Around D-I tonight

[Al DeFlorio]

Well said, DeltaOne81.

No anger here.  But it isn't clear to me why it's viewed as OK for someone to accuse me of a cheap rhetorical trick but it's viewed as "anger" when I point out the use of the same by him.  Makes me feel like Hornby.:`(

And I invite anyone to check the season records of UAA and Rensselaer, compare Rensselaer's eight wins and one tie against UAA's one win and seven ties--many against the same teams, incidentally--and conclude that UAA has had a better season.

[bigred apple]

I don't think JTW committed a cheap trick, nor that it is his wont, as you suggested.  But that is neither here nor there.

I perused the schedules (and, more specifically, the common opponents) of UAA and RPI as you suggested.  What I found is that I would instinctively think that RPI should be rated higher than UAA.  

The common opponents were Wisconsin (RPI 1-0, UAA 0-0-2); Duluth (RPI 1-1, UAA 0-2-2); and Iona (RPI 1-0, UAA 0-0-1).  In all of the common opponent comparisons, RPI performed better.  

The remainder of RPI's wins and ties, however, leave much to be desired: RPI beat/tied schwag (Army, SLU, Mercyhurst) and mediocrity (Union, Brown, SCSU).  

UAA's are a little more mixed.  Ties at Mankato and, especially, against Denver are more impressive than anything on RPI's tab.  (The UAA tie against Iona is just sad.  UAA outshot Iona 33-15; Iona potted the tying goal with about a minute and a half left. Like I said, sad. And, to be fair, a win at SCSU is better than a tie at Mankato.)

All things considered, I think RPI has a more impressive profile than UAA, and would expect them to be ranked higher.  But if we think that ratings systems aren't worth a damn every time they fail to echo our preconceived impressions, what is the point of statistical analysis?  I'd trust KRACH's number crunching over my own impressions in Vegas.  If I were crazy enough to bet on hockey.

[Al DeFlorio]

I appreciate your checking, apple.  Really.  

But I do think that exaggerating what someone's said in order to trivialize it is an uncalled-for "trick" (word first used by John describing my posting) or, if you'd prefer, tactic.  And I agree that John's usually a pillar of civility here.

I'd say Rensselaer's win over SCSU is the equivalent of UAA's ties with Denver and Mankato.  Rensselaer did that in just two games with--at--SCSU.  It took UAA four games with Denver and Mankato to get the two ties.  KRACH, by the way, ranks SCSU between Denver and Mankato and RPI ranks them above both.   But I won't accuse you of having a "preconceived notion" that a win against SCSU is "mediocre" while ties against Denver and Mankato are "more impressive.";-)  And I assure you, apple, that I analyzed carefully both team's results before raising the comparison as an issue above--nothing "preconceived" about it.

To recap, I do think KRACH is the best we have, but I believe it does give too much weight to whom you've played, just as the new RPI does, resulting in anomalies in the rankings.  And I think it is legit to point out examples where that happens.  How else can you check the validity of the rankings?  How else can you fine-tune the algorithms?  And, by the way, I don't think I, or anyone here, has ever said KRACH is "not worth a damn."

The real concern I have is with RPI/PWR, because important decisions are made on those rankings.  What I see as an overreaction in resetting the RPI parameters to "fix" the MAAC/Niagara/CHA problem is quite likely going to hurt the ECAC over time unless it is moderated, and that does trouble me.  When games against UNO and Michigan Tech and Notre Dame and Northeastern and Lowell might be counted in the TUC calculation, it could result in a significant advantage to bubble teams from those other leagues at selection time.

[bigred apple]

I think I confessed myself that the SCSU win was on par with Mankato.  I am a bit surprised that any system would rank SCSU ahead of Denver (but I don't put any stock in my surprise).  And I don't think it matters that it took more games for UAA to get the ties against Denver and Mankato (but I don't think it is a matter worth beating into the ground with an explanation).

Ultimately, I can live with a system that breaks down a little (if at all) when trying to figure out which team stinks less at the bottom of the rankings.  I know that you were only using RPI-UAA as a symbolic data point, but if I ever indicate that I care that much about either team again, shoot me.

And the crowd thought that this might get out of hand . . .

[Ben Doyle 03]

U Maine is up 2-1 over UHN through the second period.

[jtwcornell91]

... and Thunderstix still suck!

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Ultimately, I can live with a system that breaks down a little (if at all) when trying to figure out which team stinks less at the bottom of the rankings.[/Q]
In theory I agree, only it does matter when calculated how good the good teams are that have played them. A breakdown anywhere effects things elsewhere.

If a system underweights RPI and overweights UAA, then it will underweight us and overweight UND.

[Section A]

UHN ties it up on the PP, late in the 3rd.

[Ben Doyle 03]

Going to overtime ::worry::

[Ben Doyle 03]

UMaine wins as Lawson scores with 6.8 on the clock

[Section A]

Maine scores with 6 seconds left in overtime!

[jtwcornell91]

The replays showed that the GWG was totally kicked in, but it counts and the result helps us.

[DeltaOne81]

Oh, and John:
[Q]Except that the guideline is not "insulated schedule", it's "competitive equity" based on "overall conference RPI". Insulated schedules are the reason why strength of schedule based on opponents' winning percentage can be dragged to .500. Considering that the WCHA has a winning record against every other conference and an overall interconference record better than all but Hockey East, insularity of schedule is more likely to hurt WCHA teams' strength of schedule.[/Q]

From the USCHO PWR FAQ (not enough acronyms):

Q: What about the MAAC and the CHA?

A: Starting with the 1998-1999 season, the committee voted in the right to override the results of comparisons in instances where a team's schedule was too insular (i.e. too many games solely against teams from its own conference) to draw a valid conclusion from the results of their games.

For example, teams in weaker conferences who only -- or mostly -- play teams from that same conference will win more comparisons than would otherwise happen, due to the fact that both winning percentage and strength of schedule are enhanced. By never playing "stronger" teams -- and, more importantly, because their opponents never play the "stronger" teams -- there is no way of telling just how accurate their strength of schedule indicator is.


If USCHO is simplying too much (to the point where they're basically lying), then I apologize, but it's definitely what is says. The WCHA plays (at least!) 28 of 34 games in conference (82.3%). The ECAC only plays 64.7%, even the Ivies only hit 75.8%. The MAAC only does 76.4% - and the random team I looked at, UConn, actually doesn't have any "NC" games against conference opponents.

Your mathematical point above does mean it would have to be a big down swing for them before the rule would apply, but I'd still like to see it. Might prompt them to cut down on the conference schedule a little bit.

[Dart~Ben]

I'm curious what you number crunchers would think about this.

Use Win% instead of the RPI as a tiebreaker within the PWR so rather than having the RPI count for 1.5 comparisons, it would only count the same as the others. If all else balances out, take the team that has won more games. Seems fair to me.

[jtwcornell91]

I think Quinnipiac would love that idea. ::rolleyes::