Pairwise Comparisons and PWR for D1 College Lacrosse (2002)

This page represents the application of the NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey selection procedure to Division I Men's Lacrosse. It is not an attempt to model the lacrosse selection procedure, which is described in the NCAA Men's Lacrosse Championships Handbook.

The PWR page of slack.net/hockey contains links to more information about the PWR as applied to hockey.

Current Pairwise Comparisons (including games of 2002 May 4)

Pairwise Comparisons
Rk Team PWR RPI Comparisons Won
1 Johns Hopkins (Indy) 29 .7609 Sy Gt Va Ho Ma Cr Pr Ya Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
2 Syracuse (Indy) 28 .7109 Gt Va Ho Ma Cr Pr Ya Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
3 Georgetown (EC) 27 .6903   Va Ho Ma Cr Pr Ya Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
4 Virginia (AC) 26 .6898     Ho Ma Cr Pr Ya Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
5 Hofstra (CA) 25 .6612       Ma Cr Pr Ya Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
6 UMass (EC) 24 .6610         Cr Pr Ya Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
7 Cornell (IL) 23 .6589           Pr Ya Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
8 Princeton (IL) 22 .6570             Ya Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
9 Yale (IL) 21 .6347               Lo Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
10 Loyola (CA) 20 .6220                 Dk Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
11 Duke (AC) 19 .6241                   Md NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
12 Maryland (AC) 18 .6134                     NC Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
13 No. Carolina (AC) 17 .6094                       Pn Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
14 Pennsylvania (IL) 16 .5896                         Br Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
15 Brown (IL) 15 .5892                           Na PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
16 Navy (EC) 14 .5801                             PS OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
17 Penn State (EC) 13 .5664                               OS To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
18 Ohio State (GW) 12 .5658                                 To Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
19 Towson (CA) 11 .5624                                   Ha Dr Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
20 Harvard (IL) 9 .5438                                     Dr   SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
21 Drexel (CA) 9 .5432                                       Ff SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
22 Fairfield (GW) 9 .5303                                     Ha   SB Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
23 Stony Brook (AE) 7 .5261                                           Ar Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
24 Army (PL) 6 .5045                                             Ab Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
25 Albany (AE) 5 .5041                                               Mh Hf Hb Cg Pv
26 Manhattan (MA) 4 .4898                                                 Hf Hb Cg Pv
27 Hartford (AE) 3 .4700                                                   Hb Cg Pv
28 Hobart (PL) 2 .5085                                                     Cg Pv
29 Colgate (PL) 1 .4305                                                       Pv
30 Providence (MA) 0 .4349                                                        

Explanation of the Table

The table above lists all of the tournament-eligible Division 1 teams with overall winning percentages of .500 or above, plus Hobart, who received an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. These are referred to as TUCs, or "Teams Under Consideration". Each team has been compared to each other team on the basis of the selection criteria the NCAA uses for Division I Men's Ice Hockey. Those criteria are:

RPI
The Ratings Percentage Index (with the hockey weightings), described in detail on our RPI page.
TUC
Record vs other TUCs. 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.
L8
Record in the Last 8 games. (This is modified from the hockey criterion of last 16 games, since the lacrosse season is shorter.) Note that head-to-head games are not excluded from the Winning Percentage used to evaluate this criterion.
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 four hockey 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 five hockey criteria. The RPI row of the mini-table contains the overall record and RPI for each team, the TUC, L16, 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 three hockey selection criteria which are more or less the same in each comparison: RPI, record vs TUCs, and record in the last 8 games. Each team's name in the table is a link to a rundown of the games contributing to these three 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 Hockey RPI vs TUCs Last 8
Rk PWR Rk Hockey RPI Rk W-L-T Pct Rk W-L-T Pct
Johns Hopkins 1 29 1 .7609 1 10-1 .9091 2 8-0 1.0000
Syracuse 2 28 2 .7109 2 9-2 .8182 5 7-1 .8750
Georgetown 3 27 3 .6903 3 8-2 .8000 9 6-2 .7500
Virginia 4 26 4 .6898 5 8-3 .7273 11 6-2 .7500
Hofstra 5 25 5 .6612 7 7-3 .7000 1 8-0 1.0000
UMass 6 24 6 .6610 4 8-3 .7273 10 6-2 .7500
Cornell 7 23 7 .6589 6 7-3 .7000 7 6-2 .7500
Princeton 8 22 8 .6570 9 6-4 .6000 4 7-1 .8750
Yale 9 21 9 .6347 10 6-4 .6000 23 5-3 .6250
Loyola 10 20 11 .6220 8 5-3 .6250 27 4-4 .5000
Duke 11 19 10 .6241 12 5-6 .4545 25 4-4 .5000
Maryland 12 18 12 .6134 11 5-4 .5556 16 5-3 .6250
No. Carolina 13 17 13 .6094 13 4-5 .4444 29 3-5 .3750
Pennsylvania 14 16 14 .5896 22 2-4 .3333 20 5-3 .6250
Brown 15 15 15 .5892 17 5-7 .4167 13 5-3 .6250
Navy 16 14 16 .5801 18 3-5 .3750 17 5-3 .6250
Penn State 17 13 17 .5664 16 3-4 .4286 19 5-3 .6250
Ohio State 18 12 18 .5658 15 3-4 .4286 18 5-3 .6250
Towson 19 11 19 .5624 27 1-5 .1667 22 5-3 .6250
Harvard 20 9 20 .5438 20 4-7 .3636 26 4-4 .5000
Drexel 21 9 21 .5432 24 2-5 .2857 8 6-2 .7500
Fairfield 22 9 22 .5303 14 3-4 .4286 14 5-3 .6250
Stony Brook 23 7 24 .5261 19 3-5 .3750 21 5-3 .6250
Army 24 6 27 .5045 21 2-4 .3333 12 5-3 .6250
Albany 25 5 28 .5041 23 2-5 .2857 6 6-2 .7500
Manhattan 26 4 29 .4898 26 1-3 .2500 3 8-0 1.0000
Hartford 27 3 33 .4700 25 2-5 .2857 15 5-3 .6250
Hobart 28 2 26 .5085 28 1-7 .1250 28 3-5 .3750
Colgate 29 1 38 .4305 29 0-4 .0000 24 4-4 .5000
Providence 30 0 37 .4349 30 0-4 .0000 30 3-5 .3750