Bracketology

[KeithK]

I cannot for the life of me see the allure of dissecting a bracket as of today, since it won't be that way. But to each their own.

At the end of long day it can be cathartic to rage at a theoretical committee for sending Cornell out to Minnesota again...

[RichH]

Additionally, Adam wrote a good state-of-the-team article on Cornell.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2014/02/27_cornell_makes_its_move.php

My only pedantic comment being that the Neiley cheap-shot of Bardreau happened a few seconds after the final horn, not in the handshake line (which didn't happen).

[Scersk '97]

My only pedantic comment being that the Neiley cheap-shot of Bardreau happened a few seconds after the final horn, not in the handshake line (which didn't happen).

My less pedantic comment is that the team doesn't need to win two games for home ice; we need two points, however attained, given our tiebreak win over Yale and tiebreak tie with Q. (I.e., we win the three-way quite soundly.)

[adamw]

Sorry about the handshake line thing - I mis-remembered and fixed it.

The other comment about "needing two wins" wasn't meant to be that literal.

[Scersk '97]

"In order to lock up a home-ice spot for the ECAC tournament, the Big Red need to win two games."

"In order to," "need"--if you're not being literal, don't write so declaratively!

PS If you change "two games" to "one game," it won't even screw up the flow of the paragraph. Indeed, it makes what you say afterward even more relevant, because no one in a Cornell sweater should ever take games against Dartmouth (a perennial bugaboo, particularly of the early 00s teams) or Harvard anything other than seriously.

[Jim Hyla]

Adam, at some point will you state how you figured the bonus? For those who are wondering what I'm referring to, I'd ask them to read your article on the subject.

Our new Bracket ABCs article is here:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2014/02/25_bracket_abcs_late_regular.php

Jim - I didn't think the bonus wasn't publicly stated. The committee itself released how it was done, in English - and we reference it in our Primer. http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=pwcrpi  ... What are you looking to know?

Adam, I've been referring to this:

It gets pretty technical, but essentially, you can apply the weighting against the team's winning percentage only, or against the entire RPI (which consists of winning percentage, opponent's winning percentage, and opponent's opponents winning percentage).

I've looked through the articles again, and I don't see how you've chosen to do it. Considering all the description, I could have missed it, but?

[Jim Hyla]

With all respect to all the hockey writers/fanatics who publish their bracket predictions, Adam's is easier to read, the boilerplate is at the end, and there's more about each team, which is what fans of those teams want. And it makes the point that the If The Season Ended Today pairings are pointless because it changes so much, but what the heck we'll publish it anyway because that's what being a fan is about.

Thanks Bill.  I've been making that point for about 15 years - that it's pointless - and I've been doing those Bracket articles for CHN since we started in 2006 ... but that is the first time I gave in a little and showed a "bracket as it currently stands" just as a launching point for discussion of it. Which is often what I do in the text of the article even if not showing an actual bracket.  I cannot for the life of me see the allure of dissecting a bracket as of today, since it won't be that way. But to each their own.

Lot's of things we do every day are pointless. Hell, my posting is pointless to most, and maybe even to me. But we do it because it's fun. I certainly don't think it means anything to post the "Bracketology" every week, but it's kind of fun to see who might get "screwed" by having to play Minny in St. Paul. That's it, I think.

[adamw]

Adam, I've been referring to this:

It gets pretty technical, but essentially, you can apply the weighting against the team's winning percentage only, or against the entire RPI (which consists of winning percentage, opponent's winning percentage, and opponent's opponents winning percentage).

I've looked through the articles again, and I don't see how you've chosen to do it. Considering all the description, I could have missed it, but?

That's home/road weighting - not Quality Win Bonus. Two different things. When you said "bonus," I thought you were referring to QWB, which is spelled out pretty definitively.

The home/road weighting is being applied to all three components of the RPI.

[Jim Hyla]

Adam, I've been referring to this:

It gets pretty technical, but essentially, you can apply the weighting against the team's winning percentage only, or against the entire RPI (which consists of winning percentage, opponent's winning percentage, and opponent's opponents winning percentage).

I've looked through the articles again, and I don't see how you've chosen to do it. Considering all the description, I could have missed it, but?

That's home/road weighting - not Quality Win Bonus. Two different things. When you said "bonus," I thought you were referring to QWB, which is spelled out pretty definitively.

The home/road weighting is being applied to all three components of the RPI.

Thanks, sorry about the confusion.

[ugarte]

Looks like losing to Dartmouth destroyed our RPI. Down to 14 in Pairwise.

[Trotsky]

Looks like losing to Dartmouth destroyed our RPI. Down to 14 in Pairwise.

CHN has us at 12.

[ugarte]

Looks like losing to Dartmouth destroyed our RPI. Down to 14 in Pairwise.

CHN has us at 12.

maybe late returns moved us back up
EDIT: yep, USCHO has us at 12 also

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Looks like losing to Dartmouth destroyed our RPI. Down to 14 in Pairwise.

CHN has us at 12.

maybe late returns moved us back up
EDIT: yep, USCHO has us at 12 also

We do not want to fall down to the four-band.  That's a sure trip out west assuming BC stays #1.

[nyc94]

Looks like losing to Dartmouth destroyed our RPI. Down to 14 in Pairwise.

CHN has us at 12.

maybe late returns moved us back up
EDIT: yep, USCHO has us at 12 also

We do not want to fall down to the four-band.  That's a sure trip out west assuming BC stays #1.

This sort of thing is why I pay attention to the Pairwise before the end of the season.

Edit: BC lost to Notre Dame and Minnesota takes over the top spot for now. They would get the Atlantic Hockey autobid.

[nyc94]

Currently 12. First round vs. St. Cloud in Cincinnati before changes for attendance.