What happened to PWR this year?

[upprdeck]

The issue isnt how the league played. The question is why were RPIs as whole so much higher that at good one didnt get us in already.

Is it a function of parity
Is it a function of teams getting more quality win bonus

[Trotsky]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...

BearLover gets a lot of static here, and often deserves it, but this is dead solid perfect unless we beat UMD before they were decimated.  OTOH, if we did, UMD later got this and we got some splattered on us.

[upprdeck]

UMD coach pregame interviews said they were down several players when the came to play us.

[Trotsky]

UMD coach pregame interviews said they were down several players when the came to play us.

In that case BearLover is right on the mark. Now if we could just work on his manners...

[adamw]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...

BearLover gets a lot of static here, and often deserves it, but this is dead solid perfect unless we beat UMD before they were decimated.  OTOH, if we did, UMD later got this and we got some splattered on us.

Two of the players I was referring to, did play vs. Cornell -- Cole Spicer and Zach Stejskal. Dominic James did not - he had been hurt in their second game and was lost for the season.

[BearLover]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it's a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team's weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn't have won as many games! If our opponents didn't largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn't have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn't have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn't our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

[upprdeck]

We had 2 goal leads vs ASU 3 times and didnt hold them.
We had lead vs Umass
We had lead vs Clarkson

anyone of those probably is enough to get us in

Young team that didnt hold leads. Who knew.

We almost blew a 4 goal lead vs a Harvard team that cant score at all for some weird reason given they talent they have.

[Dafatone]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it's a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team's weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn't have won as many games! If our opponents didn't largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn't have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn't have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn't our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus.  RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS.  Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

[BearLover]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it's a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team's weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn't have won as many games! If our opponents didn't largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn't have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn't have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn't our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus.  RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS.  Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

Fair point. The QWB is usually so small that I discount it. You're right though that Omaha's is substantial. Unfortunately, CC's is even more substantial, and they're team we're closest to catching. If QWB didn't exist, would we catch them by losing in the ECAC final versus Quinnipiac? It sure looks like it: we would net .0049 RPI if QWB didn't exist, and if we lose ECAC final vs Quinnipiac we will be within .0049 RPI of CC. I think we would pass UMass as well, if they lose next round. So, to make this situation even more frustrating, the quality win bonus will cost us the NCAAs if we lose the ECAC final to Quinnipiac.

[Dafatone]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it's a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team's weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn't have won as many games! If our opponents didn't largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn't have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn't have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn't our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus.  RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS.  Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

Fair point. The QWB is usually so small that I discount it. You're right though that Omaha's is substantial. Unfortunately, CC's is even more substantial, and they're team we're closest to catching. If QWB didn't exist, would we catch them by losing in the ECAC final versus Quinnipiac? It sure looks like it: we would net .0049 RPI if QWB didn't exist, and if we lose ECAC final vs Quinnipiac we will be within .0049 RPI of CC. I think we would pass UMass as well, if they lose next round. So, to make this situation even more frustrating, the quality win bonus will cost us the NCAAs if we lose the ECAC final to Quinnipiac.

Then again, maybe the QWB is necessary because RPI alone doesn't adjust enough. For what it's worth, we tend to do better in RPI than KRACH.

[Pghas]

The issue isnt how the league played. The question is why were RPIs as whole so much higher that at good one didnt get us in already.

Is it a function of parity
Is it a function of teams getting more quality win bonus

You're correct, but since this is a down year in the ECAC, parity exists at the expense of the QWB.  If you play in a weaker overall division you have to win that division to qualify.  Cornell's strength of schedule is 30th in the country, mostly because the ECAC is so weak, and that has an impact as well.

[adamw]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it's a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team's weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn't have won as many games! If our opponents didn't largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn't have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn't have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn't our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

Just want to say, BearLover is 100% correct on this point. It's a point that's lost on so many people - not just fans, but coaches around the country. Everything thinks they can game the Pairwise -- or complain because X team has a soft schedule and thus is beating up on everyone. I've heard the complaints in both directions -- "our sked is soft, so it hurt us!" - "their sked is soft, so they gamed the Pairwise in their favor!!" ... Neither is true. There really is no way to game the system. For example, Arizona State people complained their Pairwise was hurt because of their soft schedule - and that this will be rectified next year in the NCHC. And um yeah, you also will lose a lot more and probably be right back at No. 20 again. i.e. Arizona State is not 20 because of their soft schedule. They are 20 because that's who they are.

[adamw]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it's a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team's weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn't have won as many games! If our opponents didn't largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn't have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn't have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn't our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus.  RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS.  Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

While true - Omaha's QWB is .0070 ... and teams like Cornell and UMass are .0030 ... If you took away .0040 from Omaha - it would still be in the same spot in the RPI it is now.

[Dafatone]

If UMD had a good year they maybe would have beaten us...same for everybody else who had a bad year. Are the people on this forum bemoaning our SOS being poor claiming that our opponents were better than their records suggest?

You're misinterpreting what people are saying. At the time, when we beat Duluth, we felt based on past performance, that this would be hugely beneficial for us. Alas, UMD sucked for the rest of the year and the value of those wins diminished with it. It feels like bad luck because our early good vibes got frittered away by someone else. Then we got to frittering because I guess it looked fun?

Well, sure, I get that. But it's a common trope for fans (of many teams) to blame their team's weak SOS for not making the NCAAs, without acknowledging that, if they played a harder schedule, they wouldn't have won as many games! If our opponents didn't largely suck this year, Cornell wouldn't have coasted to a bye, and it certainly wouldn't have gone 19-6-6 (which actually understates our record because we lost at least three games in 3x3 OT).

What cost us in the PWR this year wasn't our SOS. It was failing to protect leads versus ASU, blowing a lead versus Clarkson with under 30 seconds remaining, or any number of events we could point to.

There's one more factor to consider here. The quality win bonus.  RPI factors in SOS, opponents' SOS, and opponents' opponents' SOS.  Assuming it does so properly (big assumption!), then what you're talking about is already baked in. Good record versus decent schedule would be roughly equivalent to decent record versus strong schedule.

But the team with a strong schedule has more opportunities to snag bonus points through the quality win bonus. Like Omaha this year. Which doesn't seem fair if RPI accurately weighs opponent and opponent opponent strength in the first place (again, big assumption!).

While true - Omaha's QWB is .0070 ... and teams like Cornell and UMass are .0030 ... If you took away .0040 from Omaha - it would still be in the same spot in the RPI it is now.

Fair, but how is their record against top 20 teams, I ask, too lazy to look it up myself. I know they did really well against two of the top teams, but what about the rest. Meanwhile, we put up an extremely good record against top 20 teams. It feels vaguely unfair that a .500 record in 10 games against top teams is the same as a 1.000 record in 5 games against top teams.

I made those numbers up, and I'm not saying they're the same as Omaha and Cornell.

I'm fully on board that there's no good way to game it, and I'm not even saying it's unfair as is. Just sort of feeling my way through the numbers.

[adamw]

Fair, but how is their record against top 20 teams, I ask, too lazy to look it up myself. I know they did really well against two of the top teams, but what about the rest. Meanwhile, we put up an extremely good record against top 20 teams. It feels vaguely unfair that a .500 record in 10 games against top teams is the same as a 1.000 record in 5 games against top teams.

I made those numbers up, and I'm not saying they're the same as Omaha and Cornell.

I'm fully on board that there's no good way to game it, and I'm not even saying it's unfair as is. Just sort of feeling my way through the numbers.

Omaha - record vs.

top 10  4-4 (1 OTW)
top 20  10-9-3 (3 OTW, 1 OTL)

Cornell ...

top 10  1-1
top 20  4-1-2 (2 OTW)

It's possible I missed some.
https://www.collegehockeynews.com/schedules/team/Omaha/37