Pairwise Comparisons and PWR for D1 College Hockey (2011-2012)

© 1999-2011, Joe Schlobotnik (archives)

URL for this frameset: http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2012/pwr.shtml

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

Today's Pairwise Comparisons (including games of 2012 March 17)

Pairwise Comparisons
Rk Team PWR RPI Comparisons Won
1 Boston Coll  (he) 30 .5783 Mi Un ND Mm FS MD Mn BU Me DU ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
2 Michigan  (cc) 29 .5600 Un ND Mm FS MD Mn BU Me DU ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
3 Union  (ec) 28 .5557   ND Mm FS MD Mn BU Me DU ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
4 North Dakota  (wc) 27 .5551     Mm FS MD Mn BU Me DU ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
5 Miami  (cc) 26 .5488       FS MD Mn BU Me DU ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
6 Ferris State  (cc) 25 .5488         MD Mn BU Me DU ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
7 Minn-Duluth  (wc) 23 .5483             BU Me DU ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
8 Minnesota  (wc) 22 .5486           MD BU Me DU     WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
9 Boston Univ  (he) 21 .5466               Me DU ML Cr   MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
10 Maine  (he) 21 .5460                 DU ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
11 Denver U  (wc) 20 .5450                   ML Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
12 Mass-Lowell  (he) 19 .5428             Mn       Cr WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS   Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
13 Cornell  (ec) 19 .5376             Mn         WM MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
14 Western Mich  (cc) 18 .5415               BU         MS NM Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
15 Mich State  (cc) 15 .5354                           NM   Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
16 Northern Mich (cc) 15 .5307                             Mr Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
17 Merrimack  (he) 15 .5300                           MS   Nt OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
18 Notre Dame  (cc) 13 .5238                                 OS CC Ha LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
19 Ohio State  (cc) 11 .5174                                   CC   LS AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
20 CO College  (wc) 10 .5148                                     Ha   AF Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
21 Harvard  (ec) 10 .5162                                   OS   LS AF   SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
22 Lake Superior (cc) 9 .5150                                     CC   AF   SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
23 Air Force  (ah) 9 .5132                     ML                     Wi SC Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
24 Wisconsin  (wc) 8 .5108                                       Ha LS     Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
25 St Cloud  (wc) 7 .5131                                             Wi Cg Qn NE BS Ni RT
26 Colgate  (ec) 5 .5050                                                 Qn NE BS Ni RT
27 Quinnipiac  (ec) 3 .5076                                                   NE   Ni RT
28 NorthEastern  (he) 3 .5064                                                     BS Ni RT
29 Bemidji State (wc) 2 .5036                                                   Qn   Ni  
30 Niagara  (ah) 1 .5024                                                         RT
31 RIT  (ah) 1 .5014                                                       BS  

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. As of the 2011-2012 season, this is now resolved using "averaged winning percentage", i.e., take the winning percentage against each opponent and average those numbers.
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
Boston Coll 1 30 1 .5783 2 14-8-1 .6304
Michigan 2 29 2 .5600 3 18-10-4 .6250
Union 3 28 3 .5557 1 9-3-6 .6667
North Dakota 4 27 4 .5551 4 18-11-2 .6129
Miami 5 26 5 .5488 13 17-14-1 .5469
Ferris State 6 25 6 .5488 5 12-7-4 .6087
Minn-Duluth 7 23 8 .5483 7 10-6-3 .6053
Minnesota 8 22 7 .5486 12 14-11-1 .5577
Boston Univ 9 21 9 .5466 14 12-10 .5455
Maine 10 21 10 .5460 15 10-10-2 .5000
Denver U 11 20 11 .5450 9 15-11-2 .5714
Mass-Lowell 12 19 12 .5428 10T 8-6-1 .5667
Cornell 13 19 14 .5376 6 7-4-3 .6071
Western Mich 14 18 13 .5415 10T 15-11-4 .5667
Mich State 15 15 15 .5354 20 12-15-4 .4516
Northern Mich 16 15 16 .5307 16 11-12-5 .4821
Merrimack 17 15 17 .5300 17 7-8-5 .4750
Notre Dame 18 13 18 .5238 22 12-16-3 .4355
Ohio State 19 11 19 .5174 24 11-15-2 .4286
CO College 20 10 22 .5148 19 9-11-2 .4545
Harvard 21 10 20 .5162 23 4-6-5 .4333
Lake Superior 22 9 21 .5150 25 10-15-4 .4138
Air Force 23 9 23 .5132 8 6-4-1 .5909
Wisconsin 24 8 25 .5108 21 11-14-2 .4444
St Cloud 25 7 24 .5131 18 10-12-3 .4600
Colgate 26 5 28 .5050 26 7-11-2 .4000
Quinnipiac 27 3 26 .5076 30T 3-8-2 .3077
Northeastern 28 3 27 .5064 28 7-13-1 .3571
Bemidji State 29 2 29 .5036 29 7-16-1 .3125
Niagara 30 1 30 .5024 30T 2-7-4 .3077
RIT 31 1 31 .5014 27 4-7-2 .3846

See also

Last Modified: 2012 March 25

Joe Schlobotnik / joe@amurgsval.org

HTML 4.0 compliant CSS2 compliant