Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 13 Jan 91 22:54:33 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The College Hockey Computer Rating
compiled by Keith Instone
Includes games on 1/13/91. Last week's ranking includes games on 1/6/91.
Last Division I Schedule Schedule
Rank Week Team Record Rating Strength Rank
1 1 Lake Superior 20 3 3 100.00 62.06 10
2 5 Boston College 16 5 0 90.86 62.88 8
3 2 Northern Michigan 18 5 3 87.63 57.93 16
4 6 Minnesota 19 3 3 87.24 52.75 25
5 3 Michigan 18 5 3 87.22 60.17 14
6 9 Providence 13 4 1 85.70 56.15 20
7 7 Wisconsin 18 5 2 85.08 56.95 19
8 8 Boston University 14 5 2 83.16 57.22 18
9 4 Maine 18 5 2 82.54 53.72 24
10 10 Ferris State 16 5 5 74.38 52.11 26
11 11 Clarkson 12 5 1 74.27 52.11 27
12 13 New Hampshire 15 6 1 68.49 45.88 36
13 12 Cornell 9 4 2 67.41 47.97 33
14 16 Michigan State 11 10 4 67.12 63.18 7
15 14 North Dakota 13 11 2 66.59 61.65 11
16 17 RPI 9 6 0 65.83 54.68 21
17 15 St Lawrence 11 7 1 64.71 54.56 22
18 22 Yale 8 4 1 60.73 45.55 37
19 18 Bowling Green 11 13 2 59.36 65.46 4
20 21 Western Michigan 12 11 3 58.62 57.46 17
21 20 St Cloud 10 11 3 57.74 60.24 12
22 23 Colgate 9 7 3 54.92 47.24 34
23 19 Harvard 8 8 0 54.23 49.14 31
24 24 Alaska-Anchorage 8 7 3 53.26 50.40 29
25 26 Minnesota-Duluth 7 14 5 51.34 67.18 2
26 25 Michigan Tech 8 15 3 50.71 63.91 6
27 27 Merrimack 10 8 1 48.40 43.89 39
28 28 Vermont 8 8 1 45.10 46.87 35
29 29 Ohio State 6 16 3 42.21 67.26 1
30 30 Colorado College 6 18 1 40.33 65.38 5
31 33 Alaska-Fairbanks 8 8 0 36.35 37.43 43
32 31 Illinois-Chicago 6 17 1 35.15 58.92 15
33 32 Lowell 5 14 1 34.44 60.18 13
34 34 Denver 4 20 2 31.09 66.39 3
35 36 Brown 4 9 3 30.98 51.09 28
36 37 Princeton 5 11 1 30.86 49.53 30
37 35 Miami 4 18 3 28.27 62.07 9
38 38 Northeastern 4 15 2 25.72 54.51 23
39 39 Notre Dame 3 9 1 18.19 41.61 41
40 40 Army 2 11 3 13.20 43.49 40
41 41 Alabama-Huntsville 3 13 1 10.41 41.19 42
42 44 Dartmouth 1 13 2 6.24 48.86 32
43 42 Kent State 2 11 1 4.00 36.78 44
44 43 Air Force 1 10 1 0.00 45.03 38
The College Hockey Computer Rating uses a connected schedule graph and a
least squares optimization to rate the 44 Division I college hockey teams.
This method considers a team's opponents, and their opponents, etc., until
all 456 Division I games are included.
In addition to rating the teams, a strength of schedule is calculated for
each team. The schedule strength can be computed by averaging the ratings
of a team's opponents for each game.
The ratings are normalized so that the #1 team receives a 100.00 and #44
gets a 0.00. Thus, the ratings are purely relative numbers, rating a team
based on the rest of college hockey and not on any absolute basis.
For every game, the teams are evaluated based on: the outcome (win,
lose, tie); the margin of victory; the site of the game (home, away, neutral
ice); and overtime or regulation time.
Only games against other Division I teams are considered.
----
Notes for 1/13
Teams 2 through 9 are VERY close as only 8 rating points separate BC and
Maine. BC's three wins this week helped push them into #2. NMU and Maine
stumbled a bit by earning only 3 of 4 points against teams in the lower half.
Minnesota & Michigan are basically tied for fourth (only 0.02 points apart).
Ferris State is a distant 10th, over 8 points behind Maine. Clarkson
nearly cracked the top 10 as its schedule jumped from 35th to 27th. FSU &
CU are pretty even in both rating and strength of schedule. (Although the two
schedules appear to be precisely the same at 52.11, FSU's schedule rating is
actually 52.1146 while CU's is 52.1134.)
OSU continues to have the #1 schedule strength but Duluth edged closer,
now only 0.08 points behind.
Two wins by Fairbanks moved them up to #31, but they are still far behind
#24 Anchorage. The two records are similar, but the Seawolves have played
the tougher schedule so far.
Northeastern's tie at Maine improved their rating, but impressive perfomances
by Brown & Princeton this week kept the Huskies from catching them.
Dartmouth vaulted up two spots behind their tie and two losses each by
Kent and Air Force.
|
|
|