Pairwise Comparisons and PWR for D1 College Hockey (2004-2005)

© 1999-2004, Joe Schlobotnik (archives)

URL for this frameset: http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2005/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 2005 March 19)

Pairwise Comparisons
Rk Team PWR RPI Comparisons Won
1 CO College  (wh) 25 .5953 DU   Mn Cr Mi ND NH Ha BU Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
2 Denver U  (wh) 25 .5890   BC Mn Cr Mi ND NH Ha BU Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
3 Boston Coll  (he) 25 .5885 CC   Mn Cr Mi ND NH Ha BU Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
4 Minnesota  (wh) 22 .5680       Cr Mi ND   Ha BU Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
5 Cornell  (ec) 22 .5880         Mi ND NH Ha BU Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
6 Michigan  (cc) 21 .5754           ND NH Ha BU Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
7 North Dakota  (wh) 19 .5610             NH Ha   Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
8 New Hampshire (he) 19 .5708       Mn         BU Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
9 Harvard  (ec) 18 .5660               NH   Me OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
10 Boston Univ  (he) 16 .5675             ND   Ha Me     Cg Da Vt ML NM MS   NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
11 Maine  (he) 16 .5607                     OS Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
12 Ohio State  (cc) 16 .5494                   BU   Wi Cg Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
13 Wisconsin  (wh) 14 .5527                   BU     Cg   Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
14 Colgate  (ec) 13 .5468                           Da Vt ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
15 Dartmouth  (ec) 12 .5240                         Wi   Vt   NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
16 Vermont  (ec) 11 .5362                               ML NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
17 Mass-Lowell  (he) 11 .5376                             Da   NM MS MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
18 Northern Mich (cc) 8 .5239                                   MS MD   BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
19 Mich State  (cc) 8 .5348                                     MD NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
20 Minn-Duluth  (wh) 8 .5092                   BU                   NE BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
21 NorthEastern  (he) 7 .5290                                   NM     BS Mk Ak AH SC SL
22 Bemidji State (ch) 4 .5179                                           Mk   AH SC SL
23 MSU-Mankato  (wh) 4 .5169                                             Ak AH SC SL
24 AK-Fairbanks  (cc) 4 .5080                                           BS   AH SC SL
25 AL-Huntsville (ch) 2 .5044                                                 SC SL
26 St Cloud  (wh) 1 .5028                                                   SL
27 St Lawrence  (ec) 0 .5037                                                    

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
CO College 1 25 1 .5953 4 17-8-3 .6607
Denver U 2 25 2 .5890 2 19-8-2 .6897
Boston Coll 3 25 3 .5885 1 16-5-3 .7292
Minnesota 4 22 7 .5680 3 22-10 .6875
Cornell 5 22 4 .5880 5 9-4-3 .6562
Michigan 6 21 5 .5754 7 10-6-3 .6053
North Dakota 7 19 10 .5610 8 16-12-5 .5606
New Hampshire 8 19 6 .5708 11 12-10-5 .5370
Harvard 9 18 9 .5660 10 10-8-2 .5500
Boston Univ 10 16 8 .5675 15 10-11-4 .4800
Maine 11 16 11 .5607 12T 11-11-5 .5000
Ohio State 12 16 13 .5494 6 8-5-1 .6071
Wisconsin 13 14 12 .5527 12T 11-11-3 .5000
Colgate 14 13 14 .5468 18 6-8-1 .4333
Dartmouth 15 12 19 .5240 9 9-7-1 .5588
Vermont 16 11 16 .5362 16 9-10-3 .4773
Mass-Lowell 17 11 15 .5376 19 7-10-3 .4250
Northern Mich 18 8 20 .5239 17 6-7-2 .4667
Mich State 19 8 17 .5348 21 6-11-3 .3750
Minn-Duluth 20 8 23 .5092 12T 11-11-4 .5000
Northeastern 21 7 18 .5290 23 7-15-4 .3462
Bemidji State 22 4 21 .5179 25 3-7-1 .3182
MSU-Mankato 23 4 22 .5169 24 8-18-3 .3276
AK-Fairbanks 24 4 24 .5080 20 5-7-1 .4231
AL-Huntsville 25 2 25 .5044 22 2-4-1 .3571
St Cloud 26 1 27 .5028 26 7-22-3 .2656
St Lawrence 27 0 26 .5037 27 4-15-1 .2250

See also

Last Modified: 2012 March 25

Joe Schlobotnik / joe@amurgsval.org

HTML 4.0 compliant CSS2 compliant