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

© 1999-2012, Joe Schlobotnik (archives)

URL for this frameset: http://elynah.com/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 April 13)

Pairwise Comparisons
Rk Team PWR RPI Comparisons Won
1 Quinnipiac  (ec) 30 .5755 ML Mn Mm Ya Un NH BC Nt ND SC DU Ni RM Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
2 Mass-Lowell  (he) 28 .5564   Mm Ya Un NH BC Nt ND SC DU Ni RM Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
3 Minnesota  (wc) 27 .5569 ML Mm Ya Un   BC Nt ND   DU Ni RM Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
4 Miami  (cc) 26 .5444     Ya Un NH BC Nt ND SC DU Ni   Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
5 Yale  (ec) 25 .5489       Un NH BC Nt ND SC DU Ni   Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
6 Union  (ec) 24 .5355         NH   Nt ND SC DU Ni RM Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
7 New Hampshire (he) 24 .5335   Mn         Nt ND SC DU Ni RM Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
8 Boston Coll  (he) 23 .5366         Un NH   ND SC DU Ni RM Mk WM Wi RP   BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
9 Notre Dame  (cc) 21 .5442             BC   SC DU Ni   Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
10 North Dakota  (wc) 21 .5348               Nt   DU Ni RM Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
11 St Cloud  (wc) 21 .5338   Mn             ND DU Ni   Mk WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
12 Denver U  (wc) 17 .5313                     Ni RM   WM Wi RP   BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
13 Niagara  (ah) 17 .5290                       RM   WM Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
14 Robert Morris (ah) 16 .5045     Mm Ya       Nt   SC     Mk WM Wi   Ak     Pv   Cr   SL FS OS Mi HC NO
15 MSU-Mankato  (wc) 16 .5335                     DU Ni   WM   RP   BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
16 Western Mich  (cc) 15 .5287                             Wi RP Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
17 Wisconsin  (wc) 14 .5281                           Mk   RP   BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
18 RPI  (ec) 14 .5231                         RM       Ak BU Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
19 AK-Fairbanks  (cc) 12 .5044             BC       DU     Mk   Wi   BU   Pv     CC   FS OS Mi HC NO
20 Boston Univ  (he) 12 .5210                         RM           Bn Pv Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
21 Brown  (ec) 11 .5165                         RM         Ak     Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
22 Providence  (he) 10 .5191                                       Bn Da Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
23 Dartmouth  (ec) 10 .5129                         RM         Ak       Cr CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
24 Cornell  (ec) 8 .5104                                   Ak         CC SL FS OS Mi HC NO
25 CO College  (wc) 7 .5111                         RM                     SL FS OS Mi HC NO
26 St Lawrence  (ec) 6 .5088                                   Ak             FS OS Mi HC NO
27 Ferris State  (cc) 3 .5052                                                   OS   HC NO
28 Ohio State  (cc) 3 .5027                                                     Mi HC NO
29 Michigan  (cc) 3 .5024                                                   FS   HC NO
30 Holy Cross  (ah) 1 .5012                                                         NO
31 NE-Omaha  (wc) 0 .5005                                                          

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
Quinnipiac 1 30 1 .5755 1 20-5-4 .7586
Mass-Lowell 2 28 3 .5564 7 11-8 .5789
Minnesota 3 27 2 .5569 9 11-8-3 .5682
Miami 4 26 5 .5444 2T 14-9-2 .6000
Yale 5 25 4 .5489 8 14-10-3 .5741
Union 6 24 8 .5355 4 11-7-3 .5952
New Hampshire 7 24 11 .5335 6 12-8-3 .5870
Boston Coll 8 23 7 .5366 13 8-7-3 .5278
Notre Dame 9 21 6 .5442 14T 11-10-3 .5208
North Dakota 10 21 9 .5348 12 14-12-4 .5333
St Cloud 11 21 10 .5338 5 16-11-1 .5893
Denver U 12 17 13 .5313 16T 13-13-4 .5000
Niagara 13 17 14 .5290 16T 3-3 .5000
Robert Morris 14 16 26 .5045 2T 5-3-2 .6000
MSU-Mankato 15 16 12 .5335 19 13-14-1 .4821
Western Mich 16 15 15 .5287 11 10-8-4 .5455
Wisconsin 17 14 16 .5281 14T 11-10-3 .5208
RPI 18 14 17 .5231 21 10-12-4 .4615
AK-Fairbanks 19 12 27 .5044 10 9-7-1 .5588
Boston Univ 20 12 18 .5210 22 8-10-1 .4474
Brown 21 11 20 .5165 27 6-12-5 .3696
Providence 22 10 19 .5191 23 7-11-4 .4091
Dartmouth 23 10 21 .5129 20 8-9-3 .4750
Cornell 24 8 23 .5104 16T 11-11-1 .5000
CO College 25 7 22 .5111 24 11-17-3 .4032
St Lawrence 26 6 24 .5088 29 6-12-1 .3421
Ferris State 27 3 25 .5052 28 6-12-4 .3636
Ohio State 28 3 28 .5027 25 7-12-6 .4000
Michigan 29 3 29 .5024 26 8-13-2 .3913
Holy Cross 30 1 30 .5012 31 2-5-1 .3125
NE-Omaha 31 0 31 .5005 30 6-13-1 .3250

See also


Last Modified: 2020 February 1

Joe Schlobotnik / joe@amurgsval.org

HTML 4.0 compliant CSS2 compliant