Bracketology 2023

[upprdeck]

It would help if ND were to lose to MSU tonight and better yet twice.  But they could easily lose tonight, then win then lose again
Minn St hopefully loses to Mtech but doubtful before that

Alaska pretty much locked in I think

Vermont beating Merrimack would be nice

Maybe Omaha can lose to ND again

Northeastern losing again would also be good.

Then 2-0 next week might be enough Even with a loss.

We do have decent RPI leads over the teams below us other than Minn St.

[Dafatone]

The home/away weighting has me wishing we were on the road next weekend.

Which is dumb.

[BearLover]

It would help if ND were to lose to MSU tonight and better yet twice.  But they could easily lose tonight, then win then lose again
Minn St hopefully loses to Mtech but doubtful before that

Alaska pretty much locked in I think

Vermont beating Merrimack would be nice

Maybe Omaha can lose to ND again

Northeastern losing again would also be good.

Then 2-0 next week might be enough Even with a loss.

We do have decent RPI leads over the teams below us other than Minn St.

Alaska would be out if they lost tonight to Lindenwood (highly unlikely)

[Dafatone]

It would help if ND were to lose to MSU tonight and better yet twice.  But they could easily lose tonight, then win then lose again
Minn St hopefully loses to Mtech but doubtful before that

Alaska pretty much locked in I think

Vermont beating Merrimack would be nice

Maybe Omaha can lose to ND again

Northeastern losing again would also be good.

Then 2-0 next week might be enough Even with a loss.

We do have decent RPI leads over the teams below us other than Minn St.

Alaska would be out if they lost tonight to Lindenwood (highly unlikely)

I think they were briefly down 1-0 last night. Here's hoping.

[Trotsky]

Does a win over the weakest team always give you more in PWR than a loss to the strongest team?

[Trotsky]

www.playoffstatus.com

ECAC Tournament
       

Code Select Expand

       [b]SF    F   Ch[/b]
Qpc    .99  .82  .51
Hvd    .96  .61  .30
Cor    .80  .32  .12
SLU    .61  .13  .04
Field  .64  .12  .03


[ugarte]

www.playoffstatus.com

ECAC Tournament
       

Code Select Expand

       [b]SF    F   Ch[/b]
Qpc    .99  .82  .51
Hvd    .96  .61  .30
Cor    .80  .32  .12
SLU    .61  .13  .04
Field  .64  .12  .03


lol wonderful

[BearLover]

www.playoffstatus.com

ECAC Tournament
       

Code Select Expand

       [b]SF    F   Ch[/b]
Qpc    .99  .82  .51
Hvd    .96  .61  .30
Cor    .80  .32  .12
SLU    .61  .13  .04
Field  .64  .12  .03


I was actually about to post this, as I'd checked it this morning for a laugh. Imagine creating a predictive model this bad, and then having people around the internet cite to your model in earnest. I wonder if the people publishing the model know it is complete garbage, or if they don't care and simply don't mind the total lack of academic rigor and accuracy?

[Dafatone]

www.playoffstatus.com

ECAC Tournament
       

Code Select Expand

       [b]SF    F   Ch[/b]
Qpc    .99  .82  .51
Hvd    .96  .61  .30
Cor    .80  .32  .12
SLU    .61  .13  .04
Field  .64  .12  .03


I was actually about to post this, as I'd checked it this morning for a laugh. Imagine creating a predictive model this bad, and then having people around the internet cite to your model in earnest. I wonder if the people publishing the model know it is complete garbage, or if they don't care and simply don't mind the total lack of academic rigor and accuracy?

I'm not sure there is such a thing as rigor in an instance like this. The sample size is never going to be large enough to test out what the percentages should have been.

[Trotsky]

I'll keep muttering this until the cows come home, but it's not predictive, no matter what anybody says.  It extrapolates prior performance to future results, but that is only justifiably predictive if the conditions of the future match the conditions of the past.  In the case of the ECAC tournament that is categorically false.  If nothing else, the final two rounds are played at a neutral site where literally 0% of past results were generated.

I cite these numbers because (1) beats workin', and (2) it's fun for a variety of reasons we have touched on previously.  There is no dependable predictive metric.

[upprdeck]

if there was a predictive model Vegas would be hurting. But we here would all be rich.

[Swampy]

www.playoffstatus.com

ECAC Tournament
       

Code Select Expand

       [b]SF    F   Ch[/b]
Qpc    .99  .82  .51
Hvd    .96  .61  .30
Cor    .80  .32  .12
SLU    .61  .13  .04
Field  .64  .12  .03


I was actually about to post this, as I'd checked it this morning for a laugh. Imagine creating a predictive model this bad, and then having people around the internet cite to your model in earnest. I wonder if the people publishing the model know it is complete garbage, or if they don't care and simply don't mind the total lack of academic rigor and accuracy?

Isn't there a story about the engineering students who designed the suspension bridge refusing to walk over it because they knew how they designed it?

[Trotsky]

Isn't there a story about the engineering students who designed the suspension bridge refusing to walk over it because they knew how they designed it?

No.  That was capitalism.

[BearLover]

I'll keep muttering this until the cows come home, but it's not predictive, no matter what anybody says.  It extrapolates prior performance to future results, but that is only justifiably predictive if the conditions of the future match the conditions of the past.  In the case of the ECAC tournament that is categorically false.  If nothing else, the final two rounds are played at a neutral site where literally 0% of past results were generated.

I cite these numbers because (1) beats workin', and (2) it's fun for a variety of reasons we have touched on previously.  There is no dependable predictive metric.

The model is intended to be predictive, even if some people recognize it as not doing a good job at being predictive. The model gives probabilities of future events. Therefore, in layman's terms, it is intended to be predictive.

The issue isn't really the neutral site. The issue is that the model relies on KRACH, which is meant to rank teams based on their record, not on how good they actually are. (I assume it relies on KRACH like the CHN predictor does, but I don't know that for sure.) KRACH has no reason to (and does not) take into account random chance. It has no reason to (and does not) account for the fact that a team may be better or worse than its record. KRACH doesn't bother with this because records are all that matters for ranking teams based on past performance. But a predictive model needs to account for the many random and flukish results over a hockey season. One way for a predictive model to do this would be to consider statistics beyond record such as possession numbers. Another simpler way would be take the rankings of teams straight from KRACH, but rather than weighting the teams by KRACH for purposes of comparing them, instead use historical data to determine how often a team of KRACH ranking X beats a team of KRACH ranking Y.

[upprdeck]

if you were making a model of 2 teams that play the same shedule.

1 team plays 20 games and wins 10 and loses next 10
1 team plays 20 games and loses 10 and wins the next 10

some models would say the teams are equal and some would not.

the NCAA selection committee for some sports say it doesn't matter since they dropped the last x game criteria.

but if you were betting in Vegas I think would care..