Author Topic: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.  (Read 5833 times)

Offline PeterLangella

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2017, 08:02:42 am »
Thanks for the SOS example. It's further proof that the whole "the committee can weight the criteria any way they see fit" thing is bogus. Pick a criteria (I honestly don't care what it is), publish it, and then plug the numbers in. I've never understood why that would be such a bad choice.

Offline Bartman

  • All-Conference
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Karma: +117/-35
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2017, 12:41:06 pm »
I'd wager Hobart is pretty safe regardless and will likely even pull Pool B with a win and a Point loss. Should still be fine with a loss. Utica is a far more interesting case. Obviously a win would be huge, but there's a lot going on in Pool C at the moment and I'll have to see what things look like once I walk through it all. TBD...

I'm modifying this: Hobart should be fine with a loss...unless Utica hops it in the final East rankings. That would change some things.
Thanks for all the bracket analysis....It will be a great game between Hobart and Utica on Saturday ...both teams will play the game as though it is an elimination game.... neither can count on getting in with a loss, nor would you want to play that way...
When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers.”
― Max McGee Green Bay Packers Super Bowl I
“I never graduated college, but I was only there for two terms – Truman’s and Eisenhower’s” – Alex Karras

Offline ITH radio

  • All-Region
  • *****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Karma: +71/-12
  • Join us each Sunday at 7:30 PM
    • View Profile
    • Season VI of ITH
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2017, 01:44:32 pm »
It seems funny to me that Hobart has been portrayed as the favorite in some places even though they are the lower seed and are 0-2 vs. the Pios this season....
Follow us on twitter @ITHuddLLe

Offline Lightningvinny

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2017, 03:05:42 pm »
  I love reading the Bracketology possibilities,,,, thank you for breaking it down,,,,, I know you do it as if the season ends now but a possible wrinkle could be the #1 West region team St Norbert beating Adrian Saturday, thus getting the auto bid,,,  Would that knock Adrian out completely or would they still have a decent chance at a Pool C birth?   On the other side, If Adrian wins conference title and conference tourney, would they swap with St Norbert for top West regional team.
     Joe

Offline llama

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2017, 03:41:07 pm »
As a Hobart fan, I hate to point this out but I believe the NCAA data this week had a typo. The data released showed Hobart with a RNK of .500 (2-2-2)....but when Geneseo dropped out of the rankings I believe this should have been updated to 1-2-2...or .400.

Hobart has played Babson twice (1-0-1), Trinity once (0-0-1) and Utica twice (0-2-0).

I was under the impression that the old "once ranked, always ranked" system was changed several years ago....correct?

 

Offline spwood

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +4/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2017, 05:52:51 pm »
As a Hobart fan, I hate to point this out but I believe the NCAA data this week had a typo. The data released showed Hobart with a RNK of .500 (2-2-2)....but when Geneseo dropped out of the rankings I believe this should have been updated to 1-2-2...or .400.

Hobart has played Babson twice (1-0-1), Trinity once (0-0-1) and Utica twice (0-2-0).

I was under the impression that the old "once ranked, always ranked" system was changed several years ago....correct?

 

I could be wrong, but I think they RNK uses last week's ranked teams until the final ranking.  I'm sure Mr. Webb can answer that question better.

Offline peddlerdarkside

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2017, 06:29:34 pm »
You are correct. It is creating RNK based on the previously released "ranked teams" from 2/21.

Offline peddlerdarkside

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2017, 06:38:45 pm »
Episode III

I hope people understand the simplified SOS point I'm trying to prove. The point isn't to wrangle about explaining OOWP while pointing out that if you really played the same team 25 times in a year you'd both have an SOS of zero.

The point is, simply, that gaps in SOS that have been historically deemed large often don't actually tell us anything meaningful about the quality of the teams in question.

Which puts me in a tough spot when we end up with something like this morning's final Pool C comparison. There always comes a point where I'm forced to guess or make assumptions, and when that time comes do I do what I think is "right" or do I hedge a bit and try to mimic the committee based on historical precedent, some other things I know, nudges we've received, etc? It's a tough call and it's something I've been weighing and haggling over for years. Which route actually represents the process better: my best interpretation thereof or my best interpretation of the committee's interpretation thereof? That is a very difficult question to answer. The former might be more true to the word, the latter more true to observed reality.

Regardless, the goal is to illustrate the process, and that's a goal I take seriously. The goal is not try to predict the bracket on a wing and a prayer so when it's right I can go home, take off my socks and smell them while thinking about how awesome I am. That sort of behavior might pass muster for some fanboys at RIT who have nothing better to do with their lives, but I prefer to live in the real world.

The great irony here is that a lot of the confusion exists thanks to former committee members themselves who bastardized the process for their own self-gain. Trying to beat down the (at the time warranted) belief that nonsense goes on takes time. A lot of time. The committee members over the past 4-5 years have done a great job of rectifying this and I like to think our shift to being illustrative as opposed to predictive has helped as well. While some discussions elsewhere continue to leave me bewildered, I do know that our columns get read more than ever and the complaints about them have gone from fairly routine/expected to almost zero.

That tells me that while a few people who like hearing themselves talk for the sake of talking seem unwilling (which is infinitely worse than incapable) to comprehend some basic things, that there a lot more people out there who are probably getting it. As usual the vocal minority does not represent all.

And that, is a wonderful thing.

I haven't nearly the experience of many who post on both forums. I have tried to learn, while I've been around, how the system works. Of all that I have read, Mr. Webb's Bracketology columns have been the most helpful. Thanks for your reflections.

Offline llama

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2017, 07:54:50 pm »
As a Hobart fan, I hate to point this out but I believe the NCAA data this week had a typo. The data released showed Hobart with a RNK of .500 (2-2-2)....but when Geneseo dropped out of the rankings I believe this should have been updated to 1-2-2...or .400.

Hobart has played Babson twice (1-0-1), Trinity once (0-0-1) and Utica twice (0-2-0).

I was under the impression that the old "once ranked, always ranked" system was changed several years ago....correct?

 

I could be wrong, but I think they RNK uses last week's ranked teams until the final ranking.  I'm sure Mr. Webb can answer that question better.

Ahh...that would make sense.  Guess I never caught that before - thanks.

Offline spwood

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +4/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2017, 08:11:05 pm »
With Plattsburgh completing the improbable SUNYAC title run, I have much more interest in the NCAA selections.  I'm waiting (not so patiently) for the final Bracketology.  Does Plattsburgh have any chance of hosting a first round game?

Offline gbpuckfan

  • All-Region
  • *****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Karma: +51/-14
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2017, 12:42:21 pm »
Good to see the #2 and #3 overall seeds protected from having to meet before Utica.
St. Norbert College Green Knights
NCAA D3 Hockey National Champions 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014
Midwest Conf. football champs: 85, 87, 88, 89, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 06, 07, 10, 12, 13, 15

Offline PeterLangella

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2017, 10:13:23 pm »
I'm very confused about the final rankings: http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/icehockey-men/d3/regional-ranking

Why is 5E at 3E and 6E at 4E?

Also, how the heck did Endicott fall so far? The numbers show them beating Oswego in the comparisons. Webb, any thoughts? From where I'm sitting, the Gulls got hosed out of a home game, and then they got matched against a higher seed than the rankings seem to call for.

Edit:
Oswego v. Endicott
WIN = E
SOS = E
RNK = Tie
H2H = N/A
COP = N/A
Overall win = E
L25 = E
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 06:00:02 am by PeterLangella »

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2017, 09:02:02 am »
I'm very confused about the final rankings: http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/icehockey-men/d3/regional-ranking

Why is 5E at 3E and 6E at 4E?

Also, how the heck did Endicott fall so far? The numbers show them beating Oswego in the comparisons. Webb, any thoughts? From where I'm sitting, the Gulls got hosed out of a home game, and then they got matched against a higher seed than the rankings seem to call for.

Edit:
Oswego v. Endicott
WIN = E
SOS = E
RNK = Tie
H2H = N/A
COP = N/A
Overall win = E
L25 = E


To the first, technically they aren't. Things can get shifted around on the national call. The official ranks are what is generated by the independent votes of all committee members, the tournament seeds come from the national committee and can tweak those rankings. So the way I have it is right per what the committee did, and I know this to be true, but I didn't want to go into a big explanation about it since it was somewhat irrelevant to the larger point. When you think about it, it makes sense as it helps prevent a regional committee from wrangling things in some ridiculous way, which is something that has occured in the past.

As far as Endicott goes, this happens every year in the East. Someone starts high and then fades, while others win one game in a conference final and skyrocket. I suspect it's only having one game against a ranked team so its RNK is getting completely discounted, along with the perception that Endicott is weaker because it's from a weaker league. Not contending that's right and it shouldn't have anything to do with it, but this was easy to see coming...heck, I'm half surprised it didn't end up behind Hamilton AND Plattsburgh.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 09:12:09 am by Matthew Webb »
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire

Offline PeterLangella

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #43 on: March 07, 2017, 09:16:53 am »
I get it. I really do. And I appreciate all of your work to explain everything. But I still feel the whole "the committee can weight the criteria any way they see fit" thing is bogus. Pick a criteria (I honestly don't care what it is), publish it, and then plug the numbers in. Endicott beats Oswego via the published criteria. That's a fact. The only reason Oswego is ranked above them -- and has a home game -- is because of subjective manhandling. I know conspiracy theories aren't popular around here, but could 3,000 ticket sales have anything to do with it?

Offline Matthew Webb

  • Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 Bracketology....it's here.
« Reply #44 on: March 07, 2017, 09:17:47 am »
As for the bracket itself, I legitimately don't believe anything resembling a credible complaint can be made about it. It's funny to see comments that I'm serving as some mouthpiece of the committee. Me. The same guy who spent nearly a decade trashing it for its self-serving bull****. Yeah, sure.

But hey, if you call it out when it's pulling ridiculous stunts you also must give the new guys who have come in over the past 4-5 years credit for doing it right. Which they did. Again.

An argument of "I like me some team X and thus don't like the bracketz" does nothing to change that, and that's about all any complaints I've seen can be boiled to.  And I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but this really is the best possible thing that could have been done and if people still want to ignore that and pop off because they choose not to want to learn anything, that's their right, but it's also their problem to deal with at this point as nothing is going to be said that convinces them otherwise.
"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire