Changes from today’s games, looks like…
The bulk of games are tonight, so there will plenty of PWR tables, simulations, blogs, and tweets about PWR implications of the outcomes. I’ll try to give you a preview of some of those in advance.
These claims are a little less certain than my usual articles because they involve a fair amount of human tweaking, tallying, and writing. So, I may have introduced some error, so I’ll use the words “appear to be” a lot.
Like the ECAC, Hockey East has quite a few teams near the bubble. However, the outcomes of their games tonight have far less impact on other teams’ scenarios than do the ECAC teams’.
Plus the effects on the playing Hockey East teams themselves, previously discussed:
The bulk of games are tonight, so there will plenty of PWR tables, simulations, blogs, and tweets about PWR implications of the outcomes. I’ll try to give you a preview of some of those in advance.
These claims are a little less certain than my usual articles because they involve a fair amount of human tweaking, tallying, and writing. So, I may have introduced some error, so I’ll use the words “appear to be” a lot.
I’m starting with the effects of ECAC outcomes because the large number of bubble teams in the ECAC makes those among the most interesting.
Plus the effects on the playing ECAC teams themselves, previously discussed:
There are two Big Ten games today, so while people will be poring over PWR tables and running simulations tonight, I’ll predict their headlines now:
That is pretty much it. The primary tournament effects appear to be that the teams that lose are eliminated, which you probably already knew. The possibilities of other teams advancing in certain scenarios will shift a few percentage points here and there, with the only significant shift being Minnesota’s chance of advancing with 1 win going from 35% as of now to 50-55% if Michigan wins or 16-18% if Wisconsin wins.
No teams other than those playing today seem to have any potential scenarios closed off as a result of today’s action.
Here’s an example: http://goo.gl/VukVIh
The keys are:
That set of conditions come together in only about 4% of scenarios to get Yale in.
Here’s an example: http://goo.gl/lkricG
The keys are:
That set of conditions come together in only about .8% of scenarios to keep Boston College out.
Here’s an example: http://goo.gl/fVsULS
The keys are:
That set of conditions come together in about 40% of the scenarios in which SCSU loses the semifinal but goes on to tie in the consolation game.
Here’s an example: http://goo.gl/n0L3on
The keys are:
That set of conditions come together in about .3% of scenarios to get 5 Hockey East teams in.
Here’s an example: http://goo.gl/JxVA6l
The keys are:
Those factors come together to limit Hockey East to two NCAA bids in only about 5% of scenarios.
Here’s an example: http://goo.gl/dp9e7S
The keys are:
Those factors come together to get 3 ECAC teams in the NCAAs in about 6% of scenarios, so it can also happen without Yale being one of the teams
Even though Boston University is Hockey East’s only current lock for the NCAA tournament, they’re sure to get at least two entrants. That suggests that the only scenarios that knock Boston College out involve at least one Hockey East team other than BU making it (Mass.-Lowell, Vermont, Providence, or New Hampshire).
Hockey East is actually most likely to send 3-4, with 5 still possible.
The Big Ten is only guaranteed to place its conference tournament champion in the NCAA tournament. But, if Minnesota does well but fails to win the championship, the Big Ten could end up sending both the Gophers and the champ.
The NCHC is guaranteed to send five teams (Denver, Miami, Minnesota-Duluth, North Dakota, and Omaha), but is most likely to send a sixth (adding St. Cloud St).
The ECAC is only guaranteed to send its conference tournament champion, though its likely to send a second from Colgate, Harvard, Quinnipiac, or Yale. Harvard, Colgate, and Yale are all reasonably long shots, so not all can make it resulting in a maximum of three participants from the ECAC.
Atlantic Hockey will only send its tournament champion to the NCAA tournament.
The WCHA is guaranteed to send two teams, Michigan Tech and Minnesota State. They’re quite likely to send three and possibly even four from those two plus Bowling Green and Ferris State.
The big data dump is in the article below, so here’s a less numeric list of who’s still in position to make the NCAA hockey tournament.
#1 North Dakota
#2 Minnesota State-Mankato
#3 Denver
#4 Boston University
#5 Michigan Tech
#6 Minnesota Duluth
#7 Miami
#8 Nebraska-Omaha
#9 Boston College (idle, >99% of scenarios)
#10 Quinnipiac (70% if they lose, 95% if they win)
#11 St Cloud St (20% if they lose, >99% if they win)
#12 Bowling Green (50% if they lose, 95% if they win)
#13 Minnesota (5% if they lose, 35% if they win)
#14 Providence (idle, 75% of scenarios)
#15 Harvard (<1% if they lose, 10% if they win)
#16 Colgate (out if they lose?, 5% if they win)
#17 Mass.-Lowell (out if they lose, 3% if they win)
#18 Yale (idle, 4% of scenarios)
#19 Vermont (out of if they lose, 10% if they win)
#20 St. Lawrence
#21 Michigan
#22 Robert Morris
#27 New Hampshire
#30 Penn State
#31 Michigan State
#34 Ferris State
#37 Ohio State
#38 Canisius
#39 Mercyhurst
#40 RIT
#55 Wisconsin
There are 16 slots. 6 go to the winners of the conference tournaments. The next 10 are given to the top PWR teams that haven’t yet been selected (by winning their conference tournament).
Those teams that are still playing can make it by winning their conference tournament and getting the autobid.
If they fall short of that goal, the bubble teams want:
The winner of Atlantic Hockey will be a team that would not get an at-large bid, taking away one spot. That leaves at most 15 spots for top PWR teams.
The winner of the NCHC will be a team that would get an at-large bid, guaranteeing an extra PWR spot. At least the top 11 PWR teams will make the tournament.
Here’s who else bubble teams should cheer for to win their tournaments to maximize spots:
Big Ten – Minnesota
WCHA – Michigan Tech, Mankato, Bowling Green
Hockey East – Boston University (maybe Vermont, Mass.-Lowell)
ECAC – Quinnipiac (maybe Harvard, Colgate, St. Lawrence)
I ran all 3,145,728 remaining possible outcomes, and here’s a first pass on the percentage of remaining scenarios each team makes the NCAA tournament:
| Team | PWR Possibilities | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | By number of wins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UND | #1 76.7% #2 23.3% Tournament invites: 100.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mankato | #1 23.3% #2 76.7% Tournament invites: 100.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Denver | #3 43.6% #4 21.2% #5 12.3% #6 5.1% #7 17.8% Tournament invites: 100.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Boston University | #3 20.2% #4 27.3% #5 23.6% #6 21.7% #7 7.2% Tournament invites: 100.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MTech | #3 15.8% #4 16.1% #5 15.8% #6 31.0% #7 21.4% Tournament invites: 100.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UMD | #3 3.6% #4 22.3% #5 36.3% #6 27.9% #7 10.0% Tournament invites: 100.0% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Miami | #3 16.9% #4 13.1% #5 12.0% #6 14.3% #7 41.8% #8 1.7% #9 0.2% #10 0.0% Tournament invites: 100.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nebraska-Omaha | #8 53.0% #9 36.2% #10 9.7% #11 1.1% Tournament invites: 100.0% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Boston College | #8 0.0% #9 8.1% #10 24.9% #11 31.8% #12 23.7% #13 9.5% #14 1.8% #15 0.1% Tournament invites: 99.2% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quinnipiac | #7 0.1% #8 0.3% #9 16.1% #10 12.6% #11 11.1% #12 14.8% #13 20.1% #14 16.2% #15 7.1% #16 1.6% #17 0.1% Tournament invites: 82.5% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SCSU | #7 1.8% #8 21.0% #9 7.4% #10 10.1% #11 13.0% #12 10.4% #13 6.7% #14 6.2% #15 6.2% #16 5.0% #17 5.2% #18 6.0% #19 0.9% #20 0.1% #21 0.0% Tournament invites: 73.1% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bowling Green | #7 0.0% #8 20.9% #9 6.2% #10 5.3% #11 8.7% #12 11.0% #13 13.2% #14 15.7% #15 12.1% #16 5.5% #17 1.3% Tournament invites: 72.6% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UMN | #8 1.0% #9 9.0% #10 10.8% #11 4.6% #12 2.9% #13 5.0% #14 12.9% #15 21.4% #16 17.6% #17 10.8% #18 4.2% Tournament invites: 36.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Providence | #10 1.4% #11 8.7% #12 21.6% #13 30.0% #14 24.7% #15 11.3% #16 2.3% #17 0.0% Tournament invites: 74.6% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Harvard | #8 2.1% #9 9.1% #10 8.9% #11 3.8% #12 1.1% #13 1.4% #14 5.1% #15 10.7% #16 16.7% #17 19.2% #18 17.7% #19 3.9% #20 0.3% #21 0.0% Tournament invites: 28.1% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Colgate | #9 5.1% #10 10.1% #11 6.9% #12 2.2% #13 0.6% #14 1.4% #15 5.6% #16 7.9% #17 7.6% #18 27.8% #19 15.2% #20 8.5% #21 1.0% Tournament invites: 26.3% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mass.-Lowell | #9 1.9% #10 2.6% #11 5.8% #12 7.1% #13 5.1% #14 2.7% #15 5.4% #16 4.2% #17 5.6% #18 10.2% #19 32.6% #20 15.2% #21 1.5% Tournament invites: 25.7% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Yale | #11 0.0% #12 0.4% #13 1.2% #14 3.5% #15 9.2% #16 22.5% #17 37.0% #18 19.8% #19 4.7% #20 1.4% #21 0.2% Tournament invites: 4.1% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Vermont | #9 0.6% #10 3.7% #11 4.5% #12 4.9% #13 7.1% #14 9.7% #15 8.5% #16 7.0% #17 6.1% #18 5.6% #19 25.1% #20 15.3% #21 1.8% #22 0.2% #23 0.0% Tournament invites: 27.7% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| St. Lawrence | #13 0.0% #14 0.2% #15 2.0% #16 8.9% #17 5.9% #18 6.4% #19 2.0% #20 41.9% #21 23.8% #22 7.3% #23 1.6% #24 0.1% Tournament invites: 25.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Michigan | #14 0.0% #15 0.2% #16 0.8% #17 1.2% #18 2.3% #19 9.8% #20 5.4% #21 30.8% #22 25.7% #23 12.2% #24 7.2% #25 3.5% #26 0.8% #27 0.0% Tournament invites: 12.5% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Robert Morris | #19 5.5% #20 8.3% #21 19.5% #22 18.0% #23 15.7% #24 16.8% #25 11.8% #26 3.7% #27 0.6% #28 0.0% Tournament invites: 25.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alaska | #20 0.1% #21 3.2% #22 15.0% #23 31.6% #24 32.9% #25 15.0% #26 2.2% #27 0.1% Tournament invites: 0.0% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Northeastern | #19 0.0% #20 3.1% #21 7.1% #22 20.0% #23 24.2% #24 18.3% #25 14.2% #26 9.2% #27 3.7% #28 0.1% Tournament invites: 0.0% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dartmouth | #21 0.1% #22 2.1% #23 9.6% #24 18.0% #25 39.5% #26 23.3% #27 7.2% #28 0.2% Tournament invites: 0.0% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Western Michigan | #20 0.0% #21 0.0% #22 0.5% #23 2.3% #24 6.2% #25 14.4% #26 53.4% #27 21.4% #28 1.7% Tournament invites: 0.0% |
n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New Hampshire | #19 0.1% #20 0.4% #21 10.8% #22 11.1% #23 2.6% #24 0.0% #25 0.0% #26 2.8% #27 19.3% #28 10.3% #29 26.7% #30 15.3% #31 0.6% #32 0.0% Tournament invites: 25.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Penn State | #22 0.2% #23 0.3% #24 0.5% #25 1.6% #26 4.4% #27 4.0% #28 5.2% #29 6.4% #30 13.2% #31 15.6% #32 21.7% #33 22.9% #34 4.1% Tournament invites: 12.5% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Michigan State | #26 0.2% #27 7.9% #28 12.3% #29 5.8% #30 6.6% #31 14.8% #32 18.5% #33 22.2% #34 11.6% Tournament invites: 25.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ferris State | #28 0.7% #29 14.0% #30 9.2% #31 3.9% #32 8.3% #33 9.8% #34 48.3% #35 5.8% Tournament invites: 25.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ohio State | #33 0.0% #34 5.8% #35 6.7% #36 22.9% #37 23.4% #38 41.1% #39 0.1% Tournament invites: 12.5% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Canisius | #35 0.1% #36 16.4% #37 14.8% #38 18.8% #39 37.5% #40 12.4% Tournament invites: 25.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mercyhurst | #36 5.8% #37 10.4% #38 8.8% #39 53.2% #40 20.4% #41 1.4% Tournament invites: 25.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RIT | #37 12.5% #38 12.5% #39 9.1% #40 14.6% #41 1.2% #42 0.0% #43 5.7% #44 44.3% Tournament invites: 25.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UW | #53 6.7% #54 5.9% #55 87.4% Tournament invites: 12.5% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you haven’t read them yet, you might want to start with my articles from earlier this week, Who’s a lock for the NCAA tournament? and Who might fall out of contention for the NCAA tournament? Having visited those two extremes, this article goes into a little more depth on the teams in between.
Because we get lots of new readers during the tournament season, here’s some background information that my posts generally assume you know:
Because of that structure, we think of teams that are going to finish in the 12-15 range as “on the bubble”. Teams’ prospects are dependent not only on their final ranking, but also on how many lower ranked teams wins conference tournaments. Bubble teams’ chances for an at-large bid increase as slots are freed up by more conference tournaments being won by teams that would have made the NCAA tournament at-large.
#9 Providence would be on the bubble if eliminated from their conference tournament this weekend. They’d then need a bit of luck to make the NCAA tournament, needing to either climb a bit while idle and/or have a lot of conference tournaments won by top ranked teams.
If Providence wins this weekend, they’ll be in pretty good shape. A semifinal loss would probably push them back down to the high end of the bubble, while a win would nearly lock up a bid.
#10 Boston College is in a very similar position to Providence. They’d be on the bubble if eliminated this weekend and would be watching the other conference tournaments carefully.
If they advance this weekend, they’ll be in pretty good shape — favored, though probably not mathematically secure, for an NCAA bid.
#11 Bowling Green would likely be pushed down below the bubble if eliminated this weekend. It would take a lot of luck to climb back onto the bubble while idle and have most of the conference tournaments won by top ranked teams.
If Bowling Green advances, they would still probably need a semifinal win to stay on the bubble.
#12 Quinnipiac has a chance of staying on the bubble if eliminated this week, but would have to watch future tournament results carefully.
If they advance, another win would probably be needed to stay atop the bubble.
#13 Yale is likely to be pushed just below the bubble if eliminated this weekend, but would stand a slim chance of climbing onto it dependent on other tournament results.
Advancing this weekend would position them well, but not secure a spot in the NCAAs. With an additional win, Yale would be favored to secure a spot.
#14 Minnesota hasn’t entered conference tournament play yet, so does not face elimination. Getting swept this weekend would put them in a bad spot for an at-large bid, but would also probably force them to play in the Big Ten quarterfinals. The extra game would give them the chance to go 2-1 in the conference tournament and possibly get back onto the bubble.
#15 Mass.-Lowell is likely to end well below the bubble if eliminated this weekend. It would take a very unlikely confluence of events for them to move into an at-large bid from that position.
Advancing puts them in a precarious spot on the bubble, such that a subsequent loss would probably push them off.
#16 St Cloud St is currently at 11-12-1 so needs one more win than loss in its remaining games to meet the .500 requirement for consideration for the NCAA tournament. So, the Huskies won’t be considered if eliminated this weekend. If they advance (either 2-1 or 2-0), they’ll be in a decent bubble position, but probably need at least one more win.
#17 Harvard will be below the bubble if eliminated this weekend and it’s very unlikely they could slide into position for an at-large bid while idle.
Advancing would put them right on the bubble, such that they’d probably want another win to stay there.
#18 Colgate is out if eliminated this weekend. Advancing puts them on the low end of the bubble, such that a subsequent loss would probably push them off. Best to advance and win one more.
#19 Vermont is very likely out if eliminated this weekend. Advancing would put them right on the low end of the bubble, such that another win would probably be required to make the tournament at-large.
#20 Michigan is not yet in its conference tournament so is not facing elimination this weekend. Two losses would likely put an at-large bid out of reach, while two wins would bring the bubble within sight. A first round bye, though, would reduce their opportunities to climb in the PWR.
#21 Bemidji State is out if eliminated this weekend. It’s possible, though not particularly likely, that Bemidji State could position itself for an at-large bid by advancing to the conference tournament final and losing.
#22 St. Lawrence is almost identical to Bemidji State. They’re out if they lose this weekend. It’s possible, though not particularly likely, that St. Lawrence could position itself for an at-large bid by advancing to the conference tournament final and losing.
#23 Dartmouth is out if they fail to advance. Dartmouth is better positioned than the teams above it to get an at-large bid by winning a few games then losing the conference final. Winning the conference tournament would be a safer bet.
Forecasts include the results of games played through Sunday of this week, unless otherwise noted.
Each forecast is based on at least one million monte carlo simulations of the games in the described period. For each simulation, the PairWise Ranking (PWR) is calculated and the results tallied. The probabilities presented in the forecasts are the share of simulations in which a particular outcome occurred.
The outcome of each game in each simulation is determined by random draw, with the probability of victory for each team set by their relative KRACH ratings. So, if the simulation set included a contest between team A with KRACH 300 and team B with KRACH 100, team A will win the game in very close to 75% of the simulations. I don’t simulate ties or home ice advantage.
Yesterday I looked at Who’s a lock for the NCAA tournament?, now let’s take a look at who can fall out of contention for the NCAA tournament this weekend.
First, only teams that have the potential to be eliminated from their conference tournaments this weekend are considered able to fall out of contention.
I then call any team that can be eliminated and still finish higher than #20 still alive for contention, even though the lower ranked of those are very unlikely to make up the necessary ground in PWR. For a more realistic look at who’s a lock, refer to the previous article.
Updates:
10:57ET 2015/03/11 — St Cloud St moved from still alive to eliminated because even though they could still potentially be in PWR position, they would not have a .500 record so would be ineligible. Hat tip to @GOHUSKIESWOOOOO for pointing out that oversight.
#1 North Dakota
#2 Mankato
#3 Minnesota Duluth
#4 Miami
#5 Michigan Tech
#6 Boston University
#7 Nebraska Omaha
#8 Denver
#9 Providence
#10 Boston College
#11 Bowling Green
#12 Quinnipiac
#13 Yale
#15 Mass.-Lowell
#17 Harvard
#19 Vermont
Having already covered the top teams in “Who’s a lock”, tomorrow I’ll dive deeper into the bubble teams.
#14 Minnesota
#20 Michigan
#28 Penn State
#32 Michigan State
#37 Ohio State
#55 Wisconsin
#16 St Cloud St (would not have .500 record)
#18 Colgate
#21 Bemidji St
#22 St Lawrence
#23 Dartmouth
#26 Robert Morris
#27 Western Michigan
#29 Merrimack
#30 New Hampshire
#31 Union
#33 Notre Dame
#34 Northern Michigan
#35 Ferris St
#38 Bentley
#39 Canisius
#42 Mercyhurst
#44 RIT
#46 Rensselaer
#47 Air Force
#49 Sacred Heart
#50 Colorado College
#53 Alabama Huntsville
#54 Lake State
#58 Niagara
#24 Alaska
#25 Northeastern
#36 Cornell
#40 Maine
#41 Connecticut
#43 Clarkson
#45 Massachusetts
#48 Brown
#51 Holy Cross
#52 Alaska Anchorage
#56 Princeton
#57 Army
#59 American International
Forecasts include the results of games played through Sunday of this week, unless otherwise noted.
Each forecast is based on at least one million monte carlo simulations of the games in the described period. For each simulation, the PairWise Ranking (PWR) is calculated and the results tallied. The probabilities presented in the forecasts are the share of simulations in which a particular outcome occurred.
The outcome of each game in each simulation is determined by random draw, with the probability of victory for each team set by their relative KRACH ratings. So, if the simulation set included a contest between team A with KRACH 300 and team B with KRACH 100, team A will win the game in very close to 75% of the simulations. I don’t simulate ties or home ice advantage.
