PDA

View Full Version : NU Prof's Computer Rankings for Feb. 1



NUProf
02-01-2010, 05:28 AM
Enjoy :)

Middlebury has a good week and climbs back into the top 15. There are a lot of teams with ratings in the 600-630 range. Since the margin of error is +/- 10 points, you can see why there is so much shuffling around of positions in the slots 6-15 in the national poll. Also the 3/4 race between PLT and SNB is essentially even. NRW's tie and OSW's victory over PLT allows OSW to increase their lead over NRW.

As always, questions and comments are welcome. Notice Adrian falls a couple of spots because they had to play Finlandia and it hurt their SOS and Defeated Team's Winning Percentage measures.



Rank G W L Rating Last Week
1 OSW 21 20 1 723 1
2 NRW 19 17 2 694 2
3 PLT 20 15 5 664 3
4 SNB 21 17.5 3.5 661 4
5 STS 21 16.5 4.5 648 5
6 ELM 20 16.5 3.5 642 6
7 AMH 18 15 3 630 7
8 MID 16 11 5 624 16
9 GAC 19 14 5 622 9
10 WIL 16 11.5 4.5 621 13
11 HML 19 13.5 5.5 611 10
12 TRN 18 11 7 602 12
13 WEN 18 15.5 2.5 602 8
14 CUR 19 13.5 5.5 596 14
15 FIT 18 14.5 3.5 594 18
16 WST 21 11 10 594 14
17 CLB 17 11.5 5.5 588 11
18 BOW 17 11.5 5.5 587 17
19 MAN 19 15 4 580 23
20 WRF 21 13 8 578 20
21 ADR 19 16 3 577 19
22 HAM 18 11 7 572 21
23 HOB 20 10 10 571 22
24 SAL 17 9 8 568 25
25 FRE 20 15 5 565 24
26 TUF 18 9.5 8.5 564 25
27 CST 19 9.5 9.5 559 28
28 BAB 19 11 8 552 39
29 WSP 21 10.5 10.5 552 30
30 WSR 21 9.5 11.5 552 28
31 POT 20 9 11 550 31
32 WEC 21 7.5 13.5 550 25
33 AUG 19 11.5 7.5 548 34
34 STA 16 8.5 7.5 535 38
35 STO 19 11 8 533 32
36 SOM 19 9 10 529 33
37 NEC 19 9 10 528 35
38 UMB 18 9.5 8.5 518 43
39 SKD 19 7.5 11.5 517 41
40 WFS 18 10 8 517 44
41 CTC 18 4.5 13.5 515 46
42 UTC 19 7.5 11.5 515 44
43 MAR 18 12 6 514 48
44 PLY 18 11 7 512 41
45 NEU 20 11 9 512 37
46 MOR 18 5 13 509 36
47 STT 21 10 11 509 39
48 STJ 19 8 11 501 47
49 BRC 20 11 9 495 49
50 GEN 20 9.5 10.5 495 50
51 WES 17 6 11 491 53
52 BEC 18 9.5 8.5 490 51
53 BET 21 9 12 486 56
54 NIC 19 12 7 478 52
55 CRT 21 7 14 470 55
56 AMP 18 9.5 8.5 470 54
57 CNC 21 7 14 468 57
58 MSE 19 10.5 8.5 465 64
59 BFS 20 6.5 13.5 458 59
60 STN 18 8.5 9.5 453 58
61 UMD 18 7.5 10.5 446 61
62 STM 17 4.5 12.5 443 60
63 WOR 16 5 11 438 65
64 SUF 19 7 12 430 61
65 J&W 19 7 12 427 67
66 LKF 18 7.5 10.5 427 66
67 LAW 18 7.5 10.5 425 63
68 FPU 21 6 15 404 68
69 UNE 18 1 17 387 69
70 SNH 16 4.5 11.5 383 72
71 STR 19 1.5 17.5 371 71
72 FRA 17 2 15 369 70
73 NLD 19 3.5 15.5 334 73
74 FNL 19 4 15 320 75
75 WNE 17 1.5 15.5 311 74
76 CNW 19 1.5 17.5 307 75
77 SLV 19 1 18 293 77
78 LVC 20 0 20 290 78

jazman
02-01-2010, 09:11 AM
I am not known as a great Adrian fan but here is the flaw with the by the numbers appoach only. I would suspect that because of Adrians remaining strenghth of scedule that they will only continue to fall in your rankings. I get the opponet factor but I think Adrian is a better team than some of those listed above them in your rankings.

93GreatLaker
02-01-2010, 10:03 AM
I am not known as a great Adrian fan but here is the flaw with the by the numbers appoach only. I would suspect that because of Adrians remaining strenghth of scedule that they will only continue to fall in your rankings. I get the opponet factor but I think Adrian is a better team than some of those listed above them in your rankings.

I would suspect you are correct, however in the only 3 games against any of the teams above them they have lost, so we still really do not know. Good thing for the autobid, I would be very disappointed if Adrian does not win their tourney.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
02-01-2010, 11:57 AM
I am not known as a great Adrian fan but here is the flaw with the by the numbers appoach only. I would suspect that because of Adrians remaining strenghth of scedule that they will only continue to fall in your rankings. I get the opponet factor but I think Adrian is a better team than some of those listed above them in your rankings.

But no ranking is a measure of "good" a team is. The best team (i.e. that one with the most potential to win games) is not always #1, because potential does not always translate into results. Rankings are a measure of a teams performance compared to that of other teams. And honestly, the performances of those teams above them are all (albeit only slightly in some cases) more impressive than anything Adrian can possibly do in the MCHA. The bulldogs had their chance (3 games in a row), they blew it (3 games in a row), and now they have to wait until March for any respect.

But the reality here is: until the MCHA either a) gets stronger and more competitive OOC or b) reduces its constricting 20-game conference schedule or BOTH, Adrian will never get much respect in rankings. This year, htey got as high as #4, and that was because they were given the benefit of the doubt. They blew that, too.

Having seen the one game Jan 8, I saw what I consider to be a contender (go ahead Remy, blast me for saying this, it won't change my opinion). Depending on where they get shipped off to in March, they could have a shot at making a trip to Lake Placid. They have the potential, they just haven't yet translated it into performance.

NUProf
02-01-2010, 12:16 PM
But the reality here is: until the MCHA either a) gets stronger and more competitive OOC or b) reduces its constricting 20-game conference schedule or BOTH, Adrian will never get much respect in rankings. This year, htey got as high as #4, and that was because they were given the benefit of the doubt. They blew that, too.


Just reducing the number of NC games for the MCHA isn't going to necessarily improve the quality of the NC schedule for the MCHA teams. There are only 7 NC games available for each NCHA team, and only 9 for each MIAC team. That mean there are 49 + 81 = 130 slots for NC games. Many of the slots are used because of the partial interlock that is in place between the MIAC and NCHA. Each one of those games burns 2 slots. If the MCHA decreased the number of conference games to 14, they would flood the market with NC opportunities, and probably end up like the old ECAC NE did by playing a lot of NC games with teams in the league. To expand the number of games between the MCHA and the other two Western conferences, they'd need one of the two leagues to decrease the number of league games.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
02-01-2010, 12:29 PM
Just reducing the number of NC games for the MCHA isn't going to necessarily improve the quality of the NC schedule for the MCHA teams. There are only 7 NC games available for each NCHA team, and only 9 for each MIAC team. That mean there are 49 + 81 = 130 slots for NC games. Many of the slots are used because of the partial interlock that is in place between the MIAC and NCHA. Each one of those games burns 2 slots. If the MCHA decreased the number of conference games to 14, they would flood the market with NC opportunities, and probably end up like the old ECAC NE did by playing a lot of NC games with teams in the league. To expand the number of games between the MCHA and the other two Western conferences, they'd need one of the two leagues to decrease the number of league games.

I was more referring to an increased opportunity for Adrian to play other teams themselves ;)

NUProf
02-01-2010, 12:38 PM
I was more referring to an increased opportunity for Adrian to play other teams themselves ;)

Same thing applies - with 5 NC opportunities, and the NC opportunities currently available from the NCHA/MIAC they found 2 quality in region games and 1 quality out of region game. Releasing another 32 (assume they went a 16 game schedule) NC slots into the Western system is likely to make it harder rather than easier for Adrian to find dance partners, especially given their location.