Pairwise Comparisons and PWR for D1 College Hockey (2003-2004)

© 1999-2004, Joe Schlobotnik (archives)

URL for this frameset: http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2004/pwr.shtml

Game results taken from US College Hockey Online's Division I composite schedule

Up-to-the-minute PWR On USCHO.com NEW!

If you're looking for the current Pairwise Rankings, calculated from the latest scores, you should go to US College Hockey Online. USCHO also has a form that allows you to examine the effects of the NCAA's "quality wins" fudge factor. For Joe Schlobotnik's geeky analysis of the system, with a table of criteria and comparisons recalculated daily, read on.

Today's Pairwise Comparisons (including games of 2004 March 20)

Pairwise Comparisons
Rk Team PWR RPI Comparisons Won
1 North Dakota  (wh) 28 .6025 BC   Mn MD OS DU Mi Mm Wi NH MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
2 Boston Coll  (he) 28 .5927   Me Mn MD OS DU Mi Mm Wi NH MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
3 Maine  (he) 28 .5922 ND   Mn MD OS DU Mi Mm Wi NH MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
4 Minnesota  (wh) 26 .5812       MD OS DU Mi Mm Wi NH MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
5 Minn-Duluth  (wh) 25 .5675         OS DU Mi Mm Wi NH MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
6 Ohio State  (cc) 23 .5634           DU Mi   Wi NH MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
7 Denver U  (wh) 23 .5492             Mi Mm Wi NH MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
8 Michigan  (cc) 21 .5546               Mm   NH MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
9 Miami  (cc) 21 .5415           OS     Wi NH MS CC   Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
10 Wisconsin  (wh) 20 .5420               Mi   NH MS CC   Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
11 New Hampshire (he) 19 .5409                     MS CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
12 Mich State  (cc) 18 .5352                       CC Cg Nt Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
13 CO College  (wh) 16 .5322                         Cg   Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
14 Colgate  (ec) 15 .5190                 Mm Wi       Nt   SC MA Da   Ha   ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
15 Notre Dame  (cc) 15 .5274                         CC   Cr SC MA Da Pv Ha BU ML   NE HC WM Ck BS AA
16 Cornell  (ec) 14 .5190                           Cg   SC MA Da   Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
17 St Cloud  (wh) 13 .5298                                 MA Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
18 Mass-Amherst  (he) 12 .5266                                   Da Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
19 Dartmouth  (ec) 11 .5188                                     Pv Ha BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
20 Providence  (he) 11 .5231                           Cg   Cr       Ha   ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
21 Harvard  (ec) 9 .5108                                         BU ML RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
22 Boston Univ  (he) 9 .5269                           Cg           Pv     RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
23 Mass-Lowell  (he) 8 .5126                                           BU RP NE HC WM Ck BS AA
24 RPI  (ec) 7 .5059                             Nt                 NE HC WM Ck BS AA
25 NorthEastern  (he) 5 .5076                                                 HC WM Ck BS AA
26 Holy Cross  (ah) 3 .5055                                                   WM Ck BS  
27 Western Mich  (cc) 3 .5037                                                     Ck BS AA
28 Clarkson  (ec) 2 .5023                                                       BS AA
29 Bemidji State (ch) 1 .5011                                                         AA
30 AK-Anchorage  (wh) 1 .5001                                                   HC      

Explanation of the Table

The table above lists all of the Teams Under Consideration (TUCs) for the NCAA tournament. This includes all tournament-eligible Division 1 teams with a Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) of .500 or above. Each team has been compared to each other team on the basis of the NCAA selection criteria. Those criteria are:

RPI
The Ratings Percentage Index, described in detail on our RPI page.
TUC
Record vs other Teams Under Consideration. Head-to-head games are explicitly excluded from this criterion, which is judged on straight Winning Percentage (with ties as always counting as half a win and half a loss) in the relevant games.
COp
Record vs Common Opponents. Again, this is resolved on the basis of Winning Percentage.
H2H
Head-to-head results. Each win in head-to-head competition carries the same weight as each of the other criteria.

A team gets one point towards the comparison for each of the first three criteria it wins, plus one point for each head-to-head victory. Whichever team has more points according to this method wins the criterion. In case of a tie, the team with the higher RPI wins the criterion.

In each team's row, in the "Comparisons Won" part of the grid, are listed the abbreviations of all the teams with which they win comparisons. Each of these cells is a link to a mini-table (which will appear in a pop-up window under most browser setups) detailing the results of the four criteria. The RPI row of the mini-table contains the overall record and RPI for each team, the TUC, and COp rows contain the record and winning percentage in the games relevant to each criterion, and the H2H row contains the head-to-head record of each team against the other.

The PWR column in the main table gives the total number of comparisons won by each team. The teams are ordered according the their PWR; if two or more teams are tied in the PWR, the tie is broken if possible according to the number of comparisons each wins against the other tied teams; if this fails to resolve the tie (which can be thought of a ro-sham-bo situation: Rock crushes Scissors, Scissors cut Paper, Paper covers Rock), the RPI is used to break the tie.

Breakdown of Criteria

The following table lists, for each Team Under Consideration, the two selection criteria which are more or less the same in each comparison: RPI and record vs TUCs. Each team's name in the table is a link to a rundown of the games contributing to these two criteria.

Note a team's record in the "vs TUCs" column is that against all TUCs; since head-to-head games are left out of this criterion, the record used in an actual comparison will be different if the two teams have played each other.

Team Comps Won RPI vs TUCs
Rk PWR Rk RPI Rk W-L-T Pct
North Dakota 1 28 1 .6025 3 17-7-3 .6852
Boston Coll 2 28 2 .5927 1 24-8-2 .7353
Maine 3 28 3 .5922 2 20-7-2 .7241
Minnesota 4 26 4 .5812 4 20-13-3 .5972
Minn-Duluth 5 25 5 .5675 5 15-10-2 .5926
Ohio State 6 23 6 .5634 10 13-12 .5200
Denver U 7 23 8 .5492 9 13-11-3 .5370
Michigan 8 21 7 .5546 14T 9-10-1 .4750
Miami 9 21 10 .5415 8 10-8-2 .5500
Wisconsin 10 20 9 .5420 11 11-10-7 .5179
New Hampshire 11 19 11 .5409 6 14-10-6 .5667
Mich State 12 18 12 .5352 12T 10-10-2 .5000
CO College 13 16 13 .5322 21 11-15-3 .4310
Colgate 14 15 20 .5190 7 9-7-2 .5556
Notre Dame 15 15 15 .5274 16T 8-9-2 .4737
Cornell 16 14 19 .5190 12T 8-8-2 .5000
St Cloud 17 13 14 .5298 20 12-15-3 .4500
Mass-Amherst 18 12 17 .5266 19 11-13-4 .4643
Dartmouth 19 11 21 .5188 22 6-9-6 .4286
Providence 20 11 18 .5231 24 9-14-4 .4074
Harvard 21 9 23 .5108 16T 8-9-2 .4737
Boston Univ 22 9 16 .5269 25 9-16-7 .3906
Mass-Lowell 23 8 22 .5126 18 11-13-5 .4655
RPI 24 7 25 .5059 14T 9-10-1 .4750
Northeastern 25 5 24 .5076 26 7-14-7 .3750
Holy Cross 26 3 26 .5055 30 0-4 .0000
Western Mich 27 3 27 .5037 23 6-9-2 .4118
Clarkson 28 2 28 .5023 27 6-12-5 .3696
Bemidji State 29 1 29 .5011 29 1-6-1 .1875
AK-Anchorage 30 1 30 .5001 28 9-17-3 .3621

See also


Last Modified: 2012 March 25

Joe Schlobotnik / joe@amurgsval.org

HTML 4.0 compliant CSS2 compliant