The College Hockey Computer Rating compiled by Keith Instone NOTE: TCHCR is *not* used in conjunction with the NCAA selection process. Includes games on 1/4/92. Last week's ranking includes games on 12/25/91. Last Division I Schedule Schedule Rank Week Team Record Rating Strength Rank 1 2 Michigan 13 3 3 87.21 66.38 4 2 3 Lake Superior 13 4 1 84.63 63.90 12 3 6 Minnesota 14 6 0 82.51 66.05 5 4 5 Northern Michigan 13 5 2 81.01 63.76 13 5 8 Michigan State 9 4 4 73.99 63.91 11 6 1 Maine 14 2 0 73.24 44.12 34 7 14 Wisconsin 12 7 1 71.89 64.17 9 8 13 Western Michigan 7 6 2 68.11 65.48 7 9 9 Alaska-Anchorage 12 4 0 67.30 48.68 22 10 20 North Dakota 12 8 0 64.85 57.85 18 11 10 St Lawrence 11 2 1 64.81 39.37 42 12 18 Miami 9 7 2 63.57 59.09 17 13 7 Clarkson 12 3 0 62.99 39.19 43 14 15 Boston University 11 4 0 62.24 46.61 27 15 16 Providence 12 5 0 61.96 46.05 31 16 19 St Cloud 7 8 1 61.96 65.49 6 17 17 Minnesota-Duluth 8 9 1 61.84 65.14 8 18 4 Yale 6 2 2 61.39 47.21 26 19 22 Michigan Tech 8 11 1 60.37 67.80 2 20 12 New Hampshire 11 5 0 57.37 42.94 36 21 11 Harvard 6 3 2 56.64 43.53 35 22 27 Illinois-Chicago 5 8 3 54.18 63.09 14 23 25 Colorado College 5 10 4 53.23 62.76 15 24 28 Ferris State 2 9 5 52.05 68.58 1 25 33 Ohio State 6 10 2 49.84 60.98 16 26 30 Bowling Green 4 10 2 49.64 64.04 10 27 24 Cornell 4 4 2 48.51 46.59 28 28 21 UMass-Lowell 6 8 0 48.27 54.39 19 29 36 Denver 5 14 1 48.22 66.45 3 30 26 Boston College 7 9 1 45.06 50.71 20 31 23 Vermont 5 7 1 43.05 46.21 29 32 34 Alaska-Fairbanks 6 8 0 42.01 46.19 30 33 31 Northeastern 7 8 0 41.88 45.98 32 34 32 RPI 7 8 0 38.90 42.50 38 35 29 Brown 4 6 2 36.46 40.85 39 36 39 Alabama-Huntsville 4 9 0 35.12 49.74 21 37 37 Merrimack 8 9 0 32.44 33.48 45 38 35 Princeton 4 9 0 30.11 42.92 37 39 38 Kent 2 10 1 27.59 48.61 23 40 40 Colgate 3 8 1 27.50 40.27 40 41 42 Notre Dame 3 8 0 19.07 39.17 44 42 41 Dartmouth 1 9 0 15.19 48.50 24 43 43 Air Force 1 10 0 10.89 39.89 41 44 45 Army 0 10 0 8.32 48.19 25 45 44 Union 0 10 0 7.59 45.32 33 The College Hockey Computer Rating uses a connected schedule graph and a least squares optimization to rate the 45 Division I college hockey teams. This method considers a team's opponents, and their opponents, etc., until all 343 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. For every game, the teams are evaluated based on: the outcome (win, lose, tie); the margin of victory; percentage of goals allowed; the site of the game (home, away, neutral ice); and overtime or regulation time. Only games against other Division I teams are considered. ----- Here is a table of how the leagues have done against each other so far this season. Although TCHCR does not directly use statistics like these (it only considers individual game outcomes), I have found that I can explain some trends in TCHCR by looking at summaries such as this. CCHA WCHA ECAC HEA Indep Totals CCHA --- 4-4-1 4-0 1-1-1 4-1 13-6-2 (.500) (1.000) (.500) (.800) (.667) WCHA 4-4-1 --- 1-0 4-4 6-1 15-9-1 (.500) (1.000) (.500) (.857) (.620) ECAC 0-4 0-1 --- 10-16 6-3-1 16-24-1 (.000) (.000) (.385) (.650) (.402) HEA 1-1-1 4-4 16-10 --- 25-5 46-20-1 (.500) (.500) (.615) (.833) (.694) Indep 1-4 1-6 3-6-1 5-25 --- 10-41-1 (.200) (.143) (.350) (.167) (.202) THE THREE AMIGOS: Notice the balance between the CCHA, WCHA and HEA: they are all .500 against each other. The ECAC has not fared as well, going winless against the West and 6 games under .500 against HEA. Also, the ECAC is only managing a 65% winning percentage against the Independents while the other 3 leagues are at 80% or higher. HOLIDAY SWEEP: The CCHA's mark of 4-0 versus the ECAC is significant, especially when you consider that tied-for-last Ohio State beat first-place Clarkson in Syracuse. Third-place Harvard's pair of 3-1 losses at the GLI don't help the ECAC cause, either. A WEAK POINT: 84% of HEA's out-of-conference games have come against the ECAC and Independents. Since both groups of teams, in general, are rated low this week by TCHCR, HEA schedules are coming out "weak." UMass-Lowell's is the best at 19th. WE WANT MORE: One number that jumps out at me is the *SINGLE GAME* that has been played between the WCHA and ECAC. There will not be any more games between those two leagues this season!! More games between conferences means more data for comparing teams, which means more reliable ratings from TCHCR. (TCHCR compares every team with every other team to come up with its ratings.) CHAIN GANG: Even though the WCHA and ECAC have only played one game against each other, TCHCR uses the connected schedule graph to find other ways of comparing teams from the two leagues. For example, besides directly using the Yale-Wisconsin result, TCHCR simultaneously looks at ALL other paths of games connecting the two schools. Yale has played Harvard, who has played Michigan, who has played Minnesota, who has played Wisconsin. Another chain is Yale-->Colgate-->Kent-->Maine-->Wisconsin. Hopefully, you can see that your opponent's performance affects your rating when TCHCR traces a chain through that opponent. And now, to answer some viewer mail: >From the Hockey East office: >>Do you factor for the number of games played? Yes. When comparing game outcome measures (GOM) to calculate ratings, TCHCR uses the AVERAGE GOM between the two teams. For example, let's say you play a team twice at home and beat them 5-3 one night while tieing them (score is irrelevant) the second. You GOMs would be +10+2-1=+11 for the win and -1 for the tie. Your average GOM would then be (+11-1)/2 = +5. This +5 is what is used to calculate the ratings. A side note about schedule strength and games played: There is nothing inherent in TCHCR that rewards teams who play more games. However, a team that schedules more games can benefit IF THEY SCHEDULE GOOD OPPONENTS. Likewise, a team can hurt itself if they use these extra games to play "cream puffs." For example, Maine moves up to #5 this week if I don't count its 15-5 thrashing of Army in the Dexter. The Black Bears' schedule jumps up 2.5 points (to 27th) and their rating increases by 1.5 points. This is a simplification, but the win over Army is worth 1.0 points of "performance" while it costs Maine 2.5 points in schedule, leading to a 1.5 total rating point loss. The moral: it is not a good idea for the #1 team to play the #45 team. >Also from the Hockey East office: >>I really wonder about...the GOM (Game Outcome Measure)...You refer to it as "how much one team beat up on another." The GOM is my measure for how well a team performed in a game. A team gets 10 points for a win, plus UP TO 5 additional points for margin of victory. If you outscore your opponent by 6 or more goals, you get the full +5 margin of victory bonus. If you score 4 or 5 more goals, you get +4. Fewer than 4 goal margins earn a bonus equal to that margin. Thus, if you "run up the score" and win by 8 goals instead of only 4, you will only increase your GOM for that game by 1 (ignoring the defensive bonus for now). That 1 GOM point represents only 6% of the maximum GOM you can get, and is merely 10% as important as the fact that you won. I can't completely ignore the 4 extra goals for several reasons, one being that perhaps the winning team was not even trying to run up the score, but the losing team is that much more incompetent. And as the Maine example above indicates, how much you win by is not as important as who you play. ===END of TCHCR notes and mailbag for 1/4/92.