ELynah Forum

Well, it is kind of absurd, but here's the first attempt that I've seen. (http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2016-12-20/ncaa-hockey-bracketology-where-things-stand-winter-break) I guess it gives all something to thick about/discuss at this slow time.

Here's the end result:


Midwest (Cincinnati, Ohio)

1. Penn State vs. 16. Army West Point

8. Ohio State vs. 10. Western Michigan

Northeast (Manchester, N.H.)

4. Harvard vs. 13 Notre Dame

5. Union vs. 12. Boston College

West (Fargo, N.D.)

2. Minnesota Duluth vs. 15. Bemidji State

7. UMass-Lowell vs. 9. North Dakota

East (Providence, R.I.)

3. Denver vs. 14. Cornell

6. Boston University vs. 11. Minnesota


I'd take it.

http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2016/12/22/never-too-early-to-start-prognosticating-the-2017-ncaa-tournament/

Interesting.  My first instinct was to put Penn State in Providence, Harvard in Manchester, Denver in Cincinnati, and Duluth in Fargo. But when I worked it out, it moved Ohio State away from Cincinnati and gave crappy attendance there.

In theory, you could put the OSU/WMU pairing in Cincinnati with the BU/Minny pairing in Providence to improve the attendance, but why make two swaps when you could make none (and Cincinnati is only slightly further than Providence for Penn State).

Not to mention I like us in the east for a change.  So I can live with this...until it changes in two weeks.  ::innocent::

Quote from: Jim HylaWell, it is kind of absurd, but here's the first attempt that I've seen. (http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2016-12-20/ncaa-hockey-bracketology-where-things-stand-winter-break) I guess it gives all something to thick about/discuss at this slow time.

Here's the end result:

Code Select Expand


Midwest (Cincinnati, Ohio)

1. Penn State vs. 16. Army West Point

8. Ohio State vs. 10. Western Michigan

Northeast (Manchester, N.H.)

4. Harvard vs. 13 Notre Dame

5. Union vs. 12. Boston College

West (Fargo, N.D.)

2. Minnesota Duluth vs. 15. Bemidji State

7. UMass-Lowell vs. 9. North Dakota

East (Providence, R.I.)

3. Denver vs. 14. Cornell

6. Boston University vs. 11. Minnesota


I'd take it.

Luv it. +5

Quote from: ursusminorhttp://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2016/12/22/never-too-early-to-start-prognosticating-the-2017-ncaa-tournament/

This time last year we were projected as a 2 seed.  Yeesh.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ursusminorhttp://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2016/12/22/never-too-early-to-start-prognosticating-the-2017-ncaa-tournament/

This time last year we were projected as a 2 seed.  Yeesh.

I'm more interested in where we are at the end of February.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ursusminorhttp://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2016/12/22/never-too-early-to-start-prognosticating-the-2017-ncaa-tournament/

This time last year we were projected as a 2 seed.  Yeesh.

I'm more interested in where we are at the end of February.

Or the middle of March.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: martyI'm more interested in where we are at the end of February.

Or the middle of March.

Early April? Do I hear April? Anyone for April?

Time to start looking ahead to Denver

Quote from: andyw2100Early April? Do I hear April? Anyone for April?

In early April, I'm hoping Jeff Teat will be pushing 50 points. I can't recall a player coming to Cornell so highly touted in any sport since ... Dryden? Marinaro? Dake? McEneaney or French? Ever?

Quote from: billhoward

Quote from: andyw2100Early April? Do I hear April? Anyone for April?

In early April, I'm hoping Jeff Teat will be pushing 50 points. I can't recall a player coming to Cornell so highly touted in any sport since ... Dryden? Marinaro? Dake? McEneaney or French? Ever?

The fuck is "Jeff Teat"?

Rebecca Johnston.  She, too, was the #1 recruit in her class.

(http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/cart-before-the-horse.jpg)

Attackman Jeff Teat '20 is the latest (only?) Cornell recruit written about in Sports Illustrated. In lacrosse.
http://www.si.com/edge/2016/05/04/the-hill-academy-lacrosse-canada-high-school-brodie-merrill

http://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/2016-power-100-freshmen-rankings/36194 ranks him the #1 recruit and A Ryan Maloney ranks #45.

Quote from: billhoward

Quote from: andyw2100Early April? Do I hear April? Anyone for April?

I can't recall a player coming to Cornell so highly touted in any sport since ... Dryden? Marinaro? Dake? McEneaney or French? Ever?

In 1964, Gordon Lowe was drafted #15, in the third round, by the NY Rangers.  Ken Dryden was drafted by the Boston Bruins, the #14 pick. There were four rounds in the draft that year.  Lowe, of course, went on to play for Cornell, graduating in 1970.

Quote from: billhowardAttackman Jeff Teat '20 is the latest (only?) Cornell recruit written about in Sports Illustrated. In lacrosse.
http://www.si.com/edge/2016/05/04/the-hill-academy-lacrosse-canada-high-school-brodie-merrill

http://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/2016-power-100-freshmen-rankings/36194 ranks him the #1 recruit and A Ryan Maloney ranks #45.

I figured given the thread he might have something to do with hockey.  Carry on.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: billhowardAttackman Jeff Teat '20 is the latest (only?) Cornell recruit written about in Sports Illustrated. In lacrosse.
http://www.si.com/edge/2016/05/04/the-hill-academy-lacrosse-canada-high-school-brodie-merrill

http://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/2016-power-100-freshmen-rankings/36194 ranks him the #1 recruit and A Ryan Maloney ranks #45.

I figured given the thread he might have something to do with hockey.  Carry on.

Well, he is from Canada.

Here's this week. (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/01/04/looking-at-the-pairwise-as-2017-rolls-out/)


This week's brackets

East Regional (Providence):

13 Ohio State vs. [b][u]4 Harvard[/u][/b]
10 Minnesota vs. 5 Massachusetts-Lowell

Northeast Regional (Manchester):

14 Boston College vs. 3 Denver
11 Vermont vs. [b][u]8 Union[/u][/b]

Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):

15 Air Force vs. 2 Penn State
12 Notre Dame vs. 7 Western Michigan

West Regional (Fargo):

16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Minnesota-Duluth
9 North Dakota vs. 6 Boston University

Conference breakdowns

Hockey East — 5
NCHC — 4
Big Ten — 3
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 2[/u][/b]
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/01/04/looking-at-the-pairwise-as-2017-rolls-out/#ixzz4Ut5FpsM5



Here's this week. (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/01/11/checking-out-the-latest-pairwise-rankings-jan-11/)

As #15 in PWR we got bounced because the AH and WCHA leaders were not in top 16 teams.


[b][u]This week's brackets[/u][/b]

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
15 Air Force vs. [b][u]2 Harvard[/u][/b]
11 Minnesota vs. 6 Massachusetts-Lowell

East Regional (Providence):
[u][b]14 St. Lawrence[/b][/u] vs. 4 Minnesota-Duluth
[u][b]9 Union[/b][/u] vs. 5 Boston University

Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):
16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Penn State
12 Boston College vs. 8 Western Michigan

West Regional (Fargo):
13 Ohio State vs. 3 Denver
10 Vermont vs. 7 North Dakota

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

Hockey East — 4
NCHC — 4
Big Ten — 3
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/01/11/checking-out-the-latest-pairwise-rankings-jan-11/#ixzz4VYwkT0bo



This week (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/01/18/penn-state-takes-over-top-spot-in-pairwise-rankings/)


[b][u]This week's brackets[/u][/b]

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]
14 Boston College vs. 3 Minnesota-Duluth
10 Vermont vs. [b][u]6 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]
13 Ohio State vs. 4 Boston University
[b][u]11 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 5 Massachusetts-Lowell

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]
15 Air Force vs. 1 Penn State
9 Western Michigan vs. 8 Minnesota

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]
16 Bemidji State vs. 2 Denver
[b][u]12 Harvard[/u][/b] vs. 7 North Dakota

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

Hockey East — 4
NCHC — 4
Big Ten — 3
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/01/18/penn-state-takes-over-top-spot-in-pairwise-rankings/#ixzz4W9mVYI5O

If offered, I'd take it today.

I wound up with this by simply ranking 1-16 but them swapping UVM and us.

East Regional (Providence):
15 Air Force vs. 1 Penn State
9 Western Michigan vs. 8 Minnesota

Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):
14 Boston College vs. 3 Minnesota-Duluth
10 Vermont vs. 6 Union

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
13 Ohio State vs. 4 Boston University
12 Harvard. 5 Massachusetts-Lowell

West Regional (Fargo):
16 Bemidji State vs. 2 Denver
11 Cornell vs. 7 North Dakota

Attendance not great, but it preserves the rankings.

I like the USCHO version better.

What this tells me is keep winning.  :-)

first, just get in..

second, win enough to get a east cost seed.

Quote from: upprdeckfirst, just get in..

second, win enough to get a east cost seed.

Getting an Eastern seed is not contingent upon more winning, really.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: upprdeckfirst, just get in..

second, win enough to get a east cost seed.

Getting an Eastern seed is not contingent upon more winning, really.

Indeed. Also the avoid conference matchups and increase attendance decrees can really harm a team. See  2003, when we were #1 overall but didn't get a cupcake from the MAAC or CHA in the first round. Schafer was not happy.

When is Schafer ever happy?  Mad...that's how we want him. ::uptosomething::

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: upprdeckfirst, just get in..

second, win enough to get a east cost seed.

Getting an Eastern seed is not contingent upon more winning, really.

but it does matter in the context of how many ecac teams get in.

right now we are in the east because we are ahead of harvard in the PWR.  if we stay one of the top 2 ECAC teams , much better chance of staying home. if we become the top ECAC team its almost a lock.

Win enough to get in as at least a 3-seed, thus avoiding a 1-seed in the First Round.

After that, it's really just a crapshoot.

tl; dr:

1. Get in.
2. Get into the top 12.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: upprdeckfirst, just get in..

second, win enough to get a east cost seed.

Getting an Eastern seed is not contingent upon more winning, really.

It is if we get one of the top 4 seeds this year, because I doubt three eastern schools will be in the top 4.  And Penn State is equidistant from Providence and Cincinnati, so they can go to either.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: upprdeckfirst, just get in..

second, win enough to get a east cost seed.

Getting an Eastern seed is not contingent upon more winning, really.

It is if we get one of the top 4 seeds this year, because I doubt three eastern schools will be in the top 4.  And Penn State is equidistant from Providence and Cincinnati, so they can go to either.

Sure, but I wasn't even going there. I'd be pleasantly very surprised if that happens.

Quote from: upprdeckright now we are in the east because we are ahead of harvard in the PWR.  if we stay one of the top 2 ECAC teams , much better chance of staying home. if we become the top ECAC team its almost a lock.

None of that is necessarily true.

I think it is..   you have to go back 10+ years to find a ECAC team that was a top 8 seed that didnt play in the east or NE bracket.  Pretty good odds no ECAC team is a top 4 seed  and that we dont have 3 ECAC teams in the top 8..

I didnt find any instance of the top ECAC team not playing in the east/NE going back that far.

Quote from: upprdeckI think it is..   you have to go back 10+ years to find a ECAC team that was a top 8 seed that didnt play in the east or NE bracket.  Pretty good odds no ECAC team is a top 4 seed  and that we dont have 3 ECAC teams in the top 8..

I didnt find any instance of the top ECAC team not playing in the east/NE going back that far.

But just going back a little further:
2006 #8 Cornell in Green Bay
2005 #5 Cornell in Minneapolis

Quote from: jkahn

Quote from: upprdeckI think it is..   you have to go back 10+ years to find a ECAC team that was a top 8 seed that didnt play in the east or NE bracket.  Pretty good odds no ECAC team is a top 4 seed  and that we dont have 3 ECAC teams in the top 8..

I didnt find any instance of the top ECAC team not playing in the east/NE going back that far.

But just going back a little further:
2006 #8 Cornell in Green Bay
2005 #5 Cornell in Minneapolis

But of course because it was us ::cuss::

but that is the point.. since then it really has become location and attendance/money driven when making the brackets.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: upprdeckfirst, just get in..

second, win enough to get a east cost seed.

Getting an Eastern seed is not contingent upon more winning, really.

It is if we get one of the top 4 seeds this year, because I doubt three eastern schools will be in the top 4.  And Penn State is equidistant from Providence and Cincinnati, so they can go to either.

Sure, but I wasn't even going there. I'd be pleasantly very surprised if that happens.

You and me both, friend.  You and me both.  ::banana::

But I am an engineer, so I can be a bit literal at times.  ::whistle::

Quote from: upprdeckbut that is the point.. since then it really has become location and attendance/money driven when making the brackets.

That is the official NCAA line.  And the committee gave Providence a huge gift in'15 (for love or money).

When we were sent west to Wisconsin and Minnesota it seemed like punishment. Maybe those days are over but each year is different.  Some brackets fill themselves yet that certainly isn't the case every year. I never thought the Friars would stay east. (Brown was the host at that regional.)

AKA there are no absolutes when the seeding is done.

Here's this week's. (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/01/25/where-do-teams-stand-with-last-weekend-of-january-on-tap/)


[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]
14 Boston College vs. 3 Penn State
10 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. [b][u]6 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]
[b][u]13 Harvard[/u][/b] vs. 4 Boston University
[b][u]11 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 5 Western Michigan

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]
16 Canisius vs. 2 Denver
9 Vermont vs. 8 Ohio State

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]
15 Bemidji State vs. 1 Minnesota-Duluth
12 North Dakota vs. 7 Minnesota

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

Hockey East — 4
NCHC — 4
Big Ten — 3
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Movement

In: Canisius
Out: Air Force

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/01/25/where-do-teams-stand-with-last-weekend-of-january-on-tap/#ixzz4WoXb7Jpj

I'd be happy. Our regional should certainly be well attended and should be good hockey to watch.

Quote from: Jim HylaI'd be happy. Our regional should certainly be well attended and should be good hockey to watch.

I'd be over-the-moon thrilled. If we pull off the upset over WMU, we've got either Harvard or BU next. Imagine Cornell vs. Harvard for a slot in the Frozen Four? F*cking epic.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Jim HylaI'd be happy. Our regional should certainly be well attended and should be good hockey to watch.

I'd be over-the-moon thrilled. If we pull off the upset over WMU, we've got either Harvard or BU next. Imagine Cornell vs. Harvard for a slot in the Frozen Four? F*cking epic.

Only if we win.  If we lose...f-ing devastating.

Quote from: upprdeckbut that is the point.. since then it really has become location and attendance/money driven when making the brackets.

Not entirely, and it fluctuates, and only in the last couple years has that been an overriding concern. Not trying to be argumentative, but the bottom line is that winning more doesn't necessarily get you an Eastern regional. It really all depends upon who the other teams are, where your natural slot falls, etc...

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: upprdeckbut that is the point.. since then it really has become location and attendance/money driven when making the brackets.

Not entirely, and it fluctuates, and only in the last couple years has that been an overriding concern. Not trying to be argumentative, but the bottom line is that winning more doesn't necessarily get you an Eastern regional. It really all depends upon who the other teams are, where your natural slot falls, etc...

A scenario that proves Adam's point would be to have 3 of the top 4  seeded teams be from the east. If Penn State, BU and Union all all in the top 4 only 2 of them stay east.

Currently we have BU and Western Michigan at 4 and 5. If BU falls to #5 then one of the top 3 teams would be from the west but traveling east.

thats an issue for the bracket at large but this is a conversation about where cornell will go. the top 4 seeds have different bracket integrity rules than the other seeds

Quote from: upprdeckthats an issue for the bracket at large but this is a conversation about where cornell will go. the top 4 seeds have different bracket integrity rules than the other seeds

Cornell is not a host. If we land 3 or 4 behind two other eastern teams we could be on a plane traveling west! This is all a wonderful dream.

One other thing is that North Dakota is a host.  If we can stay in the same band as them, it takes away one chance of being shipped west.

This is as good a place as any to call attention to this recent study of the effect of jet lag on baseball players.  The Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-mlb-jet-lag-0124-biz-20170123-story.html) reports on a Northwestern University press release (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/01/jet-lag-impairs-performance-major-league-baseball-players/) regarding a study published in the   Procedings of the National Academy of Science (http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2017/01/18/1608847114.DCSupplemental).  (abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/17/1608847114.abstract?sid=bd8ced1c-3623-4c24-acba-f3e7c9fdc8d1))

Quote from: Article abstractLaboratory studies have demonstrated that circadian clocks align physiology and behavior to 24-h environmental cycles. Examination of athletic performance has been used to discern the functions of these clocks in humans outside of controlled settings. Here, we examined the effects of jet lag, that is, travel that shifts the alignment of 24-h environmental cycles relative to the endogenous circadian clock, on specific performance metrics in Major League Baseball. Accounting for potential differences in home and away performance, travel direction, and team confounding variables, we observed that jet-lag effects were largely evident after eastward travel with very limited effects after westward travel, consistent with the >24-h period length of the human circadian clock. Surprisingly, we found that jet lag impaired major parameters of home-team offensive performance, for example, slugging percentage, but did not similarly affect away-team offensive performance. On the other hand, jet lag impacted both home and away defensive performance. Remarkably, the vast majority of these effects for both home and away teams could be explained by a single measure, home runs allowed. Rather than uniform effects, these results reveal surprisingly specific effects of circadian misalignment on athletic performance under natural conditions.

I don't have the energy to do thorough review, but my gut reaction is that they have looked at enough different measures that you might expect statistical fluctuations to push a few of the measures into the range they have declared to be statistically significant.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: upprdeckthats an issue for the bracket at large but this is a conversation about where cornell will go. the top 4 seeds have different bracket integrity rules than the other seeds

Cornell is not a host. If we land 3 or 4 behind two other eastern teams we could be on a plane traveling west! This is all a wonderful dream.

Last night the Deerticks lost to ASU which will hurt the ECAC. OTOH Princeton shocked Penn State which should help us if we get back to winning.

And to further Adam's point, as of this morning Western Michigan as the 4 seed would be traveling east for the regionals.

I have a feeling we'll be watching championship weekends praying that a team in the top 14 of PWR wins the Hockey East, Big 10 and NCHC tourneys

Quote from: CU2007I have a feeling we'll be watching championship weekends praying that a team in the top 14 of PWR wins the Hockey East, Big 10 and NCHC tourneys

Oh cool, an optimist.

Okay here it is. Obviously we're out.


This week's brackets

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]
16 Canisius vs. 2 Denver
11 Providence vs. [b][u]6 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]
14 Wisconsin vs. 3 Boston University
10 Boston College vs. [b][u]8 Harvard[/u][/b]

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]
13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Western Michigan
12 Vermont vs. 5 Penn State

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]
15 Bemidji State vs. 1 Minnesota-Duluth
9 North Dakota vs. 7 Minnesota

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

Hockey East — 5
NCHC — 4
Big Ten — 3
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 2[/u][/b]
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Movement

In: Wisconsin, Providence
Out: Ohio State, [b][u]Cornell[/u][/b]

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/02/01/start-of-february-sees-more-tweaks-to-pairwise-rankings/#ixzz4XSpN4hq0

If it were to stay like this, Manchester would be fun to watch.

Quote from: marty

Quote from: marty

Quote from: upprdeckthats an issue for the bracket at large but this is a conversation about where cornell will go. the top 4 seeds have different bracket integrity rules than the other seeds

Cornell is not a host. If we land 3 or 4 behind two other eastern teams we could be on a plane traveling west! This is all a wonderful dream.

Last night the Deerticks lost to ASU which will hurt the ECAC. OTOH Princeton shocked Penn State which should help us if we get back to winning.

And to further Adam's point, as of this morning Western Michigan as the 4 seed would be traveling east for the regionals.

I was wrong and Denver might be pissed if the season ended today but here is why Adam is right:

Quote from: BracketsThis week's brackets

East Regional (Providence):
16 Canisius vs. 2 Denver
11 Providence vs. 6 Union

Northeast Regional (Manchester):
14 Wisconsin vs. 3 Boston University
10 Boston College vs. 8 Harvard

Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):
13 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 4 Western Michigan
12 Vermont vs. 5 Penn State

West Regional (Fargo):
15 Bemidji State vs. 1 Minnesota-Duluth
9 North Dakota vs. 7 Minnesota
[\\QUOTE]

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: CU2007I have a feeling we'll be watching championship weekends praying that a team in the top 14 of PWR wins the Hockey East, Big 10 and NCHC tourneys

Oh cool, an optimist.

Well given our current position, it wouldn't matter. So yes, you could easily argue that it is optimistic.

Quote from: CU2007I have a feeling we'll be watching championship weekends praying that a team in the top 14 of PWR wins the Hockey East, Big 10 and NCHC tourneys

We'll see.  We're not in a deep hole and I firmly believe we will make it to Lake Placid where anything can happen.  The question is are they the guys who took care of an excellent SLU squad or the guys who choked last weekend?  

I really want to believe the former.  The thing is we don't have to guess.  They'll show us.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: CU2007I have a feeling we'll be watching championship weekends praying that a team in the top 14 of PWR wins the Hockey East, Big 10 and NCHC tourneys

We'll see.  We're not in a deep hole and I firmly believe we will make it to Lake Placid where anything can happen.  The question is are they the guys who took care of an excellent SLU squad or the guys who choked last weekend?  

I really want to believe the former.  The thing is we don't have to guess.  They'll show us.

And the up side is that when they "show us" some of us will be watching division one college hockey. I've always enjoyed watching a good hockey game.  ;-)

Up to 13 and back in the NCAAs.

Is there any benefit (Pairwise speaking) to finishing fifth in the league and picking up two extra (seemingly easy) wins? I understand the benefit of a bye week and home ice in the quarterfinals, just kind of brain storming.

Is there some reason that the RPIs on the USCHO pairwise page are different from the RPIs on the RPI Page?

Quote from: CU2007Is there any benefit (Pairwise speaking) to finishing fifth in the league and picking up two extra (seemingly easy) wins? I understand the benefit of a bye week and home ice in the quarterfinals, just kind of brain storming.

A FEW TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS BAKED INTO THIS QUESTION FOR MY HEART!

Quote from: CU2007Is there any benefit (Pairwise speaking) to finishing fifth in the league and picking up two extra (seemingly easy) wins? I understand the benefit of a bye week and home ice in the quarterfinals, just kind of brain storming.

There may be "seemingly easy" wins, but there are no "easy wins."

Also finishing high enough to get the bye, vs finishing in 5th place has improved pairwise results built in. I'll take the bye!

Quote from: CU2007Is there any benefit (Pairwise speaking) to finishing fifth in the league and picking up two extra (seemingly easy) wins? I understand the benefit of a bye week and home ice in the quarterfinals, just kind of brain storming.

Considering how bad the records of RPI and Brown, one of which will likely be 12th, are. I doubt that those wins would be worth much.

Quote from: ursusminor

Quote from: CU2007Is there any benefit (Pairwise speaking) to finishing fifth in the league and picking up two extra (seemingly easy) wins? I understand the benefit of a bye week and home ice in the quarterfinals, just kind of brain storming.

Considering how bad the records of RPI and Brown, one of which will likely be 12th, are. I doubt that those wins would be worth much.

Nor necessarily easy!

All fair points. I'm not an expert on the calculations, so it was more just the thought that you'd be given the opportunity to win two extra games that popped into my mind and then presumably end up in the same 4-5 quarterfinal, albeit on the road.

For those far more familiar with pairwise than me... would it be better for Harvard or Northeastern to win tonight for improving or maintaining CU's #13 pairwise ranking?

doesnt it pretty much net out ?  but it would help they win the 2nd game

This week. (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/02/08/minnesota-duluth-remains-atop-pairwise-rankings/)


[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]
14 Vermont vs. 4 Minnesota
10 Boston College vs. [b][u]7 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]
[b][u]13 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 3 Boston University
12 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. [b][u]5 Harvard[/u][/b]

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]
15 Air Force vs. 2 Denver
11 Penn State vs. 6 Western Michigan

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]
16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Minnesota-Duluth
9 North Dakota vs. 8 Providence
Conference breakdowns

Hockey East — 5
NCHC — 4
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
Big Ten — 2
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Movement

In: [b][u]Cornell[/u][/b], Air Force
Out: Wisconsin, Canisius



[b][u]His second choice is:[/u][/b]

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]
15 Air Force vs. 2 Denver
11 Penn State vs. 8 Providence

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]
[b][u]13 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 3 Boston University
12 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. [b][u]7 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]
16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Minnesota-Duluth
10 Boston College vs. 6 Western Michigan

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]
14 Vermont vs. 4 Minnesota
9 North Dakota vs. [b][u]5 Harvard[/u][/b]

I don't like it as it rewards #8 Providence, just for being in Providence, and punishes Harvard.

I'm not one of the Harvard haters. I'd rather preserve "good play gives good results".

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/02/08/minnesota-duluth-remains-atop-pairwise-rankings/#ixzz4Y64t8GfO




i wonder why providence wasnt the host and brown was?  dont sometime schools split it?

Quote from: upprdecki wonder why providence wasnt the host and brown was?  dont sometime schools split it?

If they elect to bid together. Maybe Brown doesn't want to subject their Athletic Department to the work of being the host school if the chances of getting the home ice advantage are close to zero.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: upprdecki wonder why providence wasnt the host and brown was?  dont sometime schools split it?

If they elect to bid together. Maybe Brown doesn't want to subject their Athletic Department to the work of being the host school if the chances of getting the home ice advantage are close to zero.

? But Brown is the host school.

I wonder why they dont jointly host in hope 1 gets in and that one does the heavy lifting when it gets closer.  maybe they cant anymore?

Cornell never hosts and it could keep us close some years  if its in buffalo or albany, but it would be work our Ath dept doesnt deem worthy of the effort.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: upprdecki wonder why providence wasnt the host and brown was?  dont sometime schools split it?

If they elect to bid together. Maybe Brown doesn't want to subject their Athletic Department to the work of being the host school if the chances of getting the home ice advantage are close to zero.

? But Brown is the host school.

lol

If two schools bid together, and both get in, does that mean both of them are guaranteed to be in that region?

What if the co-hosts are in the same group of 4?

This week's. (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/02/15/where-does-your-team-stand-with-less-than-one-month-left-in-regular-season/)


[b][u]This week's brackets (His first choice)[/u][/b]

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]
14 Boston College vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
[b][u]11 Union[/u][/b] vs. 8 Providence

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]
[b][u]13 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 4 Minnesota
12 St. Cloud State vs. 5 Boston University

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]
15 Air Force vs. 2 Denver
9 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 7 Western Michigan

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]
16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Minnesota-Duluth
10 North Dakota vs. 6 Penn State

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

NCHC — 5
Hockey East — 4
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
Big Ten — 2
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1

Movement

In: St. Cloud State
Out: Vermont

[b][u]To keep #1 UMD out of Fargo and UND (Second Choice)[/u][/b]

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]
14 Boston College vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
12 St. Cloud State vs. 8 Providence

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]
15 Air Force vs. 2 Denver
[b][u]11 Union[/u][/b] vs. 5 Boston University

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]
16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Minnesota-Duluth
9 Massachusetts-Lowell vs. 6 Penn State

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]
[b][u]13 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 4 Minnesota
10 North Dakota vs. 7 Western Michigan

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/02/15/where-does-your-team-stand-with-less-than-one-month-left-in-regular-season/#ixzz4YmEgvFGj


Fortunately for us, he does prefer the first choice.


West Regional (Fargo):
13 Cornell vs. 4 Minnesota
10 North Dakota vs. 7 Western Michigan


Shit like that is why it's important not to leave any points on the table from here on out.

Quote from: Trotsky

Code Select Expand


West Regional (Fargo):
13 Cornell vs. 4 Minnesota
10 North Dakota vs. 7 Western Michigan


Shit like that is why it's important not to leave any points on the table from here on out.

Absolutely. I understand that at least one Harvard alum, Billy Bob Thorton, was living in the Fargo area. so Harvard would be a better choice for Fargo.

Adam Wodon's recent article on Pairwise was about the best explanation of the process I've read recently. I wasn't aware that a team under .500 was ineligible for the
tournament by rule. This makes me feel a little better about St Cloud. While weekly projections are fun, Adam is correct that they basically are meaningless until
the last week and conference playoffs.  Another observation which is pointed out is the issues that North Dakota hosting creates.  To not put the top seed there because of a
potential match up with them in a regional final seems to give reason to not allow teams to host on their own ice.  Teams hosting regionals in their area makes sense but at
the schools themselves. Harvard or BU being forced to Fargo to eliminate a Duluth vs ND match up in the 2nd round is clearly wrong. Let's also not forget that North Dakota
plays on an Olympic size sheet. At least playing at Lake Placid the week before might help in that regard. Going to be interesting over the next three weeks to see how the committee
places tems.

Quote from: wakester2468I wasn't aware that a team under .500 was ineligible for the tournament by rule. This makes me feel a little better about St Cloud.

Not that I necessarily expect everyone to read every post (though the PWR certainly seems to be a keen interest of yours), but someone pointed that out in this forum several days ago in response to that exact concern.

To me, bracketology is not an obsession but rather a way to keep interest flowing during the week awaiting weekend games. As previously stated, the actual match ups it creates
during the season are irrelevant but what it does provide is weekly analysis as to trends and what to expect to see how the committee might view things with all of the possibilities.  I enjoy reading both Jason Moy and especially Adam Wodon with his close connection to the Big Red.

Worth pointing out that St. Cloud has to head to Denver for two games this weekend, where a sweep would put them back under .500 but a win might drastically improve their RPI.

Quote from: wakester2468Adam Wodon's recent article on Pairwise was about the best explanation of the process I've read recently. I wasn't aware that a team under .500 was ineligible for the
tournament by rule. This makes me feel a little better about St Cloud. While weekly projections are fun, Adam is correct that they basically are meaningless until
the last week and conference playoffs.  Another observation which is pointed out is the issues that North Dakota hosting creates.  To not put the top seed there because of a
potential match up with them in a regional final seems to give reason to not allow teams to host on their own ice.  Teams hosting regionals in their area makes sense but at
the schools themselves. Harvard or BU being forced to Fargo to eliminate a Duluth vs ND match up in the 2nd round is clearly wrong. Let's also not forget that North Dakota
plays on an Olympic size sheet. At least playing at Lake Placid the week before might help in that regard. Going to be interesting over the next three weeks to see how the committee
places tems.

Note, a little research would have pointed out:

UND plays at Ralph Engelstad Arena (http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=13500&ATCLID=736148) in Grand Forks, ND.

The NCAA is at Scheels Arena (http://scheelsarena.com/) in Fargo, ND.

Both rinks are 85 ft ice sheets. Although UND does have a practice Olympic sized 100 ft sheet. That probably dates back to old WCHA days, when their main opponent was Minny.

So the NCAA hosted by UND is not being played on their own rink. In fact they are 82 miles apart, but Scheels will be packed with UND fans. Thus not wanting to put #1 seed there.

Good info on your part albeit a little snarky.

Wait.  Are you telling me there are two different towns in North Dakota, because I'm not sure I believe that.

Quote from: TrotskyWait.  Are you telling me there are two different towns in North Dakota, because I'm not sure I believe that.

For the last time, that antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVLY-TV_mast) doesn't count.

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: TrotskyWait.  Are you telling me there are two different towns in North Dakota, because I'm not sure I believe that.

For the last time, that antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVLY-TV_mast) doesn't count.

I just want to say that I for one never stopped being 12 years old.

QuoteThe tower was built by Hamilton Erection Company of York, South Carolina

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: TrotskyWait.  Are you telling me there are two different towns in North Dakota, because I'm not sure I believe that.

For the last time, that antenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVLY-TV_mast) doesn't count.

I just want to say that I for one never stopped being 12 years old.

QuoteThe tower was built by Hamilton Erection Company of York, South Carolina

I don't care who ya are, that's funny.

Here's this week's (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/02/22/if-ncaa-tournament-started-today-whos-in-and-whos-out/) and now Adam discusses (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/02/21_re-introducing_the_pairwise.php) CHN's Pairwise Probability Matrix. (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php)


This week's brackets

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]

14 Air Force vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
9 Providence vs. [b][u]7 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]

15 Boston College vs. 4 Minnesota
[b][u]10 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 6 Boston University

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]

16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Denver
11 Penn State vs. 5 Western Michigan

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]

13 Ohio State vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
12 St. Cloud State vs. 8 Massachusetts-Lowell

[b][u]OR (You decide)[/u][/b]

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]

14 Air Force vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
9 Providence vs. [b][u]7 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]

16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Denver
[b][u]10 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 6 Boston University

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]

13 Ohio State vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
11 Penn State vs. 5 Western Michigan

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]

15 Boston College vs. 4 Minnesota
12 St. Cloud State vs. 8 Massachusetts-Lowell
[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]


NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 4
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
Big Ten — 3
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1

[b][u]Movement[/u][/b]

In: Ohio State
[b][u]Out: North Dakota[/u][/b]

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/02/22/if-ncaa-tournament-started-today-whos-in-and-whos-out/#ixzz4ZPvqDGN4

UND being out makes for interesting discussion about Fargo.

Personally I don't like the second choice, which is done to improve attendance in Cincinnati. You reward a 13 seed.

Also if we were to get by BU, I'd rather face Minny than DU.

And as an aside, for anyone who doesn't think changing a coach can make a big difference, just look at DU.

For weeks and for that matter years, Jason Moy in calculating Bracketology  and the 16 teams to qualify for the NCAA"s, finds it necessary to give an
automatic bid to the team that is currently in 1st place in their conference.  Does this assume that they will win their conference playoffs and get an automatic bid?
This the case with BC yet not the same with Canisius albeit they have one few game less than AF.  The one or two team difference because of this method changes
completely brackets and the forecast. I still think Adam's pairwise matrix makes so much more sense It factors in both chances of getting an at at large bid along
the odds of the automatic qualifier.

Quote from: wakester2468For weeks and for that matter years, Jason Moy in calculating Bracketology  and the 16 teams to qualify for the NCAA"s, finds it necessary to give an
automatic bid to the team that is currently in 1st place in their conference.  Does this assume that they will win their conference playoffs and get an automatic bid?
This the case with BC yet not the same with Canisius albeit they have one few game less than AF.  The one or two team difference because of this method changes
completely brackets and the forecast. I still think Adam's pairwise matrix makes so much more sense It factors in both chances of getting an at at large bid along
the odds of the automatic qualifier.

He uses points percentage  (not total points) to award the automatic bid in order to compensate for team's having played differing numbers of games.

I'd be curious to do a sensitivity analysis on the Probability Matrix.  For example, how screwed are we if we lose to RPI?  Or how important are two St. Cloud losses?  Is there some other result our of our control that could push us up to a 2-seed in the NCAA tourney?

Quote from: KenPI'd be curious to do a sensitivity analysis on the Probability Matrix.  For example, how screwed are we if we lose to RPI?  Or how important are two St. Cloud losses?  Is there some other result our of our control that could push us up to a 2-seed in the NCAA tourney?

If anything, I suspect winning the ECAC tournament might do the trick.

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: KenPI'd be curious to do a sensitivity analysis on the Probability Matrix.  For example, how screwed are we if we lose to RPI?  Or how important are two St. Cloud losses?  Is there some other result our of our control that could push us up to a 2-seed in the NCAA tourney?

If anything, I suspect winning the ECAC tournament might do the trick.

Okay, so let's go from there.  If we win the ECAC tournament, what is our highest or lowest possible seed?  Does that guarantee a #2 seed?  Can we get a #2 seed without winning the Whitelaw Cup?

Quote from: Jim HylaAlso if we were to get by BU, I'd rather face Minny than DU.

Also if we were to get by BU, I'd rather face BC than Bemidji. #2009

Quote from: KenPIf we win the ECAC tournament, what is our highest or lowest possible seed?  Does that guarantee a #2 seed?  Can we get a #2 seed without winning the Whitelaw Cup?

PlayoffStatus still has us at a non-zero chance (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournseedprob.html) of the #1 overall seed in the tourney.  So there's the highest possible seed right there.  :-)

If we were to win out and along the way take out both Union and Harvard, we'd probably be in very good shape for at worst  a 2.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KenPIf we win the ECAC tournament, what is our highest or lowest possible seed?  Does that guarantee a #2 seed?  Can we get a #2 seed without winning the Whitelaw Cup?

PlayoffStatus still has us at a non-zero chance (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournseedprob.html) of the #1 overall seed in the tourney.  So there's the highest possible seed right there.  :-)

If we were to win out and along the way take out both Union and Harvard, we'd probably be in very good shape for at worst  a 2.

Based on their red-green color designations, Cornell controls their own destiny for the #8 spot, i.e. a #2 bracket seeding.

Quote from: KenP

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KenPIf we win the ECAC tournament, what is our highest or lowest possible seed?  Does that guarantee a #2 seed?  Can we get a #2 seed without winning the Whitelaw Cup?

PlayoffStatus still has us at a non-zero chance (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournseedprob.html) of the #1 overall seed in the tourney.  So there's the highest possible seed right there.  :-)

If we were to win out and along the way take out both Union and Harvard, we'd probably be in very good shape for at worst  a 2.

Based on their red-green color designations, Cornell controls their own destiny for the #8 spot, i.e. a #2 bracket seeding.

So if I understand correctly, they're saying that a Cornell run of 6-0-0 through Lake Placid would result in a #8 finish or above, period, no matter what else occurs?

Quote from: BeeeejSo if I understand correctly, they're saying that a Cornell run of 6-0-0 through Lake Placid would result in a #8 finish or above, period, no matter what else occurs?

I believe this is correct except it is #7 or above.

Likewise, this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournpartprob.html) says that we are guaranteed to make the tourney by winning out except for the conference final.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BeeeejSo if I understand correctly, they're saying that a Cornell run of 6-0-0 through Lake Placid would result in a #8 finish or above, period, no matter what else occurs?

I believe this is correct except it is #7 or above.

Doesn't the red % under #7 mean we don't control our destiny for that spot? And doesn't that mean that #7 isn't guaranteed with a Cornell run of 6-0-0 through Lake Placid regardless of external factors?

Quote from: BeeeejDoesn't the red % under #7 mean we don't control our destiny for that spot? And doesn't that mean that #7 isn't guaranteed with a Cornell run of 6-0-0 through Lake Placid regardless of external factors?

Yes.  I am an idiot.  The green is where we are guaranteed with a win out with no help: #8 and lower.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BeeeejDoesn't the red % under #7 mean we don't control our destiny for that spot? And doesn't that mean that #7 isn't guaranteed with a Cornell run of 6-0-0 through Lake Placid regardless of external factors?

Yes.  I am an idiot.  The green is where we are guaranteed with a win out with no help: #8 and lower.

Okay, cool. Thanks.

Finally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

I love it when Cornell wins. I don't give a rat's ass whether possible future opponents win or lose, until they play Cornell. Except for Harvard.

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

Quote from: HookingI love it when Cornell wins. I don't give a rat's ass whether possible future opponents win or lose, until they play Cornell. Except for Harvard.

ok

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

tl,dr; I'm inclined to agree that 85% is too high given what I've been reading about the team and seeing in box scores/metrics (sadly I don't get to watch games anymore), but based on record to date it is about what I'd expect out of KRACH or Elo or whatever reasonable predictive ranking model one might use.

I couldn't find their methodology but most likely it's either a Monte Carlo simulation based on win probabilities or a simpler probabilistic combination based on those same probabilities. I would not be surprised if their win probability for Cornell vs RPI substantially over-weighted Cornell's chances, but without a pointer to how they figured that I have no way of knowing. A common approach for College Hockey geeks is to use KRACH ratings, which (if I'm doing it right) currently put Cornell at roughly 90% to beat RPI, and a slight favorite to beat Union. I found a site with Elo ratings, which is also common for such sports predictions, and it put Cornell at an 80% favorite over RPI and a slight underdog to Union.

Worth noting, from a PWR perspective losing to RPI and beating Union might very well be better for Cornell than beating RPI and losing to Union. It all depends on whether or not RPI would count as a "bad win" at the end of the season. I don't think they would given the importance of opponents opponents' record for RPI (the ranking), but their record is pretty bad so I guess we'll see. Union would almost certainly provide a quality win bonus. The real problem with a loss against RPI is it makes a 2-3-0 stretch run reasonably likely even with a QF sweep, which I suspect means no NCAA, while a win makes anything below .500 down the stretch pretty unlikely even with a 3-game QF round.

Quote from: HookingI love it when Cornell wins. I don't give a rat's ass whether possible future opponents win or lose, until they play Cornell. Except for Harvard.

Uh huh (http://www.thetulanevignette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cupid.jpg).

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account.  I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team.  More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI.  Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account.  I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team.  More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI.  Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

One thing to consider (and I say this as one of the more optimistic optimists here) is that we've overperformed a little in terms of our goal differential vs our record.  So we might not "feel" as good as our record, and therefore based on that feeling the odds of an RPI loss are greater than simply a function of our record and theirs.  Plus, RPI played us kinda-close-ish last we played them, if I remember, and we might be thinking of them as better than their record based on what we saw.

All in all, I don't think a loss sinks us as much as one might think.  RPI is the sum of three components: win%, opp win%, and opp opp win%.  The first component doesn't care about RPI's record, and the second and third components don't care about whether or not we win.  So, as mentioned above, a loss to RPI and a win against Union could be better than the reverse (since there's a quality win boost I didn't describe above).  Not saying a loss to RPI wouldn't be bad, but I don't think, uh, RPI-the-metric cares that much about who you lose to, just who you play and your win%.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account.  I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team.  More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI.  Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.

Quote from: BeeeejI'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account."

Exactly.  This is the age-old Ron Darling argument that when statistical calculation and "the eye test" conflict it must mean the math is wrong.

Guess Yale had a "need" for a RHP...

Next week in this space: no, a fastball does not rise (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-rise-looks-like-on-a-fastball/).  Physics > your perception.

BearLover, from the sounds of it, you're on board with the process used (ie, Monte Carlo), you're just not on board with them using KRACH, right?

It "feels" tough to say we have a 90% chance of beating RPI, given that we were only leading for 35 seconds in that game, while they lead for over half the game. That said, I think that people often think that 90% is a sure thing. It really isn't. It's about the odds of rolling a 5 with two dice: Not likely, but not out of the ordinary. Rolling a 12 on the other hand, now THAT feels special (only happens 3% of the time)

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account.  I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team.  More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI.  Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.

Dude, literally all I'm saying is that an 85% chance of making the tournament presupposes an incredibly high chance of beating RPI.  I don't know how it came to that probability, because I do not know precisely how sophisticated the model is.  But I bet that if it looked at stats like, say, goal differential, shot differential, etc., rather than just at how often the 9th-best team beats the 57th-best team, the model would not be giving Cornell a 90% chance of winning.  Maybe it does look at that stuff and I'm wrong.  But I doubt it.  

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?  

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously.  I don't need to be lectured on probability/results-oriented thinking.  At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account.  I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team.  More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI.  Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.

Dude, literally all I'm saying is that an 85% chance of making the tournament presupposes an incredibly high chance of beating RPI.  I don't know how it came to that probability, because I do not know precisely how sophisticated the model is.  But I bet that if it looked at stats like, say, goal differential, shot differential, etc., rather than just at how often the 9th-best team beats the 57th-best team, the model would not be giving Cornell a 90% chance of winning.  Maybe it does look at that stuff and I'm wrong.  But I doubt it.  

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?  

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously.  I don't need to be lectured on probabilities/results-oriented thinking.  At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

There's also a pretty good chance we still get in despite a loss in that game, so that adds to the math.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account.  I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team.  More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI.  Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.

Dude, literally all I'm saying is that an 85% chance of making the tournament presupposes an incredibly high chance of beating RPI.  I don't know how it came to that probability, because I do not know precisely how sophisticated the model is.  But I bet that if it looked at stats like, say, goal differential, shot differential, etc., rather than just at how often the 9th-best team beats the 57th-best team, the model would not be giving Cornell a 90% chance of winning.  Maybe it does look at that stuff and I'm wrong.  But I doubt it.  

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?  

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously.  I don't need to be lectured on probability/results-oriented thinking.  At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

You interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words. I'm not lecturing you on your understanding of probability, I'm lecturing you on your reading comprehension.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

Without taking into account anything else that might happen on Friday night, a loss drops Cornell to 15th.

But keep in mind that the 85% number is going to inherently account for (a) what are the odds that Cornell beats RPI; (b) what are the odds that Cornell makes up for any potential loss to RPI by winning in the quarterfinals; (c) what are the odds Cornell can beat Union

Exactly. 85% isn't too high because the fact that RPI is 57th in the Pairwise, and therefore "likely" to lose to us, is already "baked in." The fact that we'd drop precipitously if we lost is also baked in, since it's supposed to be "unlikely."

I understand that, but I do not think the predictor accounts for how much randomness exists in a single game of hockey.  If we lose to RPI, we are probably less than 50% to make the NCAAs.  We've lost/nearly lost to many bad teams this year.  Any prediction predicated on what seems to an extremely high likelihood of beating a team we had to score twice in the final seven minutes to beat a few weeks ago seems faulty to me.

I don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

It really is baked in.

I know it is taking innate hockey randomness into account.  I'm saying it isn't adequately taking innate hockey randomness into account, especially w/r/t this particular Cornell team.  More specifically, I'm saying the predictor is giving Cornell too high a chance of beating RPI, not that it's giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI.  Which is why I used language like "how much randomness" and "extremely high likelihood" rather the absolute wording you read into my post.

I seriously don't know where you're getting that.

Basically, you're saying "85% is too high because it doesn't take randomness into account," and I'm saying, "85% isn't too high because it does take randomness into account, this just happens to be where the numbers come out when you take randomness into account." I said nothing about you thinking it was giving Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI or anything remotely "absolute" like that.

Anyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.

Dude, literally all I'm saying is that an 85% chance of making the tournament presupposes an incredibly high chance of beating RPI.  I don't know how it came to that probability, because I do not know precisely how sophisticated the model is.  But I bet that if it looked at stats like, say, goal differential, shot differential, etc., rather than just at how often the 9th-best team beats the 57th-best team, the model would not be giving Cornell a 90% chance of winning.  Maybe it does look at that stuff and I'm wrong.  But I doubt it.  

KGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?  

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously.  I don't need to be lectured on probability/results-oriented thinking.  At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

You interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words. I'm not lecturing you on your understanding of probability, I'm lecturing you on your reading comprehension.

Guys, there's math and there's emotion.  Based on the methodology, the math is what it is.  But our emotion says the method is weak.  This team doesn't blow people out and  has it's moments of let down that allow teams that we should beat to stay in games or even win.  So while the methodology does take into account some degree of probability, it just "feels" optimistic.

OTOH...DROP THE PUCK!

I understand both points.  KRACH handles inter-game mathematics perfectly, but treats all wins equally, whether it is eeked out or a 10-0 blowout.

What about team / intra-game statistics?  A review of both standard and advanced stats at http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/ indicates we are not leaders in any major categories.  (Except for ShA: Shots On Goal Against... but that stat favors teams that play fewer games.)  So to BearLover's point, how to manage expectations?  Is this team a true NCAA top-10 team?

Like all of us I'm really enjoying this season and it's exciting to still be in the thick of things.  Regardless of final outcomes, thank you Team and Coach!

you can use all the math you want, but dont the stats show that over time almost all these super cool tools predict the winners just about the same as a pet rooster?

Quote from: upprdeckyou can use all the math you want, but dont the stats show that over time almost all these super cool tools predict the winners just about the same as a pet rooster?

There's the problem.  We need the Octopus that picks the World Cup winners!  ::dribble::

Quote from: BearLoverKGR11, a 90% chance of beating RPI is extremely high--is that indeed the chance the model us?  

I read fivethirtyeight and similar blogs religiously.  I don't need to be lectured on probability/results-oriented thinking.  At the same time, I'm genuinely in the dark about this predictor and could definitely be wrong in this particular case.

Yeah, as of Feb. 23 our KRACH rating is 246.9 and RPI's is 28.6. The result is that our H2H "KRACH-modeled" record against RPI is 246.9-28.6, or an 89.6% winning percentage (this is my understanding of KRACH as defined by USCHO. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong). KRACH is based entirely on game results so it doesn't care HOW a team is winning (squeaking out like we often do, or blowing out like Harvard often does).

As a fun exercise I found the average goal differential of all Cornell and RPI games. Out of 60 games played, the average goal differential is 1.2 goals with a stand deviation of 2.15 goals. If you assume that ties happen when the goal differential is between -0.5 and 0.5 goals, we'd have a 21.5% chance of losing, 15.8% chance of tying, and a 62.7% chance of winning. Winning percentage then becomes 70.6%. Our Strength of schedules are pretty similar so I don't think you'd have to make any adjustments for that.

This feels a little drastic to me: that theoretical winning percentage against one of the worst teams is below our overall winning percentage against all teams. But it does take into account the goal differential of games by both teams.

how do the systems deal with goal differential as related to how the game was played?

team 1 is losing 3-2 and pulls the goalie with 4 min to go and loses 5-2 with 2 Empty net goals
team 2 is losing 3-2 and plays it out losing 2-1
team 3 is tied and loses 3-2 in 5 ot
team 4 is losing 3-0 all game and scores twice in the last 30 secs on a  5x3 major with the goalie pulled

can it tell who played better

Quote from: upprdeckhow do the systems deal with goal differential as related to how the game was played?

team 1 is losing 3-2 and pulls the goalie with 4 min to go and loses 5-2 with 2 Empty net goals
team 2 is losing 3-2 and plays it out losing 2-1
team 3 is tied and loses 3-2 in 5 ot
team 4 is losing 3-0 all game and scores twice in the last 30 secs on a  5x3 major with the goalie pulled

can it tell who played better

Team 2 played better, obviously, as they were apparently able to have scored goals removed. (They just removed one too many.)  :)

yeah those dang replay reviews can really change a score

Quote from: BeeeejYou interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words.

Then why did you make this point?:

Quote from: BeeeejI don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

Quote from: BeeeejI'm not lecturing you on your understanding of probability, I'm lecturing you on your reading comprehension.

Except you did then make a snide remark about results-oriented thinking:  

Quote from: BeeeejAnyway, as all bad poker players do, after the Cornell-RPI game is over, some people will take the results as "proof" their predictive analysis was correct, and none of them will be right.

And the "probability" part was in response to KGR11.

Anyway, as KGR11 just posted, the 90% likelihood of beating RPI seems way too high.  I stand by what I've posted in this thread.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: BeeeejYou interpreted what I said as suggesting that you think the model gives Cornell a 100% chance of beating RPI, then you addressed your arguments to that position instead of my actual one. So I clarified my actual position with smaller words.

Then why did you make this point?:

Quote from: BeeeejI don't think you understand how this works, then. If the predictor didn't take into account that there's randomness in a single game of hockey, and weaker teams can beat stronger ones, our chance of making the tournament would be much higher than 85%.

Are there no percentages much higher than 85 other than 100?

I'm really tired of this conversation. I have no interest in continuing to defend things I didn't say. Let's just win the fucking games.

Quote from: BearLoverAnyway, as KGR11 just posted, the 90% likelihood of beating RPI seems way too high.  I stand by what I've posted in this thread.

I agree with this.

The output of a formula doesn't need to be bowed down to if you think the inputs stink. KRACH is a useful number, of course, but there's a reason scouts still have jobs in the post-Moneyball era. I don't give a shit if recursive analysis of win/loss data says we're 90% likely to win. This team has enough fallow stretches that I wouldn't lay close to those odds and we play bad teams close a lot.

This, Cornell players, is your cue to make me look stupid.

So after reading through all this, I've come to the conclusion that we don't yet have a system that can correctly predict the results of all games, or at least not one that everyone agrees with.

Is that right?

Well glory be, how about that.

Quote from: Jim HylaSo after reading through all this, I've come to the conclusion that we don't yet have a system that can correctly predict the results of all games

Score with 1 second left is pretty good, though.

Quote from: Jim HylaSo after reading through all this, I've come to the conclusion that we don't yet have a system that can correctly predict the results of all games.

Good Lord, I certainly hope we never have that system.

I like the part of the playoffs when a win gives Cornell a 100% chance of advancement. I best like the part of the playoffs where a Cornell win means the season's over.

Quote from: HookingI'm a vegan. And I don't own a television.

FYP.

Quote from: HookingI like the part of the playoffs when a win gives Cornell a 100% chance of advancement. I best like the part of the playoffs where a Cornell win means the season's over.

2008 (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_2008.pdf) wasn't that great.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: HookingI like the part of the playoffs when a win gives Cornell a 100% chance of advancement. I best like the part of the playoffs where a Cornell win means the season's over.

2008 (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptCornell_Games_by_Year/rptCornell_Games_2008.pdf) wasn't that great.

touche.

Mea culpa. I assume "when Cornell wins and the season's over" it's over for EVERY D1 college hockey team. I keep forgetting the prevailing mood of number crunchers.

Quote from: HookingMea culpa. I assume "when Cornell wins and the season's over" it's over for EVERY D1 college hockey team. I keep forgetting the prevailing mood of number crunchers.

you would do better here if you just acknowledge a clever comment, rather than try to worm your way out with a snide remark

"Snide?" To paraphrase Jack Nicholson "You can't handle snide." A great gap remains between the expectations of two different groups of Cornell fans, or perhaps "followers" is a more accurate descriptor for one group.

Quote from: Hooking"Snide?" To paraphrase Jack Nicholson "You can't handle snide." A great gap remains between the expectations of two different groups of Cornell fans, or perhaps "followers" is a more accurate descriptor for one group.

??????????????

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Hooking"Snide?" To paraphrase Jack Nicholson "You can't handle snide." A great gap remains between the expectations of two different groups of Cornell fans, or perhaps "followers" is a more accurate descriptor for one group.

??????????????

+1

Quote from: Hooking"Snide?" To paraphrase Jack Nicholson "You can't handle snide." A great gap remains between the expectations of two different groups of Cornell fans, or perhaps "followers" is a more accurate descriptor for one group.

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/martytoo/reply_zpsatkxjsye.jpg)

OK, calm down, all.  We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight.  Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps.  :-)

Damn the statistics! Go Big Red!

There are some on this forum who are downright rude to those who speak out against the ELynah hivemind.

Quote from: TrotskyOK, calm down, all.  We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight.  Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps.  :-)

Jerk.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: TrotskyOK, calm down, all.  We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight.  Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps.  :-)

Jerk.

Typical.

(Oooh.  I've missed this silliness.)

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: TrotskyOK, calm down, all.  We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight.  Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps.  :-)

Jerk.

Typical.

(Oooh.  I've missed this silliness.)

::wank::

(me too)

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: TrotskyOK, calm down, all.  We're 13 days from playoff hockey and have an important game tonight.  Let's all be friends and concentrate on esprit de corps.  :-)

Jerk.

Typical.

(Oooh.  I've missed this silliness.)

::wank::

(me too)

+1

Cornell is ranked No. 9 in the Feb. 27 USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll, but where would the Big Red start the NCAA tournament?  (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/01/with-march-here-where-does-your-team-stand-in-the-pairwise/)


[b][u]This week's brackets[/u][/b]

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]

13 Wisconsin vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
12 Providence vs. [b][u]8 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]

15 Bemidji State vs. 4 Minnesota
[b][u]10 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 7 Boston University

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]

14 Ohio State vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
11 Notre Dame vs. 5 Western Michigan

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]

16 Canisius vs. 1 Denver
9 Penn State vs. 6 Massachusetts-Lowell

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

Big Ten — 4
Hockey East — 4
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
NCHC — 3
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Movement

In: Canisius, Wisconsin, Notre Dame
Out: Air Force, St. Cloud State, Boston College

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/01/with-march-here-where-does-your-team-stand-in-the-pairwise/#ixzz4a66jAOv5



Quote from: Jim HylaCornell is ranked No. 9 in the Feb. 27 USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll, but where would the Big Red start the NCAA tournament?  (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/01/with-march-here-where-does-your-team-stand-in-the-pairwise/)

Code Select Expand


[b][u]This week's brackets[/u][/b]

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]

13 Wisconsin vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
12 Providence vs. [b][u]8 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]

15 Bemidji State vs. 4 Minnesota
[b][u]10 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 7 Boston University

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]

14 Ohio State vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
11 Notre Dame vs. 5 Western Michigan

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]

16 Canisius vs. 1 Denver
9 Penn State vs. 6 Massachusetts-Lowell

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

Big Ten — 4
Hockey East — 4
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
NCHC — 3
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1
Movement

In: Canisius, Wisconsin, Notre Dame
Out: Air Force, St. Cloud State, Boston College

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/01/with-march-here-where-does-your-team-stand-in-the-pairwise/#ixzz4a66jAOv5



Fargo is Sold Out. (http://www.ncaa.com/tickets/icehockey-men/d1)

Quote from: martyFargo is Sold Out. (http://www.ncaa.com/tickets/icehockey-men/d1)

They always reserve blocks for the participating schools. Nobody who wants to go is likely to get shut out of it.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: martyFargo is Sold Out. (http://www.ncaa.com/tickets/icehockey-men/d1)

They always reserve blocks for the participating schools. Nobody who wants to go is likely to get shut out of it.

Not to mention that if NoDak gets bumped that place will be 70% empty.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: martyFargo is Sold Out. (http://www.ncaa.com/tickets/icehockey-men/d1)

They always reserve blocks for the participating schools. Nobody who wants to go is likely to get shut out of it.

Not to mention that if NoDak gets bumped that place will be 70% empty.

Let's go Miami. They could even get UND close to a losing record.

Tonight's Schedule for Teams Right Below Us in PWR
UMass @ Providence
Wisconsin @ Penn St.
Col. Coll. @ St. Cloud
Mich. St. @ Ohio St.
No. Dakota @ Miami
Denver @ UNO
Maine @ Vermont

Quote from: jkahnTonight's Schedule for Teams Right Below Us in PWR
UMass @ Providence
Wisconsin @ Penn St.
Col. Coll. @ St. Cloud
Mich. St. @ Ohio St.
No. Dakota @ Miami
Denver @ UNO
Maine @ Vermont

I assume Cornell would generally benefit from the bolded teams losing, except maybe the Wisc & Penn St matchup?

I was wondering too whether PSU losing is better than Wisc.. Im thinking long term its better for getting in if Wisc loses, if you told me we were getting in than maybe its better if psu loses so we have a shot to pass  them.

However brief it may be, tonight's results have pushed us up to #9 as of 9:37pm.

EDIT: It seems to have stuck, with all of tonight's results in. w00t!

Quote from: BeeeejHowever brief it may be, tonight's results have pushed us up to #9 as of 9:37pm.

EDIT: It seems to have stuck, with all of tonight's results in. w00t!

And although their PWR leaves us at 10, Playoff Status gives us a 93% of getting in NCAA (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournpartprob.html) and 61% if we lose next weekend.

I see us at 9 this morning..

hockey east will provide some help next week if things play out again tonight,

nd/prov means someone loses twice

vermont/bc means one loses twice but a split might help even more.

nchc root for more chalk

st cloud would play ndak
omaha plays west mich

b10.  someone between psu/osu/wisc has to lose at least twice more before they get to the finals. it could easily be 2 of them or even all 3 since they still have reg season game left.
just root for mich/msu to not win their tourney.

#16 Badger coach Tony Granato after last night's upset of #11 Penn State: ". . . we haven't focused on what everyone else is doing. Our whole focus has been trying to get better each weekend and face each challenge and not worry about what else is going on." That and, of course, continuing to believe "We are going to wind the championship." I hope Cornell Coach and players subscribe to a similar mindset. I wish more Cornell fans did. It couldn't hurt.

Quote from: Hooking#16 Badger coach Tony Granato after last night's upset of #11 Penn State: ". . . we haven't focused on what everyone else is doing. Our whole focus has been trying to get better each weekend and face each challenge and not worry about what else is going on." That and, of course, continuing to believe "We are going to wind the championship." I hope Cornell Coach and players subscribe to a similar mindset. I wish more Cornell fans did. It couldn't hurt.

I'm reasonably confident our players aren't sitting around analyzing the Vermont vs BC series. I'm sure their mindset is "Just win."

I don't see any harm in the fans paying attention to other games, and how the results of those games could impact Cornell. In fact I appreciate those posters here who often take the time to spell this stuff out for those of us not as well-versed in Pairwise and RPI numbers.

If, for whatever reason, that is not something you yourself enjoy, then perhaps consider not reading this thread.

Quote from: Hooking#16 Badger coach Tony Granato after last night's upset of #11 Penn State: ". . . we haven't focused on what everyone else is doing. Our whole focus has been trying to get better each weekend and face each challenge and not worry about what else is going on." That and, of course, continuing to believe "We are going to wind the championship." I hope Cornell Coach and players subscribe to a similar mindset. I wish more Cornell fans did. It couldn't hurt.

So if we somehow don't win the ECAC tournament, which is unfortunately an actual, finite possibility, and yet we get an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament, you'll stop following the team until next season, right?

Quote from: andyw2100If, for whatever reason, that is not something you yourself enjoy, then perhaps consider not reading this thread.

But that would mean passing up so many great opportunities to pass judgment!

Hockey is played on the ice, not on computers, which is a stretch for a growing number of fans. So far neither the ECAC nor the NCAA has prevented a winning team from winning a championship. It is imperative for a championship team to believe in its own abilities not just to win but to beat everyone, regardless of statistics, until a loss prevents it. It would help if fans shared such a conviction.

Quote from: HookingHockey is played on the ice, not on computers, which is a stretch for a growing number of fans. So far neither the ECAC nor the NCAA has prevented a winning team from winning a championship. It is imperative for a championship team to believe in its own abilities not just to win but to beat everyone, regardless of statistics, until a loss prevents it. It would help if fans shared such a conviction.

Your problem (well, one of your problems) is that you think one-dimensionally. It is possible to 1) believe in one's team's abilities to win and to beat everyone, yet also 2) hope that if one is wrong, and they don't win every single game, external circumstances will benefit the team as well, and therefore have some interest in those external circumstances as they develop. What you're actually suggesting is that if we don't all think the same way you do - believe the team can win, and not consider any other possibilities - the team will not win. Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Cornell men's hockey is not Tinkerbell.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: HookingHockey is played on the ice, not on computers, which is a stretch for a growing number of fans. So far neither the ECAC nor the NCAA has prevented a winning team from winning a championship. It is imperative for a championship team to believe in its own abilities not just to win but to beat everyone, regardless of statistics, until a loss prevents it. It would help if fans shared such a conviction.

Your problem (well, one of your problems) is that you think one-dimensionally. It is possible to 1) believe in one's team's abilities to win and to beat everyone, yet also 2) hope that if one is wrong, and they don't win every single game, external circumstances will benefit the team as well, and therefore have some interest in those external circumstances as they develop. What you're actually suggesting is that if we don't all think the same way you do - believe the team can win, and not consider any other possibilities - the team will not win. Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Cornell men's hockey is not Tinkerbell.

But Rand Pecknold might very well be Captain Hook.  ::moon::

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: HookingHockey is played on the ice, not on computers, which is a stretch for a growing number of fans. So far neither the ECAC nor the NCAA has prevented a winning team from winning a championship. It is imperative for a championship team to believe in its own abilities not just to win but to beat everyone, regardless of statistics, until a loss prevents it. It would help if fans shared such a conviction.

Your problem (well, one of your problems) is that you think one-dimensionally. It is possible to 1) believe in one's team's abilities to win and to beat everyone, yet also 2) hope that if one is wrong, and they don't win every single game, external circumstances will benefit the team as well, and therefore have some interest in those external circumstances as they develop. What you're actually suggesting is that if we don't all think the same way you do - believe the team can win, and not consider any other possibilities - the team will not win. Or more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Cornell men's hockey is not Tinkerbell.

+1

Quote from: BeeeejOr more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Well, I think we can all agree that every time the team loses it's because I didn't believe hard enough.

At least, that's the way I see it, in my world where all the rest of you are just figments of my imagination. I wonder often why I created someone like Hooking in the first place.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: BeeeejOr more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Well, I think we can all agree that every time the team loses it's because I didn't believe hard enough.

At least, that's the way I see it, in my world where all the rest of you are just figments of my imagination. I wonder often why I created someone like Hooking in the first place.

I think I'm catching on here, but can someone please tell me whether it's futile to wear my lucky shirt.

If we had beat Colorado College at the Florida Hockey Classic, the pairwise predictor would have CU at #6. A win against Merrimack on  10/28 along with a win against Colorado college would make Big Red #5. Those losses really hurt... in particular, but it also tells us we have a darn good team this year as we approach the tournaments.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: BeeeejOr more to the point, that believing in them hard enough will carry them to the championship.

Well, I think we can all agree that every time the team loses it's because I didn't believe hard enough.

At least, that's the way I see it, in my world where all the rest of you are just figments of my imagination. I wonder often why I created someone like Hooking in the first place.

Nice try, but my Bishop Berkeley has assured me that you're all in my head.

Down to 11 after tonight's games.  Hrmpf.

Quote from: TrotskyDown to 11 after tonight's games.  Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us.  That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.

Quote from: Scersk '97Well, I think we can all agree that every time the team loses it's because I didn't believe hard enough.

At least, that's the way I see it, in my world where all the rest of you are just figments of my imagination. I wonder often why I created someone like Hooking in the first place.

"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: TrotskyDown to 11 after tonight's games.  Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us.  That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.

I worry This Man Has NoDak and some 4 band team will be flipped, leaving us in the Sioux bracket with games against a 2 and then a 1 or a home team, in true Minny/Wisco "see figure one" style.

But that's paranoia; I don't know whether that has ever happened to anybody before.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: TrotskyDown to 11 after tonight's games.  Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us.  That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.

I worry This Man Has NoDak and some 4 band team will be flipped, leaving us in the Sioux bracket with games against a 2 and then a 1 or a home team, in true Minny/Wisco "see figure one" style.

But that's paranoia; I don't know whether that has ever happened to anybody before.

Given how quickly the PWR changed - especially when most of the top 12 teams in it weren't even playing this weekend - I'm pretty sure it won't look remotely the same by the time the tournaments are over in two weeks. I actually also do have faith that this is a Cornell team that can win its next four games, and we have the potential to claw our way into the 2-band that way. But it will almost certainly mean sweeping Clarkson and having a few other quarterfinal series around the country go 2-1.

Quote from: Give My Regards"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

Well then, Hooking—by my own decree—will be "doomed to wander through the world" so that he might view the full panoply of college hockey games, an interconnected web of delight affecting the tournament prospects of every team far and near, and "witness" the happiness of fans in which he "cannot share."

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: Give My Regards"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

Well then, Hooking—by my own decree—will be "doomed to wander through the world" so that he might view the full panoply of college hockey games, an interconnected web of delight affecting the tournament prospects of every team far and near, and "witness" the happiness of fans in which he "cannot share."

These are the pains he forged in life.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: TrotskyDown to 11 after tonight's games.  Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us.  That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.

I'm more concerned with making the tournament.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: TrotskyDown to 11 after tonight's games.  Hrmpf.

FWIW, I don't think it matters whether we're 9th or 11th, as long as NoDak stays in the 3-band with us.  That means we can't go to Fargo, and have a much better chance of staying east.

I'm more concerned with making the tournament.

+1 my thoughts exactly

sweep next weekend and it takes care of itself.

Quote from: upprdecksweep next weekend and it takes care of itself.

I don't believe even sweeping next weekend is a guarantee. There are still some conference tournament upset possibilities, more so because we're at #11 and can't afford to lose a game to Clarkson.

I still wish Lake Placid had a consolation game.  Rationally, I know such a thing is just as likely to doom a team as help them, but irrationally, I can't shake "win one in LP and we're in" from my head.

Also, I know we aren't there yet.

I know that, its also a known that several teams right around us have to loss 2 games before its all done

nd/prov and vt/bc st and cloud/ndak 3 of them will lose twice next week

osu/wisc someone is losing 1-2 times next week and several of b10 teams have to lose again as well the following week

with  a sweep there is only so far we can fall with 1 loss in placid.

vt/bc hurts us if they run the table but one will be out by next week and the same for nd/prov us 2-1 and them 0-2 or 1-2 they wont catch us.

st cloud would win 2-1 over NDak and then loss the following week and not be .500 and hurt ndak chances too.

Quote from: DafatoneI still wish Lake Placid had a consolation game.

Me too, but IIRC the coaches were unanimously in favor of killing it.

As for the league's ostensible reason of improving our bids, the best way to do that would be to cut the ECAC tourney back to 8 teams and bar the PWR-killer Cinderellas from taking a run at our bubble teams.

Back to 10 in PWR, with the cut at 14.

Gosh, I'm sorry I missed the earlier conversation ... but just to point some things that maybe already were, I don't know ...

This is our Pairwise Probability Matrix ... The methodology is explained right on the page. 20,000 Monte Carlo style simulations based on KRACH. Whether KRACH overweights the possibility of winning one game, I don't know. It's the basis of a very good discussion that I'd love to be a part of. It's a good question. But using scores differentials also has its flaws.  So, you are free to take it for what it's worth.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

This is my article today based off of the latest Matrix, about projecting a final bracket...

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/03/05_ncaa_bracket_abcs;_early_march.php

I've needled Jim, and others, before about bothering to discuss a "Bracketology" article that lays out a bracket "if the season ends today" - because it doesn't end today, which makes it rather pointless - to me. But to each their own I suppose. I usually stick to just laying out possible caveats and interesting potential matchups. But with the Matrix, and us being close to selection day, I used the Matrix projection to project a bracket.

Whether the Pairwise will fluctuate a lot between now and March 19th depends upon your definition of a lot. I have found that things really haven't changed much since December, relatively speaking. I think there is less fluctuation than there was in years past because nowadays the Pairwise is almost exclusively based upon the RPI. The other criteria come into play very little, and if you look at the Grid, you see very few cases where teams below others in the overall list, beat them in individual comparisons. The Grid used to look like an eyechart. Now it's fairly clean.

As for the tools to see what would happen "if only we won this game" or "lost that game" - etc... Our Customizer allows you to do that. Click the Tab from the Pairwise page.  This was inspired by John Whalen's old scripts.

Quote from: adamwGosh, I'm sorry I missed the earlier conversation ... but just to point some things that maybe already were, I don't know ...

This is our Pairwise Probability Matrix ... The methodology is explained right on the page. 20,000 Monte Carlo style simulations based on KRACH. Whether KRACH overweights the possibility of winning one game, I don't know. It's the basis of a very good discussion that I'd love to be a part of. It's a good question. But using scores differentials also has its flaws.  So, you are free to take it for what it's worth.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

This is my article today based off of the latest Matrix, about projecting a final bracket...

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/03/05_ncaa_bracket_abcs;_early_march.php

I've needled Jim, and others, before about bothering to discuss a "Bracketology" article that lays out a bracket "if the season ends today" - because it doesn't end today, which makes it rather pointless - to me. But to each their own I suppose. I usually stick to just laying out possible caveats and interesting potential matchups. But with the Matrix, and us being close to selection day, I used the Matrix projection to project a bracket.

Whether the Pairwise will fluctuate a lot between now and March 19th depends upon your definition of a lot. I have found that things really haven't changed much since December, relatively speaking. I think there is less fluctuation than there was in years past because nowadays the Pairwise is almost exclusively based upon the RPI. The other criteria come into play very little, and if you look at the Grid, you see very few cases where teams below others in the overall list, beat them in individual comparisons. The Grid used to look like an eyechart. Now it's fairly clean.

As for the tools to see what would happen "if only we won this game" or "lost that game" - etc... Our Customizer allows you to do that. Click the Tab from the Pairwise page.  This was inspired by John Whalen's old scripts.

Adam, it's okay to look at what it would have been like "if only we won this game", but not "if the season ends today"?

After all you do say "I have found that things really haven't changed much since December". So it's kind of fun to follow the change in tournament possibilities over time. No one here, I hope, thinks it's reality.

Come on, all of this is discussion, which is the purpose of this, and all other forums. It's generally harmless, so why do you care?

Quote from: Jim HylaAdam, it's okay to look at what it would have been like "if only we won this game", but not "if the season ends today"?

After all you do say "I have found that things really haven't changed much since December". So it's kind of fun to follow the change in tournament possibilities over time. No one here, I hope, thinks it's reality.

Come on, all of this is discussion, which is the purpose of this, and all other forums. It's generally harmless, so why do you care?

I did say I was just needling you. And to each their own. I'm not exactly losing sleep over it. For a fun discussion, sure. Some people take the Bracketology articles way too seriously though, as if they have any meaning, which they don't really. So I like to remind people of that. Not you, necessarily. I just personally find the exercise pointless, and void of any educational value.

Quote from: adamwI just personally find the exercise pointless, and void of any educational value.

I used to torture Anne with "what ifs."  She hated thinking about them, I loved speculating.  This is one of those "there are two types of people" things.

We all know that the only thing that matters is the performance on the ice.  I see no harm in speculating, and in fact I think the trial run picking of brackets does teach more casual fans how the field is chosen and seeded.

Latest odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html) from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds.  After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting.  :)

Quote from: TrotskyLatest odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html) from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds.  After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting.  :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: TrotskyLatest odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html) from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds.  After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting.  :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones.  75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: TrotskyLatest odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html) from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds.  After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting.  :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones.  75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

I don't recall a probability matrix that gave us such great odds of making the ECAC semis. I recall the CHN probability matrix that gave us - and still gives us - a 98% chance of making the NCAA field. Is that what you're thinking of?

Quote from: BearLoverYou joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones.  75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

What Beeeej said.  In fact, if you look at CHN's Probability Matrix, our odds of Cornell winning the ECAC Tournament are pretty much exactly the same as the other site that's mentioned:

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

(I actually did not re-run this after last night's games, FWIW)

We don't do all of the other breakdowns, but I assume we use the same methodology. Nowhere did anyone say, or suggest, that Cornell has a 95% chance of making the next round.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: TrotskyFinally, according to this (http://www.playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html), our probabilities for tourney advance are currently:

.85 Tourney
.42 QF
.19 SF
.09 F
.04 That Which Shall Be Nameless

Is there a way to check what a loss to RPI would do to us in the PWR?  Because unless such a loss would knock us down just a few spots, that 85% number feels way too high.

As I recall, I think it was this 85% number that caused the controversy in the first place.  BearLover's last sentence is key.  The 85% number didn't assume we had to beat RPI in order to make the NCAAs, as a loss to RPI still left a certain, not at all insignificant, % possibility of making the tournament even with a loss.

the only number that interesting is what chance we have of getting to the ncaa if we dont win this this weekend, anything else that happens means we survive to live another day

Quote from: BeeeejBut Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

dont tell me kid about bad puck bounces..

rit lost this weekend 2-1 to niagara while out shooting them 120-60 and holding them to 1-17 on the PP but in the two 3rd periods they lost somehow allowing 5 goals on 12 shots and 2 shorthanded breakaways

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Jim HylaAdam, it's okay to look at what it would have been like "if only we won this game", but not "if the season ends today"?

After all you do say "I have found that things really haven't changed much since December". So it's kind of fun to follow the change in tournament possibilities over time. No one here, I hope, thinks it's reality.

Come on, all of this is discussion, which is the purpose of this, and all other forums. It's generally harmless, so why do you care?

I did say I was just needling you. And to each their own. I'm not exactly losing sleep over it. For a fun discussion, sure. Some people take the Bracketology articles way too seriously though, as if they have any meaning, which they don't really. So I like to remind people of that. Not you, necessarily. I just personally find the exercise pointless, and void of any educational value.

I know you're just needling me. After all, you say it to me every time you see me.:-D

I just wanted to point out a little inconsistency with it being okay to speculate what would happen if we didn't lose game x, but it's not okay to speculate on if the season ends today.

So there, I've finished needling you back.

Quote from: upprdeck

Quote from: BeeeejBut Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

dont tell me kid about bad puck bounces..

rit lost this weekend 2-1 to niagara while out shooting them 120-60 and holding them to 1-17 on the PP but in the two 3rd periods they lost somehow allowing 5 goals on 12 shots and 2 shorthanded breakaways

That doesn't tell me anything about bad bounces. You don't really think two short-handed breakaways leading to two goals in the third periods of two playoff games were the result of bad bounces, do you? A couple of mistakes can open the door for a supposedly inferior team to beat their opponents on any given night. That has nothing to do with either odds or bad bounces.

I'm also not a huge believer in more shots as a measure of superior scoring potential. Anytime you put the puck on net and the goalie has to save it from going in counts as a shot, no matter how weak or easy to stop. It might be a decent measure of offensive zone possession and control, but that's not the same thing.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: TrotskyLatest odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html) from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds.  After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting.  :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones.  75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

This 91% for us making the tournament or the 98% shown on CHN
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
seem way high to me (and by "to me" I mean my quick analysis using KRACH probabilities).
Per Krach, there's a 27.5% chance we don't get by Clarkson this weekend.  If we lose that series 2-1, our winning percentage drops to .6719.  To try to see that effect, using CHN's pairwise calculator, I simply flipped one of our wins (I used the UNH game) to a loss, which drops are current percentage to .6724.  If that were the case, we'd be at #14 in pairwise, with a fair amount of risk.  And there's an 11.9% chance of getting swept, which is obviously worse.  I realize that this is overly simplistic and ignores all other results happening around us.
I hope these models are accurate, but more importantly, let's take care of business this weekend.

Quote from: jkahn

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: TrotskyLatest odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html) from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds.  After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting.  :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones.  75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

This 91% for us making the tournament or the 98% shown on CHN
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
seem way high to me (and by "to me" I mean my quick analysis using KRACH probabilities).
Per Krach, there's a 27.5% chance we don't get by Clarkson this weekend.  If we lose that series 2-1, our winning percentage drops to .6719.  To try to see that effect, using CHN's pairwise calculator, I simply flipped one of our wins (I used the UNH game) to a loss, which drops are current percentage to .6724.  If that were the case, we'd be at #14 in pairwise, with a fair amount of risk.  And there's an 11.9% chance of getting swept, which is obviously worse.  I realize that this is overly simplistic and ignores all other results happening around us.
I hope these models are accurate, but more importantly, let's take care of business this weekend.

One thing to keep in mind is that there will be a bunch of losses for other teams in contention.  Many of them will play each other, sometimes in best of threes.  Dropping down to 14th, all else being equal, still gives us a pretty decent shot when you factor in how the teams around us will do.

Agreed about taking care of business.

Quote from: jkahn

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: TrotskyLatest odds (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html) from PlayoffStatus.com:

ECAC Frozen Four: 75%
ECAC Title Game: 38%
ECAC Champions: 18% (1 in 6)

Make the NCAA tourney: 91%
Round 2: 43%
Frozen Four: 19% (1 in 5)
Title Game: 9% (1 in 11)
NCAA Champions: 4% (1 in 25)

I'll take those odds.  After 36 seasons as a fan they don't seem daunting.  :)

But Greg, those odds don't take into account the bad bounces that frequently occur in hockey games, or the possibility that a giant space squid will crash down through the roof of Lynah Rink and land on Mitch Gillam. Why do you hate America?

You joke, but those odds look far more realistic than the probability matrix ones.  75% chance of making Lake Placed is considerably more reasonable than 95% or whatever the other model gave us.

This 91% for us making the tournament or the 98% shown on CHN
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php
seem way high to me (and by "to me" I mean my quick analysis using KRACH probabilities).
Per Krach, there's a 27.5% chance we don't get by Clarkson this weekend.  If we lose that series 2-1, our winning percentage drops to .6719.  To try to see that effect, using CHN's pairwise calculator, I simply flipped one of our wins (I used the UNH game) to a loss, which drops are current percentage to .6724.  If that were the case, we'd be at #14 in pairwise, with a fair amount of risk.  And there's an 11.9% chance of getting swept, which is obviously worse.  I realize that this is overly simplistic and ignores all other results happening around us.
I hope these models are accurate, but more importantly, let's take care of business this weekend.

PlayoffStatus also notes that an 0-2 record this weekend would drop CU's chances to 61%

i was at the canisus games in oct where they lost 1-0 and 2-1 and all 3 goals came because of bad bounces, simple passes and pucks that hopped over sticks at the blue line turned into  breakaways 3 times in games they outshot them 85-40.. cant blame it all on puck luck for sure.  but they were snake but with that and injuries this year. he thinks he passed on the cornell lack of scoring MOJO to RIT..

Quote from: upprdecki was at the canisus games in oct where they lost 1-0 and 2-1 and all 3 goals came because of bad bounces, simple passes and pucks that hopped over sticks at the blue line turned into  breakaways 3 times in games they outshot them 85-40.. cant blame it all on puck luck for sure.  but they were snake but with that and injuries this year. he thinks he passed on the cornell lack of scoring MOJO to RIT..

great typo! He said 'but' heh..heh...heh


This week's brackets

[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]

13 Wisconsin vs. 4 Western Michigan
11 Providence vs. [b][u]8 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]

14 Notre Dame vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
[b][u]10 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 6 UMass Lowell

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]

15 Canisius vs. 2 Minnesota Duluth
9 Penn State vs. 7 Boston University

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]

16 Bemidji State vs. 1 Denver
12 North Dakota vs. 5 Minnesota

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 4
[u][b]ECAC Hockey — 3[/b][/u]
Big Ten — 3
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey — 1

Movement

In: North Dakota
Out: Ohio State

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/07/with-two-weekends-left-heres-how-the-ncaa-tournament-brackets-could-look/#ixzz4ajl6P0xB

I like this one.

Quote from: Jim HylaI like this one.

Me too.  Bring it on.

any bracket that has us in it is good to me.

Not to mention the possible quarterfinal matchup with Harvard.

Do statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

Quote from: HookingDo statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: HookingDo statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: HookingDo statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

I'm happy to answer the actual question, since I'm sure he's not expecting a serious one:

Yes, the statistical probabilities factor in every variable you mention, because the prior game results on which the statistical probabilities are based resulted from those variables, among many others.

But again, we play the actual games, because there is no telling what might happen on any given night. If you get all your chips in on the turn in a huge poker hand, and the other player has only one out in the deck remaining to beat you, you have a roughly 98% chance of winning the hand. If you lose the hand because that one card comes out on the river, it doesn't mean the statistical probabilities were wrong.

(Disclaimer: An example based purely on luck is not intended to imply that the outcome of a hockey game is based purely on luck, but luck is certainly one factor.)

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: HookingDo statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

I'm happy to answer the actual question, since I'm sure he's not expecting a serious one:

Yes, the statistical probabilities factor in every variable you mention, because the prior game results on which the statistical probabilities are based resulted from those variables, among many others.

But again, we play the actual games, because there is no telling what might happen on any given night. If you get all your chips in on the turn in a huge poker hand, and the other player has only one out in the deck remaining to beat you, you have a roughly 98% chance of winning the hand. If you lose the hand because that one card comes out on the river, it doesn't mean the statistical probabilities were wrong.

(Disclaimer: An example based purely on luck is not intended to imply that the outcome of a hockey game is based purely on luck, but luck is certainly one factor.)

1+

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: HookingDo statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

How about a big hand for Oscar Wilde, ladies and gentlemen?

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: HookingDo statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

I'm happy to answer the actual question, since I'm sure he's not expecting a serious one:

Yes, the statistical probabilities factor in every variable you mention, because the prior game results on which the statistical probabilities are based resulted from those variables, among many others.

But again, we play the actual games, because there is no telling what might happen on any given night. If you get all your chips in on the turn in a huge poker hand, and the other player has only one out in the deck remaining to beat you, you have a roughly 98% chance of winning the hand. If you lose the hand because that one card comes out on the river, it doesn't mean the statistical probabilities were wrong.

(Disclaimer: An example based purely on luck is not intended to imply that the outcome of a hockey game is based purely on luck, but luck is certainly one factor.)

Okay everyone let me handle this one...

If you can't or refuse to quantify key variables you have no business making statistical predictions, particularly predictions expressed in fractions of a percent. Are all you statistical savants hotel administration majors?

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: HookingDo statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

I'm happy to answer the actual question, since I'm sure he's not expecting a serious one:

Yes, the statistical probabilities factor in every variable you mention, because the prior game results on which the statistical probabilities are based resulted from those variables, among many others.

But again, we play the actual games, because there is no telling what might happen on any given night. If you get all your chips in on the turn in a huge poker hand, and the other player has only one out in the deck remaining to beat you, you have a roughly 98% chance of winning the hand. If you lose the hand because that one card comes out on the river, it doesn't mean the statistical probabilities were wrong.

(Disclaimer: An example based purely on luck is not intended to imply that the outcome of a hockey game is based purely on luck, but luck is certainly one factor.)

Okay everyone let me handle this one...

I'm willing, but it doesn't look like it worked the first time, so try harder, will you please. Pretty please.

Quote from: HookingIf you can't or refuse to quantify key variables you have no business making statistical predictions, particularly predictions expressed in fractions of a percent. Are all you statistical savants hotel administration majors?

OK. Let me try this time.

Look, you don't have to include every individual contributing factor separately in order to have a viable model. There are such things as interaction effects, synergies, and emergent properties so that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. You just have to have a model that incorporates effects that result from all the underlying factors and their interactions.

On top of this, many of the contributing factors are themselves correlated or, more precisely, different aspects of the same thing. So including them individually contributes nothing, and in some ways may even make the model weaker.

Finally, let's not forget that the world does not consist of "variables." For the most part, these are just measurements of the underlying reality. The reality itself is interconnected in a single whole. The measurements treated as "variables" may help us understand the reality, unless we make the mistake of treating this pragmatic, epistemic practice as if it had ontological status outside and independent of that practice.

Since someone mentioned hotel administration majors, I'll recapitulate these points through a more pedestrian example. No doubt, the quality of a great meal depends on the genetic makeup of the ingredients, how the farmers grew them, how fresh and local the ingredients are, the skills of the cooks, the quality of the kitchen appliances and utensils, the imagination of the menu planner, the knowledge and skill of the chef who invents various unique dishes, and so on. But for the most part, one does not have to know all these details to be confident of having a great meal. Usually the general reputation of the restaurant is sufficient for, say, 75% confidence. Past experience eating there might add 20%. Recommendation from a trusted friend, another 15%. And a positive review by a reliable food critic, 10 - 15% more. As you can see from the probabilities, even some of these may be redundant.

I can't believe you are still responding to him in good faith.

Quote from: ugarteI can't believe you are still responding to him in good faith.

+1

No offense to hotel school majors. The captain of the first Cornell Men's Hockey Team to play in Lynah, Roger ("the beast") Eastman, was a hotel major. Sorry, I don't have the statistics on Roger.

Quote from: HookingNo offense to hotel school majors. The captain of the first Cornell Men's Hockey Team to play in Lynah, Roger ("the beast") Eastman, was a hotel major. Sorry, I don't have the statistics on Roger.

Looks like nobody does:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=175337

Or maybe they just decided not to publish his stats because they wouldn't accurately reflect what he ate for lunch on game days.

Quote from: HookingThe captain of the first Cornell Men's Hockey Team to play in Lynah, Roger ("the beast") Eastman, was a hotel major. Sorry, I don't have the statistics on Roger.

http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Eastman_Roger.pdf

Thanks. Those statistics explain why we lost to the Susquehanna Club Team and we didn't make it to the NCAA finals. Wait! the statistical fact that the '58 Cornell hockey team was not in Division I means there was a 100% chance Cornell could not win the NCAA D-1 championship - just as certain as the statistical fact that if today's Cornell team doesn't keep winning they won't be 2017 D-1 NCAA men's hockey champions, all other statistics notwithstanding.

Quote from: Hookingjust as certain as the statistical fact that if today's Cornell team doesn't keep winning they won't be 2017 D-1 NCAA men's hockey champions, all other statistics notwithstanding.

Actually Cornell can definitely lose one, and perhaps even two more games and still wind up as 2017 D-1 NCAA Men's Hockey Champions.

What are the statistical odds?

Quote from: HookingWait! the statistical fact that the '58 Cornell hockey team was not in Division I means there was a 100% chance Cornell could not win the NCAA D-1 championship

There was no D-1 in 1958 and AFAIK Cornell was eligible for the NC$$ tournament.  Not sure why they were passed over with their gaudy 3-7-1 record.

At some point you need to let stoopid people be stoopid and get over it.   ::smashfreak::::stupid::::bang::

Hooking, let us discuss statistics in our own, flawed way.  If you don't like it, choose another thread.  Or forum.

Everyone else, don't feed the trolls.  

We are a day away from hockey... can't wait!  ::rock::

Sound advice, Ken. I will read comments about Cornell Ice Hockey and try to ignore statistical speculation, no matter how annoying it might be.

just looping thru  the college hockey news site and using the rpi tool it was pretty easy to find ways that we would still be in after losing both games this weekend and thats without factoring in that more teams will lose again after that. just root for chalk in most of the other leagues and 3 game series in the ones that have teams both behind us.

Quote from: upprdeckjust looping thru  the college hockey news site and using the rpi tool it was pretty easy to find ways that we would still be in after losing both games this weekend and thats without factoring in that more teams will lose again after that. just root for chalk in most of the other leagues and 3 game series in the ones that have teams both behind us.

I'm thinking our ideal is all the ECAC QF (in particular, US) are 2-0 home.  That sets up a Placid field that could be stronger than some NC$$ regionals.

thats why if we got 2-0 its very hard for us to lose next week 1 game and fall out, several teams around us have to lose twice. winning 2-1 and then losing becomes much dicier.

So - this conversation is actually quite relevant given that Cornell's odds have dropped to 65% in the new Matrix after today's game .... I have many thoughts on this topic, but no real answers. I appreciate constructive discussion.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

* Going into the weekend, Cornell, Penn State and Providence all had roughly 95%+ odds of making the NCAAs.  Penn State and Providence both lost Friday, but barely budged. Cornell, on the other hand, dropped quite a bit. To approximately 65% ... Why is this?  I wish I definitively knew the answer to this.  My math skills are OK, but not sure I have all the tools to properly answer that question. Intuitively, I wonder if it's because one particular flaw of the Matrix model that I point out on the site ... that it doesn't recalculate the KRACH after each game in each iteration. That would be ridiculously problematic and take forever to run. But a Cornell loss/Clarkson win may have shifted things enough to drop the odds of winning Saturday by a good amount.  I don't know, just a theory.

* I don't think the KRACH model is flawless by any means, but mostly I'd attribute whatever flaws there are to small sample size and a bit of circular logic that makes it work. Of course it can't take into account all factors - what can? But that's only because of sample size. The intangible factors described above are baked into the existing results. The mathematicians among us can explain this a lot better than I can - but it's about confidence intervals and what not. No one says the data is flawless.  No one suggests the games don't have to be played on the ice.  Of course they do.  But a system doesn't have to be flawless in order to give a sound assessment of odds of finishing in a certain spot.

* KRACH is actually not meant to be predictive. It's meant to be descriptive of what's already taken place. It's much closer to ideal in that direction. I think that's probably obvious to most, but worth reminding.  I think KRACH is generally the best model I've seen. That said, I have no problem if someone has an honest opinion about not buying certain odds being what they are. It just depends on what the argument is. If it's dismissive of all math, then the argument has no merit. But there is room to argue on the edges of how these things can be better. I'm all ears.

Quote from: adamwSo - this conversation is actually quite relevant given that Cornell's odds have dropped to 65% in the new Matrix after today's game .... I have many thoughts on this topic, but no real answers. I appreciate constructive discussion.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

* Going into the weekend, Cornell, Penn State and Providence all had roughly 95%+ odds of making the NCAAs.  Penn State and Providence both lost Friday, but barely budged. Cornell, on the other hand, dropped quite a bit. To approximately 65% ... Why is this?  I wish I definitively knew the answer to this.  My math skills are OK, but not sure I have all the tools to properly answer that question. Intuitively, I wonder if it's because one particular flaw of the Matrix model that I point out on the site ... that it doesn't recalculate the KRACH after each game in each iteration. That would be ridiculously problematic and take forever to run. But a Cornell loss/Clarkson win may have shifted things enough to drop the odds of winning Saturday by a good amount.  I don't know, just a theory.

Glad you brought this up. I've had some thoughts for how well the matrix is doing.
Yesterday, the matrix gave us a 98% chance to make the NCAAs. Our probability of being swept was around 13% (probably a little higher since our KRACH would go down for our second game). Assuming we only don't make it if we get swept, that means 11% of the 13% we get swept, we still make it in. That's over an 80% chance of getting in while getting swept.

Today, we have a 61% chance of winning tonight's game and a 65% chance of making the NCAAs. Making the same assumption as above, we would only make the tournament 4% out of the 39% when we got swept (about 11%). Obviously, this is too high. There are probably numerous scenarios we don't make it if we lose in three.

Back to your question, why the big drop? Maybe we're going down that 2% path based on what's going on with other teams. It's tough to judge a predictive model on just one year of data. I look forward to more years of seeing how well it does.

Quote from: KGR11

Quote from: adamwSo - this conversation is actually quite relevant given that Cornell's odds have dropped to 65% in the new Matrix after today's game .... I have many thoughts on this topic, but no real answers. I appreciate constructive discussion.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

* Going into the weekend, Cornell, Penn State and Providence all had roughly 95%+ odds of making the NCAAs.  Penn State and Providence both lost Friday, but barely budged. Cornell, on the other hand, dropped quite a bit. To approximately 65% ... Why is this?  I wish I definitively knew the answer to this.  My math skills are OK, but not sure I have all the tools to properly answer that question. Intuitively, I wonder if it's because one particular flaw of the Matrix model that I point out on the site ... that it doesn't recalculate the KRACH after each game in each iteration. That would be ridiculously problematic and take forever to run. But a Cornell loss/Clarkson win may have shifted things enough to drop the odds of winning Saturday by a good amount.  I don't know, just a theory.

Glad you brought this up. I've had some thoughts for how well the matrix is doing.
Yesterday, the matrix gave us a 98% chance to make the NCAAs. Our probability of being swept was around 13% (probably a little higher since our KRACH would go down for our second game). Assuming we only don't make it if we get swept, that means 11% of the 13% we get swept, we still make it in. That's over an 80% chance of getting in while getting swept.

Today, we have a 61% chance of winning tonight's game and a 65% chance of making the NCAAs. Making the same assumption as above, we would only make the tournament 4% out of the 39% when we got swept (about 11%). Obviously, this is too high. There are probably numerous scenarios we don't make it if we lose in three.

Back to your question, why the big drop? Maybe we're going down that 2% path based on what's going on with other teams. It's tough to judge a predictive model on just one year of data. I look forward to more years of seeing how well it does.

I've felt all along that the model was giving us way too high a percentage chance, and previously posted that our with a 27.5% KRACH chance of losing in the quarters and knowing our RPI would drop way more than others with losses due to our high winning percentage, the models just didn't seem accurate.  Without really understanding the logic used in the models, I can't comment further, other than I don't think that readjusting KRACH would have made that big a difference.

pwr is a strange beast.  Prov loses and gains pwr, penn state loses to a team worse than clarkson and goes no where.

vt/bc hard to tell which is better for us but i have a feeling a 2-1 series helps us the most.

wisc over osu might help us tonight.

we win 2 and we are in good shape if chalk wins the hockey east and b10.

It's our win percentage.  A single loss hurts us way more than other teams that are around us in RPI with lower win percentages.

Blame brown, RPI, and Colgate.

I don't know enough about the model/KRACH/etc. to say anything especially productive, but I will say that, as a casual observer, the 98% number, the 91% number from a different model, and the 85% number from the Matrix before the RPI game all failed the eye test.  If I had to guess why, it's because KRACH, as adamw said, is meant to be descriptive of what has occurred rather than predictive.  Thus, it doesn't account for regressions to the mean, etc.  Cornell is not going to beat RPI nine times out of ten, even if their past records would equate to such a mismatch.  And beating Clarkson is far closer to a coin flip than a sure thing, even though the models gave Cornell a very high chance of winning that too.

Quote from: BearLoverI don't know enough about the model/KRACH/etc. to say anything especially productive, but I will say that, as a casual observer, the 98% number, the 91% number from a different model, and the 85% number from the Matrix before the RPI game all failed the eye test.  If I had to guess why, it's because KRACH, as adamw said, is meant to be descriptive of what has occurred rather than predictive.  Thus, it doesn't account for regressions to the mean, etc.  Cornell is not going to beat RPI nine times out of ten, even if their past records would equate to such a mismatch.  And beating Clarkson is far closer to a coin flip than a sure thing, even though the models gave Cornell a very high chance of winning that too.

A lot of that is that we've overachieved this year, in terms of what our win% "should" be compared to our goal differential.  We've won a lot of close games.

At the same time, Clarkson is pretty good.  The high chances of making the tournament have more to do with the fact that we have a pretty good shot if we don't win in this round.  That being said, it looks like yesterday was a disaster for us in terms of other results, not to mention the actual disaster last night.

So, let's win a few.

Quote from: BearLoverI don't know enough about the model/KRACH/etc. to say anything especially productive, but I will say that, as a casual observer, the 98% number, the 91% number from a different model, and the 85% number from the Matrix before the RPI game all failed the eye test.  If I had to guess why, it's because KRACH, as adamw said, is meant to be descriptive of what has occurred rather than predictive.  Thus, it doesn't account for regressions to the mean, etc.  Cornell is not going to beat RPI nine times out of ten, even if their past records would equate to such a mismatch.  And beating Clarkson is far closer to a coin flip than a sure thing, even though the models gave Cornell a very high chance of winning that too.

Yes and no. I'm not sure I'd use "regression to the mean" as the right way to put it, because that assumes you know what the mean is, which you really can't do from past results. But I know what you're driving at.  Intuitively you think Cornell-Clarkson were closer.  But they key is, how do you model that?  Not just go by "feel."  I think there may be a way to use goal differential and things like PDO and Team Corsi, to come up with some sort of counter-weight on straight KRACH.  But I couldn't tell you exactly what that would be.  Goal diffs have always been a dicey thing in hockey.  Corsi may be better, but has its flaws.  There might be some balance there.

I'd also like to be able to definitively answer the question why Cornell was affected more than Penn State, for example. With an actual demonstration.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverI don't know enough about the model/KRACH/etc. to say anything especially productive, but I will say that, as a casual observer, the 98% number, the 91% number from a different model, and the 85% number from the Matrix before the RPI game all failed the eye test.  If I had to guess why, it's because KRACH, as adamw said, is meant to be descriptive of what has occurred rather than predictive.  Thus, it doesn't account for regressions to the mean, etc.  Cornell is not going to beat RPI nine times out of ten, even if their past records would equate to such a mismatch.  And beating Clarkson is far closer to a coin flip than a sure thing, even though the models gave Cornell a very high chance of winning that too.

Yes and no. I'm not sure I'd use "regression to the mean" as the right way to put it, because that assumes you know what the mean is, which you really can't do from past results. But I know what you're driving at.  Intuitively you think Cornell-Clarkson were closer.  But they key is, how do you model that?  Not just go by "feel."  I think there may be a way to use goal differential and things like PDO and Team Corsi, to come up with some sort of counter-weight on straight KRACH.  But I couldn't tell you exactly what that would be.  Goal diffs have always been a dicey thing in hockey.  Corsi may be better, but has its flaws.  There might be some balance there.

I'd also like to be able to definitively answer the question why Cornell was affected more than Penn State, for example. With an actual demonstration.

There's a flaw in the model somewhere.  If a loss last night brings Cornell to a 65% NCAA chance, and there was a 35% KRACH chance of the happening, and if we assume that the other results were pretty much at an average expectation, then:
if the was a 35% chance of 65% after the game and a 65% chance of 98% or higher (say even 100%), then the chance before last night should be no greater than .35 x .65 + .65 x 1.00 or about 88%.  And even the 65% after last night feels way overstated to me (again based on KRACH).  Using the KRACH prior to last night, there's now a 35% chance we'll be swept and the odds are now against us winning the series.  And if we lose in three, the added 1-1 to our record will drop our RPI further.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverI don't know enough about the model/KRACH/etc. to say anything especially productive, but I will say that, as a casual observer, the 98% number, the 91% number from a different model, and the 85% number from the Matrix before the RPI game all failed the eye test.  If I had to guess why, it's because KRACH, as adamw said, is meant to be descriptive of what has occurred rather than predictive.  Thus, it doesn't account for regressions to the mean, etc.  Cornell is not going to beat RPI nine times out of ten, even if their past records would equate to such a mismatch.  And beating Clarkson is far closer to a coin flip than a sure thing, even though the models gave Cornell a very high chance of winning that too.

Yes and no. I'm not sure I'd use "regression to the mean" as the right way to put it, because that assumes you know what the mean is, which you really can't do from past results. But I know what you're driving at.  Intuitively you think Cornell-Clarkson were closer.  But they key is, how do you model that?  Not just go by "feel."  I think there may be a way to use goal differential and things like PDO and Team Corsi, to come up with some sort of counter-weight on straight KRACH.  But I couldn't tell you exactly what that would be.  Goal diffs have always been a dicey thing in hockey.  Corsi may be better, but has its flaws.  There might be some balance there.

I'd also like to be able to definitively answer the question why Cornell was affected more than Penn State, for example. With an actual demonstration.

To the extent Cornell (or any team) has over-achieved against expectations you're going to see these weird scenarios in any model. The issue is one of modeling uncertainty. You know the input - raw game outcomes - is information poor given the length of the college hockey season. Your model, therefore, has fairly high uncertainty baked into it. If you just do iterative monte carlo you're going to get a particular distribution of results but that doesn't mean you can take the probability output and say "Cornell is 90% likely" - you need to understand where you might be affected by hidden error and apply other measures to balance the outcome predictions the model uses. Basically, straight KRACH is not sufficiently information rich to avoid this kind of overstated certainty.

This is a big reason why the 538 election predictor had Trump at 30% to win and 10% to win while losing the popular vote when the Princeton Election model had a 98%+ chance for a Clinton victory. 538 assumed, based on past polling data, that polling errors tend to be correlated across clusters of states, and applying that correction shifted the 2016 prediction drastically in ways that it did not in 2012, when correlated error wasn't likely to matter.

To go back to hockey, KRACH helps account for the uncertainty caused by insular schedules which either unfairly boost records of teams in weak conferences or unfairly punish teams in strong conferences. I mean, that's pretty much what it does. However, it doesn't account for the uneven distribution of random outcomes you're likely to see over a small sample of college teams playing a short schedule. I don't know that reversion to the mean is the explanation in this case, but it's an explanation, and we can get a better model of what that "mean" should be than whatever current record would indicate. Like you, I'm not sold on goal differential in general but looking at fraction of 1-goal outcomes might help. I do think PDO and corsi are worth a look.

Something to consider:

Cornell's PDO this season is ~102. Corsi around 50%
Penn State: PDO is ~98. Corsi around 60%
Providence: PDO is ~100. Corsi around 56%

Let's assume, and I know not everybody around here agrees, that these shot attempt rates are predictive of game success over a large sample but have high variance and low predictive certainty for individual games or even entire NCAA seasons.

Now consider schedule strength rankings and schedule outcomes - these three teams are pretty even on that front. But assuming those season averages for Corsi/PDO are representative, and not being dragged way up or down by a handful of outliers, that suggests Cornell's tournament prediction % should have been substantially lower than the predictions for Penn State or Providence from the beginning. Cornell's record was a lot better than one might expect relative to schedule strength and on-ice performance as reflected in these metrics. The pure KRACH-based model clobbers Cornell for losing a "should win" game because the next iteration both accounts for the damage to Cornell's record caused by the loss *and* the sharper decline in predicted win rate as a result of the fall in past win %. In this case, at least, if you use just a corsi weighting adjustment to the KRACH prediction Cornell's predicted chances probably would've dropped drastically from the outset, because there would've been a downward adjustment to their raw KRACH-based win probabilities. The model would almost certainly be less volatile with respect to this specific comparison set.

Now, that doesn't mean the model would be better, and how to adjust it correctly is the hard part - there are whole bodies of literature about this. One way is to do it empirically - you've got a lot of college hockey playoff history to use, and you can simulate all manner of different models and test their predictions against the observed distributions. Even just 10 years * N teams where N is number of conference tournament QF participants gives you something to model against. It's worth investigating in the offseason - if you've already got the shot data it's not going to be all that hard.

Quote from: jkahn

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: BearLoverI don't know enough about the model/KRACH/etc. to say anything especially productive, but I will say that, as a casual observer, the 98% number, the 91% number from a different model, and the 85% number from the Matrix before the RPI game all failed the eye test.  If I had to guess why, it's because KRACH, as adamw said, is meant to be descriptive of what has occurred rather than predictive.  Thus, it doesn't account for regressions to the mean, etc.  Cornell is not going to beat RPI nine times out of ten, even if their past records would equate to such a mismatch.  And beating Clarkson is far closer to a coin flip than a sure thing, even though the models gave Cornell a very high chance of winning that too.

Yes and no. I'm not sure I'd use "regression to the mean" as the right way to put it, because that assumes you know what the mean is, which you really can't do from past results. But I know what you're driving at.  Intuitively you think Cornell-Clarkson were closer.  But they key is, how do you model that?  Not just go by "feel."  I think there may be a way to use goal differential and things like PDO and Team Corsi, to come up with some sort of counter-weight on straight KRACH.  But I couldn't tell you exactly what that would be.  Goal diffs have always been a dicey thing in hockey.  Corsi may be better, but has its flaws.  There might be some balance there.

I'd also like to be able to definitively answer the question why Cornell was affected more than Penn State, for example. With an actual demonstration.

There's a flaw in the model somewhere.  If a loss last night brings Cornell to a 65% NCAA chance, and there was a 35% KRACH chance of the happening, and if we assume that the other results were pretty much at an average expectation, then:
if the was a 35% chance of 65% after the game and a 65% chance of 98% or higher (say even 100%), then the chance before last night should be no greater than .35 x .65 + .65 x 1.00 or about 88%.  And even the 65% after last night feels way overstated to me (again based on KRACH).  Using the KRACH prior to last night, there's now a 35% chance we'll be swept and the odds are now against us winning the series.  And if we lose in three, the added 1-1 to our record will drop our RPI further.

Keep in mind that other games factor in, too.  It may be that yesterday's other results were unlikely and/or bad for us, skewing the numbers.

Quote from: Tom LentoNow, that doesn't mean the model would be better, and how to adjust it correctly is the hard part - there are whole bodies of literature about this. One way is to do it empirically - you've got a lot of college hockey playoff history to use, and you can simulate all manner of different models and test their predictions against the observed distributions. Even just 10 years * N teams where N is number of conference tournament QF participants gives you something to model against. It's worth investigating in the offseason - if you've already got the shot data it's not going to be all that hard.

Tom, all of this perfectly explains why KRACH is not a good predictive model (or, good enough) and I greatly appreciate the discussion on ways the simulation can be improved.

But this still doesn't necessarily answer why Cornell dropped as much as they while other teams did not. Or maybe you did explain it, and I'm not getting it.

In other words - there's no way for KRACH to know, before hand, that Cornell has theoretically over-achieved. So while that might explain the flaw in its predictive value - it doesn't explain the math of why they dropped when others didn't.

Am I making sense?

By the way - we don't have Corsi-esque shot data before 2 seasons ago. We have general shots per game going back to 2002, but that's not as good.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Tom LentoNow, that doesn't mean the model would be better, and how to adjust it correctly is the hard part - there are whole bodies of literature about this. One way is to do it empirically - you've got a lot of college hockey playoff history to use, and you can simulate all manner of different models and test their predictions against the observed distributions. Even just 10 years * N teams where N is number of conference tournament QF participants gives you something to model against. It's worth investigating in the offseason - if you've already got the shot data it's not going to be all that hard.

Tom, all of this perfectly explains why KRACH is not a good predictive model (or, good enough) and I greatly appreciate the discussion on ways the simulation can be improved.

But this still doesn't necessarily answer why Cornell dropped as much as they while other teams did not. Or maybe you did explain it, and I'm not getting it.

In other words - there's no way for KRACH to know, before hand, that Cornell has theoretically over-achieved. So while that might explain the flaw in its predictive value - it doesn't explain the math of why they dropped when others didn't.

Am I making sense?

By the way - we don't have Corsi-esque shot data before 2 seasons ago. We have general shots per game going back to 2002, but that's not as good.

I'm almost certain it's our higher win%, which means one loss hurts our RPI more than other teams.  I can't dig up the RPI numbers from before yesterday, but CHN lets me set individual games to ties.  We're at .5455.  Had we tied (I know, impossible), we'd be at .5499.  Had we won, .5543.

Doing the same with Penn State and Providence, Penn State is at .5507.  Had they tied, .5546, had they won, .5584.  Smaller boosts than we would have had, but significant.

Providence is at .5516, had they tied, .5554, had they won, .5589.  So, same as Penn State, roughly.

The results are less striking than I expected.  Weirdly, we shuffled up to 12th in some of these scenarios.

In conclusion, I don't have much of a conclusion.

How about the simplest explanation- we could just have had a number of PWR comparisons that were razor close?  THat matrix uses krach to simulate game results but ultimately fills out the PWR- so the issue is more likely in the PWR than the karch numbers.
 
Looking at the probability matrix, I think you need to look at the probabilities of landing in any given PWR final position.  I'm curious what the distribution was for us across positions before last night, because as of 920 pm, we have crazy high probabilities of landing in 15 or 16, while Penn St. and Providence skew their individual probabilities much more towards the higher PWR finishes

The answer to the riddle will be found by seeing which individual PWR comparisons are likely to get flipped against us as opposed to the other two teams having the same thing happen.


(http://i.imgur.com/G2EnxqJ.jpg) (http://imgur.com/G2EnxqJ)

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Tom LentoNow, that doesn't mean the model would be better, and how to adjust it correctly is the hard part - there are whole bodies of literature about this. One way is to do it empirically - you've got a lot of college hockey playoff history to use, and you can simulate all manner of different models and test their predictions against the observed distributions. Even just 10 years * N teams where N is number of conference tournament QF participants gives you something to model against. It's worth investigating in the offseason - if you've already got the shot data it's not going to be all that hard.

Tom, all of this perfectly explains why KRACH is not a good predictive model (or, good enough) and I greatly appreciate the discussion on ways the simulation can be improved.

But this still doesn't necessarily answer why Cornell dropped as much as they while other teams did not. Or maybe you did explain it, and I'm not getting it.

In other words - there's no way for KRACH to know, before hand, that Cornell has theoretically over-achieved. So while that might explain the flaw in its predictive value - it doesn't explain the math of why they dropped when others didn't.

Am I making sense?

By the way - we don't have Corsi-esque shot data before 2 seasons ago. We have general shots per game going back to 2002, but that's not as good.

Drat, I thought the data went back at least 4-5 seasons before going into shot per game territory. :(

This isn't at all about KRACH "knowing" about the fact that Cornell over-achieved. It's just what you might see when a model suddenly hits a sharp correction at some extreme point in the distribution. The fact that the loss pulled Cornell's record in the direction of what corsi would suggest was as much coincidence as anything. The real question is whether or not such a volatile result is reasonable.

The cause of this volatility for Cornell but not Penn State is much harder to tease apart, and frankly I didn't really answer your question directly because I can't. One hypothesis is others here are right and the reason has to do with relative winning percentages and either how that interacts with RPI or some artifact of the KRACH-based predictive model that tends to over-emphasize high winning percentages. That's really the only difference I notice between those teams - they all have similar outcomes against reasonably similar competition (Providence less so than Penn State), but Cornell has a much higher win %. I'm not an expert here so I'm really guessing, but this makes intuitive sense to me when I think about how KRACH handles perfect teams - they're expected to be perfect against everybody, and as soon as they drop a point to somebody their rating falls sharply into line with a more reasonable projection.

You could test this win % hypothesis - run the model on Thursday's inputs. Then do it again but update Cornell's record to include a 2-2-1 season series against an imaginary KRACH-neutral opponent. See how it changes the model predictions. See how much Cornell's volatility changes after Friday's results are added to the model. If the volatility is due to the model having a self-reinforcing high win % expectation, you'd expect 1) Cornell's odds on the pre-Friday model to decrease and 2) Cornell's shift in odds on the post-Friday model to be less volatile.

Of course it could also just be related to Cornell's relative position in the comparison rankings.

all it has shown is that at 2-0 we were sitting pretty good. anything less was killer.

the question will be what happen when the b10 teams beat up on each other next weekend

do we fall behind idle Vt if we lose

does 1-1 get us past ND if they lose are we rooting for stsloud to come back against nDakota

Miami blows it late to a top team one last time.

St. Cloud and ND going to OT.  I think we want St. Cloud, after all.  At the very least, we want them to win tonight and take ND to 3 games.

Two things strangely missing from this rather technical discussion are standard errors and confidence intervals. I'm neither familiar with, nor particularly interested in, the inner workings of the models. But it seems to me that, other things being equal, the standard errors of a prediction regarding a team's prospects will decrease as the team plays more games, but the impact will decrease as the number of games increases. Since Cornell has played fewer games than the factory schools, one would therefore expect an additional game to have a bigger impact on Cornell's standard errors than the competition's. Also, since confidence intervals are wider with smaller N, an additional datum will have a larger impact, percentage wise.

But since such considerations have been absent from the discussion thus far, I have the impression that the predictions are essentially point estimates rather than interval estimates (with some plausibly associated probability distribution) -- the famous "margin of error" routinely misrepresented and misunderstood by the media when reporting survey data.

Comments from someone in the know?

Quote from: SwampyBut since such considerations have been absent from the discussion thus far, I have the impression that the predictions are essentially point estimates rather than interval estimates (with some plausibly associated probability distribution) -- the famous "margin of error" routinely misrepresented and misunderstood by the media when reporting survey data.

Comments from someone in the know?

This is generally correct, yes. The prediction is made based on a set of simulation results, which produces a frequency distribution of outcomes reached. You basically do some arithmetic to get the percentage. Think of it as a rigorous initial odds-making.

Loads of detail on one such model:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2015-16-nba-predictions-work/

Once the rating and simulation inputs are settled, they do something quite typical:

QuoteOnce the adjustments are made, we simulate the regular season 10,000 times to find the average final record of each team and the percentage of simulations that each team makes the playoffs. We use NBA tiebreaking rules to seed teams in the playoffs (including the change this year that makes overall record the top factor in seeding) and then simulate the playoffs 10,000 times to find the winner of the finals.

As with our other sports forecasts, we run our simulations "hot," meaning that a team's CARM-Elo rating is updated after each simulated game within a simulated season. This matters more than you might think; essentially, it accounts for the possibility of hot streaks and cold streaks, as well as the increased uncertainty in projecting a team's fortunes the further you go into the future. This tends to compress playoff and championship odds as compared with running the simulations cold. For instance, as of launch, our model gives the Warriors a 52 percent chance of winning the NBA title, which might sound high — but their probability would be even higher, 73 percent, without this adjustment.

The second paragraph suggests the CHN model's lack of updating on KRACH odds could very well be causing some havoc with their predictions.

Quote from: Tom LentoThe second paragraph suggests the CHN model's lack of updating on KRACH odds could very well be causing some havoc with their predictions.

As I allude to in our explainer article on the site, I feel like a valid argument can be made to keep KRACH as a snapshot from when the simulation starts. But I can't articulate the reason very well.

On the other hand, I do know that re-calculating KRACH on the fly after every game would be all but impossible. As it is, running 20,000 simulations takes like 4 hours. And each simulation contains a few dozen games or so. At least. If KRACH were re-calculated after each simulated game within each simulation, I think it might take a week to run.  Of course, I allow for the fact that I might be doing it wrong.

I could run fewer simulations. The whole thing seems to stabilize at around 3,000 or less. 20,000 is probably overkill. But it does allow for picking up on some outlier possibilities.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Tom LentoThe second paragraph suggests the CHN model's lack of updating on KRACH odds could very well be causing some havoc with their predictions.

As I allude to in our explainer article on the site, I feel like a valid argument can be made to keep KRACH as a snapshot from when the simulation starts. But I can't articulate the reason very well.

On the other hand, I do know that re-calculating KRACH on the fly after every game would be all but impossible. As it is, running 20,000 simulations takes like 4 hours. And each simulation contains a few dozen games or so. At least. If KRACH were re-calculated after each simulated game within each simulation, I think it might take a week to run.  Of course, I allow for the fact that I might be doing it wrong.

I could run fewer simulations. The whole thing seems to stabilize at around 3,000 or less. 20,000 is probably overkill. But it does allow for picking up on some outlier possibilities.

Adam, your CHN model showed a 98% chance before this weekend.  Given that we had a 35% KRACH chance of losing on Friday, then 35% of the model's average Cornell NCAA chances after a Friday loss plus 65% of Cornell's average NCAA chances after a Friday win would have to get you to that 98%.  So, that would mean, if the model was correctly programmed, that Cornell, after a Friday loss would still have a 94% average chance.  So if the 65% after Friday was right, that was quite a huge outlier.  And the 94% chance after a loss does not at all pass the smell test.  It's not the non-adjusting of KRACH that's causing the problem.

Quote from: jkahn

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Tom LentoThe second paragraph suggests the CHN model's lack of updating on KRACH odds could very well be causing some havoc with their predictions.

As I allude to in our explainer article on the site, I feel like a valid argument can be made to keep KRACH as a snapshot from when the simulation starts. But I can't articulate the reason very well.

On the other hand, I do know that re-calculating KRACH on the fly after every game would be all but impossible. As it is, running 20,000 simulations takes like 4 hours. And each simulation contains a few dozen games or so. At least. If KRACH were re-calculated after each simulated game within each simulation, I think it might take a week to run.  Of course, I allow for the fact that I might be doing it wrong.

I could run fewer simulations. The whole thing seems to stabilize at around 3,000 or less. 20,000 is probably overkill. But it does allow for picking up on some outlier possibilities.

Adam, your CHN model showed a 98% chance before this weekend.  Given that we had a 35% KRACH chance of losing on Friday, then 35% of the model's average Cornell NCAA chances after a Friday loss plus 65% of Cornell's average NCAA chances after a Friday win would have to get you to that 98%.  So, that would mean, if the model was correctly programmed, that Cornell, after a Friday loss would still have a 94% average chance.  So if the 65% after Friday was right, that was quite a huge outlier.  And the 94% chance after a loss does not at all pass the smell test.  It's not the non-adjusting of KRACH that's causing the problem.

That 65% is dependent on other games.  It's not just "if we lose on Friday, we have a 65% chance no matter what.". Had other games gone differently, it could have been higher.  Or lower.

These games aren't in a vacuum.

Quote from: abmarksHow about the simplest explanation- we could just have had a number of PWR comparisons that were razor close?  THat matrix uses krach to simulate game results but ultimately fills out the PWR- so the issue is more likely in the PWR than the karch numbers.
 
Looking at the probability matrix, I think you need to look at the probabilities of landing in any given PWR final position.  I'm curious what the distribution was for us across positions before last night, because as of 920 pm, we have crazy high probabilities of landing in 15 or 16, while Penn St. and Providence skew their individual probabilities much more towards the higher PWR finishes

The answer to the riddle will be found by seeing which individual PWR comparisons are likely to get flipped against us as opposed to the other two teams having the same thing happen.


(http://i.imgur.com/G2EnxqJ.jpg) (http://imgur.com/G2EnxqJ)

One thing to consider.  PWR is no longer a mystery.  It's just RPI.  If a whole bunch of factors line up perfectly, a team can win a comparison against a higher RPI team.  But they need to win head to head against them.  At any given time, there are only a few slight differences between the RPI rankings and the pairwise.

Quote from: SwampyTwo things strangely missing from this rather technical discussion are standard errors and confidence intervals. I'm neither familiar with, nor particularly interested in, the inner workings of the models. But it seems to me that, other things being equal, the standard errors of a prediction regarding a team's prospects will decrease as the team plays more games, but the impact will decrease as the number of games increases. Since Cornell has played fewer games than the factory schools, one would therefore expect an additional game to have a bigger impact on Cornell's standard errors than the competition's. Also, since confidence intervals are wider with smaller N, an additional datum will have a larger impact, percentage wise.

But since such considerations have been absent from the discussion thus far, I have the impression that the predictions are essentially point estimates rather than interval estimates (with some plausibly associated probability distribution) -- the famous "margin of error" routinely misrepresented and misunderstood by the media when reporting survey data.

Comments from someone in the know?

I think the lower number of total games is the best explanation for our volatility.

Talking head analysts like to blather about how good teams win the close ones; the more numerically inclined have known for a while that blowouts are a much better indicator of talent because the close ones are coin-flips, not proof of grit. A team with a high win percentage driven by tons of close wins is probably primed for a fall (but since a season has an arbitrary endpoint, it may not happen until after the banner is hung). In baseball it probably means being propped up by a solid bullpen, in hockey, by the goalie.

There are flaws in using goal differential, certainly, and it probably isn't the easiest thing to properly integrate, but a system that doesn't integrate it at all will always overstate the likelihood of success of teams like Cornell.

We can and should win this afternoon, though, so let's do that. Whatever our team is, it spent a season showing that we're modestly better than Clarkson, so let's get that result on the board.

Quote from: jkahnAdam, your CHN model showed a 98% chance before this weekend.  Given that we had a 35% KRACH chance of losing on Friday, then 35% of the model's average Cornell NCAA chances after a Friday loss plus 65% of Cornell's average NCAA chances after a Friday win would have to get you to that 98%.  So, that would mean, if the model was correctly programmed, that Cornell, after a Friday loss would still have a 94% average chance.  So if the 65% after Friday was right, that was quite a huge outlier.  And the 94% chance after a loss does not at all pass the smell test.  It's not the non-adjusting of KRACH that's causing the problem.

It's showing 88% now.

I'm 99.999% sure it's not programmed incorrectly. If it were, a lot of other teams would have crazy effects too. That is not the case. This big swing only happened to Cornell.

Cornell apparently has been slow to react to the forechecks some teams have used against them. I hope this is the case rather than a lack of talent which limited them to three shots in two periods of hockey Friday. It's easier to change your clear and your attack than it is to change your personnel.

9

Quote from: HookingCornell apparently has been slow to react to the forechecks some teams have used against them. I hope this is the case rather than a lack of talent which limited them to three shots in two periods of hockey Friday. It's easier to change your clear and your attack than it is to change your personnel.

And besides, it's past the trading deadline.  ;-)

Quote from: ugarteWe can and should win this afternoon, though, so let's do that. Whatever our team is, it spent a season showing that we're modestly better than Clarkson, so let's get that result on the board.

This.  Me want Lake Placid.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ugarteWe can and should win this afternoon, though, so let's do that. Whatever our team is, it spent a season showing that we're modestly better than Clarkson, so let's get that result on the board.

This.  Me want Lake Placid  Chicago.

FYP.

In case anyone's curious about out of conference rooting interests, we have a conundrum in UNH vs UML.

A UNH win helps our RPI, but we absolutely don't want UNH winning that conference tournament.  This is only the quarterfinals, so I think I'm tentatively rooting for UNH.  For what it's worth, we probably want UML or BU (ugh) to win the tourney itself.  Notre Dame is a couple spots ahead of us and passable, and BC is right on the bubble.  If BC wins it, they probably rise enough that they are no longer on the bubble, so that's probably less of a concern than it looks.

There's a WCHA game that doesn't appear to matter at all (winner of Minnesota State and Michigan Tech plays Bowling Green in the finals), but I'm sure has some RPI implications for someone somewhere.

In the NCHC, Omaha plays Western Michigan.  Barring some unforeseen RPI implications, we want Western Michigan, and then we want Western Michigan, Denver, or UMD to win that tournament, instead of North Dakota, who we have a shot of passing.  Again, ND winning the tournament puts them high enough that it's probably not as much of a concern, but I live in South Dakota (which is the better Dakota) and North Dakota sucks, so...

The Big10 tournament is next week.  We want Minnesota to win it.  Beyond that, it'd be swell if Ohio State and Penn State could lose in the 1st round, as they are in the two spots right below us.  Wisconsin is the 2 seed with a bye in the 6 team tourney, but they're below the bubble.  So really, go Minnesota.

In the AH, Air Force is sitting in a tie for 15th.  Hard to believe they could wind up above the bubble, even if they win the AH, but that's the best possibility.  They face the winner of Army and Mercyhurst next weekend in the semis.

Point being, Let's Go Red.

Final Lynah game for the seniors; hope for some extra inspiration.

Quote from: DafatoneIn case anyone's curious about out of conference rooting interests, we have a conundrum in UNH vs UML.

6 first period goals by Lowell have rendered this conundrum irrelevant.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: DafatoneIn case anyone's curious about out of conference rooting interests, we have a conundrum in UNH vs UML.

6 first period goals by Lowell have rendered this conundrum irrelevant.

Whoa! If Umile is indeed going out the door, not exactly the way you'd want to go.

Quote from: DafatoneOne thing to consider.  PWR is no longer a mystery.  It's just RPI.  If a whole bunch of factors line up perfectly, a team can win a comparison against a higher RPI team.  But they need to win head to head against them.  At any given time, there are only a few slight differences between the RPI rankings and the pairwise.

The only odd-ball situation existed before this weekend, as Providence sat two spots behind us at 12 despite having a higher RPI than both us (at 10) and Notre Dame (at 11). While PC won our comparison, they lost the H2H comparison with both Notre Dame AND BC. That meant that we won more comparisons than PC, and the same # as Notre Dame, but because we had a higher RPI than ND, we got the higher "ranking."

That has untangled a bit now, as ND has the higher RPI, so we've dropped that comparison and are now tied in comparisons with PC, but we lose the RPI and get the lower "ranking."

Since PC is out of the HEA playoffs, their RPI won't change dramatically from here on. We sit (before the conclusion of Sunday's game) 0.0007 behind them.

will 1-1 be enough next weekend.

2-0 this weekend puts us at 8 and a loss wouldnt have hurt.  2-1 put us in first team out territory again,

Quote from: upprdeckwill 1-1 be enough next weekend.

2-0 this weekend puts us at 8 and a loss wouldnt have hurt.  2-1 put us in first team out territory again,

1-1 will most certainly be enough.  The question is whether 0-1 is enough.  I'd say most likely, but not certainly.

I have a hard time seeing 0-1 being good enough with the teams that are likely to lose already being ahead of us.

Quote from: upprdeckI have a hard time seeing 0-1 being good enough with the teams that are likely to lose already being ahead of us.

It really depends on who wins the tournaments.  It looks like we are unlikely (not impossible. Unlikely) to fall below 14th.  That could get in, or not.

if osu/psu lose it would help us a would BC. i dont know if another lose drops us below VT but i doubt it.

that would leave Wisc as the one to be worried about.

just glad we survived this weekend so we have something to talk about.

is the pwr what if tool around this year?

playing some with the college hockey pwr matrix. if i plug in us losing / nd losing and psu or osu losing we actually go up most of the time. thats good to see.

even psu/osu winning with nd losing keeps us at 14..  so we wont need crazy stuff just a couple good results. just 1 of the 3 losing might be enough

My idea is, we win and not find out.

And QU beating SLU moves Q to 20, gives us 0.0001 QWB points, and moves us over NoDak.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82And QU beating SLU moves Q to 20, give us 0.0001 QWB points, and moves us over NoDak.

And somehow lifts the Irish by .0001, as well.

now up to 9th. ND trails by .0001

You Are The Committee is now up!  http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/yatc.php

I threw together all the worst results I could think of and had us in 14th with the top 13 getting in.  We missed by like .0003 RPI or something.

We look likely (likely!) to be in.

Thanks for link to YATC - was coming here to plug it so you can all see for yourself.  Please report any glitches.

I'm going to re-run the Probability Matrix now too ... so you can start seeing that as the iterations tally up.

The Matrix has already found a way for Cornell to not get in .... So you'll have to play with YATC's 3 million-plus permutations to figure out what that scenario is.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

well the question is will mich/MSU or Quin take away a bid that could drop it to 12 and there a ton of ways to not get in.

but if you play the bad things happen to cornell game you can have us lose and osu/psu/NDak all get to the finals and then the only thing that looks bad is bc/nd with bc winning.

it takes almost all 4 of the bad things to happen to knock us out.. if you have PSU/Ndak/BC winning and osu losing early we still get in.

Quote from: adamwThe Matrix has already found a way for Cornell to not get in .... So you'll have to play with YATC's 3 million-plus permutations to figure out what that scenario is.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

Already found it.  We lose to Union...Quinny wins ECAC over Union, BC wins HE over ND, Ohio State beats Penn State for the Big 10, NoDak wins NCHC over Western.  We finish 15th with three autobids below us.

God help me, but I think I have to root for Harvard in oder to keep Quinny from getting the autobid.

Edit:  It doesn't matter who wins the ECAC.  But we need BC and tOSU to lose.

There's a bunch of scenarios where Cornell doesn't get in among the 3 million ... but they all have minuscule odds, which is why the Matrix has their chances at 99%

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: adamwThe Matrix has already found a way for Cornell to not get in .... So you'll have to play with YATC's 3 million-plus permutations to figure out what that scenario is.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

Already found it.  We lose to Union...Quinny wins ECAC over Union, BC wins HE over ND, Ohio State beats Penn State for the Big 10, NoDak wins NCHC over Western.  We finish 15th with three autobids below us.

God help me, but I think I have to root for Harvard in oder to keep Quinny from getting the autobid.

Edit:  It doesn't matter who wins the ECAC.  But we need BC and tOSU to lose.

We also don't want Wisconsin to win the Big10.

with us back up to 9 it really is HE controlling most everything bad. if bc/nd lose we stay in as long as bid stealers dont show up all over.

Lots of talk about how likely we are to be "in." But how about some talk about how likely we are to finish 8th (or higher) and be a two-seed? I'm guessing that would take two wins in Lake Placid, but would that be enough to insure it? Is it even possible with just one win?

Quote from: andyw2100Lots of talk about how likely we are to be "in." But how about some talk about how likely we are to finish 8th (or higher) and be a two-seed? I'm guessing that would take two wins in Lake Placid, but would that be enough to insure it? Is it even possible with just one win?

Play with You Are the Committee ... It will answer all your wildest dreams.

YATC: chalk except we win out puts us in PWR 8.

PlayoffStatus.com (http://playoffstatus.com/ncaahockey/ncaahockeytournperformprob.html) odds:

.99 Make the NCAA
.47 QF
.19 F4
.09 F
.04 National Champion

Quote from: TrotskyYATC: chalk except we win out puts us in PWR 8.

Careful what you wish for. That could mean playing 3 seed North Dakota in Fargo - or 3 seed Providence in Providence.

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: jkahn

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Tom LentoThe second paragraph suggests the CHN model's lack of updating on KRACH odds could very well be causing some havoc with their predictions.

As I allude to in our explainer article on the site, I feel like a valid argument can be made to keep KRACH as a snapshot from when the simulation starts. But I can't articulate the reason very well.

On the other hand, I do know that re-calculating KRACH on the fly after every game would be all but impossible. As it is, running 20,000 simulations takes like 4 hours. And each simulation contains a few dozen games or so. At least. If KRACH were re-calculated after each simulated game within each simulation, I think it might take a week to run.  Of course, I allow for the fact that I might be doing it wrong.

I could run fewer simulations. The whole thing seems to stabilize at around 3,000 or less. 20,000 is probably overkill. But it does allow for picking up on some outlier possibilities.

Adam, your CHN model showed a 98% chance before this weekend.  Given that we had a 35% KRACH chance of losing on Friday, then 35% of the model's average Cornell NCAA chances after a Friday loss plus 65% of Cornell's average NCAA chances after a Friday win would have to get you to that 98%.  So, that would mean, if the model was correctly programmed, that Cornell, after a Friday loss would still have a 94% average chance.  So if the 65% after Friday was right, that was quite a huge outlier.  And the 94% chance after a loss does not at all pass the smell test.  It's not the non-adjusting of KRACH that's causing the problem.

That 65% is dependent on other games.  It's not just "if we lose on Friday, we have a 65% chance no matter what.". Had other games gone differently, it could have been higher.  Or lower.

These games aren't in a vacuum.

I clearly understand that.  That's way I said that the 65% would be an "quite a huge outlier" if the 98% prior to Friday were correct.  Fortunately, we've now taken away the the pre-Friday 12% chance of getting swept by Clarkson, and 27.5% chance of losing that series, so we don't have to worry about those negative scenarios.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: TrotskyYATC: chalk except we win out puts us in PWR 8.

Careful what you wish for. That could mean playing 3 seed North Dakota in Fargo - or 3 seed Providence in Providence.

I actually don't think playing the Friars there is all that bad. It's not like Providence has a massive draw and there would be a lot of Cornell supporters there anyway.

Quote from: Iceberg

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: TrotskyYATC: chalk except we win out puts us in PWR 8.

Careful what you wish for. That could mean playing 3 seed North Dakota in Fargo - or 3 seed Providence in Providence.

I actually don't think playing the Friars there is all that bad. It's not like Providence has a massive draw and there would be a lot of Cornell supporters there anyway.

That was my argument against putting them there in 2015 ... I said the Committee shouldn't bother because other Eastern teams will draw just as well as them anyway.  Turns out, Providence did have a massive draw there, so I was wrong.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Iceberg

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: TrotskyYATC: chalk except we win out puts us in PWR 8.

Careful what you wish for. That could mean playing 3 seed North Dakota in Fargo - or 3 seed Providence in Providence.

I actually don't think playing the Friars there is all that bad. It's not like Providence has a massive draw and there would be a lot of Cornell supporters there anyway.

That was my argument against putting them there in 2015 ... I said the Committee shouldn't bother because other Eastern teams will draw just as well as them anyway.  Turns out, Providence did have a massive draw there, so I was wrong.

Tell you what, if it means we win the ECAC & go away, I'll take it.

I'd like to win the NCAA, but the chances are small & winning the ECAC would be great for our team, fans & recruiting.

Pairwise predictor might keep me up the next four nights

Quote from: wakester2468Pairwise predictor might keep me up the next four nights

So long as you use the right one, you're good ... the original, invented by a Cornell alum :

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/yatc.php

Bracketology Blog College Hockey:

What I Believe – Monday Edition
By Jayson Moy • Senior Writer • March 13, 2017

[b][u]Here's what I believe after this weekend's action and by playing around with the PairWise Predictor.[/u][/b]

[b][u]In:[/u][/b]

Big 10 – Minnesota
[b][u]ECAC – Harvard, Union[/u][/b]
Hockey East – Lowell, BU
NCHC – Denver, UMD, Western Michigan
WCHA – Winner of Bowling Green/Michigan Tech

[b][u]That makes nine teams in, leaving seven spots left.

There are 15 teams for those seven spots[/u][/b]

Atlantic Hockey – Canisius, Air Force, Army, Robert Morris
Big 10 – Wisconsin, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State
[u][b]ECAC – Cornell, Quinnipiac[/b][/u]
Hockey East – BC, Notre Dame, Providence
NCHC – North Dakota

[b][u]Teams that need to win its Championship in order to get in (seven):[/u][/b]

Atlantic Hockey – Canisius, Army, Robert Morris
Big 10 – Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State
[b][u]ECAC – Quinnipiac[/u][/b]

[b][u]Teams that can still get in at-large (eight):[/u][/b]

Atlantic Hockey – Air Force (How? All top seeds win, except that one of Penn State or Ohio State must lose on Thursday and Air Force must win on Friday)
Big 10 – Ohio State, Penn State
[b][u]ECAC – Cornell[/u][/b]
Hockey East – BC, Notre Dame, Providence
NCHC – North Dakota

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/13/what-i-believe-monday-edition/#ixzz4bFY0OeH6



Last before the league championships. (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/15/one-more-look-at-ncaa-tournament-predictions-heading-into-conference-tournament-finals/)


[b][u]East Regional (Providence):[/u][/b]

13 Penn State vs. 4 Western Michigan
12 Providence vs. [b][u]7 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester):[/u][/b]

14 Ohio State vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
[b][u]9 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 6 Boston University

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati):[/u][/b]

15 Canisius vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
10 Notre Dame vs. 5 Minnesota

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo):[/u][/b]

16 Michigan Tech vs. 1 Denver
11 North Dakota vs. 8 Massachusetts-Lowell

[b][u]Conference breakdowns[/u][/b]

NCHC — 4
Hockey East — 4
[b][u]ECAC Hockey — 3[/u][/b]
Big Ten — 3
WCHA — 1
Atlantic Hockey – 1

[b][u]Movement[/u][/b]

In: Michigan Tech, Ohio State
Out: Bemidji State, Wisconsin

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/15/one-more-look-at-ncaa-tournament-predictions-heading-into-conference-tournament-finals/#ixzz4bQKE39zW



So here we are again in the undesirable position of cheering for Harvard on Friday night but different than other times, we will have to do it in person. The only saving grace is
it's Quinnipiac who ranks right up there with teams to root against. The last thing we want to see is Q to get the automatic qualifier for the ECAC making it a little merky for the Big Red should they lose to Union.

To be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents.  Q and Union, certainly.

Quote from: TrotskyTo be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents.  Q and Union, certainly.

Agree

Cl>RPI>B>P>StL>Colg>>>>>>U>Q>D>Y>H

Quote from: BearLoverCl>RPI>B>P>StL>Colg>>>>>>U>Q>D>Y>H

That's about where I am at.  Put Y at the front of that group and put D at the very back.

God I hate Dartmouth.

Quote from: TrotskyTo be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents.  Q and Union, certainly.

Just to clear my conscious, I believe there's a difference between "would root for" and "won't commit seppuku if they win."

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: BearLoverCl>RPI>B>P>StL>Colg>>>>>>U>Q>D>Y>H

That's about where I am at.  Put Y at the front of that group and put D at the very back.

God I hate Dartmouth.

Mike needs to pay my way to Hanover every year.  Last time I checked I'm 9-1-1 there.

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: TrotskyTo be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents.  Q and Union, certainly.

Just to clear my conscious, I believe there's a difference between "would root for" and "won't commit seppuku if they win."

Fair point.

Even during The Drought when we went 0-18-2 against Harvard in RS games, I still rooted hard for them in the NC$$s.  The wogs begin at Calais.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: TrotskyTo be honest, I'd root for Harvard against several ECAC opponents.  Q and Union, certainly.

Just to clear my conscious, I believe there's a difference between "would root for" and "won't commit seppuku if they win."

Fair point.

Even during The Drought when we went 0-18-2 against Harvard in RS games, I still rooted hard for them in the NC$$s.

No

Pairwise ranking being so volatile, it seems every game in all leagues except the WCHA and perhaps Atlantic Hockey has a potential impact on the Big Red. So for starters,
rooting for Michigan and Michigan State today seems to makes sense. Thaat is unless one of the two makes an improbable run and steal the Big Ten automatic bid in which case
not such a good thing.

Quote from: wakester2468Pairwise ranking being so volatile, it seems every game in all leagues except the WCHA and perhaps Atlantic Hockey has a potential impact on the Big Red. So for starters,
rooting for Michigan and Michigan State today seems to makes sense. Thaat is unless one of the two makes an improbable run and steal the Big Ten automatic bid in which case
not such a good thing.

We want air force in the AH.  Last I checked, they can rise as high as tenth.

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: wakester2468Pairwise ranking being so volatile, it seems every game in all leagues except the WCHA and perhaps Atlantic Hockey has a potential impact on the Big Red. So for starters,
rooting for Michigan and Michigan State today seems to makes sense. Thaat is unless one of the two makes an improbable run and steal the Big Ten automatic bid in which case
not such a good thing.

We want air force in the AH.  Last I checked, they can rise as high as tenth.

Wouldn't we want an AH team that cannot be above us no matter what?...assuming AF with a loss (or win and loss) cannot be above us

Quote from: nshapiro

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: wakester2468Pairwise ranking being so volatile, it seems every game in all leagues except the WCHA and perhaps Atlantic Hockey has a potential impact on the Big Red. So for starters,
rooting for Michigan and Michigan State today seems to makes sense. Thaat is unless one of the two makes an improbable run and steal the Big Ten automatic bid in which case
not such a good thing.

We want air force in the AH.  Last I checked, they can rise as high as tenth.

Wouldn't we want an AH team that cannot be above us no matter what?...assuming AF with a loss (or win and loss) cannot be above us

For seeding, yes.  In terms of pure odds to get in, we probably want the highest AH team if they are gonna be in the top 16.  It doesn't really matter though, since I think there's no way for AF to wind up with an at-large bid if they don't win their conference.

And given that, maybe we want an AH team that doesn't outseed us after all.

Edit: Two AH teams is possible, if everything goes just right.  Canisius takes the autobid and Air Force squeaks in with the last at large bid at 13.  How absurd would that be?

Quote from: DafatoneEdit: Two AH teams is possible, if everything goes just right.  Canisius takes the autobid and Air Force squeaks in with the last at large bid at 13.  How absurd would that be?

They wouldn't be the first, right? Didn't Niagara grab an at-large once?

osu/mich/msu all would steal bids if they win out if they lose OSU probably falls out..  PSU/wisc are in the same boat or close to it.

we are better off if mich/mich st both win and knock psu/osu out.  that way only only 1 gets in and thats only if they beat Minn and wisc.  if psu/osu both get to the finals they could both get a bid and hurt us even more

BC/ND are the real worry, once BC loses our chances get much better

Quote from: upprdeckosu/mich/msu all would steal bids if they win out if they lose OSU probably falls out..  PSU/wisc are in the same boat or close to it.

we are better off if mich/mich st both win and knock psu/osu out.  that way only only 1 gets in and thats only if they beat Minn and wisc.  if psu/osu both get to the finals they could both get a bid and hurt us even more

BC/ND are the real worry, once BC loses our chances get much better

Michigan State up 3-2 after 1. The game is on the Big Ten Network, which, if you have Time Warner cable, can be added, along with a bunch of other channels, for 33 cents a day. (I just added it.)

MSU loses to OSU, 6-3.  

I saw the third period.  The Joe looked extremely empty.

I haven't plugged the numbers, but after last night's Big Ten games, Jason Moy now states Air Force (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/16/what-i-believe-thursday-night-edition/) cannot get an At Large bid. Only 1 AH team can get in.

i couldnt find a way for airforce to get in which is good for us if its true.

rooting for BU/minn tonight pretty much locks us in no matter how we do.

Teams come and teams go, but Dartmouth faithfully reminds us that winning is the product of something more than personnel and statistics. The Big Green is doing us a favor if we would pay attention.

Quote from: upprdecki couldnt find a way for airforce to get in which is good for us if its true.

rooting for BU/minn tonight pretty much locks us in no matter how we do.

See posts 206 - 209 http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?118977-2017-Pairwise-thread.

USCHO's scoreboard has Q over sucks, 2-1, after 2.

ECAC's scoreboard has it 2-1 in favor of sucks.  I think that's right.

Quote from: DafatoneUSCHO's scoreboard has Q over sucks, 2-1, after 2.

ECAC's scoreboard has it 2-1 in favor of sucks.  I think that's right.

Harvard 2-1 early 3rd

Now 3-1 H, Sean Malone hat trick

4-1 eng 2 min to go; bye bye Q

UML 4-1 over Irish after two

Cornell now .0002 ahead of NoDak and .0003 ahead of Notre Dame pending outcome of remaining games

wisc/lowell/harvard winning is good for us.

even PSU/Ndak/BC winning we still get in.

I'm pretty sure we are in with Quinnipiac and OSU losses.  No teams below #17 in current pairwise can get in (other than Robert Morris which would push Air Force out).  In other words, 16 of the current top 17 teams will be in.  I do not think our RPI can fall below OSU's so we should be in.

edit: forgot WCHA autobid since they are not playing tonight.

Penn State just lost, so that can be now factored in.

There's still a configuration in which we miss out: https://goo.gl/ZPuRyH

Looks like there are three of them.  Either the AH final and the NCHC consolation can be flipped, but not both of them.

Edit: I think we're in the clear with Penn State's loss.

{Hooking voice]How do you factor in Cornell's win over Union?[/Hooking voice]

The you are the committee tool seems to be not working at the moment, but I think we're gonna fall somewhere between 7th and 10th or so.  Might not be able to do any better than 8th or 9th.

Quote from: DafatoneThe you are the committee tool seems to be not working at the moment, but I think we're gonna fall somewhere between 7th and 10th or so.  Might not be able to do any better than 8th or 9th.

USCHO has us at #9 in RPI, about 0.005 above those Nodak characters. We're still 0.003 behind Onion, and the distance we're ahead of ND is just a bit less than we're behind #7 UML. Of course RPI is probably not a linear scale, so this kind of interpolation is not very meaningful.

Bah. Ignore my last post as the USCHO scoreboard was incorrect. PSU/Minnesota are in overtime.

I can get us to 7 with denver/minn/cornell/bc/air force winning

Quote from: upprdeckI can get us to 7 with denver/minn/cornell/bc/air force winning

And the lowest I came up with was 11.

Quote from: IcebergPenn State just lost, so that can be now factored in.

Am I insane or is this wrong? Penn State is still playing in the second OT.

EDIT: within seconds of typing this, Penn State won.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: IcebergPenn State just lost, so that can be now factored in.

Am I insane or is this wrong? Penn State is still playing in the second OT.

Since Penn state just won....

Feels less urgent now but Penn State's win dropped us into 10th behind North Dakota.

Adam has a interesting and probably true take. However with a lot of the outside-the-bubble teams getting  autobids, I found a way where we're 7 and UND is 8.

https://twitter.com/CHN_AdamWodon/status/842988159919144960

from what i tried we finish 7 in most cases as long as BC win.  you can flip wisc/psu and ndak/duluth all sorts of ways and we still end up 7th

as to whether 7th is good or bad?

Quote from: RichHAdam has a interesting and probably true take. However with a lot of the outside-the-bubble teams getting  autobids, I found a way where we're 7 and UND is 8.

https://twitter.com/CHN_AdamWodon/status/842988159919144960

Depends on how much value they're putting on attendance vs. bracket integrity.  Fargo is sold out.  Send Harvard's 6 fans there.

Also, I'd like to plan a weekend trip, so I'm being selfish.

I'd been maybe planning on going if we went to Fargo.  Sold out?  Then screw it, let's stay east.

Quote from: DafatoneI'd been maybe planning on going if we went to Fargo.  Sold out?  Then screw it, let's stay east.

Tickets will become available once the field is announced, either through school allotments or on the secondary market as people scramble to change plans.

Also, before someone jumps on my post above, I know Harvard won't go west as a top 4 team.

Quote from: Greenberg '97

Quote from: DafatoneI'd been maybe planning on going if we went to Fargo.  Sold out?  Then screw it, let's stay east.

Tickets will become available once the field is announced, either through school allotments or on the secondary market as people scramble to change plans.

Also, before someone jumps on my post above, I know Harvard won't go west as a top 4 team.

Yes, but if they lose tonight, will they still be a top 4 team?

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: Greenberg '97

Quote from: DafatoneI'd been maybe planning on going if we went to Fargo.  Sold out?  Then screw it, let's stay east.

Tickets will become available once the field is announced, either through school allotments or on the secondary market as people scramble to change plans.

Also, before someone jumps on my post above, I know Harvard won't go west as a top 4 team.

Yes, but if they lose tonight, will they still be a top 4 team?

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

Yes.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: Tom LentoThe second paragraph suggests the CHN model's lack of updating on KRACH odds could very well be causing some havoc with their predictions.

As I allude to in our explainer article on the site, I feel like a valid argument can be made to keep KRACH as a snapshot from when the simulation starts. But I can't articulate the reason very well.

On the other hand, I do know that re-calculating KRACH on the fly after every game would be all but impossible. As it is, running 20,000 simulations takes like 4 hours. And each simulation contains a few dozen games or so. At least. If KRACH were re-calculated after each simulated game within each simulation, I think it might take a week to run.  Of course, I allow for the fact that I might be doing it wrong.

I could run fewer simulations. The whole thing seems to stabilize at around 3,000 or less. 20,000 is probably overkill. But it does allow for picking up on some outlier possibilities.

You'd also have to consider the definition of "after."  If Cornell beats Harvard at 10:07 pm, that doesn't affect just their ratings - it would affect the ratings of every other team, too.  Should that update be taken into account for 2 teams who already have a game in progress just because it won't finish until 10:13?  

I think the logical thing to do would be only to update KRACH once per day, after all results are "in."  That would drastically reduce the amount of computing required and reduce the inherent arbitrariness of deciding in which order to flip the coins.

If CU plays in Providence or Manchester, I am close enough to attend. Can someone please advise me of the best way to get tickets after the venues are announced? Should I jump right on and buy tickets from the NCAA site or try to get them through Cornell ticket office from school allotment?

I went to check out the latest blog posts on CHN and appears as though the site is down. To much traffic?

Quote from: GBR1234If CU plays in Providence or Manchester, I am close enough to attend. Can someone please advise me of the best way to get tickets after the venues are announced? Should I jump right on and buy tickets from the NCAA site or try to get them through Cornell ticket office from school allotment?

Walk up to box office.   Buy ticket.

If they win, buy tickets for game 2 from dejected losing fans for half price.  Preferably from the other regional semi.

Quote from: Greenberg '97

Quote from: GBR1234If CU plays in Providence or Manchester, I am close enough to attend. Can someone please advise me of the best way to get tickets after the venues are announced? Should I jump right on and buy tickets from the NCAA site or try to get them through Cornell ticket office from school allotment?

Walk up to box office.   Buy ticket.

If they win, buy tickets for game 2 from dejected losing fans for half price.  Preferably from the other regional semi.

Correct, the regionals don't come close to selling out and you can easily move around.

So win or lose, who do we want in other games?

Looks like last spot goes to Ohio State if Penn State wins, otherwise Wisconsin

Can't sleep so might as well post the projected brackets.

Adam Wodon's (http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2017/03/19_Bracket-ABCs-Final-NCAA-Projection.php)
[b][u]Fargo[/u][/b]
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
[b][u]8. Union[/u][/b]  vs. 10. North Dakota

[b][u]Cincinnati[/u][/b]
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
6. WMU vs. 12. Air Force

[b][u]Providence[/u][/b]
3. [b][u]Harvard[/u][/b] vs. 13. Notre Dame
7. BU vs. 9. Penn State

[b][u]Manchester[/u][/b]
4. Minnesota vs. 14. Providence
5. Lowell vs. 11. [b][u]Cornell[/u][/b]

His biggest question is whether they will move Providence to Providence?

Jayson Moy's (http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/19/final-predictions-at-the-ncaa-field-of-16-and-where-each-team-will-start/)

[b][u]Midwest Regional (Cincinnati[/u][/b]):
15 Ohio State vs. 2 Minnesota-Duluth
9 Penn State vs. 6 Western Michigan

[b][u]West Regional (Fargo)[/u][/b]:
16 Michigan Tech vs. 1 Denver
10 North Dakota vs. 7 Boston University

[b][u]East Regional (Providence[/u][/b]):
14 Providence vs. [b][u]3 Harvard[/u][/b]
12 Air Force vs. [b][u]8 Union[/u][/b]

[b][u]Northeast Regional (Manchester)[/u][/b]:
13 Notre Dame vs. 4 Minnesota
[b][u]11 Cornell[/u][/b] vs. 5 Massachusetts-Lowell

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/bracketology/2017/03/19/final-predictions-at-the-ncaa-field-of-16-and-where-each-team-will-start/#ixzz4bkYf3lNu

In the end he talks about switching BU and Union and says he doesn't see a benefit from doing that. But I do. Why should #7 BU get a worse draw than #8 Union?

So what's your prediction?

FYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen.  As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence.  I just don't think they should.

Hopefully Harvard drawing a HE team leads to history repeating itself.

|
|
|
V

I've got it differently:

Fargo
Denver - MichTech
Union - North Dakota

Cincinnati
MinnDuluth - TOSU
WMich - Cornell

Providence
Harvard - Providence
BU - PSU

Manchester
Minnesota - Notre Dame
Mass Lowell - Air Force

The only flip I made for attendance was moving BU to Providence and Western Michigan to Cincinnati.  This makes sense historically because it gives the committee a chance to screw us.

So I'm hoping for the above without the flip. RW.

Tickets for Manchester can be obtained directly on ticketmaster, not a scalping site. Not to be confused, it is no longer Verizon Wireless Arena. It is now SNHU Arena. As of this morning there were great tickets some even center ice. Without UNH in the tourney, the host school  I can't imagine that the place will be full although Manchester historically is a good hockey town

Quote from: adamwFYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen.  As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence.  I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

Looking at the final brackets from the NCAA they went almost entirely for bracket integrity. The only swap outside bracket integrity was flipping CU and AirForce, which puts us in Manch and AFA in Providence.  So instead of 5-12 and 6-11 matchups it's going to be 5-11 and 6-12.  WOnder why they did that- does moving us to Manch from Providence really make that much attendance difference?

Cincinnati
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union vs. 9. Penn State

Fargo
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
7. Boston University vs. 10. North Dakota

Providence
3. Harvard vs. 14. Providence
6. Western Michigan vs. 12. Air Force

Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 13. Notre Dame
5. Mass.-Lowell vs. 11. Cornell

Quote from: abmarksLooking at the final brackets from the NCAA they went almost entirely for bracket integrity. The only swap outside bracket integrity was flipping CU and AirForce, which puts us in Manch and AFA in Providence.  So instead of 5-12 and 6-11 matchups it's going to be 5-11 and 6-12.  WOnder why they did that- does moving us to Manch from Providence really make that much attendance difference?

Cincinnati
1. Denver vs. 16. Michigan Tech
8. Union vs. 9. Penn State

Fargo
2. Minnesota-Duluth vs. 15. Ohio State
7. Boston University vs. 10. North Dakota

Providence
3. Harvard vs. 14. Providence
6. Western Michigan vs. 12. Air Force

Manchester
4. Minnesota vs. 13. Notre Dame
5. Mass.-Lowell vs. 11. Cornell

Is keeping us out of Harvard's region a goal of theirs?  Looks like they've done a decent job of distributing conferences across regions (UMD and NoDak in the same region is the only exception, I think).

Quote from: DafatoneIs keeping us out of Harvard's region a goal of theirs?  Looks like they've done a decent job of distributing conferences across regions (UMD and NoDak in the same region is the only exception, I think).

That doesn't make sense to me- the guidelines only worry about intra-conference in the first game.  Manchester has two HE teams (Notre Dame and UML, for example.)

If you look at it, they kept 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 intact,  They also kept 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, and 4-13 intact, as well as 8-9 and 7-10.  

All they did was swap us and Air Force to help attendance in Manchester.  I'm surprised they didn't also swap Ohio State and Michigan Tech, but I suppose they wanted to throw a bone to Denver for being #1.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82If you look at it, they kept 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 intact,  They also kept 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, and 4-13 intact, as well as 8-9 and 7-10.  

All they did was swap us and Air Force to help attendance in Manchester.  I'm surprised they didn't also swap Ohio State and Michigan Tech, but I suppose they wanted to throw a bone to Denver for being #1.

I think they always give #1 the 16 seed, as they should.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82If you look at it, they kept 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 intact,  They also kept 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, and 4-13 intact, as well as 8-9 and 7-10.  

All they did was swap us and Air Force to help attendance in Manchester.  I'm surprised they didn't also swap Ohio State and Michigan Tech, but I suppose they wanted to throw a bone to Denver for being #1.

I think they always give #1 the 16 seed, as they should.

IIRC, that wasn't the case for us in 2003. We got stuck with minn state(I believe), while Wayne state was worst seeded team in the NCAA. Think I remember our coaching staff really irritated by the draw. Not completely sure tho.

According to this interview (http://www.uscho.com/2017/03/19/with-one-exception-committee-opts-for-bracket-integrity-in-placing-field-for-2017-ncaa-tournament/) with the committee chair, we were swapped with Air Force because there were already two Eastern teams in the Providence regional.

Quote from: dbilmesAccording to this interview (http://www.uscho.com/2017/03/19/with-one-exception-committee-opts-for-bracket-integrity-in-placing-field-for-2017-ncaa-tournament/) with the committee chair, we were swapped with Air Force because there were already two Eastern teams in the Providence regional.

Or to put it a different way, if there was only 1 eastern team and they lost in the semis, then nobody would be there Sunday.

And toddlose, yes, we played MSU Mankato in 2003.

Quote from: Jeff HopkinsAnd toddlose, yes, we played MSU MAnkato in 2003.

that weekend was fun

Quote from: toddlose

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82If you look at it, they kept 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5 intact,  They also kept 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, and 4-13 intact, as well as 8-9 and 7-10.  

All they did was swap us and Air Force to help attendance in Manchester.  I'm surprised they didn't also swap Ohio State and Michigan Tech, but I suppose they wanted to throw a bone to Denver for being #1.

I think they always give #1 the 16 seed, as they should.

IIRC, that wasn't the case for us in 2003. We got stuck with minn state(I believe), while Wayne state was worst seeded team in the NCAA. Think I remember our coaching staff really irritated by the draw. Not completely sure tho.

There were two #1 seeds from the WCHA and two #4 seeds from the WCHA, so the rule of avoiding inter-conference first round match-ups caused us to have to play a WCHA team.

Statistically, how much tougher an opponent is UML than WMU?

Quote from: HookingStatistically, how much tougher an opponent is UML than WMU?

One spot in the pairwise? I think WMU would have been a significantly better matchup for us (though obviously not easy). Lowell is GOOD and was really hot down the stretch.

Quote from: CU2007

Quote from: HookingStatistically, how much tougher an opponent is UML than WMU?

One spot in the pairwise? I think WMU would have been a significantly better matchup for us (though obviously not easy). Lowell is GOOD and was really hot down the stretch.

Though I agree with this, I am much happier with a potential second round of Minnesota than I am of Harvard. Obviously have to win the first game to get to the second, but we're not here to win one game. A second round against Harvard would have been almost a sure-thing loss (they know how to play us, they have owned us this year, etc.), but at least in this region we'll be going against (hopefully) two teams that haven't been on the same ice and are more likely to underestimate the game.

Also keep in mind that 7 of WMU's 12 losses were to Duluth and Denver.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82And toddlose, yes, we played MSU Mankato in 2003.

Here (http://www.tbrw.info/?/games/cornell_Playoff_Games.html) are all the playoff games.

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: adamwFYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen.  As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence.  I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

I think Wisconsin would've been right where OSU is and nothing else would change.

Quote from: HookingStatistically, how much tougher an opponent is UML than WMU?

WMU is missing two of their best players, who are questionable - at best - for Saturday.  So - in that sense, Cornell had a better chance against WMU.  Lowell is real tough to play against.

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: adamwFYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen.  As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence.  I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

I think Wisconsin would've been right where OSU is and nothing else would change.

But I thought I'd seen somewhere that if Wisconsin won, we would've been 9th in PWR rather than 11th--is that not true?

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: adamw

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: adamwFYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen.  As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence.  I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

I think Wisconsin would've been right where OSU is and nothing else would change.

But I thought I'd seen somewhere that if Wisconsin won, we would've been 9th in PWR rather than 11th--is that not true?

Not true. Using the "customize" tab on the CHN PWR page, you can change that result and see that we would have gotten 10th and more significantly, UMass-Lowell would have gotten a #1 seed (4th overall PWR) instead of Minnesota, who would have dropped past WMU to 6th.

Going into Saturday's ECAC final, from that other probability site we were watching (playoffstatus.com), we would have been 7/8 with a win OR 10/11 with a loss. Interestingly, #9 was not possible.

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: adamwFYI - the bracket above is not my prediction of what will happen - it's what I think should happen.  As I discuss in the article, I think the Committee will have Harvard vs. Providence in Providence.  I just don't think they should.

Just for kicks, had Wisconsin won, how do you think that would've shaken out for us?

Since I just did that on CHN, let's take a look. The alternate-reality PWR with a UW win looks like this:

1  Denver    
2  Minnesota-Duluth 
3  One and Done U    
4  Mass.-Lowell    
5  Western Michigan    
6  Minnesota    
7  Boston University    
8  Union    
9  North Dakota    
10 Cornell    
11 Penn State    
12 Air Force    
13 Notre Dame    
14 Providence    
15 Ohio State    
16 Wisconsin

Michigan Tech and Wisconsin get autobids and bump out Ohio State.

Bracket integrity gives these pairings:

(1) Denver - (16) MTU
(8) Union - (9) NoDak

(2) UMD - (15) Wisc
(7) BU - (10) Cornell

(3) Sucks - (14) Providence
(6) Minn - (11) PSU

(4) UML - (13) Notre Dame
(5) WMU - (12) AFA

They would place the Denver bracket in Fargo, thanks to North Dakota. This would be a test to see if "protect the #1" actually would come into play as they could swap Denver and UMD.  The UMD bracket (includes Cornell) goes to Cincinnati, put Providence in Providence and UML in Manchester.  Then, as they did in our reality, they could swap 11 AFA and 12 PSU to get a more "eastern" field in Manchester, if they feel that some new Penn State fans would travel. EDIT: They would have to make that 11-12 swap to avoid the B1G matchup between Minn and PSU.  In fact, I'm wondering if they had this scenario already worked out before the end of the UW-PSU game and decided to keep the 11-12 swap.

Either way, with BU, Cornell, and Wisconsin in Cincinnati, that's (A) a huge amount of red & white and (B) very solid traveling fan-bases. Would have been fun at the bars, too.

Cornell will crush Harvard if and when Harvard wins enough games to face the Big Red. That's how I figure it, and how Cornell skaters figure it. Damn the fee-splitters! Full speed ahead!

Quote from: HookingCornell will crush Harvard if and when Harvard wins enough games to face the Big Red. That's how I figure it, and how Cornell skaters figure it. Damn the fee-splitters! Full speed ahead!

::screwy::

All things considered, Cornell got screwed by the committee's prioritizing attendance over "bracket integrity."  WMich would have been a far easier matchup than Lowell, and the arena would have been entirely Cornell fans rather than majority Lowell fans.  I also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.  Plus, Harvard could easily lose round 1.  But that's beside the point, because the committee could have just swapped Lowell and WMich while keeping us in the Northeast, no?  At least we didn't get screwed as much as Harvard.

First off, Rich is right - I'd forgotten about how the Wisconsin game affected Lowell moving up to 1 seed - so yeah, the bracket would've been different.

Two - the idea that Cornell got screwed is somewhat comical.  Also, the idea that Providence would be "filled" with Cornell fans if Cornell were there, is also comical.

Quote from: adamwTwo - the idea that Cornell got screwed is somewhat comical.  Also, the idea that Providence would be "filled" with Cornell fans if Cornell were there, is also comical.

I didn't say anything about it being "filled," so I don't understand the quotes--I just meant that, relative to the other team's fans, Cornell would have had a far greater representation (whereas now it'll be closer to even).  And sure, "screwed" is too strong a word--it just feels somewhat unfair, given that every matchup except ours (and ofc WMich-AF) is perfectly in line with the PWR.  Taking into account things like injuries, fan turnout, and style of play, Cornell would have had an easier matchup if the committee chose entirely based on "bracket integrity" (since that phrase gets thrown around a lot on the college hockey sites).  

But you're right that it's not worth moping about.  The stats suggest Lowell's offense is mostly the result of one top line.  Cornell's generally been successful this season at shutting down a few top players (Union, UNH).  And maybe facing a more skilled team on Saturday will leave Cornell less banged up for Sunday than would facing a more physical team.

Quote from: BearLoverAnd maybe facing a more skilled team on Saturday will leave Cornell less banged up for Sunday than would facing a more physical team.

Dear Hockey Gods: we neither know nor endeavor to know the number of poultry.  Sincerely, the Lynah Faithful.

I would have thought Cornell would be a slight favorite against a banged-up WMU squad coming east, while probably a slight underdog against Lowell 20 minutes (or whatever) from their campus. That said, I'd rather (potentially) get Minnesota than Harvard, so I'll call it a wash. Just win, baby.

To me the issue is not whether UML or WMU is a better match-up, it's that after calculating RPI out to four decimal places in order to choose the field and determine seedings, they rather arbitrarily rearrange the match-ups as they see fit.  

I understand the avoiding of first-round intra-conference games.  That's a stated, known rule.  If they wanted UML in Manchester, they could have had a UML-AF pairing there with Cornell-WMU in Providence, and left the seedings pure.

Quote from: Al DeFlorioTo me the issue is not whether UML or WMU is a better match-up, it's that after calculating RPI out to four decimal places in order to choose the field and determine seedings, they rather arbitrarily rearrange the match-ups as they see fit.

$$ers gonna $$

Quote from: BearLoverI also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.

lowell can score..  

they also lost to omaha/northestern/clarkson/maine/uconn/new hampshire and several others

cornell lost to merrimack/harvard/quin/clarkson/dartmouth and the CC

its a very winnable game thats about all you can ask this time of year.

it wont be 90% lowell fans either  they didnt travel to albany last year which is only 2.5 hrs compared to 45 min this year to manchester.

the place will have 5-7K cornell will bring its 500-1000 i suspect, minn/nd will have about the same between them, so lowell may have half the tickets in a place that will be half full.

Quote from: upprdecklowell can score..  

they also lost to omaha/northestern/clarkson/maine/uconn/new hampshire and several others

cornell lost to merrimack/harvard/quin/clarkson/dartmouth and the CC

its a very winnable game thats about all you can ask this time of year.

it wont be 90% lowell fans either  they didnt travel to albany last year which is only 2.5 hrs compared to 45 min this year to manchester.

the place will have 5-7K cornell will bring its 500-1000 i suspect, minn/nd will have about the same between them, so lowell may have half the tickets in a place that will be half full.

To be fair, last year's East regional was during the Easter weekend. And the Lowell fans that did turn out were very vocal and made themselves known. Their (very good) band even made the trip.

I wouldn't be surprised if Minny has a large group.  They and Wisco both travel well, and they're not bothered by long trips.

Quote from: Al DeFlorioTo me the issue is not whether UML or WMU is a better match-up, it's that after calculating RPI out to four decimal places in order to choose the field and determine seedings, they rather arbitrarily rearrange the match-ups as they see fit.  

I understand the avoiding of first-round intra-conference games.  That's a stated, known rule.  If they wanted UML in Manchester, they could have had a UML-AF pairing there with Cornell-WMU in Providence, and left the seedings pure.

Right.  It really doesn't matter how screwed Cornell got--the fact remains that the committee gave them a draw based on maximizing profits instead of pure merit--and that's unfair.  

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLoverI also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.

Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game?  Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Quote from: Schafer"Our guys are positive...I told them after that I have no regrets for how they played in the game. Zero. They came, they didn't play poorly, they went after it they played with poise. ... It was just one of those nights where we weren't good enough."

Quote from: Schafer"The way hockey is sometimes and the course of the game and they have great players that capitalized on their opportunities. We have great players and instead we didn't capitalize on our opportunities."

Quote from: Schafer"The game can be cruel sometimes. You get a great opportunity, hit a post the back door that we fanned on, [goalie Merrick Madsen] made a couple of great saves and they come down and they fire one in and it hits a stanchion and pops right out to one of their guys and it's 3-0, game over."

Quote from: Schafer"But I told our guys I was very proud of the way our guys competed in the third period. I thought they did an excellent job as far as continuing to go after it and stay disciplined, kept getting after it and got a goal at the very end as a coach, when the game's out of reach, you can have a lot of pride in the team for the way they played and stayed the course and that's what made this group of guys special."

Quote from: Schafer"I thought we played well yesterday but I don't think we played our best game of the year.  I think we still have something left in our tank a little bit. ... It's tough because you haven't played your best hockey I think as a game yet and you're always searching for that. And to move onto the Frozen Four, you're going to have to do that.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLoverI also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.

Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game?  Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Quote from: SchaferEndless commentary

Wow, even I think that was way more effort than my snark was worth.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLoverI also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.

Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game?  Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Quote from: SchaferEndless commentary

Wow, even I think that was way more effort than my snark was worth.

It all came from the same article

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: BearLoverI also don't buy that Harvard is a significantly tougher matchup than Minnesota, given that Cornell played Harvard tough three times this year.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get the night off to watch Saturday's title game.

Sorry you were busy checking your cell phone for much of the game?  Maybe we should ask Schafer how they played:

Quote from: SchaferEndless commentary

Wow, even I think that was way more effort than my snark was worth.

It all came from the same article

Good for you, man. Good for you.

I wouldn't call the final either close or a blowout.  It was just a normal hockey game between two good teams where one of them is noticeably better.  A few lucky bounces for us and we're in it to the wire; a few lucky bounces for Harvard and it's a blowout; in the absence of either, a 3-goal game.

I think we will play them closer in Chicago in the final, after beating Union in the semi.

Quote from: TrotskyI wouldn't call the final either close or a blowout.  It was just a normal hockey game between two good teams where one of them is noticeably better.  A few lucky bounces for us and we're in it to the wire; a few lucky bounces for Harvard and it's a blowout; in the absence of either, a 3-goal game.

I think we will play them closer in Chicago in the final, after beating Union in the semi.

From your mouth, to God's ears.  ::banana::

Harvard played better but still they had a total fluke goal and we missed a complete open tap in  and then its a different game..

the one harvard goal where the pass came from behind and the kid roofed it backhand while covered well by the cornell D is a skill play, i doubt we could score from that spot and maybe only a few of their guys could either just happened one that could was in that spot.

we need to stop their PP and score on ours and that has been the issue that last couple times we played them. that is the biggest difference in the teams and where they really shine over us.

Splitting hairs between .002 percentage points of RPI is hardly a cause to get up in arms about - and pretty difficult to say the Committee dismissed "merit.' How do you determine "merit" when you're talking about such minute differences?  So - given that - I have zero problem with them moving things around to "maximize attendance," even if you think that's merely a euphemism for $$$$$$.  Who cares?  It's splitting hairs between all of these teams.  The only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable.  I would call the Harvard-Providence matchup an example of that - where they did nothing, and it thus created an injustice that was preventable.  But I don't expect much sympathy for Harvard here.

Quote from: adamwThe only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable.

End hosts.  They are brutally stupid and unfair.

On

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: adamwThe only time I ever have an issue with it is when it creates egregious injustices that were easily preventable.

End hosts.  They are brutally stupid and unfair.

But Providence is getting the benefit of being a host (without spending money or energy hosting) while Brown is (was?) the host.  I don't see it as silly this year as it was two years ago.  Back then I think they were in a position to go west and were given "home" ice.  

This time it makes sense for Harvard to be in Providence and the seed worked for Providence to be there too. So the screw to Harvard was by computer as much as by the committee.

If someone ever has the time, it'd be awesome to learn how big an advantage home ice is in college hockey.

Quote from: martyThis time it makes sense for Harvard to be in Providence and the seed worked for Providence to be there too. So the screw to Harvard was by computer as much as by the committee.

I agree.  Nothing to be whining over.  And calling it "egregious" is laughable, frankly.

Quote from: BearLoverIf someone ever has the time, it'd be awesome to learn how big an advantage home ice is in college hockey.

Someone tried to do this at some point years back and I think it was a measurable fraction of a goal in the men's game and neutral in the women's game. This was for all games, though, not neutral-site, so it's not clear how much of the advantage has to do with getting the last line change and how much has to do with home crowd effects. The neutrality of home ice for women's games suggests home crowd/home facility effects, because women's games at the time were poorly attended everywhere but Minnesota. However, at the time the women's game was also so top-heavy that most games had highly predictable outcomes, so it's hard to draw much of a conclusion there.

It would be interesting to see this done properly. I'm not about to do it, though. :)

Quote from: BearLoverIf someone ever has the time, it'd be awesome to learn how big an advantage home ice is in college hockey.

The number +.3 goals comes up from the abyss of memory, but I won't vouch for authenticity.