jimdahl

Performance scoring (the one that goes into the record books) gives equal credit to each round. So, each game is worth double each game from the previous round. Ties are surprisingly uncommon (because UND never wins it all). In case of a tie, the glory is shared equally and both names are memorialized in the bracket thread (now and then we have prizes, but I haven't done so yet this year).

Can you send me a PM and I'll send you a new password in a reply.

As always, soft launch here to make sure I got it all working right. Let me know if you run into any problems. Fill out your 2014 NCAA Ice Hockey Bracket Who will join this illustrious list of winners? Will we get our first ever repeat? Will the Sioux win it all, resulting in a 100-way tie? 2013 FSSD/Brainerd Sioux 2012 mj3und 2011 tho0505 2009 Big A HG 2008 willtippen 2007 seanpc03 2006 teamsioux 2005 mynameiscuomo 2004 paul62/BigGreyAnt41/brew003/UP2SKI

Thanks. Another new conference glitch. I think I've got it.

Not sure why it may look different now or if there are just technical issues, but here's what I thought UND needed as of this morning: Basically, Lowell winning was required and then one of two other things.

My runs seem to agree with what others have found in the thread. UND is in with: UND win, UML win and either (UW win) or (Canisius win, Miami win, Ferris St win) Now that we're down to the end, time for a reminder that you should have a little less faith than usual in these predictions this year. The selection process changed this year, and while the big guys all agree on a new PWR implementation, there's a noticeably larger than usual chance that something comes out of the committee other than what we expect.

Now we just need Penn St and OSU to lose tomorrow. Help UND or not, I'm pretty sure I can't cheer for Wisconsin over Penn St or Minnesota over OSU. We'll just need to make it some other way

I'm finding that they make it in slightly more scenarios in which they win the first game than the second. It's not huge, though (like a 10% difference).

I wrote a little more about what UND needs here: A more in-depth look at the at-large chances for teams on the bubble

Yeah, UND advances in about 1% of the scenarios in which they lose then tie. You'd think I'd have learned to be more careful with my language. While my notes actually say "UND can't advance with two losses" I have occasionally misspoken and said that UND needs a win. To derive the 1%, as you can see from the table here, UND advances about .5% of the time they get 0 wins. Since there are only two zero win scenarios (lose then lose, or lose then tie), we can deduce that UND makes it about 1% of the time that they lose then tie.

There are people who are sure, but as you might imagine there are just reasons they can't say so too loudly. In terms of possibilities.... A (somewhat) plain English explanation and Raw data on PWR/tournament possibilities

Looks like UND leaves the weekend #13 with a win or #17 with a loss. Would be hard, but not impossible, to climb into an at large bid from #17 without playing anymore games.

First post Congratulations ladies!

Yep, falling a bit with the win should be no surprise. If you look at the chart I posted, UND stands a decent chance of falling even with two wins. We're still in much better shape than the near catastrophic outcome we would have seen with zero wins.

Yeah, the "win 2" curve includes both of those scenarios. If they were broken out independently, they'd look about as you expect -- the "win 2 of 2" would look pretty much like the left part of the existing curve, while the "win 2 of 3" would overlap a lot but fill in some of the gap between the "win 2" and "win 1". Back when I was just doing this for UND by hand I used to break those, but now that I've automated the whole thing for all teams I just haven't accounted for those best of threes yet, since it really only comes up one week a year.

A fork in the road for UND's NCAA tournament chances It couldn't be simpler -- win this weekend puts UND above the bubble and hoping not to fall, lose this weekend puts UND below the bubble hoping for some luck. It's possible to win and then drop out (an immediate loss in the next round plus some bad luck), and it's possible to get eliminated this weekend and make it in. For info on other teams, see Final regular season PWR forecast (collegehockeyranked)

Yep, glitch with the feed from the Herald that a handful of recruiting links from February came through as dated March 3. Because they're older, the Herald charges for access to them.

I remember -- in-state tuition from 92-96 I paid something like $2000-$2500. There was ample parking, you just had to walk (e.g. usually from the lot North of Memorial Stadium), except for my classes at CAS (now Odegard, apparently) where parking was plentiful.

In the long run, yes. I don't actually see it affecting the ranking today (though I'm not really well set up to do one offs like this, so its possible I messed up).

It didn't take much digging to find out that the teams just ahead of UND in the PWR really paved the path for UND last weekend: Cornell (got swept) Vermont (got swept) Duluth (got swept) Colgate (two ties) Providence (lost and tied) KRACH had put the combined odds of enough of that happening to let UND jump to #12 around 8%.

There is definitely still beer involved.

Yep, and most surprisingly the things that I would have claimed would have helped them the most (Denver and Maine getting swept) did not occur. Not much to say other than that the 8% chance events do occur sometimes (I suppose about 1 out of 12 times, right?) I'm curious whether this "over achieving" means the 12 spot is particularly precarious, and should have that info within a day or so. If I get a chance I might try to look into why UND ended up at the upper end of its likely outcomes this week, but it wasn't immediately obvious.

The NCAA announcement said this: There are two legitimate ways to interpret that description of the weightings: apply them to the win%, or apply them to all three components (the entire game). USCHO applied the weights to just the win% (based on comments they made on their forum, primarily because that's what basketball does), whereas CHN applied them to all three components. I decided I preferred the CHN implementation, so adopted it. I think it's a very good sign that USCHO has come to agree. I don't think they would make this change, and thus reveal they were wrong, unless they had pretty good evidence that the CHN implementation was correct. So, I think we can now have pretty good confidence that this PWR matches what the committee will do.

In PWR news, USCHO seems to have changed their PWR tables to match those on this site and CHN, so all three sources should now be identical (except for the occasional data differences, particularly while game results are coming in). Nice to have that controversy cleared up, so there's no confusion which are the right numbers.

Thanks -- fixed. It's those pesky shootout wins.