Final Weekend Playoff Possibilities

[jtwcornell91]

I'll let Bill Fenwick do his usual breakdown of everyone's prosepects, but I went through and worked out which teams will definitely win tiebreakers against which other teams, and which could go either way.  Here's what I got (this has been incorporated into the magic numbers at http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2004/ecac.cgi and http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2004/ecac.nutshell ; first team listed wins the tiebreaker):

Cg Bn
Cg Da
Cg Cr
Bn Cr
Da RP
Da Bn
Da Cr
Ya RP
Ha Ya
Ya Ck
Ha SL
Ya SL
Ck Pn
SL Ck
Un SL
Pn Un
# Undecided:
# Bn/RP
# Cr/RP
# RP/Ha
# Ha/Ck
# SL/Vt
# Ck/Un
# Ck/Vt
# Un/Vt
# Vt/Pn

Post Edited (02-22-04 11:08)

[Keith K \'93]

Well, Cornell possibilities are pretty simple.  We can finish 1st through 5th.  Without any help we can guarantee 3rd with two wins, since Brown and Dartmouth play on Saturday.

[Greenberg \'97]

From the "ain't gonna matter" department....

When using the "record against top 4" criteria between Cornell and RPI, do you include RPI in Cornell's record (currently 5th, but Cornell's in the top 4), or do you use a winning percentage based on the number of games played against true top 4 teams (i.e. 6 games for Cornell, 8 games for RPI).

When I calculated it on Friday night, I had Cornell winning the tiebreaker against RPI based on record against top 8 -- I had assumed that RPI would lose to Colgate, which made both teams 2-5-1 against top 4 teams.  But to calculate that, I included RPI in Cornell's "top 4 opponents."  Actually, at the time, there was a three-way tie for third.

Anyway, thanks for clearing it up.

[Keith K \'93]

Cornell can't be 4th and RPI 5th if they finish tied (well, at least not until the tie is broken).  Let's say they finish tied for 4th behind Dartmouth, Bornw and Colgate.  Then record vs. Top 4 is record vs. Colgate, Brown and Dartmouth.  If they finish tied for 3rd (say ahead of Dartmouth) then it's record against top 2.

The Top 4 tiebreaker with RPI can go either way.  If Dartmouth is 5th, RPI would win 2-1.  If Brown is 5th, Cornell wins 2-1.  If the tie is for 4th then it's a wash, 3-3 and we go to Top 8.  Cornell looks pretty good on that one, but I don't think it's certain yet (just by visual inspection).

[Dart~Ben]

Posted this on USCHO, but it fits here too (some of it has been updated). All tiebreakers are assumed to be only 2 teams. 3+ team tiebreakers I can't go through every single permutation.

(And FYI, Dartmouth plays Brown on Friday, not Saturday - I notice TBRW has it switched around)

Colgate has clinched a first round bye, and needs only a win to clinch the regular season title.

Brown needs a tie vs. Dartmouth OR a win vs. Vermont to clinch a first round bye. If they tie Vermont AND lose to Dartmouth and RPI ties them with a 4 point weekend, Brown falls to 5th if Clarkson winds up as the 8th seed. If SLU or Union winds up in 8th, then Brown wins the tiebreaker and takes 4th.

Dartmouth clinches a first round bye with a 2 point weekend (either a win or 2 ties), and can win the regular season title with 2 wins and Colgate losing twice.

Cornell clinches a first round bye by getting at least 2 points as well. If Cornell and RPI end up tied, I believe Cornell has the tiebreaker via record vs. Top 8.

Everyone else (RPI and Yale) needs help to get a first round bye.



Post Edited (02-22-04 17:40)

[Al DeFlorio]

Ben Flickinger wrote:

Everyone else (RPI and Yale) needs help to get a first round bye.

Post Edited (02-22-04 17:38)

Being five points or more behind four teams, Yale will need a lot of help.

[Dart~Ben]

Why did I think they were only 3 behind Dartmouth and Cornell? Oh well, then the race for the 4 byes is down to 5 teams, with only RPI needing help to get one.

[Greenberg \'97]

Keith K '93 wrote:

Cornell can't be 4th and RPI 5th if they finish tied (well, at least not until the tie is broken).  Let's say they finish tied for 4th behind Dartmouth, Bornw and Colgate.  Then record vs. Top 4 is record vs. Colgate, Brown and Dartmouth.  If they finish tied for 3rd (say ahead of Dartmouth) then it's record against top 2.

The Top 4 tiebreaker with RPI can go either way.  If Dartmouth is 5th, RPI would win 2-1.  If Brown is 5th, Cornell wins 2-1.  If the tie is for 4th then it's a wash, 3-3 and we go to Top 8.  Cornell looks pretty good on that one, but I don't think it's certain yet (just by visual inspection).

Oh yeah.  Duh.

But you did answer my question.

[Greg Berge]

[q]Cornell clinches a first round bye by getting at least 2 points as well.[/q]

Not correct for multiple ties.

Say Cornell gets 2 points -- that means they have 27.  Doesn't the following scenario deny them a bye?

+ RPI sweep (27)
+ Brown 1 point (27)
+ Dartmouth 2 points (27)

Then we get a 4-way tie for second, and I think Cornell is dead last in the h2h and finishes 5th.

Put Dartmouth in 2nd and assume a 3-way tie for third (Cornell, RPI, and Brown), and I think Cornell loses that h2h and finishes 5th.

Therefore, we need at least 3 points to clinch a bye (and with 3 we will clinch at least 3rd at the same time).



Post Edited (02-23-04 08:49)

[jtwcornell91]

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

[q]Cornell clinches a first round bye by getting at least 2 points as well.[/q]

Not correct for multiple ties.

Say Cornell gets 2 points -- that means they have 27.  Doesn't the following scenario deny them a bye?

+ RPI sweep (27)
+ Brown 1 point (27)
+ Dartmouth 2 points (27)

Then we get a 4-way tie for second, and I think Cornell is dead last in the h2h and finishes 5th.

That's not how the head-to-head tiebreaker works.  If you have a three-way tie with Brown and RPI, it goes like this:
Head-to-head points: Brown 5, RPI 4, Cornell 3; Brown wins tiebreaker
Now start over with a 2-team tiebreaker between Cornell and RPI.
Head-to-head points: 2 each
Points vs. Top 4: 3 each (assuming Dartmouth is in the top three and Cornell and RPI are tied for 4th)
Points vs. Top 8: depends whether SLU is in the top 8 or not.

It is possible for Cornell to take 2 points and not get a bye, but SLU needs to finish in the bottom four.

[Dart~Ben]

A) I said all my tiebreakers assumed 2 teams only. I don't have time to figure out 3/4 team ties and what combination leaves which teams on top.

B) The scenario where all 4 teams end up tied for 2nd is remote. For Brown to get one point and Dartmouth 2 means a lot of very wierd results need to happen all at the same time.

[Ben Doyle 03]

... but you never know ::nut::

[Chris 02]

Ben F.:  

You might want to try http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2004/ecac.cgi.shtml and fiddle with the standings there.



Post Edited (02-23-04 14:54)

[Greg Berge]

[q]If you have a three-way tie with Brown and RPI, it goes like this:
Head-to-head points: Brown 5, RPI 4, Cornell 3; Brown wins tiebreaker[/q]

Oops.  I knew that, I was just being dumb.  Or, rather, I was being rational and not remebering that the tie breaker is dumb.  Except in this case, where it benefits us.



Post Edited (02-23-04 15:33)

[tml5]

Why would dropping the bottom team make more logical sense than advancing the top team?

And why would dropping the bottom team *and* advancing the top team at the same time make more logical sense than reapplying?

I've had to work through tiebreaker systems for bizarre summer league tournament formats, and what I found was that the weird reapplication of tiebreaker rules that the ECAC uses usually produces the same effect, while resolving some other issues (mainly reducing the amount of whining coming from the peanut gallery, at least as far as summer league formats are concerned).

For example, suppose Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, and RPI are tied.  Let's further suppose that Cornell took 0 points from Brown and Dartmouth, and 3 points from RPI.  RPI took 1 each from Cornell and Brown, and 2 from Dartmouth.  Dartmouth took 2 from RPI, 1 from Brown, and 4 from Cornell.  Brown is the clear winner, losing just 1 point each from RPI and Dartmouth.

With me so far?  Tiebreaker yields:

Brown - 10 of 12 points
Dartmouth - 7 of 12 points
RPI - 5 of 12 points
Cornell - 3 of 12 points

Using this as the final standings puts Cornell at the bottom and Brown at the top.  It even resolves the RPI/Dartmouth split.  But here's the issue - Cornell and RPI finished with the same total number of points in the overall standings, and Cornell took 3 of 4 points from RPI.  Why is RPI now ahead of Cornell?

You can argue that applying tiebreakers straight down makes just as much logical sense as the re-application method that the ECAC uses, but I don't think that it's logical while the ECAC system is dumb.  It's far more elegant, and in most cases it's a simpler way to get the same results, but it's not necessarily a more logical, more fair, or even a better system.

I've just defended the ECAC tiebreakers.  ::uhoh::  I think maybe I should go lie down for a bit. . .



Post Edited (02-23-04 15:55)