Win out or get screwed for the Big Red

A quick look at the PWR after the UNH win seems to show that our comparison with UNH will flip (as will our pairwise positions) if we lose another game before the NCAA tourney - since BU is currently in the #4 spot and must stay in Worcester, if UNH passes us we get sent West. Am I missing something? That seems awfully unfair, but it seems to be the way the math works out.

Cabot

It's definitely the way things work out, and you're right, it sucks.

One correction though, if we lose to a TUC. Should Colgate make Albany, losing to them wouldn't give us another loss vs. TUC, unless winning move them up enough to be a TUC.

Curious to see what happens with the bonus points for "quality wins"....

Unless I missed something, UHN's only out-of-conference "good win" was over Minnesota, and that was at home.

It wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA found some way to keep them east, though. Maybe we do want Providence in the #4 seed at the Dunk.

Or two losses and a 2 seed. (Just kidding.)

Is it possible for us to fall to #3 and have someone else bump BU down to #5 (making BU the 2 seed in Worcester)?



Post Edited (03-16-03 01:19)

I say we make things easy and win 2 in Albany.

If good wins are wins over TUCs not in conference, then:

Cornell: A (OSU), H (BU), H (BU), A (WMU), A (WMU)
UNH: H (Minny)
BU: H (Harvard), N (Michigan State), N (Michigan), N (Harvard)

[Q]Is it possible for us to fall to #3 and have someone else bump BU down to #5 (making BU the 2 seed in Worcester)?[/Q]
i was looking into this before, and it's not too likely. The most obvious candidate would be Ferris State, but they'd need to overtake BU in the RPI category, and a very basic analysis (through JTW's scripts) of them winning against the #4 and #2 in the CCHA (Mich and Mich St) showed they wouldn't gain half the RPI they needed to, but if anyone wants to give #2 and #4 the requisite wins first, you can see if that makes a difference, though I highly doubt it'd be big enough.

Maine's not going anywhere.

The only hope is Minn then, which has a closer RPI, but unfortunately loses the comparison 3-1. They'd need to grab TUC too, and that just doesn't look close enough right now (my post-Dunbars mind doesn't feel like doing the legwork ).

So, Albany is big for us this year, even though we come into it as a given for the NCAAs, it's probably as big than Placid last year, where some loses would have knocked us out (the one loss to Hahvahd gave us the last at large bid, if I remember correctly).

Edit: Greg, WMU isn't even close to top 15 RPI, so they don't count. And at the moment, neither is Michigan St.



Post Edited (03-16-03 01:42)

I took a cursory look. Minny can flip the comparisons with Maine and Dartmouth, but I don't see anyone else (and they need to beat CC to flip either, I think). I can't see anyone who could flip BU, so Minny would still be #5, at best. FSU has a "low" RPI, so I don't know who they could catch.

Grrrr.

> Edit: Greg, WMU isn't even close to top 15 RPI, so they don't count. And at the moment, neither is Michigan St.

So, it's top 15 RPI. OK.

Folks, our biggest allies are the Gophers. If they win their tournament, CC goes to that nasty Yost place as #1 there; with Minn #1 at home. Of course, winning in Albany will help too. We'll be #! in Worcester, BU #2. UNH at Prov. because a rematch betwen UNH and BU is undesireable.

Cabot Nunlist wrote:

A quick look at the PWR after the UNH win seems to show that our comparison with UNH will flip (as will our pairwise positions) if we lose another game before the NCAA tourney - since BU is currently in the #4 spot and must stay in Worcester, if UNH passes us we get sent West. Am I missing something? That seems awfully unfair, but it seems to be the way the math works out.

I just ran JTW's RPI script a couple of times with a couple of scenarios, involving a win vs. our 3 possible Semi-Final opponents (prior to the 2 QF game 3s), and a loss to Harvard in the finals (please, god, no). I only included the QF, SF, and ECAC Final results (no consolation), and of course it doesn't include the good win bonus.

With a SF win vs. Yale and a loss to Harvard, we still beat UNH in RPI, .5903 to .5894, and would therefore win the comparison with UNH 2-1.

With a SF win vs. Brown and a loss to Harvard, we still beat UNH in RPI .5894 to .5892, and would therefore win the comparison with UNH 2-1.

With a SF win vs. Colgate and a loss to Harvard, UNH wins in RPI .5880 to .5890, and UNH would win the comparison 2-1, and take the #2 PWR position.

I didn't look at anything else, such as if we lost to another team besides Harvard, because I'm lazy. Also, too many negative thoughts is bad for me.

Just win the ECAC Championship, and Cornell Nation can party without worry.



Post Edited (03-16-03 14:03)

Rich Hovorka '96 wrote:

With a SF win vs. Colgate and a loss to Harvard, UNH wins in RPI .5880 to .5890, and UNH would win the comparison 2-1, and take the #2 PWR position.

Obviously nobody knows what the RPI bonus points situation is, but if two wins over BU and a win over OSU aren't worth .001 more than a win over Minnesota, the bonus points are so lacking in value that we have been worrying over nothing (except for the suspicions of dishonesty). If Rich is right about all of the calculations (given his caveat that he didn't run all of the numbers), we should be 1 win away from placement on the East coast.

Brown's win over Yale makes them a TUC, if they remain a TUC a 1-1 record at Placid will keep the record vs. TUC point in our favor. So, the comparison with UNH is more solid than it appears. Of course, Brown would probably need to win the consy to stay a TUC, but I don't know fgor sure. Just losing to us might be enough to solidify Brown's RPI above .5000.

The quality win bonus does appear to be in our favor if OSU stays in the top 15.

What I forgot to say is, of course, if we want a #1 seed and a stay east, then I recommend winning twice. The team should be able to do that, if the season is any guide.

Yeah, figures that now that Brown has finally clawed its way above .500 in RPI, we have to beat them.

Seems like the best results this weekend are for Cornell to win out (duh), and Brown to beat Dartmouth in the consy. That would give us the better RPI (by facing Harvard) and would almost certainly leave Brown as a TUC. Those results would solidify our PWCs vs. UNH and UMinn, so we'll have a legit complaint if we end up in Michigan. Even if we end up losing the final (please no!) it would still be better to lose to Harvard than to Dartmouth. OTOH, there'd be a very slim chance that if we lost to Dartmouth in the final and Harvard won the consy that there would be 3 ECAC teams in the NCAAs. Wouldn't that just yank everyone's chain on USCHO???

Teams lower than #14 in PWR who are still alive in their tournaments:

Dartmouth
Brown
NMU
Denver (as of this posting - still in OT with UND)

I don't think that NMU or Denver will win their tournaments, regardless. Looking like it will be the top 14 PWR teams + MAAC champ + CHA champ. Here's hoping that Havard stays top 14 even with one more loss....

Okay, okay - I know it's bad form to post 3 times in a row, but I'm killing time until the UND/DU game is over....

Here are the KRACH probabilities of the 8 possible outcomes of the semis and finals this weekend. Forget the consy, winners listed and total probability (obviously just freezing KRACH ratings where they are now) of all three of those outcomes in order of liklihood:

Cornell,Harvard,Cornell = .407
Cornell,Dartmouth, Cornell = .256
Cornell,Harvard,Harvard = .158
Brown,Harvard,Harvard = .058
Cornell,Dartmouth,Dartmouth = .055
Brown,Dartmouth,Dartmouth = .026
Brown,Harvard,Brown = .021
Brown,Dartmouth,Brown = .017

(sums to .998 due to roundoff error). Doing a little summing, probability of each team winning the championship:

Cornell: .663
Harvard: .216
Dartmouth: .081
Brown: .038

Denver just got bonked; let's assume that NMU doesn't win, then the probability of #14 PWR team getting in is basically the probability of Cornell OR Harvard winning the title, which is 0.881.

In other words, SCSU and PC fans should become huge anti-Harvard fans - if Harvard were to lose 2, Harvard would probably drop out of the top 14, leaving room for another bubble team to take their place. They should also have lukewarm feelings for Dartmouth - cheer for Dartmouth over Harvard, and if that fails, cheer for Dartmouth in the consy, but they obviously don't want Dartmouth winning the title.

WCHA finally finished up, so it's bedtime....

USCHO's PWR page now has links to pages where you can set bonus point amounts for "quality wins" and see the impact on "adjusted" RPI.

Interesting thing is that, given current RPI rankings, only three teams have a quality road win: Cornell, Michigan, and SCSU. And only two teams have three quality wins: Cornell (1 road and 2 home) and BU (2 neutral and 1 home).

Rk Team                GP  W- L- T  Win%  Rk     RPI  Rk  PWR
 1 Colorado College    38 28- 5- 5 0.8026  2 | 0.5931  1 | 28
 2 Cornell             31 26- 4- 1 0.8548  1 | 0.5899  2 | 27
 3 New Hampshire       38 25- 7- 6 0.7368  4 | 0.5894  3 | 26
 4 Boston University   40 24-13- 3 0.6375 13 | 0.5854  4 | 25
 5 Maine               38 24- 9- 5 0.6974  7 | 0.5806  6 | 23
   Ferris State        38 29- 8- 1 0.7763  3 | 0.5664  8 | 23
 7 Minnesota           39 22- 8- 9 0.6795  9 | 0.5840  5 | 22
 8 Boston College      37 23-10- 4 0.6757 11 | 0.5795  7 | 21
 9 North Dakota        41 26-10- 5 0.6951  8 | 0.5637  9 | 19
   Michigan            38 26- 9- 3 0.7237  5 | 0.5606 10 | 19
11 MSU-Mankato         38 20- 8-10 0.6579 12 | 0.5596 11 | 18
12 Ohio State          39 24-10- 5 0.6795  9 | 0.5528 13 | 17
13 Harvard             31 21- 8- 2 0.7097  6 | 0.5543 12 | 15
14 Michigan State      38 23-13- 2 0.6316 15 | 0.5462 16 | 14
15 St. Cloud State     37 17-15- 5 0.5270 27 | 0.5524 14 | 13
   Providence          36 19-14- 3 0.5694 20 | 0.5461 17 | 13
17 Dartmouth           32 19-12- 1 0.6094 17 | 0.5248 19 | 12
   Northern Michigan   38 20-16- 2 0.5526 25 | 0.5244 20 | 12
19 Denver              41 21-14- 6 0.5854 18 | 0.5508 15 | 11
20 Massachusetts       37 19-17- 1 0.5270 27 | 0.5313 18 | 10
21 Notre Dame          39 17-16- 6 0.5128 30 | 0.5216 21 |  8
   Minnesota-Duluth    39 20-14- 5 0.5769 19 | 0.5194 22 |  8
23 Merrimack           36 12-18- 6 0.4167 40 | 0.5154 23 |  5
   Yale                32 18-14- 0 0.5625 22 | 0.5145 24 |  5
25 Miami               41 21-17- 3 0.5488 26 | 0.5083 26 |  4
26 Western Michigan    38 15-21- 2 0.4211 39 | 0.5118 25 |  3
27 Mass.-Lowell        36 11-20- 5 0.3750 45 | 0.5057 27 |  2
   Brown               33 16-12- 5 0.5606 23 | 0.5010 29 |  2
29 Alaska-Fairbanks    36 15-14- 7 0.5139 29 | 0.5011 28 |  1

i am confused about the quality wins:

quality road wins

quality home wins

quality neutral wins

these are all against top 15 pwr teams?

so for cornell - 1 home and 1 road vs hahvahd, 1 away vs. OSU, 2 home vs. BU = 3 home, 2 road wins. why does the current page for that script on uscho say 1 road, 2 home? just curious

Yes, all top 15, but only non-conference - so only OSU away BU x2 home... thought we'd been over this

Robb, you forgot to mention two other teams: Minnesota Duluth (T21) and Notre Dame (not currently a TUC).

Is Wayne State a TUC now? I know that autoqualifiers used to be, but don't know if that is still the case.

yeah, we had. been going to the games and also i have been without a computer - also dealing with other stuff plus, i am forgetful **)

Can someone post the link to JTWs RPI script pls?

Thanks,

Cabot

The "Build Your Own Rankings" is at
[slack.net]

[Q]Brown's win over Yale makes them a TUC, if they remain a TUC a 1-1 record at Placid will keep the record vs. TUC point in our favor. So, the comparison with UNH is more solid than it appears. Of course, Brown would probably need to win the consy to stay a TUC, but I don't know fgor sure. Just losing to us might be enough to solidify Brown's RPI above .5000.[/Q]
Playing with JTW's script this morning, it seems even two losses for Brown would push their RPI up over 0.0100, even if those are to us and Dartmouth, doesn't even have to be Hahvahd.

As for us, two wins (no matter who they're against - Brown and Da/Ha) would push up over CC in RPI, giving us the #1 PWR slot in the nation. On the other hand, a win and a loss to Hahvahd loss would push us 0.0001 below UNH (bonus points please?), though if Brown wins the consy we remain 0.0008 above UNH having played them more than Dartmouth (so we'll have reason to route in the consy). If we were to lose to Da in the final, we'd be 0.0020 below UNH in RPI.

One big BUT, since Brown will remain a TUC, a win and a loss to a TUC brings us to 12-4-1, or a 0.7353 record versus TUCs. This still barely edges our UNH's 0.7333, giving us the comparison, regardless of RPI. If you wanna check scenarios with two loses, be my guest, but I ain't going there, and I don't think we'd have a chance then anyway.

Also, root for OSU this weekend to help us out.



Post Edited (03-17-03 15:01)

Don't forget that UNH's RPI will be changing as things go as well since several of their opponents on the year are still in action. That includes Cornell, Dartmouth, and Minnesota (not to mention UNH's opponents opponents...)

So, Dartmouth, Minnesota and yes, even our wins will help UNH's RPI.

Wayyy to many possibilities to analyze there. Let's just win.

Cornell didn't play UHN this year, so our wins aren't gonna help 'em--except tertiarily [word?] as "opponents' opponents."



Post Edited (03-17-03 18:47)

[Q]Don't forget that UNH's RPI will be changing as things go as well since several of their opponents on the year are still in action. That includes Cornell, Dartmouth, and Minnesota (not to mention UNH's opponents opponents...)

So, Dartmouth, Minnesota and yes, even our wins will help UNH's RPI. [/Q]
True, only that Whelan's scripts do a full calculation, and includes those effects. I noticed that UNH's RPI was changing a bit too as I entered ECAC tourney results, but didn't know why - but Dartmouth would explain it. The only effects I didn't include is possible results in other tournaments, but that would be far too much to enter.

So, if I'm correct is assuming that even two Brown losses would keep them a TUC, then none of the RPI stuff matters as far as as our UNH comparison. And, it wasn't like it was close. Brown's two losses would raise their RPI from the current (which is around 0.5010) to something more like 0.5150 . I can't see secondary effects having nearly that large of a reverse influence.

The only other thing I can think of would be if some team entered as a TUC that UNH had beaten, but I'm pretty sure, excluding MAAC, all the sub 0.500 RPI teams are done and not all that close to the 0.5000 mark, and UNH didn't play any MAAC teams.

Cornell should just win out.

That being said, the flaws of the Pairwise system which while well documented are blatantly obvious here. A school that finishes fifth in their conference (BU) should not get a number 1 seed let alone if they didn't even win the postseason tournament.

Looking at this from UHN's perspective, I would be really ticked. You win the regular season championship. You win the postseason championship. You get sent west while the 5th seed you beat to win the title stays east because they bought the regional. Things can still change but as pointed out, BU looks tough to knock out of the top four.

In the days when winning RS and postseason meant an automatic bye, it got you one game away from the Frozen Four and getting sent west was not that big a deal. Now it gets you no closer to the FF and puts you hundreds and hundreds of miles from your fan base.

Similarly if Cornell finishes third with UNH 2nd and BU 4th, Cornell stands a chance to get sent west. To finish third we have to lose a game in Albany so our argument is not as strong as UHN's but we did beat BU twice and would be higher than them so to get sent west still makes no sense (well, it makes perfect sense by the rules)

Perhaps the Committee should come up with the bonus wins numbers so as to find a way to get BU out of the top four and justify them as a #2 seed. Just playing with the numbers, I can't find a way to do that. But I do like the way the numbers play out with Cornell benefiting more than UHN it appears.

Wonder if the Committee will actually tell us the bonus point system they used so we can see if we actually did pass Colorado College (although their RPI can shoot up in the WCHA tournament). We can probably guess though since BU seems a lock at #4, that whoever would draw BU in the semifinals finished #1 in the Committee's rankings.

JY3 wrote:

[Q]these are all against top 15 pwr teams?[/Q]

No - top 15 RPI teams.

I would not underestimate the "ka-ching" factor. The NCAA is about money, and CU is a much better draw in the east. If I remember correctly, ability to draw fans is one of the considerations in deciding where a team plays.

[Q]I would not underestimate the "ka-ching" factor. The NCAA is about money, and CU is a much better draw in the east. If I remember correctly, ability to draw fans is one of the considerations in deciding where a team plays.[/Q]
Yes, but it's pretty much the last one, and, according to the guidelines, doesn't play into the seedings of the #1s at all. Besides, what part of your sentence it's just as true for UNH?

The basic point about seedings is, if you are Cornell or UNH would you rather be a #2 seed and play in Worcester/Providence or be a #1 seed and play in Ann Arbor/Minneapolis? I suspect the #2 seed might look more attractive, though I can't really judge how much value a team might place on having the last line change in the regional final.

For me, it's all about the colors. I've gotten over it a little bit in the last year or two, but I've always hated our road colors. Seriously, we're the "home team" throughout the ECAC tourney - how cool would it be to remain the "home team" throughout the NCAA tourney (until and unless we play CC)?

Desperately needing sleep,
Beeeej

If all you care about are the colors, you have too many frequent flyer miles to use. I care about the proximity.

[q]For me, it's all about the colors. I've gotten over it a little bit in the last year or two, but I've always hated our road colors. Seriously, we're the "home team" throughout the ECAC tourney - how cool would it be to remain the "home team" throughout the NCAA tourney (until and unless we play CC)?[/q]

Amen.

I don't hate the colors, per se. I hate how we always seem to play in them. Granted, if we're in those colors it means we're most likely on the road or a lower seed at a netrual site, so naturally we're not going to have the home-ice advantage, but we always seem a step slower and a bit sloppier in those Red unis.

But that could be all psychological on my part, being that I've been at 3 of our 4 losses this year -- all in red. Anyway, I like the whites.

If the bonus points boost us like they seem to, and we win out in the ECACs, we may be wearing whites the whole tourny, even if we make it to the NCAA finals.

I can't believe that Tom has fallen for this specious 'BU is not a #1 seed because they finished 5th' argument. BU played a killer non-conference schedule (#1 SOS by KRACH and not by a little, either) and did very well in it. Their 5th place was a close 5th place, and then they won 3 playoff games against good teams. A #1 seed is not a ridiculous result. A #2 seed is certainly justified (KRACH has them #7), and now we're just talking about fine gradations.

I want to stay East because I am going to be in Boston next week and it'd be nice not to have to figure out how to get to AA or the Twin Cities and then back to Philly on the fly.

Oh come on, Larry. Tom hasn't "fallen" for the 5th place argument. Some of us have stated previously that we think conference standing should count for more when it comes to tournament selection/seeding. I'd personally like to see UNH win the comparison with BU immediately based on HE finish (tourney and RS). then either use RS or tourney finish or a combination of both to decide the BU/BC and BU/Maine comparisons. We don't need arcane formulas to decide which team is better when they're from the same conference.

To sum up, it's not a specious argument if you start from the assumption that conference finish should matter. The committee doesn't start from this point, so it remains just an argument.

A number of people I know have made the comment that they don't like our road uniform. (It's obviously not the "colors".) I feel the need to stand up for the road reds! I actually prefer the road uniforms and would be extremely happy if they switched to the old time practice of wearing colored sweaters at home.

Lets go RED!

I have no problem with a #2 seed. They deserve a #2 seed. They have had a great season (except against us).

All's I'm saying is that UNH played the same HE schedule BU did and finished seven points ahead of them. UNH, while having an easier route to the title game, beat BU. Both UNH wins over BU this season were shutouts. Yet in the current scenario BU stays east and UNH goes west. There's just something wrong with that result even if it is all according to the rules. Going west as a 1 seed used to mean something in the 12-team tournament and now, while it means a somewhat easier first round game, it's lost a lot of meaning.

I don't want to finish third and get sent west and I'd rather not have to do Providence because tickets are much more expensive there. I have tix for Worcester and will probably go to the Friday games in Worcester even if we wind up in Providence. But I don't think I would go to the Providence games if we wound up in Worcester or maybe just the Sunday game in Providence.

I don't know if conference standings ought to count as an overall criterion. I mean, conference games (which determine conference standings) are already counted in the overall record. It's not like conference games/conference tourney games are somehow taken out of overall record, strength of schedule, or any other criterion.

BU deserves to be where they are right now.

It is a specious argument. Conference games count every bit as much as other games. So do non-conference games. I think all games are on equal footing as far as determining how good a team is. BU lost 3.5 more conference games, their non-conference performance makes up for it, I see no problem there.

The problem here isn't BU's #1 seed, it's the fact they are hosting their regional and get to stay east over a higher seeded UNH team. That's not based on performance at all, and I have a problem with that, too. But it has nothing direct to do with finishing tied for 4th in their conference.

The point is that comparing conference records against identical (or nearly so) schedules provides a better measure of relative strength. It's clear cut, doesn't depend on subjective weighting functions like the 25-50-25 in RPI, and doesn't need any strength of schedule compensation because the SoS is the same. While it's true that non-conference games are needed to compare teams from different conferences with disparate schedules, it's also true that the sample size is quite small. (Not that conference schedules are "large" in a statistical sense, but 22 is significantly better than 7 [Ivy] and 24 is better than 10 [HE, I think]).

Whatever.

But Keith, I think your argument presupposes balanced conference schedules, which not every conference has. We're lucky to have it in the ECAC.

Keith K '93 wrote:
subjective weighting functions like the 25-50-25 in RPI

Arbitrary? Yes. Subjective? No.

Cribbing from my old laxpower.com post on a similar topic, subjective means "taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias" and I take bias to mean "a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." The RPI weighting may be screwy, but you don't get a different result if you or I calculate it. Thus, I dislike you use of the word subjective.

If you care, check out [forums.laxpower.com]

Otherwise, you can buy me a beer in Albany.

WordUseMan exits stage left....

Good point, Keith. HE does have a balanced schedule. Of course, no one is arguing BU is a higher seeded team than UNH, it only comes out that way because of the hosting thing. The real question is, should BU be a #1 over, say, Minnesota? BU's 5th place finish is irrelevant to that question, except in the indirect (and rather vague) information it reveals about BU's wins and losses during the season.

(Yes, I have ignored the question of whether BU should be rated above BC or Maine, having finished behind them in HE.) I'll leave that be for now.

I'm only arguing that BU should lose the comparison with UNH based on conference results and probably Maine and BC too. I fully agree that you need to use out of conference data, inaccurate as it may be, to judge between BU and Minny.

Strictly speaking Hockey East isn't truly balanced because of the home ice inequity arising from three games against each team.

WordUseMan (a.k.a. Captain Pedantic, etc.):

Yes, I probably meant something more like arbitrary than subjective. But since you mention it, I think I'll be argumentative. In a sense the RPI breakdown is subjective. It's based on a subjective decision on the importance of strength of schedule as opposed to winning percentage. The breakdown was changed from 35-50-15 back to 25-50-25 because of a belief that this would result in a ranking that more accurately predicts the relative strengths of teams in the different conferences (in particular dropping the RPI of MAAC teams and raising WCHA and HE teams). In the absense of data objectively verifying the correctness of this assumption, the decision must be considered at least somewhat subjective. As far as I know the committee didn't cite any evidence to justify the change (even though something like KRACH might be used to do so).

RPI and PWR are objective methods, once their components and formulas are established. Setting the qualifications is at least arbitrary and probably somewhat subjecive.

Wow, here's something from the USCHO boards I never would picked up on...

If QU or Mercy win the MAAC, then it makes them a TUC, giving Maine an extra win or two vs. TUCs (beat Qu once, Mercy twice). BU/Maine are incredibly close in that category, so it would swing the BU/Maine comparison to Maine.- tieing them overall, with the tiebreaker probably going to Maine since they win the head to head Pairwise comparison.

Knocking BU down to a #2 would mean the top 2 eastern schools stay east - us and UNH - instead of just the top 1. So we're safe unless we really crash and drop past Maine. And it'd be almost be 'fair' to send Maine west, with their crappy end of the season.

I would never have picked up on that either even after realizing that Wayne State is now a TUC. With all else unchanged, if Mercy or QU wins the MAAC, BU and Maine would tie with 25 comparisons won and Maine would win the tiebreaker with BU. BU still plays in Worcester as a 2 seed. Maine gets a 1 seed but would go west for faltering down the stretch. We get a 1 seed in Worcester and get a possible QF matchup with BU (Worcester is closer to Ithaca than Providence) and get to thank Mercyhurst or Quinnipiac for winning the MAAC by playing them in the first round. Life would be good.

I find it very ironic that BU, who played the toughest schedule, thus allowing them enough comparison wins to put them into position for a #1 seeding, might lose that seeding at the very end because Maine put four games against the weakest conference on their schedule.

A butterfly flaps its wings . . .

Tom P. 98 wrote:
I find it very ironic that BU, who played the toughest schedule, thus allowing them enough comparison wins to put them into position for a #1 seeding, might lose that seeding at the very end because Maine put four games against the weakest conference on their schedule.

Once again illustrating the silliness of TUC in particular and PWR in general. That having been said, I sure as hell hope it keeps Cornell east.

There's another possibility. If Minnesota beats CC, they'll flip their comparison with Maine based on COP. If Maine also flips the comparison with BU via the Mercyhurst/QU route, then Minn,Maine,BU will all be tied for the #1 seed (Minnestoa's loss to Dartmouth should become irrelevant by the time we get to this point, so I'm returning to them that point in the PWR). Minnesota will almost surely have the RPI lead among the 3 teams, and get the #1 seed. We'd definitely stay east then with 2 western and 2 eastern #1 seeds.

(I saw INCH has Minnesota as a 1 seed in their bracketology, which they don't confine to ITSET. I tried to figure out if it was even possible. I think it is. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

[Q]Once again illustrating the silliness of TUC in particular and PWR in general. [/Q]

Al, you've made this many times and while I don't entirely disagree, I did want to comment. In principle it makes complete sense to judge a team based on how well it plays against good competition. "Good competition" is defined by drawing a line in the sand, RPI or Win% or whatever. No matter where you draw the line, there will always be teams on the bubble and thus other teams whose PWR will benefit or hurt from small perturbations. The thing is, the system is designed to make sense this coming Sunday, on selection day when all the games have been played. At that point we evaluate who is a TUC and then judge teams accordingly. The silliness arises when we try to rank teams before the end of the season and when we watch how PWR progresses through time.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to do predictions, etc. before all is said and done. It's entertaining. But we should realize that the ranking system isn't designed to be smooth over time - it's just designed to "work" (in some fashion) at the end of the season.

Sorry, Keith, but I disagree.

The fact that one weak team of necessity has to win the MAAC--and also the CHA--doesn't automatically make that team "good competition," to use your phrase from above. If QU should beat Mercyhurst--or vice versa--in the MAAC championship game, it won't make either one a stronger team than they were before. A win over QU--or Mercyhurst-- should not be equated to a win over a legitimate TUC--and yet it will in the NCAAs eyes come Sunday.

[Tom's last paragraph above states it very nicely, by the way.]

Maybe the phrase "teams-under-consideration" has become meaningless, and the criterion should be changed to read "record-against-teams-with-RPI-equal-to-or-greater-than-.500." (To which I'd like to see added "and-with-winning-percentage-greater-than-.500." But that's topic for another discussion.)

Lastly, Keith, for the umpteenth time, I really do understand that TUC is intended to be applied only at the end of the season. Really I do. My problem is the very arbitrary cutoff between TUCness and non-TUCness, and the fact that a win (or loss) against a .4999999999 RPI team doesn't count for squat whereas a win (or loss) against a .5000000001 team counts fully. And, I think it's real silliness when a win over a .4262 RPI team (Bentley, should it win the MAAC), would be counted, if what you're trying to measure is success against "good competition."

Capisce?



Post Edited (03-19-03 14:15)

Al, it seems in my brain deadness I've missed some of the point of your umpteem earlier posts . I totally agree, calling Wayne State a TUC for these purposes is ridiculous.

Tada!!

Another piece of silliness is the possibility that by beating a team--say in the semifinals of your tournament--and thereby knocking it out of TUCness--you could in fact knock yourself down in the rankings (and even perhaps out of the tournament). There was speculation on a USCHO thread that Cornell might be facing that situation with Brown on Friday, but it turned out to be not the case. IMHO, any ranking system where you can hurt your own standing by winning a game is simply wrongheaded.