As I mentioned in another thread, Cornell has a slim chance for a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney. Currently, we are #6 in PWR. We need to move up 2 spots to get a #1 seed.
Boston College, Colorado College and Minnesota have insurmountable leads over us in the Pairwise comparisons. That leaves Michigan and Denver.
For Denver, we need to overcome their RPI lead of .5837 to .5722. It'll be tough, especially given our weaker-conference schedule. A little help is needed.
For Michigan, they helped us by losing to Norther Mich last night. Currently the comparison is:
Michigan vs Cornell
.5695 0 RPI 1 .5722
9-6-1 .5938 1 TUC 0 .5833 6-4-2
2-1-0 .6667 1 COp 0 .2500 0-1-1
0 H2H 0
2 TOT 1
We need to switch one more comparison...TUC or COp. Michigan plays Mich State next week...we need to root for the Spartans!!!! Otherwise, each TUC win is critical.
More after tonight's games...
TUC = (RPI >= .500)
Correct?
Correct
So our remaining TUC (by current RPI) are:
.560 Colgate (twice)
.517 SLU
and then potentially in the PS, the above plus:
.566 Harvard
.533 Vermont
.532 Dartmouth
.516 Brown
Common Opponents are:
SLU (Michigan 1-0-0, Cornell 0-0-0 and 2 remaining)
Michigan State (Michigan 2-1-0 and 2 remaining, Cornell 0-1-1)
taking the best possible results, going into the PS it would be:
SLU (Michigan 1-0-0, Cornell 2-0-0)
Michigan State (Michigan 2-3-0, Cornell 0-1-1)
Total: Michigan 3-3-0, Cornell 2-1-1
So that's a loooooooooooong shot, albeit possible. These SLU games are amazingly important.
If I remember correctly, getting an auto bid automatically makes you a TUC. So we can route for Sacred Heart or Canisius to win Atlantic Hockey (or Army, haha) and get us another TUC win.
**** DISCLAIMER FOR WOOFING GODS ****
THE CONTENTS OF THIS THREAD ARE AN ANALYSIS ONLY. NOTHING IN THIS THREAD IS MEANT TO SUGGEST IN ANY WAY THE OUTCOME OF ANY OR ALL GAMES THIS SEASON.
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
Common Opponents are:
SLU (Michigan 1-0-0, Cornell 0-0-0 and 2 remaining)
Michigan State (Michigan 2-1-0 and 2 remaining, Cornell 0-1-1)
taking the best possible results, going into the PS it would be:
SLU (Michigan 1-0-0, Cornell 2-0-0)
Michigan State (Michigan 2-3-0, Cornell 0-1-1)
Total: Michigan 3-3-0, Cornell 2-1-1
So that's a loooooooooooong shot, albeit possible. These SLU games are amazingly important.[/q]
It's a looooong shot to win the comparison. Even tying the comparison will help by eliminating a point and potentially giving us the Comparison based on an RPI-tiebreaker.
Cornell is up to #5 now
That shouldn't hold when the Michigan game is a final. I think it is currently 3-1 late in the third.
It might. Looks like one of Michigan's victims are no longer a TUC. Their TUC record went from 9-6-1 to 7-6-1. Even with the win (assuming they don't catch up in RPI), our 7-4-2 beats their (soon to be) 8-6-1.
Now, if we can only gain 0.0053 on Denver......
Michigan dropped a good amount when they lost those two TUC wins. USCHO now has them tied with Harvard for 10th.
At the moment adding an RPI bonus has a big impact.
Top 14 w/o bonues:
1 Boston College 28 2 17-3-4 .7917 3 .5899
2 Colorado College 27 1 21-4-2 .8148 1 .6085
3 Minnesota 26 12 19-9-0 .6786 2 .5983
4 Denver 25 6 17-6-1 .7292 4 .5836
5 Cornell 24 3 15-4-2 .7619 6 .5783
6t Boston University 21 20 15-10-1 .5962 5 .5784
6t New Hampshire 21 8 17-6-3 .7115 8 .5647
8t Mass.-Lowell 20 10 15-6-3 .6875 9 .5642
8t Wisconsin 20 4 19-6-1 .7500 11 .5586
10t Michigan 19 7 19-7-1 .7222 7 .5695
10t Harvard 19 11 12-5-2 .6842 10 .5604
12 North Dakota 17 21 14-10-3 .5741 12 .5551
13t Colgate 16 5 19-7-0 .7308 15 .5488
13t Ohio State 16 9 18-7-3 .6964 13 .5492
And with a .005, 3, 1 bonus:
1 Boston College 28 2 17-3-4 .7917 3 .5949
2 Colorado College 27 1 21-4-2 .8148 1 .6095
3 Minnesota 26 12 19-9-0 .6786 2 .6043
4 Denver 25 6 17-6-1 .7292 4 .5847
5 Cornell 24 3 15-4-2 .7619 5 .5811
6t Michigan 22 7 19-7-1 .7222 7 .5725
6t Harvard 22 11 12-5-2 .6842 8 .5673
8 Wisconsin 20 4 19-6-1 .7500 12 .5596
9 Mass.-Lowell 19 10 15-6-3 .6875 10 .5652
10t New Hampshire 18 8 17-6-3 .7115 9 .5657
10t Ohio State 18 9 18-7-3 .6964 14 .5492
12t Boston University 17 20 15-10-1 .5962 6 .5791
12t North Dakota 17 21 14-10-3 .5741 11 .5648
14t Colgate 15 5 19-7-0 .7308 15 .5491
14t Northern Michigan 15 15 13-7-5 .6200 20 .5356
Good catch.
[Q]KenP Wrote:
Now, if we can only gain 0.0053 on Denver......
[/q]
Michigan Tech is close to sneaking into TUC position. If they can string some more wins together, what would hang a TUC loss on Denver and a pair on Minnesota which could be nice in the long run.
Also, the Michigan win tonight puts them in a tie for 5 (they win the tie break) in PWR with a resonable bonus. Without it Michigan is behind in 6th.
And we still have a game with RPI Black Hole Princeton.
[Q]nyc94 Wrote:
And we still have a game with RPI Black Hole Princeton.[/q]
And their ugly step sister RPI #52 Yale..
[Q]Chris '03 Wrote:
And with a .005, 3, 1 bonus:
[/q]
is it 5/3/1 or 5/3/2?
not sure
nope in the bracketology your version is correct.
The USCHO generator has us now winning all the pairwise comparisons except for those with the teams directly ahead of us: BC, CC, Minny, Denver.
Double post...sorry :-(
Cornell vs. Denver in Amherst for the right to go to the FF would be awesome...not that I enjoy looking ahead or anything... ::nut::
For what it's worth...if Cornell simply makes the NCAA tournament this year, then I'll be happy. A #1 seed would be nice, but I won't cry if we're a #2, #3, or #4 seed. As long as we're there, that's all that matters to me.
Early in the 3rd period, Denver PP scores on Univ. Alaska-Anchorage to go up 2-1 (audio feed via RealPlayer from UUA website).
I just reloaded the USCHO PWR and now they have Michigan ahead of us again. Did their game get added to the database late?
[Q]Mike Hedrick 01 Wrote:
I just reloaded the USCHO PWR and now they have Michigan ahead of us again. Did their game get added to the database late?[/q]
Western Michigan and/or Bowling Green must have snuck back into TUC status.
[Q]Mike Hedrick 01 Wrote:
I just reloaded the USCHO PWR and now they have Michigan ahead of us again. Did their game get added to the database late?[/q]
I don't know for sure - but my money's on it being a secondary effect from someone else's game.
Can all you math geeks please quit it with this ridiculous thread? Didn't you learn anything from 2 years ago??? If the Red had been a 2 seed in our region and BC had been the 1 seed, does that mean that BC would have won the game?
What does it matter if we are a 1 seed or not? What matters is what happens on the ice, and whether the team plays strong down the stretch. By the same token, bad losses down the stretch would be bad because they suggest that the team doesn't have what it takes to win it all, and NOT because they hurt the team's standing in some mathematical equation. Win and everything else will take care of itself, 1 seed or not. Now please cut it out with this mental masturbation and worry about something that matters.
[Q]mandervilleismyhero Wrote:Can all you math geeks please quit it with this ridiculous thread?[/q]
So, you're new here, then? :-D
Beeeej
You can't really look at it that way because a) Cornell may not have played BC ... and b) with last line change in a close game, perhaps BC DOES indeed win the game.
It is true, however, that a No. 1 seed is a longshot - and there's a long way to go to get one and the margin of error is extrememly slim ... And a No. 2 seed would be pretty darn good enough anyway. But it's worth shooting for a No. 1.
Yes, a #1 seed is a longshot, and it's a little odd to discuss the mathematics of the process ad absurdum...
But seriously, mandervilleworshipper - the better seed we get, the more likely it is that we'll see "weaker" teams in the regionals. And yes, the games have to be played on the ice, but I'd rather see Cornell face the #16 seed than the #1 seed any day of the week.
Beeeej
Beyond the last line change, getting a #1 seed means assuring that Cornell will not go to Minnesota for the regionals if Minny also stays a #1 seed. Also the 1st round opponent is weaker.
Denver is in OT vs. UAA.
Just as I post the above, DU wins in OT, bummer.
[Q]adamw Wrote:
It is true, however, that a No. 1 seed is a longshot - and there's a long way to go to get one and the margin of error is extrememly slim ... And a No. 2 seed would be pretty darn good enough anyway. But it's worth shooting for a No. 1.[/q]
Agreed. I like pulling for a 1 seed by pulling for the team to win every game through the rest of the season and let the chips fall where they may. Analyzing the math to this absurd degree with a month to go in the season is just a plain waste of time (Adam I recognize that you were just responding to my post and that you have not otherwise contributed to this--in my view--nonsensical thread.)
[Q]jy3 Wrote:
[Q2]Chris '03 Wrote:
And with a .005, 3, 1 bonus:
[/Q]
is it 5/3/1 or 5/3/2?
not sure
nope in the bracketology your version is correct.[/q]
Any value you see in print for the bonuses is guesswork, since the NCAA refuses (for no good reason) to say what they are.
[Q]If the Red had been a 2 seed in our region and BC had been the 1 seed, does that mean that BC would have won the game? [/Q]
No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game. BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?) Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.
[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:
[Q2]If the Red had been a 2 seed in our region and BC had been the 1 seed, does that mean that BC would have won the game? [/Q]
No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game. BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?) Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.[/q]
Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking. But yes, OSU, who I believe we might've already lost to that year, would have been tougher.
Western Mich is the borderline .5000 team. Currently they stand at .5008.
So for the chips to fall right....
- Michigan State doing well against Michigan will REALLY help.
- Western Michigan losing TUC status will help
- All of this is irrelevant unless we can pass Denver in RPI. For this to happen, (a) we have to raise our RPI by winning and not losing ground by playing weak ECAC teams, and (b) Denver needs to lose enough and not gain RPI by playing strong WCHA teams.
I'll be happy with a #3 seed. A #4 or no seed will be a bit of a disappointment, and a #2 seed will be amazing.
[Q]mandervilleismyhero Wrote:
rest of the season and let the chips fall where they may. Analyzing the math to this absurd degree with a month to go in the season is just a plain waste of time (Adam I recognize that you were just responding to my post and that you have not otherwise contributed to this--in my view--nonsensical thread.)[/q]
It may seem like a waste of time to you, but to some people on this forum, at USCHO, and on Hockey-L, analyzing mathematical ranking systems is a fun diversion/hobby. Why demand that they stop having fun with it just becuase it doesn't interest you? Nobody is forcing you to pay attention to it.
In addition, I see two significant effects from this sort of work:
First, in years where teams we care about happen to be on the dreaded "bubble," it can be very valuable for even the casual fans to know what out-of-town results significantly help the cause for an at-large bid...sometimes this can actually be counter-intuitive. Given the methodology that we do know, you can get pretty close to determining where the field stands.
Second, I feel that having a meticulous understanding of the system provides some level of accountability pressure to the NCAA selection committee, in a roundabout way. Having a media presence to promote the work of "math geeks" certainly puts pressure on the committee to abandon any shady smoke-filled-room political decisions that surely were made in the past.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
[Q2]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:
[Q2]If the Red had been a 2 seed in our region and BC had been the 1 seed, does that mean that BC would have won the game? [/Q]
No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game. BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?) Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.[/Q]
Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking. But yes, OSU, who I believe we might've already lost to that year, would have been tougher.[/q]
Indeed; Cornell lost to Ohio State 1-0 in Florida in the consolation game (with Todd Marr in net).
[Q]Avash '05 Wrote:
[Q2]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
[Q2]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:
[Q2]If the Red had been a 2 seed in our region and BC had been the 1 seed, does that mean that BC would have won the game? [/Q]
No, but we would've had to play OSU in the first game. BC barely beat OSU 1-0, whereas we smoked MSU-Mankato 5-2(?) Our chances of actually making it to the "BC game" would decrease a lot.[/Q]
Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking. But yes, OSU, who I believe we might've already lost to that year, would have been tougher.[/Q]
Indeed; Cornell lost to Ohio State 1-0 in Florida in the consolation game (with Todd Marr in net).
[/q]
But beat tham at tOSU in our first game of the year.
[Q]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]Avash '05 Wrote:
Indeed; Cornell lost to Ohio State 1-0 in Florida in the consolation game (with Todd Marr in net).
[/Q]
But beat tham at tOSU in our first game of the year.[/q]
But had to come back to do it, and didn't play particularly well.
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
Beyond the last line change, getting a #1 seed means assuring that Cornell will not go to Minnesota for the regionals if Minny also stays a #1 seed. Also the 1st round opponent is weaker.
[/q]
Not to mention that if we get a #1 seeds and two ECAC teams get #4 seeds, we'll draw the CHA or AH champion by the same principle that stiffed us in the 2003 first-round draw. OTOH, for that to happen, someone else would probably have to win the ECACs, which we obviously don't want.
[Q]Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking.[/Q]
Well, for the playoffs, it felt like a smoking. Especially compared to the Brown, Harvard and BC games that took 5 years off my life. :-P
[Q]mandervilleismyhero Wrote:
Analyzing the math to this absurd degree with a month to go in the season is just a plain waste of time (Adam I recognize that you were just responding to my post and that you have not otherwise contributed to this--in my view--nonsensical thread.)[/q]
Find this discussion boring? Then don't read it. Problem solved.
Doncha think that asking others to stop talking about some that interests them because you don't find it interesting is just a bit self centered?
The RPI hill is too steep and too long for Cornell to climb to make a #1 seed. This is partcularly true given our remaining SOS. Rough numbers: if we go 6 of 8 in remaining RS games (doesn't matter against who) our RPI will drop about .01. The current top 4, including DU, beat us in all individual comparison catagories with the exception of the COP against BC. There is no way we make top 4 without winning RPI comparisons, and that simply isn't possible.
What fans can realistically be hoping for in the stretch run is a seeding so the team stays east rather than being shipped west, which is what would happen now at PWR #6.
Best bracket would be if we ended up #5 and stayed east to play in Denver's (#4) bracket. That means winning the MI comparison, which is possible if we stay ahead of them in RPI and flip the TUC comparison to our favor. The latter is very doable since 4 of their 10 TUC wins are against BGSU and WMU who are barely holding on to TUC (.5009 and .5049 respectively). We have 3 TUC chances left in RS, win two of three and have BGSU or WMU drop from TUC and that comparison could flip. But holding onto the RPI against MI by regular season end will be difficult if they go 6 for 8, or better, themselves.
Best chance to stay east is to lose a couple TUC games, drop to 8th and end up in the BC bracket (anything that would drop the team from 6th would probably drop it right through 7th, so 8th is the most likely landing spot baring a complete meltdown).
Don't look at this scenario as rooting for your team to lose to Colgate or SLU, look at it as the very silver lining if they do.
Not that this has any "real" impact on things but it looks like we should jump both U
HN and M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A
January 24, 2005
Team (First Place) Record Pts Last Week
1 Boston College (29) 15-3-3 586 2 (W,W) UMass
2 Colorado College (10) 20-4-2 546 1 (W,W) Michigan Tech
3 Wisconsin (1) 19-6-1 490 5 â€"Idle-
4 Michigan 19-6-1 470 3 (L,W) N. Michigan
5 Denver 16-6-1 439 6 (W,W) Al. Anchorage
6 New Hampshire 16-5-2 380 7 (L,W) Mass.-Lowell
7 Minnesota 18-9-0 361 4 (W,L) Minn.-Duluth
8 Cornell 13-4-2 341 9 (W,W) Clarkson, SLU
9 Colgate 18-6-0 254 8 (W,L) SLU Clarkson
10 Ohio State 16-7-3 245 10 (W,W) W. Michigan
11 Harvard 10-5-2 149 13 (W,W) Princeton, Yale
12 North Dakota 14-10-2 147 12 (T,W) Bemidji State
13 Mass.-Lowell 14-5-3 126 15 (W,L) UNH
14 Boston University 13-10-1 120 11 (W,W) Merrimack, Providence
15 Maine 13-8-5 72 NR (W,T) Northeastern
Others Receiving Votes: Vermont 32 (W,W) RPI/Union,
Northern Michigan 29 (W,L), Dartmouth 8(W,W) Union/RPI, Bemidji State 2 (T,L),
Michigan State 1 (L: U-18), Michigan Tech 1 (L,L), Nebraska-Omaha 1 (W,W)
[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:
[Q2]Despite the final, I remember watching that game, and I would hardly call it a smoking.[/Q]
Well, for the playoffs, it felt like a smoking. Especially compared to the Brown, Harvard and BC games that took 5 years off my life.
[/q]
Haha, fair enough :).
Here's the box by the way: http://www.collegehockeystats.com/0203/boxes/mcormns1.m29
We got a 2-0 lead and then MSU brought it back to a tie. We took the lead back with 6 to go in the second, and opened it up 6 minutes into the third. So the first 46 minutes of that game were definitely not easy going.
Ah, good memories :)
Yep. Now, the 2002 first-round game vs. Quinnipiac...that was a smoking. :-)
Doug Murray had the best open ice hit I've ever seen in that game.
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
Not that this has any "real" impact on things but it looks like we should jump both UHN and M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A[/q]
Yes, the polls have no impact whatsoever on the NCAA seeding process. I know you know that, but posting the poll in this thread just runs the risk of confusing people who don't.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
[Q2]ben03 Wrote:
Not that this has any "real" impact on things but it looks like we should jump both UHN and M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A[/Q]
Yes, the polls have no impact whatsoever on the NCAA seeding process. I know you know that, but posting the poll in this thread just runs the risk of confusing people who don't.[/q]
my bad:-)
right, fans of the hockey team at a school famous for engineering, math, and science are going to give up statistical analysis of the sport. maby we can give it up for MLB too::rolleyes::
More important than a #1 seed, perhaps, is that we'd all love to see Cornell in the east. Especially considering I'm not more than an hour from either eastern regional :)
The following all assumes the top 4 contains BC and/or us as the only eastern schools:
In order to do that, we could finish 1st through 4th, 5th to match up with whatever western team finishes 4th and gets sent east, or 9 - x where x is BC's ranking, to match up with them (currently 8th).
Anything less than that pretty much becomes a crap shoot.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
More important than a #1 seed, perhaps, is that we'd all love to see Cornell in the east. Especially considering I'm not more than an hour from either eastern regional [/q]
Does that mean all of us can stay at your house? :-P
[Q]Will Wrote:
[Q2]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
More important than a #1 seed, perhaps, is that we'd all love to see Cornell in the east. Especially considering I'm not more than an hour from either eastern regional [/Q]
Does that mean all of us can stay at your house?[/q]
If by 'house' you mean 'apartment', and by 'stay' you mean 'sleep on the floor', then sure ;-). Although the DirecTV SportsPack might make up for it :-D
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
[Q2]Will Wrote:
[Q2]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
More important than a #1 seed, perhaps, is that we'd all love to see Cornell in the east. Especially considering I'm not more than an hour from either eastern regional [/Q]
Does that mean all of us can stay at your house?[/Q]
If by 'house' you mean 'apartment', and by 'stay' you mean 'sleep on the floor', then sure . Although the DirecTV SportsPack might make up for it [/q]
The bidding on my unheated unfinished basement begins at $1....
This may help with these speculations, if anyone feels like making up results for the rest of the season:
http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2005/rankings.diy.shtml
Anyone that bothers to read this far down this thread and isn't so confused they give up on it will know that the polls don't have an effect on tournament seeding. I promise. :-)
Quick! Look before it changes! As of 10:30 EST, 2/4/05, Cornell is tied for 2nd in the pairwise. Can we cancel the rest of the season for all teams and just go with this? :-P
who are the host schools for the regionals this year?
(same post as in the postgame thread)
The current Michigan PWR comparison (edit: RPI AFTER the Maine win over UNH):
Cornell vs Michigan
.5861 1 RPI 0 .5724
8-4-2 .6429 1 TUC 0 .6111 10-6-2
1-1-1 .5000 0 COp 1 .7000 3-1-1
0-0-0 0 H2H 0 0-0-0
2 TOT 1
The COp comparison is over. The TUC comparson is still up in the air. Michigan can still easily win this comparison.
The only way the BC and DU comparisons will stay in Cornell's advantage is if (a) we don't lose, and (b) they do. We're going to take big hits to our RPI when we play Princeton/Yale/Union/Rensssleer
Still, it's nice to see right now!
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
who are the host schools for the regionals this year?[/q]
The only relevant ones are BU in the east and Minnesota in the midwest.
Pending SCSU-AA and Robert Morris-AFA results...now back to fifth behind Minny. :-/
I just don't see a #1 seed in the cards. With a 5-3-1 bonus, our comparison with BC looks like:
Cornell vs Boston College
.5890 1 RPI 0 .5874
8-3-2 .6923 0 TUC 1 .8077 10-2-1
3-1-0 .7500 1 COp 0 .6667 2-1-0
0-1-0 0 H2H 1 1-0-0
2 TOT 2
.0016 is a razor-thin margin in RPI. Gotta figure they'll overcome that - they have a very tough record remaining, with Lowell twice, BU, and Maine twice. Their SOS is going to go up, while ours is tanking. Give that to BC, and they win the comparison, 3-1.
On the other hand, because of their tough remaining schedule, they have 12 games remaining vs TUCs (assuming their first-round HEA series is not against a TUC). We probably have only 3 remaining: SLU plus two games at Albany. Assume we go 2-1 in those, our final TUC record will be 10-4-2 (.6875). For BC to drop that low, they'd have to be 16-7-2 (.680) or worse, or at best 6-5-1 in those last 12 TUC games. That'd be a pretty monumental collapse. I bet BC keeps the TUC category.
Common opponents remaining could just be BC's games with Maine, or we each have a possible meeting with a COP in the playoffs (Harvard or Yale for us, and Harvard in the 'pot and Maine in the playoffs for them). There are too many permutations to figure all that out (including # of games in possible best-of series. We're not too likely to face Yale in the playoffs, so it really comes down to our possible meetings with Harvard and their Maine games (which are at BC). We'll *probably* do as well as BC in these remaining games (go Maine!), so we'll probably keep this category, but it just won't be enough, as BC will likely take the RPI, TUC, and H2H categories.
If all that comes to pass, I'm all for tanking a couple of (regular season) games to give Michigan a taste of their own medicine as the #5 overall seed at Mariucci! Now watch Minny turn it on and we'll go out there as the #6...
Just took another look at our schedule...I didn't realize our next 6 games are against #7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in the ECAC!
[Q]KenP Wrote:
Just took another look at our schedule...I didn't realize our next 6 games are against #7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in the ECAC!
[/q]
Yeah, that's bad for the bottom of the league because they're not going to be battling against each other for those final playoff spots...but they had their chance earlier in the season to beat up on each other...it's going to be weird seeing our RPI drop, pretty much win or lose, the rest of the way.
Anyone else think the ECAC(HL) is too big? I'm sure it was discussed before, especially when the HC/Quin debate was raging...but it looks like a 10 team league is working well for HE and WCHA and it would bring the NC games for Ivy League teams up to 10, a much more appropriate number.
[Q]atb9 Wrote:
[Q2]KenP Wrote:
Just took another look at our schedule...I didn't realize our next 6 games are against #7,8,9,10,11 and 12 in the ECAC!
[/Q]
Yeah, that's bad for the bottom of the league because they're not going to be battling against each other for those final playoff spots...but they had their chance earlier in the season to beat up on each other...it's going to be weird seeing our RPI drop, pretty much win or lose, the rest of the way.
Anyone else think the ECAC(HL) is too big? I'm sure it was discussed before, especially when the HC/Quin debate was raging...but it looks like a 10 team league is working well for HE and WCHA and it would bring the NC games for Ivy League teams up to 10, a much more appropriate number.[/q]
Meh. An even number of travel partnerships makes the schedule elegant.
BTW, my DIY script gives you the option of dropping all wins that hurt a team's RPI, not just the ones in the playoffs.
Other than MN finishing 3rd, 6th is a lock for eastern ice in the regionals. My own crystal ball says MN finishes 4th (they lose the DU comparison they're now winning).
BC will finish 1st, baring a meltdown, so 8th of 9th is also a good landing area for the Big Red.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
BTW, my DIY script gives you the option of dropping all wins that hurt a team's RPI, not just the ones in the playoffs.[/q]
I believe doing this is the equivalent of giving a point for an OT loss. Teams can go up in RPI by losing to a good team - but can't go down for beating a bad team? It throws things off.
I accept the playoff concept - because of the micro aspect to it. But really, RPI is meant to be taken as a whole, and not broken down from game to game. ... The fact that RPI can go down when a team wins does point out the flaws in RPI -- but I don't think it should be "corrected" in this fashion.
[Q]adamw Wrote:
[Q2]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
BTW, my DIY script gives you the option of dropping all wins that hurt a team's RPI, not just the ones in the playoffs.[/Q]
I believe doing this is the equivalent of giving a point for an OT loss. Teams can go up in RPI by losing to a good team - but can't go down for beating a bad team? It throws things off.
I accept the playoff concept - because of the micro aspect to it. But really, RPI is meant to be taken as a whole, and not broken down from game to game. ... The fact that RPI can go down when a team wins does point out the flaws in RPI -- but I don't think it should be "corrected" in this fashion.[/q]
Of course, it should be corrected by replacing it with KRACH. :-}
Dropping those games was a cop-out response to a flaw pointed out into the system. I reckon dropping all bad wins makes as much sense as dropping only the playoff ones, so I figured I'd add that option. I haven't considered whether dropping "good" losses would allow things to remain consistent, but that would be another possibility.
Just noticed the Mullins Center--site of the Northeast Regional--has 200x95 ice. Staying east would be good, but perhaps 200x85 Worcester would be better.
Some people argue Cornell's 2002 many-OT loss to Harvard was because the Olympic sheet at Placid played more to Harvard's strengths.
It would seem a bigger rink also gives the power play unit more room to maneuver, and right now that seems to be Cornell's one solid scoring line.
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Some people argue Cornell's 2002 many-OT loss to Harvard was because the Olympic sheet at Placid played more to Harvard's strengths.
It would seem a bigger rink also gives the power play unit more room to maneuver, and right now that seems to be Cornell's one solid scoring line. [/q]
All I can say is that when I talked to Mike after the move from the big sheet in Placid to 200x85 Albany was announced, he was very happy about it.
With BC's loss to BU in the Beanpot, we are currently #4 in PWR.:-)
[Q]KenP Wrote:
With BC's loss to BU in the Beanpot, we are currently #4 in PWR. [/q]
Any reasonable bonus pushes us to a tie for fifth with Michigan. We have the higher RPI but they win the head to head comparison.
[Q]nyc94 Wrote:
[Q2]KenP Wrote:
With BC's loss to BU in the Beanpot, we are currently #4 in PWR. [/Q]
Any reasonable bonus pushes us to a tie for fifth with Michigan. We have the higher RPI but they win the head to head comparison.
[/q]
and the only way to break that comparison is by either picking up TUC wins or beating st. lawrence.
Michigan vs Cornell
.5744 0 RPI 1 .5867
12-6-3 .6429 1 TUC 0 .6333 8-4-3
3-1-2 .6667 1 COp 0 .5000 1-1-1
0-0-0 0 H2H 0 0-0-0
2 TOT 1
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625. LOL, i should know this. Cornell can turn that 1-1-1 into a 2-1-1 if they beat SLU(T) in a few weeks and if they play and beat them in the playoffs. Michigan needs to lose, obviously, but they also played mich state so if they beat them in the playoffs then that adds to their COP - if they lose :)
i should be interesting. also we will take a hit to our rpi over the next 3 weeks
[Q]jy3 wrote:
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625.[/q]
A tie is, as it should be, 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss, so 3-1-2 equals 4-2-0 = .667.
So with Cornell and BC tied for fourth, would that mean they both go to the same regional? I personally would love another shot at BC. I think in a less penalty filled, playoff game Cornell would have a great shot.
And St. Lawrence is barely clinging to TUC status. RPI = 0.5022
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
So with Cornell and BC tied for fourth, would that mean they both go to the same regional? I personally would love another shot at BC. I think in a less penalty filled, playoff game Cornell would have a great shot.[/q]
In the current comparison, we would win because our RPI is better from what other people have told me. That would make it 4 cornell and 5 BC, so if they follow strict rankings to place the teams in the regionals, we would be put in the same regional.
Of course all of this is somewhat pointless to discuss, because any decent bonus puts BC ahead of us, and our RPI is going to drop for the rest of the season.
If two teams finish tied, the tie is broken by the individual comparison between the teams. Right now Cornell and BC are tied 2-2 in the individual comparison so the tie is broken by RPI. Thus Cornell would finish 4th in the overall pairwise and BC 5th. (Ignoring bonus points here, which may well flip this comparison.)
If this is the case the only guarantee would be that Cornell would get a #1 seed somewhere and BC a #2 somewhere. There's no guarantee it would be the same regional. It might be and I think there's a reasonable chance it would be if inter-conference first round matchups didn't cause problems.
[Q]jkahn Wrote:
[Q2]jy3 wrote:
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625.[/Q]
A tie is, as it should be, 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss, so 3-1-2 equals 4-2-0 = .667.[/q]
and they let yowpa prescribe drugs? scary.... ::nut:: :-P ;-)
Yes SLU is borderline TUC, but they do have that critical Quality Win on the Road which will help some. I hope.
There's no "might be" about it. 4 plays 5 unless it's intraconference or 5 is a host at a site that 4 can't play at.
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
There's no "might be" about it. 4 plays 5 unless it's intraconference or 5 is a host at a site that 4 can't play at. [/q]
Maybe I'm missing something (and perhaps you just mean that they'd be within the same regional), but doesn't 4 play 13, while 5 plays 12?
[Q]Avash '05 Wrote:
[Q2]Ken '70 Wrote:
There's no "might be" about it. 4 plays 5 unless it's intraconference or 5 is a host at a site that 4 can't play at. [/Q]
Maybe I'm missing something (and perhaps you just mean that they'd be within the same regional), but doesn't 4 play 13, while 5 plays 12?
[/q]
Regionals are 4 teams, so the winner of 4 and 13 plays the winner of 5 and 12.
Edit: I didn't see that you said that right below your question, so yeah we were just saying they would be in the same regional.
Gotta love Jason Moy's pre-bonus brackets where we get Alabama-Huntsville in Amherst.
http://www.uscho.com/news/2005/02/08_009888.php
4 ECAC teams make the tournament.
Bonus points make us the #6 seed with a first round date with BU in Worcester and only Cornell and Harvard make the tournament.
[Q]nyc94 Wrote:
Gotta love Jason Moy's pre-bonus brackets where we get Alabama-Huntsville in Amherst.
4 ECAC teams make the tournament.
Bonus points make us the #6 seed with a first round date with BU in Worcester and only Cornell and Harvard make the tournament.[/q]
First round against rival BU on NHL ice with either Maine or Denver waiting?
Let's call it a season today and get started!
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
There's no "might be" about it. 4 plays 5 unless it's intraconference or 5 is a host at a site that 4 can't play at. [/q]
All else being equal, they will try to pair 1d with 2a, but there's no hard and fast rule like there is about keeping teams in the appropriate bands.
You're mistaken if you think they casually disregard the sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc.
Do you think Jayson Moy of USCHO doesn't know what he's talking about, or have you observed the committee disregarding that seeding methodoloy in past years?
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
You're mistaken if you think they casually disregard the sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc.
Do you think Jayson Moy of USCHO doesn't know what he's talking about, or have you observed the committee disregarding that seeding methodoloy in past years?[/q]
Jayson Moy is a secondary source, and we have a grand total of two 16-team tournaments on which to base our conclusions. The official word from the NCAA is on page 12 of the Division I Ice Hockey Handbook: http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/iceHockey/2005/2005_d1_m_ice_hockey_handbook.pdf Go read that before making any pronouncements about what the committee will or will not do.
There is no sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc. The only place the handbook mentions 1-16 rankings is to divide the teams into four bands, and to rank the #1 seeds to place them into the nearest regional. Trying to pair the lowest-ranked #1 seed with the highest-ranked #2 seed falls under the umbrella of "competitive equity" and "balancing the brackets", and they presumably will do it if their other considerations allow but it is not a hard and fast rule. They do not think of a team as on overall #5 or #11 seed, but as a 2a or 3c seed. This is a point they stressed to us when explaining how overall #1 Cornell got paired with overall #14 Mankato State when they could instead have avoided the intraconference matchups by pairing overall #3 Minnesota with overall #12 Harvard. All the 1-seeds must play 4-seeds and the 2-seeds must play 3-seeds. They'll even schedule intraconference matchups in the first found if they're forced to in order to maintain the 1-4 seeding in each regional. That's what they mean by "integrity of the bracket".
Good response John. It's interesting how the average fan's projected brackets changed after a few of the Bracketology articles were published. When the PWR tables were first posted on USCHO (nice work on that BTW), many people were assembling brackets that considered travel and attendance, and didn't blindly follow "natural brackets" according to the 1-16 rankings. By now most people assume the 1-16 ranking matchups will be used even if it means over half the field has to be shipped across the country to accomodate them. The apparent reason for this assumption is that that formula has been followed in Jayson's articles.
As I've said earlier, the last 2 years the committee was able to set up brackets that followed the 1-16 ranking matchups as closely as possible while following the rules, without having to send any more teams out of region than was already necessary to follow the rules. We will only know what takes precedence after they are forced to make a choice.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
There is no sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc. The only place the handbook mentions 1-16 rankings is to divide the teams into four bands, and to rank the #1 seeds to place them into the nearest regional. Trying to pair the lowest-ranked #1 seed with the highest-ranked #2 seed falls under the umbrella of "competitive equity" and "balancing the brackets", and they presumably will do it if their other considerations allow but it is not a hard and fast rule. They do not think of a team as on overall #5 or #11 seed, but as a 2a or 3c seed. This is a point they stressed to us when explaining how overall #1 Cornell got paired with overall #14 Mankato State when they could instead have avoided the intraconference matchups by pairing overall #3 Minnesota with overall #12 Harvard. All the 1-seeds must play 4-seeds and the 2-seeds must play 3-seeds. They'll even schedule intraconference matchups in the first found if they're forced to in order to maintain the 1-4 seeding in each regional. That's what they mean by "integrity of the bracket".[/q]
I believe you are correct. However, the use of the term in their description is technically faulty. Ensuring that a 1-band plays a 4-band and a 2-band plays a 3-band within each regional ought to be considered the integrity of the seedings. Integrity of the brackets ought to mean ensuring that the winner of the #1 1-seed regional will play the winner of the #4 1-seed. That, after all, is what "bracketing" means (as opposed to the reseeding used in the ECAC Tournament).
Right, wrong, or variably correct. Well-written or cut-and-pasted boilerplate in the top half of each article (Jason, remember the inverted pyramid rule that puts the new and important stuff *on top*). The Bracketology column shines the light of publicity on the NCAA seeding committee and puts pressure on them to do a better job.
The more rigid the formula, the less likely some one team gets screwed by a dumb, irritated, or biased committee. And at the same time, it leads to lesser shaftings such as #1 Cornell playing #14 not #16 in the almost miracle year of 2003.
If the committee had a bit more leeway, you can see how it would be helpful if they could just, say, switch one of the region's #4 seeds to a #3 seed to avoid an undesirable matchup (like say two teams that just met in the Beanpot and played a three-overtime duel ought not to have to go at each other six weeks later). Or maybe it could avoid having even one intra-conference matchup in a tournament with five teams from the conference. But once you give the committee that power, what's to stop them from making a lot more swaps? And should they be able to make secondary considerations such as if a team gets an “unfair†first round pairing (eg #1 overall vs. #14 not #16 overall) to avoid some other miscarriage, do you try to even it out by, say, not putting Cornell in Amherst with its 200x95 near Olympic surface instead of 200x85 because big ice disadvantages Cornell's defensive style?
Meanwhile, what a rollercoaster for Cornell if you follow that long, thin strand of Bracketology type down the screen this week:
At the beginning of the column, Cornell starts out as a #1 seed (4th overall) and plays Colgate in Amherst. (Oops, that can’t happen: 2 teams, same conference.)
Cornell instead plays UAH, still in Amherst. Others in bracket: ND, BC.
Readjusting for bracket integrity (natural #1 vs. natural #16, etcetera):
Cornell plays Colgate again (theoretically).
Back to Cornell vs. UAH
Applying bonuses for good wins drops Cornell out of a #1 seed (also drops Colgate and Dartmouth out altogether) to #6
Cornell vs. BU, East Regional. Also Maine vs. Denver. Farther to travel, better ice size for Cornell.
And all this is predicated on the top teams winning their tournaments.
Also, we don't know what the formula added to RPI is for good road, neutral, and home wins, although it might be possible to deconstruct the formula after the selections are made if some teams that would have been in with one RPI formula fall out with another.
Right now we should be rooting for Fair Harvard to knock off BC in the Beanpot consolation. Cornell's RPI won't get much help from quality wins down the stretch since the highest ranked of our last six opponents is #28 (out of 56 D1 teams) St. Lawrence.
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Right now we should be rooting for Fair Harvard to knock off BC in the Beanpot consolation. Cornell's RPI won't get much help from quality wins down the stretch since the highest ranked of our last six opponents is #28 (out of 56 D1 teams) St. Lawrence.
[/q]
Cornell won't get ANY help from quality wins down the stretch. Games against teams from your own conference don't count, even if it's a non-conference game.
One other wrench in this. The committee changes over time. Different folks running things could decide to weight the various factors differently (attendance vs. natural brackets). The only thing the handbook tells them is a requirement is the banding.
That said, I don't have any idea how frequently the committee turns over...
So many rules for RPI and TUC and so forth. I have to write that on my shirt cuff: You can have an emotionally satisfying win against a quality team in your conference, but it's not an RPI-affecting quality win.
That's what you get when you have a system that's fundamentally limited and constantly tweaked to try to address these limitations.
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
One other wrench in this. The committee changes over time. Different folks running things could decide to weight the various factors differently (attendance vs. natural brackets). The only thing the handbook tells them is a requirement is the banding.[/q]
That is certainly true. The Marsh committees of the mid-to-late-nineties looked at individual comparisons much more than the committees of the past few years, who just looked at 1-16 in PWR.
There is not, is there, consideration for performance late vs. early in the season? A young team that goes 9-6 first half and 11-4 second half is a 20-win team on a tear, but it's the same number of wins and same percentage as a team that starts off 12-3 and slumps with a 8-7 record second half.
The coach of that streaking team would want the upward slope to be recognized. But the coach of the cooled-off team beset by injuries is going to say, "Sure, we had a so-so second half, but we still won two-thirds of our games. We deserve the same shot as anyone else with a .667 record."
Last year, we wouldn't have wanted Vesce's injury and end-of-season non-availability to lead the seeding committee to say, "Cornell isn't going anywhere without Vesce, so let's give it to someone with a better chance."
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
[Q2]Ken '70 Wrote:
You're mistaken if you think they casually disregard the sanctity of 1,8,9,16 etc.
Do you think Jayson Moy of USCHO doesn't know what he's talking about, or have you observed the committee disregarding that seeding methodoloy in past years?[/Q]
Jayson Moy is a secondary source....Trying to pair the lowest-ranked #1 seed with the highest-ranked #2 seed falls under the umbrella of "competitive equity" and "balancing the brackets", and they presumably will do it if their other considerations allow but it is not a hard and fast rule.[/q]
You've lost track of the original focus of this particular string which is about how seedings are arranged relative to the regional finals. Go back and see calgARI's post about a tie at 4th and what followed.
First of all, as USCHO notes at http://www.uscho.com/FAQs/?data=selection#b1 :
"Though not in its stated list of guidelines, the committee has made a concerted effort in the two years the 16-team field has existed to maintain a strict bracket. In other words, teams are given overall seed numbers, 1-16. The brackets are arranged 1-16-8-9, 2-15-7-10, 3-14-6-11, 4-13-5-12."
While the primary guiding principal in determining seedings and brackets is mentioned in the guidelines, that is:
"1. The top four teams, as ranked by the committee, are the four No. 1 regional seeds and will be placed in the bracket so that if all four teams advance to the Men’s Frozen Four, the No. 1 seed will play the No. 4 seed and the No. 2 seed will play the No. 3 seed in the semifinals."
the necessary corollary to this isn't, except by the phrase "competitive equity".
It would violate anyone's sense of competitive equity to allow bracket modifications such that the 1 seed had a more difficult trip to the semis than the 3 seed, for example.
In the first round, modifications are allowed to avoid intra-conference matchups unless they "corrupt bracket integrity". There is no language that allows modifications such that potential regional final matchups are compromised in regard to seedings and competitive equity (e.g., allowing a 1 v 5 regional final instead of 1 v 8).
Modifications are limited as to cause and at what round they can occur, both in the handbook and as a matter of historical fact. They do not occur under some broad brush and undefined "other considerations".
Since you dismiss Moy and USCHO as "secondary sources", you must be a more primary one. Please provide your bona fides.
Moy is a secondary source because the only primary sources are the committee members themselves. And they ain't talkin'.
There's pbviously a difference of opinion as to what "bracket integrity" means. If it means preserving the natural 1-16 pairings, then #5 will certainly play #4 in the second round. If it refers to the banding then #5 vs. #4 isn't guaranteed. I tend to think it's the latter, based on the language of the guidebook and statements by the committee at the Townhalls in the past.
Anyway, we have two years of evidence for how the committee will seed the 16 team tournament. I don't think we have enough "historical fact" to draw absolute conclusions.
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Moy is a secondary source because the only primary sources are the committee members themselves. And they ain't talkin'.[/q]
Yeah, I almost said "a secondary source, just like I am", but I didn't want to claim the same authority, since he's put more time into playing the what-if game in recent years than I have. Back in the days of the 12-team tournament, however, I have played exactly the same weekly game. Examples:
http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?1998/pairwise.980105
http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2002/pairwise.020317
(Navigate around for links to other "If the Season Ended Today" columns, as well as the best explanations I was able to assemble between the selection handbook and questions to the NCAA back when the staff were more accomodating about educating coaches, journalists and fans. Also, I think the old "You Are The Committee" scripts should still work and walk you through seeding a 12-team tournament.)
I haven't done it weekly since the advent of the 16-team bracket, but like many hockey-lers I've posted by prediction of the brackets on selection Sunday, and last year I managed to get it exactly right: http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind0403&L=hockey-l&D=0&F=P&P=32389&F=
The distinction between what the NCAA says and how USCHO paraphrases or interprets that is important. USCHO is a great service, but it's not the gospel.
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
There is not, is there, consideration for performance late vs. early in the season? A young team that goes 9-6 first half and 11-4 second half is a 20-win team on a tear, but it's the same number of wins and same percentage as a team that starts off 12-3 and slumps with a 8-7 record second half. [/q]
There was; record in the last 16 (originally 20) games was an additional criterion, but since there was no trace of schedule strength (as opposed to common opponents or record vs TUCs, which at least select the opponent pool), it was dropped a few years back. (In the early days of the MAAC, teams like Quinnipiac ended up really high in the PWR by winning a lot of 2-1 comparisons on the strength of record in last 16 and vs TUCs.)
We did propose a way to incorporate strength of schedule into all the selection criteria, but it never got much traction:
http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?kpairwise
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
The distinction between what the NCAA says and how USCHO paraphrases or interprets that is important. USCHO is a great service, but it's not the gospel.[/q]
Actually, I think it is the gospel :-) Or pretty close.
I think sometimes Jayson doesn't always carefully distinguish between the part that has leeway, and the parts that are absolute. But he's more or less dead on.
Over the last two years, it has become absolutely obvious what the committee is doing, and Jayson is going by that -- along with a little insider knowledge that's hard to share. Forget what the handbook says. In practice, the committee has clearly attempted to keep 1-16, 2-15, etc... integrity across the board - except in only the most strict of circumstances - such as avoiding the first-round matchups against teams from the same conference. That's just about the only reason that has changed under the 16-team field.
This caused confusion in year 1 - which if you go back to the ESPN selection show you will notice our confusion. We weren't sure, for example, why UNH and BU were paired in Round 2 - something the committee had always tried to avoid in the past. Later, I realized what they did, and wrote a Next Day column that laid it out.
Last year, I think it was pegged almost exactly. Let's just say that last year, I also got a little more of a peak into the process.
There's a beautiful story to share about the NCAA office transcribing the wrong bracket on Sunday morning, after we had the whole thing figured out the night before. After a half hour of panic and befuddlement, the NCAA called ESPN to say - wait, that was the wrong bracket - and proceeded to send the exact thing we figured out a night earlier.
[Q]jkahn Wrote:
[Q2]jy3 wrote:
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625.[/Q]
A tie is, as it should be, 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss, so 3-1-2 equals 4-2-0 = .667.[/q]
ahhhh, that makes sense :)
[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
[Q2]jkahn Wrote:
[Q2]jy3 wrote:
how do they figure out the winning percentage. i always thought that a tie counted as a win and a loss so 3-1-2 turns into 5-3 = .625.[/Q]
A tie is, as it should be, 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss, so 3-1-2 equals 4-2-0 = .667.[/Q]
and they let yowpa prescribe drugs? scary....[/q]
lol it is scary :)
here is the braketology thread. it is fun to figure the new brackets out :)
http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?t=44843
Adam,
Please bear with me one last time on this. I would like to look at a hypothetical, but plausible scenario. Let's say the bonus adjusted PWRs end up as follows (not too far off where we are now except I left BU out to simplify it):
1. CC
2. BC
3. Denver
4. Minnesota
5. Cornell
6. Michigan
7. Wisconsin
8. UML
9. Harvard
10. NMU
11. UND
12. UNH
13. Colgate
14. OSU
15. Bimedji St.
16. Holy Cross
Perfectly preserving "competitive equity", as Jayson has done whenever possible, we get:
Grand Rapids
1. CC
8. UML
9. Harvard
16. Holy Cross
Worcester
2. BC
7. Wisconsin
10. NMU
15. Bimedji St.
Amherst
3. Denver
6. Michigan
11. UND
14. OSU
Minneapolis
4. Minnesota
5. Cornell
12. UNH
13. Colgate
However the committee, at least by the published rules, could easily do following (and even a bit more) to boost attendance:
Grand Rapids
1. CC
6. Michigan
11. UND
16. Holy Cross
Worcester
2. BC
8. UML
9. Harvard
15. Bimedji St.
Amherst
3. Denver
5. Cornell
12. UNH
14. OSU
Minneapolis
4. Minnesota
7. Wisconsin
10. NMU
13. Colgate
Does the insider knowledge USCHO has really indicate the committee would set the field as shown in the first set of brackets, in spite of the abysmal attendance that would result in nearly all but the BC and Minnesota games? If so please offer my apologies to your colleague, Jasyon, for the criticism I have aimed at his columns on these boards.
I will, however, make a prediction. If the committee ever does assemble a geographically challenged NCAA field like the top set of brackets, it will only happen once before they change the way they do things. College basketball can afford to ship excessive numbers of teams out of their regions to preserve competitive equity. Do you really believe college hockey in 2005 can as well?
Just flip the original Amherst and Grand Rapids brackets in their entirety. It's not like Colorado Springs is a short drive from GR, anyway.
While the scenario you paint is probelmatic, it seems much better to do the wholesale flip than making CC play Michigan in the Reg. Finals. That's a royal screwing for both teams and hardly in line with "competitive equity".
The seeding rules explictly state that the #1 seeds are to be seeded, in order, as close to home as possible. It doesn't say "except when it doesn't really matter anyway".
Now, as #1, they did put us in Providence, and put UNH in Worcester, but that's kind of different, cause it made a big difference for UNH (30% or so, driving time), but it was pretty similar for us either way. The difference here is that the difference between CR & Amherst for CC is significant. Maybe not so much for the team, but for the fans coming from Colorado, and even moreso for any chance of a fan base already existing in that area. I'm sure as small number of CC grads in the Michigan area greatly outnumber the # in the western Mass area.
So, my first thought is that they'd keep the #1 seeds as in Steve's examples.
After that, you're asking them to rotate around all the 2 seeds. My feeling on the matter, and this is only an impression, is that the committee would tend to 'swap' two teams, rather than move all 4 to fit the area. So what about swapping Cornell/Wisc and UML/Mich, leaving:
Grand Rapids
1) CC 6) Michigan 9) Harvard 16) Holy Cross
Worcester
2) BC 5) Cornell 10) NMU 15) Bimedji St.
Amherst
3) Denver 8) UML 11) UND 14) OSU
Minneapolis
4) Minnesota 7) Wisconsin 12) UNH 13) Colgate
Just my feeling that the committee tends to swap instead of 'shuffle up'. But there's no telling exactly wht they'd do in any given year.
Two other problems->possibilities off this bracket:
- 'weak' Minn bracket -> swap UNH/ UND (for attendence)
-> or swap UNH/NMU
- that leads to BC/UNH/Cornell in the same bracket. Perhaps flip BC/DU for no real impact but avoid BC/Cornell rematch or BC/UNH second rounder.
But hey, the committee is made up of an entirely new group of 6 ADs every year, so there's no telling how much they'll want to mess with the 1-16 balance. My hunch is that the #1s will stay where they are, and that other teams wil be 'swapped'. Other than that we'll have to wait and see.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
But hey, the committee is made up of an entirely new group of 6 ADs every year, [/q]
Is that right? I haven't paid attention to the makeup recently, but I thought they served at least two-year terms.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
[Q2]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
But hey, the committee is made up of an entirely new group of 6 ADs every year, [/Q]
Is that right? I haven't paid attention to the makeup recently, but I thought they served at least two-year terms.[/q]
I could be mistaken. But if it is 2 years, it's like 3 new ones every year, so its at least 50% new blood.
No, the terms are 4 years I believe - or 3 at the very least. There is not that much turnover each year.
Steve, There is no telling exactly what they'll do when the time comes ... but it's apparent that keeping the "bracket integrity" or whatever you want to call it, has overweighed a variety of other factors in the last 2 years, particularly attendance and the avoidance of second-round intra-conference matchups. Lowell and Harvard are not going to boost attendance much. They already proved last year that keeping Michigan in Grand Rapids was not a major priority. And if perhaps more fans would go to Minnesota to see Wisconsin play than out East - if you're Wisconsin, would you really want a game at Minnesota in the regional final?
I just read this on USCHO:
http://www.uscho.com/news/2005/02/11_009907.php
The women's hockey tournament is expanding to eight teams from four. But they only plan to seed the top two teams so they don't play each other until the final.
From the article:
The parents of UMD forward Megan Stotts sent a letter dated Jan. 28 to [Troy] Arthur [the NCAA staff liaison to the Women's Ice Hockey Committee] threatening the NCAA with a Title IX grievance and circulated a petition demanding "the same tournament play-down bracket the NCAA Division I men's Frozen Four has had, specifically the team seeded 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 and 6, 4 plays 5."
interesting to note before the princeton final or other finals for the night:
Rk Team KRACH Record Sched Strength
Rating
1 Colorado College 6 261.7
2 Denver 3 297.1
3 Minnesota 1 368.1
4 Wisconsin 9 227.5
5 Boston College 14 186.6
6 Michigan 15 182.6
7 Cornell 26 134.1
8 Boston University 7 255.8
9 New Hampshire 18 162.0
10 North Dakota 5 281.2
11 Ohio State 28 131.6
12 Harvard 24 136.5
13 Mass.-Lowell 20 145.2
14 Maine 17 169.2
15 Northern Michigan 16 169.8
16 Colgate 37 103.4
17 Michigan State 13 204.0
18 Minnesota State 4 281.7
19 Northeastern 12 205.0
20 Minnesota-Duluth 10 225.5
21 Nebraska-Omaha 29 122.4
22 Vermont 32 118.1
23 St. Cloud State 11 215.4
24 Brown 38 96.14
25 Bowling Green 36 111.6
26 Dartmouth 34 116.8
27 Alaska-Anchorage 8 252.5
28 Michigan Tech 2 341.4
29 Miami 23 142.6
30 St. Lawrence 35 114.0
31 Alaska-Fairbanks 22 144.2
32 Western Michigan 27 133.6
33 Bemidji State 44 60.57
34 Alabama-Huntsville 46 50.30
35 Massachusetts 30 120.8
36 Lake Superior 21 144.7
37 Ferris State 25 136.4
38 Providence 33 117.7
39 Notre Dame 19 161.5
40 Union 40 81.16
41 Merrimack 31 119.4
42 Clarkson 41 75.81
43 Rensselaer 45 59.29
44 Wayne State 47 50.06
45 Niagara 43 63.23
46 Princeton 42 63.88
47 Air Force 49 25.27
48 Holy Cross 50 17.76
49 Yale 39 84.33
50 Canisius 51 16.85
51 Quinnipiac 55 13.82
52 Robert Morris 48 27.76
53 Sacred Heart 52 16.71
54 Mercyhurst 54 16.35
55 Connecticut 53 16.45
56 Bentley 58 12.38
57 Army 56 13.58
58 American Int'l 57 12.39
tonight before all the games, our SOS moves to 29.
SOS up to 30 now
also
5-3-1
1. denver
2. cc
3. bc
4. minne
5. umich
5. cornell
7.hahvahd
8. wisconsin
9. bu
9. uhn
9. und
9. tosu
13. dc
14. umassl
15. unm
16. maine
this one is complicated with the four team tie.
bu - wins uhn, und
uhn-wins und, tosu
und-wins tosu
tosu- wins bu
->
1. denver
2. cc
3. bc
4. minne
5. umich
6. cornell
7.hahvahd
8. wisconsin
9. bu
10. uhn
11. und
12. tosu
13. dc
14. umassl
15. nmu
16. maine
aha/cha take 15 and 16
banding
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: bu, uhn, und, tosu
#4's: dc, umassl, aha/cha, cha,aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (8)
3. uhn (10)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. und (11)
4. dc (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (12)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. umassl(14)
wisconsin should play bu by rank order but bu has to be in worchester so they instead play uhn. since cornell and bc should be in the same bracket cornell gets bu. but umich and tosu cannot play in the first round. i doubt they would swap the higher seeds so probably tosu swaps with und. a cornell umich swap would not be good for attendance even though both sets of fans rock. anyone see this one differently? tough one this week, i think i broke the ties correctly.
How much does it matter? Assuming we don't really screw up in ECAC play, we're going to be a #2 seed or theoretically maybe a #1 seed (one of four #2 or four #1 seeds). So it means in the first of the two regional games, as a #2 seed you play a team just a little less good than you (the #3 seed) instead of the worst team in your region (the #4 seed). As a practical matter, say we're in the same region as, say, Michigan, whether they're #1 and we're #2 or vice versa, we have to beat them to get the the Frozen Four. Also as a practical matter, if you're the #1 seed you're *probably* going to beat #4 since several of the #4's will be the auto-qualifiers from the wimpier leagues. But that only gets you to the regional final. There's always the chance #3 mildy upsets #2 in the first regional game and if you're #1 and you're definitely better than #3, you have an easier - but not guaranteed - chance of going to Columbus and the final four.
Say we're #2 in a region where BC is #1. We're almost as likely to meet them in the regional final as if they're #2 and we're #1. That's a rematch I'd like.
Sure, it would be great to be a #1 seed. But mostly you want to avoid being the #4 seed in a region.
[Q]jy3 Wrote:
worcester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. umassl(14)
anyone see this one differently? tough one this week, i think i broke the ties correctly.[/q]
UML can't play BC in the first round. They'd swap with DC probably.
oh yeah i missed that one :)
here is the 3-2-1
i actually meant to use the 3-2-1 in my post but for some reason did the 5-3-1.
here is 3-2-1 before 2nite's beanpot, which will change things
1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
7t Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
10t Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
13t Northern Michigan
15t Maine
15t Colgate
15t Dartmouth
15t Michigan State
->
1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
7t Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
10t Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
13t Northern Michigan
-> hahvahd wins over wisconsin,
tosu-wins over bu
umassl wins over nmu
1 Denver
2 Colorado College
3 Boston College
4 Minnesota
5 Michigan
6 Cornell
7t Harvard
8 Wisconsin
9 North Dakota
10t Ohio State
11 Boston University
12 New Hampshire
13t Mass.-Lowell
14 Northern Michigan
15 aha/cha
16 cha/aha
bands:
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: und, tosu, bu, uhn
#4's: umassl, nmu, aha/cha, cha/aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (8)
3. und (9)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. uhn (12)
4. umassl (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (10)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(11)
4. nmu(14)
-that all fits nicely but we have to swap out of a wisconcin und matchup if we can, which would mean either a und-uhn swap or und-tosu swap since bu cant move. i think swapping a 9-10 may make more sense so i will go with und-tosu swapping.^
->
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (8)
3. tosu (10)^
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. uhn (12)
4. umassl (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. und (9)^
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(11)
4. nmu(14)
5-3-1 for comparison
banding
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, hahvahd, wisconsin
#3's: bu, uhn, und, tosu
#4's: dc, umassl, aha/cha, cha,aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. wisconsin (8)
3. uhn (10)
4. aha/cha(16)
minne
1. minne*(4)
2. umich(5)
3. und (11)
4. umassl(14)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. hahvahd(7)
3. tosu (12)
4. cha/aha(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell(6)
3. bu*(9)
4. dc (13)
__________________
LET'S GO RED!
jy3
Having a #1 seed virtually assures Cornell will stay east for the regionals, as the chance of more than two eastern teams becoming #1 seeds is practically nil, and #1 seeds are, in order, placed in the regional closest to home. There's also the advantage of having the last line change that's been mentioned before.
Well, the other shoe (or was it the bottom) dropped last night. Harvard's loss to BC puts us at a pretty solid 6th place in PWR with either the 3-2-1 or 5-3-1 bonus. Very tough to see how we'll pick up any more comparisons from here on out. My guess is that we're going to end up as a 6th or 7th seed (i.e. 2b or 2c). Minnesota is actually looking somewhat secure in 4th, so 6/7 is not a bad place to be. Let Michigan go to Mariucci!
I think we want to line up opposite BC. i.e., 1:8, 2:7, 3:6, 4:5. That would put us east against a team we have seen and will not be intimidated by. We know we will not be getting Harvard in the Sweet 16 game, so that leaves somebody out of {BU, UNH, NoDak}. Any of those match-ups would be a great game.
Cornell moved ahead of Michigan in the PWR, up to #5 (without bonus and with 3-2-1 bonus). It appears the Northern Michigan - Michigan Tech tie on Thursday night dropped Bowling Green from TUC status taking away two wins for Michigan. Michigan Tech is a TUC with a 8-19-3 record.
Also note, that it makes Mich Tech a TUC (for now) and they beat Minn twice. Of course, Minn STILL doesn't fall. UAA is now only 0.0007 short of being a TUC and Minn is 0-2-1 against them.
If I could choose which top tier team Cornell would play in the NCAA's it would definitely be Boston College.
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
If I could choose which top tier team Cornell would play in the NCAA's it would definitely be Boston College.[/q]
Western Bias....::rolleyes::
[q]Michigan Tech is a TUC with a 8-19-3 record.[/q]Ridiculous. The .500 Win% cutoff several years back may have allowed weak teams to be "Under Consideration" by virtue of a weak schedule, but at least they had to win half of their games. The current RPI cutoff for TUC further emphasizes the bias toward the stronger conferences that's in the RPI. How about requiring both .500 record and .500 RPI? That eliminates the chance of a crappy AH team being a TUC but also prevents a crappy WCHA team from being a TUC simlpy because they play a tought schedule.
agreed
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
That eliminates the chance of a crappy AH team being a TUC but also prevents a crappy WCHA team from being a TUC simlpy because they play a tought schedule.[/q]
How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule?
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Also note, that it makes Mich Tech a TUC (for now) and they beat Minn twice. Of course, Minn STILL doesn't fall. UAA is now only 0.0007 short of being a TUC and Minn is 0-2-1 against them.[/q]
Actually, their victory over 9-15-6 Minnesota State last Saturday is what put them over the top. ::rolleyes::
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule?[/q]
I had a similar conversation with a coworker today re: squeakball. He mentioned that Texas A&M is 15-7 overall and 4-7 in the Big 12. Their chances of getting an at-large bid are slim at best.
SOS helps because it credits teams for good wins and acceptable losses. But somewhere you have to draw the line. I don't care how much they whine about a tough schedule, unless they win an autobid with an amazing post-season run, no team with a losing record should ever be considered for the NCAA tourney. (i.e. be a TUC)
[q]How about a middling WCHA team that has a losing record because they play a tough schedule? [/q]The middling WCHA team that has a losing overall record shouldn't be eligible for the tournament. That's what TUC means first and foremost - that the team is worthy of consideration for playing in the tournament for the national title. If you can't win at least half of your games you don't deserve to play for the title.
Now I understand that there's no way that MTU is really in the hunt for an at large bid at this point. But a middling WCHA team that happens to be under .500 might be. Regardless, the strength of shcedule factor of playing MTU or that middling WCHA team are already incorporated into the RPI and thus PWR. Why do we need to overweight games against losing teams? Because that's what an under-.500 team is, no matter how tought their schedule is.
(Pre-emptive request: Let's leave auto-qualifiers out of this. That's a separate discussion, which we've had multiple times.)
Cornell #3 as of right now!
It probably won't last the night, but its nice to see :-D
Harvard 12
Colgate 14 and Dartmouth 15
not including the fairbanks - miami game (dont think it will matter 1-1 tie)
3-2-1
Rk Team PWR Record RPI
Rk W-L-T Win % Rk RPI
1 Denver 27 4 22-7-2 .7419 2 .5915
2 Colorado College 26 2 25-6-3 .7794 1 .5935
3 Cornell 24 1 20-4-3 .7963 4 .5808
4t Boston College 23 8 19-6-5 .7167 5 .5807
4t Minnesota 23 14 20-12-1 .6212 6 .5774
6 Michigan 22 3 24-7-3 .7500 7 .5737
7 New Hampshire 20 5 22-7-3 .7344 9 .5673
8t Boston University 19 12 20-10-2 .6563 3 .5822
8t Mass.-Lowell 19 9 19-7-4 .7000 8 .5689
10 Harvard 18 10 17-7-2 .6923 11 .5629
11t North Dakota 16 22 16-12-3 .5645 12 .5581
11t Ohio State 16 6 23-8-3 .7206 13 .5560
13t Colgate 15 7 22-8-2 .7188 14 .5484
13t Dartmouth 15 20 15-10-2 .5926 18 .5331
13t Wisconsin 15 11 21-9-2 .6875 10 .5660
16 Northern Michigan 12 16t 16-9-7 .6094 19 .5302
guess they picked up comparisons :)
Boy, PWR and RPI and KRACH really does make it clearer who's going to be where in the post-season.
3-2-1
1. denver
2. cc
3. bc
4. minne
5. umich
6. cornell
7. bu
8. uml
9. uhn
10. wi
11. tosu
12. hahvahd
13. und
14. 'gate
15. dc
16 .nmu
minne over umich and cornell, umich over cornell breaks the tie at 4.
#9 is more complicated
uhn over tosu
wi over uhn
tosu over wi
so then i assume we list them by rpi as i have above
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, bu, uml
#3's: uhn, wi, tosu, hahvahd
#4's: und, 'gate, aha/ch, cha/aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. uml (8)
3. wi (10)
4. cha/aha (sacred heart)(16)
minnesota
1. minne (4)*
2. umich (5)
3. hahvhad (12)
4. 'gate (14)^
amherst
1. bc (3)
2. cornell (6)
3. uhn (9)
4. und (13)^
worcester
1. cc (2)
2. bu(7)*
3. tosu (11)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
i figured worcester and amherst are so close that the distance doesnt matter. so putting cc in worcester ensures a 2-7 matchup. anyone have any different fields? ^editverlooked the minne-und matchup so we likely have to swap 13 and 14
OR
if u take that amherst is closer to cc than worcester it makes things messy
#1's: denver, cc, bc, minne
#2's: umich, cornell, bu, uml
#3's: uhn, wi, tosu, hahvahd
#4's: und, 'gate, aha/ch, cha/aha
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. uml (8)
3. wi (10)
4. cha/aha (sacred heart)(16)
minnesota
1. minne (4)
2. umich (5)
3. hahvhad (12)
4. und (13)
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. cornell (6)
3. tosu (11)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
worcester
1. bc (3)
2. bu(7)
3. uhn (9)
4. 'gate (14)
-if u take the distance into account but now u have to switch uhn with someone. cant swap with wi so either tosu or hahvahd...i would say tosu. ^also, minne and und can't play first round games...so swap und and colgate
->
grand rapids
1. denver (1)
2. uml (8)
3. wi (10)
4. cha/aha (sacred heart)(16)
minnesota
1. minne (4)*
2. umich (5)
3. hahvhad (12)
4. 'gate (14)^
amherst
1. cc (2)
2. cornell (6)
3. uhn (9)^
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
worchester
1. bc (3)
2. bu(7)*
3. tosu (11)^
4. und (13)^
As I pointed out in the other thread, you have Minn/UND in the first round. Flip UND with 'Gate.
edited thanks :)
With another win over a TUC and the stumbling of other teams at the top, this is looking like a real possibility again. The key, other than Cornell winning, is Brown and SLU. Together they represent 4 out of Cornell's 9 wins over TUCs and they are both very close to falling below a 0.500 RPI.
We also need to watch Alaska-Anchorage and Western Michigan. We want UAA to be a TUC -- they have a favorable record against Minnesota. Similarly, we DON'T want WMU to be a TUC, as that will add TUC wins to Michigan.
I agree with the comment made in the "Other Scores" thread. Even though I understand the math, it's pretty ridiculous that Cornell's aspirations for a #1 seed hinge upon Western Michigan and Lake Superior State slugging it out to determine if WMU is just above average or just below average. The "math" would be better served by changing TUC qualification to RPI (KRACH) over 0.5000 (100) AND a winning record.
1. cc
1. denver
3. minne
4. cornell
4. bc
6. umich
7. wi
8. uhn
8. umassl
10. bu
10. hahvahd
12. dc
12. tosu
14.und
15. 'gate
16. nmu
16. maine
broken ties->
1. cc
2. denver
3. minne
4. cornell
5. bc
6. umich
7. wi
8. uhn
9. umassl
10. bu
11. hahvahd
12. dc
13. tosu
14.und
_________
15. 'gate
16. nmu
17. maine
#1's: cc, du, minne, cornell
#2's: bc, umich, wi, uhn
#3's: umassl, bu, hahvahd, dc
#4's: tosu, und, aha/cha, cha/aha
grand rapids
1 cc(1)
2 uhn (8)
3 umassl(9)
4 cha/aha (16)
minne
1 minne*(3)
2 umich (6)
3 hahvahd(11)
4 und (14)
amherst
1 du(2)
2 wi(7)
3 dc (12)
4 aha/cha (15)
worcester
1 cornell (4)
2 bc (5)
3 bu*(10)
4 tosu (13)
we have some swapping to do.
uhn cant play umass, minne cant play und, bc cant play bu
bu and minne cannot move. cannot swap uhn and bc. looks like swapping bc(5) with umich (6) and uhn(8) with wi(7)
or u could swapp umassl(9) with havhahd(11).
swapping tosu(13) and und(14) seems reasonable->
grand rapids
1 cc(1)
2 wi(7)^^
3 umassl(9)
4 cha/aha (16) (Q)
minne
1 minne*(3)
2 bc (5)^^^
3 hahvahd(11)
4 tosu (13)^
amherst
1 du(2)
2 uhn (8)^^
3 dc (12)
4 aha/cha (15) (bemidji state)
worcester
1 cornell (4)
2 umich (6)^^^
3 bu*(10)
4 und (14)^
that seem reasonable? did i miss anything?
You know its late in the college hockey season if...
You run through the bracketology process after each night... for both no bonus, 3/2/1 bonus, and 5/3/1 bonus
Yeah, I did it last night, albeit before the UAA game which changed things.
---------
I do have a few comments on your brackets, mainly for attendence reasons.
1) The committee would probably like to keep BC east and Mich in GR. Rather than swapping BC with Mich and UNH with Wisc, swap BC with Wisc and UNH with Mich.
2) Also, I'm not convinced we'd end up in Amherst in this scenario. It may be "closer" to Denver, but they'd likely fly into Logan (Boston) , so the trip to Worcester is a shorter trip. Although it *could* be cheaper to fly into NYC and drive, so I guess I can't say. Its still a toss up even with a Western team in the east.
---------
FYI, with the 3/2/1 bonus at the moment, I get the same top 16.
So we have:
grand rapids
1 cc(1)
2 mich (6)
3 umassl(9)
4 cha/aha (16) (Q)
minne
1 minne (3)
2 unh(8)
3 hahvahd(11)
4 tosu (13)
amherst
1 du(2)*
2 bc (5)
3 dc (12)
4 aha/cha (15)** (bemidji state)
worcester
1 cornell (4)*
2 wisc(7)
3 bu (10)
4 und (14)**
Could flop *s and **s if you wanted to put DU in Worcester
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
You know its late in the college hockey season if...
You run through the bracketology process after each night... for both no bonus, 3/2/1 bonus, and 5/3/1 bonus
Yeah, I did it last night, albeit before the UAA game which changed things.
---------
I do have a few comments on your brackets, mainly for attendence reasons.
1) The committee would probably like to keep BC east and Mich in GR. Rather than swapping BC with Mich and UNH with Wisc, swap BC with Wisc and UNH with Mich.
2) Also, I'm not convinced we'd end up in Amherst in this scenario. It may be "closer" to Denver, but they'd likely fly into Logan (Boston) , so the trip to Worcester is a shorter trip. Although it *could* be cheaper to fly into NYC and drive, so I guess I can't say. Its still a toss up even with a Western team in the east.
---------
FYI, with the 3/2/1 bonus at the moment, I get the same top 16.
So we have:
grand rapids
1 cc(1)
2 mich (6)
3 umassl(9)
4 cha/aha (16) (Q)
minne
1 minne (3)
2 unh(8)
3 hahvahd(11)
4 tosu (13)
amherst
1 du(2)*
2 bc (5)
3 dc (12)
4 aha/cha (15)** (bemidji state)
worcester
1 cornell (4)*
2 wisc(7)
3 bu (10)
4 und (14)**
Could flop *s and **s if you wanted to put DU in Worcester[/q]
that seems like a good solution in order to keep umich and bc for attendance reasons. didnt get into that :)
Wow. I just checked what would happen if all harmful wins were dropped from the RPI, not just those in the playoffs. Look what happens:
http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2005/cgi-bin/rankings.cgi?dispPWR=true;dispRPI=true;PCTweight=25;OPPweight=50;OOPweight=25;topqual=15;homebon=.0010;neutbon=.0020;roadbon=.0030;rpifudge=all;PWCtb=RPI;PWCtbwt=1;PWCh2hwt=1;PWCh2h=per%20game;PWCtucwt=1;TUCdefcrit=rpi;TUCdefrel=ge;TUCdefcut=.500;PWCtuccrit=pct;PWCtucomit=true;PWClastwt=0;PWClastnum=16;PWClastcrit=pct;PWCcomwt=1;PWCcommingm=1;PWCcommintm=1;PWCcomcrit=pct;scoresel=current;scores=
Now obviously, we don't deserve to be #1 (this flaw cancels other flaws in the PWR), but it's telling that if a bunch of games that we won hadn't counted, we'd be a lot better off.
Also, here's how we'd look with the old selection criteria (35/50/15 RPI, TUCs chosen by winning percentage, last 16 is a criterion):
http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2005/cgi-bin/rankings.cgi?dispPWR=true;dispRPI=true;PCTweight=35;OPPweight=50;OOPweight=15;topqual=15;homebon=0;neutbon=0;roadbon=0;rpifudge=no;PWCtb=RPI;PWCtbwt=1;PWCh2hwt=1;PWCh2h=per%20game;PWCtucwt=1;TUCdefcrit=pct;TUCdefrel=ge;TUCdefcut=.500;PWCtuccrit=pct;PWCtucomit=true;PWClastwt=1;PWClastnum=16;PWClastcrit=pct;PWCcomwt=1;PWCcommingm=1;PWCcommintm=1;PWCcomcrit=pct;scoresel=current;scores=
We'd still be #7 with the KRACHified version of the old criteria, though:
http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2005/cgi-bin/rankings.cgi?dispPWR=true;PWCdetails=true;PCTweight=35;OPPweight=50;OOPweight=15;topqual=15;homebon=0;neutbon=0;roadbon=0;rpifudge=no;PWCtb=RRWP;PWCtbwt=1;PWCh2hwt=1;PWCh2h=per%20game;PWCtucwt=1;TUCdefcrit=pct;TUCdefrel=ge;TUCdefcut=.500;PWCtuccrit=hhwp;PWCtucomit=true;PWClastwt=1;PWClastnum=16;PWClastcrit=hhwp;PWCcomwt=1;PWCcommingm=1;PWCcommintm=1;PWCcomcrit=hhwp;scoresel=current;scores=
(we win last 16 but lose TUC and RRWP to the top six)
I know the conventional wisdom is that it's a huge uphill climb for Cornell to get a #1 seed, but I think our chances are pretty good if we win an ECAC championship. Our RPI will go up so we'll have a good shot at passing BC and or Denver. Minnesota can still fall if MTU or their likely playoff foe, UAA, does some more damage to them. The chances of CC, Denver, Minn, and BC all playing very well over the next 3 weeks is small, especially since some of them will butt heads. As the WCHA and HEA play more games against each other, their good NC will not carry as much weight and their RPIs will trend closer to 0.500.
So I'll go out on a limb and say an ECAC championship will also bring in a #1 seed, providing either Brown or SLU remain a TUC.
I think Steve M has the right idea. There's a lot of losses out there between now and the end of season. If we avoid them, we'll get a #1 seed, since the WCHA tourney will have plenty of losses to hand out. Plus, CC&DU play each other twice this week. Heck, that by itself could make M. Tech a TUC, too, although I think they've fallen a bit too far from RPI = 0.5000 at this point.
Okay, so I ran it through the DIY script http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?rankings.diy and if Minnesota loses to MTU tonight, we pass them and move to #4 in the PWR. If Minnesota splits, we're still #4, but Minnesota drops to #6 because the extra game against Tech drops their RPI enough for Michigan to pass them. ::laugh::
ETA: unfortunately, a sweep doesn't drag them down enough by itself, so we need Tech to pick up at least two points.
I just noticed, Minn's main danger is two-fold. One, their TUC record is close enough to our that depending on how things fall, we could pass them. Two, their RPI is low enough to allow BU to win the head to head comparison with them, as well as Michigan, but BU is awfully close. Of course, neither of them are so close. UNH is hanging in there as well.
As much as it might be against our blood, rooting for BU and UNH and Mich could help Minn lose those comparisons, and for CC and against BC to keep BC down and more likely to cause the 3 way tie. Rooting against BC this weekend is easy cause they play Maine, and we want Maine to stay up there. And of course against Minn.
With all the potential, I'm tempted to take that roote to hope that any *one* of the following can happens: BC, UNH, *OR* Mich passes Minn's RPI, even after bonuses *or* we pass BC's RPI.
On second though, rooting against BC may be tricky, because if they drop much in RPI and TUC, then Minn could pass them, which would just screw everything up.
Lastly, if we care about Harvard and Dartmouth's potential for an at large bid, we don't want to be rooting for BU and UNH. But eh, if Harvard can win to next weekend, and Dartmouth can make it to Albany with only, say, one more loss, they should both be fine.
And don't root TOO hard for Michigan, either - their RPI is only .0099 behind ours (with 5-3-1), so we're within striking distance for them, too.
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote: ... . One, their TUC record is close enough to our that depending on how things fall, we could pass them. Two, their RPI is low enough to allow BU to win the head to head comparison with them, as well as Michigan, but BU is awfully close. Of course, neither of them are so close. UNH is hanging in there as well. ... As much as it might be against our blood, routing for BU and UNH and Mich could help Minn lose those comparisons, and for CC and against BC to keep BC down and more likely to cause the 3 way tie. Routing against BC this weekend is easy cause they play Maine, and we want Maine to stay up there. And of course against Minn. ... hope that any *one* of the following can happens: BC, UNH, *OR* Mich passes Minn's RPI, even after bonuses *or* we pass BC's RPI. On second though, rooting against BC may be tricky, because if they drop much in RPI and TUC, then Minn could pass them, which would just screw everything up. Lastly, if we care about Harvard and Dartmouth's potential for an at large bid, we don't want to be rooting for BU and UNH. But eh, if Harvard can win to next weekend, and Dartmouth can make it to Albany with only, say, one more loss, they should both be fine.[/q]Anyone else thinking: Dan Quayle has stopped trolling eLynah for cocktail party conversation starters?
This is more complex than Father's Day in Hollywood.
Idle question: is there any reasion why you keep talking about "routing" for teams? I'm pretty sure, in a sports context, it's supposed to be spelled "rooting", and you do use that spelling once.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote: ... is there any reasion why you keep talking about "routing" for teams?[/q]Um, he's planning to hack the BU site?
Do the British or Australians spell it routing or rooting? Although "rooting for the home team" has a different meaning down under and may explain the extreme popularity of sports. http://psy.otago.ac.nz/r_oshea/oztaboo.html
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Do the British or Australians spell it routing or rooting?
[/q]
They spell it "supporting" for reasons you allude to.
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Do the British or Australians spell it routing or rooting?
[/q]
As far as I know, when it comes to supporting one's team, nobody correctly spells it "routing".
Cause I'm an engineer and I can't spell.
But hey, I was 2 for 5 in that last post. That's a hall of fame batting average :-P
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Cause I'm an engineer and I can't spell.
But hey, I was 2 for 5 in that last post. That's a hall of fame batting average [/q]
At least you are better than the guy on USCHO in one of the cornell bashing threads that writes "schedualing" repeatedly.
You folks need to look a little more deeply into the PWR. AA dropped from TUC last night, it was obvious they were going to. As such Cornell needs a lot of help to flip the MN comparison since MN got a big TUC boost as a result .
Even if Cornell plays and wins two TUC games in Albany, MN probably has to lose two TUC games for that comparison to flip. Probability of both, less than 50%.
The BC comparison is very interesting this morning. Tied at TUC and COP with BC playing a COP tonight (ME). If ME wins the comparison may flip. If BC wins tonight this comparison will be very difficult to flip and will be out of our control. If we're perfect the rest of the way, and with some help, its still possible this could flip. But still under 50% with a BC win tonight.
If Denver had lost last night we would have had a good chance to flip that one soon, if it hadn't happened already. This is the most likely of all, just root for the Denver opponents from here on out. Probablility 50%
CC comp is out of the question. Probability 10%.
So where does this leave us? In MN for the regionals as the 5 seed. Unless...
You give up the #1 seed idea and look toward a #6 or #7 seed which would most likely keep the team east against BC or whoever between DU/CC gets shipped east.
(BC isn't going to get the top seed). This means - GO RPI!
Other than Brown and SLU winning, last night was a bad night for the #1 seed chances as all 3 teams we have a shot at passing won, and UAA lost. UAA still has a chance to be a TUC. If they win tonight, and just one playoff game (most likely against Minn) they will be a TUC again. I don't think this is a total long shot since they were able to take 3 of 4 points in Minny a few weeks ago. Also if you use your probablilites (say it's 1/3 of passing Minn and 1/3 of passing BC) the chance that Cornell passes neither Minn, BC, Denver, nor CC is only ~20%.
[Q]Robb Wrote:
I just don't see a #1 seed in the cards. With a 5-3-1 bonus, our comparison with BC looks like:
If all that comes to pass, I'm all for tanking a couple of (regular season) games to give Michigan a taste of their own medicine as the #5 overall seed at Mariucci! Now watch Minny turn it on and we'll go out there as the #6...
[/q]
Well, well - looks like we didn't have to tank those games to drop below both UMs. Now we just need Minnesota to retake the Michigan comparison to keep the Wolverines out of the east!
3-2-1
1. cc
1. denver
1. bc
4. umich
5. minne
5. cornell
7. hahvahd
8. und
9 bu
10 dc
10 tosu
10 wi
13. uhn
14. nmu
14. maine
16 mich st
17. msu
18. 'gate
the top 3 each win a comparison so rpi tie breaks (right?)
minne over cornell (individual)
for 10th
dc over tosu, wi
tosu over wi
wi over none of them
14th
nmu over maine
so it is in order as above just ignore the numbers
#1's: cc, denver, bc, umich
#2's: minne, cornell, hahvahd, und
#3's: bu, dc, tosu, wi
#4's: uhn, nmu, maine, aha/ch, cha/aha
grand rapids
1. cc (1)
2. und (8)
3. tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)
minnesota
1. denver (2)
2. minne*(5)
3. dc (10)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
amherst
1. umich (4)
2. hahvahd (7)
3. wi (12)
4. uhn (13)
worcester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell (6)
3. bu* (9)
4. maine (14)
so bu has to go in worcester and minne in minneapolis. which messes things up b/c denver should be placed
closer to home in minne- that keeps the bands ok but not the 1 v 16 blah blah blah right.
we have some problems.
bc and maine cant meet in the first round. maine cant swap with uhn. not sure if they would swap umich
and bc. how about maine and bemidji state?
->
grand rapids
1. cc (1)
2. ----und (8)
3. ----tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)
minnesota
1. denver (2)
2. ----minne*(5)
3. ----dc (10)
4. maine (14)
amherst
1. umich (4)
2. ----hahvahd (7)
3. ----wi (12)
4. uhn (13)
worcester
1. bc (3)
2. ----cornell (6)
3. ----bu* (9)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
no intraconference matchups now. not sure about attendance :)
again, minne being (5) and denver needing go into minne as well as bu being (9) and needing to go to
worcester makes things a bit askew.
oops cc is closer to minne...
3-2-1
1. cc
1. denver
1. bc
4. umich
5. minne
5. cornell
7. hahvahd
8. und
9 bu
10 dc
10 tosu
10 wi
13. uhn
14. nmu
14. maine
16 mich st
17. msu
18. 'gate
the top 3 each win a comparison so rpi tie breaks (right?)
minne over cornell (individual)
for 10th
dc over tosu, wi
tosu over wi
wi over none of them
14th
nmu over maine
so it is in order as above just ignore the numbers
#1's: cc, denver, bc, umich
#2's: minne, cornell, hahvahd, und
#3's: bu, dc, tosu, wi
#4's: uhn, nmu, maine, aha/ch, cha/aha
grand rapids
1. denver (2)
2. und (8)
3. dc (10)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
minnesota
1. cc (1)
2. minne*(5)
3. tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)
amherst
1. umich (4)
2. hahvahd (7)
3. wi (12)
4. uhn (13)
worcester
1. bc (3)
2. cornell (6)
3. bu* (9)
4. maine (14)
so bu has to go in worcester and minne in minneapolis. which messes things up b/c cc should be placed
closer to home in minne- that keeps the bands ok but not the 1 v 16 1 v 8 blah blah blah right.
we have some problems.
theoretically with 5 teams from one conference they can ignore the no intraconference 1st round matchups but lets see what we can do...
bc cant play maine. amazingly that is the only intraconference with 5 wcha teams in
so what about doing this:
maine cant swap with uhn so either maine with seed 15 or 16 or swap bc and umich. i would do 14 with 15.
->
grand rapids
1. denver (2)
2. ---und (8)
3. ---dc (10)
4. maine (14)
minnesota
1. cc (1)
2. ---minne*(5)
3. ---tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)
amherst
1. umich (4)
2. ---hahvahd (7)
3. ---wi (12)
4. uhn (13)
worcester
1. bc (3)
2. ---cornell (6)
3. ---bu* (9)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
see what you think, minne and bu make things less than ideal...
CC has to go to the closest regional, as the overall #1, so they'd be in Minneapolis, not Grand Rapids. (I'm pretty sure the committee wouldn't consider those two sites more or less the same distance, like they did with Cornell going to Providence vs Worcester in 2003.)
hi...
most of the bracket predictions i've seen have cornell staying east as a "high" seed in the 2nd band. as much as the lynah faithful, the lynah east contingent (and the team) would hate to see it, what are the chances that they would end up in grand rapids?
just curious, since i am in hockey hell, but only ~ 4 hrs from grand rapids.
thanks
rita
[Q]rita Wrote:
hi...
most of the bracket predictions i've seen have cornell staying east as a "high" seed in the 2nd band. as much as the lynah faithful, the lynah east contingent (and the team) would hate to see it, what are the chances that they would end up in grand rapids?
just curious, since i am in hockey hell, but only ~ 4 hrs from grand rapids.
thanks
rita [/q]
I don't know, Grand Rapids wouldn't be so bad. At least, it's not much worse than East Lansing in terms of distance from Ithaca. Minneapolis is the regional I do not want Cornell to end up at, since that's likely the only one to which I couldn't make it.
[Q]rita Wrote:
hi...
most of the bracket predictions i've seen have cornell staying east as a "high" seed in the 2nd band. as much as the lynah faithful, the lynah east contingent (and the team) would hate to see it, what are the chances that they would end up in grand rapids?
just curious, since i am in hockey hell, but only ~ 4 hrs from grand rapids.
thanks
rita [/q]
If we get a #1 seed, we're almost assured of staying east. If we stay a 2 seed, my guess is about 15-20%. So overall, not very likely.
Where are you that's hockey hell? My first love of hockey developed when I lived near Detroit as a 10 year old. There aren't too many places outside Michigan that are more rabid about hockey IMHO. Orange County, CA is hockey hell (at least for the college game).
I'm in squeakball country, and even that has been brutal this season. I'm at purdue.. home of the very pathetic boilermaker cagers.. the men were horrible and even the ladies had a down year (though to be fair, they only had 2 returning starters a sr and a soph from last year's team).
thus far no luck finding a bar with cstv... thus the ride up to grand rapids would be worth it.. maybe even if cornell isn't playing.
I lived out in oregon for 4 years, and that was purgatory.. at least in eugene there was a rink with ice for 10 months out of the year, and an adult hockey league to play in, and a sports bar that was open at 9 am so i could watch the cornell-mankato state and the cornell bc games from the 2003 regionals..... here no such luck. nearest rink is over an hour away (45 min if i drive like the typical hoosier) and the adult league is run like youth t-ball... exactly 2 minute shifts, matching lines/ability all game long. too weird to make the drive for "games" on a sunday night at 10 pm....
I'm currently in College hockey hell. The only people i have seen since the middle of January with even the least interest in College Hockey are a pair of Wis. grads who have fallen into deep depression with thier teams late season collapse.
Although i will say the ice pilots are in town and they're having a pretty good season. Later this month if my schedule doesn't change i'll have a good opportunity to let Marsters have it if he's in net for La. Nothing like getting a bonus round ::uptosomething::
New Orleans got rid of its ECHL team just as I arrived. But I made a point of getting an apartment where I could put up a mini-dish, so my living room is College Hockey Nirvana every Friday and Saturday night.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
CC has to go to the closest regional, as the overall #1, so they'd be in Minneapolis, not Grand Rapids. (I'm pretty sure the committee wouldn't consider those two sites more or less the same distance, like they did with Cornell going to Providence vs Worcester in 2003.)[/q]
or would the committee feel like they're giving #1 CC a better deal by shipping them to G. R. to avoid playing #5 Minn. at Minn. in the 2nd round.
My brackets:
Grand Rapids
#1 CC, #8 N. Dak., #10 Dartm., #16 Q'pac
Minn.
#2 Denv., #5 Minn., #11 OSt. , #15 Bem.
Worc.
#3 BC, #7 Harv., #9 BU, #14 N. Mich.
Amh.
#4 Mich., #6 Cor., #12 Wis., #13 UNH
For that matter, they might also feel the same about #2 Denver and move them to Worcester. With the current PWR, this would give the most balanced brackets of all.
Grand Rapids
#1 CC, #8 N. Dak., #10 Dartm., #15 Bem.
Worc.
#2 Denv., #7 Harv., #9 BU, #16 Q'pac.
Amh.
#3 BC, #6 Cor., #12 Wis., #14 N. Mich
Minn.
#4 Mich., #5 Minn., #11 OSU, #13 UNH
In this scenario, the only switching from the pure 1-16, 2-15 etc. necessary is to flip 9 with 10, and 11 with 12. I've also swithched Q'pac. and Bemidji for regional reasons and to give Den. a slight repayment for being shipped all the way east.
Clearly, Minn. at #5 poses some interesting questions for the committee regarding balancing the travel priority for #1 seeds vs. the competitive inequity of giving those same seeds a tougher second round game.
i also put maine in instead of nmu so here are my edited brackets.
3-2-1
1. cc
1. denver
1. bc
4. umich
5. minne
5. cornell
7. hahvahd
8. und
9 bu
10 dc
10 tosu
10 wi
13. uhn
14. nmu
14. maine
16 mich st
17. msu
18. 'gate
the top 3 each win a comparison so rpi tie breaks (right?)
minne over cornell (individual)
for 10th
dc over tosu, wi
tosu over wi
wi over none of them
14th
nmu over maine
so it is in order as above just ignore the numbers
#1's: cc, denver, bc, umich
#2's: minne, cornell, hahvahd, und
#3's: bu, dc, tosu, wi
#4's: uhn, nmu, aha/ch, cha/aha
grand rapids
1. denver (2)
2. ---und (8)
3. ---dc (10)
4. aha/cha (bemidji state)(15)
minnesota
1. cc (1)
2. ---minne*(5)
3. ---tosu (11)
4. cha/aha (Q)(16)
amherst
1. umich (4)
2. ---hahvahd (7)
3. ---wi (12)
4. uhn (13)
worcester
1. bc (3)
2. ---cornell (6)
3. ---bu* (9)
4. nmu (14)
so bu has to go in worcester and minne in minneapolis. which messes things up b/c cc should be placed
closer to home in minne- that keeps the bands ok but not the 1 v 16 1 v 8 blah blah blah right.
we have NO problems.
theoretically with 5 teams from one conference they can ignore the no intraconference 1st round matchups but lets see what we can do...
now with nmu correctly in and maine out, we are all good
see what you think, minne and bu make things less than ideal...i guess they could swap umich and place them in minne and move cc out to the east...
As things currently stand, a Cornell win over St. Lawrence would flip the Michigan comparison, and that can happen if they pull a QF upset.
We may think that's a better deal for CC, but it's not what the handbook says.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
We may think that's a better deal for CC, but it's not what the handbook says.[/q]
Exactly. "Better deal" isn't the issue - geographical proximity is all it says.
The handbook says that No. 1 seeds should be put as close to their campus as possible. So "as possible" is a bit ambiguous, and leaves things open to selective manipulation.
The "as possible" clause seems to leave some lee-way for the committee. Do CC or Denver have to go to Minnesota if they're the top ranked team (assuming Minny were a 2 seed)? If the point of keeping top ranked teams close to home for travel and fan purposes does it matter if a team has to fly anyway? One could argue that it doesn't make much difference in terms of travel or fans whether CC goes to Grand Rapids or Minny and so maybe it's appropriate to reward a top ranked team with a trip to GR, even though it's further away in terms of mileage.
[Q]adamw Wrote:
The handbook says that No. 1 seeds should be put as close to their campus as possible. So "as possible" is a bit ambiguous, and leaves things open to selective manipulation.[/q]
Jesus Christ, Adam, does "possible" also mean something different in your universe? ::rolleyes:: In what way would not be possible for #1a CC and #2a Minnesota to play in the same regional? There is no guideline forbidding it. Would a rift somehow open in in the spacetime continuum? ::nut::
Well, you *could* argue that it means, as close as possible while retaining the best 'competitive equality' (1-16, 2-15, etc). However, since the "as close as possible" is a much more serious requirement than the competitive equality 'suggestion', that would be a major major stretch by the committee.
I think this just shows that "possible" and "impossible" aren't really appropriate words here. The committee has lots of leeway in its decisions when you consider all of the possible considerations, guidelines and suggestions. The past two years experience and statements of committee members etc. may indicate that they will not choose to do it a certain wya, but that doesn't make it impossible.
On a purely hypothetical level, would there be any recourse if, for instance, the committee decided to make Cornell/Michigan/whoever a #1 seed even if the numbers didn't warrant it? Or decided to send a #1 seed further away from home than the proximity rule dictated? Or for that matter decided to give Colgate an at-large bid because they decided they "deserved" it? Is there any mechanism where the NCAA powers that be can/would overrule the committe? Or would we just be stuck with the results and the bitching? (Yes, I know these things are not going to happen. But absurd hypotheticals can sometimes shed light on more likely situations.)
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Well, you *could* argue that it means, as close as possible while retaining the best 'competitive equality' (1-16, 2-15, etc). However, since the "as close as possible" is a much more serious requirement than the competitive equality 'suggestion', that would be a major major stretch by the committee.[/q]
You could argue that, but you'd be full of shit. Given that it is step c., and step b. is to put the host institutions at home, it obviously means as close as possible given the placements of the host schools. I.e., if CC is #1 and Minnesota is #4, CC has to go to Grand Rapids. Minneapolis is closer, but it's not possible to put CC there, since Minnesota has to play there.
What's not clear is what happens if a host team makes it as a #4 seed and the place-the-top-four-close-to-home rule would set up an intraconference matchup. E.g., what happens if the top four are 1. CC 2. Michigan 3. DU 4. BC and WMU wins the CCHA tournament? Placing the hosts according to step 6c. would put CC in Minneapolis, Michigan in Grand Rapids, DU in Amherst and BC in Worcester. Step 6d. says to avoid interconference matchups if possible, but can it override 6c. and move Michigan out of the Midwest regional? Or does "if possible" mean given the results of steps 6a. and 6c., which have already put WMU and Michigan in the Midwest regional?
Remember, they put us in Providence in 2003 rather than Worcester, which violated the "as close as possible" rule, so other considerations can override it.
Sorry John, I don't think that's worded as definitively as you make it sound.
If they wanted it to sound definitive, they could just say: "The seeds *must* be placed in the region closest to their campus, in 1-2-3-4 priority order."
That's as cut and dried as you can get.
Saying "as close as possible" - leaves a lot of room. They could very easily be saying "as close as possible ... so long as it doesn't mess other things up too much."
That's what I get out of it. We'll see..
I say "major major stretch", you say "full of shit" - same difference :)
There are 4 qualifications that are absolutely supposed to be met for the seedings. First, keeping the bands intact. Second, seeding the #1s in home order. Finally, third, avoiding intraconference first round matchups. And fourth, hosts have to be in their regional.
Everything else - attendence, competitive equity, etc - are suggestions.
So what's the priority of the first 4 requirements? Well, the bands makes absolutely no room for violating that condition. Interconference matchups explicitly yields to the bands - intraconference can happen if they have to based on bands being intact, but it never says it yields to anything else. The #1s in order, says, if possible, so that yielding to something. Host requirement yields to no one as well.
So we know that
Hosts, bands < home order #1s, intraconference
The hosts and bands can't conflict (can they?), so no problems there, so they're each the top priority.
So what about intraconference versus the home ordering of #1s? The home order does leave open the possibility of being lesser priority with the "if possible", by intraconference only mentions that it yields to the bands, nothing else.
So, I'd say its:
Hosts, bands < intraconference < home order #1
Which means I'd say, that if a #4 was a host and it caused an intraconference matchup with a #1, they'd move the #1s around. So my guess is the "if possible" is designed to cause flexibility with the other "top 4" requirements.
But to think that any of the suggestions would ever come before those, I just don't buy it.
[Q]DeltaOne wrote:
But to think that any of the suggestions would ever come before those, I just don't buy it.[/q]
Then how do you explain our being in Providence rather than Worcester in 2003? And if they can make exceptions for small differences, we certainly can't be sure where they will draw the line.
[Q]jkahn Wrote:
Remember, they put us in Providence in 2003 rather than Worcester, which violated the "as close as possible" rule, so other considerations can override it.[/q]
Their rationale for that was that Providence and Worcester were basically equidistant for us, so they could put is in either.
[Q]KeithK Wrote:On a purely hypothetical level, would there be any recourse if, for instance, the committee decided to make Cornell/Michigan/whoever a #1 seed even if the numbers didn't warrant it? Or decided to send a #1 seed further away from home than the proximity rule dictated? Or for that matter decided to give Colgate an at-large bid because they decided they "deserved" it? Is there any mechanism where the NCAA powers that be can/would overrule the committe? Or would we just be stuck with the results and the bitching? (Yes, I know these things are not going to happen. But absurd hypotheticals can sometimes shed light on more likely situations.)[/q]
No, those won't happen. Let's not get crazy. We're just dealing with the one sentence in the manual that refers to placement of No. 1 seeds.
I want to see what happens if Michigan is a No. 1 seed this year. What are you saying, John, that should happen? Do you believe Michigan would be in Grand Rapids if they are an overall No. 4, or not? Are you saying that you believe they place them closest to campus, going in order. In other words, No. 1 is CC - put them in Minneapolis. No. 2 is Denver ... put them Grand Rapids (closest remaining place to Michigan) ... No. 3 is BC ... put them in Worcester ... No. 4 is Michigan ... place them in Amherst.
Because all I'm saying is - I don't think this would be the case. Michigan would probably be in Grand Rapids, and Denver would go to Amherst. Why? Because Michigan then would be as close as possible -- Denver wouldn't, but so what. They fly either way and it makes no difference to attendance.
One of those two teams - Denver or Michigan - will get priority for being as "close as possible" ... Which one? Denver gets to be as close as possible first - because they are a No. 2 overall and Michigan is No. 4? Or Michigan gets to be as close as possible -because Grand Rapids is REALLY, REALLY close and it makes no difference to Denver?
This is the ambiguity that I don't think is answered by the manual. And so I'm basically saying - they are going to use their discretion in this situation.
[Q]adamw Wrote:
I want to see what happens if Michigan is a No. 1 seed this year. What are you saying, John, that should happen? Do you believe Michigan would be in Grand Rapids if they are an overall No. 4, or not? Are you saying that you believe they place them closest to campus, going in order. In other words, No. 1 is CC - put them in Minneapolis. No. 2 is Denver ... put them Grand Rapids (closest remaining place to Michigan) ... No. 3 is BC ... put them in Worcester ... No. 4 is Michigan ... place them in Amherst.
Because all I'm saying is - I don't think this would be the case. Michigan would probably be in Grand Rapids, and Denver would go to Amherst. Why? Because Michigan then would be as close as possible -- Denver wouldn't, but so what. They fly either way and it makes no difference to attendance.
One of those two teams - Denver or Michigan - will get priority for being as "close as possible" ... Which one? Denver gets to be as close as possible first - because they are a No. 2 overall and Michigan is No. 4? Or Michigan gets to be as close as possible -because Grand Rapids is REALLY, REALLY close and it makes no difference to Denver?
This is the ambiguity that I don't think is answered by the manual. And so I'm basically saying - they are going to use their discretion in this situation.
[/q]
The manual says "No. 1 seeds are placed as close to home as possible, in order of their ranking 1-4." Sounds pretty unambiguous to me: place #1 as close to home as possible, then #2, then #3, then #4. Denver is placed as close to home as possible, i.e., Grand Rapids, before you ever get to Michigan.
As for comparisons to 2003, it's one thing to say Providence and Worcester are equally close to Ithaca, and quite another to say Amherst and Grand Rapids are equally close to Colorado Springs.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
As for comparisons to 2003, it's one thing to say Providence and Worcester are equally close to Ithaca, and quite another to say Amherst and Grand Rapids are equally close to Colorado Springs.[/q]
Well, forgetting what the manual says for a second, I think personally it would be somewhat ridiculous to not put Michigan in Grand Rapids under this scenario - because for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between Amherst and GR for CC or Denver.
As for the manual ... well, I guess we'll see, eh? If Michigan is the No. 4 seed, it will be a hoot.
Sometimes it can be illuminating to analyze a reductio ad absurdum example. What if the four top seeds were: #1 Wisconsin, #2 Michigan, #3 Cornell, and #4 BC. The four regional sites are: Grand Rapids, Rochester, Worcester, and Denver. None of the four top seeds is a host.
Rigidly applying the process, the NCAA should assign Wisconsin to the nearest site: Grand Rapids. Then Michigan to the nearest remaining site: Rochester. Then Cornell to the nearest remaining: Worcester. Leaving BC to go to Denver. Would the NCAA really do this? Or would they use some common sense and put Wisconsin in Denver, Michigan in Grand Rapids, Cornell in Rochester, and BC in Worcester?
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
Sometimes it can be illuminating to analyze a reductio ad absurdum example. What if the four top seeds were: #1 Wisconsin, #2 Michigan, #3 Cornell, and #4 BC. The four regional sites are: Grand Rapids, Rochester, Worcester, and Denver. None of the four top seeds is a host.
Rigidly applying the process, the NCAA should assign Wisconsin to the nearest site: Grand Rapids. Then Michigan to the nearest remaining site: Rochester. Then Cornell to the nearest remaining: Worcester. Leaving BC to go to Denver. Would the NCAA really do this? Or would they use some common sense and put Wisconsin in Denver, Michigan in Grand Rapids, Cornell in Rochester, and BC in Worcester?[/q]
Just to play devil's advocate here...maybe it's common sense to do as you say, but is it really fair to make the top overall seed's fans travel thrice as far to get to their team's regional? Especially since one would likely fly from Madison to Denver, while one could easily drive from Madison to Grand Rapids.
[Q]adamw Wrote:
Well, forgetting what the manual says for a second, I think personally it would be somewhat ridiculous to not put Michigan in Grand Rapids under this scenario - because for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between Amherst and GR for CC or Denver.
As for the manual ... well, I guess we'll see, eh? If Michigan is the No. 4 seed, it will be a hoot.[/q]
Adam, what do you think happens if Cornell finishes #4 and MN #5 overall with BC, DU, CC ahead? Does Cornell get shipped to MN for their "home" ice and maintaince of better brackets. Or does CC or DU get put there with a hellacious intraconference 1 v 5 on tap for the regional final?
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
Adam, what do you think happens if Cornell finishes #4 and MN #5 overall with BC, DU, CC ahead? Does Cornell get shipped to MN for their "home" ice and maintaince of better brackets. Or does CC or DU get put there with a hellacious intraconference 1 v 5 on tap for the regional final?
[/q]
I'd be willing to bet that CC would be in Minnesota under that scenario. But who really knows.
Going through the your committee thing on USCHO website, I found out that if we win the ECAC tourney there is a very good chance that we will be a number 1 seed. If Denver loses a game in the WCHA, we game the comparison on them, if we win out. Also, if Minnesota wins the WCHA, we will move up to number 4 in the PWR, assuming BC and Michigan take their respective titles. If BC loses in the HEA tourney, we can take over their comparison.
In short, we want any team in the HEA other than BC to win their tourney, and we want any team other then DU to win the WCHA. This in short will put us anywhere from I believe 1 (did not calculate all the scenarios out) to 4 seed if any one of those two happen. I believe that there is a decent chance that one of those 2 teams will lose. If you want to root for anyone in the WCHA tourney, I would say root for CC, since it is very very unlikely we will flip the comparison, so if they beat Minnesota and DU, and BC does not win their tourney we will end up as #2 overall.
This is the best overall scenario so far that I have found for us, none of the results seem unlikely to happen and we end up as the #2 overall seed.
* CCHA Play-in #2: Northern Michigan defeats Alaska-Fairbanks.
* CCHA Play-in #1: Nebraska-Omaha defeats Michigan State.
* CCHA Semifinal #2: Ohio State defeats Northern Michigan.
* CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
* CCHA Championship game: Michigan defeats Ohio State.
* CCHA Consolation game: Northern Michigan defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
* ECAC Semifinal #2: Harvard defeats Colgate.
* ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Vermont.
* ECAC Championship game: Cornell defeats Harvard.
* ECAC Consolation game: Colgate defeats Vermont.
* Hockey East Semifinal #2: New Hampshire defeats Boston University.
* Hockey East Semifinal #1: Boston College defeats Maine.
* Hockey East Championship game: New Hampshire defeats Boston College.
* WCHA Play-in #1: Wisconsin defeats North Dakota.
* WCHA Semifinal #2: Colorado College defeats Minnesota.
* WCHA Semifinal #1: Denver defeats Wisconsin.
* WCHA Championship game: Colorado College defeats Denver.
* WCHA Consolation game: Minnesota defeats Wisconsin.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Mercyhurst defeats Holy Cross.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Quinnipiac defeats Bentley.
* Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Quinnipiac defeats Mercyhurst.
All with bonuses of 3/2/1
What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver. The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.
For example, both of these send us to Minnesota:
- Denver and BC both win out
- Denver wins out, CC wins one of two, and Maine wins HEA
Both of these will make us a one seed
- Denver wins out and CC loses 2 games
- Denver wins out and UNH or BU win HEA
If Denver loses a game, from what I can tell, we're a one seed. Now I did all of these with Colgate beating Harvard. I don't know if they hold up with Harvard winning Colgate.
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver. The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.[/q]
Denver winning the CCHA would be quite a coup. :-P
[Q]Will Wrote:
[Q2]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver. The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.[/Q]
Denver winning the CCHA would be quite a coup.[/q]
No, no. Jeff said these scenariios involved Denver "wining" the CCHA. So we ought to chip and send the Pioneers some cases of wine so they can go ahead and booze up Michigan, et. al.
[q]v. wined, win·ing, wines
v. tr.
To provide or entertain with wine[/q]
All right. All right. Ya knew what I meant.
You try getting your posts right after running scenarios for two hours :-P
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
What I've found so far is we need to root against Denver. The scenarios where we win out and still have to go to Minnesota all involve Denver wining the CCHA.
For example, both of these send us to Minnesota:
- Denver and BC both win out
- Denver wins out, CC wins one of two, and Maine wins HEA
Both of these will make us a one seed
- Denver wins out and CC loses 2 games
- Denver wins out and UNH or BU win HEA
If Denver loses a game, from what I can tell, we're a one seed. Now I did all of these with Colgate beating Harvard. I don't know if they hold up with Harvard winning Colgate.[/q]
It's worth noting that we don't really buy anything by being a #1 seed if it sends us to Minnesota. Then we're just playing against the home team, same as if they're #1 and we're a #2 seed.
What we really want to root for is Minn and CU to both be #1 seeds. Then we have a very good chance of playing in Mass, where it'll basically be home games for us (even if we have to play BU/BC/Harvard) since we will have a bazillion fans in the stands.
I ran through some scenarios yesterday and it looks like if Minnesota wins their tourney and we win ours, that should do the trick. If BC loses, that doesn't hurt.
Also note that Dartmouth has a better chance of making the NCAA than Vermont does. Vermont has to win twice this weekend to get in, while Dartmouth just needs Wisconsin or Vermont not to win their tournaments, more or less. Yeah, it's a little trickier than that, but basically Dartmouth is in unless Cinderella appears somewhere.
Karl B. '77
The main requirement in the handbook is that you place #1 seeds in the order of closest to them home campus before ever even considering competitive equity.
Without getting deep into this again, ff we were 4 and Minn was 5, they'd place all the #1s in order, so, for example, CC in Minn, DU in GR, BC in Worcester, and us in Amherst. *Then* they'd go and place Minn in Minneapolis, and chalk up the lack of competitive balance to the fact that Minn has to be in Minneapolis.
So if we and Minn finished 4/5 like that, with us 4, the rules as written seem to allow little flexbility in not putting us in Amherst or maybe Worcester.
Does anyone know why BU is considered a host team for Worcester, but BC and Harvard aren't?
Do they draw straws or something?
Karl B. '77
Teams bid for the right to host tourneys. Apparently a lot of work involved.
[q] Teams bid for the right to host tourneys. Apparently a lot of work involved.[/q]Effort that's probably worth it if you are likely to make the tournament - it guarantees that you won't be sent far from home. But if you're on the bubble it's iffy.
Unfortunately there aren't a lot of facilities close by Ithaca that could host a regional. I'd imagine that hosting requires a lot of direct work with the arena staff, which would mean a lot of travelling. That of course assumes Cornell is even interested in hosting. Does anyone remember a case where an Ivy school hosted an NCAA event?
[Edit: WooHoo! #201!]
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
The main requirement in the handbook is that you place #1 seeds in the order of closest to them home campus before ever even considering competitive equity.
Without getting deep into this again, ff we were 4 and Minn was 5, they'd place all the #1s in order, so, for example, CC in Minn, DU in GR, BC in Worcester, and us in Amherst. *Then* they'd go and place Minn in Minneapolis, and chalk up the lack of competitive balance to the fact that Minn has to be in Minneapolis.
So if we and Minn finished 4/5 like that, with us 4, the rules as written seem to allow little flexbility in not putting us in Amherst or maybe Worcester.[/q]
I think that's all correct. The decision as to whether we or BC would be in Worcester vs. Amherst might come down to where BU--which must play in Worcester--winds up being ranked in PWR. That is to say, would it be more in tune with the seedings to have BU in the same regional with BC or with Cornell?
Seems to me in 2003 they made an executive decision that Worcester and Providence were effectively equidistant for Cornell, and one could make that same argument for BC this year regarding Worcester and Amherst. It's not like we're talking Worcester vs. Grand Rapids.
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
[Q2] Teams bid for the right to host tourneys. Apparently a lot of work involved.[/Q]
Effort that's probably worth it if you are likely to make the tournament - it guarantees that you won't be sent far from home. But if you're on the bubble it's iffy.
Unfortunately there aren't a lot of facilities close by Ithaca that could host a regional. I'd imagine that hosting requires a lot of direct work with the arena staff, which would mean a lot of travelling. That of course assumes Cornell is even interested in hosting. Does anyone remember a case where an Ivy school hosted an NCAA event?
[/q]
The 2007 East Regional is scheduled for Rochester, but no team has been identified as a host. (I think the ECAC put in the bid, and left open the possibility of getting a co-hosting team.)
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Unfortunately there aren't a lot of facilities close by Ithaca that could host a regional. I'd imagine that hosting requires a lot of direct work with the arena staff, which would mean a lot of travelling. That of course assumes Cornell is even interested in hosting. Does anyone remember a case where an Ivy school hosted an NCAA event?
[/q]
Cornell hosted the NCAA lacrosse final when I was there. Didn't Princeton host it just a year or two ago? Penn may host b-ball when it's in Philly - I don't know.
Anyway, I'd imagine Binghamton or Syracuse would be the closest hockey venues big enough to have a Cornell-hosted NCAA regional. Neither would be bad at all for Cornell fans to overrun the place.
~Karl B. '77
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
Seems to me in 2003 they made an executive decision that Worcester and Providence were effectively equidistant for Cornell, and one could make that same argument for BC this year regarding Worcester and Amherst. It's not like we're talking Worcester vs. Grand Rapids.[/q]
I think they put Cornell in Providence so we would match up with BC in the second round instead of BU which was hosting in Worcester. According to Moy's analysis post-selection show http://www.uscho.com/news/2003/03/23_006598.php the final "pre-bonus" PWR was:
1 Cornell
2 Colorado College
3 Minnesota
4 New Hampshire
5 Boston University
6 Maine
7 Ferris State
8 Boston College
9 Michigan
10 North Dakota
11 Ohio State
12 Harvard
13 Minnesota State
14 St. Cloud State
15 Mercyhurst
16 Wayne State
The idea was to give us the "weakest" of the #2 seeds. Yes, it probably hinged on the two cities being equidistant but imagine the reaction if we drew Minnesota State AND BU. Moy assumes the RPI bonus moved St. Cloud ahead of Minnesota State making Minnesota State the lowest seed we could play without causing a WCHA-WCHA first round matchup.
The War Memorial is bad, anywhichway. Bad.
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
The War Memorial is bad, anywhichway. Bad.[/q]
Syracuse, you are indeed correct ... Blue Cross Arena in Rochester OTOH, is about as nice as you'll find within a 5 hour drive.
I've been trying the "you are the committee" script, and from what I can tell, if we win out and BC and Denver both also win out, we are stuck at 5. If either of them does not and we win out, we will become a 1 seed. I certainly didn't try every possibility in the world, but this seems to be a trend across a bunch of versions I tried.
I agree with Jacob.
I spent way too much time fiddling with this yesterday. The bottom line is if we win twice, we have a very very good chance of a #1 seed. I don't remember all the scenarios I twiddled, but I think these were some of them:
- If Minnesota loses twice and we win once, we get a #1 seed.
- If we win twice and Denver doesn't win twice, we get a #1 seed.
- If BC loses and we win twice, we get a #1 seed.
There were others, I think, but if we win two games, it takes a pretty specific set of circumstances for us *not* to get a #1 seed. And if we win 1 game, there's still the chance of a #1 seed if a little magic happens.
Part of the magic is related to the fact that Minn, CC, and Denver are all in the same tournament. So only one of those teams can win twice. That seems to help Cornell's situation enormously.
Karl B. '77
[Q]Jacob '06 Wrote:
I've been trying the "you are the committee" script, and from what I can tell, if we win out and BC and Denver both also win out, we are stuck at 5. If either of them does not and we win out, we will become a 1 seed. I certainly didn't try every possibility in the world, but this seems to be a trend across a bunch of versions I tried.[/q]
Without Pat Eaves, no way does BC win out.
[Q]nyc94 Wrote:
[Q2]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
Seems to me in 2003 they made an executive decision that Worcester and Providence were effectively equidistant for Cornell, and one could make that same argument for BC this year regarding Worcester and Amherst. It's not like we're talking Worcester vs. Grand Rapids.[/Q]
I think they put Cornell in Providence so we would match up with BC in the second round instead of BU which was hosting in Worcester. According to Moy's analysis post-selection show the final "pre-bonus" PWR was:
1 Cornell
2 Colorado College
3 Minnesota
4 New Hampshire
5 Boston University
6 Maine
7 Ferris State
8 Boston College
9 Michigan
10 North Dakota
11 Ohio State
12 Harvard
13 Minnesota State
14 St. Cloud State
15 Mercyhurst
16 Wayne State
The idea was to give us the "weakest" of the #2 seeds. Yes, it probably hinged on the two cities being equidistant but imagine the reaction if we drew Minnesota State AND BU. Moy assumes the RPI bonus moved St. Cloud ahead of Minnesota State making Minnesota State the lowest seed we could play without causing a WCHA-WCHA first round matchup.[/q]
Right.
And this year, depending where Cornell and BC wind up (presuming both would be #1 seeds) vis-a-vis BU, I think the committee would feel free to swap BC from Worcester to Amherst--even though it's somewhat further from Chestnut Hill--to make the actual pairings come out more in-line with the final seedings.
[Guess I'm hoping there's a way we can end up playing on a 200x85 sheet.]
[Q]heykb Wrote:
[Q2]KeithK Wrote:
Unfortunately there aren't a lot of facilities close by Ithaca that could host a regional. I'd imagine that hosting requires a lot of direct work with the arena staff, which would mean a lot of travelling. That of course assumes Cornell is even interested in hosting. Does anyone remember a case where an Ivy school hosted an NCAA event?
[/Q]
Cornell hosted the NCAA lacrosse final when I was there. Didn't Princeton host it just a year or two ago? Penn may host b-ball when it's in Philly - I don't know.
~Karl B. '77[/q]
From the duh department (and answering my own question) Cornell hosted a lax regional last year, which was well reported on this forum.
::nut::
... and did not do it v. well either :-/
I also found that if Denver loses twice, and Michigan loses once, we can still get a 1 seed if we lose the final.
If Denver loses twice and Michigan wins out, we're #5 in the PWR, but Minny isn't #4, so we stay east.
Die Pioneers!
Here's a great scenario (slightly adapted from Mike's prediction):
* CCHA Play-in #2: Northern Michigan defeats Alaska-Fairbanks.
* CCHA Play-in #1: Michigan State defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
* CCHA Semifinal #2: Ohio State defeats Northern Michigan.
* CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Michigan State.
* CCHA Championship game: Michigan defeats Ohio State.
* CCHA Consolation game: Michigan State defeats Northern Michigan.
* ECAC Semifinal #2: Harvard defeats Colgate.
* ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Vermont.
* ECAC Championship game: Cornell defeats Harvard.
* ECAC Consolation game: Colgate defeats Vermont.
* Hockey East Semifinal #2: Boston University defeats New Hampshire.
* Hockey East Semifinal #1: Maine defeats Boston College.
* Hockey East Championship game: Maine defeats Boston University.
* WCHA Play-in #1: North Dakota defeats Wisconsin.
* WCHA Semifinal #2: Colorado College defeats Minnesota.
* WCHA Semifinal #1: Denver defeats North Dakota.
* WCHA Championship game: Colorado College defeats Denver.
* WCHA Consolation game: Minnesota defeats North Dakota.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Holy Cross defeats Mercyhurst.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Quinnipiac defeats Bentley.
* Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Holy Cross defeats Quinnipiac.
This would put us at 2, and the bracket would look like:
Worcester
Cornell
BU
NoDak
Bemidji
Not only do we get Eastern NHL Ice, but that is a pretty good set of opponents. One can dream...
In every yatc scenario I've run Brown drops from TUC. Has anybody run one where Brown stays a TUC? If so, care to share?
[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
Here's a great scenario (slightly adapted from Mike's prediction):
* CCHA Play-in #2: Northern Michigan defeats Alaska-Fairbanks.
* CCHA Play-in #1: Michigan State defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
* CCHA Semifinal #2: Ohio State defeats Northern Michigan.
* CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Michigan State.
* CCHA Championship game: Michigan defeats Ohio State.
* CCHA Consolation game: Michigan State defeats Northern Michigan.
* ECAC Semifinal #2: Harvard defeats Colgate.
* ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Vermont.
* ECAC Championship game: Cornell defeats Harvard.
* ECAC Consolation game: Colgate defeats Vermont.
* Hockey East Semifinal #2: Boston University defeats New Hampshire.
* Hockey East Semifinal #1: Maine defeats Boston College.
* Hockey East Championship game: Maine defeats Boston University.
* WCHA Play-in #1: North Dakota defeats Wisconsin.
* WCHA Semifinal #2: Colorado College defeats Minnesota.
* WCHA Semifinal #1: Denver defeats North Dakota.
* WCHA Championship game: Colorado College defeats Denver.
* WCHA Consolation game: Minnesota defeats North Dakota.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Holy Cross defeats Mercyhurst.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Quinnipiac defeats Bentley.
* Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Holy Cross defeats Quinnipiac.
This would put us at 2, and the bracket would look like:
Worcester
Cornell
BU
NoDak
Bemidji
Not only do we get Eastern NHL Ice, but that is a pretty good set of opponents. One can dream...[/q]
That one is really really good and I think somewhat realistic after BC lost Eaves for the weekend.
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
In every yatc scenario I've run Brown drops from TUC. Has anybody run one where Brown stays a TUC? If so, care to share?[/q]
Colgate would have to win the tournament for Brown to stay a TUC, as Brown played Colgate four times. I've run a few like that where Brown ends up at .5001. If we don't win it all in Albany, it would help our TUC record if Colgate did.
Here's a scenario where we lose the final in Albany but still get a #1 seed (done with 3/2/1 bonus):
Keys to getting good results are Colgate winning, thus keeping Brown a TUC, and BC losing on Friday. Both help flip our comparison with BC, which moves us ahead of Minnesota.
* CCHA Play-in #2: Northern Michigan defeats Alaska-Fairbanks.
* CCHA Play-in #1: Nebraska-Omaha defeats Michigan State.
* CCHA Semifinal #2: Ohio State defeats Northern Michigan.
* CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
* CCHA Championship game: Michigan defeats Ohio State.
* CCHA Consolation game: Northern Michigan defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
* ECAC Semifinal #2: Colgate defeats Harvard.
* ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Vermont.
* ECAC Championship game: Colgate defeats Cornell.
* ECAC Consolation game: Harvard defeats Vermont.
* Hockey East Semifinal #2: New Hampshire defeats Boston University.
* Hockey East Semifinal #1: Maine defeats Boston College.
* Hockey East Championship game: New Hampshire defeats Maine.
* WCHA Play-in #1: Wisconsin defeats North Dakota.
* WCHA Semifinal #2: Colorado College defeats Minnesota.
* WCHA Semifinal #1: Denver defeats Wisconsin.
* WCHA Championship game: Denver defeats Colorado College.
* WCHA Consolation game: Wisconsin defeats Minnesota.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Mercyhurst defeats Holy Cross.
* Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Quinnipiac defeats Bentley.
* Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Quinnipiac defeats Mercyhurst.
1t Colorado College (CC) 27 .5965*
1t [AQ] Denver (DU) 27 .5937*
3 Boston College (BC) 26 .5818
4 Cornell (Cr) 25 .5819
5 Minnesota (Mn) 24 .5734
6t [AQ] Michigan (Mi) 23 .5817*
6t [AQ] New Hampshire (NH) 23 .5763
8t Boston University (BU) 20 .5683
8t Harvard (Ha) 20 .5668
10t Wisconsin (Wi) 18 .5624
10t North Dakota (ND) 18 .5575
12t Maine (Me) 17 .5648
12t [AQ] Colgate (Cg) 17 .5562
14t Dartmouth (Da) 14 .5298*
14t Ohio State (OS) 14 .5510
16t Michigan State (MS) 12 .5408
16t Vermont (Vt) 12 .5369
16t Mass.-Lowell (ML) 12 .5395
19 Northern Michigan (NM) 11 .5320
20 Minnesota-Duluth (MD) 9 .5091
21 Northeastern (NE) 8 .5390
22 Minnesota State (Mk) 7 .5162
23 [AQ] Bemidji State (BS) 6 .5173
24t Alabama-Huntsville (AH) 4 .5044
24t St. Cloud State (SC) 4 .5043
26t St. Lawrence (SL) 3 .5074
26t Nebraska-Omaha (NO) 3 .5040
28 [AQ] Quinnipiac (Qn) 2 .4738
29 Brown (Bn) 0 .5001
The only issue with that scenario is its very bonus dependent. Look, we're 0.0001 ahead of BC in RPI, which is what determines the comparison. If the bonuses differ much at all, it doesn't work.
But how do we get Worcester? Ithaca is closer to Amherst.
[Q]Jeff Hopkins '82 Wrote:
But how do we get Worcester? Ithaca is closer to Amherst.[/q]
Well, I assume they would count them roughly the same (like Worcester and Providence). Competitive equity is perfect with BU, UND, and Bemidji (2,7,10,15) and BU needs to stay in Worcester.
Possible. I guess it depends on the Committee's priorities, and how much flexibility they take in interpreting "absolute" rules. ::rolleyes::
Gotta admit I'd love to see it.
As has been discussed, the committee considered Worcester and Providence equidistant to Ithaca for the sake of competitive equity last time (last time for us that is, 2003), so if it didn't really hurt anyone, I wouldn't be that surprised by that.
Here's a crazy scenario. It has the EZAC getting 5 teams and WCHA and HEA only getting 4 (all other conferences get 1)!
CCHA Play-in #2: Alaska-Fairbanks defeats Northern Michigan.
CCHA Play-in #1: Michigan State defeats Nebraska-Omaha.
CCHA Semifinal #2: Michigan State defeats Ohio State.
CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Alaska-Fairbanks.
CCHA Championship game: Michigan defeats Michigan State.
CCHA Consolation game: Alaska-Fairbanks defeats Ohio State.
ECAC Semifinal #2: Colgate defeats Harvard.
ECAC Semifinal #1: Vermont defeats Cornell.
ECAC Championship game: Colgate defeats Vermont.
ECAC Consolation game: Harvard defeats Cornell.
Hockey East Semifinal #2: Boston University defeats New Hampshire.
Hockey East Semifinal #1: Boston College defeats Maine.
Hockey East Championship game: Boston College defeats Boston University.
WCHA Play-in #1: North Dakota defeats Wisconsin.
WCHA Semifinal #2: Colorado College defeats Minnesota.
WCHA Semifinal #1: North Dakota defeats Denver.
WCHA Championship game: North Dakota defeats Colorado College.
WCHA Consolation game: Minnesota defeats Denver.
Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Mercyhurst defeats Holy Cross.
Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Bentley defeats Quinnipiac.
Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Bentley defeats Mercyhurst.
It's really close in the 13-14-15 slots as Dartmouth, Vermont, and Wisconsin all have the same number of comparisons. However, both Dartmouth and Vermont win the individual comparison over Wisconsin so I believe that breaks the tie.
[Q]Chris 02 Wrote:
Here's a crazy scenario. It has the EZAC getting 5 teams and WCHA and HEA only getting 4 (all other conferences get 1)!
ECAC Semifinal #1: Vermont defeats Cornell.
ECAC Consolation game: Harvard defeats Cornell.
[/q]
This would not be a scenario to celebrate. ::uhoh::
Damn straight, Al.
Getting 5 ECAC teams in is not a goal in my mind. Winning in Albany is.
Someone on the USCHO message board had posted a way for five ECACHL teams to get in with Cornell still winning the tournament. I'd love to see that happen, if only to really piss off the WCHA posters there. :-D
OK, I'll take THAT. :-P
[Q]Will Wrote:
Someone on the USCHO message board had posted a way for five ECACHL teams to get in with Cornell still winning the tournament. I'd love to see that happen, if only to really piss off the WCHA posters there.[/q]
That would be me, but I posted it here http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,59008 first.
Here's a fun one:
1. CC
2. Minn
3. BC
4. Cornell
5. BU
6. Denver
7. Mich
8. NoDak
9. Maine
10. Hahvahd
11. UNH
12. Colgate
13. Dartmouth
14. UVM
15. Bemidji
16. Holy Cross
We get a 1-seed, a first round game against CHA or AHA, and 5 ECAC teams make the tourney. Plus we'd probably get to play in Worcester in order to preserve the 4-5 pairing. All of this and we don't even need to win out in Albany!
The games:
CCHA Play-in #2: Alaska-Fairbanks defeats Northern Michigan.
CCHA Play-in #1: Nebraska-Omaha defeats Michigan State.
CCHA Semifinal #2: Nebraska-Omaha defeats Ohio State.
CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Alaska-Fairbanks.
CCHA Championship game: Nebraska-Omaha defeats Michigan.
CCHA Consolation game: Alaska-Fairbanks defeats Ohio State.
ECAC Semifinal #2: Colgate defeats Harvard.
ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Vermont.
ECAC Championship game: Colgate defeats Cornell.
ECAC Consolation game: Vermont defeats Harvard.
Hockey East Semifinal #2: Boston University defeats New Hampshire.
Hockey East Semifinal #1: Boston College defeats Maine.
Hockey East Championship game: Boston University defeats Boston College.
WCHA Play-in #1: North Dakota defeats Wisconsin.
WCHA Semifinal #2: Minnesota defeats Colorado College.
WCHA Semifinal #1: North Dakota defeats Denver.
WCHA Championship game: Minnesota defeats North Dakota.
WCHA Consolation game: Colorado College defeats Denver.
Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Holy Cross defeats Mercyhurst.
Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Quinnipiac defeats Bentley.
Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Holy Cross defeats Quinnipiac.
I can't figure out why Brown would no longer be a TUC. Why does their RPI go down if we beat Vermont? Since there schedule strength is less than .5000, and they played both teams twice, it seems to me that their schedule strength should improve, and their RPI should increase. If anyone can figure this out, please post.
I think you overlooked having UNO winning the CCHA tournament, but not getting a bid to the NCAA!
Crazy theory: Vermont and Brown both played UMD. Possibly a UVM loss hits the opponents-opponents % harder for Brown because of those two extra common opponent games?
[Q]Stephen Turner Wrote:
I can't figure out why Brown would no longer be a TUC. Why does their RPI go down if we beat Vermont? Since there schedule strength is less than .5000, and they played both teams twice, it seems to me that their schedule strength should improve, and their RPI should increase. If anyone can figure this out, please post.[/q]
Since our winning percentage goes up by less than Vermont's goes down, our winning has a negative effect on the average percentage of Brown's opponents. Over the course of the weekend, it looks like the only way Brown stays a TUC is Colgate winning twice, as they often end up at .5001 - although in some scenarios they just miss. Hopefully we don't end up in the stupid scenario where we would've been better off if one of our Brown wins was a tie instead.
It still doesn't make sense, as Brown's RPI goes down more if Vermont wins than if we win (.0004 vs .0003) according to the "you are the committee" I just don't see how their strength of schedule is weaker when 2 teams that they have played twice each play each other. It should have minimal impact, if any. Alaska Anchorage had their RPI go down .001 after Wisconsin's loss, but that makes much more sense. They played Wisconsin 7 times, and North Dakota 4 times. Plus their strength of schedule is above .5000, so when common opponents play each other, their schedule strength should move towards .5000
[Q]Stephen Turner Wrote:
It still doesn't make sense, as Brown's RPI goes down more if Vermont wins than if we win (.0004 vs .0003) according to the "you are the committee"
[/q]
The reason Brown's RPI goes down either way is as follows:
If we beat Vermont, our winning percentage goes up slightly, but Vermont's goes down more, so the two have a negative effect on the average winning percentages of Brown's opponents.
If Vermont were to win, our winning percentage goes down more than Vermont's goes up, with a bigger cumulative negative effect between the two than in the other scenario.
Thanks. Really stupid that it is based on %, and not records. If you play 2 teams, 1 is 1-0, the other is 0-10, your schedule strength is 50% and not 9% (1-10).
This doesn't work. Nebraska-Omaha is winning the CCHA tournament, and not receiving a bid to the NCAAs!
UNO with get the AQ if they were to win. The YATC script should be reflecting that, as it was for the AHA champ.
What the whole Brown thing relates to is just the fact the conference play trends RPI towards .5000 . The more conference games you play, the more your conference teams tend to have an RPI closer to .5000 (cause for every win, there's a loss) . Since Brown isn't playing, its Cornell/Harvard/Colgate/UVMs RPIs which will trend towards .5000 this weekend. Since we're all greater than .5000, it will hurt everyone else in the conference.
Luckily, the same is to be said of all other conference tourneys this weekend. Unluckily, the TUC category isn't relative.
It looks like Brown can remain a TUC if Holy Cross wins the AHA. Go Crusaders!
[Q]Stephen Turner Wrote:
Thanks. Really stupid that it is based on %, and not records. If you play 2 teams, 1 is 1-0, the other is 0-10, your schedule strength is 50% and not 9% (1-10).[/q]
I'm not following very closely, but I can say that in that situation, your Opponents' Winning Percentage would be .500. It is the average of the winning percentages of your opponents (leaving out games against you). But those winning percentages can be differently impacted by a single result if they're calculated from different numbers of games.
I don't think we can win the ECAC championship and see 5 ECAC(HL) teams in the NCAAs anymore. Stupid Michigan State.
Oh well, guess we'll have to settle with winning the tourney (hopefully) and getting 4 ECAC(HL) teams in. Mwah-ha-ha-ha! Oh, the westerners will be mad. I would also get a certain amount of satisfaction from seeing only one bid for the CCHA, especially if, say, Michigan were upset in the first round.
Here's to a non-Western champion this year! (Boy, I am getting ahead of myself.)
One of the non-Cornell things we needed happened, CC beating Minnesota. So, at least in a scenario where the other favorites win, we get the #1 seed if we win and CC beats DU.
If the only upset is UNH over BC in the HE final, something potentially interesting happens. We end up tied with Minnesota for 4th place in the PWR. Minnesota wins the comparison, but Cornell has the higher RPI. The "right" way to break the tie is using the head-to-head comparison, but it's easier for a computer program to use RPI. (Kind of like how standings ties are listed alphabetically rather than by applying the tie-breakers.) So whether Cornell or Minnesota gets the 1-seed will tell us how the committee is breaking PWR ties these days. (We already know that they look less at the individual comparisons than they used to from the way the 2003 seedings turned out.)
Vermont and Dartmouth can get into a similar tie for #14 if Vermont beats Colgate in the ECAC consolation game.