Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Matthew Webb

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
Men's hockey / Re: NCHA Hockey
« on: June 21, 2016, 12:14:29 pm »
The NCHA added another member today, as Trine University will join the league starting in 2017-18...

http://www.uscho.com/2016/06/14/new-trine-d-iii-mens-womens-teams-to-join-ncha-conferences/

Yeah we had it on our front page hours prior.

2
Men's hockey / Re: WIAC expansion
« on: March 18, 2016, 01:29:01 pm »
I know that the WIAC is pursuing two NCHA schools quite hard.

Better hope those schools don't improve too much, or the WIAC will yank the rug out from under them, too.

Sounds about right. :p

3
Men's hockey / Re: WIAC expansion
« on: March 15, 2016, 01:30:35 pm »
Has anyone else heard that two teams might be moving to the WIAC?

Sounds about right.

4
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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!

5
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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...

6
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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.

7
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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.

8
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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...

9
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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.

10
Women's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« on: March 04, 2016, 06:27:28 pm »
Pretty easy Bracketology again this week with the awful Elmira @ Adrian first round matchup.  The only discussion on the "other board" is the Norwich SID trying to convince us that Norwich will be in line for a Pool C bid if Amherst beats Middlebury.  I don't see it, as for them to be in competition, both Middlebury and Norwich would both lose again.  What do you think?

My gut tells me it's Middlebury since its higher in the regional rankings and, as you stated, both would have to suffer one loss to make this comparison come up. But...let's look at the numbers

MiddleburyNorwich
WIN.7800.7270
SOS.6070.5950
H2H 0-1 1-0
RNK.3750 (2-4-2).2500 (2-6-0)
COP.5000 (3-3-2).3333 (3-6-0)


Seems pretty straightforward. As Middlebury is ahead now obviously the committee isn't allowing H2H to override everything else. Another loss for each would be an even sum game, so I fail to see why that would (logically) change anything.

11
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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.

12
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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.

13
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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...

14
Men's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« 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.

15
Women's hockey / Re: 2016 Bracketology
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:19:48 pm »
Okay, here's what I'm getting at: are Adrian's games against Elmira, Plattsburgh (I spelled it right this time, Remy) and Stevenson baked in to the SOS that is listed on the spreadsheet?

Yes, all games against DIII teams count for SOS (and "in-division record") regardless of where the schools are located.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26