Quest for #1 seed

DeltaOne81 Wrote:

Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

If the Red had been a 2 seed in our region and BC had been the 1 seed, does that mean that BC would have won the game? [/Q]
No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game. BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?) Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.[/Q]
Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking. But yes, OSU, who I believe we might've already lost to that year, would have been tougher.[/Q]
Indeed; Cornell lost to Ohio State 1-0 in Florida in the consolation game (with Todd Marr in net).
[/q]

But beat tham at tOSU in our first game of the year.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 08:26AM

[Q]French Rage Wrote:

Avash '05 Wrote:

Indeed; Cornell lost to Ohio State 1-0 in Florida in the consolation game (with Todd Marr in net).
[/Q]
But beat tham at tOSU in our first game of the year.[/q]

But had to come back to do it, and didn't play particularly well.

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 08:29AM

[Q]Steve M Wrote:

Beyond the last line change, getting a #1 seed means assuring that Cornell will not go to Minnesota for the regionals if Minny also stays a #1 seed. Also the 1st round opponent is weaker.
[/q]

Not to mention that if we get a #1 seeds and two ECAC teams get #4 seeds, we'll draw the CHA or AH champion by the same principle that stiffed us in the 2003 first-round draw. OTOH, for that to happen, someone else would probably have to win the ECACs, which we obviously don't want.

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Pete Godenschwager (---.twcny.rr.com)

Date: January 30, 2005 10:25AM

[Q]Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking.[/Q]

Well, for the playoffs, it felt like a smoking. Especially compared to the Brown, Harvard and BC games that took 5 years off my life.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2005 10:25AM by Pete Godenschwager.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 10:50AM

[Q]mandervilleismyhero Wrote:
Analyzing the math to this absurd degree with a month to go in the season is just a plain waste of time (Adam I recognize that you were just responding to my post and that you have not otherwise contributed to this--in my view--nonsensical thread.)[/q]

Find this discussion boring? Then don't read it. Problem solved.

Doncha think that asking others to stop talking about some that interests them because you don't find it interesting is just a bit self centered?

 

___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...

 

Reply•Quote

#1 ain't gonna happen

Posted by: Ken '70 (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)

Date: January 30, 2005 11:34AM

The RPI hill is too steep and too long for Cornell to climb to make a #1 seed. This is partcularly true given our remaining SOS. Rough numbers: if we go 6 of 8 in remaining RS games (doesn't matter against who) our RPI will drop about .01. The current top 4, including DU, beat us in all individual comparison catagories with the exception of the COP against BC. There is no way we make top 4 without winning RPI comparisons, and that simply isn't possible.

What fans can realistically be hoping for in the stretch run is a seeding so the team stays east rather than being shipped west, which is what would happen now at PWR #6.

Best bracket would be if we ended up #5 and stayed east to play in Denver's (#4) bracket. That means winning the MI comparison, which is possible if we stay ahead of them in RPI and flip the TUC comparison to our favor. The latter is very doable since 4 of their 10 TUC wins are against BGSU and WMU who are barely holding on to TUC (.5009 and .5049 respectively). We have 3 TUC chances left in RS, win two of three and have BGSU or WMU drop from TUC and that comparison could flip. But holding onto the RPI against MI by regular season end will be difficult if they go 6 for 8, or better, themselves.

Best chance to stay east is to lose a couple TUC games, drop to 8th and end up in the BC bracket (anything that would drop the team from 6th would probably drop it right through 7th, so 8th is the most likely landing spot baring a complete meltdown).

Don't look at this scenario as rooting for your team to lose to Colgate or SLU, look at it as the very silver lining if they do.

 

Reply•Quote

Weekend Results ... and the Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.rr.com)

Date: January 30, 2005 12:15PM

Not that this has any "real" impact on things but it looks like we should jump both UHN and M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A

January 24, 2005
   Team        (First Place)    Record  Pts   Last Week
 1 Boston College       (29)    15-3-3  586     2 (W,W) UMass
 2 Colorado College     (10)    20-4-2  546     1 (W,W) Michigan Tech
 3 Wisconsin             (1)    19-6-1  490     5 –Idle-
 4 Michigan                     19-6-1  470     3 (L,W) N. Michigan
 5 Denver                       16-6-1  439     6 (W,W) Al. Anchorage
 6 New Hampshire                16-5-2  380     7 (L,W) Mass.-Lowell
 7 Minnesota                    18-9-0  361     4 (W,L) Minn.-Duluth
 8 Cornell                      13-4-2  341     9 (W,W) Clarkson, SLU
 9 Colgate                      18-6-0  254     8 (W,L) SLU Clarkson 
10 Ohio State                   16-7-3  245    10 (W,W) W. Michigan
11 Harvard                      10-5-2  149    13 (W,W) Princeton, Yale
12 North Dakota                14-10-2  147    12 (T,W) Bemidji State
13 Mass.-Lowell                 14-5-3  126    15 (W,L) UNH
14 Boston University           13-10-1  120    11 (W,W) Merrimack, Providence
15 Maine                        13-8-5   72    NR (W,T) Northeastern

Others Receiving Votes: Vermont 32 (W,W) RPI/Union, 
Northern Michigan 29 (W,L), Dartmouth 8(W,W) Union/RPI, Bemidji State 2 (T,L),
Michigan State 1 (L: U-18), Michigan Tech 1 (L,L), Nebraska-Omaha 1 (W,W)

 

___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2005 12:19PM by ben03.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 12:52PM

[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking.[/Q]
Well, for the playoffs, it felt like a smoking. Especially compared to the Brown, Harvard and BC games that took 5 years off my life.
[/q]
Haha, fair enough .

Here's the box by the way: [www.collegehockeystats.com]

We got a 2-0 lead and then MSU brought it back to a tie. We took the lead back with 6 to go in the second, and opened it up 6 minutes into the third. So the first 46 minutes of that game were definitely not easy going.

Ah, good memories

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: RichH (---.stny.rr.com)

Date: January 30, 2005 01:05PM

Yep. Now, the 2002 first-round game vs. Quinnipiac...that was a smoking.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Mike Hedrick 01 (---.arlngt01.va.comcast.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 01:11PM

Doug Murray had the best open ice hit I've ever seen in that game.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Weekend Results ... and the Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 02:00PM

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

Not that this has any "real" impact on things but it looks like we should jump both UHN and M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A[/q]

Yes, the polls have no impact whatsoever on the NCAA seeding process. I know you know that, but posting the poll in this thread just runs the risk of confusing people who don't.

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Weekend Results ... and the Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.rr.com)

Date: January 30, 2005 02:28PM

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

ben03 Wrote:

Not that this has any "real" impact on things but it looks like we should jump both UHN and M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A[/Q]
Yes, the polls have no impact whatsoever on the NCAA seeding process. I know you know that, but posting the poll in this thread just runs the risk of confusing people who don't.[/q]
my bad

 

___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: The Rancor (---.clarityconnect.com)

Date: January 30, 2005 04:40PM

right, fans of the hockey team at a school famous for engineering, math, and science are going to give up statistical analysis of the sport. maby we can give it up for MLB too

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 05:22PM

More important than a #1 seed, perhaps, is that we'd all love to see Cornell in the east. Especially considering I'm not more than an hour from either eastern regional

The following all assumes the top 4 contains BC and/or us as the only eastern schools:

In order to do that, we could finish 1st through 4th, 5th to match up with whatever western team finishes 4th and gets sent east, or 9 - x where x is BC's ranking, to match up with them (currently 8th).

Anything less than that pretty much becomes a crap shoot.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)

Date: January 30, 2005 05:24PM

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

More important than a #1 seed, perhaps, is that we'd all love to see Cornell in the east. Especially considering I'm not more than an hour from either eastern regional [/q]

Does that mean all of us can stay at your house?

 

___________________________
Is next year here yet?

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 07:30PM

[Q]Will Wrote:

DeltaOne81 Wrote:

More important than a #1 seed, perhaps, is that we'd all love to see Cornell in the east. Especially considering I'm not more than an hour from either eastern regional [/Q]
Does that mean all of us can stay at your house?[/q]
If by 'house' you mean 'apartment', and by 'stay' you mean 'sleep on the floor', then sure . Although the DirecTV SportsPack might make up for it

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)

Date: January 30, 2005 08:43PM

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

Will Wrote:

DeltaOne81 Wrote:

More important than a #1 seed, perhaps, is that we'd all love to see Cornell in the east. Especially considering I'm not more than an hour from either eastern regional [/Q]
Does that mean all of us can stay at your house?[/Q]
If by 'house' you mean 'apartment', and by 'stay' you mean 'sleep on the floor', then sure . Although the DirecTV SportsPack might make up for it [/q]

The bidding on my unheated unfinished basement begins at $1....

 

___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)

Date: January 31, 2005 08:39AM

This may help with these speculations, if anyone feels like making up results for the rest of the season:

[slack.net]

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Weekend Results ... and the Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Liz '05 (---.twcny.rr.com)

Date: January 31, 2005 11:07AM

Anyone that bothers to read this far down this thread and isn't so confused they give up on it will know that the polls don't have an effect on tournament seeding. I promise.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: JasonN95 (---.nrp4.mon.ny.frontiernet.net)

Date: February 04, 2005 10:30PM

Quick! Look before it changes! As of 10:30 EST, 2/4/05, Cornell is tied for 2nd in the pairwise. Can we cancel the rest of the season for all teams and just go with this?

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)

Date: February 04, 2005 10:34PM

who are the host schools for the regionals this year?

 

___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: KenP (---.tu.ok.cox.net)

Date: February 04, 2005 10:35PM

(same post as in the postgame thread)

The current Michigan PWR comparison (edit: RPI AFTER the Maine win over UNH):

Cornell vs Michigan 
      .5861 1 RPI 0 .5724  
8-4-2 .6429 1 TUC 0 .6111 10-6-2 
1-1-1 .5000 0 COp 1 .7000 3-1-1 
     0-0-0  0 H2H 0  0-0-0 
            2 TOT 1

The COp comparison is over. The TUC comparson is still up in the air. Michigan can still easily win this comparison.

The only way the BC and DU comparisons will stay in Cornell's advantage is if (a) we don't lose, and (b) they do. We're going to take big hits to our RPI when we play Princeton/Yale/Union/Rensssleer

Still, it's nice to see right now!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2005 10:37PM by KenP.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: KenP (---.tu.ok.cox.net)

Date: February 04, 2005 10:38PM

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

who are the host schools for the regionals this year?[/q]

The only relevant ones are BU in the east and Minnesota in the midwest.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)

Date: February 04, 2005 11:08PM

Pending SCSU-AA and Robert Morris-AFA results...now back to fifth behind Minny.

 

___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Robb (---.169.137.235.ts46v-07.otnc1.ftwrth.tx.charter.co)

Date: February 05, 2005 08:07PM

I just don't see a #1 seed in the cards. With a 5-3-1 bonus, our comparison with BC looks like:

Cornell vs Boston College 
 .5890 1 RPI 0 .5874  
8-3-2 .6923 0 TUC 1 .8077 10-2-1 
3-1-0 .7500 1 COp 0 .6667 2-1-0 
0-1-0  0 H2H 1  1-0-0 
  2 TOT 2

.0016 is a razor-thin margin in RPI. Gotta figure they'll overcome that - they have a very tough record remaining, with Lowell twice, BU, and Maine twice. Their SOS is going to go up, while ours is tanking. Give that to BC, and they win the comparison, 3-1.

On the other hand, because of their tough remaining schedule, they have 12 games remaining vs TUCs (assuming their first-round HEA series is not against a TUC). We probably have only 3 remaining: SLU plus two games at Albany. Assume we go 2-1 in those, our final TUC record will be 10-4-2 (.6875). For BC to drop that low, they'd have to be 16-7-2 (.680) or worse, or at best 6-5-1 in those last 12 TUC games. That'd be a pretty monumental collapse. I bet BC keeps the TUC category.

Common opponents remaining could just be BC's games with Maine, or we each have a possible meeting with a COP in the playoffs (Harvard or Yale for us, and Harvard in the 'pot and Maine in the playoffs for them). There are too many permutations to figure all that out (including # of games in possible best-of series. We're not too likely to face Yale in the playoffs, so it really comes down to our possible meetings with Harvard and their Maine games (which are at BC). We'll *probably* do as well as BC in these remaining games (go Maine!), so we'll probably keep this category, but it just won't be enough, as BC will likely take the RPI, TUC, and H2H categories.

If all that comes to pass, I'm all for tanking a couple of (regular season) games to give Michigan a taste of their own medicine as the #5 overall seed at Mariucci! Now watch Minny turn it on and we'll go out there as the #6...

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: KenP (---.abrfc.noaa.gov)

Date: February 06, 2005 01:28PM

Just took another look at our schedule...I didn't realize our next 6 games are against #7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in the ECAC!

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: atb9 (---.nycap.res.rr.com)

Date: February 06, 2005 01:41PM

[Q]KenP Wrote:

Just took another look at our schedule...I didn't realize our next 6 games are against #7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in the ECAC!
[/q]

Yeah, that's bad for the bottom of the league because they're not going to be battling against each other for those final playoff spots...but they had their chance earlier in the season to beat up on each other...it's going to be weird seeing our RPI drop, pretty much win or lose, the rest of the way.

Anyone else think the ECAC(HL) is too big? I'm sure it was discussed before, especially when the HC/Quin debate was raging...but it looks like a 10 team league is working well for HE and WCHA and it would bring the NC games for Ivy League teams up to 10, a much more appropriate number.

 

___________________________
24 is the devil

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)

Date: February 06, 2005 02:26PM

[Q]atb9 Wrote:

KenP Wrote:

Just took another look at our schedule...I didn't realize our next 6 games are against #7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in the ECAC!
[/Q]
Yeah, that's bad for the bottom of the league because they're not going to be battling against each other for those final playoff spots...but they had their chance earlier in the season to beat up on each other...it's going to be weird seeing our RPI drop, pretty much win or lose, the rest of the way.

Anyone else think the ECAC(HL) is too big? I'm sure it was discussed before, especially when the HC/Quin debate was raging...but it looks like a 10 team league is working well for HE and WCHA and it would bring the NC games for Ivy League teams up to 10, a much more appropriate number.[/q]

Meh. An even number of travel partnerships makes the schedule elegant.

BTW, my DIY script gives you the option of dropping all wins that hurt a team's RPI, not just the ones in the playoffs.

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Ken '70 (---.town.ipswich.ma.us)

Date: February 07, 2005 01:36PM

Other than MN finishing 3rd, 6th is a lock for eastern ice in the regionals. My own crystal ball says MN finishes 4th (they lose the DU comparison they're now winning).

BC will finish 1st, baring a meltdown, so 8th of 9th is also a good landing area for the Big Red.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: adamw (---.benslm01.pa.comcast.net)

Date: February 07, 2005 02:54PM

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
BTW, my DIY script gives you the option of dropping all wins that hurt a team's RPI, not just the ones in the playoffs.[/q]

I believe doing this is the equivalent of giving a point for an OT loss. Teams can go up in RPI by losing to a good team - but can't go down for beating a bad team? It throws things off.

I accept the playoff concept - because of the micro aspect to it. But really, RPI is meant to be taken as a whole, and not broken down from game to game. ... The fact that RPI can go down when a team wins does point out the flaws in RPI -- but I don't think it should be "corrected" in this fashion.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)

Date: February 07, 2005 05:33PM

[Q]adamw Wrote:

jtwcornell91 Wrote:
BTW, my DIY script gives you the option of dropping all wins that hurt a team's RPI, not just the ones in the playoffs.[/Q]
I believe doing this is the equivalent of giving a point for an OT loss. Teams can go up in RPI by losing to a good team - but can't go down for beating a bad team? It throws things off.

I accept the playoff concept - because of the micro aspect to it. But really, RPI is meant to be taken as a whole, and not broken down from game to game. ... The fact that RPI can go down when a team wins does point out the flaws in RPI -- but I don't think it should be "corrected" in this fashion.[/q]

Of course, it should be corrected by replacing it with KRACH.

Dropping those games was a cop-out response to a flaw pointed out into the system. I reckon dropping all bad wins makes as much sense as dropping only the playoff ones, so I figured I'd add that option. I haven't considered whether dropping "good" losses would allow things to remain consistent, but that would be another possibility.

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)

Date: February 07, 2005 11:48PM

Just noticed the Mullins Center--site of the Northeast Regional--has 200x95 ice. Staying east would be good, but perhaps 200x85 Worcester would be better.

 

___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)

Date: February 08, 2005 08:24AM

Some people argue Cornell's 2002 many-OT loss to Harvard was because the Olympic sheet at Placid played more to Harvard's strengths.

It would seem a bigger rink also gives the power play unit more room to maneuver, and right now that seems to be Cornell's one solid scoring line.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)

Date: February 08, 2005 08:42AM

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Some people argue Cornell's 2002 many-OT loss to Harvard was because the Olympic sheet at Placid played more to Harvard's strengths.

It would seem a bigger rink also gives the power play unit more room to maneuver, and right now that seems to be Cornell's one solid scoring line. [/q]
All I can say is that when I talked to Mike after the move from the big sheet in Placid to 200x85 Albany was announced, he was very happy about it.

 

___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: KenP (---.abrfc.noaa.gov)

Date: February 08, 2005 12:46PM

With BC's loss to BU in the Beanpot, we are currently #4 in PWR.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: nyc94 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)

Date: February 08, 2005 01:29PM

[Q]KenP Wrote:
With BC's loss to BU in the Beanpot, we are currently #4 in PWR. [/q]

Any reasonable bonus pushes us to a tie for fifth with Michigan. We have the higher RPI but they win the head to head comparison.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jy3 (---.buff.east.verizon.net)

Date: February 08, 2005 06:02PM

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

KenP Wrote:
With BC's loss to BU in the Beanpot, we are currently #4 in PWR. [/Q]
Any reasonable bonus pushes us to a tie for fifth with Michigan. We have the higher RPI but they win the head to head comparison.
[/q]

and the only way to break that comparison is by either picking up TUC wins or beating st. lawrence.
Michigan vs Cornell
.5744 0 RPI 1 .5867
12-6-3 .6429 1 TUC 0 .6333 8-4-3
3-1-2 .6667 1 COp 0 .5000 1-1-1
0-0-0 0 H2H 0 0-0-0
2 TOT 1
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625. LOL, i should know this. Cornell can turn that 1-1-1 into a 2-1-1 if they beat SLU(T) in a few weeks and if they play and beat them in the playoffs. Michigan needs to lose, obviously, but they also played mich state so if they beat them in the playoffs then that adds to their COP - if they lose
i should be interesting. also we will take a hit to our rpi over the next 3 weeks

 

___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jkahn (216.146.73.---)

Date: February 08, 2005 06:08PM

[Q]jy3 wrote:
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625.[/q]
A tie is, as it should be, 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss, so 3-1-2 equals 4-2-0 = .667.

 

___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)

Date: February 08, 2005 06:10PM

So with Cornell and BC tied for fourth, would that mean they both go to the same regional? I personally would love another shot at BC. I think in a less penalty filled, playoff game Cornell would have a great shot.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: nyc94 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)

Date: February 08, 2005 06:17PM

And St. Lawrence is barely clinging to TUC status. RPI = 0.5022

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Jacob '06 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)

Date: February 08, 2005 06:34PM

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

So with Cornell and BC tied for fourth, would that mean they both go to the same regional? I personally would love another shot at BC. I think in a less penalty filled, playoff game Cornell would have a great shot.[/q]

In the current comparison, we would win because our RPI is better from what other people have told me. That would make it 4 cornell and 5 BC, so if they follow strict rankings to place the teams in the regionals, we would be put in the same regional.

Of course all of this is somewhat pointless to discuss, because any decent bonus puts BC ahead of us, and our RPI is going to drop for the rest of the season.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)

Date: February 08, 2005 06:48PM

If two teams finish tied, the tie is broken by the individual comparison between the teams. Right now Cornell and BC are tied 2-2 in the individual comparison so the tie is broken by RPI. Thus Cornell would finish 4th in the overall pairwise and BC 5th. (Ignoring bonus points here, which may well flip this comparison.)

If this is the case the only guarantee would be that Cornell would get a #1 seed somewhere and BC a #2 somewhere. There's no guarantee it would be the same regional. It might be and I think there's a reasonable chance it would be if inter-conference first round matchups didn't cause problems.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jeh25 (---.ri.ri.cox.net)

Date: February 08, 2005 08:25PM

[Q]jkahn Wrote:

jy3 wrote:
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625.[/Q]
A tie is, as it should be, 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss, so 3-1-2 equals 4-2-0 = .667.[/q]

and they let yowpa prescribe drugs? scary....

 

___________________________
Cornell '98 '00; Yale 01-03; UConn 03-07; Brown 07-09; Penn State faculty 09-
Work is no longer an excuse to live near an ECACHL team...

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: finchphil (---.bos.east.verizon.net)

Date: February 08, 2005 08:53PM

Yes SLU is borderline TUC, but they do have that critical Quality Win on the Road which will help some. I hope.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Ken '70 (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)

Date: February 08, 2005 09:38PM

There's no "might be" about it. 4 plays 5 unless it's intraconference or 5 is a host at a site that 4 can't play at.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Avash (---.twcny.res.rr.com)

Date: February 08, 2005 09:46PM

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

There's no "might be" about it. 4 plays 5 unless it's intraconference or 5 is a host at a site that 4 can't play at. [/q]


Maybe I'm missing something (and perhaps you just mean that they'd be within the same regional), but doesn't 4 play 13, while 5 plays 12?

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Jacob '06 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)

Date: February 08, 2005 09:54PM

[Q]Avash '05 Wrote:

Ken '70 Wrote:

There's no "might be" about it. 4 plays 5 unless it's intraconference or 5 is a host at a site that 4 can't play at. [/Q]
Maybe I'm missing something (and perhaps you just mean that they'd be within the same regional), but doesn't 4 play 13, while 5 plays 12?
[/q]

Regionals are 4 teams, so the winner of 4 and 13 plays the winner of 5 and 12.
Edit: I didn't see that you said that right below your question, so yeah we were just saying they would be in the same regional.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2005 09:55PM by Jacob '06.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: nyc94 (---.ny325.east.verizon.net)

Date: February 08, 2005 11:14PM

Gotta love Jason Moy's pre-bonus brackets where we get Alabama-Huntsville in Amherst.
[www.uscho.com]
4 ECAC teams make the tournament.

Bonus points make us the #6 seed with a first round date with BU in Worcester and only Cornell and Harvard make the tournament.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)

Date: February 08, 2005 11:51PM

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

Gotta love Jason Moy's pre-bonus brackets where we get Alabama-Huntsville in Amherst.

4 ECAC teams make the tournament.

Bonus points make us the #6 seed with a first round date with BU in Worcester and only Cornell and Harvard make the tournament.[/q]

First round against rival BU on NHL ice with either Maine or Denver waiting?

Let's call it a season today and get started!

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)

Date: February 09, 2005 09:15AM

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

There's no "might be" about it. 4 plays 5 unless it's intraconference or 5 is a host at a site that 4 can't play at. [/q]

All else being equal, they will try to pair 1d with 2a, but there's no hard and fast rule like there is about keeping teams in the appropriate bands.

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Ken '70 (---.ne.client2.attbi.com)

Date: February 09, 2005 11:17PM

You're mistaken if you think they casually disregard the sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc.

Do you think Jayson Moy of USCHO doesn't know what he's talking about, or have you observed the committee disregarding that seeding methodoloy in past years?

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)

Date: February 10, 2005 12:19AM

[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:

You're mistaken if you think they casually disregard the sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc.

Do you think Jayson Moy of USCHO doesn't know what he's talking about, or have you observed the committee disregarding that seeding methodoloy in past years?[/q]

Jayson Moy is a secondary source, and we have a grand total of two 16-team tournaments on which to base our conclusions. The official word from the NCAA is on page 12 of the Division I Ice Hockey Handbook: [www.ncaa.org] Go read that before making any pronouncements about what the committee will or will not do.

There is no sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc. The only place the handbook mentions 1-16 rankings is to divide the teams into four bands, and to rank the #1 seeds to place them into the nearest regional. Trying to pair the lowest-ranked #1 seed with the highest-ranked #2 seed falls under the umbrella of "competitive equity" and "balancing the brackets", and they presumably will do it if their other considerations allow but it is not a hard and fast rule. They do not think of a team as on overall #5 or #11 seed, but as a 2a or 3c seed. This is a point they stressed to us when explaining how overall #1 Cornell got paired with overall #14 Mankato State when they could instead have avoided the intraconference matchups by pairing overall #3 Minnesota with overall #12 Harvard. All the 1-seeds must play 4-seeds and the 2-seeds must play 3-seeds. They'll even schedule intraconference matchups in the first found if they're forced to in order to maintain the 1-4 seeding in each regional. That's what they mean by "integrity of the bracket".

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Steve M (4.29.49.---)

Date: February 10, 2005 12:52AM

Good response John. It's interesting how the average fan's projected brackets changed after a few of the Bracketology articles were published. When the PWR tables were first posted on USCHO (nice work on that BTW), many people were assembling brackets that considered travel and attendance, and didn't blindly follow "natural brackets" according to the 1-16 rankings. By now most people assume the 1-16 ranking matchups will be used even if it means over half the field has to be shipped across the country to accomodate them. The apparent reason for this assumption is that that formula has been followed in Jayson's articles.

As I've said earlier, the last 2 years the committee was able to set up brackets that followed the 1-16 ranking matchups as closely as possible while following the rules, without having to send any more teams out of region than was already necessary to follow the rules. We will only know what takes precedence after they are forced to make a choice.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2005 01:10AM by Steve M.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)

Date: February 10, 2005 03:30AM

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
There is no sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc. The only place the handbook mentions 1-16 rankings is to divide the teams into four bands, and to rank the #1 seeds to place them into the nearest regional. Trying to pair the lowest-ranked #1 seed with the highest-ranked #2 seed falls under the umbrella of "competitive equity" and "balancing the brackets", and they presumably will do it if their other considerations allow but it is not a hard and fast rule. They do not think of a team as on overall #5 or #11 seed, but as a 2a or 3c seed. This is a point they stressed to us when explaining how overall #1 Cornell got paired with overall #14 Mankato State when they could instead have avoided the intraconference matchups by pairing overall #3 Minnesota with overall #12 Harvard. All the 1-seeds must play 4-seeds and the 2-seeds must play 3-seeds. They'll even schedule intraconference matchups in the first found if they're forced to in order to maintain the 1-4 seeding in each regional. That's what they mean by "integrity of the bracket".[/q]

I believe you are correct. However, the use of the term in their description is technically faulty. Ensuring that a 1-band plays a 4-band and a 2-band plays a 3-band within each regional ought to be considered the integrity of the seedings. Integrity of the brackets ought to mean ensuring that the winner of the #1 1-seed regional will play the winner of the #4 1-seed. That, after all, is what "bracketing" means (as opposed to the reseeding used in the ECAC Tournament).

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)

Date: February 10, 2005 10:04AM

Right, wrong, or variably correct. Well-written or cut-and-pasted boilerplate in the top half of each article (Jason, remember the inverted pyramid rule that puts the new and important stuff *on top*). The Bracketology column shines the light of publicity on the NCAA seeding committee and puts pressure on them to do a better job.

The more rigid the formula, the less likely some one team gets screwed by a dumb, irritated, or biased committee. And at the same time, it leads to lesser shaftings such as #1 Cornell playing #14 not #16 in the almost miracle year of 2003.

If the committee had a bit more leeway, you can see how it would be helpful if they could just, say, switch one of the region's #4 seeds to a #3 seed to avoid an undesirable matchup (like say two teams that just met in the Beanpot and played a three-overtime duel ought not to have to go at each other six weeks later). Or maybe it could avoid having even one intra-conference matchup in a tournament with five teams from the conference. But once you give the committee that power, what's to stop them from making a lot more swaps? And should they be able to make secondary considerations such as if a team gets an “unfair” first round pairing (eg #1 overall vs. #14 not #16 overall) to avoid some other miscarriage, do you try to even it out by, say, not putting Cornell in Amherst with its 200x95 near Olympic surface instead of 200x85 because big ice disadvantages Cornell's defensive style?

Meanwhile, what a rollercoaster for Cornell if you follow that long, thin strand of Bracketology type down the screen this week:
At the beginning of the column, Cornell starts out as a #1 seed (4th overall) and plays Colgate in Amherst. (Oops, that can’t happen: 2 teams, same conference.)
Cornell instead plays UAH, still in Amherst. Others in bracket: ND, BC.
Readjusting for bracket integrity (natural #1 vs. natural #16, etcetera):
Cornell plays Colgate again (theoretically).
Back to Cornell vs. UAH
Applying bonuses for good wins drops Cornell out of a #1 seed (also drops Colgate and Dartmouth out altogether) to #6
Cornell vs. BU, East Regional. Also Maine vs. Denver. Farther to travel, better ice size for Cornell.

And all this is predicated on the top teams winning their tournaments.

Also, we don't know what the formula added to RPI is for good road, neutral, and home wins, although it might be possible to deconstruct the formula after the selections are made if some teams that would have been in with one RPI formula fall out with another.

Right now we should be rooting for Fair Harvard to knock off BC in the Beanpot consolation. Cornell's RPI won't get much help from quality wins down the stretch since the highest ranked of our last six opponents is #28 (out of 56 D1 teams) St. Lawrence.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Robb (---.external.lmco.com)

Date: February 10, 2005 10:43AM

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Right now we should be rooting for Fair Harvard to knock off BC in the Beanpot consolation. Cornell's RPI won't get much help from quality wins down the stretch since the highest ranked of our last six opponents is #28 (out of 56 D1 teams) St. Lawrence.

[/q]

Cornell won't get ANY help from quality wins down the stretch. Games against teams from your own conference don't count, even if it's a non-conference game.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)

Date: February 10, 2005 11:11AM

One other wrench in this. The committee changes over time. Different folks running things could decide to weight the various factors differently (attendance vs. natural brackets). The only thing the handbook tells them is a requirement is the banding.

That said, I don't have any idea how frequently the committee turns over...

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)

Date: February 10, 2005 11:55AM

So many rules for RPI and TUC and so forth. I have to write that on my shirt cuff: You can have an emotionally satisfying win against a quality team in your conference, but it's not an RPI-affecting quality win.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)

Date: February 10, 2005 12:49PM

That's what you get when you have a system that's fundamentally limited and constantly tweaked to try to address these limitations.

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)

Date: February 10, 2005 01:56PM

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

One other wrench in this. The committee changes over time. Different folks running things could decide to weight the various factors differently (attendance vs. natural brackets). The only thing the handbook tells them is a requirement is the banding.[/q]

That is certainly true. The Marsh committees of the mid-to-late-nineties looked at individual comparisons much more than the committees of the past few years, who just looked at 1-16 in PWR.

 

___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)

Date: February 10, 2005 03:58PM

There is not, is there, consideration for performance late vs. early in the season? A young team that goes 9-6 first half and 11-4 second half is a 20-win team on a tear, but it's the same number of wins and same percentage as a team that starts off 12-3 and slumps with a 8-7 record second half.

The coach of that streaking team would want the upward slope to be recognized. But the coach of the cooled-off team beset by injuries is going to say, "Sure, we had a so-so second half, but we still won two-thirds of our games. We deserve the same shot as anyone else with a .667 record."

Last year, we wouldn't have wanted Vesce's injury and end-of-season non-availability to lead the seeding committee to say, "Cornell isn't going anywhere without Vesce, so let's give it to someone with a better chance."

 

Reply•Quote

Re: Quest for #1 seed

Posted by: Ken '70 (---.town.ipswich.ma.us)

Date: February 10, 2005 04:03PM

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

Ken '70 Wrote:

You're mistaken if you think they casually disregard the sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc.

Do you think Jayson Moy of USCHO doesn't know what he's talking about, or have you observed the committee disregarding that seeding methodoloy in past years?[/Q]
Jayson Moy is a secondary source....Trying to pair the lowest-ranked #1 seed with the highest-ranked #2 seed falls under the umbrella of "competitive equity" and "balancing the brackets", and they presumably will do it if their other considerations allow but it is not a hard and fast rule.[/q]

You've lost track of the original focus of this particular string which is about how seedings are arranged relative to the regional finals. Go back and see calgARI's post about a tie at 4th and what followed.

First of all, as USCHO notes at [www.uscho.com] :

"Though not in its stated list of guidelines, the committee has made a concerted effort in the two years the 16-team field has existed to maintain a strict bracket. In other words, teams are given overall seed numbers, 1-16. The brackets are arranged 1-16-8-9, 2-15-7-10, 3-14-6-11, 4-13-5-12."

While the primary guiding principal in determining seedings and brackets is mentioned in the guidelines, that is:

"1. The top four teams, as ranked by the committee, are the four No. 1 regional seeds and will be placed in the bracket so that if all four teams advance to the Men’s Frozen Four, the No. 1 seed will play the No. 4 seed and the No. 2 seed will play the No. 3 seed in the semifinals."

the necessary corollary to this isn't, except by the phrase "competitive equity".

It would violate anyone's sense of competitive equity to allow bracket modifications such that the 1 seed had a more difficult trip to the semis than the 3 seed, for example.

In the first round, modifications are allowed to avoid intra-conference matchups unless they "corrupt bracket integrity". There is no language that allows modifications such that potential regional final matchups are compromised in regard to seedings and competitive equity (e.g., allowing a 1 v 5 regional final instead of 1 v 8).

Modifications are limited as to cause and at what round they can occur, both in the handbook and as a matter of historical fact. They do not occur under some broad brush and undefined "other considerations".

Since you dismiss Moy and USCHO as "secondary sources", you must be a more primary one. Please provide your bona fides.

 

Reply•Quote

Page:  1 23Next

Current Page: 1 of 3

Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

© 2024 SalsaShark Design