siouxforeverbaby Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Since Yale lost but there no was no movement in PWR, a few people have asked what it takes to pass Yale. Here's the short version: Flipping the comparison with Yale without taking RPI isn't currently possible. RPI is the only criterion currently in use in the comparison between UND and Yale. So, if UND didn't take RPI, it would need to win two other comparison criteria to get a 2-1 comparison win (remember that UND is currently losing 2 comparisons, Yale and Maine, to Yale's 0, so if UND just flipped one it would need the tie-breaker -- RPI). TUC is likely to come into play for Yale (it's current schedule and rankings have it meet exactly 10 TUCs, the minimum required number for the criterion to be used), but Yale has a commanding 1.000 record vs. TUCs compared to UND's .6750; Yale would pretty much have to lose all 4 for UND to take TUC, but it seems unlikely that Yale could lose those 4 while still beating UND in RPI. COP will come into play when UND plays CC, but Yale will then have a 1.000 record vs. TUCs. If UND sweeps CC, that will result in a tie for TUC, any other result will give the point to Yale. RPI is the shortest path to flipping the comparison, and probably necessary to keep the comparison through the end of the year (because of notes on TUC and COP above). What does it take to flip RPI? * A loss to Clarkson would likely result in an RPI around 0.5965, which would likely be enough for UND to take the RPI lead with a win over UNO. * A subsequent win over St. Lawrence would probably get dropped as a negative win, even with a loss to Clarkson; though a loss to St. Lawrence would also do the trick. Bottom-line: One more Yale loss, assuming UND keeps winning, is likely to be enough for UND to take the lead in PWR. The CC series is critical to UND's prospects of holding on to the comparison vs. Yale until the end, no less than a sweep will do. You know, I can catalog an online video, a book, or something like that just fine....but I read your posts about rpi and pwr and I am lost.....I think I will just take your word it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 You know, I can catalog an online video, a book, or something like that just fine....but I read your posts about rpi and pwr and I am lost.....I think I will just take your word it. That's my fault, PWR isn't actually that tricky, I just have a tough time deciding how much detail to go into. My post pretty much assumed that you know how to calculate PWR and that you're following along with the Yale row in this table. I could have instead included full explanations of how PWR works, but feel redundant doing that every time. However, that's why I wrote the bold bottom-line sentence -- the interesting takeaway is that the comparison could flip with a single loss by Yale next weekend, but that in the long run the Sioux need to sweep CC to hold onto the comparison vs. Yale. The rest was just background supporting evidence for those statements, only of interest to people who like calculating PWR on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianvf Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Thanks, as always, Jim! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforeverbaby Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 That's my fault, PWR isn't actually that tricky, I just have a tough time deciding how much detail to go into. My post pretty much assumed that you know how to calculate PWR and that you're following along with the Yale row in this table. I could have instead included full explanations of how PWR works, but feel redundant doing that every time. However, that's why I wrote the bold bottom-line sentence -- the interesting takeaway is that the comparison could flip with a single loss by Yale next weekend, but that in the long run the Sioux need to sweep CC to hold onto the comparison vs. Yale. The rest was just background supporting evidence for those statements, only of interest to people who like calculating PWR on their own. Haha! Or mine because I miss a word and then get myself lost. Thanks for helping me try to understand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxweet Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I see the tournament committee has tweeked the pairwise critera back to the old form for the TUC catagory and now it is any team with a .500 RPI or better is a TUC instead of just being in the top 25 of rpi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 I see the tournament committee has tweeked the pairwise critera back to the old form for the TUC catagory and now it is any team with a .500 RPI or better is a TUC instead of just being in the top 25 of rpi. Yeah, I just saw that on CHN. Committee Tweaks Pairwise Criteria for 2011 CHN has historically been very reliable on PWR calculations and seems to have great inside scoops with the committee, so I believe them. Here it is -- PWR Updated to include RPI >= .500 as TUCs The biggest immediate impact for UND is that adding RPI ranks 26-34 (see RPI table) as TUCs expands the TUC field enough to virtually guarantee that TUC becomes a comparison criterion for all the top teams (remember that the "minimum of 10 games vs. TUCs" rule was recently added as a patch for the reduced number of TUCs brought about by the previous change from RPI >.500 to top 25 in RPI). Overall, UND gains 5 games vs. TUCs, in which the Sioux went a helpful 4-0-1 (.800). Versus Maine, for example, Maine gained two games in which it went 0-1-1. As TUC comes into play vs Maine, remember that UND has the tie-breaker, RPI, and is likely to hold onto it. So, once TUC comes into play UND will overcome the 0-2 head-to-head and take the comparison. The change does also give Yale 4 more TUC games, enough to bring the TUC criterion into play. As much as could be hoped for given Yale's record, those additions bring in a loss (3-1-0 overall), bringing Yale to a .900 record so far. The Sioux, with their additions, are now at .7200. BUT, keep in mind that there's no way UND can take the COP comparison with Yale, so TUC vs. them doesn't really matter, we simply need RPI. Bottom line -- at least looking at the comparisons with the two teams currently above UND, adding more TUCs helps UND. The story may be different if UND underperforms this Spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I ran the numbers after including all games that were dropped due to a team defeating another team and having their R.P.I. go down. Yale is still in front of UND with an R.P.I. of .6057 to UND's .5921. I have an excel sheet that shows all 58 teams with these games included, but can't find a way to paste it on here and have it keep its formatting. If anybody knows of a way to paste an excel file on here let me know, or I can email it to somebody and they can put it on here for me. google doc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforeverbaby Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 google doc? and have everyone on siouxsports have access to it? Can you post google docs to other websites? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 and have everyone on siouxsports have access to it? Can you post google docs to other websites? Yeah, check out the "share" button in the upper right. I do it with the KRACH predicts the NCAA tournament each year, like this: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aij8vsohBIXlcERONlBGclVwaTNjNzdPVE1IMk1DZlE&hl=en Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runninwiththedogs Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Yeah, check out the "share" button in the upper right. I do it with the KRACH predicts the NCAA tournament each year, like this: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aij8vsohBIXlcERONlBGclVwaTNjNzdPVE1IMk1DZlE&hl=en Did like 500 other people just click on this at the same time as I did? Because it is slow as heck to scroll! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Yeah, I just saw that on CHN. Committee Tweaks Pairwise Criteria for 2011 CHN has historically been very reliable on PWR calculations and seems to have great inside scoops with the committee, so I believe them. Here it is -- PWR Updated to include RPI >= .500 as TUCs The biggest immediate impact for UND is that adding RPI ranks 26-34 (see RPI table) as TUCs expands the TUC field enough to virtually guarantee that TUC becomes a comparison criterion for all the top teams (remember that the "minimum of 10 games vs. TUCs" rule was recently added as a patch for the reduced number of TUCs brought about by the previous change from RPI >.500 to top 25 in RPI). Overall, UND gains 5 games vs. TUCs, in which the Sioux went a helpful 4-0-1 (.800). Versus Maine, for example, Maine gained two games in which it went 0-1-1. As TUC comes into play vs Maine, remember that UND has the tie-breaker, RPI, and is likely to hold onto it. So, once TUC comes into play UND will overcome the 0-2 head-to-head and take the comparison. The change does also give Yale 4 more TUC games, enough to bring the TUC criterion into play. As much as could be hoped for given Yale's record, those additions bring in a loss (3-1-0 overall), bringing Yale to a .900 record so far. The Sioux, with their additions, are now at .7200. BUT, keep in mind that there's no way UND can take the COP comparison with Yale, so TUC vs. them doesn't really matter, we simply need RPI. Bottom line -- at least looking at the comparisons with the two teams currently above UND, adding more TUCs helps UND. The story may be different if UND underperforms this Spring. So how does the committee just change the rules half way through a season? Why not wait till the next season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Did like 500 other people just click on this at the same time as I did? Because it is slow as heck to scroll! I'm running all over the World Wide Web looking for you and here you are......with the numbers! Shudda known..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 So how does the committee just change the rules half way through a season? Why not wait till the next season? It's not like they are changing the rules of the game. No team would've played a game any differently had they known this was going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 google doc? Thanks, I think its going to work. Here is the RPI Rankings as of tonight minus the games that are dropped due to a team defeating a team that causes their RPI to drop. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Atg-C_g2RbJCdE5YaFpTTkF3NlMzdEtDdVRJeXROemc&hl=ja#gid=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runninwiththedogs Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Thanks, I think its going to work. Here is the RPI Rankings as of tonight minus the games that are dropped due to a team defeating a team that causes their RPI to drop. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Atg-C_g2RbJCdE5YaFpTTkF3NlMzdEtDdVRJeXROemc&hl=ja#gid=0 Er... it didn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) It's not like they are changing the rules of the game. No team would've played a game any differently had they known this was going to happen. No but if they can change halfway through the season you could wonder who [is] out that the committee wants in? It shouldn't affect our team. If we fall so far in the remaining months that we are on the bubble we don't deserve to make the tournament. But I'd hate to be a team on the bubble that gets kicked out because of a mid season rule change? Edited January 19, 2011 by The Whistler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Er... it didn't work. It was in another language and it didn't work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 No but if they can change halfway through the season you could wonder who out that the committee wants in? It shouldn't affect our team. If we fall so far in the remaining months that we are on the bubble we don't deserve to make the tournament. But I'd hate to be a team on the bubble that gets kicked out because of a mid season rule change? I agree they moved the goal posts in the middle of the season... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 No but if they can change halfway through the season you could wonder who [is] out that the committee wants in? Here's my take: the Pairwise only matters on the day the tournament field is chosen and seeded. It has absolutely no bearing on any other day of the year. I suppose one could argue that expanding the TUCs might influence how a team schedules non-conference opponents, but aside from that the Pairwise "rules" have nothing to do with actually playing hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Er... it didn't work. Sorry, had to change the privacy settings. Should work now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runninwiththedogs Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Sorry, had to change the privacy settings. Should work now. Nope, still in Japanese/Chinese/Korean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Nope, still in Japanese/Chinese/Korean. I don't understand why it doesn't work. It works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Nope, still in Japanese/Chinese/Korean. There was an option for resetting the link to my new privacy settings, so here is my last try at it. Here's the new link. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Atg-C_g2RbJCdE5YaFpTTkF3NlMzdEtDdVRJeXROemc&hl=en&authkey=CJLopb4L If this doesn't work I give up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runninwiththedogs Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 There was an option for resetting the link to my new privacy settings, so here is my last try at it. Here's the new link. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Atg-C_g2RbJCdE5YaFpTTkF3NlMzdEtDdVRJeXROemc&hl=en&authkey=CJLopb4L If this doesn't work I give up. It works! Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 After learning about the TUC change, apparently the guys at USCHO pulled out the 2010 championship handbook and noticed that the 10 games vs. TUCs rule doesn't appear anywhere in the 2010 championship handbook (last year's), whereas the 2009 handbook still noted for TUC: "This category if used only if the two teams being compared have played a minimum of ten games versus “teams under consideration”." http://www.uscho.com/2011/01/19/committee-makes-another-change-to-ncaa-tournament-selection-criteria/ It never really mattered much, in that almost every team in serious contention played 10 vs TUCs (it was a weird patch put in place after one team from a lesser conference dominated the TUC comparisons because it had only played a few TUCs one year), and really doesn't matter anymore now that the definition of a TUC is so expanded. As I mentioned above... Versus Maine, for example, Maine gained two games in which it went 0-1-1. As TUC comes into play vs Maine, remember that UND has the tie-breaker, RPI, and is likely to hold onto it. So, once TUC comes into play UND will overcome the 0-2 head-to-head and take the comparison. If TUC is finally in play vs. Maine, UND does now take the comparison, so is only losing the comparison vs. Yale. PWR (updated w/both CHN and USCHO's patches) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.