From HOCKEY-L...
---John Whelan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Here's this week's "if the season ended today", which has just been
> uploaded to <http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw.cgi?pairwise.current>.
> I'm also posting it here because there is an ambiguity in the
> selection of the at-large bids which succictly illustrates a point
> which has been confusing me all season. The selection committee is
> supposed to award at-large bids by examining pairwise comparisons
> among teams "on the bubble". Removing regular season champions and
> MAAC teams from the picture, there are five teams who are not
> obviously in or out of the tournament: Michigan, Northern Michigan,
> Princeton, Notre Dame and Niagara. Niagara only win comparisons with
> two of the 14 other non-MAAC, non-auto-bid teams. However, those two
> teams are Michigan and Notre Dame, included in anyone's definition of
> "the bubble". So does Niagara, a team which loses comparisons to
> teams above and below the bubble, but wins some bubble comparisons,
> belong on the bubble themselves? If they are included, NMU and
> Princeton get the last two at-large bids; if not, it's Michigan and
> NMU.
>
> If the season ended today, 1999 March 15
>
> ) 1999, Joe Schlobotnik (archives)
>
> URL for this frameset:
> http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw.cgi?pairwise.990315.shtml
>
> To see how the final pairwise numbers might look, try the
conference
> tournament bracket or non-tables "what if" interface to the
> interactive "You Are The Committee" script.
>
> In just six days, the NCAA selection committee will seed the men's
> division I hockey tournament. With only 19 games left to be played,
> let's see how the Tournament selection procedure plays itself out
> pending those results. First of all, we know for certain four of
the
> teams who will be in the tournament: New Hampshire, Clarkson,
Michigan
> State and North Dakota each receive an automatic bid for winning
the
> regular season titles in their respective conferences. Up to four
more
> teams will receive automatic bids for winning their conference
> tournaments, and the remaining four to eight at large bids will be
> given out on the basis of pairwise comparisons among teams that
finish
> with Division I records at or above .500. As of now, those
comparisons
> look like this (with US College Hockey Online down at the moment, I
> have supplemented their Division I Composite Schedule by adding
this
> past weekend's results by hand):
> Pairwise Comparisons
> 1 North Dakota 21 .647 NHMeMSCCCkDUQnBCSLOSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 2 New Hampshire 20 .633 __ MeMSCCCkDUQnBCSLOSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 3 Maine 19 .616 ____ MSCCCkDUQnBCSLOSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 4 Mich State 18 .603 ______ CCCkDUQnBCSLOSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 5 CO College 17 .586 ________ CkDUQnBCSLOSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 6 Clarkson 16 .584 __________ DUQnBCSLOSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 7 Denver U 15 .558 ____________ QnBCSLOSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 8 Quinnipiac 13 .548 ______________ BC__OSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 9 Boston Coll 13 .581 ________________ SLOSMiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 10 St Lawrence 12 .555 ______________Qn__ OS__NMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 11 Ohio State 11 .534 ____________________ MiNMPnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 12 Michigan 9 .557 __________________SL__ NM__NtRPCgMkCt__PvHC
> 13 Northern Mich 9 .539 ________________________ PnNtRPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 14 Princeton 8 .534 ______________________Mi__ __RPCgMkCtNiPvHC
> 15 Notre Dame 6 .537 __________________________Pn RPCgMkCt__Pv__
> 16 RPI 6 .533 ______________________________ CgMkCtNiPvHC
> 17 Colgate 5 .530 ________________________________ MkCtNiPvHC
> 18 MSU-Mankato 4 .528 __________________________________ CtNiPvHC
> 19 Connecticut 3 .527 ____________________________________ NiPvHC
> 20 Niagara 3 .480 ______________________Mi____Nt________ __HC
> 21 Providence 2 .513 ______________________________________Ni HC
> 22 Holy Cross 1 .493 ____________________________Nt____________
>
>
> (In addition, Minnesota or St. Cloud State could also qualify for
the
> NCAAs by winning the WCHA Final Five.) Before charging ahead into
the
> awarding of at-large bids, we must note that the ratings percentage
> index upon which the pairwise comparisons are largely based, has a
> weakness which is very significant this year: it does not judge a
> teams' strength of schedule accurately when that team's opponents
have
> themselves played weak schedules. Since the six division I
members of
> the new MAAC conference play 20 games each against each other,
plus a
> few non-conference games against Division I independents, a team
like
> Quinnipiac can rack up a high winning percentage against weak
> competition without the weakness of their schedule being
reflected in
> the RPI. Anticipating this, the selection committee, as reported in
> the NCAA News, "noted that it reserves the right to evaluate each
team
> based on the relative strength of their respective conference." The
> best way to gauge that relative strength is via the conferences'
> performance against the four Division I independents:
> vs Indies vs Army vs Niagara vs AFA vs
Mankato
> Avg RPI PF-PA Pct PF-PA Pct PF-PA Pct PF-PA Pct
PF-PA Pct
> HE .525 14- 2 .875 12-0 1.000 0- 2 .000 2-0 1.000 0-
0 .---
> WCHA .504 32-10 .762 0-0 .--- 0- 0 .--- 10-0 1.000
22-10 .688
> CCHA .504 5- 5 .500 0-0 .--- 2- 4 .333 0-0 .--- 3-
1 .750
> ECAC .496 28-10 .737 10-0 1.000 10-10 .500 2-0 1.000 6-
0 1.000
> MAAC .453 8-22 .267 5-5 .500 0- 4 .000 3-5 .350 0-
8 .000
>
> MSU-Mankato's surprise victory over North Dakota in game one of the
> WCHA quintafinal series makes the Mavericks look a bit stronger,
but
> since no MAAC team actually beat them, it does little to change the
> conclusion that the MAAC has not reached competitive equity and
it is
> reasonable to assume that the committee will exclude Quinnipiac,
UConn
> and Holy Cross from consideration for at-large bids.
>
> Maine, Colorado College, Denver, and Boston College all win
> comparisons with all of the remaining teams, and are thus easy
choices
> for at-large bids. The awarding of the remaining bids is very
tricky,
> and could be done in different ways with at least two different
> results. Here are the teams still in contention for those bids:
> 1 St Lawrence 9 .555 OS__NMPnNtRPCgMkNiPv
> 2 Ohio State 9 .534 __ MiNMPnNtRPCgMkNiPv
> 3 Michigan 7 .557 SL__ NM__NtRPCgMk__Pv
> 4 Northern Mich 7 .539 ______ PnNtRPCgMkNiPv
>
> 5 Princeton 6 .534 ____Mi__ __RPCgMkNiPv
> 6 Notre Dame 5 .537 ________Pn RPCgMk__Pv
> 7 RPI 4 .533 ____________ CgMkNiPv
> 8 Colgate 3 .530 ______________ MkNiPv
> 9 MSU-Mankato 2 .528 ________________ NiPv
> 10 Niagara 2 .480 ____Mi____Nt______ __
> 11 Providence 1 .513 __________________Ni
>
> The committee is supposed to compare teams which are "on the
bubble"
> but the question is how to define that set of teams. However you
slice
> it, Princeton will be a bubble team, which means that SLU and OSU
will
> enter the tournament ahead of Michigan. Using the algorithm of the
> "automatic" button on my "You Are The Committee" script, which
removes
> teams from the top and/or bottom of the table and then recalculates
> the number of comparisons won, we would remove Providence, Mankato,
> Colgate, and RPI from contention. At each turn, the bottom team has
> won a comparison only with Niagara, while the Purple Eagles have
won
> comparisons with both Notre Dame and Michigan. This leaves us with
> 1 Northern Mich 3 .539 PnNi__Nt
> 2 Princeton 2 .534 __ NiMi__
>
> 3 Niagara 2 .480 ____ MiNt
> 4 Michigan 2 .557 NM____ Nt
> 5 Notre Dame 1 .537 __Pn____
>
> Notre Dame is dropped off the bottom of this bubble, and NMU and
> Princeton have won two comparisons (out of three) each with the
> remaining teams.
>
> If, on the other hand, the committee leaves out Niagara, who lose
> comparisons to four teams directly below our ultimate bubble, we
find
> ourselves deciding among the following:
> 1 Michigan (C) 2 .557 NMNt__
> 2 Northern Mich (C) 2 .539 __ NtPn
>
> 3 Notre Dame (C) 1 .537 ____ Pn
> 4 Princeton (E) 1 .534 Mi____
>
> which would put Michigan in the tournament instead of Princeton. We
> can't tell for sure what the committee would actually do, but if
I had
> to guess I'd say that they would not think of Niagara, who win
> comparisons only with two teams (albeit obvious bubble teams) as
> themselves on the bubble. So let's proceed assuming that Michigan
is
> in the tournament. That leaves us with seven Western teams and only
> five from the East, so we declare Northern Michigan, the
lowest-rated
> Western team, to be honorary Easterners:
> West East
> 1 North Dakota 5 .647 MSCCDUOSMi | 1 New Hampshire (H) 5 .633
MeCkBCSLNM
> 2 Mich State 4 .603 CCDUOSMi | 2 Maine (H) 4 .616
CkBCSLNM
> 3 CO College 3 .586 __ DUOSMi | 3 Clarkson (E) 3 .584 __
BCSLNM
> 4 Denver U 2 .558 ____ OSMi | 4 Boston Coll (H) 2 .581
____ SLNM
> 5 Ohio State 1 .534 ______ Mi | 5 St Lawrence (E) 1 .555
______ NM
> 6 Michigan 0 .557 ________ | 6 Northern Mich (C) 0 .539
________
>
> Both regions are nicely ranked by the pairwise comparisons. North
> Dakota and Michigan State are in line for the two Western byes,
with
> New Hampshire and Maine in the East, although if Clarkson wins the
> ECAC tournament, they will receive an automatic bye. We need to
swap
> the bottom two teams from each region, but in each case three of
the
> top four teams come from the same conference, which leads to
potential
> intraconference matchups in the second round. With the East
Regionals
> being held in Worcester, Massachusetts, it seems pretty safe that
> attendance considerations will lead the NCAA to keep BC there
anyway,
> and a possible intra-conference matchup in the West is inevitable
with
> seven Western teams in the tourney. Going strictly by the
numbers, we
> get the following teams in the regionals:
> West East
> 1 North Dakota (W) 1 .647 MS | 1 New Hampshire (H) 1 .633 Me
> 2 Mich State (C) 0 .603 | 2 Maine (H) 0 .616
>
> 3 CO College (W) 3 .586 DUSLNM | 3 Clarkson (E) 3 .584
BCOSMi
> 4 Denver U (W) 2 .558 SLNM | 4 Boston Coll (H) 2 .581
OSMi
> 5 St Lawrence (E) 1 .555 __ NM | 5 Ohio State (C) 1 .534 __
Mi
> 6 Northern Mich (C) 0 .539 ____ | 6 Michigan (C) 0 .557 ____
>
> The question here is whether attendance considerations would lead
to
> NMU or DU trading places with Michigan or OSU. DU is in the WCHA
along
> with host school Wisconsin, but NMU was recently in that league as
> well, and of course the other two CCHA schools in question are in
the
> Big Ten. Very tentatively, though, let's leave the regions as they
> are. There is one avoidable second-round CCHA matchup between MSU
and
> NMU, so we swap Northern Michigan and SLU, also swapping the two
> Colorado teams to preserve first-round pairings, and obtain
> 5W Northern Mich (C) 6E Michigan (C)
> 4W CO College (W) 3E Clarkson (E)
> 1W North Dakota (W) --+--2E Maine (H)
> |
> 2W Mich State (C) --+--1E New Hampshire (H)
> 3W Denver U (W) 4E Boston Coll (H)
> 6W St Lawrence (E) 5E Ohio State (C)
>
> The Gory Details
>
> You can also see a detailed accounting of all the pairwise
> comparisons.
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Last Modified: 1999 March 15
>
>
> Joe Schlobotnik / [log in to unmask]
>
> HTML 4.0 compliant Made with cascading style sheets
>
> HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
> [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
>
==
---
Deron Treadwell - [log in to unmask]
GO BLUE! BEAT BC!!
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|
