D3boards.com

D3hockey.com => Men's hockey => Topic started by: Matthew Webb on February 16, 2016, 11:19:22 pm

Title: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 16, 2016, 11:19:22 pm
Welp. Away we go.

Round 1. (http://d3hockey.com/bracketology/men/15-16/feb-16)
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 16, 2016, 11:30:15 pm

Great write up on the tourney selection process (as always).  I'm curious if you (or anyone else) has any insight as to why they would dowbgrade L25 to secondary criteria after just two years?

Dyce's answer is top-flight and explains the reasons why L25 shouldn't be a primary criterion, but no one ever thought that deeply about it. The change came about due to fears that too much emphasis was placed on something that was new and shiny and just not as important as the rest. There were significant fears two years ago that all the committees cared about was L25, and I think they sought to alleviate the chance it received disproportionate significance. So ultimately I think they got it right, albeit without correctly processing it in the manner Dyce did.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 16, 2016, 11:34:43 pm
Pardon my ignorance here (and that may take a few minutes), but is there a place where I can look at comparisons, or what the NCAA uses for strength of schedule? Or do I have to wait for Wednesday's rankings?

The NCAA calculates SOS in a manner that is a complete insult to the concept of mathematics, but nonetheless....give me a second here and I'll upload the actual data sheets to the site and link them here. I see the current ones are still up at ncaa.com, which is nice to see as for the past four years they'd update on Tuesday afternoon and the revert to 2011 after about 45 minutes. Nonetheless, I'll upload them just to be safe.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 16, 2016, 11:54:42 pm

Men's East (http://d3hockey.com/x/jmzmq)

Men's West (http://d3hockey.com/x/uem3p)
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: spwood on February 18, 2016, 08:17:17 am
I'm just stunned at how low Plattsburgh's SOS is compared to the other teams, most notably the ones in their own league.  Buffalo?  I assume that Utica, Elmira, and St. Norbert is that much better than Williams and Norwich?  I hope Plattsburgh can improve the teams in their own tourney going forward as well...

Thanks for the hard work, Matt.  It's definitely appreciated!
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: PSUChamps2001 on February 18, 2016, 11:05:25 pm
Just as I put somewhere else, Middlebury, Norwich, and Oswego (6 games) have a combined 36 loses and ties this year.

Here's another thing to ponder about SOS:

Who are the top of the SOS category?

ECAC West 6 of the Top 10

And look who the "other" SUNYAC teams have played....

Buff State NC Schedule (14th overall)
Nazareth (1)
Canton (wash 39)
Canton (wash 39)
St.Norbert (5)
St.Norbert (5)
Utica (6)
Elmira (4)
Johnson&Wales (57)
Daniel Webster (67)
Avg 24.8

Geneseo Schedule (13th overall)
Canton (wash 39)
Canton (wash 39)
Williams (wash 9)
Nazareth (1)
Hobart  (8)
Elmira (4)
Neumann (11)
Neumann (11)
Franklin Pierce (DII)
Avg 15.3

Plattsburgh NC Schedule
Canton (wash 39)
Middlebury (22)
Norwich (25)
Fitchburg (72)
Colby (15)
Norwich (25)
Canton (wash 39)
Middlebury (22)
Williams (9)
Avg 29.8

Just to break it down even more:
Average Conference SOS Rank
ecac west            6.166666667
nescac            22.8
ncha            25.54545455
wiac            35
sunyac            28.66666667
nehc            36
ecac ne            55.88888889
miac            60.33333333
mascac            72.42857143

6 to 22 is a pretty big jump. Some math genius can come up with a reason for it, but something tells me it has to do (somewhat) with playing each other 3 times in a season and not having that weak link in the league. Hobart is a pretty good team, but outside of them the league is (on the ice) average. Now I'm not saying MASCAC type average, BUT Im not sure Id consider another ECAC West team a contender

A better Cardinal Classic would have helped "some", but we've also now given up games to Skidmore and Castleton for Canton (which is improving IMO but still lower then the prior mentioned). Combine that with the down years of the "big 3" (Norwich, Midd and Oswego) and you have a hole in Plattsburgh's SOS, which at 23rd overall isn't really unimpressive, but its not the Top 10 like we're use to. 36 loses and ties among the Big 3 is just huge this year.



Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 18, 2016, 11:49:19 pm
6 to 22 is a pretty big jump. Some math genius can come up with a reason for it, but something tells me it has to do (somewhat) with playing each other 3 times in a season and not having that weak link in the league.

This is exactly it. Give me a few here and I'm going to try to figure out how to explain why in a relatively simple manner...
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 19, 2016, 12:42:11 am
The short version is that the best way to ramp up SOS is to have the entire league beat up on others in non-conference play and then roll up their SOS by playing a bunch of league games against teams with relatively good records. If 80% of the league is over .500 it's going to be a SOS boon for everyone in the league, especially since head-to-head results get dropped by NCAA when calculating SOS with the adjusted records. For example, as it pertains to Hobart's SOS this year, its three wins over Utica are dropped for the NCAA calculations so Utica's contribution to Hobart's SOS is 11-6-4 (.619) times three. Not a bad deal, and thus Hobart sits with a lofty .5390 SOS that has it glued into the Pool B driver's seat.

Now, this comes with a caveat. There's a magic spot where this will have the greatest effect. If you look at the numbers over time, I wager it's somewhere around a 14-16 game league schedule, and if I had to settle on one I'd guess 16 was optimum. Get up near 20 like the NCHA has and you slowly whittle away any advantage racked up in non-conference play, while if you play something like this eight game schedule the WIAC fiddled around with this year any non-conference success is never realized to its full potential.

And in men's DIII, this is historically where we have seen the highest SOS figures. It's come out of ECAC West, old NCHA, and at times the NESCAC, when they have had deep leagues that do very well in non-conference play and then play 14-18 game league schedules.

Back in the day I wrote a massive weekly column for USCHO that focused on the NCHA reducing its league schedule. I ran out an entire fictitious season based on the previous season's results but adjusted the schedule to match the reduced number of league games. SOS numbers crashed. Naturally, this was completely ignored by everyone, which is expected and all good :), but sure as hell, next thing you know the NCHA becomes a one-bid league while the MIAC gets two despite getting absolutely trashed by the NCHA in non-conference play those years.

A more recent comparison is what the WIAC did this year. Dropping to this eight-game schedule has led to significantly lower SOS values this year compared to last, and it very, very well could come back to bite it. Eau Claire and Stevens Point had big SOS values last year and they're now way down, and there's only one reason for it. The distribution of records in the WIAC is quite similar to those of the ECACW this year (might even be a tad better), but the meager league schedule meant the results of non-conference success were never really capitalized on.

The amazing thing is the same person/people that drove the reduced NCHA schedule that prompted that USCHO column from me did so because they thought it was going to jack SOS. Now the same thing has happened with the WIAC, due to the same person/people and they did it for the same reason thinking it'd make the WIAC a "three-bid league." Sure, and your sixth-grade math teacher would like a word with you. It's madness, and they're evidently incapable of learning from the previous lead balloon.

A time will come for me to uncork on this, but we'll see what Selection Sunday brings...

Hopefully that made sense. That's the layman's explanation. Wiitala could probably give a pretty hardcore statistical version...
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: spwood on February 19, 2016, 08:05:19 am

Hopefully that made sense. That's the layman's explanation. Wiitala could probably give a pretty hardcore statistical version...

For the love of God, it's way to early to unleash the mad scientist on us!!!!
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: PSUChamps2001 on February 19, 2016, 11:06:43 am
Thanks Webb lol That's what I've argued for years on the other site with the ECAC West and their SOS. Was never my intentions to call the league "weak", but 6 to 22.....it just raises a big question of the fairness of SOS. I do think their overall NC record has become more competitive, and as I put years ago, have stopped having the majority of their NC schedule against the lower 1/4 of the leagues bottom teams. Having said that:

(SOS RNK) / Average NC SOS RNK
Nazareth (1) / 22.8 (only 9 with 1 DII game)
Elmira (4) 25.7
Hobart (8) / 28.5
Utica (6) / 32.7
M'Ville (7) /34.8
Neumann (11) / 39.1

Average SOS RNK 6.2
Average NC SOS RNK 30.6

It still boggles my mind how a conference who's Average SOS RNK is 6.2 can have a non-conference RNK of 30.6. Granted I haven't gone through the other divisions yet, but I just might....
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: spwood on February 24, 2016, 08:50:38 am
Second Bracketology is up and hard to argue with the field or how the bracket fell.  One question though, the article compares three teams for two spots.  In the actual process, does it work like bouncy ball that only the top team left in each region is up for comparison?  (i.e. that Buffalo doesn't come to the table until Trinity is placed in the field)?
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 24, 2016, 10:05:29 am
Week 2 Bracketology (http://d3hockey.com/bracketology/men/15-16/feb-23)

East Region numbers (http://d3hockey.com/x/iq7ie)

West Region numbers (http://d3hockey.com/x/mehtw)

Note that the RNK records are off for some teams in the East as they are still based off of the Feb. 16 regional rankings.

Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 24, 2016, 10:07:48 am
Second Bracketology is up and hard to argue with the field or how the bracket fell.  One question though, the article compares three teams for two spots.  In the actual process, does it work like bouncy ball that only the top team left in each region is up for comparison?  (i.e. that Buffalo doesn't come to the table until Trinity is placed in the field)?

More than two teams are up at a time. I don't know how many but it's more than two. We speculated that St. Thomas' mysterious meteoric rise in 2012 was evidence of that, and it is indeed the case.

Back in the day where they'd go by straight pairwise comparisons it was done in the manner you refer to, but at some point that fell out of fashion. Probably because there are just two regions in hockey.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: PeterLangella on February 25, 2016, 12:46:35 pm
Have you done any playing around with how the numbers look after the upcoming games? Who can afford another loss? Who can't? Which league other than the NCHA has the best chance to get two teams in when another loss is added to team #2? My gut is telling me that if Geneseo or Buff St. loses to Platts in the SUNYAC final, they will leapfrog the NESCAC final loser.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 26, 2016, 02:28:52 am
Have you done any playing around with how the numbers look after the upcoming games? Who can afford another loss? Who can't? Which league other than the NCHA has the best chance to get two teams in when another loss is added to team #2? My gut is telling me that if Geneseo or Buff St. loses to Platts in the SUNYAC final, they will leapfrog the NESCAC final loser.

Yes. Sort of sure. Sort of sure. Probably the NESCAC. Possible.

Since I'm of the mind that a lot of this doesn't matter until the final weekend I try to not get too far ahead, but last spring I wrote a desktop app that I can use to calculate the expected impact of future games on a team's SOS. Now, it isn't perfect as it's obviously not possible to account for OOWP in advance, but it's good within a few thousandths so it's a solid guide. If we look at who is all left we see most everyone will be getting some sort of tick up in SOS, though some more than others. All four NCHA teams as well as Eau Claire and Stevens Point will see a greater jump than others due to the fact they are all playing twice this weekend.

As far as who can afford another loss, I only thing two, maybe three, are in really good shape right now. I think Adrian and St. Norbert are safe, especially St. Norbert. Haven't bothered looking into if neither win the NCHA but let's assume one of them does -- they're both going to be in the field. Hobart would be the third but if it loses in the semifinals and Point wins out the Statesmen could very well cough up the B. It's about the only way it happens, but it's possible. But let's play the odds here and say Hobart is pretty safe. Beyond that...tough to say. We've seen so many strange things happen in the regional rankings at late stages (hi, Trinity) that we can never be too sure. But anyway, the only teams I'd call locks right now are Adrian and St. Norbert, and I'd consider Hobart to be the next-closest.

Who can't afford another loss. Stevens Point. The Pointers are the linchpin to this entire thing. If they doink it away this weekend they should be finished per all practical analysis. In which case everyone in the country should send them a thank you card. Point is likely the difference between an 8-3 and 7-4 split, a loss solidifies Pool B but also brings a bolstered Eau Claire into the mix and who knows what happens from there. Beyond that, I'd look at the regional rankings. I'd wager Plattsburgh's situation is more precarious than some might suspect (especially should it lose in semis), but we can throw in Eau Claire, Marian, Trinity, Geneseo and Babson. I have no idea what to make of Buff State, but leaving it aside for the moment I suspect its win and in for most of the rest as none could be overly comfortable with their spot after loss.

I guess that's really just a long way of saying there are 2.5 teams right now that I think can definitely handle a loss. Williams is in a solid enough position that I'll leave it out of the absolutely has-to-win category. The Ephs also could be sitting on a trump card as they stole a win from Plattsburgh despite being outshot 100-4 or whatever it was.

As to your final point, considering the way the regional rankings are generated that wouldn't surprise me one bit. I wouldn't say I would expect it, but I'd say it wouldn't surprise me. Besides, isn't it becoming an annual tradition for Trinity get tanked? Or will this be Williams' turn?
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Bartman on February 28, 2016, 05:28:19 pm
Wow Tufts beats Williams. Can Williams still make the tourney if Geneseo beats Plattsburgh, or would that put 2 SUNYAC teams in and leave Williams out?  I would think Plattsburgh win keeps Williams in? Does Hobart have to beat Utica to stay in?Whatever happens, lots of good hockey next weekend.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: GPC1 on February 28, 2016, 05:56:13 pm
If the assumption is that Adrian will get the NCHA autibid, then that means they will have to beat St Norbert. If this occurs, wouldn't the committee have Adrian as the number one seed in the west? And how would that affect the pairings going forward?
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: FSU96 on February 28, 2016, 09:39:26 pm
I would think it wouldn't have any immediate effect on the brackets, due to the 500-mile rule. It may flip a semifinal pairing, though.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on February 29, 2016, 09:03:01 am
If the assumption is that Adrian will get the NCHA autibid, then that means they will have to beat St Norbert. If this occurs, wouldn't the committee have Adrian as the number one seed in the west? And how would that affect the pairings going forward?

There are instances where it could matter, but in this case it probably won't. Regardless of where Adrian is seeded, there are only going to be a couple or perhaps as few as one other team in the field that it can play. What it could change, however, is where that game is played, especially if Adrian has to play Hobart. If Stevens Point and Adrian are in I think a Point @ Adrian QF is quite likely regardless of whether Adrian is 1 or 2 in the West, as travel restrictions mean it'd have to be Adrian v SNC, Hobart or Point and Point is the lowest ranked of the three.

There's another option out there in the event of an 8/3 and that's MIAC/SNC v Adrian for a quarterfinal. It risks a quarterfinal flight so per the handbook it should be avoided but I'd consider the chance of it to be some percentage greater than zero.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: spwood on March 01, 2016, 03:40:12 pm

Men's East (http://d3hockey.com/x/jmzmq)

Men's West (http://d3hockey.com/x/uem3p)

We're going to need these updated for the current week!  The NCAA's links are still *&%$#@^ broken.... ;D

I'd love to see how Endicott got themselves ranked... it's not to help out anyone else in the region.  Their only game against a ranked team is a win over Babson.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 02, 2016, 02:54:25 am
We're going to need these updated for the current week!  The NCAA's links are still *&%$#@^ broken.... ;D

I'd love to see how Endicott got themselves ranked... it's not to help out anyone else in the region.  Their only game against a ranked team is a win over Babson.

{original post redacted}

I'll be back later today...
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: PeterLangella on March 03, 2016, 08:23:31 pm
Here's an interesting question: If Trinity, Point, and Geneseo all lose, does the NESCAC get three teams in?
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: ChesapeakeRon on March 03, 2016, 10:29:29 pm
Always enjoy the bracketology calculations.  Regarding the last two Pool C bids, I agree that the four teams being compared have fairly equivalent resumes.  However, the only way Geneseo or Babson will be evaluated is if they lose another game.  Even though they would lose to a highly ranked team, it will hurt them.  Williams is done because they lost to the 8th seed in their conference tournament.  Shouldn't that hurt them more?
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: PSUChamps2001 on March 03, 2016, 10:55:58 pm
In theory it should, but it doesn't in all aspects. Part of the DIII Selection Flaw....the only way it really "hurts" them is in SOS, as playing a lower win% team will drop yours some. It also will drop your Win%, but is no different there. Tufts really doesn't have any common opponents with any of the other Pool C teams (unless Trinity was to lose) in which both Trinity and Williams would end up being 2-1 vs Tufts, so its a wash.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 03, 2016, 11:56:52 pm
Here's an interesting question: If Trinity, Point, and Geneseo all lose, does the NESCAC get three teams in?

I thought about that earlier, and...I don't know. Technically. We have an idea what would happen (which might be different from what we'd project on Sunday) and we have a good reason for having this idea, but we're not even going there unless the events of this weekend force us to on Sunday :)

Put it this way: I know what I would bet on happening but am not sure whether it would match the conclusion we would come to when applying our own analysis.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 04, 2016, 12:01:47 am
Always enjoy the bracketology calculations.  Regarding the last two Pool C bids, I agree that the four teams being compared have fairly equivalent resumes.  However, the only way Geneseo or Babson will be evaluated is if they lose another game.  Even though they would lose to a highly ranked team, it will hurt them.  Williams is done because they lost to the 8th seed in their conference tournament.  Shouldn't that hurt them more?

You'd think so, and that's why we really don't like swinging a comparison on the RNK comparison. It makes no sense that a loss to a top-ranked team should hurt a team more than a loss to an unranked one, but that it can. Thus, on our end we try to focus more on what useful information RNK tells us and we tend to focus more on the wins part of it as opposed to taking it as an end-all-be-all number that's simply higher or lower than that of some other team.

What's better? Endicott being 1-0 in RNK with a win over Babson, or a fictional team that is 4-4 in RNK with some losses but also wins over, say, Plattsburgh, Trinity, Geneseo and UMass Boston? I know what I think, but there are certainly some who would look at the 1.000 v .500, go no further, and give Endicott the edge.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: spwood on March 06, 2016, 01:10:00 pm
Despite Plattsburgh's destruction last night (although Plattsburgh did outshoot the Knights), are they still seriously in the mix for Pool C?
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Bartman on March 06, 2016, 06:16:27 pm
Didn't Plattsburgh lose to Williams H2h? So, I would think the Pool C's are SNC, UWSP and Williams, but then I am not the expert here, and don't have the latest data. We will know tomorrow morning. It will be interesting to confirm the separation that Adrian and SNC have on the rest of the field when actual play starts for them in the tourney. Saw Hobart win Saturday and they look very strong but the rest of the ECACW was a bit down this year, so if they get a chance to play one of the big 2 western maulers, I hope they can represent the East well.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Bartman on March 06, 2016, 08:53:27 pm
OK, just reviewed the Bracket forecast and I think it makes total sense. Now let's see what the NCAA does.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: spwood on March 06, 2016, 09:35:18 pm
I've been following this process for a long time now and I still don't understand what is significant for SOS.  .538 is significant over .525?  I'm not saying I think Plattsburgh is getting in, I'm just looking for more information on what is significant in each of the criteria...
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 06, 2016, 11:02:56 pm
I've been following this process for a long time now and I still don't understand what is significant for SOS.  .538 is significant over .525?  I'm not saying I think Plattsburgh is getting in, I'm just looking for more information on what is significant in each of the criteria...

Open to interpretation. In reality that's not a very big gap, but it's the biggest difference of anything there and big enough to have made a difference historically. From my perspective I used "significant" in the sense that something has to separate the teams there and that's the most notable difference present.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 06, 2016, 11:17:13 pm
The turn of events in the East rankings were bad news for Plattsburgh. It's pretty clear that Williams is going to go before Platty, and from there it's nearly impossible to figure out how Platty would get in over Point. And that's assuming Point doesn't get in right after St. Norbert, but even if it does Platty is stuck back against Williams, and it's clear how the committee views that one.

Amazing how important one loss in which a team outshoots someone 46-10 or whatever it was can end up being so crucial...
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: elbojpb on March 07, 2016, 10:57:04 am
If indeed SOS was the tipping point between PSU and Williams ... Interestingly and coincidentally, Plattsburgh made a conscious decision a few years back to schedule much closer to home, which excluded some of the ECAC/W (Elmira) teams.


Conversely, the NESCAC has done exactly the opposite, and scheduled Home and Home series with the highest SOS league teams (ECAC/W), whereas a few years back, (and until Trinity got hosed) the NESCAC as a whole didn't have much to do with teams from outside their geographic area. (There are some interesting "elitist" threads on USCHO about this topic)


Emery may want to re-think his scheduling strategy.


P.S. Webb - I  hope I speak for the few of us that still follow D3 ... we really appreciate your time, effort and expertise.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: spwood on March 07, 2016, 11:44:02 am
If indeed SOS was the tipping point between PSU and Williams ... Interestingly and coincidentally, Plattsburgh made a conscious decision a few years back to schedule much closer to home, which excluded some of the ECAC/W (Elmira) teams.

Conversely, the NESCAC has done exactly the opposite, and scheduled Home and Home series with the highest SOS league teams (ECAC/W), whereas a few years back, (and until Trinity got hosed) the NESCAC as a whole didn't have much to do with teams from outside their geographic area. (There are some interesting "elitist" threads on USCHO about this topic)

Emery may want to re-think his scheduling strategy.

Some of this was forced on Plattsburgh with the addition of Morrisville and Canton to the schedule.  Also, the thought (and hope) was that Middlebury and Norwich (and probably up and coming Castleton as well) were strong enough opponents that SOS would still be strong.  Also, the travel restriction was probably not his doing alone... don't you think that nudge came from upstairs?

Quote
P.S. Webb - I  hope I speak for the few of us that still follow D3 ... we really appreciate your time, effort and expertise.

Without a doubt.... just wish you weren't so damn accurate this year!
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: elbojpb on March 07, 2016, 01:37:01 pm
If indeed SOS was the tipping point between PSU and Williams ... Interestingly and coincidentally, Plattsburgh made a conscious decision a few years back to schedule much closer to home, which excluded some of the ECAC/W (Elmira) teams.

Conversely, the NESCAC has done exactly the opposite, and scheduled Home and Home series with the highest SOS league teams (ECAC/W), whereas a few years back, (and until Trinity got hosed) the NESCAC as a whole didn't have much to do with teams from outside their geographic area. (There are some interesting "elitist" threads on USCHO about this topic)

Emery may want to re-think his scheduling strategy.

Some of this was forced on Plattsburgh with the addition of Morrisville and Canton to the schedule.  Also, the thought (and hope) was that Middlebury and Norwich (and probably up and coming Castleton as well) were strong enough opponents that SOS would still be strong.  Also, the travel restriction was probably not his doing alone... don't you think that nudge came from upstairs?

Quote
P.S. Webb - I  hope I speak for the few of us that still follow D3 ... we really appreciate your time, effort and expertise.

Without a doubt.... just wish you weren't so damn accurate this year!
Undoubtedly the scheduling constraints were "encouraged" from administration, but we all know that where there's a will, there's a way. And I've got to believe Emery has as much credibility with his administration as any coach in the SUNYAC ... i.e. we're talking only a few hundred extra dollars per trip.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: spwood on March 07, 2016, 02:09:30 pm
Undoubtedly the scheduling constraints were "encouraged" from administration, but we all know that where there's a will, there's a way. And I've got to believe Emery has as much credibility with his administration as any coach in the SUNYAC ... i.e. we're talking only a few hundred extra dollars per trip.

It's more than a few hundred dollars because none of their out of conference trips are overnight (except the Middlebury/Williams weekend every other year).  I think if Emery really had his choice, he'd play a Babson or a Hobart.  It seems any fundraising the team does is for charitable purposes so I'm not sure raising funds by the team itself is an option either.

As I contradict myself, the baseball and softball teams make long trips to Florida or South Carolina each year so who knows. 
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Bartman on March 07, 2016, 09:01:07 pm
Hobart with a first place vote in the poll this week(must be the first time, ever ,for the program) .Hope that doesn't jinx the Statesman.  Looks like the likely path to the Championship will be last years Champs, #2 and #1…hopefully the one voter that gave them a #1 is right. Looks like some great match ups in the tourney.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: llama on March 08, 2016, 02:23:55 pm
Nobody seems to be talking about this, but it sure looked like the NCAA "released" the March 6 rankings.  On Sunday night, if you went to the NCAA page that shows the rankings and clicked on the links for the East and West data sheets, the rankings for March 6 were right there.  Monday morning, there was then a data sheet for the East region that indicated it was "updated" on March 7 at 6am....althought I couldn't identify anything different from the March 6 data.  Given that this year the last few data tables they released only showed data for the ranked teams (in order of ranking)....these tables sure seemed to outline who was ranked where - which took most of the suspense out of the selection show.

I don't ever recall them releasing the final data? I can't be the only one who saw this, right?
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 08, 2016, 04:13:17 pm
Nobody seems to be talking about this, but it sure looked like the NCAA "released" the March 6 rankings.  On Sunday night, if you went to the NCAA page that shows the rankings and clicked on the links for the East and West data sheets, the rankings for March 6 were right there.  Monday morning, there was then a data sheet for the East region that indicated it was "updated" on March 7 at 6am....althought I couldn't identify anything different from the March 6 data.  Given that this year the last few data tables they released only showed data for the ranked teams (in order of ranking)....these tables sure seemed to outline who was ranked where - which took most of the suspense out of the selection show.

I don't ever recall them releasing the final data? I can't be the only one who saw this, right?

I had those sheets last Thursday and thought I was onto a major score. And then that happened. I can't prove it but I'd wager quite a bit that someone posted those by mistake. It was only the East one, too, though you could back out the West one from the East url.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 08, 2016, 04:17:45 pm
Hobart with a first place vote in the poll this week(must be the first time, ever ,for the program) .Hope that doesn't jinx the Statesman.  Looks like the likely path to the Championship will be last years Champs, #2 and #1…hopefully the one voter that gave them a #1 is right. Looks like some great match ups in the tourney.

Hobart also had one first vote in our January 25 and February 1 polls. Can't recall if it has gotten any votes in recent years. I'm going to be really excited to see whoever it is that comes out of that Hobart trio in Placid, but if it is indeed Hobart that semi will be way up there on my all-time most anticipated list (if SNC wins). Absolutely loved the way Hobart played there in '09. It was the best team there that weekend, by so much that I voted it #1 in final poll. They lost that semi but were still the best team. Granted my ballot was tossed out, I think, but I stand by that vote.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 08, 2016, 04:22:52 pm
P.S. Webb - I  hope I speak for the few of us that still follow D3 ... we really appreciate your time, effort and expertise.

Thanks to you and the handful of others who have expressed similar sentiments over the past week. I'm just glad someone is reading this stuff. These days it's really fun again and I'll keep doing it until it is no longer. On my end it really helps that I'm not the head guy anymore as I'd have ended up dying from lack of sleep or something but that means I'm all fresh and ready to go come late February these days, which sure beats what happened in 2013 when I had a headache for the final six weeks of the season. Ray deserves an enormous amount of credit for the work he puts in, too. He's probably the only guy in the country who could have taken it over and done as well as he has. Now if we could just get him to post here...
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: llama on March 08, 2016, 04:48:39 pm
Nobody seems to be talking about this, but it sure looked like the NCAA "released" the March 6 rankings.  On Sunday night, if you went to the NCAA page that shows the rankings and clicked on the links for the East and West data sheets, the rankings for March 6 were right there.  Monday morning, there was then a data sheet for the East region that indicated it was "updated" on March 7 at 6am....althought I couldn't identify anything different from the March 6 data.  Given that this year the last few data tables they released only showed data for the ranked teams (in order of ranking)....these tables sure seemed to outline who was ranked where - which took most of the suspense out of the selection show.

I don't ever recall them releasing the final data? I can't be the only one who saw this, right?

I had those sheets last Thursday and thought I was onto a major score. And then that happened. I can't prove it but I'd wager quite a bit that someone posted those by mistake. It was only the East one, too, though you could back out the West one from the East url.
I figured that didn't get by you!  ;D  I'm betting you're right and the sheets weren't supposed to have been posted.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: Matthew Webb on March 08, 2016, 05:05:22 pm
I figured that didn't get by you!  ;D  I'm betting you're right and the sheets weren't supposed to have been posted.

I was disappointed they got out there. The projected final rankings we came up with after Trinity won ended up being perfect. Would have looked like geniuses popping Geneseo to 2E and then been right about it!
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: llama on March 08, 2016, 05:12:57 pm
Hobart with a first place vote in the poll this week(must be the first time, ever ,for the program) .Hope that doesn't jinx the Statesman.  Looks like the likely path to the Championship will be last years Champs, #2 and #1…hopefully the one voter that gave them a #1 is right. Looks like some great match ups in the tourney.

Hobart also had one first vote in our January 25 and February 1 polls. Can't recall if it has gotten any votes in recent years. I'm going to be really excited to see whoever it is that comes out of that Hobart trio in Placid, but if it is indeed Hobart that semi will be way up there on my all-time most anticipated list (if SNC wins). Absolutely loved the way Hobart played there in '09. It was the best team there that weekend, by so much that I voted it #1 in final poll. They lost that semi but were still the best team. Granted my ballot was tossed out, I think, but I stand by that vote.

I watched that '09 Hobart team play several times that year - including their QF win against Amherst. I'm biased as a Hobart hockey alumn - but I agree they coulda/shoulda/woulda won it that year. That MacKinnon kid from Neumann was an absolute wall in that tourney.

I think the last (and only?) time Hobart and SNC squared off was in the 2006 semi...which SNC won in OT.  I'd love to see Hobart get back to the final four but first things first - getting past Trinity or UMB will not be easy.
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: PSUChamps2001 on March 08, 2016, 05:15:52 pm
It's been a fun year watching games at the Cooler for sure. Hobart is legit. Anyone who comes in thinking not will be walking away with their tails tucked between their legs. They've simply made other teams look silly at times (Geneseo, Brockport, Utica).  I know there is a group of us coming to Lake Placid if Hobart makes it.
-
I don't know if you saw the post on the "other" site Matt, but Dunning and I got talking about Norwich and their 17-8-2 record is envious of some programs. But then I brought up the fact that Norwich was 14-8-1 in the NCAA's eyes (thank you DII teams), which got me thinking. Would a .667 win% help how much more then the .630? But then I went one step more, how many of Plattsburgh opponents had their win% lowered due to playing DII teams and how much of a difference? Results? Enough and A LOT. It was only the KRACH SOS, but comparing the DIII and DII/DIII KRACH Plattsburgh gained 28.1 points. The average difference of the teams was just 7.57...that's almost 4 times the average. UWSP only went up 5.7 points. I don't have the date formula for the NCAA SOS (which is kind of bogus to begin with), but such a big difference makes me wonder if the NCAA SOS would have been different had they added the DII teams. Food for thought. Enough to overtake Williams, no. But UWSP? Hmm
Title: Re: 2016 Bracketology
Post by: llama on March 08, 2016, 05:16:07 pm
I figured that didn't get by you!  ;D  I'm betting you're right and the sheets weren't supposed to have been posted.

I was disappointed they got out there. The projected final rankings we came up with after Trinity won ended up being perfect. Would have looked like geniuses popping Geneseo to 2E and then been right about it!

Ha!  Don't sweat it, you guys look like geniuses regardless.  Really appreciate the website - thanks for all you guys do.