Pairwise Comparisons and PWR for D1 College Hockey (2001-2002)

© 1999-2002, Joe Schlobotnik (archives)

URL for this frameset: http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2002/pwr.shtml

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

See also

Current Pairwise Comparisons (including games of 2002 March 17)

Pairwise Comparisons
Rk Team PWR RPI Comparisons Won
1 New Hampshire (H) 26 .6239 DU Mn BU MS Mi Me SC CC Cr Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
2 Denver U  (W) 25 .6259 Mn BU MS Mi Me SC CC Cr Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
3 Minnesota  (W) 24 .6241   BU MS Mi Me SC CC Cr Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
4 Boston Univ  (H) 22 .5991     MS   Me SC CC Cr Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
5 Mich State  (C) 22 .5940       Mi Me SC CC Cr Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
6 Michigan  (C) 21 .5826     BU   Me   CC Cr Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
7 Maine  (H) 20 .5882           SC CC Cr Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
8 SCloud  (W) 19 .5947         Mi   CC   Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
9 CCollege  (W) 18 .5824               Cr Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
10 Cornell  (E) 18 .5793             SC   Ak NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
11 AK-Fairbanks  (C) 16 .5607                   NM WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
12 Northern Mich (C) 15 .5568                     WM ML Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
13 Western Mich  (C) 13 .5415                       ML   OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
14 Mass-Lowell  (H) 13 .5611                         Mh OS NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
15 Mercyhurst  (M) 11 .5426                       WM   OS NO     BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
16 Ohio State  (C) 11 .5364                             NO RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
17 NE-Omaha  (C) 10 .5361                               RP NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
18 RPI  (E) 10 .5157                           Mh     NE BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
19 NorthEastern  (H) 9 .5352                           Mh       BC WS Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
20 Boston Coll  (H) 6 .5168                                     WS   Qn Ha Da SH HC
21 Wayne State  (A) 6 .5088                                       Ck Qn Ha Da SH HC
22 Clarkson  (E) 6 .5048                                     BC   Qn Ha Da SH HC
23 Quinnipiac  (M) 4 .5032                                           Ha Da SH HC
24 Harvard  (E) 3 .4999                                             Da SH HC
25 Dartmouth  (E) 2 .4823                                               SH HC
26 Sacred Heart  (M) 1 .4806                                                 HC
27 Holy Cross  (M) 0 .4753                                                  

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 overall winning percentages of .500 or above, plus any additional teams receiving automatic bids to the NCAAs by virtue of winning their conference tournaments. (For a listing of tournament-eligible teams and conferences receiving automatic bids, see our NCAA selection procedure page.) 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.
L16
Record in the Last 16 games. 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 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 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 selection criteria which are more or less the same in each comparison: RPI, record vs TUCs, and record in the last 16 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 RPI vs TUCs Last 16
Rk PWR Rk RPI Rk W-L-T Pct Rk W-L-T Pct
New Hampshire 1 26 3 .6239 1 15-5-3 .7174 2 13-2-1 .8438
Denver U 2 25 1 .6259 3 10-6 .6250 15 10-5-1 .6562
Minnesota 3 24 2 .6241 7 7-5-2 .5714 6 12-4 .7500
Boston Univ 4 22 4 .5991 6 13-9-2 .5833 8 11-4-1 .7188
Mich State 5 22 6 .5940 4 10-5-5 .6250 11 10-3-3 .7188
Michigan 6 21 8 .5826 2 13-6-4 .6522 3 13-3 .8125
Maine 7 20 7 .5882 5 13-8-6 .5926 10 10-3-3 .7188
St Cloud 8 19 5 .5947 15 6-7-1 .4643 18 9-6-1 .5938
CO College 9 18 9 .5824 9 8-7 .5333 9 11-4-1 .7188
Cornell 10 18 10 .5793 12 7-7 .5000 1 13-2-1 .8438
AK-Fairbanks 11 16 12 .5607 10 9-8-2 .5263 13 10-4-2 .6875
Northern Mich 12 15 13 .5568 8 9-7-1 .5588 14 11-5 .6875
Western Mich 13 13 15 .5415 18 10-12-2 .4583 21 8-7-1 .5312
Mass-Lowell 14 13 11 .5611 19 10-12 .4545 25 6-8-2 .4375
Mercyhurst 15 11 14 .5426 20 4-6-3 .4231 4 12-3-1 .7812
Ohio State 16 11 16 .5364 11 11-10-2 .5217 26 6-8-2 .4375
NE-Omaha 17 10 17 .5361 23 6-11-3 .3750 20 8-7-1 .5312
RPI 18 10 22 .5157 14 7-7-1 .5000 12 11-4-1 .7188
Northeastern 19 9 18 .5352 13 11-11-2 .5000 23 8-8 .5000
Boston Coll 20 6 20 .5168 25 6-14-1 .3095 27 6-10 .3750
Wayne State 21 6 23 .5088 27 0-4 .0000 5 12-3-1 .7812
Clarkson 22 6 24 .5048 22 6-10-2 .3889 19 8-6-2 .5625
Quinnipiac 23 4 25 .5032 16 4-5-4 .4615 7 10-2-4 .7500
Harvard 24 3 27 .4999 21 5-8-3 .4062 24 7-8-1 .4688
Dartmouth 25 2 32 .4823 17 4-5-3 .4583 22 6-6-4 .5000
Sacred Heart 26 1 34 .4806 26 2-8-3 .2692 16 9-5-2 .6250
Holy Cross 27 0 36 .4753 24 2-5-3 .3500 17 8-5-3 .5938

Last Modified: 2012 March 25

Joe Schlobotnik / joe@amurgsval.org

HTML 4.0 compliant CSS2 compliant