Pairwise Comparisons and PWR for D1 College Hockey (2002-2003)

© 1999-2003, Joe Schlobotnik (archives)

URL for this frameset: http://elynah.com/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2003/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. For Joe Schlobotnik's geeky analysis of the system, with a table of criteria and comparisons recalculated daily, read on.

Pairwise Comparisons (including games of 2003 March 23)

Pairwise Comparisons
Rk Team PWR RPI Comparisons Won
1 Cornell  (E) 28 .5958 CC Mn NH BU Me FS BC Mi ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
2 CO College  (W) 27 .5913 Mn NH BU Me FS BC Mi ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
3 Minnesota  (W) 25 .5910   NH   Me FS BC Mi ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
4 New Hampshire (H) 25 .5894     BU Me FS BC Mi ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
5 Boston Univ  (H) 24 .5854   Mn     FS BC Mi ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
6 Maine  (H) 23 .5807       BU   BC Mi ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
7 Ferris State  (C) 22 .5660         Me BC   ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
8 Boston Coll  (H) 21 .5792             Mi ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
9 Michigan  (C) 21 .5689           FS   ND OS Ha Mk SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
10 North Dakota  (W) 18 .5574                 OS Ha Mk SC   MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
11 Ohio State  (C) 17 .5497                   Ha Mk   Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
12 Harvard  (E) 16 .5583                     Mk SC Pv MS   Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
13 MSU-Mankato  (W) 16 .5528                       SC Pv MS NM Da DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
14 St Cloud  (W) 15 .5507                   OS     Pv MS NM   DU MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
15 Providence  (H) 14 .5444                 ND         MS NM Da   MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
16 Mich State  (C) 12 .5423                             NM Da   MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
17 Northern Mich (C) 12 .5326                     Ha         Da   MA MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
18 Dartmouth  (E) 11 .5252                         SC       DU   MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
19 Denver U  (W) 11 .5490                           Pv MS NM   MA     Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
20 Mass-Amherst  (H) 10 .5306                                 Da   MD Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
21 Minn-Duluth  (W) 9 .5275                                   DU   Nt Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
22 Notre Dame  (C) 8 .5185                                   DU     Mr Ya WM Mm ML Mh WS
23 Merrimack  (H) 5 .5151                                           Ya WM   ML Mh WS
24 Yale  (E) 5 .5114                                             WM Mm ML Mh WS
25 Western Mich  (C) 4 .5106                                               Mm ML Mh WS
26 Miami  (C) 4 .5058                                           Mr     ML Mh WS
27 Mass-Lowell  (H) 2 .5046                                                   Mh WS
28 Mercyhurst  (M) 1 .4960                                                     WS
29 Wayne State  (A) 0 .4788                                                      

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
Cornell 1 28 1 .5958 1 11-3 .7857
CO College 2 27 2 .5913 3 18-6-4 .7143
Minnesota 3 25 3 .5910 11 11-8-8 .5556
New Hampshire 4 25 4 .5894 2 20-6-4 .7333
Boston Univ 5 24 5 .5854 9 18-13-2 .5758
Maine 6 23 6 .5807 5 17-9-5 .6290
Ferris State 7 22 9 .5660 4 15-8-1 .6458
Boston Coll 8 21 7 .5792 6T 16-10-4 .6000
Michigan 9 21 8 .5689 6T 14-9-2 .6000
North Dakota 10 18 11 .5574 16T 9-10-5 .4792
Ohio State 11 17 14 .5497 10 11-8-4 .5652
Harvard 12 16 10 .5583 21 5-7-1 .4231
MSU-Mankato 13 16 12 .5528 16T 9-10-5 .4792
St Cloud 14 15 13 .5507 15 13-12-4 .5172
Providence 15 14 16 .5444 12 13-11-3 .5370
Mich State 16 12 17 .5423 18 9-11-2 .4545
Northern Mich 17 12 18 .5326 8 14-10-1 .5800
Dartmouth 18 11 21 .5252 13 7-6-1 .5357
Denver U 19 11 15 .5490 22 8-14-4 .3846
Mass-Amherst 20 10 19 .5306 20 11-15-1 .4259
Minn-Duluth 21 9 20 .5275 14 11-10-3 .5208
Notre Dame 22 8 22 .5185 19 10-14-5 .4310
Merrimack 23 5 23 .5151 24 7-16-4 .3333
Yale 24 5 24 .5114 28 2-9 .1818
Western Mich 25 4 25 .5106 25 5-20-1 .2115
Miami 26 4 26 .5058 23 7-13 .3500
Mass-Lowell 27 2 27 .5046 27 3-19-4 .1923
Mercyhurst 28 1 30 .4960 29 0-4 .0000
Wayne State 29 0 37 .4788 26 1-4 .2000

See also

Last Modified: 2020 February 1

Joe Schlobotnik / joe@amurgsval.org

HTML 4.0 compliant CSS2 compliant