After One:
Harvard 0 at Dartmouth 0
Cornell 1 at St. Lawrence 0
Yale 1 at Union 0
In the 1st:
Princeton 0 at RPI 0
Brown 1 at Vermont 0
Colgate 1 at Clarkson 1
Thanks to Ben via USCHO
Since we're stealing (but attributing, so I guess it's sampling), also from Ben:
After the first period in Hanover, it's 0-0.
Harvard fairly lucky to be tied, because Dartmouth hit one post and had another beat hyphen but trickle wide.
Shots 10-7, but Dartmouth had the territorial advantage.
BC/UNH scoreless after 1.
Not sure who to route for in that one. UNH winning would help us, BC winning would help Harvard/Dartmouth/Colgate. I don't think I can bare to route for UNH anyway.
Cornell down 33-25 to Penn at the half. Hell, that's not all that bad. Tomorrow we have the first chance to sweep Princeton in..., I dunno, maybe ever.
Anybody catch the fantastic banner that the Penn kids unfurled vs Princeton? "Now the Ivy League cellar has a backdoor." Classic. :-D
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
Cornell down 33-25 to Penn at the half. Hell, that's not all that bad. Tomorrow we have the first chance to sweep Princeton in..., I dunno, maybe ever. [/q]
And that Princeton-Cornell game will be aired on YES.
thanks for sharing that... my laugh for the night. yup, quite classic.
BC takes the 1-0 lead on UNH.
UND/UAF tied at 1 after 1
BC 2, UNH 1 after 2
Minn/SCSU no score after 1
Dartmouth-Harvard scoreless in the third.
Stolen:
13:14 to go in regulation. Still 0-0. Dartmouth getting the territorial adv. again this period.
1-0 Dartmouth late
2 mins to go at Hanover, 1-0 Green.
Harvard ties it in Hanover
and Clarkson ties it with Gate with 1 second left - what a night
dartmouth beats sucks 2-1 in ot!!!!!!
thanks for another ivy championship Sucks :-D
You're welcome. :-D
And feel free to send your thanks to Mike Ouellette for yet another Ivy banner.
so theres no way that we can lose the ivy league title regardless of what happens tomorrow? I know we only needed 1 pt. this weekend to take the ECAC title
Clarkson/Gate ends in a tie. Gate now 0-1-1 this year against the Knights.
Dartmouth, especially with Jessimen back, could be a force this postseason. Dmouth with two OT wins at home against Cornell and Harvard this year.
Thanks Ben! :-)
dartmouth v. brown has no impact on the Ivy
http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/sports/standings.asp?intSID=8
BC/UNH in OT also - UNH also tied it late
mankato 5 DU 1 in the second period i think
BC/UNH tie at 3
Minn up 2-1 on SCSU early 3rd
UAF 3, UNO 2, 15:00 left
...by SC St., early 3rd.
SCSU scores!!
3-2 Huskies!
Mankato 5 - DU 2
3:40 left in the 2nd
scratch that 5-3 Mankato now
Maine shuts out UMN 2-0. This is good -- keeping Maine in the Top15 preserves our RPI bonus.
Minn ties it at 3... 11:00 to go
by what magnitude do DU and Minny losses help our PWR?
looks like currently, without either of the above scores entered on uscho (but with ours), we have 4th seed above minny with a 5-3-1 bonus
Minn pulls ahead, 4-3 with a PPG
I just want to see Minn drop like the sucky team they are. Barely able to handle SCSU = not 5th in the nation.
And just not tonight, 1 point against UAA, etc
dump in by Mankato and it bounces off Mannino's(the goalie's) skate and in...seems like he was trying to call icing and it hit him
6-3 Mankato
ENG by Minn from just over the redline - 5-3 - that seems like it'll do it, :40 left
SCSU scored, 5-4, but 3.8 seconds left, and they call a timeout!
but that'll do it
another goal in the Mankato/DU game
DU gets it back to two goals 6-4
a DU loss, and a tough win tomorrow leave us competing for #1 idle colo college come monday
Now 6-5 Mankato - no one wants to take control of the game
Like I said, no one wants to take control
7-5 Mankato
Yet another Mankato goal 8-5
I feel bad for this announcer, he never has time to catch his breath
Give the Cantabs credit: Box score says they got the tying goal with Dov pulled, at 18:46. Although it's not 100% clear what happened since the box also says Dov only played :04 less than the Dartmouth goalie. Was that a miracle-fast goal right off an offensive zone faceoff?
[Q]oceanst41 Wrote: Yet another Mankato goal 8-5. I feel bad for this announcer, he never has time to catch his breath[/q]Yeah - Cornell PA announcer could go into a coma and if it weren't for the penalties, you'd never know he was off the air.
4:08 left in the 3rd and the "overrated" chants are raining down on DU
although the way this game has gone I wouldn't feel too comfortable
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Give the Cantabs credit: Box score says they got the tying goal with Dov pulled, at 18:46. Although it's not 100% clear what happened since the box also says Dov only played :04 less than the Dartmouth goalie. Was that a miracle-fast goal right off an offensive zone faceoff? [/q]
Yes.
Yacey save. Harvard time out. Immediatly following said timeout Harvard pulled hyphen and scored right off the faceoff.
PP DU with 45 seconds left - 3 goals down
Final: Mankato 8 DU 5
Game over at Mankato - 8-5 final for the Mavericks
PENDING (oops caps) alaska game...
3-2-1
Rk Team PWR Record RPI
Rk W-L-T Win % Rk RPI
1 Colorado College 29 2 25-6-3 .7794 1 .5950
2 Denver 28 6 22-8-2 .7188 2 .5845
3 Cornell 27 1 21-4-3 .8036 3 .5812
4 Boston College 26 8 19-6-6 .7097 5 .5792
5 Minnesota 25 13 21-12-1 .6324 4 .5795
6 Michigan 24 3 24-7-3 .7500 7 .5726
7 Wisconsin 23 9 21-9-2 .6875 9 .5668
8t New Hampshire 20 4 22-7-4 .7273 8 .5683
8t Mass.-Lowell 20 11 19-8-4 .6774 10 .5632
10t Boston University 19 12 20-10-3 .6515 6 .5791
10t Harvard 19 10 18-8-2 .6786 11 .5622
12 Ohio State 18 5 23-8-3 .7206 12 .5548
13t North Dakota 17 23 16-13-3 .5469 13 .5515
13t Dartmouth 17 18 16-10-2 .6071 18 .5412
15t Maine 15 19 17-10-6 .6061 14 .5486
15t Colgate 15 7 22-8-3 .7121 15 .5450
17 Northern Michigan 14 16t 17-9-7 .6212 20 .5310
18 Michigan State 12 27 14-15-4 .4848 17 .5432
19 Vermont 11 16t 19-11-3 .6212 19 .5338
20 Minnesota State 10 39 11-16-6 .4242 21 .5174
21 Northeastern 8 29t 13-15-5 .4697 16 .5448
22t Bowling Green 7 20 16-11-4 .5806 22 .5108
22t Minnesota-Duluth 7 29t 13-15-5 .4697 28 .5047
24 Nebraska-Omaha 6 24 16-13-4 .5455 26 .5068
25 St. Cloud State 5 38 14-19-2 .4286 25 .5074
26t Alabama-Huntsville 4 14 15-8-4 .6296 24 .5076
26t Alaska-Anchorage 4 40t 10-16-4 .4000 30 .5021
28t Brown 2 22 14-11-3 .5536 29 .5029
28t Bemidji State 2 15 19-11-1 .6290 23 .5087
30 St. Lawrence 1 33 14-17-2 .4545 27 .5055
In the last game of the night, UAA ties MTU 2-2, and UAA drops as a TUC, vaulting Minn back up to tied for 3rd with us. They take the head to head comparison so they're 3rd, we're 4th.
that these irrelevant games with obscure teams are impacting our quest for a #1 seed is absolutely ridiculous.
at this point though, we'll keep doing our part with the W's and prove to the committee we deserve it. if we win through the ECAC champs, that'd be a ridiculous unbeaten streak, and i would have to assume the committee would recognize the quality of play in the second half of the season to justify a #1 seed. then again, alot of distance from now til then, and some real quality opponents (probably clarkson in the playoffs @ lynah, dartmouth and 'gate/harvard in albany).
-mike
The committee will believe a #1 seed is justified if the math in the Pairwise Rankings supports us being there, plain and simple. And really, that's the way it should be.
[Q]A-19 Wrote:
that these irrelevant games with obscure teams are impacting our quest for a #1 seed is absolutely ridiculous.[/q]
Irritating, but not ridiculous. PWR is particularly clunky, with the artificial distinctions of TUC and record against common opponents, but even a more sophisticated system would have this effect. There are no irrelevant games. Every decision between every pair of teams bends and shapes the positioning of every team relative to every other. That's as it should be.
Even though I understand the math, it is 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.
Up to a point. The .500 cutoff is arbitrary and a bit of a blunt instrument. A better algorithm would not allow subtle shifts across an arbitrary criterion to have this kind of an impact. However, an alternative - such as weighting wins/losses by the RPI of an opponent - may be too mathematically impenetrable for lay users of this stuff.
[Q]KenP Wrote:
Even though I understand the math, it is 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.[/q](RPI > .5000 and Win% > .5000) is just as sharp a cutoff, and would produce the exact same type of situations, as just using (RPI > .5000). (For instance, Brown has Win% > .500, and will likely finish that way, but their TUC status depends on just as many seemingly extraneous factors as that of WMU and UAA.)
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
[Q2]A-19 Wrote:
that these irrelevant games with obscure teams are impacting our quest for a #1 seed is absolutely ridiculous.[/Q]
Irritating, but not ridiculous. PWR is particularly clunky, with the artificial distinctions of TUC and record against common opponents, but even a more sophisticated system would have this effect. There are no irrelevant games. Every decision between every pair of teams bends and shapes the positioning of every team relative to every other. That's as it should be.[/q]
Yeah, but the derivative d(significance)/d(RPI) shouldn't blow up at .500.
Okay, John, you're starting to sway me towards a KRACH-only method. That would combine the RPI issue (additive not multiplicative), TUC issue (meaningless breakpoints), and COP issue (teams play COP different numbers of times). But one thing I like about PWR is it's strong weighting of head-to-head results. If the #4 ranked team was 0-2-1 against the #5 team, wouldn't you feel the #5 team deserves the higher seed? (Note, I used "feel" instead of "think".)
[Q]KenP Wrote:
If the #4 ranked team was 0-2-1 against the #5 team, wouldn't you feel the #5 team deserves the higher seed? (Note, I used "feel" instead of "think".)
[/q]
No. The H-to-H games do have a fairly significant effect on the teams' relative KRACH which needed to be made up elsewhere for Team #4 to be ahead of Team #5. By way of example, if baseball team A was 13-6 vs. Team B but finished 2 games behind Team B in the division, would you feel that Team A deserved first place?
[Q]KenP Wrote:
Okay, John, you're starting to sway me towards a KRACH-only method. That would combine the RPI issue (additive not multiplicative), TUC issue (meaningless breakpoints), and COP issue (teams play COP different numbers of times). But one thing I like about PWR is it's strong weighting of head-to-head results. If the #4 ranked team was 0-2-1 against the #5 team, wouldn't you feel the #5 team deserves the higher seed? (Note, I used "feel" instead of "think".)
[/q]
Well, if you really wanted to capture the spirit of a league playoff seeding, you could use KRACH with some sort of a PWC "tie-breaker" if two teams are close in RRWP and/or HHWP. The trick would be how to handle a chain of "almost ties". Suppose the #4 team is close to the #3 team, and the #5 team is close to the #4 team, but the distance between #5 and #3 is greater than your threshhold. You don't want a three-team tiebreaker since #5 should not pass #3, but which tie do you break first? If #4 wins the tiebreak with #3 you never evaluate the tiebreak between #4 and #5. But then the same thing comes up in any tie-breaker system.
Okay, how's this. Rank teams by KASA. If a team's KASA RRWP is less than .0125 above the team below them (one tie in a 40-game schedule), throw the teams into a tie-breaker using
1) head-to-head record
2) head-to-head home ice disadvantage (e.g., if you tied them in their barn you win the tiebreak)
3) KASA
So here we go http://www.uscho.com/rankings/?data=kasa
1. CC .8585
2. Denver .8320
3T. Wisconsin .7962
3T. Minnesota .7935
Tiebreaker:
Minnesota is 3-1 vs Wisconsin
3. Minnesota .7935
4T. Wisconsin .7962
4T. Michigan .7872
Tiebreaker:
Wisconsin is 1-0 vs Michigan
4. Wisconsin .7962
5. Michigan .7872
6T. Cornell .7733
6T. BC .7716
Tiebreaker:
BC is 1-0 vs Cornell
6. BC .7716
7T. Cornell .7733
7T. UNH .7617
Tiebreaker:
Cornell and UNH have not played; keep the KASA ordering
7. Cornell .7733
8T. UNH .7617
8T. BU .7501
Tiebreaker:
UNH is 1-0 vs BU
8. UNH .7617
9. BU .7501
10. OSU .7332
11T. UML .7173
11T. North Dakota .7102
Tiebreaker:
UML and NoDak have not played; keep the KASA ordering
11. UML .7173
12. UND .7102
13T. Harvard .6852
13T. NMU .6845
Tiebreaker:
NMU and Harvard tied on neutral ice; keep the KASA ordering
13. Harvard .6852
14. NMU .6845
How about we just KRACHify the PWR and get it done with. That gets rid of RPI problems, lessens the TUC problem by weighting the lower teams less anyway, and eliminates the lack of SOS in the CoP. Keep the head-to-head, although I feel it should probably only be worth 1 anyway, and tada!
List everything in RRWP, and if there's a tie in that (about as likely as a tie in RPI), then deal with it.
Your math above still picks an "arbitrary" cutoff for what is a tie. Not too much better (well, okay, better, but still arbitrary).
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
How about we just KRACHify the PWR and get it done with. That gets rid of RPI problems, lessens the TUC problem by weighting the lower teams less anyway, and eliminates the lack of SOS in the CoP. Keep the head-to-head, although I feel it should probably only be worth 1 anyway, and tada![/q]
You mean like this?
http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2005/cgi-bin/rankings.cgi?dispPWR=true;PWCdetails=true;PCTweight=25;OPPweight=50;OOPweight=25;topqual=15;homebon=.0010;neutbon=.0020;roadbon=.0030;rpifudge=playoff;PWCtb=RRWP;PWCtbwt=1;PWCh2hwt=1;PWCh2h=total;PWCtucwt=1;TUCdefcrit=rpi;TUCdefrel=ge;TUCdefcut=.500;PWCtuccrit=rrwp;PWCtucomit=true;PWClastwt=0;PWClastnum=16;PWClastcrit=pct;PWCcomwt=1;PWCcommingm=1;PWCcommintm=1;PWCcomcrit=rrwp;scoresel=current;scores=
BTW, I just fixed a bug that was keeping the "count H2H as one criterion" option not work. Now it does.
I am aware of your script and yup, like that.
I realize it doesn't produce vastly different results, but it does at least produce them in a way that is less prone to swings and turns and random stupidities.