3-on-3 overtime and the RPI & PWR

Last week Brandon Thomas explained the new ECAC and NCAA rules for regular-season overtime. In short, for intraconference games, the ECAC standings award three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime or shootout win, one for an overtime or shootout loss, and zero for a regulation loss. That's what the IIHF and a lot of European professional leagues do. I think it's a far more rational and superior system to the loser-point system the NHL uses. The Ratings Percentage Index component of the Pairwise Rankings weights the results differently: 100% for a regulation win, 55% for an overtime win, 50% for a shootout win or loss, 45% for an overtime loss, and 0% for a regulation loss. So, after the first two games, according to the RPI, Cornell's winning percentage is .550, not .667 or 1.000.

It will take me a long time to get acclimated to the new system. I don't really know how to process a 55% victory. I'm curious to hear how the rest of you perceive the results.

cbuckser
Last week Brandon Thomas explained the new ECAC and NCAA rules for regular-season overtime. In short, for intraconference games, the ECAC standings award three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime or shootout win, one for an overtime or shootout loss, and zero for a regulation loss. That's what the IIHF and a lot of European professional leagues do. I think it's a far more rational and superior system to the loser-point system the NHL uses. The Ratings Percentage Index component of the Pairwise Rankings weights the results differently: 100% for a regulation win, 55% for an overtime win, 50% for a shootout win or loss, 45% for an overtime loss, and 0% for a regulation loss. So, after the first two games, according to the RPI, Cornell's winning percentage is .550, not .667 or 1.000.

It will take me a long time to get acclimated to the new system. I don't really know how to process a 55% victory. I'm curious to hear how the rest of you perceive the results.

My assessment: pretty damned stupid!!

For pairwise, we are actually under .500. Home wins are multiplied by a .8 factor, and home losses by 1.2.
So our 2-0 record gets factored down to (1.1 x .8) wins and (.9 x 1.2) losses, totalling .88 wins and 1.08 losses.
The committee in charge obviously thinks 3 vs. 3 overtime is fairly meaningless weighting it only .55 vs. .45, why not go back to 5 vs. 5.

jkahn
For pairwise, we are actually under .500. Home wins are multiplied by a .8 factor, and home losses by 1.2.
So our 2-0 record gets factored down to (1.1 x .8) wins and (.9 x 1.2) losses, totalling .88 wins and 1.08 losses.
The committee in charge obviously thinks 3 vs. 3 overtime is fairly meaningless weighting it only .55 vs. .45, why not go back to 5 vs. 5.

I understand the logic: we should win at home and not need overtimes. But the weights seem arbitrary and perverse. I'd rather see 1 as a weight for home wins and a bonus, say 1.2, for away wins; similarly, 1 as a weight for away losses, and say 1.2 for home losses. Maybe use 1.1 or 1.15 instead. The idea is to give full credit for the games a team should win (home) and extra credit for the games a team should not (away), and assume the team should always win at home.

I also don't understand the second part of your explanation.

We get .55 x 2 for the 2 OT wins, and a .2 penalty for doing it at home: 1.1 x .8. Fine.

But what's the bit about 1.08 losses? If we won both games, where do the losses come from?

In the name of eliminating ties, the NCAA has actually caused more games to be counted more or less as ties.

jtwcornell91
In the name of eliminating ties, the NCAA has actually caused more games to be counted more or less as ties.

This! Thank you.

marty

jtwcornell91
In the name of eliminating ties, the NCAA has actually caused more games to be counted more or less as ties.

This! Thank you.

This happens when you lose sight of the forest.

The only games where you can justify extreme measures to ensure a winner are tournament games. In regular season games, a tie, after playing real hockey for a reasonable period of overtime, is perfectly acceptable.

jkahn
For pairwise, we are actually under .500. Home wins are multiplied by a .8 factor, and home losses by 1.2.
So our 2-0 record gets factored down to (1.1 x .8) wins and (.9 x 1.2) losses, totalling .88 wins and 1.08 losses.
The committee in charge obviously thinks 3 vs. 3 overtime is fairly meaningless weighting it only .55 vs. .45, why not go back to 5 vs. 5.

1. I agree completely with the 'why not go back to 5-on-5. Just add the shootout if you have to.

2. [www.collegehockeynews.com] shows our weighted win percentage of .449. Why isn't it 0.49 ... (.88 + 1.08)/4?

Al DeFlorio

marty

jtwcornell91
In the name of eliminating ties, the NCAA has actually caused more games to be counted more or less as ties.

This! Thank you.

This happens when you lose sight of the forest.

The only games where you can justify extreme measures to ensure a winner are tournament games. In regular season games, a tie, after playing real hockey for a reasonable period of overtime, is perfectly acceptable.

But what I think John is saying is that we won both nights this weekend and yet for RPI we got .55 of a win times .8 for being home so our two wins are essentially two ties for post season ranking. I agree that 3x3 for 5 minutes isn't real hockey but with this system in place I ask why have overtime at all?

In the ECAC the points will be more reasonable. But for non-conference games I guess the fans get to see which team is the lion and which team is sacrificed. For post season purposes in NC games there is (almost) no reason to have OT.

lost in the end of the article is the comment on how little this team has practiced the last 2 yrs.. we have done almost no 5x3 stuff and who knows how many other things this group has to get up to speed on. it will be a work in progress for awhile.

marty

Al DeFlorio

marty

jtwcornell91
In the name of eliminating ties, the NCAA has actually caused more games to be counted more or less as ties.

This! Thank you.

This happens when you lose sight of the forest.

The only games where you can justify extreme measures to ensure a winner are tournament games. In regular season games, a tie, after playing real hockey for a reasonable period of overtime, is perfectly acceptable.

For post season purposes in NC games there is (almost) no reason to have OT.

That's what I said...although I have no objection to a 6-on-6 sudden death overtime of defined duration for a regular season game, within conference or not. Going to two decimal places to quantify the results of a game is simply absurd.

on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

Al DeFlorio

marty

Al DeFlorio

marty

jtwcornell91
In the name of eliminating ties, the NCAA has actually caused more games to be counted more or less as ties.

This! Thank you.

This happens when you lose sight of the forest.

The only games where you can justify extreme measures to ensure a winner are tournament games. In regular season games, a tie, after playing real hockey for a reasonable period of overtime, is perfectly acceptable.

For post season purposes in NC games there is (almost) no reason to have OT.

That's what I said...although I have no objection to a 6-on-6 sudden death overtime of defined duration for a regular season game, within conference or not. Going to two decimal places to quantify the results of a game is simply absurd.

I think Al and I are, as a colleague of mine likes to say, in violent agreement. The fact that playoff games fall back to 5x5 OT with no shootout shows that all of these gimmicks are recognized as less than "real hockey". That said, if they're insistent upon using 3x3 and shootouts for regular season games, they should be consistent and use one point system across the board.

upprdeck
on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

Exactly! Many fans love 3x3s and shootouts. I recall an SI piece about the then-new NHL shootout. The story talked about how players, in the dressing room after a game, or out at a bar, and it came time for a shootout, their attention was riveted. 3x3 is similar because of the higher odds there will be a score, soon. I'm fine with 3x3 college hockey OT; it is a little disconcerting that a shootout win at home counts so little.

billhoward

upprdeck
on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

Exactly! Many fans love 3x3s and shootouts. I recall an SI piece about the then-new NHL shootout. The story talked about how players, in the dressing room after a game, or out at a bar, and it came time for a shootout, their attention was riveted. 3x3 is similar because of the higher odds there will be a score, soon. I'm fine with 3x3 college hockey OT; it is a little disconcerting that a shootout win at home counts so little.

They're fun. I'm just a little iffy on how much, if at all, they should count.

Part of me says go back to 5x5 OT, then do an exhibition shootout purely for bragging rights, kinda like they do in the mid-season tournaments.

upprdeck
on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. [www.ecachockey.com] I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Fans and parents help pay for sports but sports are really for and about the athletes playing them. So it would be important to know if players like OT 4x4s or 3x3s and shootouts. Or starting the 12th inning with a runner on second base (first and second?), or the ball on the opponent's 35 yard line, etcetera.

I never thought snowboarding was stupid (it helped keep ski resorts alive), I was dubious about it as a competitive sport and now I think it's a beautiful sport at its highest level. Ditto dual moguls skiing., Sports should change over time: new sports elevated to high level competition, legacy sports with variants that make it more interesting.

I am unalterably opposed to the NCAA lacrosse championship being decided by the first goal in OT. No TV schedule is so tight you don't have room for a 4- or 5-minute overtime, best score at the end winning. Because the odds are pretty good there'll be an untied score at the end of the first OT.

3x3 is also great for gambling since it means goals more often and people have money riding on goals alot.

ursusminor

upprdeck
on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. [www.ecachockey.com] I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

So let's allow fighting, many fans have shown they like that as well.

Pros go for the almighty dollar. I'd like to think, wrongly I know, that in college you play, and watch, for the game.

ursusminor

upprdeck
on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. [www.ecachockey.com] I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Perhaps the most annoying part of all is when a series like this weekend is described by the press as a sweep, when we know it was worth about as much as a split. Sort of like when MLS first started and they gave 3 points for a game win and 1 point for a shootout win, and then the LA Times referred to the Galaxy as undefeated when they had several shootout wins.

jtwcornell91

ursusminor

upprdeck
on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. [www.ecachockey.com] I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Perhaps the most annoying part of all is when a series like this weekend is described by the press as a sweep, when we know it was worth about as much as a split. Sort of like when MLS first started and they gave 3 points for a game win and 1 point for a shootout win, and then the LA Times referred to the Galaxy as undefeated when they had several shootout wins.

But of course it was a sweep. Regardless of the twisted way of assigning points/percentages, 2 wins is a sweep and the Galaxy was undefeated. That is unless they can somehow redefine defeated. I'm not in favor of using math to change the meaning of words. Especially when the math can change year to year.

If you don't want to say undefeated, then come up with a different word, but don't change the meaning of the word for that season, when the powers can again change the giving of points for this season.

Jim Hyla
If you don't want to say undefeated, then come up with a different word, but don't change the meaning of the word for that season, when the powers can again change the giving of points for this season.

Presumably the accurate phrase would be "perfect record". But you're right, "undefeated" typically also includes teams with ties, but in soccer three ties is equivalent to a win and two losses, so it doesn't mean as much. Looking back at [globalsportsarchive.com] the Galaxy went 10-0-2 in their first twelve games, but the LA Times was reporting it as 12-0. (There's also the complication of the US convention of writing W-L-T which is hard to extend to multiple outcomes; in Europe they write W-D-L in the standings tables, which is more easily extended to RW-OW-OL-RL or even RW-OTW-T-OTL-RL as in the case of the NCAA, or RW-OTW-SOW-SOL-OTL-RL in the 5-4-3-2-1-0 point system some of us have advocated.)

Jim Hyla

jtwcornell91

ursusminor

upprdeck
on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. [www.ecachockey.com] I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Perhaps the most annoying part of all is when a series like this weekend is described by the press as a sweep, when we know it was worth about as much as a split. Sort of like when MLS first started and they gave 3 points for a game win and 1 point for a shootout win, and then the LA Times referred to the Galaxy as undefeated when they had several shootout wins.

But of course it was a sweep. Regardless of the twisted way of assigning points/percentages, 2 wins is a sweep and the Galaxy was undefeated. That is unless they can somehow redefine defeated. I'm not in favor of using math to change the meaning of words. Especially when the math can change year to year.

If you don't want to say undefeated, then come up with a different word, but don't change the meaning of the word for that season, when the powers can again change the giving of points for this season.

"Undefeated, Untied"?

Swampy

Jim Hyla

jtwcornell91

ursusminor

upprdeck
on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout. Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore. if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. [www.ecachockey.com] I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Perhaps the most annoying part of all is when a series like this weekend is described by the press as a sweep, when we know it was worth about as much as a split. Sort of like when MLS first started and they gave 3 points for a game win and 1 point for a shootout win, and then the LA Times referred to the Galaxy as undefeated when they had several shootout wins.

But of course it was a sweep. Regardless of the twisted way of assigning points/percentages, 2 wins is a sweep and the Galaxy was undefeated. That is unless they can somehow redefine defeated. I'm not in favor of using math to change the meaning of words. Especially when the math can change year to year.

If you don't want to say undefeated, then come up with a different word, but don't change the meaning of the word for that season, when the powers can again change the giving of points for this season.

"Undefeated, Untied"?

That defines an all win team, but doesn't have anything to do with the "undefeated" Galaxy. What do you propose calling them?

So, Cornell still has The Belt?

The Rancor
So, Cornell still has The Belt?

Yes.