Pairwise Comparisons and PWR for D1 College Hockey (2012-2013)

© 1999-2012, Joe Schlobotnik (archives)

URL for this frameset: http://www.slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2013/pwr.shtml

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

Today's Pairwise Comparisons (including games of 2013 January 12)

Pairwise Comparisons
Rk Team PWR RPI Comparisons Won
1 New Hampshire (he) 26 .5935 BC   Mn Nt BU ND DU Ya WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
2 Boston Coll  (he) 26 .5899   Qn Mn Nt BU ND DU Ya WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
3 Quinnipiac  (ec) 26 .5881 NH   Mn Nt BU ND DU Ya WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
4 Minnesota  (wc) 24 .5827       Nt BU ND DU Ya WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
5 Notre Dame  (cc) 23 .5700         BU ND DU Ya WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
6 Boston Univ  (he) 21 .5672           ND DU Ya WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS   Wi Pv FS
7 North Dakota  (wc) 21 .5599             DU Ya WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
8 Denver U  (wc) 20 .5565               Ya WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
9 Yale  (ec) 19 .5519                 WM Mm Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
10 Western Mich  (cc) 17 .5440                   Mm   ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
11 Miami  (cc) 17 .5512                     Da ML Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
12 Dartmouth  (ec) 16 .5505                   WM   ML Ni Mk   NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
13 Mass-Lowell  (he) 15 .5435                         Ni Mk Cg NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
14 Niagara  (ah) 13 .5350                           Mk   NO SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
15 MSU-Mankato  (wc) 12 .5302                             Cg   SC Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
16 Colgate  (ec) 12 .5237                       Da   Ni       Cr RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
17 NE-Omaha  (wc) 11 .5311                             Mk Cg SC Cr RM   LS Un   Ak Wi Pv FS
18 St Cloud  (wc) 9 .5262                               Cg   Cr RM NM   Un OS   Wi Pv FS
19 Cornell  (ec) 9 .5224                                     RM NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
20 Robert Morris (ah) 8 .5220                                       NM LS Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
21 Northern Mich (cc) 7 .5102                                 NO       LS   OS Ak Wi Pv FS
22 Lake Superior (cc) 7 .5093                                   SC       Un OS Ak Wi Pv FS
23 Union  (ec) 6 .5167                                         NM   OS Ak Wi Pv FS
24 Ohio State  (cc) 4 .5095                                 NO             Ak   Pv FS
25 AK-Fairbanks  (cc) 3 .5045           BU                       SC             Wi    
26 Wisconsin  (wc) 3 .5114                                               OS   Pv FS
27 Providence  (he) 2 .5087                                                 Ak   FS
28 Ferris State  (cc) 1 .5070                                                 Ak    

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
New Hampshire 1 26 1 .5935 2T 9-3 .7500
Boston Coll 2 26 2 .5899 5T 7-3-2 .6667
Quinnipiac 3 26 3 .5881 1 10-2-1 .8077
Minnesota 4 24 4 .5827 4 5-2-1 .6875
Notre Dame 5 23 5 .5700 7 7-4 .6364
Boston Univ 6 21 6 .5672 21T 4-6 .4000
North Dakota 7 21 7 .5599 11T 4-4-1 .5000
Denver U 8 20 8 .5565 8 8-5-3 .5938
Yale 9 19 9 .5519 11T 1-1-3 .5000
Western Mich 10 17 12 .5440 2T 7-2-1 .7500
Miami 11 17 10 .5512 5T 10-4-4 .6667
Dartmouth 12 16 11 .5505 11T 3-3-2 .5000
Mass-Lowell 13 15 13 .5435 28 0-6 .0000
Niagara 14 13 14 .5350 11T 1-1 .5000
MSU-Mankato 15 12 16 .5302 17T 6-8 .4286
Colgate 16 12 18 .5237 16 3-4-1 .4375
NE-Omaha 17 11 15 .5311 25 4-8-1 .3462
St Cloud 18 9 17 .5262 20 5-7 .4167
Cornell 19 9 19 .5224 17T 2-3-2 .4286
Robert Morris 20 8 20 .5220 9 3-2-1 .5833
Northern Mich 21 7 23 .5102 19 7-10-3 .4250
Lake Superior 22 7 25 .5093 10 8-7-1 .5312
Union 23 6 21 .5167 27 0-5-1 .0833
Ohio State 24 4 24 .5095 21T 4-7-4 .4000
AK-Fairbanks 25 3 28 .5045 15 5-6-2 .4615
Wisconsin 26 3 22 .5114 21T 3-5-2 .4000
Providence 27 2 26 .5087 26 0-5-2 .1429
Ferris State 28 1 27 .5070 24 4-7 .3636

See also

Last Modified: 2013 January 13

Joe Schlobotnik / joe@amurgsval.org

HTML 4.0 compliant CSS2 compliant