protoKRACH

[jtwcornell91]

[Chris 02]

This was mentioned on the polls thread from last week.  Is RIT included in the above calculation since they're still not eligible for NCAA selection?  There's an "RT" in the middle of the pack, but I don't know which team that is.

[Rosey]

For that matter, is there a canonical listing of abbrev->school anywhere?

Kyle

[jtwcornell91]

Yeah, RIT is included because I haven't bothered to remove them from the list.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote krose]For that matter, is there a canonical listing of abbrev->school anywhere?[/quote]

What, are they not obvious? :-}

They're my standard 2-letter abbreviations, so you can find them all in the team list at:

http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2006/rankings.diy.shtml

[jtwcornell91]

Good to see who's at the top and bottom of this. ::banana:: On the flipside, one result next Friday could give everbody except AIC a finite KRACH. ::uhoh::

[KeithK]

Hopefully everyone besides us and AIT have a finite KRACH by Tuesday night...

[jtwcornell91]

[quote KeithK]Hopefully everyone besides us and AIT have a finite KRACH by Tuesday night...[/quote]

Well, Yale won't.

[KeithK]

[quote jtwcornell91][quote KeithK]Hopefully everyone besides us and AIT have a finite KRACH by Tuesday night...[/quote]

Well, Yale won't.[/quote]Details, details....

[Robb]

[quote KeithK]Hopefully everyone besides us and AIT have a finite KRACH by Tuesday night...[/quote]
How will Harvard's (inevitable) loss to BC prove that they are worse than AIC?  Not that I doubt it, mind you...  

I thought it was a given that KRACH can't compare 2 undefeated-and-untied teams or 2 winless-and-untied teams.  To quote the master:

The above works perfectly well as long as every team has gained at least one point and dropped at least one: in that case, it is always possible to find a supposed "rating" for each team that is too high (expected > observed) or too low (expected < observed), and thus the correct rating for the team is somewhere between the two. For a team that has won all its games, the story is different, however. Suppose our team X is 3-0 -- 3 observed wins; the expected number of wins is the sum of 3 probabilities, each of which is less than 1, so that the expected number of wins is always less than 3. No matter how big a rating you propose for team X, you can never make the observed and expected wins equal. The same is true in reverse for a team that has lost all its games; only a rating of 0 will produce a zero expected number of wins.

[ugarte]

[quote Robb][quote KeithK]Hopefully everyone besides us and AIT have a finite KRACH by Tuesday night...[/quote]
How will Harvard's (inevitable) loss to BC prove that they are worse than AIC?  Not that I doubt it, mind you...  [/quote]Calling jtw... what does Harvard's stunning failure to lose mean?

[jtwcornell91]

All the HHWPs are defined now.  If you like, you could say Cornell's KRACH is infinity-squared, Yale's is infinity, and AIC's is zero.

[ugarte]

Yale will become defined when (a) Cornell loses or (b) they lose to a team that isn't undefeated, right?

[KeithK]

So I figured I'd abuse the protoKRACH to trty to assess the "best confwerence" (really conference ranking) argument that Ari brought up in another thread.  Now that all of the HHWPs are defined, I figued I could average the HHWP for each conference and se how they rank up.  In other words, if all 59 teams played H2H against every other hwo would each conference Win % stack up.  Assuming that I've decoded Whelan's abbreviations correctly (I couldn't find the cross reference chart quickly and I wasn't going to check the game schedule to confirm) I came up with the following:

WCHA  .675
HEA   .608
CCHA  .583
ECAC  .545
CHA   .323
AHA   .153

So by this measzure the ECAC is still in fourth place among the conferences right now.  We trail the CCHA by a bunch of points, but it's quite clear in my mind that we're in the group with the top 4, rather than in a separate middle grouping.

Onward and upward.

[Robb]

[quote KeithK] Assuming that I've decoded Whelan's abbreviations correctly (I couldn't find the cross reference chart quickly and I wasn't going to check the game schedule to confirm) [/quote]
On that note, would it be possible to change Harvard's abbreviation to Sk, just to avoid confusion?

Thanks.

:-D