Bracketology 2023

[617BigRed]

Article from new ECH blog start of Feb.:
www.echlocker.com/blog/ech-weekend-review-january2022-ep9zm-lzctd-gb939

Bridgeport, CT: #2 Quinnipiac vs. #15 Omaha, #7 Denver vs. #11 Cornell

Recent CHN:
www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2023/02/14_Bracket-ABCs-First-Look.php

2. Quinnipiac vs. 15. Northeastern
7. St. Cloud State vs. 10. Cornell


TLD(wanna)R: Second seed and Bridgeport regional sounds good to us!

[adamw]

That's a 3 seed and wholly dependent on QU being 2 and Cornell being 10. Anything else, and all bets are off. Long way to go.

[dbilmes]

That's a 3 seed and wholly dependent on QU being 2 and Cornell being 10. Anything else, and all bets are off. Long way to go.

As you know, a lot of people who post on this forum like to post speculation like this even though it's meaningless this far ahead of time. For example, if Cornell loses one of its four remaining regular season games, which is completely plausible, and doesn't win a home quarterfinal series, which also is completely plausible, there won't be an NCAA bid to talk about. Just like some eLynah members had us winning the Ivy League mens basketball title this winter after our fast start.

[BearLover]

Can we please not quote any pairwise probability matrices this year

[Dafatone]

Can we please not quote any pairwise probability matrices this year

I pulled up the pairwise probability matrix and my dog licked my phone. Pretty sure that means six more weeks of speculation.

[Trotsky]

Because you asked nicely, here are the www.playoffstatus.com probabilities for now:

ECAC Tourney:
.85 Advance to SF
.41 Advance to F
.18 ECAC Champion

NCAA Tourney:
.90 Qualification
.40 Advance to QF
.17 Advance to SF
.08 Advance to F
.03 NCAA Champion

[The Rancor]

Can we please not quote any pairwise probability matrices this year

I pulled up the pairwise probability matrix and my dog licked my phone. Pretty sure that means six more weeks of speculation.

Ha!!

[Trotsky]

After the Brown win, we are 13 in PWR.

[upprdeck]

and Mich tech could hold on and get us back to 12.

could also use ND losing to mich tomorrow just to make their path harder to .500

[BearLover]

The playoff probability models continue to yield absurd results. If "weighted by KRACH" indeed means abmarks' interpretation thereof (see discussion in other thread that I'm too lazy to dig up in which abmarks accused me of not reading something I did read), then the model on CHN gives Q a 64% chance of winning the ECAC tournament (ridiculous even if Q is the clear best team). But even more absurd is that it gives the bottom four seeds (Dartmouth, Yale, Brown, and Princeton) collectively a .1% chance of winning the ECAC. That is to say, one of those four teams would win the ECAC one out of one thousand times. The model gives the bottom eight seeds a collective
2.1% chance of winning the ECAC. StL has a 3% chance of winning, which means, per the model, someone other than Q/H/Cornell wins the ECAC 5% of the time.

Let's please stop citing these prediction models.

[Trotsky]

www.playoffstatus.com

ECAC Tournament
       

Code Select Expand

       [b]SF    F   Ch[/b]
Qpc    .99  .82  .51
Hvd    .97  .62  .30
Cor    .84  .34  .13
SLU    .63  .13  .04
Field  .57  .07  .02


[BearLover]

www.playoffstatus.com

ECAC Tournament
       

Code Select Expand

       [b]SF    F   Ch[/b]
Qpc    .99  .82  .51
Hvd    .97  .62  .30
Cor    .84  .34  .13
SLU    .63  .13  .04
Field  .57  .07  .02


Models like this are what happens when you use whatever inputs you want without backwards-testing the methodology whatsoever.

[CU77]

KRACH is a decent model for ranking teams from top to bottom, but it hugely overestimates the probability of a higher-ranked team beating a lower-ranked team.

[Trotsky]

They aren't predictive models.  They are descriptive analytics which summarize past performance.  But conditions in the playoffs aren't like the range of season results, so it is not theoretically justified to interpret them as predictive.

The reason to cite them is they drive a certain personality type insane, and that is funny.

[BearLover]

They aren't predictive models.  They are descriptive analytics which summarize past performance.  But conditions in the playoffs aren't like the range of season results, so it is not theoretically justified to interpret them as predictive.

The reason to cite them is they drive a certain personality type insane, and that is funny.

They're predictive models. They literally provide a probability for each team which is supposed to represent its chances of making each round of the NCAAs. KRACH is not a predictive model, if that's what you mean—which is part of the reason why it's absurd to base a predictive model off of KRACH. The problem with these predictive models is not that "conditions in the playoffs aren't like the range of season results," it's that they're extrapolating future probabilities from a system of ranking teams based on past performance.