly misleading to the vast majority of people.

Beeeej
You mean sort of like including in the headline "...if NCAA tournament started today" and including in the text "Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played..."? Yeah, it really sucks that Jayson doesn't do anything like that. Terribly misleading to the vast majority of people.

All true, but it's somewhat undercut by this:

Jayson Moy, USCHO.com
It’s our weekly look at how I believe the NCAA tournament might look like come selection time, using what we know now.

djk26

Beeeej
You mean sort of like including in the headline "...if NCAA tournament started today" and including in the text "Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played..."? Yeah, it really sucks that Jayson doesn't do anything like that. Terribly misleading to the vast majority of people.

All true, but it's somewhat undercut by this:

Jayson Moy, USCHO.com
It’s our weekly look at how I believe the NCAA tournament might look like come selection time, using what we know now.

Listen, I'm willing to take as an article of faith that there are some dumb people out there. But not understanding what Jayson is doing - especially when what Adam does later is not materially much different - requires a seriously willful level of dumb.

Beeeej

djk26

Beeeej
You mean sort of like including in the headline "...if NCAA tournament started today" and including in the text "Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played..."? Yeah, it really sucks that Jayson doesn't do anything like that. Terribly misleading to the vast majority of people.

All true, but it's somewhat undercut by this:

Jayson Moy, USCHO.com
It’s our weekly look at how I believe the NCAA tournament might look like come selection time, using what we know now.

Listen, I'm willing to take as an article of faith that there are some dumb people out there. But not understanding what Jayson is doing - especially when what Adam does later is not materially much different - requires a seriously willful level of dumb.

hahaha you think that maybe there is not much that seems like willful dumbness in the world

ugarte

Beeeej

djk26

Beeeej
You mean sort of like including in the headline "...if NCAA tournament started today" and including in the text "Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played..."? Yeah, it really sucks that Jayson doesn't do anything like that. Terribly misleading to the vast majority of people.

All true, but it's somewhat undercut by this:

Jayson Moy, USCHO.com
It’s our weekly look at how I believe the NCAA tournament might look like come selection time, using what we know now.

Listen, I'm willing to take as an article of faith that there are some dumb people out there. But not understanding what Jayson is doing - especially when what Adam does later is not materially much different - requires a seriously willful level of dumb.

hahaha you think that maybe there is not much that seems like willful dumbness in the world

According to "FiveThirtyEight" it's about 41.6% right now.

Beeeej

djk26

Beeeej
You mean sort of like including in the headline "...if NCAA tournament started today" and including in the text "Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played..."? Yeah, it really sucks that Jayson doesn't do anything like that. Terribly misleading to the vast majority of people.

All true, but it's somewhat undercut by this:

Jayson Moy, USCHO.com
It’s our weekly look at how I believe the NCAA tournament might look like come selection time, using what we know now.

Listen, I'm willing to take as an article of faith that there are some dumb people out there. But not understanding what Jayson is doing - especially when what Adam does later is not materially much different - requires a seriously willful level of dumb.

Have you looked around?

adamw

Beeeej

djk26

Beeeej
You mean sort of like including in the headline "...if NCAA tournament started today" and including in the text "Bracketology assumes that the season has ended and there are no more games to be played..."? Yeah, it really sucks that Jayson doesn't do anything like that. Terribly misleading to the vast majority of people.

All true, but it's somewhat undercut by this:

Jayson Moy, USCHO.com
It’s our weekly look at how I believe the NCAA tournament might look like come selection time, using what we know now.

Listen, I'm willing to take as an article of faith that there are some dumb people out there. But not understanding what Jayson is doing - especially when what Adam does later is not materially much different - requires a seriously willful level of dumb.

Have you looked around?

If he hadn't would that be a willful level of dumb?

Back to the lecture at hand, we currently sit at 15. Remember how last year turned to shit in the blink of an eye?

Trotsky
Back to the lecture at hand, we currently sit at 15.

From what I can tell, we're definitely out if we lose tomorrow.

If we win tomorrow and lose Sunday, we have a chance of sticking in the top 15 and maybe having a shot.

Dafatone

Trotsky
Back to the lecture at hand, we currently sit at 15.

From what I can tell, we're definitely out if we lose tomorrow.

If we win tomorrow and lose Sunday, we have a chance of sticking in the top 15 and maybe having a shot.

Q lost. Bowling Green is in the WCHA final. A lot has to break right still for 15 to be good enough.

ugarte

Dafatone

Trotsky
Back to the lecture at hand, we currently sit at 15.

From what I can tell, we're definitely out if we lose tomorrow.

If we win tomorrow and lose Sunday, we have a chance of sticking in the top 15 and maybe having a shot.

Q lost. Bowling Green is in the WCHA final. A lot has to break right still for 15 to be good enough.

Bowling Green won 1 out of 3 in their semifinal series. NMU, like CU, can still come back to win the series and get to the finals.

If NMU wins the next 2, it should drop BGU from the top 15.

However the only thing that really matters in the WCHA, is for Minnesota State to win it all and they just squeaked by LSU 2-1 in their first game.

BC’s 2-1 win over Providence pushes Cornell to 11th in the PWR

scoop85
BC’s 2-1 win over Providence pushes Cornell to 11th in the PWR

10^th in KRACH and ASU is 15, meaning likely out of the NCAAs.

playing with a few results if we lose to brown and clarkson beats harvard we may stay ahead of harvard.

Currently in PWR:

05 Qpc
09 Clk
11 Cor
12 Hvd

If we meet Harvard in the final that probably means 4 ECAC teams in the NC$$.

Trotsky
Currently in PWR:

05 Qpc
09 Clk
11 Cor
12 Hvd

If we meet Harvard in the final that probably means 4 ECAC teams in the NC$$.

That would be pretty awesome, even if one of them would be Q.