mickjagger
UW men's hockey lost the Big 10 Conference Hockey Tournament Championship Saturday night 2-1 in double-overtime to Penn St.

However, after finishing the regular season in 2nd-place in the conference and the conference tourney, UW 's season is over.

The NCAA issued national tournament bids to regular-season champ, Minnesota and tournament champ Penn St (automatic bid) who finished 4th in the regular season. All fine & dandy. However, the 3rd and final Big 10 bid went to regular-season 3rd-place Ohio St, the team UW defeated in Friday's conference semi-finals. OSU finished the season with a 20-11-8 overall record. The Badgers finished 20-12-8, by virtue of playing one more game, the conference championship game. OSU & UW split 4 regular-season games.

What has Bucky done to piss off the NCAA gods ? [huh] [] [:@]
Wisconsin Sports Network Hall of Fame Inductee, 2012
Quote 0 0
hueby
That was a good game last night, aired on the B1G Network. I never thought I would see the day Penn State would field a team and be knocking off Minnesota and Wisconsin in hockey!

Minnesota...I need to let that sink in...

The Badgers have a good future ahead of them. A good freshman goalie from Michigan. I noticed certain players are carrying the Badgers while others who played more under Eaves have limited to " very limited" (putting it nicely) roles on the team.

Penn State has a really bright future too. Eight freshmen and handful of underclassmen who are key contributors. Especially that freshman goalie- he's probably the reason Bucky' s season is over.

I was checking the bios of these PSU players. A good number of them did play in the USHL. Many saw Penn State as an "up and coming" hockey program which I took as "We don't have to be compared to past power house teams/ deal with the pressure of tradition- we can blaze our own."

Other attractions were academics, the student/fan base (hungry to prove themselves), the facilities were mentioned...curious to what they have...and they all seem to love the coach.

Meanwhile I was checking on the WCHA Championship game that went into 2OT too- Michigan Tech and Bowling Green. BGU' s goalie is Chris Nell from Green Bay. It was an outstanding game I wish both teams could be in the NCAA tournament.

Anyways I too had to catch up on how the teams were selected. I liked the "Colorado College" rule as it rewards the regular season champion. But this article provides the "RPI" system:

http://www.uscho.com/faq/ncaa-selection-process/

The WCHA had no teams ranked in the Top 20 - I only checked the rankings the past couple weeks but this probably explains why only one team is in the playoffs (using the Conference Tournament winner getting the automatic bid).

Can't find the article but one WCHA coach called out the B1G how their schedule & the formula favors them. Apologize can't provide specifics but apparently there are flaws.


BTW Badgers women's hockey today- Championship. How about their freshman Abby Roque from the U.P.'s Sault Ste Marie? Didn't know her dad was a coach for Lake State until started reading the USCHO forums. See he had his critics.
Quote 0 0
db11
Eh, win some, lose some. The important thing here is that UW's hockey program appears to be trending towards relevance again, after the inexplicable jump off the cliff the final years of the Eaves Era took.
https://twitter.com/barwickipedia - Follow me. Because we all need a bit of sports snark in our lives.

"Doin' right ain't got no end."
-The Outlaw Josey Wales

"'Allegedly' is right, Mr. Polian. I have a hole in my ear drum, I'd never go for a swim, no matter how drunk me is."
-Pat McAfee
Quote 0 0
hueby
Back again

Here is another good explanation. The only thing is I wish there were some webpage you could follow along for simple people like me:

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/info/?d=pwcrpi#pwcsystem

That's all I knew last night. Wisconsin wins they get in. They lose Ohio State gets in...but I don't know why.

Meanwhile I'm asking "3 of 6 B1G teams are in, only 1 of the 10 WCHA teams are in?"

Michigan Tech's locker room material has been written already....
Quote 0 0
dawgstyle
They weren't snubbed. They were 18th in the pairwise rankings which all but guarantees no at large bid. USCHO didn't have them in either.
@2GuysFromWI

Harbaugh will have Urban Meyer retired from OSU by 2020.
Quote 0 0
dawgstyle
Also USCHO has WI has 20-15-1 and OSU at 21-11-6
@2GuysFromWI

Harbaugh will have Urban Meyer retired from OSU by 2020.
Quote 0 0
safetysqueezepleezzee11
mickjagger wrote:
UW men's hockey lost the Big 10 Conference Hockey Tournament Championship Saturday night 2-1 in double-overtime to Penn St.

However, after finishing the regular season in 2nd-place in the conference and the conference tourney, UW 's season is over.

The NCAA issued national tournament bids to regular-season champ, Minnesota and tournament champ Penn St (automatic bid) who finished 4th in the regular season. All fine & dandy. However, the 3rd and final Big 10 bid went to regular-season 3rd-place Ohio St, the team UW defeated in Friday's conference semi-finals. OSU finished the season with a 20-11-8 overall record. The Badgers finished 20-12-8, by virtue of playing one more game, the conference championship game. OSU & UW split 4 regular-season games.

What has Bucky done to piss off the NCAA gods ? [huh] [] [:@]


It was well known prior to and during the game that Wisconsin had to win to go the tourney. It had been talked about ad nauseam over and over and over. I don't know if it was the correct way to do it or not. I only really follow the Wisconsin men's and women's teams. Just don't know enough about the other teams. I don't see it as being anything the NCAA did AGAINST Wisconsin. Again, a tourney doesn't seem reward a team for what they did in a conference tourney and what they did in during the conference schedule (finished ahead of OHS in both!). May as well get used to it because using 'metrics' and polls seems to always be the preferred way to go. To hell with the eye test AGAIN. I know some will get all we we'd up about rankings, polls, metrics, etc. It has been pretty much proven using all these 'stats' is no more accurate than simply using the eye test.

As an aside - just read an article on Fox Sports where Chris Chase is basically crying that Nova had to play Wisconsin in the 2nd round. He goes over metrics and I find it hilarious. Most of us knew Wisconsin was under-seeded and Minny was over-seeded. Another instance where a simply eye test and common sense should have been used.
I don't feel sorry for Nova one bit. When I saw the seeding, I was happy to see Nova in Wisconsin's bracket. I saw them as the weakest #1. Really surprised they were ranked #1 overall and thru much of the season. The Big East was simply weak - perhaps as weak as the Big 10.

Nova's big wins out of conference were against Purdue and Notre Dame. Nova lost twice to Butler in their conference.
So much for using SOS. Nova's schedule was nearly as weak as Wisconsin's if you use the simply eye test.
Nova lost once to Marquette - Wisconsin beat Marquette. Wisconsin lost to Creighton - Nova beat Creighton.
Unless you honestly think the Big East was that great this year, Wisconsin and Nova actually played a fairly similar schedule this year. Nova did win their conference and their conference tourney, so they obviously deserved to be ranked - ranked #1 overall?? Just don't see it and didn't see them being ranked #1 for much of the season. Those ACC teams had to play each other. Same goes for those Pac 10 teams.
Quote 0 0
hueby
safetysqueezepleezzee11 wrote:
hueby wrote:
Ok I took a quick look at the big picture and more of this is making sense to me. Just wanted to break this all down for everyone. Still learning myself but here is what happened to Wisconsin:

There are 6 Conferences (comprised of 59 teams) , 1 Independent for 60 total teams.

One team from each conference gets an automatic bid. It appears the winner of every "end of season" Conference Tournament gets an automatic bid. The rest get "at large" bids.

The "at large" bids are based on that RPI formula. Basically they dig into the strength of the teams you defeat. There is also a little weight factor if your wins were at home or on the road. It's explained in a previous link.

Using USCHO (dawg mentioned this) here were the top 20 teams per the RPI formula:

1. Denver (NCHC)
2. UM-Duluth (NCHC)
3. Harvard (ECAC)
4. Minnesota (B1G)
5. Mass-Lowell (HEA)
6. West. MI Univ (NCHC)
7. Boston Univ (HEA)
8. Union (ECAC)
9. Penn State Univ (B1G)
10. North Dakota (NCHC)
11. Cornell (ECAC)
12. Air Force (AHC)
13. Providence (HEA)
14. Notre Dame (HEA)
15. Ohio State (B1G)
-------------------------------
16 thru 20 respectively were Boston College, Vermont, Wisconsin, Omaha, then St. Cloud State.

Up to this point (top 15 teams) every conference has at least 1 team represented except the WCHA who by the RPI would be Michigan Tech who is #27. (Then Minnesota State #28 and Bemidji State at #29).

This is where Michigan Tech - who won the WCHA tournament - qualifies over 11 other teams (including Wisconsin) who had a better RPI. MTU was low in RPI so they qualified as the #16 seed.

So 16 teams make the playoffs, your place in the standings will be your seed...however the committee make tweek the seeds for various reasons and you'll see one example.

Need to break here briefly...


Just curious as to when those 'RPI' rankings were done? Before or after the Big 10 tourney. I have no problem accepting that Wisconsin didn't get selected as it was pretty much set before the Big 10 championship game that Wisconsin had to win the game to get in. What I do find a bit odd is 'how' that was determined. All on RPI rankings?
No eye test involved? I guess if it is set to go one way and they did that - it is fine. It just doesn't seem to work all the variables in. When teams get into the teens in the RPI rankings, it gets very subjective IMHO.


I was wondering the same thing ha ha. Feel pretty confident it's all done before the conference's have their tournaments:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-men/

Just this morning I wanted to do a quick "look back" to see where OSU had the edge over Wisconsin.

It all came down to defeating quality opponents. Looking at Bucky, Penn State and Ohio State, they all had their share of soft opponents. Some of these teams were historically strong- like Michigan, Colorado College and Michigan State but these days are down.

I remember Michigan State losing to lower tier WCHA Lake Superior State- which really drops the value of those wins over Michigan State.

It appears where OSU nipped Wisconsin in the RPI rankings were wins over Denver and Air Force. Wisconsin played Denver this year but lost. This all just a quick look though, I don't have the time to really research it thoroughly.

Penn State looks to have had a really soft non-conference schedule.

Wisconsin did split with Minnesota late in the season. One area IMO that hurt Wisconsin was when they played Northern Michigan, they went 2-2 this year vs the Wildcats. Northern was terrible up to this point. But when NMU got a key player back, the goalie got hot and younger players developed they did a complete turnaround the 2nd half.

But the damage was already done so this didn't help Wisconsin in the quality opponent department.

I know the answer to all this is to win. Schedule and defeat as many quality opponents as possible in the regular season. The other to win that automatic bid in the playoffs.

Wish I could be more thorough! Again this was all a "quick look" at the schedules.

Some years back their was a forum leader on here named dplaya. He really knew the ins and outs and could answer our questions. I see he posts now and then on the USCHO forums. Think he's involved in coaching and scouting?

Maybe someone out there can help.
Quote 0 0
dawgstyle
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-men/grid/

That is all you need.

Wisconsin was 18th.

Remove all the auto bids, and the number of remaining teams get in in order. In this case, there was one auto bid outside the top 16. So the top 15 qualified. Because there was a 3 way tie, RPI was the tie breaker, which BC lost.

Pairwise is not subjective, it is objective. Using the "eye test" would be subjective.
@2GuysFromWI

Harbaugh will have Urban Meyer retired from OSU by 2020.
Quote 0 0
hueby
Ok I took a quick look at the big picture and more of this is making sense to me. Just wanted to break this all down for everyone. Still learning myself but here is what happened to Wisconsin:

There are 6 Conferences (comprised of 59 teams) , 1 Independent for 60 total teams.

One team from each conference gets an automatic bid. It appears the winner of every "end of season" Conference Tournament gets an automatic bid. The rest get "at large" bids.

The "at large" bids are based on that RPI formula. Basically they dig into the strength of the teams you defeat. There is also a little weight factor if your wins were at home or on the road. It's explained in a previous link.

Using USCHO (dawg mentioned this) here were the top 20 teams per the RPI formula:

1. Denver (NCHC)
2. UM-Duluth (NCHC)
3. Harvard (ECAC)
4. Minnesota (B1G)
5. Mass-Lowell (HEA)
6. West. MI Univ (NCHC)
7. Boston Univ (HEA)
8. Union (ECAC)
9. Penn State Univ (B1G)
10. North Dakota (NCHC)
11. Cornell (ECAC)
12. Air Force (AHC)
13. Providence (HEA)
14. Notre Dame (HEA)
15. Ohio State (B1G)
-------------------------------
16 thru 20 respectively were Boston College, Vermont, Wisconsin, Omaha, then St. Cloud State.

Up to this point (top 15 teams) every conference has at least 1 team represented except the WCHA who by the RPI would be Michigan Tech who is #27. (Then Minnesota State #28 and Bemidji State at #29).

This is where Michigan Tech - who won the WCHA tournament - qualifies over 11 other teams (including Wisconsin) who had a better RPI. MTU was low in RPI so they qualified as the #16 seed.

So 16 teams make the playoffs, your place in the standings will be your seed...however the committee make tweek the seeds for various reasons and you'll see one example.

Need to break here briefly...
Quote 0 0
buzzerbeater2
Wisconsin was 14th/15th in the Pairwise before their last few regular season games. Went 1-4 in their last 5 to drop them down. That was pretty much the death knell.
Mike McCarthy is challenging the ruling on the field that he has 3 timeouts remaining.
Charter member of the WSN 1000-post Culb.

* - Banned for life from any WSN "Hall of Fame."

Quote 0 0
hueby
Distracted watching this South Carolina- Duke game....

So they have the four predetermined Regional locations. As you know the intent is to disperse the top 4 seeds/ teams so in theory they meet in the Frozen Four.

#1 Denver goes to Midwest Regional hosted in Cincinnati, OH
#2 UMD goes to West Regional hosted in Fargo, ND
#3 Harvard goes to East Regional hosted in Providence, RI
#4 Minnesota ends up going to Northeast Regional hosted in Manchester, RH

Could Denver have gone to Fargo and UMD to Cincinnati? Not sure how that is determined. Unless it's trying to get neutral travel/ central location for each of the 4 teams in a Region?

So then simply it's your normal seeding:

Cincinnati (Midwest Regional March 25-26)
#1 Denver vs #16 MTU
#8 Union vs #9 PSU

Fargo (West Regional March 24-25)
#2 UMD vs #15 OSU
#7 BU vs #10 North Dakota

Providence (East Regional March 24-25)
#3 Harvard vs #14 Providence
#6 WMU vs #12 Air Force

Manchester (Northeast Regional March 25-26)
#4 Minnesota vs #13 Notre Dame
#5 Mass-Lowell vs #11 Cornell

Now the committee did switch two around- #14 Providence and #13 Notre Dame switched seeds. Providence was hosting Regionals. This is common.

Here are the number of teams who qualified out of each conference:

AHC- 1 of 11
B1G- 3 of 6
ECAC- 3 of 12
HEA- 4 of 12
NCHC- 4 of 8
WCHA- 1 of 10
Independent- 0 of 1

The winners of each Regional advance to the Frozen Four in Chicago April 6 at 6pm & 9:30pm then the Championship game April 8th at 8 pm. All times eastern.
Quote 0 0
safetysqueezepleezzee11
dawgstyle wrote:
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-men/grid/

That is all you need.

Wisconsin was 18th.

Remove all the auto bids, and the number of remaining teams get in in order. In this case, there was one auto bid outside the top 16. So the top 15 qualified. Because there was a 3 way tie, RPI was the tie breaker, which BC lost.

Pairwise is not subjective, it is objective. Using the "eye test" would be subjective.


I wouldn't have a problem with using polls/rankings IF they didn't give 6 teams auto births. That upsets the apple cart totally and I think they need to use some subjective analysis rather simply go by generated numbers that determine polls/rankings. Also need to factor every game(including tourney games) into the polls/rankings(and perhaps they did,that I don't know).

There is no 100% completely correct way to determine the teams. To try to nail it down to numbers/polls/rankings just strikes me as missing the forest for the trees............... at times, especially when you factor in that teams NOT ranked in the top 16 can qualify by winning an auto bid right at the end of the season.

How much better is the winner of the PennState-Wisconsin game, seeing how it went 2 OT/'s; as compared to a Big 10 team that didn't win the conference or the Big 10 tourney? Making it to that championship game and finishing 2nd in the Big 10 regular season is much tougher than doing NEITHER. Just another way of looking at it. When 2 teams are that close and one finishes ahead of the other in both tourney and conference - well, it just seems obvious the team that should qualify. I realize both sides of this equation can argue their side - neither is completely correct or wrong. Just depends how one sees things.
Quote 0 0
hueby
A side note, have many of you seen or heard about Penn State's hockey facility?

If you have 11 minutes here it is:

Quote 0 0
dawgstyle
safetysqueezepleezzee11 wrote:
dawgstyle wrote:
http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-men/grid/

That is all you need.

Wisconsin was 18th.

Remove all the auto bids, and the number of remaining teams get in in order. In this case, there was one auto bid outside the top 16. So the top 15 qualified. Because there was a 3 way tie, RPI was the tie breaker, which BC lost.

Pairwise is not subjective, it is objective. Using the "eye test" would be subjective.


I wouldn't have a problem with using polls/rankings IF they didn't give 6 teams auto births. That upsets the apple cart totally and I think they need to use some subjective analysis rather simply go by generated numbers that determine polls/rankings. Also need to factor every game(including tourney games) into the polls/rankings(and perhaps they did,that I don't know).

There is no 100% completely correct way to determine the teams. To try to nail it down to numbers/polls/rankings just strikes me as missing the forest for the trees............... at times, especially when you factor in that teams NOT ranked in the top 16 can qualify by winning an auto bid right at the end of the season.

How much better is the winner of the PennState-Wisconsin game, seeing how it went 2 OT/'s; as compared to a Big 10 team that didn't win the conference or the Big 10 tourney? Making it to that championship game and finishing 2nd in the Big 10 regular season is much tougher than doing NEITHER. Just another way of looking at it. When 2 teams are that close and one finishes ahead of the other in both tourney and conference - well, it just seems obvious the team that should qualify. I realize both sides of this equation can argue their side - neither is completely correct or wrong. Just depends how one sees things.


All games, including the tournament are included in the pairwise.

The problem with removing auto bids is that some conferences are so down from time to time that no one from that conference would qualify for the tournament due to the small size. Regardless if you think that is right or wrong, you are going to have some VERY pissed off members if no one from their group can get in.

Quote:

How much better is the winner of the PennState-Wisconsin game, seeing how it went 2 OT/'s; as compared to a Big 10 team that didn't win the conference or the Big 10 tourney?


The problem is that Penn State, Ohio State, and Minnesota didn't need to win the tournament to get in. They accomplished enough during the regular season to get into the tournament. Wisconsin did not, so they needed to win out to get in.

The entire season matters. Wisconsin did well in Big Ten play as well as the tournament, but struggled in non conference play, that was the difference. It doesn't seem obvious that that team should qualify for finishing 1 or 4 points ahead in the conference standings. Are you just going to ignore the firs 15+ games of the season?
@2GuysFromWI

Harbaugh will have Urban Meyer retired from OSU by 2020.
Quote 0 0
wissportsnet

Boys Basketball Alumni Round-up: February 21st, from @ColtonWilson23 #wisbb -- https://t.co/0K6CZzZWpf https://t.co/715tfpBGVS

wissportsnet

WSN15: Boys Basketball Top Teams #12 -- Two NCAA Division I players at one WIAA Division 4 school = state champions… https://t.co/1MThqzce9L

wissportsnet

Predicting winners of every state wrestling title plus a look By The Numbers, from @Nate_Woelfel -… https://t.co/HgU1bLP7d6

wissportsnet

Join the free Boys Basketball Playoff Pick 'Em Contest; Staff picks coming Tuesday #wisbb -- https://t.co/Y6yTA3OgP8 https://t.co/hA6Uyw9uje