What is your definition of a Successful Season

[Trotsky]

Make that 10-3-3 .719 against teams below us.  Fixed above.

[Trotsky]

I looked at the 2010-2011 and 2006-2007 seasons (the last two years we were a 4 seed) to see how we did against non-conference opponents.  2010-2011 saw us go 2-4-1, with NC wins against Alabama-Huntsville and Colgate, while 2006-2007 saw us go 4-3, with NC losses to Wayne State and Sacred Heart.  Pretty weak compared to a 4-1-1 this season.

Here is a summary of all RS NC games.

[jeff '84]

Just to add salt.....


From Adam on CHN:


March 27, 2014

New Pairwise System Worked Well
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor

A few days removed from the NCAA tournament selectionsm it's interesting to note how different it would've been under last year's Pairwise formula.

This year, the Ice Hockey Committee removed the "Record vs. Teams Under Consideration" criteria from the selection process. It was replaced by the "Quality Win Bonus," a different way of handling "good wins." The bonus gave teams extra percentage points on its RPI based on which teams they defeated in the Top 20, on a sliding scale.

Also added to the Pairwise this year was a home-road weighting system.

Looking at it, it's obvious to see that the teams which beat more top teams, and the teams that did better on the road than at home, are the teams that benefitted most. This stood to reason logically, and certainly bears itself out in the numbers.

The order of teams based on last year's Pairwise:

Minnesota
Union
Boston College
Mass.-Lowell
Quinnipiac
Providence
St. Cloud State
Wisconsin
Ferris State
North Dakota
Notre Dame
Colgate
Minnesota State
Cornell
Vermont
Michigan

The only team that failed to make the NCAAs that would've made it otherwise is Cornell; which is a bit ironic given that, much of the push to include a home-road weighting was from ECAC teams that have a hard time scheduling non-conference games at their arenas. Cornell's issue wasn't that, however; it had very few "good wins" and its QWB was low compared to other teams.

Michigan still would've been out, and Vermont and Cornell would've swapped.

The biggest drops are from Wisconsin and Notre Dame. In Wisconsin's case, it won many more home games than road. In Notre Dame's case, it benefitted this year from a huge QWB. Providence, North Dakota and Lowell would've been better off.

The biggest issue, however, would've been the myriad of bracket problems the Committee would've faced with this order of teams. This year's bracket, just by luck, basically, broke down in such a way that no tinkering was necessary.

But nevermind the comparison to last year's Pairwise. The most interesting part, however, of the new Pairwise is how closely it matched KRACH.

KRACH is the rating system that is considered the most "mathematically pure," and has long been endorsed by CHN as a replacement for the RPI. KRACH is usually a much better indicator of a team's relative strength. The Pairwise has always been a patchwork of ideas. The two often match somewhat, but not that closely.

With the changes to the Pairwise, however, the ratings — however roundabout the algorithm may have been to come to that point — are almost directly in line with each other.

This means that fans and teams can feel very comfortable about the new Pairwise. No system with such a small sample size as 35-or-so games will ever be good enough to be perfectly precise. But this is as good as we can ask for.

[David Harding]

Just to add salt.....


From Adam on CHN:


March 27, 2014

New Pairwise System Worked Well
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor
...
No system with such a small sample size as 35-or-so games will ever be good enough to be perfectly precise. But this is as good as we can ask for.

Why can't we ask for KRACH?

[cbuckser]

Why can't we ask for KRACH?

Adam has.

[jtwcornell91]

Why can't we ask for KRACH?

Adam has.

See also http://www.elynah.com/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2000/kpairwise.shtml

IIRC we actually sent that to the NCAA.

[ugarte]

Just to add salt.....


From Adam on CHN:


March 27, 2014

New Pairwise System Worked Well
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor

A few days removed from the NCAA tournament selectionsm it's interesting to note how different it would've been under last year's Pairwise formula.

This year, the Ice Hockey Committee removed the "Record vs. Teams Under Consideration" criteria from the selection process. It was replaced by the "Quality Win Bonus," a different way of handling "good wins." The bonus gave teams extra percentage points on its RPI based on which teams they defeated in the Top 20, on a sliding scale.

Also added to the Pairwise this year was a home-road weighting system.

Looking at it, it's obvious to see that the teams which beat more top teams, and the teams that did better on the road than at home, are the teams that benefitted most. This stood to reason logically, and certainly bears itself out in the numbers.

The order of teams based on last year's Pairwise:

Minnesota
Union
Boston College
Mass.-Lowell
Quinnipiac
Providence
St. Cloud State
Wisconsin
Ferris State
North Dakota
Notre Dame
Colgate
Minnesota State
Cornell
Vermont
Michigan

The only team that failed to make the NCAAs that would've made it otherwise is Cornell; which is a bit ironic given that, much of the push to include a home-road weighting was from ECAC teams that have a hard time scheduling non-conference games at their arenas. Cornell's issue wasn't that, however; it had very few "good wins" and its QWB was low compared to other teams.

Michigan still would've been out, and Vermont and Cornell would've swapped.

The biggest drops are from Wisconsin and Notre Dame. In Wisconsin's case, it won many more home games than road. In Notre Dame's case, it benefitted this year from a huge QWB. Providence, North Dakota and Lowell would've been better off.

The biggest issue, however, would've been the myriad of bracket problems the Committee would've faced with this order of teams. This year's bracket, just by luck, basically, broke down in such a way that no tinkering was necessary.

But nevermind the comparison to last year's Pairwise. The most interesting part, however, of the new Pairwise is how closely it matched KRACH.

KRACH is the rating system that is considered the most "mathematically pure," and has long been endorsed by CHN as a replacement for the RPI. KRACH is usually a much better indicator of a team's relative strength. The Pairwise has always been a patchwork of ideas. The two often match somewhat, but not that closely.

With the changes to the Pairwise, however, the ratings — however roundabout the algorithm may have been to come to that point — are almost directly in line with each other.

This means that fans and teams can feel very comfortable about the new Pairwise. No system with such a small sample size as 35-or-so games will ever be good enough to be perfectly precise. But this is as good as we can ask for.

After careful analysis I have concluded that last year's PWR was better.

[Trotsky]

Probably not a lot of high-powered mathematical skill on the NCAA Rules Committee.

[Robb]

Probably not a lot of high-powered mathematical skill on the NCAA Rules Committee.

We don't need high-powered mathematicians on the rules committee - just for the members to be self-aware enough to know that they aren't.

[Trotsky]

Probably not a lot of high-powered mathematical skill on the NCAA Rules Committee.

We don't need high-powered mathematicians on the rules committee - just for the members to be self-aware enough to know that they aren't.

Probably not a lot of self-awareness on the NCAA Rules Committee.

[jkahn]

In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs.  Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses.  So that series didn't help our RPI.  Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses.  I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

[Josh '99]

In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs.  Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses.  So that series didn't help our RPI.  Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses.  I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

As close as that third game was, it seems unrealistic to assume we necessarily would've won the series on the road.

[KeithK]

Probably not a lot of high-powered mathematical skill on the NCAA Rules Committee.

We don't need high-powered mathematicians on the rules committee - just for the members to be self-aware enough to know that they aren't.

But if you to KRACH the selection committee no longer the ability to tweak the criteria from year to year and that's a power that they probably enjpy.  (One could probably tweak KRACH in various meaningful ways, but the rules committee folks couldn't.)

[andyw2100]

In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs.  Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses.  So that series didn't help our RPI.  Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses.  I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

OK, so under last year's selection formulas we make the tournament. And as per the above, in all likelihood had we played the Clarkson series in Potsdam with the same result, we also would have made the tournament. I know someone somewhere on eLynah said they absolutely did not want to know, but I do: had we played that canceled game against UMasss and won it, would we have made the tournament?

[jkahn]

In retrospect, we had "home ice disadvantage" for the playoffs.  Winning 2 of 3 vs. Clarkson added 1.6 wins to our W/L record for RPI purposes and added 1.2 losses.  So that series didn't help our RPI.  Had we won 2 of 3 on the road, we would have added 2.4 wins and only .8 losses.  I suspect that would have been good enough to make the NCAA's.

OK, so under last year's selection formulas we make the tournament. And as per the above, in all likelihood had we played the Clarkson series in Potsdam with the same result, we also would have made the tournament. I know someone somewhere on eLynah said they absolutely did not want to know, but I do: had we played that canceled game against UMasss and won it, would we have made the tournament?

or if they had not eliminated the consolation game ....