From:                   Greenie <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                importance of Strength of Schedule vs PWR

> At 11:56 PM 03-28-01 -0600, John T. Whelan wrote:
> >It could be the fact that no member of the MAAC has been anywhere near
> >the top 25, let alone the top 12, in any rating system that adequately
> >addresses strength of schedule.
>
> Yes, let's make the decision by use of mathematical formula rather than by
> seeing who puts more pucks in the net.

You're doing KRACH and its proponents a disservice.  We're trying to
find out how to describe who puts more pucks in the net as accurately
as possible.  I think you'll agree that a team (a) that,
hypothetically, scored 25 wins this year against Bentley and Bemidji
wouldn't be comparable to a team (b) that scored 15 wins against the
teams in the Frozen Four, yet it takes a mathematical formula to
quantify this.  It takes a complicated mathematical formula when you
start trying to compare the performance of a team (c) against team (a)
to the performance of a team (d) against team (b).

> With strength of schedule, we're talking about a relative number that
> penalizes not only teams but entire leagues, and and not just the MAAC and
> CHA teams -- it's a common problem for the ECAC, too. Going by KRACH, the
> highest-ranked SOS for an ECAC team was Harvard at #32.

The important thing isn't the strength of schedule, it's what you do
with it.  A low strength of schedule in KRACH doesn't preclude a strong
finish rating-wise.  Losing to weak teams precludes a strong finish
rating-wise.  Consider that the #1 team in the country had a #20
schedule by my measure (geometric mean of opponent ratings) and a #16
by John's.

I'm also not quite sure what you want to do about it; as I intimated
above, strength of schedule -is- a concern when picking at-large
tournament bids, which theoretically are being parcelled out to the
most deserving teams.  The NCAA's own metrics attempt to include
strength of schedule in RPI, although it's somewhat flawed.

> Not one Hockey East team had an SOS better than 12th overall (BU) or lower
> than 26th (Lowell); the others fall in betweem with #13 BC, #14
> Northeastern, #15 Maine, #17 Providence, #19 UNH, and #20 UMass.
>
> I guess their SOS ratings all suffer because they're too busy beating up on
> each other.

Not likely.  They suffer, I think, because Hockey East plays more games
against the ECAC than the western conferences do, and because Hockey
East was weaker this year relative to the WCHA than they have been in
the past (that whole entire conference getting dragged down by SOS as
one thing that you alluded to with the ECAC).  It works both ways, as
the WCHA has huge strength of schedule numbers because they were busy
beating up on the other conferences when they weren't beating up on
each other.

> KRACH and all the others are fun to look at from time to time, but they
> serve no purpose when it comes to the tournament. There is only one rating
> system that matters, and that is the NCAA's PWR.

In this, there is no argument, except that I think KRACH is better
suited for inclusion in PWR than is RPI.

> In the PWR, the MAAC has three teams in the top 25: #13 Mercyhurst, #17
> Quinnipiac, and #18 Canisius. Considering that the NCAA chooses 12 teams
> for it's tournament, I think it's quite just that the MAAC had one
> representative there.

I think the record of the MAAC against non-conference foes makes this
argument a dubious one.  I don't dispute the auto-bid to the MAAC,
personally, but I certainly wouldn't choose this as the argument in
favor of it; in my mind there's no indication that the MAAC has earned
at-large inclusion.



--
 Craig Powers                   NU ChE class of '98
 [log in to unmask]       http://lynx.neu.edu/home/httpd/c/cpowers
 [log in to unmask]              http://www.hal-pc.org/~enigma

"Good..bad....I'm the guy with the gun." -- "Ash" in *Army of Darkness*